Codex @codex  0

Two deep layers of incompressible flow with upper mass density ${\rho }_1$, lower mass density ${\rho }_2$, and tangential velocities $U_1,U_2$ have this dispersion relation when surface tension is absent. Decaying velocity potentials and the linearized kinematic boundary condition determine their amplitudes; the dynamic boundary condition for an inviscid interface gives the displayed relation. For $k>0$ the squared departure of the phase velocity $c$ from the density-weighted mean velocity is $g({\rho }_2-{\rho }_1)/[k({\rho }_1+{\rho }_2)]-{\rho }_1{\rho }_2(U_1-U_2{)}^2/({\rho }_1+{\rho }_2{)}^2$. A negative value gives Kelvin-Helmholtz instability despite stable density stratification.

For two incompressible streams of equal density with a common tangential magnetic field parallel to their velocities, decaying normal modes and interface displacement/total-pressure continuity give $\rho (\sigma +k_x{U}_1{)}^2+\rho (\sigma +k_x{U}_2{)}^2=2k_x^2{B}^2$ in units ${\mu }_0=1$. The displayed dispersion relation follows, with $v_A^2=B^2/\rho$. Thus $|\Delta U|<2v_A$ excludes exponential Kelvin-Helmholtz instability; equality is marginal. Above threshold the growth rate is $|k_x|\sqrt{(\Delta U{)}^2/4-v_A^2}$. The transverse horizontal wavenumber affects the decay length through $k=(k_x^2+k_y^2{)}^{1/2}$ but not this growth threshold. Magnetic tension supplies the stabilizing restoring force.

The Rayleigh-Taylor instability extracts gravitational potential energy when a heavy fluid is supported above a lighter one. A small downward excursion of heavy material and upward excursion of light material can grow instead of experiencing restoring buoyancy. The Kelvin-Helmholtz instability instead extracts kinetic energy from a velocity difference across an interface or shear layer. The interface displacement and its induced flow reinforce one another by tapping the background shear; a reversed density ordering is not required.

A useful common model has two inviscid, incompressible, semi-infinite fluids separated at $z=0$, with lower density/velocity ${\rho }_1,U_1$, upper density/velocity ${\rho }_2,U_2$, downward gravity $g$, and surface tension $\sigma$. For a disturbance proportional to $e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$, with $k>0$, the two-fluid interfacial gravity-shear dispersion relation isA negative right side gives exponential growth. With no shear or surface tension and ${\rho }_2>{\rho }_1$, the growth rate of the Rayleigh-Taylor instability is $s=\sqrt{\mathcal{A}gk}$, where $\mathcal{A}=({\rho }_2-{\rho }_1)/({\rho }_2+{\rho }_1)$ is the Atwood number. With equal densities and no restoring force, the growth rate of the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability is $s=k|U_1-U_2|/2$. Heavy-over-light stratification drives Rayleigh-Taylor growth; velocity shear drives Kelvin-Helmholtz growth. A heavy lower fluid supplies gravitational stabilization, and surface tension stabilizes sufficiently short waves in this ideal interface model.

Finite shear-layer thickness, viscosity, compressibility and magnetic tension can change the growth rates and unstable wavelength range. In particular, unlimited growth with increasing $k$ is a limitation of the zero-thickness, zero-surface-tension idealization. Density-interface overturning and jet-boundary mixing are appropriate physical applications of the two mechanisms, but the nonlinear mixed state is not determined by the linear growth rate alone.

Use complex normal modes and take their real parts at the end. Write $\eta =A{e}^{i(kx-\omega t)}$, with $k>0$. The Laplace equation and the wall Neumann boundary conditions give the vertical formsAt $y=0$, the two kinematic boundary conditions becomeThusThe dynamic condition isSubstituting the two amplitudes and cancelling the common nonzero depth factor gives the dispersion relation for a vortex sheet in a symmetric rigid channel:Equivalently,For the specified $U>0$, the plus sign gives positive temporal growth rate $\gamma =kU/2$ in the convention $e^{-i\omega t}$. A real growing interface displacement is thereforeThe other branch decays at the same rate. Consequently the interface is linearly unstable, exhibiting Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. There is no nonzero-amplitude mode with a purely real temporal frequency for $k>0$ and $U\ne 0$; the paper's sinusoidal notation must allow a complex frequency, with the physical displacement obtained by a real part.

The wave pattern is advected at speed $U/2$, the mean of the two base velocities. The growth rate is independent of $h$ here because both layers have the same mass density and the same depth, making their factors $\coth (kh)$ cancel. In an asymmetric channel those inertia factors would differ. In the zero-shear limit $U=0$, the two roots merge at zero and there is no exponential growth.

Stellar rotation is a problem of coupled force balance, heat transport and angular momentum transport. A star need not rotate as a rigid body: in the Sun, the convective envelope rotates faster near the equator than near the poles, while much of the radiative interior rotates more nearly uniformly. The tachocline is the thin transition near the base of the convection zone. Surface tracking and Doppler effect measurements constrain the exterior flow; solar rotational mode splitting in helioseismology constrains interior stellar rotation through integrals of the form $\delta {\omega }_{n\ell m}\simeq m\int K_{n\ell m}\Omega dV$. Multiple kernels are needed, so surface rotation is not a measurement of every depth.

A useful mean velocity decomposition is $\mathbf{U}=\varpi \Omega {\mathbf{e}}_{\varphi }+{\mathbf{v}}_m$, where $\varpi =r\sin \theta$ is distance from the axis and ${\mathbf{v}}_m$ is stellar meridional circulation. In a frame of constant angular velocity ${\mathbf{\Omega }}_0$, use the relative velocity $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{U}-{\mathbf{\Omega }}_0\times \mathbf{r}$. Its momentum equation includesThe Coriolis force changes the direction of a parcel's motion but does no work. Thermal driving, release of differential rotational kinetic energy, contraction, or external torques supply the energy of the flows. Solid-body stellar rotation in a suitable hydrostatic equilibrium does not by itself require a meridional flow.

For slowly circulating, approximately axisymmetric material, the leading mechanical balance in an inertial frame is $\nabla p/\rho =-\nabla \Phi +\varpi {\Omega }^2{\mathbf{e}}_{\varpi }$. Taking its curl gives the stellar thermal-wind balanceHere $z$ is the axial coordinate, $S$ is specific entropy and $c_p$ is the specific heat at fixed pressure. The last form uses approximately radial hydrostatic equilibrium and uniform composition. If the material is barotropic, the right-hand side vanishes and angular velocity is constant on cylinders. Small latitudinal entropy differences can instead support the observed noncylindrical differential rotation. Stresses and inertial terms modify this leading balance. The equation relates shear to baroclinicity; it does not give the circulation speed or explain how the shear is maintained.

That second question requires an angular-momentum budget. With $j={\varpi }^2\Omega$ and density-weighted mean quantities, conservation of angular momentum can be written schematically asThe three contributions are Reynolds stress, magnetic Maxwell stress tensor and viscosity transport. Appropriate density weighting replaces the simple correlations in a strongly compressible average. Since $\nabla \cdot (\rho {\mathbf{v}}_m)=0$ in a steady star, the stationary equation gives gyroscopic pumping in a star:A torque that maintains differential rotation therefore drives a meridional response unless another stress cancels it. Conversely the circulation transports angular momentum and feeds back on the rotation. An assumed meridional pattern without its driving torque is not a closed dynamical model.

In the convection zone, outward heat transport drives convection. Rotation deflects the rising and falling parcels and makes their correlations anisotropic. Nondiffusive convective angular momentum transport can drive shear even from an initially uniform rotation rate; treating every Reynolds stress as a positive eddy viscosity would only smooth shear and miss its source. A limiting parcel that conserves $j$ when it moves outwards slows relative to uniform rotation, whereas rapid rotational constraint and correlated horizontal motions change the sign and direction of the net transport. Thus the solar equator-fast pattern requires the actual convective correlations, not a universal parcel argument. The Rossby number $u_c/(2\Omega {\ell }_c)$ compares convective inertia with rotational deflection: deep, slower, larger-scale convection is more rotationally constrained than the fastest photospheric motions. Turnover times ${\ell }_c/u_c$ range from minutes near the visible surface to weeks or longer at greater depth. On these times the Reynolds stresses can redistribute angular momentum and drive circulation, while the star's total spin changes much more slowly.

In a radiative region, rotation distorts equipotential surfaces. Under uniform rotation and uniform composition, leading hydrostatic equilibrium makes pressure, density and temperature constant on each such surface, but effective gravity varies along it. Radiative diffusion then produces a flux $\mathbf{F}=f({\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}})\nabla {\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}}$. Its divergence contains $f^{\prime }|\nabla {\Phi }_{\mathrm{eff}}{|}^2$, which varies over a surface and generally cannot match a nuclear source constant there. This is the radiative-equilibrium obstruction in a rotating barotropic star. Thermal imbalance drives Eddington-Sweet circulation, with heat advection enteringIts global thermal estimate isA rotational thermal imbalance of order ${ϵ}_{\Omega }L$ processes the thermal reservoir on this longer time. For the slowly rotating Sun, $t_{\mathrm{KH}}$ is of order $3\times 10^7$ years and ${ϵ}_{\Omega }$ of order $2\times 10^{-5}$, giving $t_{\mathrm{ES}}\sim 10^{12}$ years, much longer than the solar age. Stable composition gradients impede the flow further. Thus classical radiative Eddington-Sweet circulation cannot by itself establish the Sun's interior rotation rapidly. In a rapidly rotating star the same estimate is shorter and rotational mixing can compete with its evolutionary lifetime. Torque-driven convection-zone circulation and radiative thermal circulation have different controlling balances.

Magnetic fields introduce a further coupling. A poloidal magnetic field linking different layers is wound by differential rotation into a toroidal magnetic field, roughly ${\partial }_t{B}_{\varphi }\simeq \varpi {\mathbf{B}}_p\cdot \nabla \Omega$. The resulting Maxwell stress tensor transport angular momentum. Communication along a field occurs on an Alfvén speed crossing time $t_A\sim \ell \sqrt{{\mu }_0\rho }/B$, which can be far shorter than molecular diffusion if a coherent connecting field exists. In steady ideal axisymmetric induction, absence of continuing winding requires ${\mathbf{B}}_p\cdot \nabla \Omega =0$; this is constancy along the field, not automatically solid-body rotation throughout the star. The topology and strength of an interior field matter. Solar dynamo action, especially the interaction of shear with poloidal-field regeneration, couples stellar rotation to the magnetic cycle. Magnetic feedback can change shear and circulation on dynamical or cycle times; an approximately eleven-year activity cycle and twenty-two-year magnetic polarity cycle are distinct from secular spin-down.

A magnetized stellar wind also supplies an external torque. It enforces approximate corotation out to an effective Alfvén radius $R_A$, giving wind-driven magnetic braking of a solar-type star $\dot{J}\sim -{\dot{M}}_w\Omega R_A^2$. Its spin-down time is $t_J\sim I/({\dot{M}}_w{R}_A^2)$, much longer than a convective turnover time. For slowly changing moment of inertia and an unsaturated field scaling that gives $\dot{J}=-K{\Omega }^3$, integration gives ${\Omega }^{-2}={\Omega }_0^{-2}+2Kt/I$, the Skumanich rotation law. A growing or contracting star also changes $I$ and can spin up or down even without torque. Differential spin-down can create shear between layers unless internal transport couples them.

Finally, shear can excite Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, and convection can launch internal gravity waves into the stable radiative interior. Wave damping deposits angular momentum; the net transport depends on excitation and selective absorption and is not fixed by a wave-crossing time alone. Such stresses, magnetic coupling and circulation are candidate agents for the nearly uniform radiative rotation and the narrow tachocline. Molecular kinematic viscosity has a diffusion time ${\ell }^2/\nu$ generally too long to couple the entire solar interior over its age, whereas a turbulent effective kinematic viscosity can act much faster but is not appropriate to every stable layer. A circulation has an advection time $\ell /U_m$, thermal diffusion has time ${\ell }^2/\chi$, and magnetic diffusion has time ${\ell }^2/{\eta }_m$; these must be compared with the local stellar rotation and evolutionary times rather than conflated with them. The solar dynamical time $\sqrt{R^3/(GM)}$ is about half an hour, its rotation period is of order a month, and secular magnetic braking takes an evolutionary time. Rapid force adjustment, convective maintenance of shear, cyclic magnetic feedback and slow global spin evolution are separate processes. Their coupled conservation equations and timescale hierarchy are the basis of a consistent account of solar rotation.

Use $S(z)=\sigma +k_{x}U(z)$, $k^2=k_x^2+k_y^2>0$ and primes for $z$ derivatives. Time dependence is $e^{i\sigma t}$, so exponential growth means $\mathrm{Im}\sigma <0$. The constant mass density and incompressible velocity giveAll magnetic factors below use the source convention ${\mu }_0=1$.

Linearizing the ideal magnetohydrodynamic momentum equation, the advective perturbation is $iS{\mathbf{u}}_1+U^{\prime }w{\mathbf{e}}_x$. The magnetic force is $(\nabla \times \mathbf{b})\times B{\mathbf{e}}_x$, whose $x$ component vanishes. Thus the three component equations areIn particular the vertical equation has the pressure-gradient and magnetic signs printed in the PDF.

The incompressible ideal magnetohydrodynamic induction equation can be written $D\mathbf{B}/Dt=(\mathbf{B}\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{u}$. Linearizing it givesFor $S\ne 0$, these areThe $U^{\prime }{b}_z$ term is essential: a perturbed vertical magnetic component is stretched by the background shear flow. Differentiating these amplitudes and using incompressibility also verifies $i{k}_x{b}_x+i{k}_y{b}_y+b_z^{\prime }=0$.

For completeness, substitution into all three momentum equations giveswhere $\zeta =i{k}_{x}v-i{k}_{y}u$ is the vertical vorticity amplitude. Multiplying the $y$ equation by $k_x$ and subtracting $k_y$ times the $x$ equation eliminates pressure:Therefore, away from $\rho S^2=k_x^2{B}^2$,This is the nonresonant reduction relevant to the instability calculation. Division at the Alfvén wave resonance would be invalid. For a concrete counterexample to an unrestricted reading, take constant $U$, $k_y=0$, $S=\pm k_{x}B/\sqrt{\rho }$, $v=a(z)$ and $b_y=k_{x}Ba(z)/S$, with all other amplitudes zero. Every smooth $a(z)$ solves the original linear system, but $\zeta =i{k}_{x}a(z)$ need not vanish. These transverse resonant waves do not drive $w$. A genuinely growing mode in a real background has complex $S$ and cannot satisfy either $S=0$ or $S^2=k_x^2{B}^2/\rho$ on the real $z$ axis. This explains exactly when the requested reductions may be used.

On that nonresonant branch, multiply the horizontal equations by $k_x$ and $k_y$ and add. Incompressibility gives $k_{x}u+k_{y}v=i{w}^{\prime }$, soCombining incompressibility with vorticity, multiply its first equation by $k_x$ and subtract $k_y$ times the definition of $\zeta$. This givesConsequentlySubstitute this and the derivative of the displayed pressure relation into vertical momentum. Multiplication by $k^2/i$ givesExpanding the second derivative once gives exactly the requested vertical-velocity equation:

To take the discontinuous-layer limit without multiplying distributions, introduce $f=w/S$. It is proportional to the normal displacement: the material kinematic condition is $w=iS\eta$, so $f=i\eta$. Since $S^{\prime }=k_x{U}^{\prime }$, $S{w}^{\prime }-S^{\prime }w=S^2{f}^{\prime }$. The same equation becomes the displacement equation for a parallel magnetic shear flowThe physical interface condition is continuity of $f$, because both fluids move the same interface. For constant $U_j$ on each side, away from resonance the coefficient is constant and nonzero, so $f^{\prime \prime }-k^{2}f=0$. Requiring decay at infinity and matching $f(0)$ yieldsThe exponent is $z$, as in the actual PDF; the converted TeX's $x$ there is a transcription error.

Integrate the conservative displacement equation across a layer of thickness $2\epsilon$. Its undifferentiated term has an integral tending to zero, while the derivative givesEquivalently, the perturbed magnetohydrodynamic total pressure is $p_1+B{b}_x=(\rho S^2-k_x^2{B}^2)f^{\prime }/(i{k}^2)$ and is continuous. With $f_{+}^{\prime }=-kA$ and $f_{-}^{\prime }=kA$, a nontrivial amplitude requiresThis is also the rigorous thin-layer integration of the original vertical equation, after combining the derivative terms before taking the limit.

Put $\overline{U}=(U_1+U_2)/2$ and $\Delta U=U_2-U_1$. Completing the square gives the dispersion relationFor $(\Delta U{)}^2<4B^2/\rho$ both interface frequencies are real, so there is no exponentially growing interface mode. Above that threshold, the growing sign has growth rate $|k_x|\sqrt{(\Delta U{)}^2/4-B^2/\rho }$. This is magnetic stabilization of an equal-density vortex sheet: magnetic tension from bending the field overcomes the kinetic shear driving Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Equality is marginal and the strict stable condition avoids its double-root degeneracy. The case $k_x=0$ has no streamwise shear drive and has the neutral interface frequency $\sigma =0$; the nonzero-frequency elimination should be interpreted by the original equations or a limiting displacement formulation in that case. The horizontal $k_y$ affects the exponential decay length through $k$, but not the stated threshold.

Let $p_1(z)$ denote the Eulerian perturbation of a fluid variable that is the pressure amplitude, and keep $\rho$ constant. The linearized Euler equations and incompressible flow constraint areThe last equation gives $u=i{w}^{\prime }/k$. Substituting it into the first yieldsDifferentiating this formula and using the vertical momentum equation produces the Rayleigh equation for inviscid shear flow:For a growing normal mode, $c$ is nonreal, so $U-c$ never vanishes on the real $z$ axis. In each open region the base velocity is constant or linear and $U^{\prime \prime }=0$; therefore $w^{\prime \prime }-k^{2}w=0$. Decay away from the layer selects $e^{-kz}$ above and $e^{kz}$ below, while both exponentials are retained inside. Conveniently normalize these asThese are the spatially localized discrete modes relevant to instability, rather than all possible generalized neutral disturbances at a critical layer in a shear flow.

At each corner $U$ is continuous and $U^{\prime }$ jumps. The two sides have the same normal velocity and normal stress: there is no membrane, density jump or singular external force supplying a pressure jump. Thus $w$ and $p_1$ must be continuous. The pressure formula proves the required continuity of $(c-U)w^{\prime }+U^{\prime }w$. This is pressure matching at a piecewise-linear shear interface; it does not require $w^{\prime }$ to be continuous. Equivalently integrating the Rayleigh equation for inviscid shear flow through a corner gives $(U-c)[w^{\prime }]=[U^{\prime }]w$.

Write $\alpha =kd$, $y=c/U_0$, and $E=e^{2\alpha }$. Continuity of normal velocity givesAt $z=d$, the outside derivatives are $w_{+}^{\prime }=-kA$, $U_{+}^{\prime }=0$, while the inside derivatives are $w_{-}^{\prime }=-kB+kEC$, $U_{-}^{\prime }=U_0/d$. Hence pressure matching reduces toSimilarly at $z=-d$, the outside derivative is $kD$ and the inside derivative is $-kEB+kC$. Matching givesThe two equations can be written asA nonzero mode therefore requiresThis is the dispersion relation for the unbounded piecewise-linear shear layer.

With the phase convention $e^{ik(x-ct)}$, positive $\mathrm{Im}c$ gives exponential temporal growth. Since the displayed $c^2$ is real, a growing/decaying pair occurs precisely whenFor $0<\alpha \le 1/2$, $e^{-2\alpha }>1-2\alpha$ by the strict exponential tangent inequality, so every such mode is unstable. For $\alpha \ge 1/2$, define $f(\alpha )=2\alpha -1-e^{-2\alpha }$. Its derivative $2+2e^{-2\alpha }$ is positive, while $f(1/2)<0$ and $f(1)>0$. There is consequently exactly one root in that interval, andAt the cutoff the discrete roots merge at $c=0$; above it the roots are real and have no exponential growth. The physical wavelengths in the unstable band satisfy ${\lambda }_x=2\pi /k>2\pi d/{\alpha }_s\simeq 9.83d$.

This is a finite-thickness Kelvin-Helmholtz instability: long disturbances roll up the layer and draw kinetic energy from its shear. The off-diagonal $e^{-2kd}$ terms describe coupling of the two vorticity discontinuities. Short disturbances decay across the layer before strongly coupling its edges and are neutral. Indeed at $kd\to \infty$ the two phase speeds approach the velocities $\pm U_0$ of the separated edges. At $kd\to 0$, expansion of the numerator gives $c^2/U_0^2\to -1$, recovering the vortex sheet result $c=\pm i{U}_0$; the growth rate then behaves as $k|U_0|$.

Incompressibility makes each perturbation velocity potential a harmonic function. A horizontal mode $e^{i(kx+\ell y)+st}$ has $q=\sqrt{k^2+{\ell }^2}>0$. Decay away from the interface selects ${\phi }_1=A_1{e}^{qz}{e}^{i(kx+\ell y)+st}$ below and ${\phi }_2=A_2{e}^{-qz}{e}^{i(kx+\ell y)+st}$ above. The kinematic boundary condition givesInsert these into the dynamic boundary condition for an inviscid interface and cancel a nonzero mode amplitude to obtainWriting ${\rho }_T={\rho }_1+{\rho }_2$ and $\bar{U}=({\rho }_1{U}_1+{\rho }_2{U}_2)/{\rho }_T$, completion of the square givesConsequentlyThe imaginary advection term does not change growth rates. A mode grows exponentially precisely when the radicand is positive, equivalentlyIf the upper fluid is heavier, every nonzero wavevector is unstable even without shear: this is Rayleigh-Taylor instability. If the lower fluid is heavier, gravity stabilizes sufficiently long waves, but any nonzero velocity difference destabilizes sufficiently short waves with $\ell =0$: this is Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. For equal densities, shear destabilizes modes with $k\ne 0$. A negative radicand gives purely imaginary frequencies and oscillatory modes; equality is the marginal threshold for exponential growth.

Write the common density as $\rho$ and take positive bending stiffness $\beta$. With $q=|k|>0$, use decaying velocity potentialsadded to the upper base potential $Ux$ and the lower zero base potential. They solve the Laplace equation, as required by incompressibility and irrotational flow. The two linear kinematic boundary conditions on the membrane areThe linearized Bernoulli equation gives perturbation pressures $p_{+}^{\prime }=-\rho (\sigma +ikU)A_{+}$ and $p_{-}^{\prime }=-\rho \sigma A_{-}$. Substituting the kinematic conditions and imposing the stipulated pressure difference givesCompleting the square yields the bending-membrane Kelvin-Helmholtz dispersion relationThe imaginary shift convects the disturbance at mean fluid speed $U/2$. For $U\ne 0$ there is a growing root exactly whenAt $k=0$ the uniform displacement is neutral; at $|k|=k_{\max }$ the square-root growth vanishes. Above this cutoff both roots are imaginary. To maximize the growth, maximize its square $U^2{q}^2/4-\beta q^5/(2\rho )$ over the unstable interval. Its derivative is $U^{2}q/2-5\beta q^4/(2\rho )$, so its unique positive maximum isFor $U=0$ there is no Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. Positivity of $\beta$ is the physical stiffness assumption behind the finite cutoff: $\beta =0$ gives no upper unstable cutoff, and $\beta <0$ destabilizes arbitrarily short waves.

In the Townsend-Betchov cascade cartoon, bi-axial strain sweeps distributed vorticity into extended sheets at the upper part of the inertial range. These are predominantly inviscid structures: their shape and instability arise from advection and strain rather than local viscous smoothing. Strong velocity variation across a thin sheet permits Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, roll-up and three-dimensional deformation. The resulting small vortex tubes are stretched into still finer cores.

At the dissipative end, stretching and kinematic viscosity balance in Burgers-like cores. A core of strain rate $s$ has radius of order $(\nu /s{)}^{1/2}$; taking $s\sim (ϵ/\nu {)}^{1/2}$ gives the Kolmogorov length $({\nu }^3/ϵ{)}^{1/4}$. Circulation and shrinking cross-section allow finite integrated tube viscous dissipation. Thus sheet formation and tube formation play different roles, rather than the entire cascade being a succession of identical geometrical eddies.

The cartoon challenges a literal, uniformly self-similar, step-by-step cascade with independent interactions only between neighboring scales. Large-scale sheet formation can generate much smaller scales through an instability, and the resulting structures retain coherent spatial organization. A branching model that assumes every scale-transfer step has the same geometry and loses information about the parent flow can miss this mechanism. Closures that erase the relevant phase correlations also have difficulty representing its concentrated gradients and intermittency. The objection is to these dynamical assumptions, not to conservation of energy or the existence of a mean energy flux through scales. The cartoon alone is not a proof that all spectral transfer is nonlocal.

To recover the printed dispersion relation, interpret the surface maintained flat as an imposed flat upper boundary for the perturbation, so its normal velocity is zero. This is the rigid-lid approximation. Work with perturbation velocity potentials ${\varphi }_{-}=A{e}^{ky}{e}^{ikx+\sigma t}$ below the interface and ${\varphi }_{+}=B\cosh [k(y-h)]e^{ikx+\sigma t}$ in the upper layer. They solve the Laplace equation, decay as $y\to -\infty$, and obey ${\partial }_y{\varphi }_{+}(h)=0$.

The linear kinematic boundary conditions at the interface give $(\sigma +ikU){\eta }_0=kA$ and $\sigma {\eta }_0=-kB\sinh (kh)$. Equality of pressures, using the linear Bernoulli equation, gives $(\sigma +ikU)A=\sigma B\cosh (kh)$. The equal fluid densities cancel the interface gravitational restoring term. Eliminating $A,B,{\eta }_0$ yieldsWith $q=\tanh (kh)$, the roots areFor every $k>0$ one root has positive real part. Thus the vortex sheet has a Kelvin-Helmholtz instability at every wavelength in this model. If $kh\gg 1$, $q\to 1$ and the growing rate is $Uk/2$. If $kh\ll 1$, $q\sim kh$ and it is $Uk\sqrt{kh}$.

There is a physical qualification to the wording. A dynamically deformable free surface at finite gravity is not exactly a flat lid. Its linear conditions combine to ${\sigma }^2{\varphi }_{+}(h)+g{\partial }_y{\varphi }_{+}(h)=0$. Writing the upper potential as $B\cosh (ky)+C\sinh (ky)$ and using the same interface conditions instead givesThe stated quadratic follows in the strong-gravity flat-surface limit, or with the flat condition imposed exactly. It is not the exact dispersion relation of a freely moving upper surface at arbitrary finite $g$. This makes explicit the boundary interpretation needed for the requested formula.

Take a common constant buoyancy frequency $N$ and put $k=k_T>0$. Define $\eta$ to be vertical parcel displacement; the kinematic boundary condition is $w=ik{U}_j{\eta }_j$. In either uniform region the exact Taylor–Goldstein equation givesNo WKB approximation is needed. If the earlier $N(z)$ is genuinely nonconstant, the exact regional equation is instead ${\eta }_j^{\prime \prime }+[N(z{)}^2/U_j^2-k^2]{\eta }_j=0$; its fundamental solutions, not plane exponentials, must be used. For example, let $C_1(0)=1$, $C_1^{\prime }(0)=0$, $S_1(0)=0$, $S_1^{\prime }(0)=1$, and let $f_2$ be an outgoing upper solution. Then ${\eta }_1=h_0{C}_1+D{S}_1$, ${\eta }_2=A{f}_2$, with $D,A$ determined by $h_0{C}_1(H)+D{S}_1(H)=A{f}_2(H)$ and $U_1^2[h_0{C}_1^{\prime }(H)+D{S}_1^{\prime }(H)]=U_2^{2}A{f}_2^{\prime }(H)$. This gives the exact arbitrary-profile field implicitly, while a simple angle-only coefficient requires further stratification assumptions.

Under the common constant-$N$ assumption, propagating incident internal gravity waves requireFor co-directed upper flow, the outgoing propagating branch exists for $0<U_2<N/k$ and has $m_2>0$. The radiation condition chooses $m_j>0$ because the laboratory vertical group velocity is positive on the negative intrinsic frequency branch. Define $\tan {\theta }_j=m_j/k$, so $\cos {\theta }_j=k{U}_j/N$.

At the velocity jump, the material-interface jump conditions for stratified inviscid shear flow require continuity of displacement and of fluid pressure. Vertical velocity itself is generally discontinuous: $w_j=ik{U}_j\eta$. In terms of displacement the pressure is $p_j=U_j^2{\eta }_j^{\prime }$. The displacement impedance for an internal wave at a velocity jump is $Z_j=U_j^2{m}_j$. An upward incident component of complex displacement amplitude $I$ at $H$, a reflected component $RI$ and a transmitted component $TI$ therefore obeyConsequentlyFor a one-pass incident displacement $h_0$, a real wave field is the imaginary part ofThe incident vertical-displacement amplitude is $h_0$, the reflected amplitude is $|R|h_0$ and the transmitted amplitude is $|T|h_0$; the sign of $R$ encodes a phase reversal. The other fields follow from $w=ikU\eta$, $u=-w^{\prime }/(ik)$, $b=-N^2\eta$ and $p=U^2{\eta }^{\prime }$. If a perfectly reflecting terrain boundary is enforced after the return wave arrives, replace the incident coefficient $h_0$ by $h_0/[1+R{e}^{2i{m}_{1}H}]$. The one-pass amplitudes use the permitted neglect of repeated terrain reflections.