From the University of California – Santa Barbara

A UCSB physicist’s experimental results disprove long-held ideas about turbulence
In 1941, Russian physicist Andrey Kolmogorov developed a theory of turbulence that has served as the basic foundation for our understanding of this important naturally occurring phenomenon.
Turbulence occurs when fluid flow is characterized by chaotic physical changes. Kolmogorov’s theory has been interpreted to imply that transitions from one state of turbulence to another must be a smooth evolution because very intense fluctuations that are part of the process itself would smooth out anything sharp.
Now, however, a new experiment conducted by physicists at UC Santa Barbara disproves this interpretation of Kolmogorov’s theory. Their results appear this week in the journal Physical Review Letters.
“In our paper we offer experimental evidence that these transitions are indeed sharp,” said Guenter Ahlers, a professor in UCSB’s Department of Physics. “We have been enlightened by these data and they have shown us that the interpretation of Kolmogorov was incorrect. To a physicist that is a very important step forward.”
Ahlers and his postdoctoral co-workers Ping Wei and Stephan Weiss study turbulent convection, which plays a major role in numerous natural and industrial processes. Turbulent convection results when a contained fluid is heated from below and cooled from above. As the temperature differential increases, the convective flow becomes so vigorous that the velocity field becomes turbulent.
Using a cylindrical rotating system built by Ahlers’ team, the researchers heated the fluid from the bottom so it expanded and became less dense than the liquid at the top. Earth’s gravity caused the liquids to change positions with each other, which in turn created turbulence. Then the scientists added rotation.
“When you rotate, you get new forces acting, including the Coriolis Force — a product of the Earth’s rotation as well as of rotation in the laboratory — which spins the liquid into little vortices or tornadoes,” explained Ahlers.
“So the system is full of little tornadoes near the heating plate and also near the top — only there, they are cold tornadoes,” Ahlers added. “At first, these tornadoes are not connected because they are relatively short. But as you rotate the cylinder faster and faster, the tornadoes extend and eventually form columns over this whole system. When that happens, physicists say that the symmetry of the system changes.”
The next step for Ahlers and his team was to measure the heat transport — the exchange of thermal energy — which is expressed by the Nusselt number. Wilhelm Nusselt was a German engineer in the early 1900s who measured the heat transport through double window panes.
“If you look at the Nusselt number, it has these breaks, which indicates that the heat transport does not change smoothly as the rotation rate is increased,” Ahlers said. “By the way, Lev Landau told us that a long time ago. And while Landau wasn’t talking about turbulent systems, his arguments can be directly carried over to the turbulence state.”
Ahlers was referring to another Russian physicist, and a Nobel laureate, who theorized that when the symmetry of a system changes, the change must be sharp. It cannot be smooth because a system has only two states: disordered or ordered and there is nothing in between.
“The trouble is that people in turbulence never thought about Landau because he was in a completely different field and the information doesn’t get carried across because there’s just too much of it,” Ahlers added. “But I worked in the field of critical phenomena for many, many years and know Landau’s work very well. Then I changed to studying turbulence, and when this issue popped up, it was obvious to me what was going on.”
In the paper, the researchers use cloud streets — long rows of cumulus clouds oriented parallel to the direction of the wind — as an everyday example of natural turbulent convection. These flat-bottomed, fluffy-topped clouds are formed when cold air blows over warmer waters and a warmer air layer (temperature inversion) rests over the top of both.
As the comparatively warm water gives up heat and moisture to the cold air above, columns of heated air called thermals naturally rise through the atmosphere. When the rising thermals hit the warm air layer, they roll over and loop back on themselves, creating parallel cylinders of rotating air that act similarly to the fluid in Ahlers’ cylindrical rotating system. While the process sounds smooth, Ahlers’ latest experiment proves that it is anything but.
###
So that is where those awful Landau roofs on cars came from.
Can someone supply a link to the original paper? I haven’t been able to find it at Physical Review Letters.
Thanks!
I second the call. Let’s hope it is not a misplaced April Fool’s contribution.
Science is in the business of constantly proving itself wrong. That’s why the term “settled science ” is idiotic. Example above rolling with a theory for 74 years that was incorrect. For once someone needs to admit the area of climate is in its infancy.
Glider pilots have long enjoyed the benefits of cloud streets: glider gas we call them. Nice that they can also fuel new discoveries in turbulent behavior.
I’m a bit confused.
In what world did people think the “transitions from one state of turbulence to another must be a smooth evolution”?
I thought the transitions were characterized by critical numbers — points — … not critical ranges.
And what do the authors mean by “smooth” vs “sharp”? What is the metric here?
Plus, it doesn’t it sound like their little tornado formations made abrupt appearances; it sounds like they emerged smoothly.
And with respect to: “If you look at the Nusselt number, it has these breaks, which indicates that the heat transport does not change smoothly as the rotation rate is increased…”
How do you have ‘sharp’ changes in heat transport?
Don’t get me wrong. I love the topic, the big names mentioned, and the notion of new insight. I guess I just need to read the actual paper.
Impossible. The science was already settled.
Go Gauchos!
Well, Kolmogorov did a lot of things, and in the annals of math and science his contributions are major, whereas I doubt we, who don’t work in this field of mega turbulence, will hear much about these researchers beyond UCSB press releases. I’m not slagging the researchers achievements – I just think the article is a little strident in claiming they have proven Kolmogorov wrong. He developed math and theory describing weak turbulence, and to say it was applicable to all atmospheric phenomena is a little … disingenuous? There is a tendency by some to use Kolmogorov theory beyond the scales intended, but that’s not Kolmogorov’s fault. In the field of path turbulence measurement we have a saying for when we see odd stuff – “that’s definitely non-Kolmogorov!”
Kolmogorov was a mathematician, one among the greatest. Not a physicist.
His mathematical theory of (weak) turbulence is flawless, the blame belongs to those who applied it to physical phenomena for which not all preconditions of applicability were met.
I too was surprised when I read of Kolmogorov being described as a physicist. Definitely a mathlete, and a studly one at that.
At the moment I have between my two typing hands a copy of his “Elements of the Theory of Functions and Functional Analysis.” It’s sooooo purdy. (It actually makes me feel like I know something.)
Landau was no slouch either. As an undergraduate I had the pleasure of using Landau and Lifshitz’s Course on Theoretical Physics, Vol 1, Mechanics. I still enjoy picking it up and marveling at their demonstration of the Principle of Least Action of Ink and Paper.
No one can accuse those two of abusing trees, that’s for sure.
Kolmogorov did most of his (brilliant) work before there were any computers, so naturally, most of his work is theoretical. Most non-linear problems do not have neat analytic solutions. Even motion of the planets is almost impossible to calculate exactly without the aid of a computer, even though you can write down all the equations.
Indeed. One can argue that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union did not have a vast pool of filthy capitalist $$$ to support state-of-the-art computers needed to solve non-linear problems, so out of necessity it produced great theoretical mathematicians, such as our Kolmogorov.
Walt – I hope you aren’t suggesting on THIS blog of all places that a model of this would have been better than their actual empirical experiment.
Like several others here, I am puzzled by the claim: “Kolmogorov’s theory has been interpreted to imply that transitions from one state of turbulence to another must be a smooth evolution”. That may be true spatially, but I don’t think it is true temporally; as conditions change uniformly in a confined system, transitions from one flow regime to another can be quite abrupt. That is what the authors found. I don’t see how that disproves anything about Komogorov or how it tells us anything about the atmosphere.
Does it not seem that the authors are trying to surreptitiously siphon off brand equity by associating their paper with greats like Kolomogorov and Landau?
(What’s next? Peppering their paper with photons?)
Directly contradicting Kolomogorov seems to have been necessary, since that is the main thrust of their results.
Maybe I m wrong about that, but that is what I see…
see also Kadanoff, L. P., Physics Today 54, 34 (August 2001)
http://pof.tnw.utwente.nl/media/files/turbulencebubbles/t_kadanoff_oct08.jpg
http://www4.uwsp.edu/physastr/kmenning/images/convection.jpg
(Source: http://www4.uwsp.edu/physastr/kmenning/Phys203/Lect35.html)
I met Guenter Ahlers many years ago and would be greatly surprised if he’s got any significant part of this wrong.
Anthony, did you intend to put this in the main menu at the top of the site?
You too can learn from experiment
Get yourself a glass coffee cup with a cylindrical shape — fill it to within a cm of top with coffee or an equivalent water-based dark colored liquid
Heat the coffee to just short of boiling in a microwave or pour it directly from a coffee brewing device
Let it sit for a few minutes to lose any gross motion associated with pouring
Get your self some cream or similar solution / suspension slightly less dense than water and cool it to below room temperature
Carefully pour some of the cream on top of the coffee — stand back and watch
Fabulous as when the experiment completes — you can drink it
Enjoy the science of turbulence — no algebra required
WestHighlander, … that t’was beautiful, ….. cause I’se just luv “common sense” explanations of nature’s “miracles in motion”. 🙂 🙂
Folks, the idea that transitions occur between heat transfer regimes has been understood for many years. Just read the wikipedia article on natural convection.
“As the Rayleigh number is increased even further above the value where convection cells first appear, the system may undergo other bifurcations, and other more complex patterns, such as spirals, may begin to appear.”
I am wondering if the warm and cold tornadoes they talk about are in any way part of the formation of actual tornadoes, in which vortices up high and on the ground join up and become more organized and more powerful – in making the jump from one state to the next. And the spinning system in which they occur is a direct analog for their rotating cylinder.
I have one problem with the rotating cylinder aspect of this. The solid wall of the cylinder introduces shear and other forces that I don’t think exist in the real world atmosphere – forces that in themselves may be creating the tornadoes or reducing them or magnifying them.
I would hope that in their paper they show how this effect/force was anticipated and accounted for and eliminated.
I’ve worked with fluids and walls and boundary layers, and I know that things happen there that aren’t happening out in the more free regions of the flow, things that people had to learn about the hard way…