The Euler equations for three-dimensional incompressible inviscid fluid flow are
where is the velocity field, and
is the pressure field. For the purposes of this post, we will ignore all issues of decay or regularity of the fields in question, assuming that they are as smooth and rapidly decreasing as needed to justify all the formal calculations here; in particular, we will apply inverse operators such as
or
formally, assuming that these inverses are well defined on the functions they are applied to.
Meanwhile, the surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) equation is given by
where is the active scalar, and
is the velocity field. The SQG equations are often used as a toy model for the 3D Euler equations, as they share many of the same features (e.g. vortex stretching); see this paper of Constantin, Majda, and Tabak for more discussion (or this previous blog post).
I recently found a more direct way to connect the two equations. We first recall that the Euler equations can be placed in vorticity-stream form by focusing on the vorticity . Indeed, taking the curl of (1), we obtain the vorticity equation
while the velocity can be recovered from the vorticity via the Biot-Savart law
The system (4), (5) has some features in common with the system (2), (3); in (2) it is a scalar field that is being transported by a divergence-free vector field
, which is a linear function of the scalar field as per (3), whereas in (4) it is a vector field
that is being transported (in the Lie derivative sense) by a divergence-free vector field
, which is a linear function of the vector field as per (5). However, the system (4), (5) is in three dimensions whilst (2), (3) is in two spatial dimensions, the dynamical field is a scalar field
for SQG and a vector field
for Euler, and the relationship between the velocity field and the dynamical field is given by a zeroth order Fourier multiplier in (3) and a
order operator in (5).
However, we can make the two equations more closely resemble each other as follows. We first consider the generalisation
where is an invertible, self-adjoint, positive-definite zeroth order Fourier multiplier that maps divergence-free vector fields to divergence-free vector fields. The Euler equations then correspond to the case when
is the identity operator. As discussed in this previous blog post (which used
to denote the inverse of the operator denoted here as
), this generalised Euler system has many of the same features as the original Euler equation, such as a conserved Hamiltonian
the Kelvin circulation theorem, and conservation of helicity
Also, if we require to be divergence-free at time zero, it remains divergence-free at all later times.
Let us consider “two-and-a-half-dimensional” solutions to the system (6), (7), in which do not depend on the vertical coordinate
, thus
and
but we allow the vertical components to be non-zero. For this to be consistent, we also require
to commute with translations in the
direction. As all derivatives in the
direction now vanish, we can simplify (6) to
where is the two-dimensional material derivative
Also, divergence-free nature of then becomes
In particular, we may (formally, at least) write
for some scalar field , so that (7) becomes
The first two components of (8) become
which rearranges using (9) to
Formally, we may integrate this system to obtain the transport equation
Finally, the last component of (8) is
At this point, we make the following choice for :
where is a real constant and
is the Leray projection onto divergence-free vector fields. One can verify that for large enough
,
is a self-adjoint positive definite zeroth order Fourier multiplier from divergence free vector fields to divergence-free vector fields. With this choice, we see from (10) that
so that (12) simplifies to
This implies (formally at least) that if vanishes at time zero, then it vanishes for all time. Setting
, we then have from (10) that
and from (11) we then recover the SQG system (2), (3). To put it another way, if and
solve the SQG system, then by setting
then solve the modified Euler system (6), (7) with
given by (13).
We have , so the Hamiltonian
for the modified Euler system in this case is formally a scalar multiple of the conserved quantity
. The momentum
for the modified Euler system is formally a scalar multiple of the conserved quantity
, while the vortex stream lines that are preserved by the modified Euler flow become the level sets of the active scalar that are preserved by the SQG flow. On the other hand, the helicity
vanishes, and other conserved quantities for SQG (such as the Hamiltonian
) do not seem to correspond to conserved quantities of the modified Euler system. This is not terribly surprising; a low-dimensional flow may well have a richer family of conservation laws than the higher-dimensional system that it is embedded in.
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
20 April, 2015 at 8:47 pm
Nick Pizzo
Very interesting post. Your last sentence made me think of the KdV equation, or the Nonlinear Schrodinger equation, both of which have an infinite number of conservation laws, and both of which are derived from the water wave equations, which only have a handful of conserved quantities (Benjamin and Olver 1980). This is likely a naive question, but is the reason why this happens simply that these asymptotic equations describe less phenomenon, and hence have more restrictions (ie conservation laws) on the behavior of their solutions?
22 April, 2015 at 7:00 am
...🐺...
Reblogged this on Sống trong đời sống cần có một con mèo.
30 April, 2015 at 8:14 am
hicsuntdracones
just to verify if LaTeX code is accepted in comments:
Sorry for the inconveniences.
1 February, 2016 at 11:06 pm
Finite time blowup for an Euler-type equation in vorticity stream form | What's new
[…] discussed in this previous blog post, a natural generalisation of this system of equations is the […]
29 June, 2016 at 6:44 am
Finite time blowup for Lagrangian modifications of the three-dimensional Euler equation | What's new
[…] example, the surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) equations can be written in this form, as discussed in this previous post. One can view (up to Hodge duality) as a vector potential for the velocity , so it is natural to […]