# Full text of "Counter-flow Induced Decoupling in Super-Fluid Turbulence"

## See other formats

arXiv: 1509.03566v2 [cond-mat.other] 23 Dec 2015 Counter-flow Induced Decoupling in Super-Flnid Tnrbulence Dmytro Khomenko, Victor S. L’vov, Anna Pomyalov, and Itamar Procaccia Department of Chemical Physics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel In mechanically driven superfluid turbulence the mean velocities of the normal- and superfluid components are known to coincide: Un = Us- Numerous laboratory, numerical and analytical studies showed that under these conditions the mutual friction between the normal- and superfluid velocity components couples also their fluctuations: u'^{r,t) « u'„{r,t) almost at all scales. In this paper we show that this is not the case in thermally driven superfluid turbulence; here the counterflow velocity l/ns = C/n — Us^Q- We suggest a simple analytic model for the cross correlation function {u'^{r,t)-u'„(r',t)) and its dependence on Pns- We demonstrate that u'^{r,t) and Ug{r,t) are decoupled almost in the entire range of separations \r — r'\ between the energy containing scale and intervortex distance. I. INTRODUCTION Much of the thinking about turbulence in quantum fluids like ^He at low temperature is still influenced by the “two fluid” model of Landau and Tisza. Within this model the dynamics of the superfluid ^He is described in terms of a viscous normal component and an inviscid superfluid component, each with its own density Pn{T) and Ps{T) and its own velocity field Un{r, t) and Us{r, t). Due to the quantum mechanical restriction, the circula¬ tion around the superfluid vortices is quantized to integer values of K = h/m, where h is the Plank constant and m is the mass of ^He atom. The quantization of circu¬ lation results in the appearance of characteristic “quan¬ tum” length scale: the mean separation between vortex lines, i, which is typically orders of magnitude smaller than the scale H of the largest (energy containing) ed¬ dies—*^. Experimental evidence^;^ indicates that superfluid tur¬ bulence at large scales (. is similar to classical tur¬ bulence if the mechanical forcing is similar. Examples are furnished by a towed grid— forcing or by a pres¬ sure drop in a channel— li. The reason for the sim¬ ilarity is that the interaction of normal fluid compo¬ nent with the quantized-vortex tangle leads to a mu¬ tual friction forcei^^i^ “which couples together u^{r,t) and Us{r,t) so strongly that they move as one fluid”—. This strong coupling effect was demonstrated analytically in Ref.— and was later confirmed by numerical simula¬ tions of the two-fluid model— over a wide tempera¬ ture range (1.44 < T < 2.157 K, corresponding to the ratio of densities Pn/Ps from 0.1 to 10). The simulations showed strong locking of normal- and superfluid veloci¬ ties at large scales, over one decade of the inertial range. In particular, it was found that even if either the nor¬ mal or the superfluid is forced at large scale (the dom¬ inant one), both fluids get locked very efficiently. Only detailed numerical simulations (in the framework of so- called shell models of turbulence) with very large inertial interval— showed minor decoupling of Ug and at the viscous edge of the inertial interval in agreement with the analytical result of Ref.—. A different situation is expected for thermally driven superfluid turbulence. This type of turbulence is gener¬ ated by a heater located at the closed end of a channel which is open at the other end to a superfluid helium bath. In this case the heat flux is carried away from the heater by the normal fluid alone with the mean velocity Un, and, by conservation of mass, a superfluid current with the mean velocity Ug arises in the opposite direc¬ tion. This gives rise to a relative (counterflow) velocity Uns = Un-Ug, ( 1 ) which is proportional to the applied heat flux. Invariably this counterflow excites an accompanying tangle of vortex lines. In counterflow experiments there is no mean mass flux and the mean velocities Ug and Un of the superfluid and the normal fluid components are related as follows: PnUn T PsUg = 0. A situation very similar to counterflow appears in su¬ perflows. Here superleaks (i.e. filters located at the chan¬ nel end with sub-micron-sized holes permeable only to the inviscid superfluid component) allow a net flow of the superfluid component in the channel. Contrary to coun¬ terflows, now the normal component remains stationary on the average: Un = 0. In both counterflows and super¬ flows the normal- and superfluid components are moving with different mean velocities and their relative velocity Uns ^ 0 . Clearly, in both cases one expects properties of the normal- and superfluid velocity fluctuations different from that in the mechanically driven “co-flow” turbu¬ lence, in which Un = C4 and Uns = 0. The simple reason for that is illustrated in Fig.[Tl in which eddies of scales i?i < i ?2 < Rd, are shown at three successive moments of time t = —T, t = 0 and t = t for co-flow (panels (a), (b) and (c)) and for counterflow (panels (d), (e) and (f)). In the co-flow the quantized-vortex tangles (shown by blue solid lines) are swept by the superfluid component with the mean velocity close to Ug together with the nor¬ mal fluid eddies (shown by red dashed lines), which are swept by the normal fluid component with their mean velocity [/„. Since in the co-flow Ug = Un, all (normal- and superfluid eddies) are swept with the same velocity, the entire eddy configuration is moving as a whole from the left, in panel (a), to the right in panel (c) in the “lab¬ oratory” reference system, shown in all panels as a black 2 Co-flow (a) t = —T (b) t = 0 (c) t = T FIG. 1: Color online. Schematic view of the normal fluid eddies of scales Ri, R2 and R3 (shown by red dashed lines), swept by the mean normal fluid velocity Un, and of the superfluid eddies of the same scales (shown by blue solid lines) swept by the mean superfluid velocity Us in the co-flow with Uu = Us [panels (a), (b) and (c)] and in the counter-flow with Uns = \Un — C/s| 7^0 [panels (d), (e) and (f)] at three consequent moment of times: t = — r [panels (a) and (d)], t = 0 [panels (b) and (e)] and t — t [panels (c) and (f)]. The time interval r ~ R 2 /Uns is of the order of overlapping time of the middle-scale i? 2 -eddies. frame. During their common motion, the mutual friction effectively couples the velocities and Un{r,t) = Us{r,t). The situation is completely different in the counter-flow, where the mean velocities have opposite directions and Dns 7 ^ 0. We have chosen for concreteness C/n > 0, there¬ fore the normal fluid (red dashed line) eddies are moving in our pictures from the left [in panel (d)] to the right [in panel (f)]. At the same time, Ug < 0 and superfluid (blue solid line) eddies are moving in the opposite direction. Assume that at some intermediate moment of time [chosen as t = 0 in panel (e)] all normal- and superfluid eddies of scales Ri, R2 and R3 overlap. Choose the time- step T, such that T ~ i?2/D„s. The largest eddies of scale i ?3 are almost fully overlapping during the time-step r, while smaller eddies of scale i?i, which were overlapping at t = 0, are fully separated at times t ± r. Intermedi¬ ate i? 2 -scale eddies are partially overlapping during the time-step r ~ Toi(i? 2 ). Here the “overlapping time” of i?-eddies To\{R) = R/U^s is the time that is required for eddies to be swept by the counterflow velocity U^s over distance of their scale R. This time may be small compared to the time Tcor required for an effective coupling of the Us{r,t) and Un{r,t) velocities. As we show in the last paragraph of Sec. Ill B[ Tcor is scale independent and may be estimated as Tcor ^1/where C is the vortex line density. The detailed analysis shows that for most eddies in the rele¬ vant range of scales H < R < £ the time Toi <g; Tcor and therefore the velocities Us{r,t) and Un{r,t) are decou¬ pled. This makes the energy dissipation due to mutual friction very effective and results in significant suppres¬ sion of the energy spectra of the normal- and superfluid turbulent velocity spectra as compared to that in the me¬ chanically driven turbulence, in which f7ns = 0. Notice that in Ref.— it was mentioned that in the counterflow, the coupling at all length scales must, to some extent, break down, because similar eddies in the two components are continually pulled apart, and this leads to dissipation at all length scales. The main goal of the present paper is to offer a rela- 3 tively simple, physically transparent model of the cross¬ correlation function of the normal and superfluid veloci¬ ties, that accounts for non-zero value of the mean coun¬ terflow velocity C/ns- For simplicity we consider only the case of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence of an in¬ compressible flow of ^He. In this flow the difference between the counterflow and a pure superflow turbu¬ lence disappears due to Galilean invariance. The pa¬ per is organized as follows. First we overview the two- fluid coarse-grained Hall-Vinen-Bekarevich-Khalatnikov (or HVBK) model— properly generalized for the case of counterflow turbulence, Eqs. ([3]). Second, we sug¬ gest an approach that leads to a crucial simplification that allows us to derive analytical equations (1131) for the cross-correlation function of the normal- and super¬ fluid velocity fluctuations, £ns{k,Uns)- Third, we ana¬ lyze the equation for £ns{k, Uns) and show that as a rule £ns{k,Uns) “C £ns{k,0), See Fig. [31 Finally, in the con¬ cluding section, we discuss how the decoupling of veloci¬ ties should affect the normal- and superfluid energy spec¬ tra. II. BASIC EQUATIONS OF MOTION FOR COUNTERFLOW TURBULENCE A. Two-fluid, gradually-damped HVBK equations As said above, the large-scale motions of superfluid "‘He (with characteristic scales £) are well described by the two-fluid model, consisting of a normal and a su¬ perfluid component with densities Pn(T) and Ps(T) re¬ spectively. Neglecting both the bulk viscosity and the thermal conductivity leads to the simplest model with two incompressible fluids, having the form of an Euler equation for Ug and a Navier-Stokes equation for u^, see, e.g. Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3) in Donnely’s textbook—. Supple¬ mented with quantized vortices that give rise to a mutual friction force Flis between the superfluid and the normal components, these equations are known as Hall-Vinen- Bekarevich-Khalatnikov (or HVBK) model— d u 1 -b (ms ■ V)ms H-Vps = VgAug-Fns, (2a) ut Pq d u 1 -b (itn • V)Mn H-Vpn = t'n Attn -b —-Fns . (2b) at pn Pn Here Pn, Ps are the pressures of the normal and the su¬ perfluid components: Pn = —[p+^\Ug - Mnp] , p, = —[p- ^\Ug - MnP] , pi pi p = Ps + Pn is the total density and is the kinematic viscosity of normal fluid. The mutual friction force is given by Fns = atA X [a; X («„ — Ms)] + CtUS X («„ — Ms) • In this equation a, a' are temperature dependent dimen¬ sionless mutual friction parameters and u> is tradition¬ ally understood as superfluid vorticity: a; = V x its and Cj = w/|u;|. Notice also that the original HVBK model does not take into account the important process of vortex recon¬ nection. In fact, vortex reconnections are responsible for the dissipation of the superfluid motion due to mutual friction. For temperatures above IK this the extra dissipation can be modeled using an effective superfluid viscosity v'g{T)^aK. ( 2 c) and, following Ref— we have added a dissipative term proportional to i'' to the standard HVBK model. The effective superfluid viscosity zy' involves a quantum-mechanical parameter k, proportional to the Plank’s constant h. This underlies the fact that the cor¬ responding term in Eqs. ([3]) originates from the motions of quantized vortex lines at quantum scales ~ £. This is not captured by the coarse-grained, classical HVBK equations. Bearing in mind that experimentally the counterflow cannot be realized for T < 1 K (due to practically zero normal fluid density) we cannot discuss here the deli¬ cate issue how to account for the superfluid dissipation in Eqs. ([3]) for such low temperatures. B. Counterflow HVBK equations To proceed we separate the mean velocities Un and Us from the turbulent velocity fluctuations, u'^{r,t) and M'(r,t) with zero mean. Equations (I3|) for u'^{r,t) and M'(r,t) may be written, as follows: + V-z.'a)m'+NLK,m'} = (3a) (^ + I7„-V-z.„a)< + NL{<,<} = ^/'.-(Sb) Here the nonlinear terms NL{M',tt'} and NL{it(,,M(,} are quadratic in the corresponding velocities functionals. These terms originate from the terms m' • Vm' and from the Vp' terms, where the pressure fluctuations p'{r,t) were expressed via a quadratic velocity fluctuations func¬ tional, using the incompressibility condition. Eor our purpose we will not need to specify the nonlinear terms NL{it',M'} and NL{m(,, «(,}. Next we approximate the mutual friction fluctuation term In the spirit of Refj^, we write as follows: f^,c-a{T){K-ui)n . (3c) In Ref.— the characteristic superfluid vorticity Q in Eq. (I3cl) was understood as the root-mean-square (rms) vorticity: ft ~ y/ (joip). However in counterflow tur¬ bulence there is an additional quantum mechanism of 4 creating vortex lines, elucidated in pioneering works by Sctiwarai^: the force of mutual friction can lead to the stretching of the vortex lines, and this in turn can lead to a self-sustaining turbulence in the superfluid component provided that vortex lines are allowed to reconnect. This mechanism is leading to the creation of an additional peak in the superfluid energy spectrum near the inter¬ vortex scale £, sketched in Fig. [51 In the counterflowing superfluid turbulence this peak provides the main con¬ tribution to the rms vorticity, which cannot be described in the framework of the coarse-grained HVBK Eqs. (153 and (EEl, which is valid only for scales R ^ i. There¬ fore n in Eq. (133 should be understood as an external parameter in the HVBK equations for the counterflow, simply estimated via the vortex line density C, which in its turn is proportional to the square of the counterflow velocity: VtCi K.C, Ck. ( 7 ^[/ns)^ ■ (3d) Here 7 ^ is a temperature dependent phenomenological parameter that varies from about 70 s/cm^ to about 150 s/cm^ when T grows from 1.3 K to 1.9 K (see e.g. Eig 9 in Ref.—) We have added here a subscript to dis¬ tinguish the traditional notation 7 in Eq. (I3dl) from the characteristic frequencies 7 s and 7 n that are used below. The resulting gradually damped HVBK model for tur¬ bulent counterflow in ^He, Eqs. (O, serves as a basis for our study of the correlations between normal- and super¬ fluid velocity correlations. We will refer to these equa¬ tions as the “counterflow HVBK equations”. Equations ([3]) allow to estimate the time Tcor required for the coupling of the normal and superfluid turbulent velocities by mutual friction. To this end we consider an equation for their difference, = u[^ — m', subtracting Eq. (153 from Eq. (i3bl) : 9Ks , _ I r\ -^P o. -(-*** — ^ns’^ns ; ^ns — Ot Pn Here we dempted by ... the sweeping, viscous and non¬ linear terms that are irrelevant for the current discussion. Evidently, Tcor should be estimated as l/(ansK>C). The temperature dependence of Ofns, shown in Fig. [4] by a red line with squares, indicates that ans 1- Therefore we can conclude that Tcor ^ 1 /(k'C), as mentioned in Sect. in III. NORMAL - SUPERFLUID VELOCITY CORRELATIONS IN ^HE The main result of this Section is Eq. 0 for the cross¬ correlation function of the normal- and superfluid ve¬ locity turbulent fluctuations in a stationary, space ho¬ mogenous counterflow "^He-turbulence. This equation de¬ scribes how the cross-correlations depends on the coun¬ terflow velocity, the scale (wave-number) and the tem¬ perature. Its derivation requires some definitions and FIG. 2: Color online. The sketch of the stationary super¬ fluid turbulent energy spectrum in the counterflow [log-log coordinates, log,£a{k) vs. log(fc£)]. The spectrum £a{k) con¬ sists of a classical fs*(fc) and a quantum £^^{k) parts, col¬ ored in gray and light blue, respectively. For concreteness, as a large-scale classical peak we used here Lvov-Nazarenko- Volovik spectrum dm, found for ^He with resting normal fluid component, but presumably valid for counterflowing '^He in the fc-range with fully decoupled the normal- and superfluid velocities. The quantum (light blue) contribution £^ (k) has 1/k asymptotics at large k, originated from superfluid mo¬ tions near the vortex cores. It is adjacent to the classical thermal bath part (k) oc k^ with equipartition of energy between degrees of freedoms. relationships that are common in statistical physics. We recall them in Appendix A. A. Derivation of the cross-correlation £ns{k) The first step in the derivation of the cross correla¬ tion is rewriting the counterflow HVBK Eqs. ([3]) in (fc, t)- representation, defined by Eq. (|Alap : / d \ iUs ■ k -\- + llsj Vs -b NLfc{t)s,t!j = HgUn , (4a) d \ 4“ f lAi ■ k -(- HnJ Un 4” hlLfcl'Uni '^n} — ; (^^) where the mutual friction frequencies are given by Hs = Cr H , Hji = CTn H , rrn = OL Ps/Pn • (^^) The nonlinear terms NLfc{us,Us} and NLfcin Eqs. (|43 and (I4bp couple all fc-Fourier harmonics mak¬ ing their analytic solution intractable. To proceed we therefore simplify the equations in the spirit of the Direct Interaction Approximation (DIA) that was developed by 5 Kraichnan for classical turbulence—. This approxima¬ tion is equivalent to a 1-loop truncation of the Wyld dia¬ grammatic expansion— of the nonlinear equations with a 1-pole approximation^^ for the Green’s function. While uncontrolled, this approximation served usefully in the study of classical turbulence, and we propose that it is also useful in the present context. The upshot of the DIA approximation is a rewriting of the nonlinear terms in Eqs. (ISI) and (I4bl) as a sum of two contributions—: NLfc{i!s,Us} = js{k)vs{k,t) - ipsik,t), (5a) NLfc{u„,t>„} = -fn{k)vn{k,t) - ipn{k,t) . (5b) The 7 s(fc) and 7 n(A:) are the charateristic frequencies and ips{k, t) and ipn{k, t) are the force terms. The terms pro¬ portional to 7 s(fc) and 7n(fc) describe the energy flux from fluctuations with given k to all others degrees of free¬ dom. In classical turbulence theory these characteristic frequencies are referred to as “turbulent viscosity” and estimated as follows: 7n(fc) ~ y^k^£n{k) , 7s(fc) ~ . (5c) In turbulent systems with strong interactions these fre¬ quencies are the inverse turnover times of eddies of scale 1/fc. The force terms in the approximation (I5al) and (HEl) mimic the energy influx to fluctuations with given k from all others degrees of freedom. In the simplest Langevin approach these forces are random Gaussian processes with zero mean and d-correlated in time: be treated as isotropic, in quantum turbulence there re¬ mains one preferred direction x of the counterflow veloc¬ ity t/ns- Schwarz— introduced an anisotropy index /||, equal to 2/3 in the case of isotropy. Numerical simula¬ tions (see, e.g. Ref.—) shows that /y varies between 0.74 and 0.82, depending on the temperature and the coun¬ terflow velocity. Therefore the dimensionless measure of anisotropy 3/||/2 — 1 is below 20% in any case. According to our understanding, this level of anisotropy cannot af¬ fect significantly the results presented below. Aiming at simplicity and transparency of the derivation we assume isotropy from the very beginning, leaving a more general derivation (in the framework of the same formal scheme) for the future. For weak anisotropy all our results should be understood as angular averages. Multiplying Eqs. (153 and (l6bl) by v*, and v*, respec¬ tively and averaging, we get equations for the velocity correlations Ann, Ess and the cross-correlation de¬ fined by Eqs. (I A4I) : A - d d + Ts + Tr Ess — f 2 sR.e[£’ns] + R.e[$ss] , Enn — fdnRe[Ens] + Re[<I>nn] , idt -I- ik ■ Un Er,s = ^sEj^n GnE/s! ■ + ‘I’ns • (7a) (7b) (7c) These equations involve the presently unknown simulta¬ neous cross-correlations of the velocities and the forces, defined similarly to Eqs. (IA2I) : {cps{k,t)-cp*{k\t')) = {2TTf6{k-k')6{t-t')(pl^{k), {(pn{k,t)-ip*^{k',t')) = {2TTfS{k-k')S{t-t')ipl^{k), {(Psik,t) ■ ipl{k',t')) = 0 . (5d) Here the Delta functions 5{k — k') originate from the space homogeneity. An important difference from the traditional Langevin approach is that our turbulent sys¬ tem is not in the thermodynamic equilibrium and there¬ fore the correlation amplitudes and are not de¬ termined by fluctuation-dissipation theorems. We will show below that these amplitudes may be expressed via the energy spectra Esik) and 6n{k). With these approximations the counterflow HVBK Eqs. (HJ become linear in Vs and vp. ■_5 .m ■_5 -Ft ik • Us -(- Tg -(- ik • Un -(- Tn Vs{k,t) = nsVn{k,t) + Ps{k,t), (6a) t)n(fc, t) = DnUs(fc, t) + Pn{k, t) , (6b) Tn — 7n + , Tg — 7 s -|- Og -|- v'Ji^ . (6c) Glearly, counterflow turbulence in a channel is anisotropic due to the existence of two preferred direc¬ tions: the stream-wise direction x and the wall-normal direction y. Even far away from the wall, in the chan¬ nel core, where classical hydrodynamic turbulence can {Pn{k,t) ■ v*{k',t)) = (27r)^$nn(fe) d(A; - fe'), (8a) {ps{k,t) ■ v*{k',t)) = (27r)^$ss(fe) (5(fe - fc')! (8b) {pnik,t) ■ v*{k',t)) = {2Trf^nsik)S{k~-k'), (8c) {psik,t) ■ v^{k',t)) = (27r)^$sn(fe) ^(fc - fc') ■ (8d) To find these correlations, we rewrite Eqs. ([5]) in Fourier (fc, u;)-representation: [i{k ■ Us — oj) -h rs]vs{k,uj) (9a) = nsVn{k,Ul) + Ps{k,Uj) , [i{k ■ Un — oj) + rn]vn{k,uj) (9b) = nnVs{k,Uj) + (pn{k,Uj) , where psik,uj) and ipn{k,uj) are the {k,uj)- representation of the force terms Psik-,t) or Pn{k,t)- The solution of the linear Eqs. ([S]) reads: Vs = -[(i(fc-U'n-w)+rn)<^s + Gs^n]/A,(10a) Vn = -[(i(fc-I7s-a;)-hrs)^n + Gn^s]/A, (10b) A = {uj — k ■ Un + iE'n){t^ — k ■ Us + iTs) (10c) where for brevity we suppressed the arguments {k,uj) in all functions. 6 Multiplying the two Eqs. (fTOl) by <^n and (ps, respec¬ tively and averaging, we get equations for the (cross)- correlations <l>ns(fc,w) and d>sn(fc,a;) which give after in¬ tegration over u! the simultaneous cross-correlation func¬ tions: $s„(fc) = $ns(fc) = ^s/n f du 27r J A*(fe,w) 2'k J A*{k,uj) (lla) (llb) To compute the above integrals we found the solutions of the equations A(fc, w) = 0 with respect to w: w - ik ■ {Un + Us) -|- Tg -|- Tn Tn -|- ik ■ c/ns) + dOglln ■ ( 12 ) Using these solutions, after relatively simple analysis, we find that both roots have positive imaginary parts: lm[a;+] > 0 and lm[a;_] > 0. Therefore, the integral in Eqs. dm vanishes. Now Eq. in the stationary case gives: E^ns(fc) A B A B + ik ■ Uns f^sE'„n(fc) -|- flnEss{k) , = Tn (13a) (13b) (13c) Averaging Eq. (I13a|) with respect to all orientations of k we get: (^ns(fe)),„gi 3 = ^ arctan (^) ■ (13d) Using Eqs. (IA5I) this can be finally rewritten as follows: £ns{k) D{0 m £^Hk)DiO, fls£n{k) + Unfs(fc) rg(fc) + rn(fc) ^ arctan[C(A:)], kUns rg(fc) + r„(fc) • (14a) (14b) (14c) (14d) Here fns^ (k) is the cross-correlation function for zero counterflow velocity which was previously found in Ref.—. The dimensionless “decoupling function” D{() of the dimensionless “decoupling parameter” C{k), de¬ scribes the decoupling of the normal- and superfluid ve¬ locity fluctuations, caused by the counterflow velocity. Notice that in future comparisons of the experimental or numerical data with Eqs. m one needs to bear in mind that the counterflow velocity affects not only the decoupling function D{^), but also the energy spectra £’n(fc) and £s{k) in Eq. (Il4bl) for £^\k). FIG. 3: The decoupling function £ns/£ns^ = D{k/kx) vs the dimensionless wave number k/kx- Considering the limits of small and large values of the decoupling parameter C we get from Eq. (I14ap : £nsik) = £ns{k) = 1 - C(fc)^ : for C(fc) < 1, (15a) 2ak) £^\k), for ({k) ^ 1 . (15b) We choose the crossover value ~ 2 such that D{Cx) = 1/2. Below we show that with good accu¬ racy C(fc) oc k. Therefore, we can consider D[({k)] as a function of k and present in Fig. [3] the decoupling ratio due to counterflow velocity £ns{k)/£^\k) = D[({k)] , as a function of k/kx- Our estimate below shows that the crossover wave number kx (for which £ns{k) = £^\k)/2) is independent of the counterflow velocity and typically is in the relevant interval of scales, between -k/H and 'k/I. B. Typical value of the decoupling parameter C,{k) To clarify what are the typical values of (/(fc) in realis¬ tic conditions and how ((k) depends on the temperature and the counterflow velocity we note— that the main contributions to Tn and Tg, Eq. (l6cl) . come from and Ug, given by Eq. (IS^ : Tn “t“ Tg ~ Uji Ug = CTns H ; Oins — CXCXn = . ( 16 ) Pn Indeed, for scales fc/ <C 1 the viscous terms Vs,nk^ ^ 7s,n(fc) and may be safely neglected, while for scales near the intervortex distance they are of the same order of magnitude. Moreover, for k£ ~ 1, Vs,nk^ ~ 7s,n(fc) ~ Ug^ii) if one estimates Ug^n ~ Ud in a classical manner via the root- mean square of the vorticity, see e.g. Refs.— Uci ^ However, as we explained above, in the counterflow there is an additional quantum mechanism 7 FIG. 4: Color online. Temperature dependence of the mu¬ tual friction parameters for ^He, Ref.—: a for the superfluid Eq. (l3aD . blue line with circles; a^iT) — apsjpn in the normal fluid Eq. ((30, green line with triangles; and Ons = a + a-n = apjpvL in Eqs. (1161) . red line with squares. of the random vortex tangle excitation with scales if the order of 1. This mechanism provides the leading contri¬ bution to ris.n and, consequently, the leading contribu¬ tion to Tg^n, as written in Eq. (1161) . The temperature dependence of ans{T) = B{T)/2, where B{T) is the coefficient in the Vinen equation, tabu¬ lated in Ref.—, is shown in Fig. (K together with a{T) and a-a{T). The opposite temperature dependence of a{T) and a-o_{T) results in a weak temperature dependence of the parameter a^siT) in Eg. (ITSl) : it varies between 0.7 and 0.5 in the relevant for counterflow experiments tem¬ perature range 1.4 -F 1.9 K . Now Eqs. (l3dl) and (flBl) together with Eq. (I14dl) give: Q{k) k C^ns ^ U ns (17a) Clearly, (^{k) oc k and it reaches its maximal value Cmax at the highest k value which is permissible in our approach, i.. k ~ fcmax — this is at the edge of the applicability. With £ ~ ~ this gives a simple estimate of Cmax, independent of Un&'- Cmax=i-50, io^T^lAK. (17b) Ckns K Ic Here for the numerical estimate we used Ons — 0.6, 7 ^ ~ 100 s/cm^ and k ~ 10“^cm^/s. An important conclusion is that for large k the normal- and superfluid velocities are practically fully decoupled: for k ^ fc^ax C(fc) ~ 50 and the ratio Sns/^’n? is about 0.03 according to Eq. (|15bl) . An even more important conclusion is that according to Eq. (|17bll the range of wave numbers fcmax > k > kx, where fns/^ns^ < 1/2, extends over more than one decade: Cmax Cx 2a„s K 7^ 25, forr«1.4K. (17c) Equation (I17all allows us to estimate also the minimal value Cmin, which is attained at fcmin — tt/H: Cmin fins cm for T Ri 1.4 K, C/„s = 1 — (17d) H = 1 cm . This means that the value kx^ for which C{kx) = 2, is few times larger than /cmin — t^/H. Therefore for large scales (between H and i?x — T^/kx) we expect significant coupling of the normal- and superfluid velocities: for ( = 0.5 Eg. (I15bl) give Sns/^ns^ — 0.9. The value of Cmin is inversely proportional to Uns and for Uns > 1 cm/s become even smaller than 0.5. Accordingly, for Uns > 1 cm/s the interval between H and Rx become larger and the coupling between the normal and superfluid velocities at the largest scale H is even stronger: the ratio Sns/^ns^ > 0.9. IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION We demonstrated that the cross-correlation function between normal- and superfluid velocity fluctuations £ns{k) in a turbulent counterflow of ^He is strongly af¬ fected by the relative velocity Uns- As described by Eqs. (fT4l) and illustrated in Fig.[0 this effect is governed by a dimensionless decoupling parameter ({k) oc k/Uns, given by Eq. (I17al) . This parameter increases with k and when k ~ kmux — 7r/f it reaches its maximum Cmax ^ 1 , as estimated in Eq. (I17bl) . Accordingly, the normal- and superfluid velocity fluctuations of small scales (i.e. for large wave numbers) are almost fully decoupled: the cor¬ relation £ns is much smaller than its value ~ 1 for Uns = 0. On the contrary, at large scales the energy con¬ taining fluctuations oi R ^ H are almost fully coupled: — £ns ^ ^’ns^. The crossover scale Rx, for which £ns = 5 is a few times smaller than H. Therefore the large scale fluctuations, ioi H > R > Rx may be qualitatively considered as coupled: Sns ^ On the other hand, in the large interval of small scales, for Rx ^ R ^ ^ the normal- and superfluid velocities may be considered as effectively decoupled: £ns ^ The coupling or decoupling of normal- and superfluid velocities crucially affects the energy dissipation due to the mutual friction. Correspondingly it also affects the energy spectra £s{k,t) and £n{k,t). To see this let us consider the evolution equations for these objects, which may be obtained multiplying Eq. (l3aD and (|3bl) in {k,t)- representation by Vs{k,t) and Vn{k,t) respectively, and averaging with respect to the turbulent statistics and di¬ rections of k : d 2dt d 2 dt £s{k,t) -I- AfCs (18a) = ns[£ns{k,t) - £s{k,t)] , + k‘^Vn £n{k,t) + AfCn (18b) = nn[£ns{k,t) - £n{k,t)] . Here AfCs,n are nonlinear terms. For k ^ kx, due to the decoupling £ns{k) -C £s{k). Therefore it may be ne¬ glected on the RHS of Eq. (I18ap . which becomes —£ls£s- This is similar to the equation for £s for superfluid turbu¬ lence in ^He, where mutual friction drastically suppresses the energy spectrum £s{k) instead of the classical Kolmogorov spectrum £{k) oc k~^/^ one finds the spec¬ trum discussed by Lvov, Nazarenko and Volovik—: £s{k) oc 1 r 1 (19) that terminates at some critical value fc*. This means that, provided that there exists a full decoupling of the velocities, the situation in counter-flowing superfluid component of “^He becomes similar to that in ^He tur¬ bulence with a normal fluid component at rest. Thus one expects that the spectrum (fTOl) describes the energy distribution between scales for fc ^ /cx. For k < kx due to the partial velocity correlations the energy dissipation is much weaker than for k > kx, although it cannot be neglected as in co-flowing “^He, with classical Kolmogorov-1941 (K41) energy spectrum. Thus we can expect only moderate suppression of the energy spectrum as compared to the K41 case, as was recently observed in Ref.—. A more detailed analysis of the energy spectra £s{k) and £’n(fc) in the counter-flowing ^He that accounts for the decoupling of the normal and superfluid turbulent velocity fluctuations and the resulting energy dissipation due to the mutual friction is beyond the scope of this paper. Acknowledgments We acknowledge L. Skrbek, S. Babuin and E. Varga for numerous and useful discussions of similarities and differences between co- and counter-flowing turbulence of superfluid ^He that inspired current research. VSL and AP acknowledge kind hospitality in Prague univer¬ sity and support of EuHIT project “V-Front” that make their visit possible. Appendix A: Some Definitions and Known Relationships To find the cross-correlation («(, • m() we need to re¬ call some definitions and relationships required for our derivation, which are well-known in statistical physics. The first is the set of Fourier transforms in the following normalization: / (27r)3 ’ (Ala) Vn,sik,t) = (Alb) drdt Mn^s(r, t) exp[i(a;t — k ■ r)] . (Ale) The same normalization will be used for other objects of interest. Next we define the simultaneous correlations and cross¬ correlations in fc-representation, (proportional to S{k — k') due to homogeneity): (n„(fc,t).<(fc',t)) = (27r)3F;„„(fe)(5(fc-fe'),(A2a) (u,(fc,t)-<(fc',t)) = i27rfE,,ik)dik-k'),iA2h) {v^{k,t)-v:ik',t)) = (27r)3F;ns(fe)5(fe-fc') ■(A2 c) We also need to define cross-correlations (?;„ • ^s) (fc, u;)-representation: {Vn{k,ui) -v^ik^u)) (A3a) = (27r)^£’ns(fe, w) S{k — k') S(uj — uj') . This object is related to the simultaneous {v^ ■ v*) cross¬ correlation (IA2c|) via the frequency integral: {vn{k,t) ■ v*{k',t)) dujEns{k,uj) . (A3b) Here and below “tilde” marks the objects defined in (fc, u;)-representation. It is known also that the fc-integration of the correla¬ tions (|A2I) produces their one-point second moment: dk (^ ' dk (27r)= ■ dk (27r)3 Enn{k) = {\Un{r,t)\^) , (A4a) ^Ess(fc) = (|ws(r,t)p) , (A4b) ■Ens{k) = {Un{r,t) ■ Us{r,t)) . (A4c) In the isotropic case, each of the three correlations E,,Xk) is independent of the direction of k: E,,,{k) = E, JJi) and J ... dk = Att J .. .k^ dk. This allows the introduction of the one-dimensional energy spectra £s, £n and the cross¬ correlation £ns as follows: f„(fc) = ^E^4k), £nsik) = ^Ens{k) . £s{k) 2tt'^ Ess{k) , (A5) 9 ^ R. J. Donnelly, Quantized Vortices in Hellium II (Cam¬ bridge 3 University Press, Cambridge, 1991) ^ Quantized Vortex Dynamics and Superfluid Turbulence, edited by C.F. Barenglii, R.J. Donnelly and W.F. Vinen, Lecture Notes in Physics 571 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001) ® L. Skrbek, K.R. Sreenivasan Phys Fluids 24 011301 (2012). ^ C. F. Barenghi, V. S. L’vov, and P.-E. Roche, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111 , 4683 (2014). ® M. R. Smith, R. J. Donnelly, N. Goldenfeld, and W. F. Vinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2583 (1993). ® P.L. Walstrom, J. C. Weisend, J.R. Maddocks and S. W. Van Sciver, Criogenics 28, 101 (1988). ^ S. Babuin E. Varga L. Skrbek, J Low Temp Phys 175 324 (2014). ® H. E. Hall and W. F. Vinen, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 238, 204 (1956). ® K.W. Schwarz and J. R. Rozen, Phys. Rev. Lett., 66, 1896 (1991). V.S. L’vov, S.V. Nazarenko and L. Skrbek, J. Low Tem¬ perature Physics, 145, 125 (2006). P-E Roche, C.F. Barenghi, E. Leveque Europhys Lett 87 54006 (2009). Tchoufag J, Sagaut P Phys Fluids 22 125103 (2010). L. Boue, V S. L’vov., Y. Nagar., S. V. Nazarenko, A. Pomyalov., and 1. Procaccia. Phys. Rev. B 91, 144501 (2015). L. Boue, V.S. Lvov, A. Pomyalov, 1. Procaccia Phys Rev Lett 110 014502 (2013). W. F. Vinen, J. Low Temp. Phys., 175 305 (2014). I.L. Bekarevich, I.M. Khalatnikov,Sov. Phys. JETP 13 (3), 643-646 (1961). W. F. Vinen and J. J. Niemela, J. Low Temp. Phys. 128, 167 (2002) V. S. L’vov, S. V. Nazarenko, G. E. Volovik, JETP Letters 80, 479 (2004). K. W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B 38, 2398 (1988). L. Kondaurova, V. S. L’vov, A. Pomyalov and 1. Procac¬ cia,Phys. Rev. B 90 094501 (2014) R. H. Kraichnan, J. Fluid Mech. 5,497 (1959). H. W. Wyld, Ann. Phys. (N. Y.) 14, 143 (1961). V.S. L’vov, Yu. L’vov, A.G. Newell and V.E. Zakharov. Phys. Rev. E. 56, 390 (1997). V.S. L’vov and 1. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. E, 52, 3840 (1995) and 52, 3858 (1995). L. Kondaurova, V. S. L’vov, A. Pomyalov and 1. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. B, 89, 014502 (2014). L. Boue, V S. L’vov., Y. Nagar., S. V. Nazarenko, A. Pomyalov., and 1. Procaccia. Phys. Rev. B 91, 144501 (2015). R. J. Donnelly and C. F. Barenghi,J. Phys. Ghem. Ref. Data, 27, No. 6, 1217(1998) L. Boue, V.S. L’vov, A. Pomyalov, 1. Procaccia, Phys. Rev. B 85, 104502 (2012) A. Marakov, J. Gao, W. Guo, S. W. Van Sciver,G. G. Ihas, D. N. McKinsey, and W. F. Vinen, Phys. Rev B 91 094503 (2015). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29