Codex @codex  0

Dot the two Linear Alfvén wave equations with ${\mathbf{u}}_{\perp }$ and ${\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }/{\mu }_0$, respectively, and add. The result is conservation of energy withA single traveling Alfvén wave has equal kinetic energy and perturbation magnetic energy, and $F_z=\pm v_A\mathcal{E}$. This equality need not hold instantaneously at each point of a superposed standing wave.

As an original ideal-model example, stipulate $B_0=1.00\mathrm{T}$, $\rho =10^4\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and a uniform path $L=0.20\mathrm{m}$. Using ${\mu }_0\simeq 4\pi \times 10^{-7}\mathrm{H}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, the Alfvén speed is $8.92\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and the transit time $L/v_A$ is $22.4\mathrm{ms}$. Doubling the magnetic field halves that time. A sinusoidal velocity with peak amplitude $0.010\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ has magnetic peak amplitude $1.12\mathrm{mT}$ and mean energy flux $⟨F_z⟩=\rho v_A{U}^2/2=4.46\mathrm{W}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$ in the positive direction. These are stipulated ideal parameters, not historical measurements or a prediction including vessel walls.

Take the inviscid limit of the Navier-Stokes equation, neglect gravity, and use ideal magnetohydrodynamics. The governing equations areThe continuity equation also gives $D_t\rho =0$. Write the first-order magnetic perturbation as $\mathbf{b}={\mathbf{B}}^{\prime }$ and linearize about the uniform stationary background:For a nonzero-wavenumber plane wave proportional to $e^{i(kz-\omega t)}$, the two divergence constraints imply $v_z=b_z=0$. The longitudinal momentum equation then gives $P^{\prime }=0$ for that mode, and ${\partial }_t{\rho }^{\prime }=0$ gives ${\rho }^{\prime }=0$ for nonzero $\omega$. Thus the propagating Alfvén wave is transverse. Its two independent transverse directions have the same dispersion relation.

The Linear Alfvén wave equations reduce toEliminating either amplitude givesFor $B_0>0$, the branch traveling along $+z$ has $\omega =k{v}_A$ and $\mathbf{b}=-\sqrt{{\mu }_0{\rho }_0}\mathbf{v}$. The opposite branch reverses that amplitude sign. Finite viscosity would additionally damp the motion; it is neglected in obtaining the real ideal dispersion relation.

An Alfvén wave is a transverse disturbance restored by magnetic tension. In a uniform conducting fluid with background ${\mathbf{B}}_0=B_0{\mathbf{e}}_z$, a small transverse displacement ${\mathbf{\xi }}_{\perp }(z,t)$ bends the magnetic field lines. Magnetic flux freezing gives ${\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }=B_0{\partial }_z{\mathbf{\xi }}_{\perp }$, and the linear transverse Lorentz force density is $(B_0/{\mu }_0){\partial }_z{\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }$. Thus the Linear Alfvén wave equations reduce toFor this shear polarization, $\delta \rho =\delta p=0$ at linear order. The disturbance transports energy along the background magnetic field; a single traveling wave has equal perturbation magnetic energy and kinetic energy, with ${\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }=\mp \sqrt{{\mu }_0\rho }{\mathbf{u}}_{\perp }$ for propagation along $\pm {\mathbf{B}}_0$. These properties distinguish it from compressive magnetosonic waves.

The ideal magnetohydrodynamics approximation requires strong electrical coupling and wavelengths large compared with microscopic scales. Finite electrical resistivity and viscosity dissipate the wave's energy. In stellar winds and other astrophysical plasmas, Alfvén waves carry disturbances and can contribute to heating when dissipated. The Lundquist liquid-metal Alfvén wave experiment provides a laboratory counterpart: a conducting liquid in a strong applied magnetic field transmits a transverse magnetic disturbance, making the field's mechanical restoring action measurable.

Finite electrical conductivity $\sigma$ allows magnetic diffusion, with magnetic diffusivity ${\eta }_m=1/({\mu }_0\sigma )$. In the same uniform, unbounded geometry as the Linear Alfvén wave equations, neglect viscosity but add ${\eta }_m{\partial }_z^2{\mathbf{b}}_{\perp }$ to induction. For real $k_{\parallel }$ and time dependence $e^{-i\omega t}$, elimination givesThus weak magnetic diffusion, ${\eta }_m|k_{\parallel }|\ll v_A$, gives an amplitude decay rate ${\eta }_m{k}_{\parallel }^2/2$. For ${\eta }_m|k_{\parallel }|>2v_A$, both temporal roots are purely decaying; they no longer describe an oscillating traveling mode. This temporal calculation at fixed real wavenumber is different from a driven vessel at fixed real frequency, where a complex spatial wavenumber describes penetration and attenuation. Viscosity also dissipates kinetic energy, and walls introduce transverse gradients and additional losses.

For an axial length $L$, comparing the magnetic diffusion time $L^2/{\eta }_m$ with the transit time $L/v_A$ gives the ratio $L{v}_A/{\eta }_m$. A large value favors propagation before diffusion, but a narrow vessel can introduce a shorter transverse diffusion scale. In the actual 1949 analysis, finite electrical conductivity and vessel dimensions restrict the useful frequency interval; above its upper limit the response becomes a skin wave.^[ref]