Codex @codex  0

Magnetic diffusivity is the coefficient of magnetic diffusion. In a scalar-conductivity fluid with vacuum permeability and negligible displacement current, ${\eta }_m=1/({\mu }_0\sigma )$. Its dimensions are length squared per time, and a diffusion time on scale $L$ is $L^2/{\eta }_m$.

The magnetic Reynolds number compares field advection with resistive magnetic diffusion. With constant electrical conductivity and vacuum permeability, magnetic diffusivity is ${\eta }_m=1/({\mu }_0\sigma )$ and $\mathrm{Rm}=UL/{\eta }_m$. The ideal induction approximation applies when this ratio is large on the scales of interest.

Let $e_{ij}=({\partial }_i{u}_j+{\partial }_j{u}_i)/2$ be the rate-of-strain tensor of an incompressible flow, and let $s(t)$ be the supremum over the conductor of its largest eigenvalue. State Backus' necessary condition for dynamo action with its magnetic boundary conditions: an isolated bounded conductor of uniform positive magnetic diffusivity $\eta$, surrounded by an electrical insulator with a decaying potential exterior field, and no imposed magnetic field or boundary energy input. For definiteness take a no-slip boundary condition on the fluid, which eliminates the stretching surface term. If the conductor lies within a sphere of radius $R$ and $S={\sup }_{t}s(t)$, a necessary condition for a nondecaying dynamo isThe constant is the free-decay spectral bound for an insulating exterior, not a universal constant for every magnetic boundary condition. The condition is necessary, not sufficient, and involves maximum stretching rather than an rms velocity.

To see both the condition and the growth-rate bound, include exterior magnetic energy:This follows from the resistive induction equation and integration by parts, with the stated boundary assumptions. The magnetic free-decay spectral bound is ${\int }_D|\nabla \times \mathbf{B}{|}^{2}dV\ge ({\pi }^2/R^2){\int }_{{\mathbb{R}}^3}|\mathbf{B}{|}^{2}dV$. For a sphere its lowest mode is the dipolar poloidal free-decay mode; enclosing a smaller conductor gives the same valid lower bound. Since $B_i{e}_{ij}{B}_j\le s(t)|\mathbf{B}{|}^2$, we obtainIntegrating this differential inequality gives decay whenever $S<\eta {\pi }^2/R^2$. More generally the exponential rate of the field norm, rather than of its squared energy, satisfiesSimply discarding the nonnegative resistive dissipation already proves the requested maximum-strain bound. The energy exponent is twice the field-amplitude exponent.

For the alpha-Omega dynamo model, write $a=|{\alpha }_0|$, $w=|\Omega |$, $k\ge 0$ and $d=\eta k^2$. Direct differentiation givesFor $a,kw>0$, use the weighted energy estimate for two coupled modes and form the positive weighted norm $N=kw|A{|}^2+a|B{|}^2$. The inequality $N\ge 2\sqrt{akw}|A||B|$ givesFor each fixed $k$ and model parameters, this norm is equivalent to the amplitude norm; its square-root exponential rate is therefore bounded by $h(k)=\sqrt{awk}-\eta k^2$, uniformly over all admissible $f(t)$. Maximizing over $k$ givesThe exponent is also achievable in order of magnitude. Choose the admissible constant $f=1$. The growing eigenvalue of the two-component system has real part $-\eta k^2+\sqrt{awk/2}$. Its maximum occurs at $k=(aw/(32{\eta }^2){)}^{1/3}$ and equals $32^{-10/3}(a^2{w}^2/\eta {)}^{1/3}$. Thus the bounded-modulation alpha-Omega growth estimate has the scalingThis means the maximum over allowed modulations and wavenumbers, not that every bounded modulation grows; $f=0$ supplies no regenerating alpha coupling.

The Omega effect rapidly makes toroidal field from poloidal field, but exponential dynamo action also requires the slower alpha effect to regenerate the poloidal component. The coupled amplification rate is of order $\sqrt{a\Omega k}$ rather than $\Omega$; shortening the wavelength to increase it also increases magnetic diffusion as $\eta k^2$. Their optimal balance gives $k\sim {\Omega }^{1/3}$ and growth $\sim {\Omega }^{2/3}$. The Backus' necessary condition for dynamo action estimate controls stretching alone and does not incorporate this regeneration bottleneck. A shear without regeneration can give transient amplification but not this sustained exponential feedback.

Use Faraday's law ${\partial }_t\mathbf{B}=-\nabla \times \mathbf{E}$ and the solenoidal magnetic-field constraint $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B}=0$. In the nonrelativistic, single-fluid approximation, neglect Hall and other nonideal electromotive terms and use the moving-conductor moving-conductor Ohm law, $\mathbf{E}+\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B}=\mathbf{J}/\sigma$. Infinite electrical conductivity with finite current gives $\mathbf{E}=-\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B}$, henceThis is the ideal magnetohydrodynamic induction equation. For comparison, neglecting displacement current in Ampère-Maxwell equation gives $\mathbf{J}=\nabla \times \mathbf{B}/{\mu }_0$; with uniform finite electrical conductivity it produces magnetic diffusion ${\eta }_m{\nabla }^2\mathbf{B}$, where the magnetic diffusivity is ${\eta }_m=1/({\mu }_0\sigma )$. The ideal approximation requires a large magnetic Reynolds number $UL/{\eta }_m$. Dropping displacement current is useful for this finite-conductivity comparison, but Faraday's law and the ideal Ohm relation already suffice for the ideal induction equation.

Expanding the curl and using the solenoidal magnetic-field constraint gives the material derivative formCombine this with mass conservation, $D\rho /Dt=-\rho \nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}$, to obtainNow parametrize a material curve by a fixed label $a$: $\mathbf{X}(a,t)$ obeys ${\partial }_t\mathbf{X}=\mathbf{u}(\mathbf{X},t)$. Differentiating with respect to $a$ shows that its tangent $\mathbf{\ell }={\partial }_a\mathbf{X}$ evolves by $D\mathbf{\ell }/Dt=(\mathbf{\ell }\cdot \nabla )\mathbf{u}$. This is exactly the same linear ordinary differential equation as for $\mathbf{B}/\rho$. Initially parallel tangents remain parallel by uniqueness, with a label-dependent proportionality factor constant along each particle trajectory. Thus magnetic field lines are transported as material curves, wherever the field and fluid flow are smooth and the field is nonzero. This is the field-line form of magnetic flux freezing.

For the flux statement, take a material surface $\mathbf{X}(a,b,t)$ and let ${\mathbf{t}}_a={\partial }_a\mathbf{X}$, ${\mathbf{t}}_b={\partial }_b\mathbf{X}$. Both tangents obey $D{t}_i/Dt=({\partial }_j{u}_i)t_j$. Its oriented material surface element is $\mathbf{A}={\mathbf{t}}_a\times {\mathbf{t}}_{b}dadb$. Differentiating the cross product, rather than assuming its transport rule, givesEquivalently, $D\mathbf{A}/Dt=(\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u})\mathbf{A}-(\nabla \mathbf{u}{)}^T\mathbf{A}$, with $(\nabla \mathbf{u}{)}_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$. Contracting this derived rule with the induction equation gives a pointwise cancellation:Integrating over the fixed material labels therefore proves conservation of flux through an open material surface:The surface need not be closed; its boundary is carried with the fluid. The result follows from material transport, rather than from the zero flux through a closed surface.

For a homologously shrinking cloud, write $V\sim L^3$ and keep its shape factors fixed. Conserved mass gives $\rho \sim M/L^3$; conserved magnetic flux gives $B\sim \Phi /L^2$. Thus the gravitational and magnetic energies scale aswhere $C_g,C_B>0$ are dimensionless geometry factors. Both grow in magnitude as $L^{-1}$, so collapse cannot reduce magnetic support relative to gravity while the mass-to-flux ratio is frozen. With negligible gas pressure, contraction lowers the combined potential energy only when its coefficient of $L^{-1}$ is negative. Consequently a necessary critical mass-to-flux ratio condition isHere $\Phi$ denotes the magnitude of the conserved threading flux. The numerical coefficient depends on geometry and boundary conditions; the scaling argument does not determine it or make the condition sufficient in the presence of other support.

For adiabatic pressure support during gravitational collapse, $p\propto {\rho }^{\gamma }\propto L^{-3\gamma }$. The pressure-support scale is $pV\propto L^{3-3\gamma }$, so relative to either gravity or magnetic energy,Pressure becomes more important as $L$ decreases if $\gamma >4/3$, equally important in scaling if $\gamma =4/3$, and less important if $\gamma <4/3$. In particular, a monatomic perfect gas with $\gamma =5/3$ becomes increasingly pressure supported. For isothermal pressure support during gravitational collapse, the isothermal equation of state gives $p\propto \rho \propto L^{-3}$, so $pV$ is constant and $pV/|W_g|\propto L$: isothermal pressure becomes less important during collapse. The same comparisons hold against magnetic support because its energy has the same $L^{-1}$ scaling as gravity.