format: text

text:
# The 𝑢-𝑑 quark mass difference and nuclear charge symmetry breaking

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The very recent precision measurement of the $`\mathrm{\Xi }^0`$ mass  has revived interest in the electromagnetic (em) mass splittings of the baryons, because of the resistance of the forty-year old Coleman-Glashow relation  to substantial symmetry-breaking effects in quark masses. This relation

$$M_\mathrm{\Xi }^{}M_{\mathrm{\Xi }^0}=M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}+M_pM_n,$$
(1)
was derived assuming unbroken flavor $`SU(3)`$ and is now satisfied to within $`4\pm 3\%`$ (scaled by $`M_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}M_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}8`$ MeV), or broken at the one sigma level depending on your point of view . While eq. (1) was derived from only the isospin breaking electromagnetic interaction, the individual $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ baryon pairs should, however, reflect $`SU(2)`$ breaking caused by $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ quark mass differences. Subsequent to Ref.  (and before the quark picture), Coleman and Glashow  suggested that symmetry-violating processes are dominated by symmetry-breaking tadpole diagrams with scalar mesons linking the tadpole to the $`SU(3)`$ invariant strong interactions. To describe electromagnetic splittings, they combined the tadpole Hamiltonian $`H_{tad}^3`$ (transforming like $`\lambda _3`$ in an $`SU(3)`$ context) together with the current-current operator $`H_{JJ}`$ (corresponding to the first order in $`\alpha `$ contribution due to photon exchange) to form an effective $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ electromagnetic (em) Hamiltonian density operator,

$$H_{em}=H_{JJ}+H_{tad}^3.$$
(2)
In a group-theoretical sense, eq. (2) gives a universal $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ picture  of

* hadron electromagnetic mass splittings of pseudoscalar (P) and vector (V) mesons, along with the splittings of octet baryons (B) and decuplet (D) baryons,
* off-diagonal em transitions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|H_{em}|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi ^{}|H_{em}|\eta _{NS}`$, and $`\rho ^{}|H_{em}|\omega `$,

where $`\eta _{NS}`$ is the non-strange $`\overline{q}q`$ component of the $`\eta `$ and the $`\omega `$ is 97% nonstrange.

Quite soon after Ref. , Dalitz and von Hippel  applied the Coleman-Glashow (CG) Hamiltonian operator to the issue of charge symmetry for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperon and, in particular the charge asymmetry of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ interaction (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }n`$ versus $`\mathrm{\Lambda }p`$). The CG operator, illustrated in Figure 2 for this case, suggests an appreciable $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transition between the isospin-pure $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ hyperons (often referred to as electromagnetic mixing).

This transition allows an exchange of the isospin one pion between the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and nucleon, otherwise forbidden by isospin conservation, which contributes to hypernuclear charge symmetry breaking.

Unfortunately our experimental knowledge of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }N`$ interaction has not progressed much in the last thirty six years , so the success of the Coleman-Glashow off-diagonal em transitions $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}|H_{em}|\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\pi ^{}|H_{em}|\eta _{NS}`$, and $`\rho ^{}|H_{em}|\omega `$ in describing hypernuclear charge symmetry breaking remains problematic at present .

The experimental knowledge of charge asymmetry in the $`NN`$ interaction, on the other hand, is rather good and the off-diagonal em transitions, $`\pi ^{}|H_{em}|\eta _{NS}`$ and $`\rho ^{}|H_{em}|\omega `$, from the Coleman-Glashow em Hamiltonian operator embedded in single meson exchange (tree) diagrams analogous to those of Fig. 2 give the dominant and satisfactory description of nuclear charge asymmetry . But it is the group theory structure and single universal Coleman-Glashow scale which “does the heavy lifting” of this description (although the measured properties of their postulated $`I=1`$ scalar meson, now called the $`a_0`$, do recover the tadpole scale ). Indeed, Coleman and Glashow emphasized that “our explanation of symmetry-breaking phenomena suggests, but does not require, the existence of scalar mesons” . It is the purpose of this talk to show that the group theoretical analysis of the CG tadpole (reviewed in more detail in ) is quantitatively reproduced by the $`ud`$ constituent quark mass difference in quantum loop calculations of the self-energies of mesons. But first I review the tadpole scale and show how the scale of the baryons is the same as the tadpole scale established by electromagnetic meson mass splittings.

## 2 MASS SPLITTINGS AND THE TADPOLE SCALE

Returning to electromagnetic mass splitting of the baryons, the new measurement  is within two standard deviations of the the earlier CG tadpole prediction  of eq. (2) for the octet baryons, reproduced in Table I. In this Table, the self-energy shift of a hadronic state arising from single photon exchange ($`H_{JJ}`$) has been evaluated via the known dominance of the Born terms in the dispersive evaluation of the Cottingham formula. I show two sets of results for the octet baryons, and note that an early evaluation (including estimates of smaller resonance and other contributions) in 1969  is strikingly confirmed by a recent (1997) lattice QCD calculation which summed the electric and magnetic Born contributions over discretized bosonic momenta of the finite lattice . To estimate the universal value of the tadpole from the baryon octet, one should concentrate on line three where only the small magnetic Born terms contribute to $`H_{JJ}`$ of $`m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`H_{tad}^3`$ is isolated. Then one fills out Table 1 with

$$(H_{tad}^3)_{pn}=\frac{2}{3}(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=\frac{1}{3}(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}=\frac{1}{2}(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}2.5\mathrm{MeV},$$
(3)
assuming the same semi-strong and electromagnetic $`d/f`$ ratio of $`1/3`$ (see eg. Ref. ), and obtains the CG tadpole prediction  of eq. (2) for the octet baryons.

One could attempt to improve the description of $`m_pm_n`$ by quoting the standard QED current-current (ie. photon exchange) self-energy for charged protons

$$(H_{JJ})_p\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)=\frac{3\alpha m_p}{2\pi }\left[\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{m_p})+\frac{1}{4}\right]1.2\mathrm{MeV},$$
(4)
and choosing the value of the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.05`$ GeV so that (2) is compatible with the observed proton-neutron mass difference of -1.29 MeV . From an effective field theory viewpoint, the discrepancy between the $`g`$-factor of the relativistic point spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ proton and the measured $`g`$ of the proton suggests that the cutoff in nucleon QED must be of order of the nucleon’s mass $`m_p`$ , consistent with (4). This cutoff exercise (which neglects magnetic moment contributions to the fermion’s self-energy) yields an $`H_{JJ}`$ somewhat larger than the Born contributions of Table I and suggests that one should not limit oneself to estimates of $`H_{JJ}`$ and $`m_dm_u`$ made only from the non-strange sector , ie. $`m_pm_n`$ and electromagnetic pion mass differences, the latter to which we now turn.

The Coleman-Glashow postulate (1) combined with the Dashen PCAC observation  that, in the soft limit, neutral pseudoscalar meson $`H_{JJ}`$ matrix elements vanish $`(H_{JJ})_\pi ^{}=(H_{JJ})_K^{}=(H_{JJ})_{\overline{K}^{}}=(H_{JJ})_{\pi ^{}\eta }=0`$ but charged matrix elements $`(H_{JJ})_{\pi ^+}=(H_{JJ})_{K^+}`$ do not vanish, can be related by group theory to the measured em mass splittings

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2m_{K^+}^2m_K^{}^23960\mathrm{MeV}^2,\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^21260\mathrm{MeV}^2.$$
(5)
This predicts

$$(H_{em})_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }=(H_{JJ})_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }+(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }=(H_{JJ})_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}+0=\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^2,$$
(6)
$$(H_{em})_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}=(H_{JJ})_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}+(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2,$$
(7)
and subtracting (6) from (7) fixes the kaon tadpole scale

$$(H_{tad}^3)_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}=\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^25220\mathrm{MeV}^2.$$
(8)
A number of model and lattice calculations suggest that for physical pseudoscalar mesons $`(H_{JJ})_{\mathrm{\Delta }\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^21260\mathrm{MeV}^2`$, but that $`(H_{JJ})_{\mathrm{\Delta }K}19002600\mathrm{MeV}^2`$. If so, then the kaon tadpole scale increases slightly from (8) to $`5800`$$`6500`$ MeV2. In section 3, we will show how to recapture the soft kaon tadpole scale of (8) and Ref. . Also $`SU(3)`$ symmetry predicts the off-diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transitions as

$`\pi ^{}|H_{tad}^3|\eta _{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\pi ^25220\mathrm{MeV}^2,`$ (9)
$`\rho ^{}|H_{tad}^3|\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_\rho ^25130\mathrm{MeV}^2.`$ (10)
The meson scale of about $`5200`$ MeV2 in (8),(9), and (10), extendable to vector mesons via $`SU(6)`$  or by the measured properties of the $`a_{}`$ , can be related to the fitted baryon scale (3) by multiplying the latter by the normalization of the baryon spinors: $`\overline{u}u=2M_{\mathrm{baryon}}2300`$ MeV. Then the mass2 version of (3) is $`(H_{tad}^3)_B5700`$ MeV2 indicating a universal Coleman-Glashow scale and a picture of electromagnetic mass splittings which almost certainly rests upon the up-down quark mass difference .

## 3 QUARK LOOPS AND UP-DOWN CONSTITUENT QUARK MASS DIFFERENCE

A constituent quark mass difference $`m_dm_u4\mathrm{MeV}`$ follows from the observed $`(\overline{s}d)K^0(\overline{s}u)K^+`$ mass difference: $`m_K^{}(497.67)m_{K^+}(493.68)m_dm_u=3.99\mathrm{MeV},`$ with the common $`\overline{s}`$ spectator quark subtracting out of the kaon mass difference. Also the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ baryon mass difference in quark language for $`(sdd)\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(suu)\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ is $`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(1197.45)m_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+}(1189.37)2(m_dm_u)=8.08\mathrm{MeV},`$ with common $`s`$ spectator mass subtracting out and the photon interaction $`H_{JJ}`$ at a minimum (Table I). These estimates are consistent and hint that a consistent Coleman-Glashow picture of hadronic mass splitting and mixings could be obtained from the differences of constituent quark loop diagrams .

Returning to the kaon tadpole scale of $`5220`$ MeV2 in eq. (8), in quark language this is due to the quark line graphs of Figure 3. They are the $`ud`$ kaon quark bubble graphs plus the difference of those $`ud`$ quark loops which look like a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ $`a_{}`$ tadpole with $`a_{}KK`$ coupling .

Evaluation of these quark loop graphs results in the soft momentum limit to

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2)_{qkloops}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_um_d)[2(2\widehat{m}m_s)+6\widehat{m}^2(m_s\widehat{m})/(2\widehat{m}^2+m_s^2)]`$ (11)
$`+8g_{a_{}KK}(m_um_d)\widehat{m}^2/gm_{a_0}^2,`$
where $`\widehat{m}=(m_d+m_u)/2337`$ MeV, and $`m_s/\widehat{m}1.44`$. Each of the two pairs of $`ud`$ tadpole-like graphs of Figure 3, summed in the second line of (11), includes the integral ($`\overline{d}^4pd^4p/(2\pi )^4`$)

$$I=\overline{d}^4p\left[\frac{m_u}{p^2m_u^2}\frac{m_d}{p^2m_d^2}\right]=i(m_um_d)\frac{\widehat{m}^2}{N_cg^2},$$
(12)
with $`N_cg^2=4\pi ^2`$ . The value of this $`ud`$ difference loop integral $`I`$, which looks like the head of a tadpole and appears repeatedly in the following, is independent of the regularization scheme used to obtain it . To evaluate the four tadpole graphs summed in the second line of (11), we use the linear $`\sigma `$ model Lagrangian quark-quark-meson coupling $`g=2\pi /\sqrt{3}3.63`$  but deviate somewhat from the linear $`\sigma `$ model Lagrangian tri-meson coupling $`g_{a_{}KK}=(m_a_{}^2m_K^2)/(2f_K)3.15`$ GeV, and use instead $`g_{a_{}KK}2.7`$ GeV, the latter value an average of this chiral symmetry estimate and the $`U(3)`$ symmetry estimate of $`g_{a_0KK}=g_{\sigma \pi \pi }/2=m_\sigma ^2/2f_\pi 2.55`$ GeV . Given the $`du`$ quark mass difference of about 4 MeV, eq. (11) leads to

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }m_K^2)_{qkloops}(2384+2800)\mathrm{MeV}^25184\mathrm{MeV}^2.$$
(13)
Note that eq. (13) is in agreement with the soft Coleman-Glashow $`\lambda ^3`$ kaon tadpole in (8) as found in Ref. .

Next we compute the nonstrange (NS) $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ em transition amplitude $`\pi ^{}|H_{tad}^3|\eta _{NS}`$ for $`m_{\eta _{NS}}760`$ MeV (the weighted average of the $`\eta (548)`$ and $`\eta ^{}(958)`$) in terms of $`ud`$ quark bubble and $`ud`$ $`a_{}`$ tadpole graphs analogous to those of Figure 4. These graphs give

$`(H_{\pi \eta _{NS}})_{qkloops}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_um_d)(2\widehat{m}+16\widehat{m}^3/m_a_{}^2)`$ (14)
$``$ $`2696\mathrm{MeV}^22535\mathrm{MeV}^25231\mathrm{MeV}^2,`$
where the $`(m_um_d)2\widehat{m}`$ factor in (14) derives from the difference of $`ud`$ bubble graphs:

$$4ig^2N_c\overline{d}^4p\left[\frac{1}{p^2m_u^2}\frac{1}{p^2m_d^2}\right].$$
(15)
The integrand of (15) can immediately be turned into $`(m_u^2m_d^2)/(p^2m_q^2)^2`$ so that the $`ud`$ bubble graphs expression (15) is simply $`(m_u^2m_d^2)`$ times the logarithmic divergent gap equation

$$1=4iN_cg^2\frac{\overline{d}^4p}{(p^2m_u^2)(p^2m_d^2)},$$
(16)
which arises from the quark loop generation of the the decay constant $`f_\pi `$ in the quark-level Goldberger-Treiman relation $`f_\pi g=\widehat{m}`$ . The $`16\widehat{m}^3/m_a_{}^2`$ term in (14) stems from the $`ud`$ quark loop which looks like a $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ $`a_{}`$ tadpole with $`a_{}\pi \eta _{NS}`$ coupling. This latter $`ud`$ quark loop difference integral $`I`$ is again evaluated via equation (12) above. To obtain the number (and the cubic power of $`\widehat{m}`$) in (14) we have replaced the $`a_{}\pi \eta _{NS}`$ coupling $`(m_a_{}^2m_{\eta _{NS}}^2)/2f_\pi `$ by its Lagrangian linear $`\sigma `$ model analogue  $`(m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2)/2f_\pi =(4\widehat{m})^2/2f_\pi `$. Then $`f_\pi 93`$ MeV and $`\widehat{m}337`$ MeV, so that the Goldberger-Treiman relation $`f_\pi g=\widehat{m}`$ remains valid (for $`g=2\pi /\sqrt{3}`$ ).

Lastly we study the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ em transition amplitude $`\rho ^{}|H_{tad}^3|\omega _{NS}`$ in terms of the $`ud`$ quark diagrams of Figure 4. For this vector meson transition one must work with the QED-like nonstrange quark bubble polarization tensor , taking the $`SU(3)`$ value $`g_\omega =3g_\rho `$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=(k^2g_{\mu \nu }+k_\mu k_\nu )\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,m_q^2)g_\rho g_\omega /12,$$
(17)
where $`g_\rho 5.03`$ and $`g_\omega 17.05`$ (for $`e=\sqrt{4\pi \alpha }0.30282`$) follow from electron-positron decay rates . The $`\omega `$ is 97% nonstrange and 3% strange so the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transition between the physical particles is well described by the difference of the $`ud`$ polarization function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,m_u^2)\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,m_d^2)=\frac{N_c(m_u^2m_d^2)}{2\pi ^2k^2}$$
(18)
where $`N_c`$ is the number of colors in the quark model. We emphasize that the difference between the $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark contributions to the polarization function is finite. In order for the inverse propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mu \nu }^1(k)=(k_\mu k_\nu k^2g_{\mu \nu })[1+\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2)]=g_{\mu \nu }(k^2m^2)+`$ terms in $`k_\mu k_\nu `$ to actually simulate a reciprocal vector meson propagator, it is clear that the polarization function $`k^2\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2)`$ in (18) acts as a squared (quark) mass. Note that this discussion and eq. (18) allows us to interpret the (squared mass) bubble Hamiltonian density $`\rho \omega `$ transition matrix element as

$`(H_{\rho \omega })_{qkloops}^{bubble}`$ $`=`$ $`k^2[\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,m_u)\mathrm{\Pi }(k^2,m_d)]g_\rho g_\omega /12`$ (19)
$`=`$ $`g_\rho ^2N_c(m_u^2m_d^2)/8\pi ^2.`$
Besides this $`ud`$ quark bubble term we must add in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ $`a_{}`$ tadpole term. It was shown in Ref.  that the measured decays of the $`a_{}`$ meson with the aid of the vector dominance model lead to $`g_{a_{}\rho \omega }=g_{a_{}\pi \eta _{NS}}`$. Then the tadpole term for the $`\rho \omega `$ transition is the same as the second term of (14), and the $`\rho ^{}\omega `$ effective Hamiltonian becomes

$`(H_{\rho \omega })_{qkloops}`$ $`=`$ $`(m_um_d)[g_\rho ^2N_c\widehat{m}/4\pi ^2+16\widehat{m}^3/m_a_{}^2]`$ (20)
$``$ $`2592\mathrm{MeV}^22535\mathrm{MeV}^25127\mathrm{MeV}^2`$
for $`N_c=3`$, $`m_dm_u4\mathrm{MeV}`$, and $`\widehat{m}337`$ MeV . To compare with experiment, we must include the small current-current photon exchange term :

$$\rho ^{}|H_{JJ}|\omega =(e/g_\rho )(e/g_\omega )m_V^2644\mathrm{MeV}^2$$
(21)
on the vector meson mass shell $`k^2=m_V^2`$ in the spirit of vector meson dominance (VMD). In (21) we have used the average $`\rho ^{}\omega `$ mass $`m_V=776`$ MeV along with the updated VMD ratios $`g_\rho /e16.6`$ and $`g_\omega /e56.3`$, with the latter $`g_\rho `$ and $`g_\omega `$ couplings found from electron-positron decay rates . Combining (20) with the $`H_{JJ}`$ term in (21) according to the Coleman-Glashow decomposition (2) requires

$$(H_{em})_{\rho \omega }(6445127)\mathrm{MeV}^24483\mathrm{MeV}^2.$$
(22)
This latter scale derived from quark loops and photon exchange is quite near the empirical $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ em transition $`4520\pm 50\mathrm{MeV}^2`$ found from the measured $`\omega \rho ^{}2\pi `$ decay rate .

To conclude, the Coleman-Glashow group-theoretical decomposition (2) leads to the universal $`H_{tad}^3`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ scale of $`5200\mathrm{MeV}^2`$ in eqs. (8,9,10) which is close to the fitted baryon tadpole scale $`(H_{tad}^3)_{pn}2.5\mathrm{MeV}`$ in (3). Both of these latter scales are reproduced in the alternative quark-loop scheme, and again result in the universal quark-loop $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=1`$ transitions in eqs. (13,14,20), which are based on $`m_dm_u4\mathrm{MeV}`$.


text:
# Evidence for Extinction and Accretion Variability in T Tau S

## 1 Introduction

T Tau is the eponymous pre-main sequence star (Joy 1945), but observational investigations over the last 20 years have revealed that it is an exceptional member of the class. Many of the young stars in the Taurus dark clouds are multiple systems, and in this respect T Tau is not atypical (Ghez et al. 1993; Leinert et al. 1993; Simon et al. 1995). It consists of T Tau North (T Tau N), the star seen in visible light at V $``$10 (Herbig & Bell 1988), and T Tau South (T Tau S), discovered in the infrared by Dyck, Simon & Zuckerman (1982), at a projected separation $``$100 AU (0.′′7). T Tau S is itself a binary, with a projected separation of 7 AU (0.′′05) (Koresko 2000). Our observations do not resolve the 0.′′05 T Tau S binary, so for the purpose of this paper we will refer to it as T Tau S.

The T Tau system is remarkable in part because the physical nature of T Tau S is unknown. It dominates the total system flux in the thermal IR, has a total luminosity two times that of T Tau N (Ghez et al. 1991, hereafter G91), but has never been detected in visible light to limiting V magnitude of 19.6 (Stapelfeldt et al. 1998). T Tau S also shows pronounced variability in the infrared. G91 discovered that it flared by $``$ 2 magnitudes in the near and thermal IR in 1990. They concluded that T Tau S experienced enhanced accretion, similar to an FU Orionis outburst. Kobayashi et al. (1994) and Simon et al. (1996) reported that the K band flux of T Tau S had decreased to the pre-flare value in the early 1990’s.

T Tau S is now regarded as a member of a small class of stars known as the infrared companions (IRCs)(Koresko et al. 1997, hereafter K97). IRCs are companions to visible T Tauri stars, are very luminous in the IR, and show pronounced variability. The near IR colors of IRCs imply a color temperature $`<`$ 1500 K, lower than possible for a stellar photosphere. K97 suggest that the IRCs are young stars seen through strong extinction and are experiencing episodic accretion from their complex surrounding environment.

Spectral diagnostics in the near infrared provide probes to study extinction and accretion in IRCs. Whittet et al. (1988) reported that the optical depth of the 3$`\mu `$m ice-band absorption feature, $`\tau _{ice}`$, correlates well with extinction in visible light, Av. Sato et al. (1990) discovered the 3 $`\mu `$m ice feature in absorption toward the unresolved T Tau system. Leinert et al. (1996) monitored the ice-band optical depth toward the Haro 6-10 binary, an IRC system similar to T Tau, and found that both components varied in $`\tau _{ice}`$, possibly attributable to variations in extinction along the line of sight.

Herbst et al. (1995; 1996; 1997) detected H2 emission in the v=1-0 S(1) line (2.12 $`\mu `$m) in the Haro 6-10 and UY Aur IRCs. The Herbst et al. (1996) observation of T Tau indicated peaks of unresolved emission at the positions of T Tau N and S. The absence of emission in the v=2-1 S(1) (2.25 $`\mu `$m) transition in these sources suggests a line ratio consistent with a shock origin rather than fluorescence. The observed H2 emission could be caused by accretion shocks from the infall of material onto the star. Prato & Simon (1997) used Br$`\gamma `$ line emission as a surrogate for H$`\alpha `$ to distinguish between the classical and weak-lined T Tauri stars and Muzzerole, Hartmann & Calvet (1998) showed that the Br$`\gamma `$ line luminosity in classical T Tauris correlates well with accretion luminosity determined from blue continuum excess.

To determine if the observed variability of T Tau S could be caused by variable extinction, we made angularly resolved observations of the near IR spectral energy distribution (SED) of T Tau N and S to test for variation in ice-band absorption on three occasions. Additionally, we obtained angularly resolved K-band spectra of T Tau N and S to study Br$`\gamma `$ and H2 accretion diagnostics, and if possible, to detect evidence of the photosphere of T Tau S.

## 2 Observations

Ice-band observations were taken on UT 1998 December 11, 1999 November 17, and 2000 January 27 at NASA’s Infrared Telescope Facility (IRTF) during scheduled observing time (December) and as part of the IRTF service observing program (November & January). We used NSFCam, the facility near IR camera, which is equipped with a 256 $`\times `$ 256 InSb array. All of our observations were taken with the 0.′′056/pixel plate scale. To measure the spectral energy distribution (SED) in the ice-band, we used the K (2.2 $`\mu `$m) and L (3.8 $`\mu `$m) broadband filters and the circularly variable filter (CVF), which has a spectral band pass of 2%, set at 2.4, 2.9, 3.05 and 3.4 $`\mu `$m. In December 1998 we also used a CVF setting at 3.6 $`\mu `$m and the H-band (1.65 $`\mu `$m) filter. To freeze the seeing, we took 100 0.1 second exposures in the K and L filters, 200 0.1 sec exposures at all of the CVF filters except 2.9 $`\mu `$m. The relatively weak flux of T Tau S in the H band and atmospheric absorption at 2.9 $`\mu `$m required 400 0.1 sec exposures.

Figure 1 is a contour plot of T Tau N and S at 3.05 $`\mu `$m, demonstrating the resolution of the system in the ice-band. 16 Tau and $`\eta `$ Tau were the photometric standards for the broadband and CVF observations, respectively. The zero-point fluxes for the CVF observations were determined using a polynomial fit to the broadband IR fluxes of Vega, as reported in Table 7.5 of Allen’s Astrophysical Quantities (Tokunaga 1999). We determined the Point Spread Function (PSF) at each of the observed wavelengths by making shift-and-add (S/A) images from a series of short exposures of the photometric standards. The flux ratios of T Tau N and S at the observed wavelengths were derived using two different binary fitting procedures; the results were always consistent to within 1$`\sigma `$. A discussion of the binary fitting routines will be included in a forthcoming paper (Beck et al., in preparation).

Our K-band (2.05 to 2.4 $`\mu `$m) spectral observations of the T Tau system were made at the Univerisity of Hawaii 2.2 meter telescope on UT 1996 November 2 with KSPEC, the facility near IR spectrometer (Hodapp et al. 1994; 1996). This work closely followed S/A observations of T Tau in the K-band on UT 1996 October 26 at the IRTF which were subsequently used to flux-calibrate the KSPEC spectra. The KSPEC detector is a 1024 $`\times `$ 1024 pixel HgCdTe array with a plate scale of 0.′′167/pixel. We used the tip-tilt adaptive optics system with the telescope in its f/31 configuration. With a slit width of 0.′′8, we obtained a resolution of $``$760 at 2.2 $`\mu `$m. The slit was aligned at the position angle of the T Tau N-S system so that we acquired spectra of both stars simultaneously in a 35 minute exposure.

We observed the spectrum of HR 1377, a B8 single star, immediately following T Tau to provide PSFs in the cross-dispersion direction as well as a reference spectrum to correct that of T Tau for telluric absorption and instrumental effects. The spectra of T Tau N and S were extracted by fitting, at each wavelength, model binaries constructed from the PSF of HR 1377, constrained by knowledge of the binary separation. The total amplitude and flux ratio of the binary model which yielded the best fit in the least squares sense was used to derive the individual spectral amplitudes of T Tau N and S at each wavelength. The spectra of T Tau N and S were divided by that of HR 1377 with the effects of its broad Br$`\gamma `$ absorption removed following the procedure described by Greene & Meyer (1995). In order to restore the true form of the spectrum, we multiplied by a black-body curve of temperature 11,400 K, that of a B8 star (Drilling & Landolt 1999).

The flux ratio of T Tau S to N of these spectra at 2.2 $`\mu `$m, 0.18$`\pm `$0.01, is in excellent agreement with the value of 0.16$`\pm `$0.03 measured by the S/A observations in the K-band six days earlier at the IRTF. We applied the IRTF flux calibration to the spectra and show the final results in Figure 2. Figure 3 is an expanded plot of the 2.10 to 2.20 $`\mu `$m region, which also shows a polynomial fit to the continuum.

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Absorption in the Ice-band

Figure 4 presents the angularly resolved ice-band SED of T Tau N and S measured on UT 1998 December 11. By fitting a smooth continuum distribution to the SED, we derive optical depths for the ice feature, $`\tau _{ice}`$, of 0.1$`\pm `$0.1 toward T Tau N and 0.5$`\pm `$0.1 toward T Tau S. If we consider the total unresolved system, we derive $`\tau _{ice}`$ = 0.3$`\pm `$0.1, consistent with Sato et al.’s (1990) value of 0.29$`\pm `$0.02. This agreement may, however, be fortuitous considering the photometric variability of the T Tau system and apparent variability of $`\tau _{ice}`$ (G91; Beck et al. 2000). Figure 5 shows the ice band SEDs of T Tau S for all three of our observations. The depth of the ice-band absorption decreased between December 1998 and January 2000 (Table 1). The observed change in $`\tau _{ice}`$ is significant at the 2$`\sigma `$ level and is associated with an increase in the near IR flux (Table 1). We do not detect a statistically significant change in ice-band optical depth toward T Tau N.

It is useful to relate $`\tau _{ice}`$ and the more familiar extinction in the visible, Av. At this time relationships between $`\tau _{ice}`$ and Av are available only for stars seen through molecular clouds (Whittet et al. 1988; Teixeira & Emerson 1999) and their applicability to the denser circumstellar regions considered here is uncertain (see also §4). Using Whittet et al.’s relation, $`\tau _{ice}`$ = \[m($`A_vA_v(0)`$\] where m = 0.093$`\pm `$0.001 and $`A_v(0)`$ = 3.3$`\pm `$0.1, we determine Av = 4$`\pm `$4 mag toward T Tau N and 9$`\pm `$2 toward T Tau S on 1998 December 11. On 1999 November 17 and 2000 January 27 the corresponding visual extinctions to T Tau S were 7$`\pm `$2 and 5$`\pm `$2 mag. We cannot use the relation derived by Teixeira & Emerson because it requires the full width at half maximum of the ice-band absorption and our CVF observations were too widely spaced to measure this.

### 3.2 K-band Diagnostics

The K-band spectrum of T Tau N (Figure 2) shows prominent Br$`\gamma `$ emission and photospheric absorption lines of Na (2.208 $`\mu `$m), Ca (2.264 $`\mu `$m), and the CO $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =`$2 bands. Visible light observations indicate that T Tau N has a spectral type of K0 and is obscured by A$`{}_{v}{}^{}`$1 (Cohen & Kuhi 1979). J$``$H and H$``$K colors, derived from photometry of T Tau N appearing in Kenyon & Hartmann (1995), also indicate a value of A$`{}_{v}{}^{}`$1. The photospheric absorption features detected in the K-band are consistent with a K0 spectral type, although the shallow depth of these features in the spectrum of T Tau N requires a 2.2$`\mu `$m continuum excess on the order of $`>`$70% of the stellar continuum (Figure 2). The slope of our T Tau N K-band spectrum implies an AV of 10$``$12 magnitudes for an early K to late G type stellar spectrum. Although complex nebulosity around T Tau is evident in several studies (e.g. Stapelfeldt et al. 1998), preferential scattering of the short wavelength light does not explain the discrepancy between the different estimates of Av, since the near-IR colors also indicate low extinction. Rather, it is likely that spectral structure in the infrared excess emission across the K-band is resposible for the observed difference. These considerations will be discussed in more detail in Prato, Greene & Simon (in preparation).

Figure 3 shows weak Br$`\gamma `$ and H2 v=1-0 S(1) emission lines toward T Tau S, at 3$`\sigma `$ and 2$`\sigma `$ significance, respectively, but no evidence for H2 emission in T Tau N. Table 2 gives the fluxes of these lines. Approximately three years after our spectra were obtained Davies et al. (2000) also observed the angularly resolved K-band spectra of T Tau N and S. Kasper(2000) and Kasper et al. (in preparation) provide a detailed discussion of these spectra. Their observation was made when T Tau S was in an elevated flux state (G91; Beck et al. 2000), with a 2.2 $`\mu `$m flux roughly triple the value we measured in October 1996. They detected Br$`\gamma `$ emission toward both T Tau N and S. Their measured Br$`\gamma `$ flux of T Tau S, 2.6$`\pm `$0.3 $`\times `$ 10-16 W m-2 s-1, is $`2\sigma `$ higher than our value (Table 2) suggesting that its Br$`\gamma `$ flux may vary.

The spectrum of T Tau S presented in Davies et al. (2000) and Kasper (2000) shows no evidence of H2 line emission. This could indicate that its H2 line emission varied in the three years between our observations. The H2 emission could, however, arise from an extended circumstellar environment around T Tau S. In this case, the difference in line fluxes could be attributable to the different solid angles sampled, $`(0.8^{\prime \prime })^2`$ for our observation, and $`(0.25^{\prime \prime })^2`$ for the Davies et al. spectrum. High resolution mapping observations are required to resolve this issue.

## 4 Discussion

The projected angular separation of TTau N and S is equivalent to only 100 AU at a distance of 140 pc, but our observations show that there is significantly stronger ice-band absorption towards the IRC. G91 and Herbst et al. (1997) obtained the same result for absorption in the 10 $`\mu `$m silicate feature and derived visual extinctions towards T Tau S of 4.6$`\pm `$2.5 and 5.4$`\pm `$0.5 mag for the two studies, respectively, consistent with our results in section 3.1. Our data from the three observations of the water-ice feature suggest an inverse correlation between the near IR flux and ice-band optical depth. While this has a natural explanation in terms of a decrease of obscuring material along the line of sight, there is a 1/6 probability that this ordering is the result of pairing of random data. Hence, further observations are required to determine if this correlation is real.

If T Tau S is a young binary viewed through significant obscuration, the typical visual extinctions of 5 to 10 magnitudes derived from ice-band and silicate absorption features are not large enough to account for its observed near IR colors. K97 estimate that 35 magnitudes of extinction are necessary to redden a 5200 K black-body to $``$ 800 K, the characteristic near IR color temperature of T Tau S. However, 35 magnitudes of extinction should produce enormous ice-band and silicate absorption depths which are not observed. Two explanations seem possible. It is likely that the flux that is observed at the line center of the ice and silicate features does not originate from the stellar photosphere, hence the absorption does not trace all of the material that is present toward the system. Also, whether the size and composition of the dusty material near young stars, and the relations between Av and the ice and silicate optical depths, are the same as in the interstellar medium is unknown and is of considerable interest.

Several possibilities for the geometry of the obscuring material in the T Tau system can account for all or a part of the extinction and its variability observed toward T Tau S. We may be observing T Tau S through a tenuous extension of the disk of T Tau N, which was detected in HCO+($`J=32`$) by Hogerheijde et al. (1997), and in 3 mm continuum emission by Akeson et al. (1998). The extinction variability could be caused by inhomogeneous material in the disk of T Tau N moving through our line of sight, perhaps by Keplerian rotation. The T Tau N disk would have to lie within the 2:1 resonance to avoid truncation by tidal effects, corresponding to $``$1/3 of the semi-major axis if T Tau N and S have equal masses (Artymowicz et al. 1991). This would imply a separation of T Tau N and S much greater than the projected separation of 100 AU. The obscuring material observed toward T Tau S may also be associated with a nearly edge-on disk around the 0.′′05 binary, with rotation again responsible for the variability. Akeson et al. (1998) do not detect any mm continuum emission around T Tau S to a limiting flux of 9 mJy. However, tenuous material that would escape detection at 3 mm could still be resposible for the extinction toward the T Tau S system. Another possible explanation for the observed extinction is the episodic embedding and accretion of T Tau S from a disk around the T Tau N - S system (K97).

The observed extinction and variability toward T Tau S could arise from material which is not associated with a disk, but with the complex distribution of gas and dust surrounding the young triple system (Momose et al. 1996; Schuster et al. 1997; Weintraub et al. 1999). In this case, the absorbing material must have significant structure and large inhomogeneities in absorption on scales less than 100 AU to account for the present small extinction toward T Tau N. The irrregular dimming of T Tau N by 3-4 visual magnitudes in the early 1900’s provides support for this scenario (Lozinskii 1949; Beck & Simon, in preparation).

There are indications that variations in extinction do not provide the entire explanation for the IR variability of T Tau S and the IRC phenomenon. The flare discovered by G91 was essentially gray, with a flux increase of $``$ 2 magnitudes between 2 and 10 $`\mu `$m. Detection of Br$`\gamma `$ emission associated with T Tau S in both our and the Kasper (2000) spectra indicates continuing accretion activity and evidence for variation in accretion rate. Additionally, variability of H2 line emission would indicate that the flows that shock molecular gas in the environment of T Tau S can vary on a timescale of a few years.

The variability of ice-band optical depth and K-band emission features suggest that the near IR flux variation observed toward T Tau S may be caused by changes in both extinction and accretion rate. Frequent, simultaneous and high precision measurements of the IR spectral energy distribution, including measurement of the ice and silicate features, and the Br$`\gamma `$ and H2 emission lines, have the potential to clarify the nature of T Tau S and the IRC phenomenon. Improvements in image quality through the techniques of adaptive optics, and the powerful new IR cameras and spectrometers at the major observatories offer the means for rapid progress.

We thank the telescope operators at the UH 88′′ and the IRTF, Chris Stewart, David Griep, Bill Golisch, Charlie Kaminski and Paul Fukumura-Sawada for their assistance with scheduled and service observations. We are grateful to T. Greene for providing the opportunity to acquire the T Tau K-band spectra. We thank R. White for helpful discussion, M. Kasper for the link to his Ph.D. thesis and information on his paper in preparation, and the referee for a helpful review. This research was supported by NSF Grants 94-17191 and 98-19694.


text:
# Duality of orthogonal polynomials on a finite set

## Introduction

This note is about a certain duality of orthogonal polynomials defined on a finite set. If the weights of two systems of orthogonal polynomials are related in a certain way, then the values of the $`n`$th polynomial of the first system at the points of the set equal, up to a simple factor, the corresponding values of the $`(Mn)`$th polynomial of the second system, where $`M`$ is the cardinality of the underlying finite set.

We formulate the exact result and prove it in §1.

In §2 we explain the motivation which led to the result. We compare two different ways to compute probabilistic quantities called correlation functions in a certain model. The model is a discrete analog of the orthogonal polynomial ensembles which appeared for the first time in the random matrix theory, see, e.g., \[Dy\], \[Ga\], \[GM\], \[Me\], \[NW\]. Discrete orthogonal polynomial ensembles were discussed in \[BO1\], \[BO2\] \[BO3\], \[J1\]-\[J3\].

The results of the two computations must be equal, but this is not at all obvious from the explicit formulas. Our duality relation provides a proof of the equivalence of the two resulting expressions.

In §3 we consider 2 examples when the orthogonal polynomials are classical (Krawtchouk and Hahn polynomials). In these cases the duality provides relations between similar polynomials with different sets of parameters. The relations are also easily verified using known explicit formulas for the polynomials.

I am very grateful to Grigori Olshanski for numerous discussions. I also want to thank Tom Koornwinder for providing me with his computation regarding the Hahn polynomials, see §3.

## 1. Duality

###### Theorem 1

Let

$$X=\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_M\}$$

be a finite set of distinct points on the real line, $`u(x)`$ and $`v(x)`$ be two positive functions on $`X`$ such that

$$u(x_k)v(x_k)=\frac{1}{_{ik}(x_kx_i)^2},k=0,1,\mathrm{},M,$$
$`1`$
and $`P_0,P_1,\mathrm{},P_M`$ and $`Q_0,Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_M`$ be the systems of orthogonal polynomials on $`X`$ with respect to the weights $`u(x)`$ and $`v(x)`$, respectively,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{deg}P_i=\mathrm{deg}Q_i=i,\\ \underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}P_i(x_k)P_j(x_k)u(x_k)=\delta _{ij}p_i,\underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}Q_i(x_k)Q_j(x_k)v(x_k)=\delta _{ij}q_i,\\ P_i=a_ix^i+\text{lower terms},Q_i=b_ix^i+\text{lower terms}.\end{array}$$

Assume that the polynomials are normalized so that $`b_i=p_{Mi}/a_{Mi}`$ for all $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},M`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}P_i(x)\sqrt{u(x)}=ϵ(x)Q_{Mi}(x)\sqrt{v(x)},xX,\\ a_ib_{Mi}=p_i=q_{Mi},i=0,1,\mathrm{},M,\end{array}$$

where

$$ϵ(x_k)=\mathrm{sgn}\underset{ik}{}(x_kx_i),k=0,1,\mathrm{},M.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let us start with one system of polynomials, say, $`\{P_i\}`$, and define a sequence of functions $`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\}`$ on $`X`$ by the equalities

$$\stackrel{~}{Q}_i(x_k)=ϵ(x_k)P_{Mi}(x_k)\sqrt{\frac{u(x_k)}{v(x_k)}}=\underset{ik}{}(x_kx_i)P_{Mi}(x_k)u(x_k).$$

Then

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i(x_k)\stackrel{~}{Q}_j(x_k)v(x_k)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}P_{Mi}(x_k)P_{Mj}(x_k)u(x_k)=\delta _{ij}p_{Mi},$$

so the functions $`\{\stackrel{~}{Q}_i\}_{i=0}^M`$ are pairwise orthogonal with respect to the weight $`v(x)`$, and $`q_i=\stackrel{~}{Q}_i_v^2=p_{Mi}.`$

Consider the interpolation polynomial $`Q_i(x)`$ of degree $`M`$ such that $`Q_i(x)=\stackrel{~}{Q}_i(x)`$ for all $`xX`$. We have (the hat means that the corresponding factor is omitted)

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_i(x)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i(x_m)\frac{(xx_0)\mathrm{}\widehat{(xx_m)}\mathrm{}(xx_M)}{(x_mx_0)\mathrm{}\widehat{(x_mx_m)}\mathrm{}(x_mx_M)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}P_{Mi}(x_m)u(x_m)(xx_0)\mathrm{}\widehat{(xx_m)}\mathrm{}(xx_M).\end{array}$$

The coefficient of $`x^n`$ of such polynomial equals

$$(1)^{Mn}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}P_{Mi}(x_m)u(x_m)e_{Mn}(x_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_m},\mathrm{},x_M)$$

where $`e_s`$ are the elementary symmetric functions:

$$e_s(y_0,y_1,\mathrm{})=\underset{0i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_s}{}y_{i_1}y_{i_2}\mathrm{}y_{i_s}.$$

Denote $`e_s(x_0,\mathrm{},x_M)`$ by $`E_s`$. Note that $`E_0=1`$ by definition. An application of the inclusion–exclusion principle shows that

$$e_s(x_0,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_m},\mathrm{},x_M)=E_sx_mE_{s1}+x_m^2E_{s2}\mathrm{}+(1)^sx_m^s.$$

Then the coefficient of $`x^n`$ in $`Q_i(x)`$ equals

$$\begin{array}{c}(1)^{Mn}\underset{m=0}{\overset{M}{}}P_{Mi}(x_m)u(x_m)\left(E_{Mn}x_mE_{Mn1}+\mathrm{}+(1)^{Mn}x_m^{Mn}\right)\hfill \\ \hfill =(1)^{Mn}E_{Mn}P_{Mi},1+(1)^{Mn1}E_{Mn1}P_{Mi},x+\mathrm{}+P_{Mi},x^{Mn}.\end{array}$$

But the orthogonality of $`P_j`$’s implies that $`P_{Mi},x^r=0`$ for $`r<Mi`$, and

$$P_{Mi},x^{Mi}=\frac{P_{Mi}^2}{a_{Mi}}=\frac{p_{Mi}}{a_{Mi}}.$$

This immediately implies that $`Q_i`$ is a polynomial of degree $`i`$ with the leading coefficient $`b_i=p_{Mi}/a_{Mi}`$. ∎

## 2. Probabilistic interpretation

Recall that $`X=\{x_0,\mathrm{},x_M\}`$ is a finite subset of the real line.

For any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$, denote by $`X^{(m)}`$ the set of all subsets of $`X`$ with $`m`$ points:

$$X^{(m)}=\left\{\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_m}\}\right|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}i_1<\mathrm{}<i_mM\}.$$

For any positive function $`w(x)`$ on $`X`$ denote by $`𝒫_w^{(m)}`$ the probability measure on $`X^{(m)}`$ defined by the formula:

$$𝒫_w^{(m)}\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_m}\}=\mathrm{const}\underset{1k<lm}{}(x_{i_k}x_{i_l})^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}w(x_{i_k}).$$

Also denote by $`\overline{𝒫}_w^{(m)}`$ the probability measure on $`X^{(m)}`$ defined by the relation:

$$\overline{𝒫}_w^{(m)}(A)=𝒫_w^{(m)}(XA),AX^{(m)}.$$

The next claim was essentially proved in \[BO3\].

###### Proposition 2

Let $`u(x)`$ and $`v(x)`$ be two positive functions on $`X`$ satisfying 1. Then $`𝒫_u^{(m)}=\overline{𝒫}_v^{(Mm+1)}`$ for any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

For arbitrary finite sets $`B`$ and $`C`$ we will abbreviate

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(B)=\pm \underset{\frac{}{x,yBxy}}{}(xy),\mathrm{\Pi }(B,C)=\underset{xB,yC}{}(xy).$$

The sign of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(B)`$ is inessential.

Take $`A=\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_m}\}X^{(m)}`$. We have

$$𝒫_u^{(m)}(A)=\mathrm{const}\underset{1k<lm}{}(x_{i_k}x_{i_l})^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}u(x_{i_k})=\mathrm{const}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(A)\underset{xA}{}u(x).$$

Further,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(A)=\pm \mathrm{\Pi }(XA)\mathrm{\Pi }^2(A)\mathrm{\Pi }(A,XA)\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Pi }(A)\mathrm{\Pi }(XA)\mathrm{\Pi }(A,XA)}.$$

But $`\mathrm{\Pi }(A)\mathrm{\Pi }(XA)\mathrm{\Pi }(A,XA)=\mathrm{\Pi }(X)=\mathrm{const}`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^2(A)\mathrm{\Pi }(A,XA)=\pm \underset{xA}{}\left(\underset{\frac{}{yXyx}}{}(yx)\right).$$

Hence, using 1, we get

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(A)\underset{xA}{}u(x)=\mathrm{const}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(XA)\left(\underset{xA}{}v(x)\right)^1\\ =\mathrm{const}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(XA)\frac{_{xXA}v(x)}{_{xX}v(x)}=\mathrm{const}^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^2(XA)\underset{xXA}{}v(x),\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{const}^{}=\mathrm{const}\left(_{xX}v(x)\right)^1`$. Thus, $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ and $`\overline{𝒫}_v^{(Mm+1)}`$ differ by a multiplicative constant. Since both $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ and $`\overline{𝒫}_v^{(Mm+1)}`$ are probability measures, they must coincide. ∎

Let $`\mu `$ be an arbitrary probability measure on the set of all subsets of $`X`$. Note that any probability measure on $`X^{(m)}`$ can be trivially extended to a measure on the set of all subsets of $`X`$.

For any $`n=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, we define the $`n`$th correlation function of $`\mu `$

$$\rho _n(|\mu ):X^{(n)}_0$$

by the formula

$$\rho _n(A|\mu )=\underset{BA}{}\mu (B).$$

In other words, $`\rho _n(A|\mu )`$ is the probability (with respect to $`\mu `$) that the random set $`B`$ contains a fixed set $`AX^{(n)}`$.

Below we use the notation of Theorem 1 for the orthogonal polynomials associated with the weights $`u(x)`$ and $`v(x)`$.

###### Proposition 3

For any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$, the correlation functions of $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ have the form

$$\rho _n(\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_n}\}|𝒫_u^{(m)})=det\left[K_u^{(m)}(x_{i_k},x_{i_l})\right]_{k,l=1,\mathrm{},n},$$

where

$$K_u^{(m)}(x,y)=\sqrt{u(x)u(y)}\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{P_i(x)P_i(y)}{p_i}.$$

###### Demonstration Proof

A standard argument from the random matrix theory, see, e.g, \[Dy\], \[Me,  5.2\]. ∎

Note that if $`n>m`$ then the $`n`$th correlation function of $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ vanishes identically. Indeed, all sets with more than $`m`$ points have measure zero with respect to $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$. Another way to see the vanishing is to observe that the matrix $`K_u^{(m)}(x_i,x_j)_{i,j=0,\mathrm{},M}`$ has rank $`m`$. Thus, its $`n\times n`$ minors expressing $`\rho _n(|𝒫_u^{(m)})`$ must vanish if $`n>m`$.

Similarly, for any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$, the correlation functions of $`𝒫_v^{(m)}`$ have the form

$$\rho _n(\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_n}\}|𝒫_v^{(m)})=det\left[K_v^{(m)}(x_{i_k},x_{i_l})\right]_{k,l=1,\mathrm{},n},$$

where

$$K_v^{(m)}(x,y)=\sqrt{v(x)v(y)}\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\frac{Q_i(x)Q_i(y)}{q_i}.$$

The determinantal formulas for the correlation functions above imply that $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ and $`𝒫_v^{(m)}`$ belong to the class of determinantal point processes, see \[Ma\], \[DVJ,  5.4\], \[BOO,  Appendix\], \[So\] for a general discussion of such processes.

###### Proposition 4

For any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$, the correlation functions of $`\overline{𝒫}_u^{(m)}`$ have the form

$$\rho _n(\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_n}\}|\overline{𝒫}_u^{(m)})=det\left[\overline{K}_u^{(m)}(x_{i_k},x_{i_l})\right]_{k,l=1,\mathrm{},n},$$

where

$$\overline{K}_u^{(m)}(x,y)=\delta _{xy}K_u^{(m)}(x,y).$$

Here $`\delta _{xy}`$ is the Kronecker delta.

###### Demonstration Proof

By the definition of $`\overline{𝒫}_u^{(m)}`$, we have

$$\rho _n(A|\overline{𝒫}_u^{(m)})=\underset{BA}{}𝒫_u^{(m)}(XB)=\underset{\frac{}{CXCA=\mathrm{}}}{}𝒫_u^{(m)}(C).$$

The inclusion-exclusion principle, see, e.g., \[Ha,  2.1\], gives

$$\underset{\frac{}{CXCA=\mathrm{}}}{}𝒫_u^{(m)}(C)=\underset{DA}{}(1)^{|D|}\rho _{|D|}(D|𝒫_u^{(m)}).$$

By Proposition 3, the expression on the right-hand side is equal to the alternating sum of all diagonal minors of the matrix $`K_u^{(m)}(x,y)_{x,yA}`$. By linear algebra, this is equal to $`det[\delta _{xy}K_u^{(m)}(x,y)]_{x,yA}`$. ∎

Similarly, for any $`m=1,\mathrm{},M`$, the correlation functions of $`\overline{𝒫}_v^{(m)}`$ have the form

$$\rho _n(\{x_{i_1},\mathrm{},x_{i_n}\}|\overline{𝒫}_v^{(m)})=det\left[\overline{K}_v^{(m)}(x_{i_k},x_{i_l})\right]_{k,l=1,\mathrm{},n},$$

where

$$\overline{K}_v^{(m)}(x,y)=\delta _{xy}K_v^{(m)}(x,y).$$

Proposition 4 is a special case of the complementation principle for the discrete determinantal processes which is due to S. Kerov, see \[BOO,  A.3\].

Observe that Proposition 2 and Propositions 3 and 4 with similar statements regarding $`𝒫_v^{(m)}`$ and $`\overline{𝒫}_v^{(m)}`$, imply that all the diagonal minors of the matrix

$$K_u^{(m)}=K_u^{(m)}(x_i,x_j)_{i,j=0,\mathrm{},M}$$

are equal to the corresponding diagonal minors of the matrix

$$IK_v^{(Mm+1)}=\delta _{ij}K_v^{(Mm+1)}(x_i,x_j)_{i,j=0,\mathrm{},M}.$$

In particular, the diagonal entries of these two matrices are equal. Looking at 2$`\times `$2 diagonal minors, we then conclude that

$$K_u^{(m)}(x,y)=\pm K_v^{(Mm+1)}(x,y)$$

for all $`xy`$, $`x,yX`$. (Here we used the fact that both matrices are symmetric.)

An obvious guess is that the matrices $`K_u^{(m)}`$ and $`IK_v^{(Mm+1)}`$ are conjugate, and the conjugation matrix is diagonal with diagonal entries equal to $`\pm 1`$. This guess turns out to be correct.

Set

$$D=\mathrm{diag}(ϵ(x_0),ϵ(x_1),\mathrm{},ϵ(x_M)),$$

where $`ϵ(x)`$ was defined in Theorem 1.

###### Theorem 5

Under the above notation, for any $`m=0,1,\mathrm{},M`$,

$$K_u^{(m)}=D(IK_v^{(Mm+1)})D,$$

where the functions $`u`$ and $`v`$ satisfy 1.

###### Demonstration Proof

The equality of the diagonal entries was discussed above: it is exactly the equality of the first correlation functions of the processes $`𝒫_u^{(m)}`$ and $`\overline{𝒫}_v^{(Mm+1)}`$, see Propositions 2, 3, 4. To prove the equality of the off-diagonal entries we employ the well–known Christoffel–Darboux formula, see, e.g., \[Sz\], which implies that, for $`xy`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}K_u^{(m)}(x,y)=\sqrt{u(x)u(y)}\frac{a_{m1}}{a_mp_{m1}}\frac{P_m(x)P_{m1}(y)P_{m1}(x)P_m(y)}{xy},\\ K_v^{(Mm+1)}(x,y)=\sqrt{v(x)v(y)}\frac{b_{Mm}}{b_{Mm+1}q_{Mm}}\\ \times \frac{Q_{Mm+1}(x)Q_{Mm}(y)Q_{Mm}(x)Q_{Mm+1}(y)}{xy}.\end{array}$$

Then Theorem 1 immediately implies that $`K_u^{(m)}(x,y)=ϵ(x)ϵ(y)K_v^{(Mm+1)}(x,y)`$, and the proof is complete.∎

## 3. Examples

Our main reference for this section is \[KS\]. We use it for the notation and data on the classical orthogonal polynomials considered below.

### 3.1. Krawtchouk polynomials

Let $`X=\{0,1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, and

$$u(x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{x}\right)p^x(1p)^{Nx}=\frac{N!}{x!(Nx)!}p^x(1p)^{Nx},xX,0<p<1.$$

The polynomials orthogonal with the weight $`u(x)`$ are called the Krawtchouk polynomials, see \[KS,  1.10\],

$$P_n(x)=K_n(x;p,N),n=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$

The leading coefficient $`a_n`$ of $`P_n`$, the square of the norm $`p_n`$ of $`P_n`$, and the explicit formula for $`P_n`$ are as follows:

$$a_n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}\right)^1\frac{(1)^n}{n!p^n},p_n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}\right)^1\left(\frac{1p}{p}\right)^n,P_n(x)={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}n,x\\ N\end{array}|\frac{1}{p}\right).$$

Observe that

$$\underset{\frac{}{y=0,\mathrm{},Nyx}}{}(xy)^2=x!^2(Nx)!^2,x=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$

Thus, the dual (according to Theorem 1) weight $`v(x)`$ has the form

$$v(x)=\left(u(x)x!^2(Nx)!^2\right)^1=\frac{1}{N!^2(p(1p))^N}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{x}\right)(1p)^xp^{Nx}.$$

We conclude that $`Q_n(x)=\mathrm{const}K_n(x;1p,N).`$ An easy calculation shows that the normalization of Theorem 1 implies that

$$\mathrm{const}=(1)^N(1p)^NN!,Q_n(x)=(1)^N(1p)^NN!K_n(x;1p,N).$$

Clearly, $`ϵ(x)=(1)^{Nx}`$, and the claim of Theorem 1 takes the form

$$K_n(x;p,N)=(1)^x\left(\frac{1p}{p}\right)^xK_{Nn}(x;1p,N),x=0,\mathrm{},M.$$
$`2`$
Of course, this identity can be proved directly using the explicit formula for the Krawtchouk polynomials above. One just needs to use the transformation formula

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,b\\ c\end{array}|z\right)=(1z)^b{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}ca,b\\ c\end{array}|\frac{z}{z1}\right).$$

### 3.2. Hahn polynomials

The computation below was shown to me by T. Koornwinder. Let $`X`$ be as above, and

$$u(x)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\alpha +x}{x}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\beta +Nx}{Nx}\right),\alpha ,\beta >1\text{ or }\alpha ,\beta <N.$$

If $`\alpha ,\beta >1`$ then $`u(x)>0`$, if $`\alpha ,\beta <N`$ then $`(1)^Nu(x)>0`$.

The orthogonal polynomials corresponding to this weight are called the Hahn polynomials, see \[KS,  1.5\],

$$P_n(x)=H_n(x;\alpha ,\beta ,N),n=0,1,\mathrm{},N.$$

The data are as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}a_n=\frac{(n+\alpha +\beta +1)_n}{(\alpha +1)_n(N)_n},p_n=\frac{(1)^n(n+\alpha +\beta +1)_{N+1}(\beta +1)_nn!}{(2n+\alpha +\beta +1)(\alpha +1)_n(N)_nN!},\\ P_n(x)={}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}n,n+\alpha +\beta +1,x\\ \alpha +1,N\end{array}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right).\end{array}$$

The dual weight has the form

$$\begin{array}{c}v(x)=(u(x)x!^2(Nx)!^2)^1\\ =\frac{(1)^N}{(\alpha +1)_N(\beta +1)_N}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\beta N1)+x}{x}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(\alpha N1)+Nx}{Nx}\right).\end{array}$$

Thus, $`Q_n(x)=\mathrm{const}H_n(x;\beta N1,\alpha N1,N).`$ Computation of the normalization constant yields

$$\mathrm{const}=(1)^N(\beta +1)^N,Q_n(x)=(1)^N(\beta +1)^NH_n(x;\beta N1,\alpha N1,N).$$

The claim of Theorem 1 takes the form

$$H_n(x;\alpha ,\beta ,N)=\frac{(\beta N)_x}{(\alpha +1)_x}H_{Nn}(x;\beta N1,\alpha N1,N)$$
$`3`$
for all $`x=0,1,\mathrm{},N`$.

A direct proof of 3 follows from the transformation formula

$${}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,b,c\\ d,e\end{array}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eabc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(d+eab)\mathrm{\Gamma }(dc)}{}_{3}{}^{}F_{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}ea,eb,c\\ d+eab,e\end{array}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\right),$$

see \[PBM,  7.4.4(1)\], \[Ba,  3.6\].

The limit transition $`\alpha =pt`$, $`\beta =(1p)t`$, $`t\mathrm{}`$, see \[KS,  2.5.3\], brings 3 to 2.


text:
# Logarithmic corrections to scaling in turbulent thermal convection

## Abstract

We use an analytic toy model of turbulent convection to show that most of the scaling regimes are spoiled by logarithmic corrections, in a way consistent with the most accurate experimental measurements available nowadays. This sets a need for the search of new measurable quantities which are less prone to dimensional theories.

47.27 -i Turbulent flows, convection and heat transfer

47.27.Eq Turbulence simulation and modeling

47.27.Te Convection and heat transfer

When an horizontal layer of fluid is heated from below, a heat exchange from the bottom to the top layer occurs. Dimensional consideration show that the non-dimensional heat exchange $`Nu`$ depends on the geometry (via for example the aspect ratio), on the boundary conditions, and on the Rayleigh $`Ra`$ and the Prandtl number $`Pr`$. Further dimensional analysis of the dynamical equations governing the convective layer suggests that this dependence be a power-law. The exponent of the power law depends on the (dimensional) basic hypothesis. The classical theory predicts that $`NuRa^\beta `$ with $`\beta =0.33`$, which seems to be observed in electro-chemical convection . Other theories lead to $`\beta =0.2`$ or $`0.24`$ , $`\beta =2/7`$  or $`\beta =1/2`$  depending on the regime considered. A unifying synthesis of the possible scaling regimes, including their Prandtl dependence has been recently made by Grossman and Lohse . From the experimental point of view, the situation is rather unclear, since almost all the range of exponents between 0.25 and 0.33 has been measured (see  for a recent detailed review of the experimental measurements). Furthermore, recent experiments with fluids subject large variation of the Prandtl number have led to a new exploration of the phase parameter, and uncovered new scaling laws as a function of the Prandlt number. This new exploration can be used as a stringent tool to discriminate between the various theories, since two competing theories can provide the same value of $`\beta `$, but different Prandtl number dependence.

On the other hand, it is not quite clear whether the present dimensional theories satisfactorily capture the dependence of $`Nu`$ as a function of $`Pr`$ and $`Ra`$. In a recent serie of experiments, conducted with acetone at various aspect ratio,  show that their measurements are inconsistent with a single power law $`Nu(Ra)`$, because the local effective exponent $`\beta _{eff}=d\mathrm{ln}Nu/d\mathrm{ln}Ra`$ varies continuously with Ra in the range of Rayleigh number they consider. This effect can easily be accounted for in the scaling theory by considering a superposition of scaling laws, as proposed by . There is another solution, connected with the existence of logarithmic corrections to scalings (see e.g. ). The difficulty associated with such a solution is that logarithmic corrections cannot be uncovered by dimensional analysis (nor numerical simulations!), and require detailed analytical computations. At the present time, they are no available analytical solutions of the full Boussinesq equations describing the dynamics of the convective motions, in the turbulent regime. Some time ago, Malkus  proposed to combine a weakly non-linear theory past the critical point, combined with a maximum principle to obtain approximate analytical solutions of the full problem. This approach developed further by Howard, Roberts, Stewartson and Herring (see refs  for a summary) gives $`Nu=0.24(Ra\mathrm{ln}Ra)^{3/10}`$. Such a law with logarithmic correction fits the recent experimental data by Niemela et al.  very well.

In the present work, we explore the predictions obtained using a solvable model of turbulent convection. This model couples large scale mean sheared velocity and temperature fields $`U=(U(z),0,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$, with small scale random velocity and temperature fields. This kind of large scale geometry is generally accepted as representative of the Boussinesq convection in the boundary layers, due to the shearing effect of the large convective cells. The model is closed by deriving an equation for the random component from the Boussinesq equation using two simplifying assumptions: i) the non-linear interactions of the small scale scales between themselves is modeled via a turbulent viscosity; ii) the small scale generation via the breaking of large scale structures is modeled by a random small scale forcing with prescribed statistics. This results in a linear stochastic equation for the random small scales, which can be analytically solved in the shear flow geometry by a decomposition of the small waves into localized wave-packets. In , the solution of the turbulent model were computed in the restricted case of 2D geometry, and turbulent Prandtl number equal to unity. This leads to expression of the mean and fluctuating velocity and temperature profile, as a function of $`Nu`$, $`Ra`$ and $`Pr`$. In , these results were combined with dimensional estimates to derive the scaling laws governing the transport of heat. In the present contribution, we proceed one step further and use the analytical predictions about the profiles to compute directly the heat and energy dissipated across the turbulent boundary layer. From this, we derive an analytical expression of the non-dimensional heat flux, as a function of $`Pr`$ and $`Ra`$.

There can be a debate about whether such a simple model correctly accounts for the complex dynamics of the full, turbulent Boussinesq equations. A systematic numerical check of the various hypotheses pertaining the model has been undertaken in the past years  and is still underway. In any case, we think that this model is very illustrative as to what kind of mechanism could take place in real, turbulent convection. Our computations show that most of the likely scaling regimes are spoiled by logarithmic corrections, in a way consistent with the most accurate experimental measurements available nowadays. We believe that this sets a need for the search of new measurable quantities which are less prone to dimensional theories.

To set up notations, we start by a brief summary of the turbulent model  and of results obtained within it. In this model, the dynamics of the turbulent boundary layer is obtained from solutions of two coupled sets of equations. The first one described the dynamics of the mean (shear like) velocity $`𝐔=<𝐮>=(U(z),0,0)`$ and temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=<\theta >`$:

$`_tU+_z<u^{}w^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`_xP+Pr_z^2U,`$ (1)
$`_t\mathrm{\Theta }+_z<w^{}\theta ^{}>`$ $`=`$ $`_z^2\mathrm{\Theta }.`$ (2)
These equations have been expressed, following  in units the thermal diffusivity and the cell height. Here, $`Pr`$ is the Prandtl number, the primes denote fluctuating (small scale) quantities and $`<>`$ the averaging. In the stationary case, we get from (2) that $`_xP`$ is a constant, independent of $`z`$. In the laminar case where $`<u^{}w^{}>`$ and $`<w^{}\theta ^{}>`$ are negligible, we thus obtain the well known parabolic profile for the velocity and the linear profile for the temperature. In the turbulent case, the profiles are linear within the thermal or the viscous layer, while outside this layer, they are given by the condition

$$_z<u^{}w^{}>=_xP,_z<w^{}\theta ^{}>=0.$$
(3)
To close the system, we need $`<u^{}w^{}>`$ and $`<w^{}\theta ^{}>`$. They are obtained as solution of a linear, stochastic equation valid for localized wave-packets of velocity and temperature:

$`D_t\widehat{u}_i`$ $`=`$ $`ik_i\widehat{p}\widehat{w}_zU\delta _{i1}+RaPr\widehat{\theta }\delta _{i3}Pr^t𝐤^2\widehat{u}_i+\widehat{f}_i^{(u)}`$ (4)
$`D_t\widehat{\theta }`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{w}_z\mathrm{\Theta }𝐤^2\widehat{\theta }+\widehat{f}^{(\theta )},`$ (5)
where

$$\widehat{u}(𝐱,𝐤,t)=g(|𝐱𝐱^{}|)e^{i𝐤(𝐱𝐱^{})}𝐮(𝐱^{},t)𝑑𝐱^{},$$
(6)
$`g`$ being a function which decreases rapidly at infinity. We have dropped primes on fluctuating quantities for convenient notations and introduced the total derivative $`D_t=_t+U_x_z(Uk_x)_{k_z}`$ . Note that the linear part of (5) is exact and describes the non-local interactions between the mean and the fluctuating part. The major approximation of the model is to lump the non-linear terms describing local interactions between fluctuations into a turbulent viscosity, or equivalently, into a turbulent Prandtl number $`Pr^t`$. The forces $`f^{(u)}`$ and $`f^{(\theta )}`$ appearing in (5) are small scale random forces which are introduced to model the seeding of small scales by energy cascades (for example via turbulent plumes, detaching from the wall).

The analytical solutions of (2) and (5) have been obtained in  in the 2D case (no movement in the direction transverse to the mean flow), and for $`Pr^t=1`$. There are numerical and analytical evidence that 2D geometry is sufficient to capture the physical mechanism responsible for the $`Nu`$ scaling with $`Ra`$  and also to capture the correct shape of the equilibrium profile in the neutral case. Note that the vortex stretching, which is theoretically absent in 2D geometry, has been implicitly accounted for via the turbulent viscosity. The unit value of $`Pr^t`$ was dictated by our ignorance of the exact value of this parameter (which is likely to depend on $`Pr`$). We shall keep in mind that it may induce a wrong dependence of the correlations with respect to the Prandtl number. In any case, we shall consider these solutions as a toy model of turbulent thermal convection, and investigate their scaling properties. For the mean flows, the solution are :

$$_zU\frac{1}{z},_z\mathrm{\Theta }\frac{1}{z^2},$$
(7)
resulting in a constant (with $`z`$) Richardson number:

$$R_i=RaPr\frac{_z\mathrm{\Theta }}{\left(_zU\right)^2}.$$
(8)
In developed convective turbulence, this number is large and negative $`R_i1`$. This motivates a large $`Ri`$ expansion of the solution of (5), which provides the expression of the correlations as :

$`<w^{}u^{}>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{}^2}{_zU}}z,`$ (9)
$`<w^{}\theta ^{}>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{}^2\sqrt{R_i}}{RaPr}}cte=Nu,`$ (10)
$`<w^2>`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u_{}^2}{_zU}},`$ (11)
$`<\theta ^2>`$ $``$ $`R_i{\displaystyle \frac{u_{}^2_zU}{(RaPr)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{u_{}^2_z\mathrm{\Theta }}{RaPr_zU}}.`$ (12)
where we have introduced $`u_{}^2=(_zU/k_{}^2)^{2\sqrt{R_i}/3}`$. Note that the last equation of (12) just reflects the balance between the vertical energy and the buoyancy force. Such a balance can be expected to hold only at $`Pr>1`$ . For low $`Pr`$, temperature fluctuations were found to behave like a passive scalar, except in the boundary layers, or in the center of the cell . Since our expression pertain only to the boundary layers, we feel safe to consider it for both the $`Pr>1`$ and the $`Pr<1`$ regime.

The second equation of (12) can be used to express $`u_{}`$ as a function of $`Nu`$ and $`Ri`$. Then, we can eliminate $`Ri`$ by matching the turbulent profiles with the viscous or diffusive solutions $`Pr_zU=u_\tau ^2`$ and $`_z\mathrm{\Theta }=Nu`$, where $`u_\tau `$ is the friction velocity and $`Nu`$ the Nusselt number. For this, we introduce the thermal length scale $`\lambda _\theta =1/2Nu`$ and the viscous length scale $`\lambda _u=KPr/u_\tau `$ ($`K0.4`$ is the Karman constant), and operate the matching via smooth functions according to:

$`_zU={\displaystyle \frac{u_\tau ^2Pr^1}{\sqrt{1+(z/\lambda _u)^2}}},`$ (13)
$`_z\mathrm{\Theta }={\displaystyle \frac{Nu}{1+(z/\lambda _\theta )^2}}.`$ (14)
The shape of $`_zU`$ is dictated by the exact analytical solutions of the profile found by  in a neutral layer. The shape of $`_z\mathrm{\Theta }`$ was chosen as the simplest smooth function matching the viscous and turbulent layers. Using these expressions, we can eliminate $`Ri`$ and write for the fluctuations:

$`<w^2>`$ $`=`$ $`Nu^{3/2}(RaPr)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{u_\tau }{_zU}},`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`Nu^{3/2}(RaPr)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{Pr}{u_\tau }}\sqrt{1+(z/\lambda _u)^2},`$ (16)
$`<\theta ^2>`$ $`=`$ $`u_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{3/2}}{(RaPr)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{_z\mathrm{\Theta }}{_zU}}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Pr}{u_\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{5/2}}{(RaPr)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{1+(z/\lambda _u)^2}}{1+(z/\lambda _\theta )^2}}.`$ (18)
Note that these fluctuations exist only for $`z>\lambda _u`$. The expression we derived are only valid inside the turbulent layers, which we define as the locations were the fluctuations of horizontal velocity and of temperature reach a maximum. The scales at which these maxima are reached are labeled $`\lambda _{BLV}`$ and $`\lambda _{BLT}`$, respectively. Beyond these scales, the flow enters the ”bulk region”, in which the velocity and temperature fields are organized into convective large scale, whose details are non-universal and strongly depend on the geometry (aspect ratio) of the cell. It is difficult to evaluate analytically the vertical dependence of the profiles. On the other hand, support from data can only be provided by numerical simulations, encompassing relatively low Rayleigh numbers. One important outcome of these simulations  is the existence of two distinct flow regimes: one for $`Pr<0.35`$ in which the flow is dominated by a large re-circulation cell, and one $`Pr>0.35`$ in which isolated thermal plumes can develop. The detailed scaling of the velocity pattern has only been partially studied by Kerr  in the regime $`Pr=0.7`$, $`Ra=8\times 10^7`$ and for aspect ratio 1. He found no indication of the logarithmic region, but rather a variation of the horizontal velocity profile consistent with a $`z^{1/2}`$ law. This can be easily understood by noting first, that in this Prandtl regime, the Reynolds number corresponding to $`Ra=8\times 10^7`$ is too low to allow for a well developed turbulent boundary layer. Therefore, the logarithmic region is non-detectable. On the other hand, in the core, there is a tendency for strongly homogeneous temperature (due perhaps to the presence of plumes, which favor the good mixing), with nearly constant value $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$ throughout the central region. The classical free fall velocity argument then predicts vertical velocities varying like $`W^2RaPr\mathrm{\Theta }_0z`$, resulting, by incompressibility $`_zU_zW`$ in a $`z^{1/2}`$ law for the horizontal profile. Given the small extent of the logarithmic zone in this regime, we shall therefore approximate the bulk velocity in this region, at $`Pr>0.35`$ by $`u_\tau (z/\lambda _u)^{1/2}`$ (to ensure the matching with the viscous layer). Unfortunately, no comparable measurements are available at low Pr. On the one hand, we can expect the logarithmic region to be more extended in this regime, because of the larger Reynolds number involved. Interestingly enough, inversion of the temperature profiles in the central region have been detected in the experiment of , with a nearly constant and positive value of $`dT/dz`$ (whether this is correlated with the absence of plumes is an interesting open question). In such a case, the free-fall argument (which is valid provided we are in the Bolgiano regime, i.e. at large enough scales) predicts vertical velocities varying like $`W^2RaPrz^2`$, i.e., via the incompressibility, constant horizontal velocity profiles. Flatter profiles of horizontal velocity have indeed been observed in some numerical simulations of Kerr , but the scaling has not been properly checked. In any case, as a first approximation, we shall assume that the horizontal velocity in the central region and in the $`Pr<0.35`$ regime, is constant $`U_0`$. The matching of this constant with the logarithmic profile then imposes $`U_0=Ku_\tau (\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _o)+B)`$, where $`\lambda _o`$ is the outer scale, and $`B`$ is a constant which may depend on the Prandtk number (under neutral condition, $`B5`$). In the sequel, we assume $`U_0=fu_\tau `$, and assume that $`f`$ is independent of the Prandtl number (for $`Pr<0.35`$).

These estimates can be further used to determine the scaling behaviors of the two scales $`\lambda _{BLT}`$ and $`\lambda _{BLV}`$ characterizing the turbulent boundary layer. For this, we follow the logic of our turbulent model which states that in the boundary layer, the fluctuations are passively advected by the large scale horizontal velocity and obeys $`U_xu^{}=Pr_z^2u^{}`$ or $`U_x\theta ^{}=_z^2\theta ^{}`$. On dimensional ground, this shows that the two scales are determined via the two implicit equations:

$$U(\lambda _{BLT})\frac{1}{\lambda _{BLT}^2},U(\lambda _{BLV})\frac{Pr}{\lambda _{BLV}^2}.$$
(19)
Here, we have ignored the aspect ratio dependence. Aspect ratio obviously affects the scaling regimes, but since we cannot quantify its effect in the large scale circulation, we shall ignore it hereafter. Depending on the Reynolds number $`Re=u_\tau /Pr`$ and on the Prandtl number, different regimes of velocity will be probed by this implicit relations, and the scaling of $`\lambda _{BLV}`$ and $`\lambda _{BLT}`$ as a function of $`Pr`$ and $`u_\tau `$ will vary. Introducing $`ϵ(\lambda )=d\mathrm{ln}U/d\mathrm{ln}z|_{z=\lambda }`$ (where $`\lambda =\lambda _{BLV}`$ or $`\lambda _{BLT}`$), we can summarize this dependence as:

$`\lambda _{BLT}`$ $`=`$ $`Pr^{ϵ/(2+ϵ)}u_\tau ^{(1+ϵ)/(2+ϵ)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{BLT}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\right)^{\delta (ϵ)/(2+ϵ)},`$ (20)
$`\lambda _{BLV}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{Pr}{u_\tau }}\right)^{(1+ϵ)/(2+ϵ)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}\lambda _{BLV}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f}}\right)^{\delta (ϵ)/(2+ϵ)}.`$ (21)
Here, $`\delta (ϵ)`$ is equal to 1 if $`ϵ=0`$ and zero elsewhere. The dependence of $`ϵ`$ in $`\lambda _{BLT}`$ and $`\lambda _{BLV}`$ has been omitted for simpler notations. Also, the logarithmic and constant velocity regime have been lumped into the single notation $`U(\lambda )u_\tau /(1/\mathrm{ln}\lambda +1/f)`$ which patches the two consecutive characteristic behaviors.

These considerations can be used to compute the Rayleigh and Prandtl dependence of the Nusselt number. For this, we follow  and use the two rigorous relations involving the global average of the kinetic and thermal dissipation rates:

$`<Pr(_iu_j)^2>_V`$ $`=`$ $`RaPr(Nu1),`$ (22)
$`<(_i\theta )^2>_V`$ $`=`$ $`Nu.`$ (23)
In (23) averages are taken over spatial volumes. Dissipation takes place both in the boundary layers, and in the ”bulk” region. However, several independent observations militates in favor of the importance of boundary layers, rather than bulk region, to determine the scaling of the Nusselt with the Rayleigh number. For example, Julien et al  observe that when switching from no-slip to stress-free boundary conditions, the exponent of the power-law Nusselt versus Rayleigh changes from close to $`2/7`$ to close to $`1/3`$. More recently, Ciliberto and Laroche  observed that both the prefactor and the exponent of the power-law changes when switching from smooth to rough bottom plate in the convective cell. On the other hand, blocking the large scale circulation does not affect the heat transport . In numerical simulations at $`Pr=0.7`$ and $`Ra=8\times 10^7`$, Kerr  noted that a change of aspect ratio (which changes the large scale circulation) only affects the energy dissipation in the bulk of the flow. In the boundary layers, the total dissipation seems to remain always about 1/4 of the total dissipation. Gathering all these information, we shall assume that a constant fraction of heat and energy is dissipated in the boundary layers, independently of geometry, Rayleigh number, Prandtl number… This allow us to consider similar equations to (23), where the average is only taken over the volume encompassed by the boundary layers. The advantage is that, in that region, we can use our exact analytical solutions to compute the kinetic and thermal dissipation.

In each case, these dissipation include two contributions: one from the mean flow, and one from the fluctuations. For the mean flow contribution, we use (14) and find:

$`ϵ_U`$ $`=`$ $`Pr{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda _{BLV}}}𝑑z(_zU)^2=Ku_\tau ^3arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{BLT}}{\lambda _u}}\right),`$ (24)
$`ϵ_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\lambda _{BLT}}}𝑑z(_z\mathrm{\Theta })^2={\displaystyle \frac{Nu^2}{2\lambda _\theta }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _\theta }{1+(\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _\theta )^2}}+arctg\left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _{BLT}}{\lambda _\theta }}\right)\right].`$ (25)
For the fluctuations, we first note that the velocity and thermal fluctuations are non-negligible only for $`z>\lambda _u`$ <sup>*</sup><sup>*</sup>*Temperature fluctuations are generated through velocity fluctuations, and, thus, are slaved to them. Further, we use incompressibility to get $`(_zu)^2\lambda _{BLV}^2(_xu)^2\lambda _{BLV}^2(_zw)^2`$. Then, we approximate $`_zw_z\sqrt{<w^2>}`$ and $`_z\theta _z\sqrt{<\theta ^2>}`$. Using (18) and performing the integration, we finally obtain for the contribution of the fluctuations:

$`ϵ_u`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(NuPr)^{3/2}Ra^{1/2}}{4K}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)}{\sqrt{1+(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)^2}}}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{1+(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)^2}+2(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)}{2\sqrt{2}+2}}\right)\right),`$ (26)
$`ϵ_\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{5/2}}{4K(RaPr)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _u}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2(1+2\eta \eta ^2x^2)^2}{(1+x^2)^{3/2}(1+\eta ^2x^2)^3}},\eta =\lambda _u/\lambda _\theta .`$ (27)
Based on these expressions, we can singularize six different regimes. In the first three regimes, the dissipation is dominated by the mean flow contribution. This regimes are expected to hold at low Reynolds number (the turbulence is weak) or when the Prandtl number is low, according to the numerical study of . The thermal dissipation then fixes $`\lambda _{BLT}Nu^1`$. Then we can distinguish two cases: at very low Reynolds number, the boundaries are non-turbulent, and we have $`\lambda _{BLV}<\lambda _u`$, so that $`ϵ_Uu_\tau ^4\lambda _{BLV}/Pr`$, and the two boundary layer scales follow (21) with $`ϵ=1`$. In this regime, we get:

$$NuRa^{1/4}Pr^{1/12},ReRa^{3/8}Pr^{5/8}.$$
(28)
This Nusselt versus Rayleigh dependence corresponds to regime $`I_u`$ of . They argue that for fixed Raleigh number, it could explain the weak decrease of the Nusselt number observed at large Prandtl number. For larger Reynolds number, when $`\lambda _{BLT}>\lambda _u`$, we get to a regime where $`ϵ_Uu_\tau ^3RaPrNu`$. This corresponds to a Reynolds number varying like $`(RaNu)^{1/3}`$, a situation observed in the low Prandtl number experiment of . The final expression of $`Nu`$ depends on how the thermal boundary layer scale $`\lambda _{BLT}Nu^1`$ varies with the mean flow. Using (21), we obtain:

$$Nu\frac{Ra^{(1+ϵ)/(5+2ϵ)}Pr^{(12ϵ)/(5+2ϵ)}}{(1/\mathrm{ln}(Nu)+1/f)^{3\delta (ϵ)/(5+2ϵ)}}.$$
(29)
For $`ϵ1`$ (which may be obtained at low Rayleigh, for $`Pr>0.35`$), this corresponds to the $`2/7`$ law of , in which the Nusselt decreases like $`Pr^{1/7}`$ and the Reynolds number varies like $`Ra^{3/7}`$. For low Prandtl, we have to consider the case $`ϵ=0`$. In that case, we observe an interesting regime, where the Nusselt varies like $`Ra^{1/5}(\mathrm{ln}Ra)^{3/5}`$ at moderate Ra, then turning into a $`Ra^{1/5}`$ regime for larger Ra. The logarithmic correction increases the scaling exponent up to a value close to $`1/4`$, as shown in Fig. 1. In this regime, experimental measurements will tend to show first a 1/4 regime, followed by transition to a 1/5 regime, when the logarithmic corrections vanish, i.e. when the scaling of the boundary layer scale is determined by the bulk flow. This regime therefore exactly explain the experiments by .

Other interesting regimes appear when the fluctuations dominate the kinetic or thermal dissipation. The conditions under which this situation appears cannot be determined by a mere estimate of the ratio of $`ϵ_u`$ versus $`ϵ_U`$, for example, because there are some indications that this condition is in fact subject to boundary conditions. For example, experiments conducted at same aspect ratio, same cylindrical geometry and same Prandtl number by  and  lead to different values of the Nusselt number. In , the scaling relation $`Re(RaNu)^{1/3}`$ (characterizing the regime in which kinetic energy dissipation is dominated by the mean flow ) is satisfied. In the experiment of , a careful study of the length scales revealed a significant deviation from the law $`\lambda _{BLT}1/Nu`$ which would be obtained in the regime explaining the experiment by , and in which the thermal dissipation is provided by the mean temperature profile. It is then logical to attribute the difference of Nusselt via a difference in boundary conditions, which would favor or not the dominance of fluctuations. For example, the thickness or composition of the bottom plate may play such a role (Castaing, private communication).

Let us consider first the regime in which mean flow dominates the thermal dissipation, but fluctuations dominates the kinetic dissipation. In such a case, we still have $`\lambda _{BLT}1/Nu`$, but the scaling of $`Nu`$ depends on the behavior of $`\lambda _{BLV}`$. Assuming (21), and taking $`ϵ=1`$ for $`\lambda _{BLT}`$ (no fluctuations of temperature), we get:

$$Nu\frac{Ra^{(2+ϵ)/(8+7ϵ)}Pr^{ϵ/(8+7ϵ)}\left[\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)\right]^{2(2+ϵ)/(8+7ϵ)}}{(1/\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLV})+1/f)^{4\delta (ϵ)/(8+7ϵ)}}.$$
(30)
For $`ϵ=1/2`$ (valid for $`Pr>0.35`$), we obtain two different behaviour with (30): one, with $`\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u1`$. This situation prevails for example under stress-free boundary conditions, like studied by WernePC, or for very large aspect ratio. It may also occur at very large Prandtl number, if, as discussed in  the viscous length scale approaches the size of the box and cannot increase any further. In such situation, we get $`Nu=Ra^{1/3}Pr^{1/9}`$. In the opposite situation, where $`\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u1`$, we then have (within logarithmic corrections) $`\lambda _{BLV}Re^{1/3}`$. This gives $`NuRa^{1/3}/(\mathrm{ln}(Ra))^{2/3}`$. This law reproduces extremely well the recent experimental measurement of Niemela et al. , obtained with Helium ($`Pr=0.7`$) over 11 decades of Rayleigh numbers. These measurements can be fitted by a power-law with exponent $`0.308`$ over this range of Rayleigh number. However, as shown in Figure 2., even over such a wide range, the law with logarithmic corrections cannot be distinguished from the power-law exponent. Other measurements are also explained by this regime, for $`Pr>0.35`$. For example, in this regime, we predict a variation of the Nusselt number with the Prandtl numer going like $`NuPr^{1/9}/\mathrm{ln}(Pr)`$ (because $`Re`$ depends on the Prandtl number). This variation is shown in Figure. 3. A power-law fit of this variation over $`0.7<Pr<100`$ gives an exponent $`0.2`$, exactly like in the experiment of Ashkenazi and Steinberg . Also, the Reynolds number in this regime varies like $`Re=\sqrt{Nu^3/Pr}`$. The power-law dependence mimicked by the logarithmic corrections is (see Fig. 4 and 5) $`ReRa^{0.46}Pr^{0.8}`$, again, in excellent agreement with the measurement of . Other quantities, like the scaling of the central fluctuating temperature, or the length scales (Table IV) are also in excellent agreement with direct measurements of Niemela et al.  or by Kerr . We do not discuss the regime corresponding to $`ϵ=0`$ in (30) because, apparently, it is not applicable to the low Prandtl regime: it assumes that $`\lambda _{BLT}<\lambda _u`$, at variances with experimental observations by Segawa et al .

The last regime is obtained when temperature fluctuations dominate the thermal dissipation, making $`\lambda _{BLT}`$ differ from $`1/Nu`$. The two interesting regimes then depend on whether $`\eta =\lambda _u/\lambda _\theta =Nu/Re`$ is less or larger than $`1`$. In the first case, we get:

$`ϵ_\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{5/2}}{4K(RaPr)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _u}}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{(1+x^2)^{3/2}}}`$ (31)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{5/2}}{4K(RaPr)^{1/2}}}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _u)).`$ (32)
We then get from (23) that $`Nu(RaPr)^{1/3}/(\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _u))^{2/3}`$. This regime is similar to regime (30), with a different prefactor. In the case where $`\eta 1`$, we get

$`ϵ_\theta `$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{5/2}}{4K(RaPr)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle _1^{\lambda _{BLT}/\lambda _u}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{\eta ^2x^2}}`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Nu^{1/2}u_\tau ^2}{4K(RaPr)^{1/2}}}.`$ (34)
From (23), we get $`Re=u_\tau /Pr=Pr^{3/4}(RaNu)^{1/4}`$. Using the expression (21) for $`\lambda _{BLV}`$, and $`ϵ_u=RaPrNu`$, we finally get :

$$Nu\frac{Ra^{1/(3+2ϵ)}Pr^{(1+2ϵ)/(3+2ϵ)}\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLV}/\lambda _u)^{2(2+ϵ)/(3+2ϵ)}}{(1/\mathrm{ln}(\lambda _{BLV})+1/f)^{4\delta (ϵ)/(3+2ϵ)}}.$$
(35)
For $`ϵ=0`$ (corresponding to low Prandtl number), we obtain a regime $`Nu=Ra^{1/3}`$ with logarithmic corrections which depend on the Rayleigh number: for low Rayleigh number, the scaling of the boundary layer is determined by the logarithmic region, making $`NuRa^{1/3}/\mathrm{ln}(Ra)^{8/3}`$. This regime mimics a scaling exponent close to $`1/4`$ (see Figure 6). For larger Rayleigh numbers, the scaling of the boundary layer scale is determined by the bulk flow, changing the correction to $`NuRa^{1/3}/(\mathrm{ln}(Ra))^{4/3}`$. This results in a larger effective exponent, of the order of $`0.28`$. In this regime, the boundary layer scale like $`\lambda _{BLV}(Re\mathrm{ln}(Re))^{1/2}`$, providing an approximate power-law in Rayleigh with exponent $`0.2`$. All these features were observed in the mercury experiment of . For $`ϵ=1/2`$ ($`Pr>0.35`$, we obtain a regime in which the Nusselt depends only weakly on the Prandtl number $`NuRa^{1/2}/(\mathrm{ln}(Re))^{3/2}`$. This regime corresponds to the ”ultra-hard” convective regime predicted by Kraichnan , but with logarithmic corrections. In Fig. 7, we compare this regime with the $`NuPr^{0.072}Ra^{0.389}`$ approximate power-law measured by Chavanne et al  in Helium, at $`Ra>10^{11}`$. Our formula predicts a very weak dependence of in the Prandtl number, like in , but with opposite sign. This could be accounted for minute variations of the mean profile around the value $`ϵ=1/2`$. However, the plus sign of the fit by Chavanne et al. could be an artifact due to the scatter of the data. Indeed several measurements performed at fixed Rayleigh number and for increasing Prandtl show that $`Nu`$ tends to decrease rather than increase, as in the formula by Chavanne et al. The predictions in this regime are also in agreement with their Reynolds number measurements $`ReRa^{0.49}Pr^{0.75}`$ if one considers that this Reynolds number is based on the vertical velocity, i.e. $`Rew_cPr`$. Interestingly enough, the slight discrepancy between our prediction for $`d\mathrm{ln}w_c/d\mathrm{ln}Pr`$ (little less than 0.25) and the Chavanne et al. fit (little more than 0.25) can be traced back to the discrepancy in the Nusselt number. So there must be some systematic error present at this level, either in the theory, or in the experiments. In any case, this new regime may explain to puzzling facts: 1) why Glazier et al do not observe transition towards a new scaling regime, despite their very large Reynolds number. This is because they were already in the ultra-hard regime! 2) why for the same geometry and the same aspect ratio, Niemela et al did not observe a transition towards the regime observed by Chavanne et al. It is because, somehow, they do not allow the temperature fluctuations to grow enough so that their contribution supersedes that of the mean flow.

A good summary of our results can be found in the tables. For completeness, we have indicated the scaling behavior of various quantities measured in experiments, like $`\mathrm{\Delta }_c`$ or $`w_c`$ (the value of temperature or velocity fluctuations at the center of the cell). These values can be estimated from (18), with $`z=1`$. When available, we have indicated comparison with measurements. This summary shows that many scaling behaviors observed in recent experiments can be reproduced using log-corrected scaling laws. Overall, the agreement of the theory based our toy model of thermal convection is excellent for the case $`Pr1`$ (Helium). It predicts reasonably well the Rayleigh dependence of the quantities for low Prandtl number, but it is not clear whether the Prandtl number dependence in these regimes is well predicted. This might be caused by our initial hypothesis (taking $`Pr^t=1`$). Also, we were unsure where to put in this picture the recent experiments by  performed in water. The difficulty is that these experiments are performed at many different aspect ratio, and it is difficult to disentangle the aspect ratio dependence of the local scaling exponents with other dependences. At least in the case of Helium, apparently, we reached a point where experimental measurements cannot discriminate between logarithmic corrections to scaling, or corrections due to superposition of power laws, like proposed by . This calls for identification of more stringent tests of theories. One possibility, which has been so far under-exploited, would be to concentrate on statistical properties rather than average, i.e. on probability distributions functions. In this context, it is interesting to note that our toy model of turbulent convection allows such investigations, via a Langevin formalism exploiting the linearity and the stochasticity of the equations. In neutral condition, our toy model leads to PDF’s for velocity with qualitatively similar behavior than the PDF’s measured in high Reynolds number flows . The generalization of these results to the convective regime is underway.

I thank the Fluid Mechanics group of the ENS Lyon for many very interesting discussions. My special thanks goes to B. Castaing for his continuous interest and support in the present work.