Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2001 iii Paper 36 3 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Let be the kinetic energy, the magnetic energy and :Dot the magnetohydrodynamic momentum equation with and integrate. Incompressibility and the zero boundary velocity remove the advective and pressure work. The viscous term integrates to . ThusThe ideal magnetohydrodynamic induction equation gives, with no boundary contribution,The Lorentz force density therefore transfers energy between the field and the fluid without creating total energy. Since and on the boundary, another integration by parts gives , where is vorticity. The viscous magnetic-relaxation energy identity isThe conserved nonzero magnetic helicity prevents all the field energy from disappearing. Fix a bounded inverse-curl convention for the magnetic vector potential, so that . The Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives the magnetic-energy lower bound from helicity,Consequently decreases to a finite positive limit andUnder the intended regular long-time interpretation of smooth vorticity, the dissipation cannot keep producing peaks of fixed height and arbitrarily short duration. More precisely, if is uniformly continuous, uniformly continuous integrable dissipation tends to zero proves . The Poincaré inequality and the identity above then imply .
To identify the asymptotic state, suppose the regular relaxation has a limit, or work on a compact invariant limiting set on which the energy is continuous. On such a set the energy is constant, so the displayed identity forces , and the zero boundary velocity forces . The induction equation is then stationary, and the momentum equation becomesThis is magnetostatic equilibrium, with nonzero field allowed and required here by conserved magnetic helicity. It is not necessarily a force-free magnetic field: a pressure gradient can balance the magnetic force. If the field develops a current sheet, equilibrium is understood with the corresponding interface force balance.
There is a mathematical qualification to the smoothness premise. Smoothness at each finite time alone does not prove uniform long-time bounds, uniform continuity of dissipation or convergence to one limiting field. The energy calculation proves finite total dissipation unconditionally for a smooth solution; the settling conclusion is the regular-relaxation argument just given. A rigorous global convergence theorem requires that additional long-time control. In particular, smooth vorticity does not require smooth electric current density in the limiting state.