format: text

text:
# Are Compact Hyperbolic Models Observationally Ruled Out?

## 1 Introduction

In the framework of modern cosmology, one often takes it for granted that the spatial geometry of the universe with finite volume is limited to that of a 3-sphere. However, if we drop the assumption of simply connectivity of the spatial geometry, then flat and hyperbolic(constantly negatively curved) spaces can be closed as well. Therefore non-positive curvature of the spatial geometry does not necessarily implies the infinite space. For instance, the simplest example of a constantly curved finite-volume space with non-trivial topology is a flat 3-torus which can be obtained by identifying the opposite faces of a cube by translations in the Euclidean 3-space. Construction of compact(closed) hyperbolic(CH) spaces is somewhat complicated but one can systematically create a countably infinite number of topologically distinct classes of CH spaces by performing topological surgeries on a certain space. In order to avoid confusion, it might be better to call a cosmological model whose spatial geometry is described by a connected and simply connected constantly negatively curved space as an “infinite hyperbolic” model rather than an “open” model which has been commonly used in the literature of astrophysics.
Since 1993, a number of articles concerned with constraints on the topology of flat models with no cosmological constant using the COBE-DMR data have been published.  The large-angle temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background(CMB) discovered by the COBE satellite constrain the topological identification scale $`L`$ 111There is an ambiguity in the definition of $`L`$. Here we define $`L`$ as twice the diameter, i.e. the longest geodesic distance between arbitrary two points in the space $`M`$. Alternatively, one can define $`L`$ as twice the minimum value of the injectivity radius $`\text{Min}_{pM}\{r_{inj}(p)\}`$. Injectivity radius $`r_{inj}`$ at a point $`p`$ is equal to the radius of the largest connected and simply connected ball centered at $`p`$ which does not cross itself. larger than 0.4 times the diameter of the observable region; in other words, the maximum expected number $`N`$ of copies of the fundamental domain inside the last scattering surface in the comoving coordinates is $``$8 for compact flat models without the cosmological constant222The constraints are for models in which the diameter $`D`$ is comparable to the injectivity radius $`r_{inj}`$. If $`D`$ is much longer than $`r_{inj}`$ then the constraint on $`r_{inj}`$ is less stringent.. Assuming that the primordial power spectrum is scale-invariant($`n=1`$) then the large-angle power is strongly suppressed since fluctuations on scales larger than the physical size of the spatial hypersurface are strongly suppressed.
In contrast, a large amount of large-angle fluctuations can be produced for compact low density models owing to the decay of gravitational potential near the present epoch which is known as the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. If the spatial geometry is flat or hyperbolic then the physical distance between two separated points $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ which subtends a fixed angle at the observation point $`O`$ becomes larger as the distance from $`O`$ to $`P_1`$ or $`P_2`$ increases. Large-angle fluctuations can be generated at late epoch when the fluctuation scale “enters” the topological identification scale $`L`$. Recent statistical analyses using only the power spectrum have shown that the constraints on the topology are not stringent for small CH models including the smallest (Weeks) and the second smallest (Thurston) known manifolds and an non-arithmetic orbifold  and also for a flat compact toroidal model with the cosmological constant.
These results are clearly at odds with the previous constraints  on CH models based on pixel-pixel correlation statistics. It has been claimed that the statistical analysis using only the power spectrum is not sufficient since it can describe only isotropic (statistically spherically symmetric) correlations. This is true inasmuch one considers fluctuations observed at a particular point. Because any CH spaces are globally anisotropic, expected fluctuations would be statistically globally anisotropic at a particular point.
However, in order to constrain CH models, it is also necessary to compare the expected fluctuation patterns observed at every place of the observer to the data since all CH spaces are globally inhomogeneous. It should be emphasized that the constraints obtained in the previous analyses are only for CH models at a particular observation point $`P`$ where the injectivity radius is locally maximum for 24 particular orientations. $`P`$ is rather special one in the sense that some of the mode functions often (eigenfunctions of the Laplacian) have symmetric structure. It is often the case that the base point $`P`$ becomes a fixed point of symmetries of the Dirichlet domain or of the space itself. At different places the statistically averaged temperature correlations significantly changes their anisotropic structure as implied by the random Gaussian behavior of the mode functions of the Laplace-Beltrami operator. Thus it is of crucial importance to carry out Bayesian analyses incorporating the dependence of the statistically averaged correlations on the position of the observer.
On the other hand, recent CMB observations have succeeded in measuring the amplitude and the peak of the angular power spectrum on small angular scales. Assuming that initial fluctuations are purely adiabatic seeded by quantum fluctuations then the first acoustic peak at $`l200`$ implies nearly flat geometry. This seems to deny any spherical or hyperbolic models. However, if one considers generalized initial fluctuations that include isocurvature modes of baryons, cold dark matter and neutrinos, the uncertainty in estimating the curvature significantly increases. In order to decrease the uncertainty in the cosmological parameters one needs information of polarization which will be supplied by the future satellite missions, namely MAP and Planck. Until then we should interpret the recent CMB observations as which implies “not grossly curved spatial geometry” rather than “rigorously flat geometry”.
Even if the spatial geometry is nearly flat, the effect of the non-trivial topology is still prominent provided that the spatial hypersurface is much smaller than the observable region at present. However, we cannot expect a very small CH space since there is a lower bound $`V_{min}`$ for the volume $`V`$ of CH spaces. The precise value of $`V_{min}`$ is not known but it has been proved that $`V>0.1667R^3`$ where $`R`$ denotes the curvature radius for CH manifolds. The smallest known example has been discovered by Weeks which has volume $`0.9427R^3`$ called the Weeks manifold. If we allow CH orbifold models then the volume can be much smaller. For instance, the smallest known orbifold has volume $`V=0.0391R^3`$.
Suppose that the cosmological constant or the “missing energy” with negative equation-of-state dominates the present energy density as the recent observations of SNIa imply  then the comoving radius of the last scattering surface in unit of curvature radius becomes large because of the slow decrease in the cosmic expansion rate in the past. For instance, the number $`N`$ of copies of the fundamental domain inside the last scattering in the comoving coordinates is approximately 17.2 for a Weeks model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.65`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ whereas $`N=2.5`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.85`$. $`N`$ can be much larger for small orbifold models. Thus, even in the case of nearly flat geometry, there are possibilities that we can observe the imprint of the non-trivial topology.
In this paper, we investigate the CMB anisotropy in CH models(manifold and orbifold) with small volume with or without the cosmological constant. In section 2 we briefly describe the necessary ingredients of the geometry and topology of CH spaces. In section 3 the time evolution of the scalar-type perturbation which can be used for simulating the CMB anisotropy is described. In section 4 we estimate the degree of suppression in the large-angle power for manifold and orbifold models. In section 5 we carry out Bayesian analyses using the COBE-DMR data. In the last section we summarize our results.

## 2 Compact Hyperbolic Spaces

The discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of the orientation-preserving isometry group of the simply-connected hyperbolic 3-space $`H^3`$ (which is isomorphic to $`PSL(2,)`$) is called the Kleinian group. Any orientable CH 3-spaces (either manifold or orbifold) can be described as compact quotients333The orientation-reversing isometry group of $`H^3`$ is isomorphic to $`PSL(2,)𝐣`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ includes an element which is isomorphic to the discrete subgroup of $`PSL(2,)𝐣`$ then the compact quotient $`M`$ is unorientable.$`M=H^3/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let us represent $`H^3`$ as an upper half space ($`x_1,x_2,x_3`$) for which the metric is given by

$$ds^2=\frac{R^2(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2)}{x_3^2},$$
(1)
where $`R`$ is the curvature radius. In what follows, $`R`$ is set to unity without loss of generality. If we represent a point $`p`$ on the upper-half space, as a quaternion whose fourth component equals zero, then the actions of $`PSL(2,)`$ on $`H^3\{\mathrm{}\}`$ take the form

$$\gamma :pp^{}=\frac{ap+b}{cp+d},adbc=1,pz+x_3𝐣,z=x_1+x_2𝐢,$$
(2)
where a, b, c and d are complex numbers and $`1`$, $`𝐢`$ and $`𝐣`$ are the components of the basis of quaternions. The action $`\gamma `$ is explicitly written as

$`\gamma :H^3\{\mathrm{}\}`$ $``$ $`H^3\{\mathrm{}\},`$
$`\gamma :(z(x_1,x_2),x_3)`$ $``$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{(az+b)(\overline{cz+d})+a\overline{c}x_3^2}{|cz+d|^2+|c|^2x_3^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{x_3}{|cz+d|^2+|c|^2x_3^2}}),`$ (3)
where a bar denotes a complex conjugate. Elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for orientable CH manifolds are $`SL(2,)`$ conjugate to

$$\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(l/2+i\varphi /2)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(l/2i\varphi /2)\end{array}\right),0<\varphi 2\pi ,l>0$$
(4)
which are called loxodromic if $`\varphi 0`$ and hyperbolic if $`\varphi =0`$.
There are other classes of isometries of $`H^3`$ which have fixed points, namely, parabolic and elliptic elements. In matrix representation, they are $`SL(2,)`$ conjugate to

$$\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\text{parabolic}$$
(5)
and

$$\pm \left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\end{array}\right),0<\varphi 2\pi ,\text{elliptic}$$
(6)
, respectively. An orientable CH orbifold can be realized as a compact quotient $`H^3`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ which includes an elliptic element. If $`\gamma `$ includes a parabolic element, then the quotient space is called a cusped hyperbolic manifold. A cusp point corresponds to a fixed point at infinity by the parabolic transformation. In what follows we denote a “cusped manifold” as a finite-volume hyperbolic manifold with one cusp point or more.
Topological construction of CH spaces starts with a cusped manifold $`M_c`$. Let us first consider the two-dimensional case. If we glue two ideal hyperbolic triangles together on each sides, then we have a thrice punctured sphere. Because each side is isometric to a line, we can modify the gluing map by an arbitrary translation (in this case it is parametrized by $`^3`$). However, the obtained surface is not always complete. Let $`h`$ be a horocycle444Horocycles centered at a vertex $`v`$ at infinity are the curves orthogonal to all lines through $`v`$.segment, that is orthogonal to the two sides of the triangle centered at a vertex $`v`$. Extend $`h`$ counterclockwise about $`v`$ by horocycle segments that meet successive edges of ideal triangles. Finally it re-enters the orthogonal triangle as a horocycle concentric with $`h`$, at a distance $`d(v)`$. The obtained surface is complete if and only if $`d(v)=0`$ for all vertices $`v`$. In this case, the condition $`d(v)=0`$ yields a hyperbolic manifold with three cusp points where the horocycles correspond to periodic geodesics associated with parabolic elements.

Similarly, one can construct a cusped 3-manifold by gluing ideal polyhedra. Here we consider gluing of a set of $`n`$ ideal tetrahedra $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$. $`T_i`$ is determined by the three dihedral angles $`\alpha ,\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ which satisfy $`\alpha +\beta \gamma =\pi `$. Because the dihedral angles of opposite edges are equal, $`T_i`$ is essentially determined by two parameters. In order to represent the shape of an ideal tetrahedron $`T_i`$ , one can use the link $`L(v)`$ of a vertex $`v`$ at infinity which is an Euclidean triangle realized as the intersection of a horosphere555Horospheres centered at a vertex $`v`$ at infinity are the surfaces orthogonal to all lines through $`v`$. with $`T_i`$ in the neighborhood of $`v`$. $`L(v)`$ can be described by two parameters and determines $`T_i`$ up to congruence. In order to parameterize $`L(v)`$, it is convenient to represent the Euclidean plane $`E^2`$ as $``$. To each vertex $`v_1`$ of a triangle ($`v_1,v_2,v_3`$) (the vertices are labeled in a clockwise order)in $``$ we associate the ratio

$$z(v_1)=\frac{v_3v_1}{v_2v_1}$$
(7)
of the sides adjacent to $`v_1`$. The ratios(with any starting point) should satisfy

$`z(v_1)z(v_2)z(v_3)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`1z(v_1)+z(v_1)z(v_2)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (8)
Thus any $`z(v_i)`$ determines the other two $`z(v_j)`$s. An ideal tetrahedron can be specified by any $`z(v_i)`$ having two parameters up to orientation-preserving similarity (figure 1). The gluing conditions of ideal tetrahedra $`T_1,\mathrm{},T_n`$ are algebraically given by

$`z(e_1)z(e_2)\mathrm{}z(e_m)`$ $`=`$ $`1,`$
$`\text{arg}z(e_1)+\mathrm{}+\text{arg}z(e_m)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ,0\text{arg}\pi `$ (9)
where $`e_i`$s are the edges of ideal tetrahedra. Note that even if the above conditions are satisfied the obtained manifold is sometimes incomplete where the developing image of $`L(v)`$ is $`0`$ after an appropriate translation. If $`L(v)`$ properly tessellates $``$ then the obtained manifold $`M`$ is complete and the boundary of the neighborhood of a vertex at infinity is either a torus or a Klein bottle. $`M=M_c`$ is topologically equivalent to the complement of a knot $`K`$ or link $`L`$(which consists of knots) in a 3-sphere $`S^3`$ or some other closed 3-space. A surgery in which one removes the tubular neighborhood $`N`$ of $`K`$ whose boundary is homeomorphic to a torus, and replace $`N`$ by a solid torus so that a meridian666Given a set of generators $`a`$ and $`b`$ for the fundamental group of a torus, a closed curve $`C`$ which connects a point $`x`$ in the torus with $`ax`$ is called a meridian and another curve which connects a point $`x`$ with $`bx`$ is called a longitude. in the solid torus goes to $`(p,q)`$ curve777If a closed curve $`C`$ connects a point $`x`$ with another point $`(pa+qb)x`$ where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are integer, $`C`$ is called a $`(p,q)`$ curve. on $`N`$ is called $`(p,q)`$ Dehn surgery. Except for a finite number of cases, Dehn surgeries on $`K`$ where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are co-prime always yield CH 3-manifolds which implies that most compact 3-manifolds are hyperbolic since every closed 3-manifolds can be obtained by performing such Dehn surgeries. CH 3-orbifolds whose singular sets consist of lines can be obtained by $`(p,q)`$ Dehn surgeries where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are not co-prime.
The above procedure for obtaining CH 3-spaces is manifestly defined but somewhat complicated for computation by hand. A computer program “SnapPea” developed by Weeks can numerically handle the procedure, namely computation of hyperbolic structure of cusped manifolds, performing various Dehn surgeries and so on. SnapPea can also compute the volume, fundamental group, homology, symmetry group, Chern-Simon invariant, length spectrum and other quantities.

In contrast to compact flat spaces with no scale, there is a lower bound for the volume of CH 3-spaces. It has been proved that the volumes of CH 3-manifolds cannot be smaller than $`0.16668\mathrm{}`$ although no concrete example with such volume is known. The smallest known CH 3-manifold is called the Weeks manifold with volume $`0.9427`$ which can be obtained by a (3,-1) Dehn surgery on a cusped manifold $`m003`$ with volume 2.0299(one of the smallest known cusped manifold). Performing a (-2,3) Dehn surgery on m003 yields the second smallest known manifold called the Thurston manifold with volume $`0.9814`$. Except for a finite number of cases, Dehn surgeries on m003 yield CH manifolds with volume less than that of m003. As $`|p|`$ and $`|q|`$ becomes large, the volume of the space converges to that of the original cusped manifold $`M_c`$. Therefore, for the purpose of classification of CH spaces it is better to exclude “almost non-compact” spaces that are very similar to $`M_c`$.888The Hodgson-Weeks census consists of the data of 11,031 CH manifolds with length of the shortest periodic geodesic $`l>0.3`$ and volume $`V<6.4535`$. The volume of CH 3-orbifolds can be much smaller since every CH 3-orbifold is covered by a CH 3-manifold(there are an infinite number of coverings). For instance, the smallest volume of a CH 3-orbifold whose finite-sheeted cover is the Weeks manifold is $`V=0.9427/12=0.0786`$ (see figure 2)since the isometry group of the Weeks manifold is $`D6`$(dihedral group), which does not have any fixed planes. The smallest known orientable 3-orbifold has volume $`V=0.0391`$ which also does not have any fixed planes. A known lower bound for the volume of orientable orbifolds is $`V>0.0000013`$.

## 3 CMB Anisotropy

In what follows we assume that the matter consists of two components:a relativistic and an non-relativistic one ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$). From the Friedmann equation, the integral representation for the time evolution of the scale factor $`a`$ (normalized to 1 at present time) in terms of the conformal time $`\eta `$ is given by

$$\eta (a)=R_0^a\frac{da}{\sqrt{\text{sign}K((\mathrm{\Omega }_na+\mathrm{\Omega }_r+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }a^4)/(\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1)a^2)}},K0,$$
(10)
where $`R=|K|^{1/2}`$ is the curvature radius at present. The above presentations can also be written in terms of some special functions but they are too complex to describe here.
The scalar perturbation equations are exactly same as those without the cosmological constant. Let us consider the adiabatic case and assume that the anisotropic pressure is negligible. Then from the linear perturbation equation, the time evolution of the Newtonian curvature perturbation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of $`k`$ mode is given by,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+3(1+c_s^2)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+c_s^2k^2\mathrm{\Phi }+(2^{}+(1+3c_s^2)(^2K))\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(11)
where  denotes the conformal time derivative $`d/d\eta `$, $`a^{}/a`$, G is the Newton’s constant, $`c_s`$ is the sound speed of the fluid which is explicitly written in terms of the density of relativistic matter $`\rho _r`$ and non-relativistic matter $`\rho _m`$

$$c_s^2=\frac{1}{3}\frac{\rho _r}{\rho _r+\frac{3}{4}\rho _m}.$$
(12)
Let us consider the early universe when the radiation is dominant and the effect of the curvature and the cosmological constant is negligible. Then (10) yield the evolution of the scale factor as $`a\eta `$ and (11) is reduced to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }+\frac{4}{\eta }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\frac{k^2}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$
(13)
which has an analytic solution

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )=\eta ^3\{(\omega \eta \mathrm{cos}(\omega \eta )\mathrm{sin}(\omega \eta ))C_1+(\omega \eta \mathrm{sin}(\omega \eta )\mathrm{cos}(\omega \eta ))C_2\},$$
(14)
where $`\omega =k/\sqrt{3}`$ and $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are constants which depend on $`k`$. Around $`\eta =0`$, (14) can be expanded as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )=\eta ^3\{C_2+\frac{C_2}{2}\omega ^2\eta ^2\frac{C_1}{3}\omega ^3\eta ^3\frac{C_2}{8}\omega ^4\eta ^4+𝒪((\omega \eta )^5)\}.$$
(15)
Thus for the long-wavelength modes($`\omega \eta <<1`$), the non-decaying mode ($`C_2=0`$) has constant amplitude and the time derivative at the initial time vanishes,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\text{const},\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(0)=0.$$
(16)
During the radiation-matter equality time the equation of state change from $`w=1/3`$ to $`w=0`$. Then the amplitude of long-wavelength modes changes by a factor of $`9/10`$. In the curvature or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominant epoch the amplitude decays as $`1/a`$.
Assuming that the matter is dominant at the last scattering 999For low density models, the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe term in (17) may not be valid since the last scattering may occur before full-matter domination. However, on large angular scales (17) still gives a good approximation since the integrated Sachs-Wolfe term dominates over the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe term in low density models. and the anisotropic pressure is negligible, the temperature fluctuation on large angular scales can be written in terms of the Newtonian curvature perturbation $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}(𝐧)=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta _{},(\eta _0\eta _{})𝐧)2_\eta _{}^{\eta _0}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta ,(\eta _0\eta )𝐧)}{\eta }𝑑\eta ,$$
(17)
where $`𝐧`$ denotes the unit vector which points the sky and $`\eta _{}`$ and $`\eta _0`$ correspond to the last scattering conformal time and the present conformal time, respectively. The first term in the right-hand side in (17) describes the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe (OSW) effect while the second term describes the integrated Sachs-Wolfe (ISW) effect.

## 4 Angular power spectra

In order to analyze the temperature anisotropy in the sky it is convenient to expand it in terms of spherical harmonics $`Y_{lm}`$ as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }T}{T}(𝐧)=\underset{lm}{}a_{lm}Y_{lm}(𝐧),$$
(18)
where $`𝐧`$ is the unit vector along the line of sight. Because each mode of scalar perturbation evolves independently in the locally isotropic and homogeneous background space, we need only the information of eigenmodes $`u_\nu `$ of the Laplace-Beltrami operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the CH space (i.e. elements of an orthonormal basis of $`L^2(H^3/\mathrm{\Gamma })`$) which can be expanded in terms of eigenmodes in the simply connected infinite hyperbolic space in the spherical coordinates ($`\chi ,\theta ,\varphi `$) as

$`u_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{lm}{}}\xi _{\nu lm}X_{\nu l}(\chi )Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi ),`$
$`X_{\nu l}(\chi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(l+1+\nu i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu i)}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}\chi }}}P_{\nu i1/2}^{l1/2}(\mathrm{cosh}\chi ),`$ (19)
where $`\nu ^2=k^21`$, $`Y_{lm}`$ denotes (complex) spherical harmonics, $`P`$ is the associated Legendre function and $`\xi _{\nu lm}`$ represents the expansion coefficients.
Assuming that the initial fluctuations obey the Gaussian statistic, and neglecting the tensor-type perturbations and anisotropic pressure and matter is dominant at the last scattering epoch, the angular power spectrum $`C_l=<|a_{lm}|^2>`$ ($`<>`$ denotes an ensemble average over the initial perturbation) for CH models can be written as

$`(2l+1)C_l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu ,m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi ^4𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )}{\nu (\nu ^2+1)V(M)}}|\xi _{\nu lm}|^2|F_{\nu l}|^2,`$
$`F_{\nu l}(\eta _o)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{\Phi }_t(\eta _{})X_{\nu l}(\eta _o\eta _{})+2{\displaystyle _\eta _{}^{\eta _o}}𝑑\eta {\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }_t}{d\eta }}X_{\nu l}(\eta _o\eta ),`$ (20)
where $`\nu =\sqrt{k^21}`$, $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )`$ is the initial power spectrum, and $`\eta _{}`$ and $`\eta _o`$ are the last scattering and the present conformal time, respectively. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_t=\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{\Phi }(0)`$ and $`V(M)`$ is the comoving volume of the space. The (extended) Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum corresponds to $`𝒫_\mathrm{\Phi }(\nu )=Const.`$ which we shall use as the initial condition. It should be noted that $`C_l`$’s depend on the position and orientation of the observer since CH spaces are globally inhomogeneous. Therefore, it is better to consider the ensemble average $`\widehat{C}_l<C_l>`$ taken over the position of the observer. Using Weyl’s asymptotic formula one can easily show that $`\widehat{C}_l`$’s coincide with those for the infinite counterpart in the limit $`\nu \mathrm{}`$ provided that $`<|\xi _{\nu lm}|^2>\nu ^2`$. 101010 Although we have assumed that the normalization factor in $`<|\xi _{\nu lm}|^2>`$ does not depend on the volume of the space, the volume factor in (20) might not be necessary if $`<|\xi _{\nu lm}|^2>`$ is proportional to $`1/V(M)`$. Thus all we have to do is to numerically compute the expansion coefficients $`\xi _{\nu lm}`$ which contain the information of global topology and geometry.111111The low-lying eigenmodes of the two smallest manifolds (Weeks and Thurston) have been computed using the direct boundary element method. For other small CH manifolds the eigenvalues have been computed using the periodic orbit sum method.
In order to estimate the suppression in the angular power $`\widehat{C}_l`$ it is convenient to write $`\widehat{C}_l`$ in terms of the transfer function $`T_l(k)`$ which satisfies

$$\frac{2l+1}{4\pi }\stackrel{~}{C}_l=T_l^2(k)𝒫(k)\frac{dk}{k},$$
(21)
where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_l`$ denotes the angular power for the infinite counterpart. For CH models, $`\widehat{C}_l`$ is written as a sum of $`T_l^2(k)`$ for discrete wave numbers $`k_i`$.
On large angular scales, the behavior of the angular power $`\widehat{C}_l`$ is determined by low-lying modes which are susceptible to the global topology of the background geometry since the amplitude of each mode is proportional to $`\nu ^5|F_{\nu l}|^2`$. As shown in figure 3, one can see that the transfer function corresponding to the first eigenmode $`T_l^2(k_1)`$ mimics the angular dependence of $`\widehat{C}_l`$.
The large-angle power owing to the OSW effect suffers a significant suppression since fluctuations on scales beyond the actual size of the space are not allowed. The angular cutoff scale $`l_{cut}`$ above which the OSW contribution suffers a suppression corresponds to the angular scale of the first eigenmode on the last scattering surface, which can be written in terms of the comoving volume $`V(M)`$ and the smallest non-zero wavenumber $`k_1`$ as

$$l_{cut}=\frac{k_1}{4}\sqrt{V^1((\mathrm{sinh}(2(R_{LSS}+r_{ave}))\mathrm{sinh}(2(R_{LSS}r_{ave}))4r_{ave}))},$$
(22)
where $`V=\pi (\mathrm{sinh}(2r_{ave})2r_{ave})`$ and $`R_{LSS}`$ denotes the comoving radius of the last scattering surface. For the Weeks models ($`V=0.94`$ and $`k_1=5.27`$), $`l_{cut}=26`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.2`$ and $`l_{cut}=7`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.6`$.

From figure 3 one can see that the angular scales $`l_{cut}`$ corresponding to the intersection of $`k=k_1`$ and the OSW ridge of the transfer function well agree with these analytic estimates. On smaller angular scales $`l>>l_{cut}`$, the powers asymptotically converge to those for the infinite counterpart.
Because the large-angle power in the COBE-DMR data is nearly flat, it seems that the suppression leads to a bad fit to the data on large angular scales. However, for low density models we should consider the ISW effect owing to the gravitational potential decay at the curvature dominant epoch $`1+z(1\mathrm{\Omega }_0)/\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominant epoch $`1+z(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Omega }_0)^{1/3}`$ well after the last scattering time. For a given angular scale $`l`$ the comoving scale $`k^1`$ of a fluctuation that is produced at late time is decreased. On the other hand, fluctuations do not suffer suppression if the comoving scales of fluctuations are sufficiently smaller than the actual size of the space $`k^1<<r_{ave}`$. Therefore, the suppression on the ISW contribution is less stringent compared with the OSW contribution. Interestingly, the suppression on the angular power owing to the mode-cutoff reduces the excess power owing to the ISW effect, resulting in a nearly flat power with a slight suppression on large angular scales $`2l10`$.
The suppression of the power is crudely estimated by the number $`N`$ of the copies of the fundamental domain inside the last scattering surface in comoving coordinates. Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$. Then the comoving radius of the last scattering surface in terms of the present curvature radius $`R`$

$$R_{LSS}R\mathrm{cosh}^1(2/\mathrm{\Omega }_m1),$$
(23)
gives the comoving volume $`v_{LSS}`$ of the ball inside the last scattering surface

$$v_{LSS}\pi R^3(\mathrm{sinh}(2R_{LSS}/R)2R_{LSS}/R).$$
(24)
For example, $`v_{LSS}490R^3`$ for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.2,0)`$ whereas $`v_{LSS}R^3`$ for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_m,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })=(0.9,0)`$. Thus in nearly flat models, the imprint of the non-trivial topology is prominent only for the case where the volume is smaller than $`R^3`$. However, if one includes the cosmological constant then $`R_{LSS}`$ (in unit of $`R`$) becomes large because of a slow increase in the cosmic expansion rate in the past. For instance, $`N=8.7`$ for a Weeks model (the smallest known manifold) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ whereas $`N=1.2`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.9`$. Furthermore, if one allows orbifold models, $`N`$ can be much larger than these values. For instance, $`N=51.8`$ for the smallest orbifold (volume$`=0.0391R^3`$) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.25`$.

Now let us consider the angular power spectrum for orbifold models. Assuming no very short periodic geodesics and no supercurvature modes, one can crudely estimate the low-lying eigenvalues  from the asymptotic form of the number function(spectral staircase)

$$n(E)=\frac{V(M)}{6\pi ^2}\nu ^3+c_2\nu ^2+c_1\nu +c_0+O(e^{\pi \nu /5}),\nu ^2=E1,$$
(25)
where $`n(E)`$ denotes the number of eigenvalues of the Laplace-Beltrami operator equal to or less than $`E`$ and $`c_i`$’s are the constants determined from the plane reflection, elliptic and inverse elliptic elements of the discrete isometry group and the area of the fixed planes. For orientable orbifolds with only fixed lines, the constants vanish except for $`c_1`$ which is written in terms of elliptic elements. If we consider only such orbifolds with small volume (large $`\nu _1`$) then the dominant contribution comes from the first term in the right hand side in (25). If we further assume that the eigenmodes have the same pseudo-random property as those of CH manifolds then we can readily estimate the angular powers. As shown in figure 4 the suppression of the large-angle power for small orbifold models is still prominent in the case of nearly flat geometry.

Another feature of the non-trivial topology is an increase in the cosmic variance which is attributed to the global inhomogeneity and anisotropy of the background geometry. If we assume the pseudo-random Gaussianity of the expansion coefficients $`\xi _{\nu lm}`$ as observed in the smallest CH manifolds then uncertainty in the power (which may be called the geometric variance) can be easily estimated. For CH models, $`a_{lm}`$ is given by a sum of products of the initial perturbation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (0)`$ times the expansion coefficients

$$a_{lm}=\underset{\nu }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (0)\xi _{\nu lm}F_{\nu l}.$$
(26)
If we fix the values of the primordial fluctuations then $`a_{lm}`$’s behave as if they are random Gaussian numbers and the angular power obeys the $`\chi ^2`$ distribution. Because the degree of freedom ($`k,m`$) in the sum is always larger than $`2l+1`$, the geometric variance should be always smaller than the “initial variance” owing to the uncertainty in the initial conditions. Therefore, we expect that the net cosmic variance ($``$initial variance $`+`$ geometric variance) is not significantly greater than the values for the infinite counterpart.
In order to confirm the validity of the Gaussian assumption for computing the cosmic variance, firstly, we have compared the fractional uncertainty in the angular power $`(2l20)`$ of the Weeks models using only the lowest 33 numerically computed eigenmodes ($`k<13`$) to those using the Gaussian random approximation for the expansion coefficients (corresponding to the same eigenvalues). It has turned out that the errors lie within several per cent for models with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2,0.4`$ and $`0.6`$(the relative errors are $`0.08`$ for $`l=2`$ and $`<0.04`$ for $`l>2`$).
Next, taking the contribution of higher modes into account, we have computed the fractional uncertainty in the angular power, which can be estimated by using the Gaussian approximation for the expansion coefficients (corresponding to the computed eigenvalues for $`k<13`$ and the approximated eigenvalues obtained from Weyl’s asymptotic formula for $`k<60`$) for the same parameters and we have compared the values with those using only the lowest 33 eigenmodes ($`k<13`$) and it has found that the errors lie within several per cent(however, for high matter density models the systematic increase in the variance owing to the artificial mode cut-off is much significant as the number of modes that contribute to the sum grows). As shown in figure 5, on large angular scales the fractional uncertainty in the angular power (for the Weeks models) with low matter density increases just 5 to 20 percent relative to the one for the Gaussian models. Thus the previous claim that the $`C_l`$’s have large cosmic variances is not correct. On small angular scales, an increase in the number of eigenmodes that contributes to the power leads to a decrease in the geometric variance. Consequently, the cosmic variance converges to the one for the Gaussian model as implied by the central limit theorem.

## 5 Bayesian analysis

In this section, we study the likelihoods of CH models using the COBE data. Although here we only study manifold models, we expect the result for orbifold models (with the same volume) will not grossly change since the statistical property of eigenmodes are expected to be similar with those of manifolds.
The covariance in the temperature at pixel $`i`$ and pixel $`j`$ in the sky map is given by

$$M_{ij}=<T_iT_j>=\underset{l}{}<a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}>W_lW_l^{}Y_{lm}(\widehat{n_i})Y_{l^{}m^{}}(\widehat{n_j})+<N_iN_j>,$$
(27)
where $`<>`$ denotes an ensemble average taken over all initial conditions, positions and orientations of the observer,121212Here we assume that we do not know anything about the position and orientation of the observer. The covariance is defined for an isotropic and homogeneous ensemble of observers.  $`T_i`$ represents the temperature in pixel $`i`$, $`W_l^2`$ is the experimental window function that includes effects of beam-smoothing and finite pixel size, $`\widehat{n_i}`$ is the unit vector towards the center of pixel $`i`$ and $`<N_iN_j>`$ is the noise covariance between pixel $`i`$ and pixel $`j`$. If the fluctuations in the sky form an isotropic Gaussian field then the covariance is written as

$$M_{ij}=\frac{1}{4\pi }\underset{l}{}(2l+1)W_l^2C_lP_l(\widehat{n_i}\widehat{n_j})+<N_iN_j>,$$
(28)
where $`P_l`$ is the Legendre function. Assuming a uniform prior distribution for a set of cosmological parameters, the probability distribution function of a power spectrum $`C_l`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(C_l|\stackrel{}{T})\frac{1}{det^{1/2}M(C_l)}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{T}^TM^1(C_l)\stackrel{}{T}\right),$$
(29)
where $`\stackrel{}{T}`$ denotes an array of the data of the temperature at pixels.
In the following analysis, we use the inverse-noise-variance-weighted average map of the 53A,53B,90A and 90B COBE-DMR channels. To remove the emission from the galactic plane, we use the extended galactic cut (in galactic coordinates). After the galactic cut, best-fit monopole and dipole are removed using the least-square method. To achieve efficient analysis in computation, we further compress the data at “resolution 6” $`(2.6^o)^2`$ pixels into one at “resolution 5” $`(5.2^o)^2`$ pixels for which there are 1536 pixels in the celestial sphere and 924 pixels surviving the extended galactic cut. The window function is given by $`W_l=G_lF_l`$ where $`F_l`$ are the Legendre coefficients for the DMR beam pattern and $`G_l`$ are the Legendre coefficients for a circular top-hat function with area equal to the pixel area which account for the pixel smoothing effect (the effect of the finite pixel size is non-negligible since the COBE-DMR beam FWHM is comparable to the size of “resolution 5” pixels). To account for the fact that we do not have useful information about the monopole and dipole anisotropy, we set $`C_0=C_1=100mK^2`$ which renders the likelihood insensitive to monopole and dipole moments of several $`mK`$. We also assume that the noise in the pixels is uncorrelated which is found to be a good approximation.
First of all, we set the initial condition as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^2(0)1/(\nu (\nu ^2+1))`$ in order to approximately estimate the effect of the suppression in the large-angle power owing to the non-trivial topology (here we do not consider $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu (0)`$ as random numbers). Then the fluctuations form a pseudo-Gaussian random field assuming pseudo-Gaussianity of the eigenmodes.

As shown in figure 6 for a wide range of parameters ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>0.1`$) the likelihoods for the smallest CH manifold models (Weeks and Thurston) are better than one for the Einstein-de Sitter model with scale-invariant spectrum ($`n=1`$) where $`\mathrm{\Delta }T_l=(l(l+1)C_l/2\pi )^{1/2}`$ is almost constant in $`l`$. One can see the better fits to the COBE data for three parameter regions:1. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.50.7`$ with small $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for which the angular power is peaked at $`l4`$ which corresponds to the first ISW ridge of the transfer function; 2. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.850.9`$ where the angular scale $`l4`$ which corresponds to the SW ridge;3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m0.2`$ where the slope of the power on large angular scales $`l<10`$ fits well with the data.
For low matter density models with infinite volume(that is simply connected) the ISW effect leads to an excess power on large angular scales. Therefore the fit to the COBE data is not good because of the low quadrapole moment in the data(figure 7). In contrast, for small CH models, as we have seen, the excess power owing to the ISW effect is mitigated by a suppression owing to the mode-cutoff of the eigenmodes. Therefore, likelihoods for small CH models with low matter density are significantly improved compared with the infinite counterparts (figure 8). As the volume increases the likelihoods converge to those of the infinite counterparts although the convergence rate depends on cosmological parameters. One can see in figure 9 that the conspicuous difference for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.10.3`$ still persists for volume$`6`$ whereas such difference is not observed for nearly flat cases ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{tot}=\mathrm{\Omega }_m+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.9`$). Roughly speaking, the difference in the power depends on the number $`N`$ of the copies of the fundamental domain inside the observable region at present.

Next, we consider the effect of the non-diagonal elements which we have neglected so far. The likelihood for a homogeneous and isotropic ensemble is obtained by marginalizing the likelihoods all over the positions $`𝐱_{obs}`$ and the orientations $`\alpha `$ of the observer,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\sqrt{g}𝑑𝐱_{obs}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱_{obs},\alpha ),$$
(30)
where we assume a constant distribution for the volume elements $`\sqrt{g}d𝐱_{obs}`$ and $`d\alpha `$ of a Lie group $`SO(3)`$ with a Haar measure. Assuming that the initial fluctuations are Gaussian with Harrison-Zel’dovich spectrum ($`n=1`$), the likelihood $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱_{obs},\alpha ))`$ is given by (28) and (29) where $`<a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}>`$ is written as

$$<a_{lm}a_{l^{}m^{}}>\frac{1}{\nu (\nu ^2+1)}\xi _{\nu lm}\xi _{\nu l^{}m^{}}F_{\nu l}F_{\nu l^{}},$$
(31)
where $`<>`$ denotes an ensemble average taken over the initial condition and $`F_{\nu l}`$ describes contribution from the OSW effect and the ISW effect, respectively. Note that $`\xi _{\nu lm}`$’s are functions of $`𝐱_{obs}`$ and $`\alpha `$. In order to compute likelihoods, we use a compressed data at “resolution 3”$`(20.4^o)^2`$ pixels in galactic coordinates for which there are 60 pixels surviving the extended galactic cut for efficient analysis in computation. Although the information of fluctuations on small angular scales $`l>10`$ is lost, we expect that they still provide us sufficient information for discriminating the effect of the non-trivial topology which is manifest on large-angular scales.
For the Thurston model, it has turned out that only 0.09 percent of the total of 1500 positions with 10 orientations are larger than the mean value. We have also computed likelihoods for 5100 positions with 40 orientations. Then the percentage has reduced to 0.02 from 0.09. The ratio of the likelihood marginalized over 5100 positions and 40 orientations to the likelihood of the infinite hyperbolic model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.4`$ is $`\text{Log}_{10}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{open}))=1.4`$ and the maximum value is $`\text{Log}_{10}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{max})/\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{open}))=3.6`$. For 17 cases out of 204000 realizations, the likelihoods are much better than one for the infinite counterpart. Although 99.98 percent choices of position and orientation are ruled out, the likelihood for the remaining choices is approximately 4000 times larger than that for the infinite counterpart which boosts the probability of having skymaps consistent with the data. It has turned out that the positions that give a better fit to the data are scattered in the manifold and do not coincide with the point where the injectivity radius is locally maximal(=the center of the Dirichlet domain). This suggests that we are accidentally put at a certain place with a certain orientation. In other words, the observed sky gives us partial information about the position and orientation of the observer in the manifold although it is not enough to determine the values uniquely. The best-fit quadrupole normalization is $`Q=(5C_2/4\pi )^{1/2}=0.022\pm 0.0024mK`$ for 50 choices of position and orientation of the observer that satisfy $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mathrm{\Lambda }(\text{open})>0.03`$ while $`Q=0.027\pm 0.0052mK`$ for a total of 15000 realizations. For “bad” choices the best-fit normalization is somewhat high since it gives a large cosmic variance whereas the normalization is much lowered for “good” choices. One can see in figure 11 that a random realization of the skymap for the Thurston models does not appear grossly inconsistent with the COBE-DMR data. It turns out that the statistically averaged anisotropic correlation pattern depends sensitively on the position of the observer.
The likelihood analyses in  are based on correlations for a particular choice of position $`P`$ where the injectivity radius is locally maximal with 24 orientations. It should be emphasized that the choice of $`P`$ as an observing point is very special one. For instance it is the center of tetrahedral and Z2 symmetry of the Dirichlet domain of the Thurston manifold although they are not belonging to the symmetry of the manifold. In mathematical literature it is standard to choose $`P`$ as the base point which belongs to a “thick” part of the manifold since one can expect many symmetries. However, considering such a special point as the place of the observer cannot be verified since it is inconsistent with the Copernican principle. Because any CH models are globally inhomogeneous, one should compare fluctuation patterns expected at every place with every orientation.
To see the influence of global inhomogeneity, it is illustrative to compare the relative likelihoods(to the infinite counterpart) of the Thurston model with those of compact flat toroidal model (obtained by gluing opposite faces of a cube by three translations) which is globally homogeneous (i.e. every action of the discrete isometry group is a Clifford transformation). As shown in figure 10, for the toroidal model(that has approximately the same proportion to the currently observable region in size in comparison with the Thurston model), dependency on choices of position of the observer is less significant. Therefore one does not need a number of realizations for estimating the likelihood. In contrast, for CH models, one needs a sufficient number of realizations since the proportion of choices of position and orientation of the observer that give a better fit to the data is considerably small. Thus if one treats CH models like the toroidal model , one gets misleadingly small values of the likelihoods.
Although our result is based on the numerical computation, it is a natural result if one knows the pseudo-random behavior of eigenmodes of CH spaces. For each choice of position and orientation of the observer, a set of expansion coefficients $`\xi _{\nu lm}`$ of eigenmodes is uniquely determined (except for the phase factor), which corresponds to a “realization” of independent random Gaussian numbers. By taking an average over the position and the orientation, the non-diagonal terms proportional to $`<\xi _{\nu lm}\xi _{\nu l^{}m^{}}>,ll^{},mm^{}`$ vanish. In other words, a set of anisotropic patterns all over the place in a CH space comprises an almost isotropic random field. Consider two realizations $`A`$ and $`B`$ of such an isotropic random field. The chance you would get an almost similar fluctuation pattern for $`A`$ and $`B`$ would be very low but we do have such an occasion. Similarly, the likelihood at a particular position with a certain orientation is usually very low but there are cases for which the likelihoods are considerably high. Thus we conclude that the COBE constraints on small CH models are less stringent as long as the Gaussian pseudo-randomness of the eigenmodes holds.

## 6 Summary

In this paper, we have explored the CMB anisotropy in small CH models with or without the cosmological constant. Assuming adiabatic initial perturbation with scale-invariant spectrum ($`n=1`$), the angular power owing to the OSW effect suffers a prominent suppression since fluctuations beyond the size of the fundamental domain at the last scattering are strongly suppressed. However, for low matter density models, the suppression in the large-angle power is less stringent because of the significant contribution from the ISW effect caused by the decay of the gravitational potential at the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ or curvature dominant epoch. A slight suppression in the large-angle power in such models explains rather naturally the observed anomalously low quadrupole which is incompatible with the prediction of the standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker models.
As we have seen, the likelihood of CH models (assuming pseudo-Gaussianity of eigenmodes) depends sensitively on the choice of orientation and position of the observer. Because the likelihood marginalized over the orientation and position (assuming equal probability for each choice) is comparable to the value of the infinite counterpart, we conclude that constraints on CH models are less stringent. It should be emphasized that the dependence of the likelihood on the position of the observer is of crucial importance which has been ignored by previous literature. Closed multiply connected constantly curved 3-spaces that are globally homogeneous are limited to some spherical spaces and flat 3-tori. For “bad” choices of the position and orientation, the best-fit amplitude tends to have a large value (allowing a large variance), leading to misleadingly stringent constraints on the models. Surprisingly, the statistically averaged anisotropy of the correlation seems to disappear if marginalized all over the place which is related to the pseudo-random property of eigenmodes.
Even in the case of nearly flat geometry, the signature of the non-trivial topology is still prominent if the space is sufficiently small compared with the observable region at present. If we allow orbifold models then the volume can be much smaller than manifold models. We have seen that a slight suppression in the large-angle power is still prominent for orbifold models with volume $`0.010.1R^3`$ for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$ which is consistent with the result in. However, the existence of singularities (where the curvature diverges) may cause some problems for any orbifold models. If plane-like singularities were present(e.g. tetrahedral orbifolds) astronomical objects with peculiar velocity would easily collide with the plane (we may call such a model as a “billiard universe”). On the other hand, the observational effects caused by the presence of fixed lines or “strings” might be less prominent and much safer.

## Acknowledgments

I would like to thank J.R. Weeks and A. Reid for sharing with me their expertise in topology and geometry of 3-manifolds and 3-orbifolds. I would also like to thank N. Sugiyama and A.J. Banday for their helpful suggestions and comments on the data analysis using the CMB-DMR data. The numerical computation in this work was carried out at the Data Processing Center in Kyoto University and Yukawa Institute Computer Facility. K.T. Inoue is supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists, and this work is supported partially by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Fund (No.9809834).


text:
# Experimental assessment of a new form of scaling law for near-wall turbulence

## 1 Abstract

Scaling laws and intermittency in the wall region of a turbulent flow are addressed by analyzing moderate Reynolds number data obtained by single component hot wire anemometry in the boundary layer of a flat plate. The paper aims in particular at the experimental validation of a new form of refined similarity recently proposed for the shear dominated range of turbulence, where the classical Kolmogorov-Oboukhov inertial range theory is inappropriate. An approach inspired to the extended self-similarity allows for the extraction of the different power laws for the longitudinal structure functions at several wall normal distances. A double scaling regime is found in the logarithmic region, confirming previous experimental results. Approaching the wall, the scaling range corresponding to the classical cascade-dominated range tends to disappear and, in the buffer layer, a single power law is found to describe the available range of scales. The double scaling is shown to be associated with two different forms of refined similarity. The classical form holds below the shear scale $`L_s`$. The other, originally introduced on the basis of DNS data for a turbulent channel, is experimentally confirmed to set up above $`L_s`$. Given the experimental difficulties in the evaluation of the instantaneous dissipation rate, some care is devoted to check that its one-dimensional surrogate does not bias the results. The increased intermittency as the wall is approached is experimentally found entirely consistent with the failure of the refined Kolmogorov-Oboukhov similarity and the establishment of its new form near the wall.

## 2 Introduction

Self-similarity is a well explored topic in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. From Kolmogorov ’41 theory onwards , these flows are expected to be scale-invariant in the inertial range, i.e. where the direct effect of viscous dissipation is negligible and the dynamics is basically inviscid. In this range, the scale invariance of the structure functions is rendered as a power law with exponent $`\zeta (p)`$, a nonlinear convex function of the order of the structure function itself . The anomalous correction $`\tau (p/3)`$ to the dimensional prediction accounts for intermittency and is strictly related to the statistical properties of the dissipation field by the refined Kolmogorov similarity hypothesis , . The ideas behind this theory have been the subject of close scrutiny, see e.g. Chen et al.  and Wang et al.  where a detailed analysis of the dissipation field is performed, and the refined similarity may now be considered a well assessed feature of homogeneous isotropic turbulence. The exponents are known with good accuracy, and the procedure for their evaluation has been improved by the introduction of the extended self-similarity (ESS) by Benzi et al. . The success of homogeneous isotropic theory is motivated by its ability in describing certain universal properties of turbulence which are presumably recovered also in complex flows at sufficiently fine scales, see e.g. the experimental data of Saddoughi and Veeravalli  in the logarithmic region of a turbulent boundary layer.

In the present paper, we address the issue of self-similarity and intermittency in a turbulent boundary layer, by discussing experimental results obtained by hot wire anemometry. In addition to the two lengths which are typical of homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, namely the dissipation and the integral scale, the mean shear introduces as a further characteristic quantity the shear scale . As we shall see, depending on the distance from the wall, the shear scale may change appreciably, from values close to the viscous scale in the buffer layer up to the integral scale in the higher part of the logarithmic region .

Physically, as described with a few more details in section III, the mean shear alters the mechanism of energy transfer through the scales of turbulence by originating a continuous injection of energy. The production mechanism is active at scales larger than the shear scale, where the classical form of scaling law described by the refined Kolmogorov-Oboukhov theory may be expected to fail. This effect was clearly found in the data from a DNS of a channel flow where the ESS scaling exponents of the longitudinal structure functions depended on the wall normal distance . These observations were successfully explained in terms of a new form of refined similarity in  (see also  for a complete theoretical presentation). All these findings have been confirmed by a successive DNS of homogeneous shear flow , undertaken almost in parallel with the present experimental investigation.

From the experimental point of view, scaling laws in shear flows have been already considered, see . Concerning wall turbulence, estimates for the effective ESS exponents as a function of wall distance may be found in , . Recently, a double scaling regime was clearly detected by Ciliberto and coworkers  in the logarithmic region of a turbulent boundary layer. Here we confirm the above results and add more information on the behavior of turbulence in the lower part of the log-region and in the buffer, were a unique power law is found throughout the entire range of scales. As a major contribution, we show that the two scaling regimes can be understood in terms of two different forms of scaling law, namely the refined Kolmogorov-Oboukhov similarity , for separations below the shear scale, and the new form of refined similarity  above the shear scale.

Technically, the main difficulty in assessing similarity laws which involve statistics of the dissipation field is the resolution required to follow the entire range of scales down to the Kolmogorov length. This is not easily accomplished in a laboratory experiment, essentially due to the transverse dimension of the probe which acts as a filter on the smallest scales. Moreover, to properly evaluate the dissipation, one should have access to the whole velocity gradient tensor. Instead, we can measure only the streamwise velocity at a fixed position as a function of time. As costumery, by invoking Taylor hypothesis of frozen turbulence, we are able to obtain a single component of the velocity gradient, namely the derivative of the streamwise velocity in the mean flow direction. Hence the need to use a surrogate of the real dissipation which, however, is in principle quite rough an approximation. To corroborate the results obtained by the surrogate, we account for a conjectured behavior of the dissipation field based on DNS data (, ), suggesting the robustness of the observed scalings.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II a brief description of the experimental set-up is provided and the basic dimensionless parameters and the global statistical features of shear turbulence are briefly discussed. Section III concerns scaling laws for the structure functions and presents the two forms of refined similarity. Section IV is devoted to the experimental evaluation of the two refined similarity theories and discusses their relationship with the intermittency of the wall region. Final comments and concluding remarks are reported in section V.

## 3 Global features of the flow

The data we are going to discuss are obtained from a zero pressure gradient boundary layer on a flat plate $`1200\mathrm{mm}`$ long positioned in the test section of a wind tunnel operated at a free stream velocity $`U_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`12\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$. Measurements were taken $`750\mathrm{mm}`$ downstream the leading edge of the plate, where the local thickness of the boundary layer $`\delta `$ was about $``$ $`25\mathrm{mm}`$. The Reynolds number, based on momentum thickness, was $`Re_\theta 2200`$.

A constant temperature anemometer was used to acquire the streamwise velocity and the signal was low-pass filtered at $`8000\mathrm{Hz}`$ and successively sampled at $`75000\mathrm{samples}/\mathrm{s}`$. The typical length of each record was $`50\mathrm{s}`$. The friction velocity $`u_\tau `$, evaluated via Clauser plot, is estimated as $`u_\tau =.489\mathrm{m}/\mathrm{s}`$.

The plot on top of figure 1 gives the mean velocity profile $`u^+=u/u_\tau `$ as a function of the distance from the wall in inner units, $`y^+=yu_\tau /\nu `$, where $`\nu `$ is the kinematic viscosity. The classical logarithmic law, given by the straight line in the log-log plot,

$`u^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}\mathrm{ln}y^++C,`$ (1)
corresponds to $`k=0.40`$ and $`C=5.5`$. Near the wall the data approach the linear behavior typical of the viscous sublayer. The plot on the bottom of the figure gives the root mean square value of the fluctuating velocity.

Concerning the dynamics of turbulent fluctuations, the wall region of the boundary layer is characterized by two basic mechanisms, the process of energy cascade towards small scales and the production of turbulent kinetic energy associated to the presence of the shear. Their relative importance may be estimated in terms of two dimensionless parameters involving the shear length scale $`L_s`$ ,

$`L_s=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{ϵ}(y)}{S^3}}},`$ (2)
where $`\overline{ϵ}(y)`$ is the local average of the energy dissipation rate and $`S`$ the local mean shear, $`S=u/y`$. The two dimensionless parameters, expressed as

$`S_c^{}=S(\nu /\overline{ϵ})^{1/2}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{L_s}}\right)^{2/3},`$ (3)
and

$`S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{Su_{rms}^2}{\overline{ϵ}}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{l_d}{L_s}}\right)^{2/3}`$ (4)
compare the shear scale to the local Kolmogorov length, $`\eta =\left(\nu ^3/\overline{ϵ}(y)\right)^{1/4}`$, and to a large scale inertial length, $`l_d=u_{rms}^3/\overline{ϵ}`$, respectively.

In the log-region, since the production of turbulent kinetic energy, $`\mathrm{\Pi }=S<u^{}v^{}>Su_\tau ^2`$, is almost in local balance with the dissipation, we have $`\overline{ϵ}u_\tau ^4/(\nu y^+k)`$, hence

$`S^{}=𝒪(1)`$ $`S_c^{}1./(u_\tau yk)^{1/2}`$ (5)
$`S^{}/S_c^{}(u_\tau yk)^{1/2}.`$
These estimates suggest that increasing the distance from the wall, one should reach a position where the effect of the shear on turbulent fluctuations becomes undetectable. On the opposite, approaching the wall, $`L_s`$ tends to collapse on $`\eta `$, and the shear affects the fluctuations more and more pronouncedly.

The statistical results we are going to discuss are relative to three measurement points: one located within the buffer layer, and the others in the log-region. The characteristic parameters at these locations are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 2 (top) presents two typical one-dimensional spectra, in the log-region and in the buffer layer. Indicated are also the two slopes, $`5/3`$ for the purely inertial range and $`1`$ for the energy production range, respectively, which should be locally recovered. In fact, no distinct power-laws can be seen in our energy spectra, presumably due to the relatively low values of the local turbulent Reynolds number,

$`Re_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`u_{rms}\lambda /\nu `$ (6)
where $`\lambda =u_{rms}/<(u/x)^2>^{1/2}`$ is the local Taylor microscale, see table 1. Nonetheless, a clear trend towards the formation of a $`k^1`$ range is observed as the wall is approached.

This is consistent with the results presented in , where a clear scaling emerged and the characteristic slopes were found to evolve from $`5/3`$ towards $`1`$ when reducing the distance from the wall. To conclude this preliminary analysis, figure 2 (bottom) reports the dissipation spectra.

## 4 Similarity laws for shear dominated turbulence

The statistical features of turbulence are best addressed by considering the longitudinal increments of the streamwise velocity component,

$`\delta V=u(x+\mathrm{},y,z,t)u(x,y,z,t).`$ (7)
For a boundary layer, the longitudinal velocity increment is a random function which, neglecting the weak effect of non-parallelism, may be considered homogeneous both in the streamwise and the spanwise direction, $`x`$ and $`z`$ respectively, and in time. Hence the pdf of $`\delta V`$ depends only on the separation, $`\mathrm{}`$, and the wall normal distance, $`y`$. Typical examples are given in figure 3 which shows the pdf for two separations at two different wall distances. As the separation is decreased, the tails of the pdf rise and this effect is more pronounced in the buffer region. This behavior is associated with the intermittency of the velocity increments, as expressed in terms of the flatness ,

$`F_4(\mathrm{},y)=<\delta V^4>/<\delta V^2>^2,`$ (8)
and corresponds to an increased intermittency as the wall is approached.

### 4.1 Structure functions

The pdf of the velocity increment is characterized by the structure functions, i.e. its moments

$`S_p(\mathrm{},y)=<|\delta V|^p>,`$ (9)
or, in wall units, $`S_p^+(\mathrm{}^+,y^+)=S_p/u_\tau ^p`$. In our case, the structure functions depend on the separation $`\mathrm{}`$, the wall normal coordinate $`y`$ and, in general, on the Reynolds number $`Re_\theta =u_\tau \theta /\nu `$, where $`\theta `$ is the momentum thickness.

For fully developed homogeneous isotropic turbulence, the structure functions are given as power laws of separation

$`S_p(\mathrm{})\mathrm{}^{\zeta _p},`$ (10)
where the scaling exponents differ from the dimensional prediction, $`p/3`$, by the anomalous correction $`\tau (p/3)`$, i.e. $`\zeta _p=p/3+\tau (p/3)`$. Since the exponent is a convex function of the order $`p`$, the flatness increases as the separation is decreased in the inertial range ,

$`F_4(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}^{\tau (4/3)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\tau (2/3)},`$ (11)
consistently with the intermittency of the velocity increments.

Scaling laws in terms of separation can hardly be detected at laboratory scale, for the insufficiently large Reynolds number available. This difficulty has been recently overcome by Benzi and coworkers , who proposed a relative form of scaling, the extended self-similarity (ESS), where the third order structure function is assumed as independent variable instead of the separation

$`S_pS_3^{\widehat{\zeta _p}}.`$ (12)
For large Reynolds numbers, since $`S_3\mathrm{}`$ by the Karman-Howarth equation, the relative scaling is a direct consequence of eq. (10). As an advantage, the scaling range is substantially extended and scaling laws emerge also for relatively small Reynolds number. Clearly, in fully developed homogeneous turbulence eqs. (10), (12) imply $`\widehat{\zeta }_p=\zeta _p`$. The relative scaling may also be found under more general conditions than homogeneous isotropic turbulence, e.g. in turbulent shear flows, where, however, $`\widehat{\zeta }_p`$ and $`\zeta _p`$ may be entirely different objects.

Concerning our data, two examples of third order structure functions are plotted in figure 4. No scaling is observed, apart from the linear behavior at small separations.

Figure 5 presents similar data in terms of ESS, in particular $`S_6`$ vs. $`S_3`$. At $`y^+=30`$, a single fit, with slope $`\widehat{\zeta }_61.54`$, suffices for the whole range. This value is substantially lower than $`1.78`$, expected value for homogeneous and isotropic turbulence. The plot for $`y^+=70`$ manifests instead two distinct regions, each with a reasonably well-defined scaling exponent, 1.78 and 1.54 respectively. This double-scaling regime is also found at $`y^+=115`$ where the transition between the two behaviors has moved towards larger separations and most of the range is associated to the slope $`1.78`$.

The scale which approximately identifies the crossover between the two regimes is proportional to $`L_s`$, which, in the log region, may be estimated as $`ky0.4y`$. Below the crossover, the behavior of the structure functions follows the predictions for homogeneous and isotropic turbulence ($`\widehat{\zeta }_6=1.78`$), consistently with the assumption of the distance from the wall as the characteristic separation for its validity .

### 4.2 Refined Kolmogorov Similarity

Physically, intermittency is associated to the spotty nature of the energy dissipation field, as implied by the refined Kolmogorov similarity hypothesis ,

$`S_p(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{p/3}>\mathrm{}^{p/3}`$ (13)
where $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the rate of energy dissipation, $`ϵ_{loc}`$, spatially averaged on a domain of characteristic dimension $`\mathrm{}`$.

In homogeneous isotropic turbulence, the moments of the coarse grained dissipation field, $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$, scale as $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^p>\mathrm{}^{\tau (p)}`$ consistently with equation (10). A number of models have been proposed to predict $`\tau (p)`$, beginning with the original log-normal model  up to the log-Poisson model proposed by She and Lévêque  able to accurately fit the experimental data,

$`\tau _{sl}(p)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}(2/3)^p\right).`$ (14)
In its extended form, the refined similarity reads

$`S_p(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{p/3}>S_3(\mathrm{})^{p/3}.`$ (15)
Following the discussion of section III.A, for the wall region of the boundary layer we expect no substantial alteration of the scaling laws for separations smaller than a scale of the order of the shear length $`L_s`$. When the separation becomes larger than the shear scale, the mechanism of energy transfer is affected by the production of turbulent kinetic energy. This reasoning recently suggested a different form of refined similarity ,

$`S_p(\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{p/2}>S_2(\mathrm{})^{p/2},`$ (16)
expected to replace eq. (15) in the range of scales $`L_s<<\mathrm{}<<L`$, where $`L`$ is the integral scale.

For a direct assessment of eqs.(15), (16) the dissipation field should be available, an issue to be considered in more detail in the next section. Here we note that both equations may be rewritten as

$`S_p/S_\alpha ^{p/\alpha }`$ $``$ $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{p/\alpha }>\alpha =3,2.`$ (17)
In eq. (17) the structure functions are grouped together on the left hand side, set apart from the moments of the dissipation written on the right. The left hand side can be evaluated directly from the velocity signal with no additional assumption besides Taylor’s hypothesis. These quantities are plotted as functions of $`S_3`$ in figure 6, for both $`\alpha =3`$ and $`\alpha =2`$, top and bottom, respectively. Concerning the measurement point in the buffer (circles), a single power-law is observed in both cases. When moving to points in the log-layer, this representation confirms the coexistence of two distinct power-laws, as already found from the analysis of the structure functions. The crossover between the two ranges occurs at $`\mathrm{}L_s`$, where the proportionality factor roughly corresponds to $`10`$, as already found in . Typically, since the shear length increases with the distance from the wall, the relative extension of the two scaling ranges is different. Nonetheless the exponents remain rather constant, thus suggesting a certain universality of the two scaling regimes, as seen by the comparison of the data at $`y^+=70`$ and $`115`$, diamonds and triangles, respectively. Note that the abscissa $`S_3`$ in the plot has been rescaled to achieve collapse of the curves at large separations.

Concerning the shear-dominated range at larger separations, in the log-layer we recover the same slope found in the buffer.

From the top plot of figure 6, in the log-layer and for the cascade-dominated range at smaller separations, we find the slope $`s_3.22`$, see the dotted lines in the figure. Concerning the scaling range at larger separations, from the bottom plot of figure 6 we estimate the slope $`s_2.59`$, solid line in the figure. For wall turbulence, the interpretation of either $`s_3`$ and $`s_2`$ in terms of possible scaling laws for the dissipation field is not obvious and will be discussed further in the next section. We only anticipate here that the value of $`s_3`$ is essentially the same well known from homogeneous and isotropic turbulence, where the Kolmogorov-Oboukhov theory holds, and $`s_3`$ represents the scaling exponent of $`<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^2>`$ with respect to $`S_3`$.

To summarize, the present results suggest that turbulence in the near-wall region is characterized by the juxtaposition of only two basic scaling regimes. As will be shown in the next section, our data support the conclusion that these two regimes correspond to the classical and the revised form of similarity, eqs. (15) and (16), respectively.

## 5 Experimental evaluation of the refined similarity laws

In order to provide direct evidence of the two forms of refined similarity conjectured to be the origin of the scaling laws described in the previous section, experimental data for the instantaneous dissipation are needed. Actually, single component hot-wire anemometry gives access only to the streamwise velocity component at a fixed position as a function of time. In these conditions, we have to use a surrogate for the dissipation field to estimate $`ϵ_{loc}`$ from $`u/t`$.

To this purpose we replace the actual dissipation, $`ϵ_{loc}`$, with its one-dimensional isotropic version, $`15\nu (u/x)^2`$, where the x-derivative is estimated from the time signal via the Taylor hypothesis of frozen turbulence. To account for the presence of the mean shear, we introduce the additional term $`\nu S^2`$, hence we roughly replace the instantaneous dissipation with

$`ϵ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu \left(S^2+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}15}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{x}}\right).`$ (18)
Introducing this surrogate, the classical and new form of scaling laws become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_p(\mathrm{})}{S_\alpha (\mathrm{})^{p/\alpha }}}`$ $``$ $`<ϵ_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{p/\alpha }>\alpha =3,2,`$ (19)
where $`ϵ_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}/2}^{\mathrm{}/2}ϵ^{}𝑑x`$, and $`\alpha =3,2`$ gives the classical and the revised version of the refined similarity, respectively.

### 5.1 Refined similarity and dissipation

The left hand side of eq. (19) is plotted vs $`S_3`$ in figure 7, where the filled symbols correspond to $`\alpha =3`$ (classical form) and the open symbols to $`\alpha =2`$ (new form). The three measurement points are separately analyzed, from top to bottom $`y^+=30,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}70},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}115}`$. The symbols are a rearrangement of the curves appearing in figure 6. Here the figure is centered on the dotted and the solid curves, which, for each data point, represent the right hand side of eq. (19), namely the moments of the dissipation as estimated by the surrogate (18). In each of the three cases, the dotted line corresponds to $`\alpha =2`$, the solid line to $`\alpha =3`$.

In the buffer, top plot, the classical form of refined similarity ($`\alpha =3`$) is manifestly violated, as implied by the mismatch between the filled circles ($`S_6/S_3^2`$) and the solid line ($`<ϵ_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{2}>`$). Instead, the new form ($`\alpha =2`$) adapts to the data with remarkable accuracy, as suggested by the comparison of the open circles ($`S_6/S_2^3`$) with the dotted line ($`<ϵ_{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{3}>`$). In physical terms, we find that at $`y^+=30`$ the cascade-dominated dynamics described by the Kolmogorov-Oboukhov theory is not recovered and, far from the purely dissipative region, the entire dynamics is well captured by the new refined similarity.

This result should be compared with the picture emerging from the plot in the middle, corresponding to $`y^+=70`$. There we find two ranges. One at larger separations, where the dotted line matches the open diamonds. The other where the solid curve falls on top of the filled diamonds. The first behavior is exactly the same as discussed for the buffer implying the establishment of the new refined similarity at large scales. The other corresponds to the Kolmogorov-Oboukhov refined similarity which is recovered at scales sufficiently smaller than $`L_s`$ and well above $`\eta `$. This double scaling regime is found also at $`y^+=115`$, bottom plot where the extension of the classical cascade-dominated range is increased and that of the shear-dominated range is reduced.

Let us restate the main results of this section to underline their physical interpretation. On the one hand, in the log layer, we find the coexistence of the classical and new form of refined similarity. On the other hand, as the wall is approached, the extension of the classical range is reduced to finally disappear when approaching the buffer layer where only the shear-dominated range corresponding to the new refined similarity remains.

Figure 8 confirms this conclusion, by presenting the same data in a compensated form, i.e by plotting along the ordinates the left hand sides of equations (19) divided by the respective right hand sides. A clear plateau is described by the filled symbols at smaller separations in the log-region (classical refined similarity). A less extended scaling region is found at larger separations in the curve indicated by the open symbols (the new refined similarity in the shear-dominated range). In the buffer, only the open circles describe an almost straight horizontal line, to show that the entire range is filled by the new form of scaling. To avoid possible misunderstandings, in this figure we have plotted the data vs the geometrical separation $`\mathrm{}`$, to evidence the physical interpretation of the results we have been discussing so far.

In conclusion, despite our use of the surrogate (18) for the dissipation, these results show that the two behaviors described in the previous section are well interpreted in terms of the two forms of refined similarity. It would however be advisable to show that we are not biased by the strong limitations introduced by the surrogate. This could be done by replacing the measured moments of the dissipation with suitable theoretical results. If we consider for the time being our results as unaffected by the use of the surrogate, the scaling exponent $`s_3`$ (see section III.B) found in the cascade-dominated range should be interpreted as the scaling exponent of the second moment of the coarse grained dissipation field with respect to $`S_3`$. We know that its value is in agreement with that known for homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Moreover if we assume eq. (16) to give the correct description of turbulence in the shear-dominated range, $`s_2`$ should also be interpreted as the scaling exponent of the second moment of the dissipation with respect to $`S_3`$. The analysis of DNS data for the channel flow  and the homogeneous shear flow  support the conjecture that the scaling properties of the dissipation field are, to a first instance, unaltered by the shear. If this is the case, the scaling exponent of the third order moment of the dissipation with respect to $`S_3`$ should be close to the value $`\tau _{sl}(3)=.592`$ as evaluated from the She-Lévêque model, eq. (14).

Returning to figure (6), the solid line superimposed to the plots on the bottom has precisely the slope $`.592`$. The line fits almost exactly the experimental results for the surrogate-independent combination of structure functions $`S_6/S_2^3`$ in the shear-dominated range.

This argument is strongly in favor of the conclusion that the surrogate, though not accurate, does not obscure our physical interpretation: near wall turbulence is characterized by two different scaling regimes, one for the cascade-dominated range, the other for the shear-dominated scales. The existence of the two scalings is associated with two different forms of refined similarity, the Kolmogorov-Oboukhov similarity for the cascade-dominated regime, its revised form (16) for the shear dominated regime . The cross-over between the two regimes takes place rather abruptly, implying that two radically different dynamics take over in the two distinct ranges. We mention, in passing, that the two scaling regimes we have presently identified could be described, in principle, by a unified form of generalized structure function, as recently proposed in  (see also ).

### 5.2 Near-wall intermittency and dissipation

Let us now return to the issue of intermittency. Recent work on scaling laws for near-wall turbulence has pointed out that the amount of intermittency increases as the wall is approached from the log-layer towards the buffer. This effect may be appreciated in figure 9, where the flatness of the velocity increments is reported for two measurement points, one in the buffer, the other in the log layer. Clearly, when the separation decreases, the flatness factor is seen to increase by far more in the case of the point closest to the wall, giving a quantitative measure of the larger intermittency of the velocity increments.

In the context of the classical form of refined similarity this should imply a substantial alteration of the statistical properties of the dissipation field. Actually, from equation (15) the flatness of the velocity increments, eq. (8), can be expressed as

$`F_4(\mathrm{},y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{4/3}>}{<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^{2/3}>^2}}.`$ (20)
This expression is expected to be able to describe the intermittency in those regions where the classical scaling law exists, i.e. in the range below the shear length $`L_s`$ and above the Kolmogorov length $`\eta `$. As an example, we have found that at $`y^+=115`$ most of the range of scales available in our experiments is characterized by scaling laws corresponding to the classical refined similarity. Actually, as shown in figure 9, eq. (20) is able to reproduce with reasonable accuracy both the quantitative and qualitative behavior of the flatness factor, as shown by the filled triangles, eq. (20), which follow the dashed line giving the flatness in terms of its definition (8). However when we consider the data pertaining to $`y^+=30`$, eq. (20) is clearly seen to fail. This comes as no surprise, since it has been already shown that close to the wall the classical form of similarity itself breaks down. As we have verified, at $`y^+=30`$ the new form of scaling described by eq. (16) is established in almost the entire range of scales above $`\eta `$. This allows us to express the flatness factor as

$`F_4(\mathrm{},y)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{<ϵ_{\mathrm{}}^2>}{\overline{ϵ}^2}}.`$ (21)
In the figure, this estimate for the flatness is compared with the values directly evaluated from the velocity increments, open circles to be compared with the solid line, where it is clearly seen to capture with reasonable accuracy the amount of intermittency found in the velocity increments near the wall.

As commented in , the ability of the new form of scaling law to capture the amount of intermittency is an important indication of its validity, since it entails the physical interpretation of the increased intermittency found by a number of investigators in the near wall region. Actually, as we already mentioned, the statistical properties of the dissipation field eq. (18) do not seem to change significantly from the log-region to the buffer. In fact, intermittency increases because of the changing balance between energy transfer and dissipation originated by the large production which occurs locally in wavenumber space at shear-dominated scales.

## 6 Concluding remarks

We have discussed the scaling properties of the longitudinal velocity increments in a turbulent boundary layer. No scaling is apparent in our data when the structure functions are expressed as a function of the separation. The extended self-similarity, instead, makes clear the existence of a double scaling regime in the log-region of the boundary layer. The cross-over between the two regimes is found to be controlled by the shear scale. Below the cross-over, the values of the scaling exponents are in good agreement with those of homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Since the shear scale is proportional to the wall normal distance, we confirm that a substantially isotropic dynamics is recovered at scales smaller than the distance from the wall, as expected from classical descriptions of wall bounded flows . Above the cross-over, the crucial effect of the shear induces a different form of power law, with lower values of the exponents. Only this form of scaling survives when the buffer region is approached, where the classical cascade-dominated range disappears.

The values of the exponents found in the shear-dominated range are suggesting an increase of intermittency, as confirmed by the analysis of the flatness of the velocity increments. In fact, no direct conclusion can be drawn only from power laws in terms of the third order structure function in wall turbulence. Actually, in presence of shear, the Karman-Howarth equation does not provide the necessary link between $`S_3`$ and separation.

We find that the cascade-dominated regime in the log-layer is consistent with the classical form of refined similarity. The anomalous correction to the scaling exponents of the structure functions can then be ascribed entirely to the dissipation field, along the line of the theory of Kolmogorov and Oboukhov. Instead, in the shear-dominated range and in the buffer-layer the new values for the scaling exponents should be understood in terms of the new form of refined similarity introduced in .

From our hot-wire data, by using a suitable one-dimensional surrogate of the energy dissipation, we find that the increased intermittency is essentially related to the change in the structure of the similarity law and not to a substantial change in the statistical properties of the dissipation field. Actually, we are able to fit our data by using the new form of refined similarity together with the scaling exponents of the dissipation, as known from homogeneous isotropic turbulence.

Since the scaling properties of the dissipation field are substantially the same as those of homogeneous isotropic turbulence, we can ascribe the increased intermittency to the different structure of the new refined similarity. This is actually confirmed by directly comparing the measured values of the flatness of the velocity increments with those inferred from the new refined similarity, which is found able to predict the increased intermittency observed as the wall is approached.

The present experimental investigation, while supporting the findings of previous DNS of channel  and homogeneous shear turbulence , clearly show the coexistence of the two scaling regimes in the log-layer, a conclusion which could only be conjectured on the basis of DNS data, due to insufficient scale separation.