# References

Constraints on the magnitude of $`\alpha `$ in dynamo theory

Eric G. Blackman

Theoretical Astrophysics, Caltech 130-33, Pasadena CA, 91125, USA

and

George B. Field

Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA

(accepted to ApJ)

ABSTRACT

We consider the backreaction of the magnetic field on the magnetic dynamo coefficients and the role of boundary conditions in interpreting whether numerical evidence for suppression is dynamical. If a uniform field in a periodic box serves as the initial condition for modeling the backreaction on the turbulent EMF, then the magnitude of the turbulent EMF and thus the dynamo coefficient $`\alpha `$, have a stringent upper limit that depends on the magnetic Reynolds number $`R_M`$ to a power of order $`1`$. This is not a dynamic suppression but results just because of the imposed boundary conditions. In contrast, when mean field gradients are allowed within the simulation region, or non-periodic boundary are used, the upper limit is independent of $`R_M`$ and takes its kinematic value. Thus only for simulations of the latter types could a measured suppression be the result of a dynamic backreaction. This is fundamental for understanding a long-standing controversy surrounding $`\alpha `$ suppression. Numerical simulations which do not allow any field gradients and invoke periodic boundary conditions appear to show a strong $`\alpha `$ suppression (e.g. Cattaneo & Hughes 1996). Simulations of accretion discs which allow field gradients and allow free boundary conditions (Brandenburg & Donner 1997) suggest a dynamo $`\alpha `$ which is not suppressed by a power of $`R_M`$. Our results are consistent with both types of simulations.

Subject Headings: magnetic fields; galaxies: magnetic fields; Sun: magnetic fields; stars: magnetic fields; turbulence; accretion discs.

1. Introduction

A leading candidate to explain the origin of large scale magnetic fields in stars and galaxies is mean-field turbulent magnetic dynamo theory (Moffatt 1978; Parker 1979; Krause & Rädler 1980; Zeldovich et al. 1983, Ruzmaikin et al. 1988, Beck et al. 1996). The theory appeals to a combination of helical turbulence (leading to the $`\alpha `$ effect), differential rotation (the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ effect), and turbulent diffusion to exponentiate an initial seed mean magnetic field. The total magnetic field is split into a mean component and a fluctuating component, and the rate of growth of the mean field is sought. The mean field grows on a length scale much larger than the outer scale of the turbulent velocity, with a growth time much larger than the eddy turnover time at the outer scale. A combination of kinetic and current helicity provides a statistical correlation of small scale loops favorable to exponential field growth. Turbulent diffusion is needed to redistribute the amplified mean field rapidly to ensure a net mean flux gain inside the system of interest. Rapid growth of the fluctuating field necessarily accompanies the mean-field dynamo. Its impact upon the growth of the mean field, and the impact of the mean field itself on its own growth are controversial.

The controversy results because Lorentz forces from the growing magnetic field react back on and complicate the turbulent motions driving the field growth (e.g. Cowling 1959, Piddington 1981, Kulsrud & Anderson 1992). It is tricky to disentangle the back reaction of the mean field from that of the fluctuating field. Analytic studies and numerical simulations seem to disagree as to the extent to which the dynamo coefficients are suppressed by the back reaction of the mean field. Some numerical studies (e.g. Cattaneo & Vainshtein (1991), Vainshtein & Cattaneo (1992), Cattaneo (1994), Cattaneo & Hughes (1996)) and analytic studies (Gruzinov & Diamond (1994), Bhattacharjee & Yuan (1995), Kleeorin et al., (1995)) argue that the suppression of $`\alpha `$ takes the form $`\alpha \alpha ^{(0)}/(1+R_M^pB^2/v_0^2)`$ where $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is the value of $`\alpha `$ in the absence of a mean field, $`R_M`$ is the magnetic Reynolds number, $`\overline{𝐁}`$ is the mean field in velocity units, $`v_0`$ is the rms turbulent velocity, and $`p`$ is a number of order 1. Such a strong dependence on $`R_M`$ would prevent astrophysical dynamos from working, as $`R_M`$ is usually $`1`$.

Other numerical studies (Brandenburg & Donner 1997) and analytic studies (e.g. Kraichnan 1979; Field et al., 1999, Chou & Fish 1999) suggest that $`p=0`$, so $`\alpha \alpha ^{(0)}/(1+\overline{B}^2/v_0^2)`$ in the fully dynamic regime. In particular Field et al. (1999) considered an expansion in the mean magnetic field (see also Vainshtein & Kitchatinov 1983; Montgomery & Chen 1984; Blackman & Chou 1997), and were able to derive the effect of the nonlinear back reaction on $`\alpha `$ in the case for which $`\overline{𝐁}=0`$. Their result is expressed in terms only of the difference between the zeroth-order kinetic and current helicities. They find that $`R_M`$ does not enter strongly, except possibly by suppressing the difference between the zeroth-order helicities, an effect which cannot depend upon $`\overline{𝐁}`$ and is not therein constrained.

Blackman & Field (1999) have shown that some of the analytic approaches (e.g. Bhattacharjee & Yuan 1995; Gruzinov & Diamond 1994) which employ a use of Ohm’s law dotted with the fluctuating component of the magnetic field, do not distinguish between turbulent quantities of the base (zeroth-order) state and quantities which are of higher order in the mean field. This distinction is important. When it is made, many arguments for suppression via such approaches fall through. Note that Blackman & Field (1999) do not prove that the dynamo survives back reaction as a result of their considerations, only that some analytic approaches to the problem can be challenged. 

Despite this challenge, the apparent result of extreme $`\alpha `$ suppression is seen in the simulation of Cattaneo & Hughes (1996). These authors externally force the turbulence, imposing periodic boundary conditions and a uniform mean field, and find that the suppression of $`\alpha `$ involves $`R_M`$ in the form given above. By contrast, the simulation of Brandenburg & Donner (1997) suggests that an $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ dynamo may in fact be operative in an accretion disc whose turbulence is self-generated by a shearing instability, without $`R_M`$ entering the suppression. The latter simulation does not employ periodic boundary conditions and allows gradients in mean fields.

In this paper we show that the suppression of $`\alpha `$ depends crucially on the boundary conditions. We find that the mean quantities are defined by averaging over a periodic box $`\alpha `$ has an upper limit that depends on a factor of $`R_M^p`$, with $`p1`$. In the presence of mean field gradients and non-periodic boundary conditions, however, we find that the upper limit on the dynamo coefficients is significantly larger, and $`R_M`$ is not involved. The small upper limit in the periodic box case does not represent a dynamical suppression but rather an apparent suppression which is just a results from the boundary conditions. The results herein may be a step toward resolving controversies surrounding numerical suppression experiments. 

Central to the discussion is the equation for the time evolution of magnetic helicity. This equation was also employed by Seehafer (1994), who derived a suppression of $`\alpha `$ apparently consistent with that of Keinigs (1983) (and qualitatively consistent with the Cattaneo & Hughes (1996) simulation). The techniques of these additional two papers are different and one should note that they do not separate zeroth from higher order quantities.

Section 2 reviews the basic formalism of the dynano coefficient expansion in orders of $`\overline{𝐁}`$. Section 3 shows that constraints on the magnitude of the EMF (and thus $`\alpha `$) results from dotting Ohm’s law for the fluctuating electric field with the fluctuating magnetic field, taking the average and expanding to second order in the mean magnetic field. The results depend on the boundary conditions. For a periodic box, the upper limit on $`\alpha `$ is too small for a dynamo to work in practice, but this does not represent a dynamical suppression. In section 4 we interpret the results in terms of helicity flow and we discuss implications with respect to previous studies. Section 5 is the conclusion. 

2. Basic Formalism

The basic formalism employed herein is discussed in Field et al. (1999) and Blackman & Field (1999). The formalism combines some aspects of the standard textbook treatment (e.g. Moffatt 1978) with the modification that fluctuating quantities are divided into (1) a zeroth-order turbulent base state whose correlations are homogeneous, stationary and isotropic (though not necessarily mirror-symmetric!), and (2) a contribution which depends on the presence of a non-zero mean field (see also Vainshtein & Kitchatinov 1983; Kitchatinov et al. 1994). This higher-order contribution is definitely not isotropic and not necessarily homogeneous or stationary.

More specifically, the induction equation describing the magnetic field evolution is

$$_t𝐁=\times (𝐕\times 𝐁)+\lambda ^\mathrm{𝟐}𝐁,$$
(1)   
where $`\lambda =\eta c^2/4\pi `$ is the magnetic viscosity, corresponding to resistivity $`\eta `$. Here $`𝐁=𝐛+\overline{𝐁}`$ is the magnetic field in velocity units, obtained by dividing by $`\sqrt{4\pi \rho }`$, and $`𝐛`$ and $`\overline{𝐁}`$ are the fluctuating and mean components of $`𝐁`$ respectively. We assume incompressibility.

The equation for the mean field derived by averaging (1) is

$$_t\overline{𝐁}=\times 𝐯\times 𝐛\overline{𝐕}\overline{𝐁}+\overline{𝐁}\overline{𝐕}+\lambda ^2\overline{𝐁}.$$
(2)   
The equation for $`𝐛`$ is given by subtracting (2) from (1), which gives

$$_t𝐛=\times (𝐯\times 𝐛)\times 𝐯\times 𝐛+\times (𝐯\times \overline{𝐁})+\times (\overline{𝐕}\times 𝐛).$$
(3)   
The term $`\overline{𝐁}\overline{𝐕}`$ in (2) describes the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-effect of differential rotation, and will not be discussed further here, while the term $`\overline{𝐕}\overline{𝐁}`$ can be eliminated by changing the frame of reference to one moving with $`\overline{𝐕}`$; both terms will be ignored in what follows. The dynamo theorist must find the dependence of the turbulent EMF $`𝐯\times 𝐛`$ on $`\overline{𝐁}`$ so that (2) can be solved.

In the absence of the mean velocity fields, all mean vectors can be written in terms of the mean magnetic field. In particular, we have

$$𝐯\times 𝐛=\alpha _{ij}\overline{B}_j\beta _{ijk}_j\overline{B}_k+\gamma _{ijkl}\mathrm{O}(\overline{B}/R^2)+\mathrm{},$$
(4)   
where $`\alpha _{ij}`$, $`\beta _{ijk}`$ and $`\gamma _{ijk}`$ are explicit functions of correlations of turbulent quantities, but can depend implicitly on $`\overline{𝐁}`$ (Moffatt 1978) through their dependence on the induction equation for the fluctuating field. The order at which there is no implicit dependence on $`\overline{𝐁}`$ is the zeroth-order base state (see Field et al 1999). The expansion order parameter is $`|\overline{𝐁}|/|𝐛^{(0)}|`$, which is indeed $`<<1`$ for the early dynamo evolution, and $`<1`$ in the Galaxy at present. In particular, we have $`𝐛=𝐛^{(0)}+_n𝐛^{(n)}`$, and similarly for $`𝐯`$, where $`_n𝐛^{(n)}<𝐛^{(0)}`$ and $`n`$ indicates the number of powers of $`|\overline{𝐁}|/|𝐛|`$. The zeroth order base state correlations are composed of products of $`𝐛^{(0)}`$ and $`𝐯^{(0)}`$ and have no dependence on the mean field. The zeroth order base state is taken to be homogeneous and isotropic–the violation of isotropy comes from the contributions due to higher order fluctuating quantities, whose isotropy is broken by the mean field. Note that the zeroth order state need not be reflection invariant, and it is important for dynamo theory that it is not.

Correlations between higher order quantities can be reduced to correlations of zeroth order quantities times the respective products of $`n`$ linear functions of $`\overline{𝐁}`$. Thus for example, $`𝐛^{(2)}`$ is the anisotropic component of the fluctuating magntetic field which depends on two powers of $`\overline{𝐁}`$, and is found by twice iterating terms like $`𝐛\overline{𝐁}`$ in the induction equation to obtain an approximate solution in terms of $`𝐛^{(0)}`$ and $`𝐯^{(0)}`$.

To zeroth order, the $`\alpha `$ tensor can be written

$$\alpha _{ij}^{(0)}=\alpha ^{(0)}\delta _{ij},$$
(5)   
which highlights the isotropy of this zeroth-order quantity. In our previous work (Field et al. 1999) we have used the induction equation for the fluctuating components of the magnetic field and the Navier-Stokes equation for the fluctuating velocity to find the form of $`\alpha `$ in terms of correlations of the zeroth-order products (see also Blackman & Chou 1997). Calculating the turbulent EMF in the absence of gradients of $`\overline{𝐁}`$, to first order in $`\overline{B}`$, gives $`𝐯\times 𝐛^{(1)}=\alpha ^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}`$, where $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is the sum of kinetic and current helicities associated with the zeroth order state, namely

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \alpha ^{(0)}=\frac{1}{3}\left[𝐯^{(0)}(t)\times 𝐯^{(0)}(t^{})dt^{}𝐛^{(0)(t)}\times 𝐛^{(0)}(t^{})dt^{}\right]\\ \hfill \frac{1}{3}t_c\left[𝐯^{(0)}\times 𝐯^{(0)}𝐛^{(0)}\times 𝐛^{(0)}\right],\end{array}$$
(6)   
where $`𝐯`$ is the turbulent velocity and $`t_c`$ defined as the correlation time of the scale of the turbulence which dominates the averaged quantity. If we adopt a Kolmogorov energy spectrum (i.e. $`kb_k^2,kv_k^2k^2E_kk^{1/3}`$), then it might appear that the dominant contributions to the terms of (6) come from large $`k`$. However, Pouquet et al. (1976) showed that if the forcing is at the outer wavenumber $`k_0=L^1`$, most of the energy and helicity is concentrated there, and the turbulence for $`k>3k_0`$ is locked up into Alfvén waves which do not contribute to correlations. It is therefore likely reasonable to assume that any helicity in the zeroth-order state is concentrated near $`k_0`$, in which case $`t_c(v_0k_0)^1L/v_0`$.

The first term in (6) was first derived by Steenbeck, Krause, & Rädler (1966). The second, current helicity, term in (6) was first derived by Pouquet et al. (1976); neither paper made the necessary distinction between zeroth and higher-order quantities.

In the next sections we will not re-derive the form of $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ in terms of $`𝐛^{(0)}`$ and $`𝐯^{(0)}`$; instead we will derive an independent upper limit on $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ from the use of Ohm’s law, the definition of the electric field in terms of the vector potential, and the equation for magnetic helicity evolution. We will invoke the assumption that the zeroth-order base state is isotropic and homogeneous, and we will assume that that all anisotropies and inhomogeneities of higher-order correlations are due to mean fields.

We will need the Reynolds relations (Rädler (1980)), i.e. that derivatives with respect to $`𝐱`$ or $`t`$ obey $`_{t,𝐱}X_iX_j=_{t,𝐱}(X_iX_j)`$ and $`\overline{X}_ix_j=0`$ where $`X_i=\overline{X}_i+x_i`$ are components of vector functions of $`𝐱`$ and $`t`$. For statistical ensemble means, these hold when correlation times are small compared to the times over which mean quantities vary. For spatial means, defined by $`X_i(𝐱,t)=V^1X_i(𝐱+𝐬,t)d𝐬`$, the relations hold when the average is over a large enough $`V`$ that $`LV^{\frac{1}{3}}RD`$, where $`D`$ is the size of the system $`R`$ is the scale of mean field variation and $`L`$ is the outer scale of the turbulence. Note that the scale of averaging is less than the overall system size.

3. Constraints on the tubulent EMF for periodic and non-periodic boundary conditions

a. Constraint equations

Let the electric field $`𝐄`$, like $`𝐁`$, be divided into a mean component $`\overline{𝐄}`$ and a fluctuating component $`𝐞`$. Ohm’s law for the mean field is thus

$`\overline{𝐄}=c^1𝐕\times 𝐁+\eta 𝐉=c^1𝐯\times 𝐛+\eta \overline{𝐉}`$ (7)   
for the case $`\overline{𝐕}=0`$, where $`\overline{𝐉}`$ is the current density and $`\eta `$ is the resistivity. We also have

$`𝐄𝐁=\overline{𝐄}\overline{𝐁}+𝐞𝐛=c^1𝐯\times 𝐛\overline{𝐁}+\eta \overline{𝐉}\overline{𝐁}+𝐞𝐛`$ (8)   
where we have used (7).

A second expression for $`𝐄𝐁`$ also follows from Ohm’s law without first splitting into mean and fluctuating components, that is

$`𝐄𝐁`$ $`=`$ $`c^1(𝐕\times 𝐁)𝐁+\eta 𝐉𝐁`$ (9)   
$`=`$ $`\eta 𝐉𝐁=\eta \overline{𝐉}\overline{𝐁}+\eta 𝐣𝐛=\eta \overline{𝐉}\overline{𝐁}`$   
$`+c^1\lambda 𝐛\times 𝐛.`$   
By substituting (9) into (8), we obtain

$$c^1𝐯\times 𝐛\overline{𝐁}=c^1\lambda 𝐛\times 𝐛+𝐞𝐛,$$
(10)   
an equation which will now constrain $`𝐯\times 𝐛`$. However, we must expand (10) to second order in $`\overline{𝐁}`$ (as defined in section 2) to constrain the turbulent EMF $`𝐯\times 𝐛`$. This is because to zeroth order, the left hand side of (10) vanishes directly. To first order, the left side would be $`𝐯\times 𝐛^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}`$, but $`𝐯\times 𝐛^{(0)}=0`$, since vector averages of zeroth order quantities vanish. To second order in $`\overline{𝐁}`$ then, (10) implies that

$$c^1𝐯\times 𝐛^{(1)}\overline{𝐁}=c^1\lambda 𝐛\times 𝐛^{(2)}+𝐞𝐛^{(2)}.$$
(11)   
Because $`R_M>>1`$, significant limits on $`𝐯\times 𝐛^{(1)}`$ and thus on $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ come from the $`𝐞𝐛^{(2)}`$ term above. The result of Seehafer (1994) and Keinigs (1983) amount to the (11) with the last term equal zero, but without distinguishing the order in mean fields (i.e. without the superscripts). We now focus on this last, term keeping in mind that it is second order in mean fields.

Since $`𝐞𝐛^{(2)}`$ is second order in $`𝐁`$, its most general form will be expressible as a sum of terms which each involve products of two types of quantities: 1. correlations of scalar or pseudoscalar products of zeroth order quantities and 2. quadratic scalar or pseudoscalar functions of $`\overline{𝐁}`$. Now $`𝐞𝐛`$ can be written as a sum a time derivative and spatial divergence. Consider $`𝐞`$ in terms of the vector and scalar potentials $`𝐚`$ and $`\varphi `$:

$$𝐞=\varphi (1/c)_t𝐚.$$
(12)   
Dotting with $`𝐛=\times 𝐚`$ and averaging we have

$$𝐞𝐛=\varphi 𝐛(1/c)𝐛_t𝐚.$$
(13)   
After straightforward algebraic manipulation, application of Reynolds rules and $`𝐛=0`$, this equation implies

$$𝐞𝐛=(1/2)\varphi 𝐛+(1/2)𝐚\times 𝐞(1/2c)_t𝐚𝐛_0\overline{h}^0+_i\overline{h}^i=_\mu \overline{h}^\mu ,$$
(14)   
where we have defined a helicity density 4-vector for fluctuating quantities

$$[h_0,h_i]=[(1/2c)𝐚𝐛,(1/2)(\varphi 𝐛)(1/2)(𝐚\times 𝐞)],$$
(15)   
and the overbar is used, as always, to mean the same thing as the brackets.

b. Constraints for periodic boundary conditions

We now investigate the implications of (14) for simulations of type performed by Cattaneo & Hughes (1996), where the brackets brackets are interpreted as a spatial average over a periodic box. Under these conditions, there are two important consequences. First, note that the second two terms of (14) vanish upon conversion to surface integrals and we have

$$𝐞𝐛=(1/2c)_t𝐚𝐛,$$
(16)   
which is gauge invariant. The second consequence of the periodic box is that $`_t\overline{𝐁}=0`$ for incompressible flows. This follows simply from (2): the last three terms of (2) would vanish as they are all surface integrals. Using Reynolds rules and vector identities, the second term can be written $`[\times 𝐯\times 𝐛]_j=_i(b_iv_j)_i(v_ib_j)`$ which also vanishes by surface integration.

The two consequences just discussed can be used to show that (16) vanishes for a periodic box, and thus the only contribution to the right of (11) will come from the first term on the right. To second order in mean quantities, assuming $`𝐛(t=0)=0`$ and that all times are far enough from $`t=0`$ such that $`𝐛(t)`$ does not correlate with any finite $`𝐚(0)`$, we have

$$𝐚𝐛^{(2)}=_t^{}𝐚^{(2)}(t^{})𝐛^{(0)}(t)𝑑t^{}+_t^{}𝐚^{(1)}(t^{})_{t^{\prime \prime }}𝐛^{(1)}(t^{\prime \prime })𝑑t^{}𝑑t^{\prime \prime }+𝐚^{(0)}(t)_t^{}𝐛^{(2)}(t^{})𝑑t^{}.$$
(17)   
To express (17) explicitly in terms of mean fields, we use the equations of motion for $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐚`$. The use of $`_t𝐛`$ from (3) for the last two terms of (17) leads directly to contributions depending on products of the mean fields $`\overline{𝐁}`$ or $`\overline{𝐕}`$ and turbulent quantities $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐯`$. Consider now the equation for $`𝐚`$ which comes from uncurling the equation for $`𝐛`$, namely

$$_t𝐚=(𝐯\times 𝐛)𝐯\times 𝐛+(𝐯\times \overline{𝐁})+(\overline{𝐕}\times 𝐛)+\theta ,$$
(18)   
where $`\theta `$ is an arbitrary scalar field. When (18) is used in (17) in the first and second terms on the right of (17), the periodic box nullifies the contribution from $`\theta `$. All other contributions depend only on products of $`𝐯`$, $`𝐛`$, $`\overline{𝐁}`$ and $`\overline{𝐕}`$. Thus when $`\overline{𝐕}=0`$, the only remaining mean field is $`\overline{𝐁}`$. Thus for a periodic box, $`𝐚𝐛^{(2)}`$ must be second order in $`\overline{𝐁}`$. Then, when plugged into (16) the time derivative will act on some quadratic function of $`\overline{𝐁}`$ multiplied by correlations of zeroth order. Since the zeroth order quantities are time independent, isotropic, and homogeneous, the function of $`\overline{𝐁}`$ must be a scalar, denoted $`F`$, and we have

$$_t𝐚𝐛^{(2)}=_t(F(\overline{𝐁})^{(2)}\overline{Q}_1^{(0)})=\overline{Q}_1^{(0)}_t(F(\overline{𝐁})^{(2)})=0,$$
(19)   
where $`\overline{Q}_1^{(0)}`$ is a scalar or pseudoscalar correlation of zeroth order quantities. The last equality of (19) follows form stationarity of zeroth order quantities, and our proof that $`\overline{𝐁}`$ is time independent over the time scales of interest for the periodic box. We therefore conclude that $`_t𝐚𝐛=0`$ in (16). This result relates to the the fact that for a periodic box, there is no periodic mean vector field $`\overline{𝐀}`$ whose curl is everywhere equal to $`\overline{𝐁}`$. The divergence of $`\overline{𝐁}`$ is still equal to zero, so Maxwell’s equations are satisfied, but $`\overline{𝐁}`$ is the only non-trivial mean field.

Since in the Cattaneo & Hughes (1996) simulation $`\overline{𝐁}=`$constant in both space and time, $`𝐯\times 𝐛^{(2)}=\alpha ^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}^2`$. Using this, and (19), (16) and (11), we obtain

$$|\alpha ^{(0)}|=\frac{c^1\lambda |𝐛\times 𝐛^{(2)}|}{\overline{B}^2}.$$
(20)   
Field et al. (1999) showed that conclusions about $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ are also conclusions about $`\alpha `$ to all orders, by relating the fully non-linear $`\alpha `$ to $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ and showing that in the limit of large $`\overline{B}`$, $`\alpha `$ is not catastrophically affected when $`\overline{B}`$ is large. Thus $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ is an upper limit to $`\alpha `$, and so the result (20) shows that $`\alpha `$ will be small when the brackets indicate an average over a periodic box. The important point is that this is not a dynamical suppression from the backreaction but a constraint on the magnitude of $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$ which is imposed by the boundary conditions. Notice that it is a constraint on the zeroth order quantity, and so it cannot represent the effect of backreaction.

c. Constraints for non-periodic boundary conditions

If the averaging brackets are not over a periodic box, or if the scale of the averaging is $`<<`$ than the overall scale size of the system, then the divergence terms in (14) do not vanish. In addition, the $`\varphi `$ term in (18) will contribute to (16). In this case, each term on the right of (14) is not gauge invariant. Thus, the only constraint we can make on the magnitude of the right side of (14) is on the sum of all the terms together. Writing down all possible second order terms up to one spatial derivative in $`\overline{𝐁}`$, we have

$$c𝐞𝐛^{(2)}=\overline{Q}_2^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}^2+\overline{Q}_3^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}\times \overline{𝐁}+\mathrm{O}(\overline{B}^2L^2/R^2)+\mathrm{},$$
(21)   
where $`\overline{Q}_2^{(0)}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_3^{(0)}`$ are correlations of zeroth order averages, $`L`$ is the outer turbulent scale and $`R`$ is the mean field variation scale. The quantity $`\overline{Q}_2^{(0)}`$ must have units of velocity, and thus be of maximum order $`v_0`$ since it depends only on turbulent quantities. The quantity $`\overline{Q}_3^{(0)}`$ must have dimensions of viscosity, and must of maximum $`v_0L`$ since it too depends only on turbulent quantities. The combination of terms in (21) is the same form of the combination of terms entering on the left side of (10) which would result from using (4). That is, since $`𝐯\times 𝐛\overline{𝐁}=\alpha ^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}^2\beta ^{(0)}\overline{𝐁}\times \overline{𝐁}`$, we have $`\overline{Q}_1^{(0)}=\alpha ^{(0)}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_2^{(0)}=\beta ^{(0)}`$. Thus for simulations in which the mean values are not taken over a periodic box, there is certainly no a priori restriction on $`\alpha ^{(0)}`$. Since now $`\alpha \alpha ^{(0)}`$, any simulation result indicating suppression on $`\alpha `$ under these relaxed boundary conditions would indeed be a dynamical suppression. So far there are no simulations which invoke such boundary conditions that show catastrophic suppression (c.f. Brandenburg & Donner 1997).

4. Discussion

Section 3 shows that periodic boundary conditions impose an upper limit on $`\alpha `$ that does not represent a dynamical suppression. Non-periodic boundary conditions or a finite scale separation between system size and mean field gradient scale allow for a much higher upper limit on $`\alpha `$, namely the kinematic limit. The dynamical backreaction is testable only in simulations of the latter type.

4.1 Relation to magnetic helicity

Here we point out a connection to magnetic helicity. Repeating Eqns. (12), (13) and (14) for the total $`𝐄`$ and $`𝐁`$ gives

$$𝐄𝐁=\overline{𝐄}\overline{𝐁}+𝐞𝐛=\frac{1}{2}_\mu H^\mu =\frac{1}{2}_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^\mu +\frac{1}{2}_\mu \overline{h}^\mu 0,$$
(22)   
where $`H^\mu `$ is the total magnetic helicity 4-vector (Field 1986) defined exactly as in (15) but with all fluctuating quantities replaced by their total values. Similarly, $`\stackrel{~}{h}^\mu `$ is the helicity 4-vector associated with the mean fields. The last similarity in (22) follows because $`R_M>>1`$ ($`\lambda 0`$) in the astrophysical plasmas of interest. Using $`𝐞𝐛=_\mu \overline{h}^\mu `$, Eqn. (22) then shows that any non-negligible $`𝐞𝐛`$ requires a finite but opposite $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{h}^\mu `$.

In general, for non-vanishing turbulent EMF, the $`𝐞𝐛`$ must be non-zero, and thus the 4-divergences in (22) cannot vanish separately. Interestingly, when (22) is integrated over the total volume inside and outside of the rotator, and interpreted in terms of a flow of relative magnetic helicity (Berger & Field 1984), it can be shown that a working dynamo implies an associated magnetic energy flow through the magnetic rotator of interest which likely leads to an active corona (Field & Blackman 2000; Blackman & Field 2000).

4.2 Implications for Previous and Future Studies

The use of periodic boundary conditions in simulations appears to be unsuitable for testing the suppression of $`\alpha `$ in a real dynamo unless the scale of mean field variations is much smaller than the scale of the periodicity. If periodic boundary conditions are used, one must also be careful about causality issues. The scale separation should at minimum be large enough such that the Alfvén crossing time across the box is longer than correlation time of the fluctuating quantities, and possibly even longer than the time scale for mean field variation. Thus, the box could be periodic, but the dynamics of interest would occur in a non-periodic sub-region. The brackets which we have used to indicate averages, would thus represent averages over this sub-region, not the entire volume. Alternatively, the box could be non-periodic.

The numerical simulations of Cattaneo & Hughes (1996) do not allow for any mean field gradients and employ periodic boundary conditions. The strong $`\alpha `$ reduction seen there is consistent with our suggestion that the suppression may not be dynamical, but may instead be a result of the boundary conditions. In contrast, the shearing box accretion disk simulations of Brandenburg & Donner (1997) do employ non-periodic boundary conditions and allow mean field gradients. Interestingly, they do find that something like a mean-field dynamo is operating therein. The limited suppression that they find does not involve $`R_M`$.

5. Conclusions

We have suggested that the cause for apparent $`\alpha `$ suppression in numerical simulations which use periodic boundary conditions may not result from dynamics, but from rather from a choice of boundary conditions. If the boundary conditions enforce all mean field gradients and spatial divergences to vanish, then the upper limit on $`\alpha `$ is given by (20). For non-periodic boundary conditions or a box with significant scale separation between the mean field and box size, the upper limit on the turbulent EMF is given by the kinematic value. This would be a consistent interpretation of the large suppression reported by Cattaneo & Hughes (1996). In contrast, Brandenburg and Donner (1997) interpret disk simulations which use non-periodic boundary conditions and do not find such a strong suppression. In summary, our results are consistent with seemingly contradictory simulations.

Working dynamos in real astrophysical bodies (even in the kinematic approximation) require mean field gradients and scale separations between the overall system scale, mean field averaging scale, and fluctuating scale. In order to disentangle boundary effects from dynamical ones, future simulations of $`\alpha `$ suppression should include non-periodic boundary conditions or allow the mean field to change over scales smaller than the size of the overall box. This is a challenging task.

Acknowledgements: G.B.F. acknowledges partial support from NASA grant NAGW-931. E.G.B. acknowledges support from NASA grant NAG5-7034.