arxiv: v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 27 Sep 2018

Transcription

1 magnetofluid models constructed by a priori imposition of conservation laws arxiv: v1 [physics.plasm-ph] 7 Sep 018. A. Kaltsas and G. N. Throumoulopoulos epartment of Physics, University of Ioannina GR Ioannina, Greece dkaltsas@cc.uoi.gr gthroum@uoi.gr Abstract Inspired by a geometric method employed for the derivation of the Nambu bracket for ideal two-dimensional incompressible hydrodynamics, we reconstruct the Reduced MH (RMH) model by a priori imposition of its conservation laws and in addition we formulate the corresponding Nambu bracket description. We found that RMH is a special case of a parent model that conserves the same quantities. The noncanonical Hamiltonian and Nambu description of this generic system are derived. Also we find a canonical formulation by Clebschparameterizing the vorticity and the magnetic flux function. The method for the construction of the model is based on the imposition of the conservation laws as orthogonality conditions. Furthermore this approach enabled us to construct three families of models that respect any combination of two out of the three conservation laws, used for the reconstruction of RMH. Some of these models can serve as conservative regularizations of RMH since under certain conditions they keep the enstrophy bounded without the need of introducing viscosity and may contribute to the understanding of the relaxation physics associated with the selective decay processes. 1 Introduction The Eulerian description of Hamiltonian fluid models [1], such as MH [], is expressed in terms of noncanonical Poisson operators. The degeneracy of those noncanonical operators gives rise to functionals that Poisson-commute with any arbitrary functional defined on the phase space. Those functionals, whose gradients are elements of the Poisson kernel, are called Casimirs, being invariants that express additional conservation laws. In [3] and [4] the authors constructed Nambu-like brackets (trilinear antisymmetric brackets) for the incompressible ideal hydrodynamics and for the shallow water equations respectively, using differential -forms to impose orthogonality conditions arising from the conservation of the energy and the Casimir functionals of the respective models. Here we adopt an analogous approach in the context of the Reduced MH (RMH) model. In addition we ascertain that this procedure, i.e. the imposition of the conservation laws as orthogonality constraints, can be useful to derive models possessing Nambu-like and Poisson structures with the a priori definition of two ingredients: 1) the dynamical variables, ) the functional quantities thataretobe conservedbythe dynamics. Thisalso provides the freedom to select a subset of the original orthogonality conditions, so as to obtain models that do not conserve all of the ideal invariants, though they are non-dissipative. Such an idea could potentially be linked with the ruggedness of the helicity invariants associated with the concept of selective decay in magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, which assumes that the total energy is minimized, subject to the conservation of the Casimir invariants [5]. If in the absence of dissipation the additional contributions tend to reduce the MH energy in certain parametric regions and time scales, then within a dissipative framework the helicities would present a weaker decay due to the helicity conserving structure of the non-dissipative part. As it is pointed out in section 4 some classes of those models can serve as useful regularizations of the original RMH model in the sense that they prevent vorticity singularities while preserving their non-dissipative structure. Similar regularizations were introduced in [6] for the three dimensional incompressible MH equations. It is important to emphasize that the present contribution does not completely solve the inverse problem of conservation laws for reduced MH and the other models discussed herein. The complete determination of the full set of models that respect given conservation laws would be a very tough task and so far we are not aware of any suitable methodology in order to address the complete 1

2 problem. As we will see below, we shortcut by considering that the time derivatives of the dynamical variables assume a specific form. This assumption simplifies significantly the subsequent manipulations. Beyond the construction of the models, we derive Nambu representations that describe the dynamics in terms of trilinear brackets. The Nambu formalism for the 3 incompressible MH has been derived in [7] but not for the RMH model. We should stress here that the kind of Nambu brackets derived in this paper and also in [7] are different from the discrete brackets introduced in the classic paper of Nambu [8] since the former are infinite-dimensional analogues of the latter and do not satisfy the generalization of the Jacobi identity introduced for finite dimensional Nambu brackets in [9]. However this kind of infinite-dimensional Nambu-like brackets, introduced initially in [11], are completely antisymmetric and describe dynamics in terms of the Hamiltonian and a second Hamiltonian-like functional which is a Casimir invariant. This provided, in the context of hydrodynamics, a useful tool in constructing preserving algorithms [10], since the Hamiltonian and the Casimir invariant are conserved exactly up to machine precision if one makes sure that the discretization procedure retains the antisymmetry property. Hence it is of interest to derive the respective RMH Nambu brackets as an initial step towards the construction of such Casimir preserving algorithms for plasma physics. The plan of the paper is as follows: in section we review the RMH model, its Hamiltonian formalism and we present its Casimir invariants. In section 3 we impose the conservation laws (CLs) of those models as orthogonality conditions between the time evolution vector of the dynamical variables and the phase space gradients of the invariants. Within this section the Nambu bracket and a canonical representation of a generic model that includes RMH as a special case are derived. Section 4 is devoted in the construction of new models that conserveanytwooutofthethreeclsofrmh. Weconclude and summarize the results of this paper in section 5. The Reduced MH model Reduced MH models are used to displace the usual 3 MH equations when a strong guiding magnetic field B 0 is present, because they are much more simpler in form and thus can be handled more conveniently. The Reduced MH model can be rigorously derived by performing asymptotic expansion of the MH equations with the ordering L /L B /B 0 v/v A ǫ and ǫ being a small parameter [1]. Here L and L are the characteristic length scales perpendicular and parallel to the guiding field respectively, B and B 0 are the corresponding magnetic field magnitudes, v is the magnitude of the velocity and v A is the Alfvén velocity. Alternatively one can just confine the dynamics to take place on the plane perpendicular to the guiding field B 0 = B 0 ẑ, i.e. to express B and v as B = ψ ẑ, v = χ ẑ, (1) where ψ is the magnetic flux function and χ is the velocity stream function. Assuming that the plasma is incompressible, in the sense that the mass density is uniform throughout the plasma volume, one can derive from the general momentum and induction equations of the MH model, the following dynamical equations, defined on a bounded domain R, t ω = [χ,ω]+[j,ψ], () t ψ = [χ,ψ], (3) where J := ψ and ω := χ, are the magnitudes of the current density and vorticity respectively and[a, b] := ( x a)( y b) ( x b)( y a) is the Jacobi-Poisson bracket. In [13] the authors proved that the RMH model above, and also its compressible counterpart, possess a noncanonical Hamiltonian structure, since the dynamics can be expressed in terms of a degenerate Poisson bracket and a Hamiltonian, as follows t ω = {ω,h}, t ψ = {ψ,h}, (4) where the Hamiltonian H is H[ω,ψ] = 1 d x ( χ + ψ ) = 1 d x(ω 1 ω +ψ ψ), (5) and the Poisson bracket is given by {F,G} = d x { ω[f ω,g ω ] +ψ([f ψ,g ω ] [G ψ,f ω ]) }. (6) Here F u := δf/δu represents the functional derivative of F with respect to the variableu. The bracket(6) hastwo families of Poisson-commuted functionals, i.e. Casimir invariants, given by C F = d xωf(ψ), M G = d xg(ψ), (7) where F and G are arbitrary functions. The Casimir C corresponds to the cross-helicity invariant d 3 xv B of the ordinary MH and M corresponds to the magnetic helicity d 3 xa B, where A is the magnetic potential. If we introduce the representation (1) in the cross and the magnetic helicity we obtain two certain members of the families C and M, namely C = d xωψ, M = 1 d xψ, (8)

3 corresponding to linear F and quadratic G. For our derivations below we will use the Casimirs (8). Therefore the incompressible RMH model has three CLs, expressed through the preservation of the functionals H, C and M. That is, the structure of the dynamical equations ()-(3) and of the Poisson bracket (6) indicates the conservation laws. Our question reverses this procedure, i.e. is it possible, with the CLs at hand, to construct the dynamical equations that conserve the associated invariants? It turns out that this is indeed possible. 3 Construction of the RMH model from given CLs 3.1 Conservative dynamics via orthogonality constraints Letusassumethatwehaveacontinuoussystembounded in a domain and described by the dynamical variables X = (X 1,...,X N ) that exhibits conservation of a set of M quantities Y 1 [X],...,Y M [X] expressed as functionals defined on phase space. The conservation of Y i [X], i = 1,...,M yields c 1 : c M : dy 1 [X] dy M [X] =. = d x δy 1 δx i t X i = 0, d x δy M δx i t X i = 0, (9) The equations above define a set of M orthogonality conditions c i, i = 1,...,M, of the vectors ( ) δyi δy i µ i =,...,, i = 1,...,M, (10) δx 1 δx N with the vector σ = ( t X 1,..., t X N ) T. (11) Since µ i areknown, thenthe orthogonalityconditions(9) can be exploited in order to find the components of σ. In the case of hydrodynamics the orthogonality conditions correspond to the conservation of kinetic energy K and enstrophy E. In [3] the authors imposed conveniently those orthogonality conditions using differential -forms identifying K ω as a 0-form µ 1 and E ω as a 0-form µ. Then t ω = dµ 1 dµ, if dµ 1 dµ is assumed to be exact, is automatically orthogonal to µ 1 and µ. Inspired by the reference [3], we adopt a similar approach, i.e. we start by considering the conservation laws as orthogonality conditions like those in (9) that act as constraints on the dynamics, in order to construct a continuum model, with dynamical variables the vorticity and the magnetic flux function, that conserves H, C and M as given by (8). To do so let us construct the following vectors f = (H ω, H ψ ) = (χ, J), g = (C ω, C ψ ) = (ψ, ω), σ = ( t ω, t ψ) T, (1) The time invariance of H, C and M yields c 1 : c : c 3 : dh = d x [H ω ( t ω)+h ψ ( t ψ)] = 0,(13) dc = d x [C ω ( t ω)+c ψ ( t ψ)] = 0, (14) dm = d xc ω ( t ψ) = 0, (15) Those orthogonality conditions can be expressed with the use of Eqs. (1) as c 1 : c : c 3 : d xf i σ i = 0, d xg i σ i = 0, d xg 1 σ = 0. (16) Since the orthogonality conditions can be expressed in terms of the vectors f and g only then let us assume that σ 1, can be expanded as σ i = γ ijk [f j,g k ], i,j,k = 1,. (17) This Ansatz for the quantities σ i is of course restrictive and possibly excludes models that do respect the given CLs but the time derivatives of the dynamical variables do not assume this specific form. However it is a helpful assumption in order to carry out manipulations that easily result in systems of equations that preserve the Casimirs, in fact exploiting the identity d xa[b,c] = d xc[a,b] = d xb[c,a], (18) which hold for appropriate boundary condition e.g. periodic, we can find that in order for the constraints c 1, c and c 3 to be satisfied the parameters γ ijk with i,j,k = 1, should be γ 111 ǫ 1, γ 11 = γ 11 = γ 11 ǫ, γ = 0, γ 1 = γ 1 = γ 1 = 0, (19) whereǫ 1 and ǫ arearbitraryparameters. In viewof (19) we take t ω = ([H ψ,c ω ]+[H ω,c ψ ])+ǫ[h ω,c ω ], (0) t ψ = [H ω,c ω ]. (1) 3

4 where the parameter ǫ was absorbed by rescaling the time variable, and ǫ 1 was renamed. Evaluating the functional derivatives we obtain t ω = ([J,ψ]+[χ,ω])+ǫ[χ,ψ], () t ψ = [χ,ψ]. (3) It is easy to corroborate that the model ()-(3) conserves the energy H and respects not only the conservation of C and M as they are given in (8) but of the entire families of M G, C F given in (7). This generalized model includes the RMH as a special case since the latter is recovered for ǫ = 0. An interesting feature is that it includes also the homogeneous Charney Hasegawa Mima equation. To see how this transpires let us combine Eqs. () and (3) to derive t (ω ǫψ) = ([χ,ω]+[j,ψ]). (4) Now let ψ = χ/ǫ, then 4 becomes t ( χ χ) = 1 ǫ ǫ [ χ,χ], (5) and the coefficient 1 ǫ ǫ can be scaled to unity by rescaling either χ or t resulting in the homogeneous Charney Hasegawa Mima equation[14, 15], which governs the dynamics of Rossby waves in a shallow homogeneous fluid layer (in this case χ is a stream function) and drift waves in plasmas (χ is an electrostatic potential). In addition note that the conditions (19) can be interpretedasfollows: theinclusionof[h ψ,c ψ ] = [J,ω]inany of the dynamical equations of the model violates the conservation laws. In addition the evolution of ψ is coerced to contain no dependence on H ψ = J and C ψ = ω. 3. Nambu bracket description Before deriving the Nambu bracket for () (3) note that the corresponding Poisson bracket is {F,G} = {F,G} RMH +ǫ d xψ[f ω,g ω ], (6) where {F,G} RMH is given by (6). Bracket (6) satisfies the Jacobi identity since the matrices W n, n = 1,, defined by {F,G} = d xξ k [F ξ m,g ξ n]w m,n k, (7) where ξ = (ξ 1,ξ ) := (ω,ψ), pairwise commute [17]. For the derivation of the Nambu formalism of the system () (3), we have just to consider the time evolution of an arbitrary functional F = F[ω,ψ] t F = d x [F ω ( t ω)+f ψ ( t ψ)], (8) and use the equations (0), (1) to obtain t F = d x { F ω [H ψ,c ω ]+F ω [H ω,c ψ ] +F ψ [H ω,c ω ]+ǫf ω [H ω,c ω ] } =: {F,H,C}, (9) that is the dynamics can be described via the trilinear bracket {,, } as t F = {F,H,C}. The bracket is completely antisymmetric in its three arguments in view of the identity (18) and the antisymmetry of the Jacobi- Poisson bracket [f,g] = [g,f], and upon assuming assuming appropriate boundary conditions, i.e. such as any boundary terms emerging due to integration by parts vanish. 3.3 Canonical description One may derive a canonical description of the system () (3) by expressing the vorticity ω and the flux function ψ in terms of Clebsch parameters P, Q. The canonical description of the RMH model derived in [16], requires the vorticity to be a Clebsch -form ω = [P,Q]. The authors found two suitable parametrization schemes for ψ(p,q) namely ψ = P α Q β and ψ = P α +Q β. Following [16] we use ψ = P α Q β for our generic model and also we make a necessary modification in parameterizing ω ω = [P,Q]+ǫP α Q β, ψ = P α Q β. (30) The Hamiltonian takes the form H = 1 d x { [P,Q] 1 [P,Q]+ǫP α Q β 1 [P,Q] +ǫ P α Q β 1 (P α Q β )+P α Q β (P α Q β ) }.(31) The canonical Hamilton s equations are ( ) ( ) P HP t = J Q c, (3) H Q where J c represents the so-called cosymplectic operator ( ) 0 I J c =. (33) I 0 The Hamilton s equations (3) take the form t P = [χ,p]+βp α Q β 1 J +ǫβp α Q β 1 χ, t Q = [χ,q] αp α 1 Q β J ǫαp α 1 Q β χ, (34) where J = ǫ (P α Q β ) and χ = ǫ 1 [P,Q] ǫ 1 1 (P α Q β ). Using Eqs. (30) and (34) and exploiting the Jacobi identity for the regular Jacobi-Poisson bracket, one can recover the original system () (3). The cross-helicity is given by C = d x ( ǫp α Q β +P α Q β [P,Q] ). (35) 4

5 The Hamiltonian and the cross-helicity functional, written using Clebsch parameters are different for the generic model and for RMH, obtained by setting ǫ 1 = 0, although in noncanonical Euler variables they are identical. This difference reflects the fact that in canonical description the complexity is removed from the Poisson bracket. Thereby, in the Euler description the difference of the two models and also the complexity of the dynamics are detected in the bracket, whereas in canonical description those attributes hive in the expressions of the functionals. 4 Families of reduced models respecting two out of the three original CLs 4.1 Energy and cross-helicity (H C) conserving models For a family of hydromagnetic models, with dynamical variables the vorticity ω and the magnetic flux ψ, that conserve only the Energy H and the cross-helicity C we have to consider only the orthogonality conditions c 1 and c and relax the condition c 3. If we do so then the coefficients in the expansions (17) should be γ 111 ǫ 1, γ 11 = γ 11 = γ 11 ǫ, γ 1 = γ 1 = γ 1 ǫ 3, γ ǫ 4, (36) Conditions (36) lead to the following expansions t ω = ǫ 1 [H ω,c ω ]+ǫ 3 [H ψ,c ψ ] +ǫ ([H ω,c ψ ]+[H ψ,c ω ]), t ψ = ǫ [H ω,c ω ]+ǫ 4 [H ψ,c ψ ] +ǫ 3 ([H ω,c ψ ]+[H ψ,c ω ]), (37) which result in the generalized model t ω = ǫ 1 [χ,ψ]+ǫ ([χ,ω]+[j,ψ])+ǫ 3 [J,ω], t ψ = ǫ [χ,ψ]+ǫ 3 ([χ,ω]+[j,ψ])+ǫ 4 [J,ω]. (38) The ordinary RMH model is recovered for (ǫ 1,ǫ,ǫ 3,ǫ 4 ) = (0,1,0,0). Setting ǫ = 1 (or rescaling the time variable so as to absorb ǫ ) in order to retain the RMH core, we can build, apart from the model (38), six extensions of the RMH that conserve the Energy and the cross-helicity. In the generic case represented by the model (38), the mangnetic helicity M evolves as dm = ǫ 3 d xψ[χ,ω]+ǫ 4 d xψ[j,ω]. (39) As an example let us consider the model (0,1,0,ǫ 4 ) t ω = [χ,ω]+[j,ψ], t ψ = [χ,ψ]+ǫ 4 [J,ω]. (40) One can easily identify that (40), in addition to H and C, conserves also a generalized Enstrophy Ẽ = d x ( ψ +ǫ 4 ω ), (41) i.e. if ǫ 4 > 0 this model converts enstrophy to magnetic flux and vice versa, which means that both the enstrophy d xω and the helicity d xψ are bounded during the evolutions since the maximum value they can attain are the initial value of the ivariant E. Therefore the addition of the term ǫ 4 [J,ω] with positive ǫ 4 in the induction equation can serve as a regularization of the RMH system at least in preventing possible unbounded behavior of the vorticity. Usually such unbounded behavior is remedied by the inclusion of dissipative terms. However dissipation destroys time reversibility and the various conservation laws. Although Eqs. (38) conserve cross-helicity as defined in (8), one can provethat the rest members of this family of invariants given by (7) are not conserved since dc F = d x(ǫ 3 χω +ǫ 4 Jω)F (ψ)[ω,ψ]. (4) Equation (4) indicates that the conservation of C is possible either if F (ψ) = 0, which is the case we discuss in this section, or if ǫ 3 = ǫ 4 = 0, which results in the system () (3) of the previous section. We were not able to find an antisymmetric bracket for the model (38) that satisfies the Jacobi identity unless ǫ 1 = ǫ = ǫ 3 = ǫ 4 which forces the evolution of ψ to be identical to the evolution of ω, or ǫ 3 = ǫ 4 = 0 which results in () (3) Energy and magnetic helicity (H M) conserving models To construct models that conserve H and M we need to employ the conditions c 1 and c 3. The imposition of the aforementioned orthogonality conditions leads to γ 111 ǫ 1, γ 11 ǫ, γ 11 = γ 11 ǫ 3, γ 1 = ǫ 4, γ 1 = γ 1 = γ = 0, (43) that is, the general model that conserves H and M is t ω = ǫ 1 [χ,ψ]+ǫ [χ,ω]+ǫ 3 [J,ψ], t ψ = ǫ 3 [χ,ψ]+ǫ 4 [J,ψ], (44) RMH is recovered for (ǫ 1,ǫ,ǫ 3,ǫ 4 ) = (0,1,1,0). For the general form of the equations (44) the evolution of the cross-helicity is given by dc = (ǫ 3 ǫ ) d xω[χ,ψ]+ǫ 4 d xω[j,ψ]. (45) 1 To prove this one can search for the conditions upon which the matrices W n, n = 1,, pairwise commute for a particular antisymmetric bracket. 5

6 Although cross-helicity ceases to be conserved we can prove the conservation of a generalized cross helicity given by C = d xω (ψ + µ ) ω, (46) if µ = ǫ 4 /ǫ 3 and ǫ 1 = (ǫ ǫ 3 )/µ. Now if we are to keep the RMH core by setting ǫ = ǫ 3 = 1 then the functional (46) remains a conserved quantity if ǫ 1 = 0. If the cross-helicity is bounded the enstrophy is prevented from exhibiting unbounded growth. As for the Hamiltonian description of the model (44) we identify that the dynamics is described by (4) with the following Poisson bracket {F,G} = d x { (ǫ 1 ψ +ǫ ω)[f ω,g ω ] +ǫ 3 ψ([f ψ,g ω ] [G ψ,f ω ])+ǫ 4 ψ[f ψ,g ψ ] }.(47) The bracket (47) is clearly antisymmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity only if ǫ 3 ǫ ǫ 3 ǫ 1 ǫ 4 = 0. In view of this condition, (44) possess a Hamiltonian structure, with a Poisson structure given by (47) and a Hamiltonian functional given by (5). A trilinear bracket formulation is also possible by splitting the system into a purely hydrodynamical contribution that conserves the Hamiltonian and the Enstrophy E = d xω and a hydromagnetic contribution that conserves the Hamiltonian and the magnetic helicity M. The complete system conserves the Hamiltonian (5) and the magnetic helicity : where {F,G,Z} I = {F,G,Z} II = t F = {F,H,E} I +{F,H,M} II, (48) d xǫ F ω [G ω,z ω ], (49) d x { ǫ 1 F ω [G ω,z ψ ]+ǫ 3 F ψ [G ω,z ψ ] 4.3 Helicity conserving models + ǫ 4 3 F ψ[g ψ,z ψ ] }. (50) This seems to be a particularly interesting case within the framework of the selective decay concept [5], because plasma relaxation is based on the assumption that the Energy is minimized while the two helicities exhibit some ruggedness to dissipation, leading to the so called relaxed states. However, it should be clarified that the dynamical equations presented here do not take into account dissipation nor they ensure the actual decay of the MH energy. To abandon the requirement for the energy to be conserved, we impose only the constraints c and c 3, obtaining γ 111 ǫ 1, γ 11 = γ 11 ǫ, γ 11 ǫ 3, γ 1 = γ 1 ǫ 4, γ 1 = γ = 0, (51) that is we obtain the following generalized model t ω = ǫ 1 [χ,ψ]+ǫ [χ,ω]+ǫ 3 [J,ψ]+ǫ 4 [J,ω], t ψ = ǫ [χ,ψ]+ǫ 4 [J,ψ]. (5) RMH corresponds to (ǫ 1,ǫ,ǫ 3,ǫ 4 ) = (0,1,1,0). For the generic model (5) the Energy evolution can be computed as dh = (ǫ 3 ǫ ) d xχ[j,ψ]+ǫ 4 d xχ[j,ω]. (53) It is interesting that (5) conserves the entire families of both magnetic and the cross-helicity-like functionals C and M as given by (7). As an example of a hydromagnetic model that exhibits a selective preservation of the two helicities, consider the RMH generalization (0,1,1,ǫ 4 ), i.e. t ω = [(χ+ǫ 4 J),ω]+[J,ψ], t ψ = [(χ+ǫ 4 J),ψ]. (54) The only difference of (54) compared to () (3) is that the former involves in the advection of the fields ω and ψ the current density J. This means that small scale magnetic structures intervene in the advection of the fields ω and ψ. This indicates that such or similar models may have some practical implementations in parameterizing subgrid-scale processes when performing numerical simulations or in general short length scale physics, which cannot be described adequately by the macroscopic fluid models. 5 Conclusion We derived a generic hydromagnetic model that conserves the three ideal RMH invariants H, C, M, by imposing a priori the RMH conservation laws as orthogonality conditions. The Nambu bracket, for this generic model follows as a simple consequence of the preceding construction procedure. We introduced also a canonized system for this generic model, which can be reduced to a known canonicalization for RMH. In addition we found three families of hydromagnetic models that conserve any two out of the three H, C, M. Some of these or similar models could be candidates for incorporating small length scale physics and as conservative regularizations of the RMH system preventing the flow from forming vorticity singularities without the introduction of viscous terms, which break the conservation properties of the model. Also certain of those models could potentially be linked with the ruggedness of the helicities in plasma relaxation since they exhibit preservation of a subset of the ideal RMH invariants. It is to be proved if some of the models presented above are indeed of physical relevance, either by trying to recognize if the additional contributions can be associated with some parametrization of small scale physics into the framework of MH 6

7 or by performing numerical experiments that can feature the relevance of the corresponding dynamics with real physical processes. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank prof. Gualtiero Badin for interesting suggestions and also for inviting one of the authors (AK) to the workshop Geometric Methods for Geophysical Fluid ynamics and Climate Modeling (Hamburg-Germany, 017) in which part of this work was presented. AK was financially supported from the General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) and the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) (scholarship code: 1817). References [1] P. J. Morrison, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, (1998). [] P. J. Morrison and J. M. Greene, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 7904 (1980); Erratum ibid. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 7596 (198). [3] R. Blender and G. Badin, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48, (015). [4] R. Blender and G. Badin, Fluids, 4 (017). [5] W. H. Matthaeus and. Montgomery, Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 357, 03 (1980). [6] A. Thyagaraja, Phys. Plasmas 17, (010). [7] R. Salazar and M. V. Kurgansky, J. Phys. A 43, (010). [8] Y. Nambu, Phys. Rev., 7, 403 (1973). [9] L. Takhtajan, Commun. Math. Phys. 160, (1994). [10] R. Salmon, Nonlinearity 18, R116 (005). [11] P. Névir and R. Blender, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 6, (1993). [1] H. R. Strauss, Phys. Fluids 19, 134 (1976). [13] P. J. Morrison and R.. Hazeltine, Phys. Fluids 7, 886 (1984). [14] J. C. Charney, J. Atmos. Sci. 8, 1087 (1971). [15] A. HasegawaandK.Mima, Phys.Rev.Lett. 39, 05 (1977). [16] Y. Kaneko and Z. Yoshida, Plasma Fusion Res. 8, (013). [17] J. L. Thiffeault and P. J. Morrison, Physica 136, 0544 (000). 7