The Batchelor Spectrum of Passive Scalar Turbulence in Stochastic Fluid Mechanics at Fixed Reynolds Number

Abstract

In 1959 Batchelor predicted that the stationary statistics of passive scalars advected in fluids with small diffusivity k should display a k−1 power spectrum along an inertial range contained in the viscous‐convective range of the fluid model. This prediction has been extensively tested, both experimentally and numerically, and is a core prediction of passive scalar turbulence. In this article we provide a rigorous proof of a version of Batchelor's prediction in the κ→0 limit when the scalar is subjected to a spatially smooth, white‐in‐time stochastic source and is advected by the 2D Navier‐Stokes equations or 3D hyperviscous Navier‐Stokes equations in Td forced by sufficiently regular, nondegenerate stochastic forcing. Although our results hold for fluids at arbitrary Reynolds number, this value is fixed throughout. Our results rely on the quantitative understanding of Lagrangian chaos and passive scalar mixing established in our recent works. Additionally, in the κ→0 limit, we obtain statistically stationary, weak solutions in H−ϵ to the stochastically forced advection problem without diffusivity. These solutions are almost‐surely not locally integrable distributions with nonvanishing average anomalous flux and satisfy the Batchelor spectrum at all sufficiently small scales. We also prove an Onsager‐type criticality result that shows that no such dissipative, weak solutions with a little more regularity can exist. © 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.

On the zeroth law of turbulence for the stochastically forced Navier-Stokes equations

“…per,div (D)); A, P) for all t > 0. (Notice that one may obtain this conclusion either directly from (7), or from the weak lower semicontinuity of norm together with Fatou's Lemma and the inequality before (12) on P.377 of [28], that…”

“…This can be traced back to a work of Bensoussan and Temam [4] in 1973. Since then there have been a lot of studies on the stochastic Navier-Stokes equations in literature, see for example [8,7,6,10,15,16,19,35,40,50,51,62] and the references therein. In the study of evolution equations of stochastic Navier-Stokes, one can consider weak solutions of martingale type or strong solutions (see [6] and [28] and the references therein for more details on the difference between strong and martingale solutions in this context).…”

Quantitative mixing and dissipation enhancement property of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck flow

“…Ideally, one would take u as the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations, or a slight modification thereof (cfr. the series of papers [4,5,6,7]), but this seems currently out of the scope of our technique.…”

Self-Regularization in turbulence from the Kolmogorov 4/5-Law and Alignment

“…This phenomenon, known as anomalous dissipation, is so fundamental to our modern understanding of turbulence that it has been termed the "zeroth law" [27]. It should be emphasized however that, to this day, no single mathematical example of ( 5) is available, although there has been great progress in understanding similar behavior in some model problems such as 1D conservation laws and compressible flows [21,16,24,19], shell models [10,37,26,38], and passive scalars [5,35,17,2]. Despite its conjectural status from the point of view of mathematics, under the experimentally corroborated assumption that behavior (5) occurs together with some heuristic assumptions on statistical properties (homogeneity, isotropy, monofractal scaling), Kolmogorov [34] made a remarkable prediction about the structure of turbulent velocity fields at high Reynolds number, namely that…”

“…It is well known that real fluids do not conform exactly to Kolmogorov's prediction. 2 Intermittency, or spottiness / non-uniformity of the velocity's roughness and the energy dissipation rate, result in deviations of the scaling exponents ζ p (and ζ p ) from a linear behavior in p [4,45,1,46,53,47]. 3 Experiments do however indicate that for p near three, the formula ζ p ≈ p/3 approximately holds with ζ 2 ∈ 2 3 + [0.03, 0.06] and ζ 3 ≈ 1.…”