% LaTeX support: latex@mdpi.com % For support, please attach all files needed for compiling as well as the log file, and specify your operating system, LaTeX version, and LaTeX editor. %\documentclass[preprints,atmosphere,article,moreauthors,pdftex]{Definitions/mdpi} %\documentclass[entropy,article,accept,pdftex,moreauthors]{Definitions/mdpi} \documentclass[entropy,article,accept,moreauthors]{Definitions/mdpi} %\documentclass[article]{Definitions/mdpi} %uncomment below to remove line numbers %\renewcommand{\linenumbers}{} % For posting an early version of this manuscript as a preprint, you may use "preprints" as the journal and change "submit" to "accept". The document class line would be, e.g., \documentclass[preprints,article,accept,moreauthors,pdftex]{mdpi}. This is especially recommended for submission to arXiv, where line numbers should be removed before posting. For preprints.org, the editorial staff will make this change immediately prior to posting. %-------------------- r % Class Options: %-------------------- %---------- % journal %---------- % Choose between the following MDPI journals: atmosphere %---------- % submit %---------- % The class option "submit" will be changed to "accept" by the Editorial Office when the paper is accepted. This will only make changes to the frontpage (e.g., the logo of the journal will get visible), the headings, and the copyright information. Also, line numbering will be removed. Journal info and pagination for accepted papers will also be assigned by the Editorial Office. %------------------ % moreauthors %------------------ % If there is only one author the class option oneauthor should be used. Otherwise use the class option moreauthors. %--------- % pdftex %--------- % The option pdftex is for use with pdfLaTeX. If eps Figures are used, remove the option pdftex and use LaTeX and dvi2pdf. % MDPI internal commands \firstpage{1} \makeatletter \setcounter{page}{\@firstpage} \makeatother \pubvolume{1} \issuenum{1} \articlenumber{0} \pubyear{2023} \copyrightyear{2023} \externaleditor{Academic Editor: Firstname Lastname} \datereceived{1 August 2023} \daterevised{18 August 2023} % Comment out if no revised date \dateaccepted{24 August 2023} \datepublished{ } %\datecorrected{} % For corrected papers: "Corrected: XXX" date in the original paper. %\dateretracted{} % For corrected papers: "Retracted: XXX" date in the original paper. \hreflink{https://doi.org/} % If needed use \linebreak %\doinum{} %\pdfoutput=1 % Uncommented for upload to arXiv.org %\usepackage{graphicx,natbib,bm,url,color} \graphicspath{{./fig/}{./png/}} \usepackage{bm} \input macros \def\red{\textcolor{red}} \def\blue{\textcolor{blue}} \Title{Electromagnetic Conversion into Kinetic and Thermal Energies} \TitleCitation{Electromagnetic Conversion into Kinetic and Thermal Energies} \newcommand{\orcidauthorA}{0000-0002-7304-021X} \newcommand{\orcidauthorB}{0009-0006-8559-5999} %AB: could you please generate yourself an ORDId? %\Author{Axel Brandenburg $^{1,2,3,4,\dagger,\ddagger}$\orcidA{}, and Nousaba Nasrin Protiti$^{1,2}$\orcidB{}} \Author{\hl{Axel Brandenburg} $^{1,2,3,4,}$\hl{*}\orcidA{} and Nousaba Nasrin Protiti $^{1,2}$\orcidB{}}%MDPI: * is added for correspondence, please confirm. %AB: or should we replace N. -> Nasrin? %MDPI: Please carefully check the accuracy of names and affiliations. %MDPI: Dagger and double dagger are removed from Axel Brandenburg since there are special notes, please confirm. \AuthorNames{Axel Brandenburg and Nousaba Nasrin Protiti} \AuthorCitation{Brandenburg, A.; Protiti, N.N.} \address{% $^{1}$ \quad Nordita, KTH Royal Institute of Technology\hl{,} Stockholm University, Hannes Alfv\'ens v\"ag 12, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden; nopr1532@student.su.se \\ %MDPI: ``and'' is revised into comma, please confirm. $^{2}$ \quad Oskar Klein Centre, Department of Astronomy, Stockholm University, AlbaNova, \hl{10691} Stockholm, Sweden\\ %MDPI: ``SE-'' is removed from post code since format of post code should be unified in all affiliations, please confirm. $^{3}$ \quad School of Natural Sciences and Medicine, Ilia State University, 0194 Tbilisi, Georgia\\ $^{4}$ \quad McWilliams Center for Cosmology\hl{,} Department of Physics, Carnegie Mellon University,\linebreak Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA }%MDPI: ``and'' is revised into comma, please confirm. \corres{Correspondence: brandenb@nordita.org} \abstract{ Conversion of electromagnetic energy into magnetohydrodynamic energy occurs when the electric conductivity changes from negligible to finite values. This process was relevant during the epoch where the reheating of the early Universe occurred at the end of inflation and before the emergence of the radiation-dominated era. We find that conversion into kinetic and thermal energies is primarily the result of electric energy dissipation. In addition, magnetic energy plays only a secondary role in this process. This means that, since electric energy dominates over magnetic energy during the inflation and reheating stage, significant amounts of electric energy can be converted into magnetohydrodynamic energy when conductivity emerges early enough, i.e., before the relevant length scales become stable. } \keyword{electric energy; cosmological inflation; emergence of conductivity} \begin{document} \section{Introduction} In hydrodynamic turbulence, the dissipation of energy is, in principle, straightforward: everything that enters through force, escapes eventually (see Figure~\ref{pboxes_hyd}). But when magnetic fields are involved, energy can be transferred from kinetic energy to magnetic by performing work against the Lorentz force, $W_{\rm L}$. In this type of case, the situation is more complicated because there are now two exit channels, and it is \hl{a priori} not clear, which of the two%MDPI: Italic is removed, please confirm. takes the lion's share in specific situations (see Figure~\ref{pboxes_dyn}). A related problem may also occur when the electric energy reservoir is involved, and this is especially the case when this energy reservoir is later absent due to high conductivity. Before arriving at that, however, let us first recall the different situations in which hydrodynamic and hydromagnetic turbulence occur. %FIG1 \begin{figure}[H] %MDPI: Figure is moved closer to its first citation, please confirm. \hspace{-2.2cm} \includegraphics[width=.70\textwidth]{pboxes_hyd} \caption[]{ \hl{The kinetic} energy dissipation, $\epsK$, of the forced turbulence with kinetic energy density $\bra{\rho\uu^2}/2$, where $\rho$ is the density and $\uu$ is the velocity. In other words—in the steady state, everything that enters, escapes. }\label{pboxes_hyd}\end{figure} In Figure~\ref{pboxes_dyn}, it is presumed that kinetic energy can be tapped by dynamo action and converted into magnetic energy \citep{Mof78}. This is a generic process that we now know works in virtually all types of turbulent systems (provided the electric conductivity is large enough \citep{Tobias21}). And here, already, comes the first problem. Large conductivity means small magnetic diffusivity; therefore, this also means less dissipation \citep{Bra14}. Looking at Figure~\ref{pboxes_dyn}, however, this seems puzzling: in the steady state, the dynamo term $W_{\rm L}$ must be just as large as the resistive term, $\epsM$. Thus, if the dynamo is efficient, then the dissipation must also be large, which is not expected (and also not true). %FIG2 \begin{figure}[H] \hspace{-0.85cm} \includegraphics[width=.70\textwidth]{pboxes_dyn} \caption[]{ \textls[-20]{Dissipation in dynamos: there are now two exit channels, $\epsK$ and $\epsM$, and it is not clear who takes the lion's share. Dynamo action corresponds to $W_{\rm L}<0$ (i.e., the work conducted \hl{against }%MDPI: Italic is removed, please confirm. the Lorentz force, which is shown in arrow to the right), although energy can also go the other way around when an initial magnetic field decays.} }\label{pboxes_dyn}\end{figure} The puzzle of efficient dynamo action, but inefficient dissipation was solved by realizing that, at large conductivities (and especially when there is a large magnetic Prandtl number, which is the ratio $\Pm\equiv\nu/\eta$ of the kinematic viscosity $\nu$ to magnetic diffusivity $\eta$ (which is much larger than unity)), a second conversion occurs at smaller length scales where magnetic energy can be converted back into kinetic energy. This process was termed a reversed dynamo \citep{BR19}, and it happens at small scales when $\Pm\gg1$. The concept of a reversed dynamo was already introduced previously \cite{Mahajan+05} in the context of large-scale dynamos leading to the formation of large-scale flows, which are driven, with the large-scale field, by microscopic fields and flows. However, in the context of Ref.~\citep{BR19}, the focus was on small-scale dynamos that drive small-scale flows by the Lorentz force when $\Pm\gg1$. While the conversion between magnetic and kinetic energies is reasonably well understood, not much is known about the conversion from electromagnetic energy, i.e., the sum of electric and magnetic energies, into magnetic energy when the electric conductivity gradually increases. Such a process is important at the end of cosmological inflation \cite{FC23}. A stochastic electromagnetic field may have been produced during the inflation and reheating stage \citep{Sharma+17}. At the end of reheating, the electric conductivity of the universe increased. As discussed in Ref.~\cite{BS21}, significant magnetic field losses can occur if the increase in conductivity takes very long, especially when the magnetic diffusivity is at an intermediate level for a long time. In the two extreme cases of very large diffusivity (which corresponds to a vacuum with undampened %Editor: Please confirm intended meaning has been retained. electromagnetic waves), and very small diffusivity (which corresponds to nearly perfect conductivity), no significant losses are expected. It is only during the period when the magnetic diffusivity is at an intermediate level that significant resistive losses can occur. Once the conductivity has reached large values, i.e., when the magnetic diffusivity is small, strong turbulent flows will be driven. In that regime, the Faraday displacement current can be neglected and the equations reduced to those of magnetohydrodynamics \cite{Alfven42}. The resulting turbulent flows cause the magnetic field to undergo turbulent decay with inverse cascading, as has been studied intensively since the mid 1990s \citep{BEO96, CHB01, BJ04, Kahn+13, BKT15, BK17, HS22}. At some point around the time of recombination, the photon mean free path becomes very large, and a process called Silk damping becomes important \citep{Silk68}. This results from the interactions between photons and the gas, and all the inhomogeneities in the photon--baryon plasma are damped out \citep{Kolb+Turner90}. In \cite{BEO97}, this was modeled as a strongly increased viscosity, thereby making the magnetic Prandtl number even larger. However, a more physical approach is to add a friction term of the form $-\uu/\tau$ on the right hand side of the momentum equation \citep{BJ04}. It is generally taken for granted that magnetic fields just survive Silk damping without much additional loss, and that they are simply frozen into the plasma. However, the details of this process have not yet been modeled. { It is clear, however, that the assumption of a well-conducting Universe is an excellent one, even after the epoch of recombination some 380,000 years after the Big Bang (when there were very few charged particles). As we emphasize below, the electric conductivity was then still large enough that the electric field was negligible---even in the voids between galaxy clusters. In cosmology, it is only near the end of inflation that the electric field can play a significant role. The electric energy density was then comparable to or in excess of the magnetic energy density. } The goal here is to understand more quantitatively how much magnetic energy survives during the conversions from electromagnetic fields to magnetohydrodynamic fields as the conductivity increases. We also consider, in more detail, the conversion from magnetic fields to electric fields at the end of the cosmological reheating phase, which is when both fields are still growing and not yet equal to each other---unlike the situation when electromagnetic waves are present and there is no longer any growth. \section{Energetics during the Emergence of Conductivity} The evolution of the electric and magnetic fields, $\EE$ \hl{and} $\BB$,%MDPI: Please confirm format of all variables (bold). Please revise where needed. respectively, is given by the Maxwell equations, written here in SI units: \begin{equation} \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial\EE}{\partial t}=\nab\times\BB-\mu_0\JJ, \label{dEdt} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{\partial\BB}{\partial t}=-\nab\times\EE, \label{dBdt} \end{equation} where $c$ is the speed of light and $\mu_0$ is the vacuum permeability. To close the equations, we use Ohm's law, \begin{equation} \JJ=\sigma\,(\EE+\uu\times\BB), \label{Ohm0} \end{equation} where $\sigma$ is the electric conductivity and $\uu$ is the velocity. In the very early Universe, inflation dilutes the plasma to the extent that there are virtually no particles, and hence the electric conductivity vanishes. Eventually, a phase of reheating must have occurred. One possibility is that the stretching associated with the cosmological expansion leads to electromagnetic field amplification until the electric field begins to exceed the critical field strength for the Schwinger effect \cite{KA14} to lead to the production of charged particles, and thereby to the emergence of electric conductivity. This change in $\sigma$ implies the existence of a phase when $\sigma$ has an intermediate value for a certain duration. This leads to a certain electromagnetic energy loss given by $\JJ\cdot\EE$. This is a well-known result in magnetohydrodynamics, where the displacement current is ignored, so we have $\nab\times\BB=\mu_0\JJ$. This is then used when deriving the magnetic energy equation by taking the dot product of \Eq{dBdt} with $\BB$, so we have \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\BB^2/2\mu_0\right) =-\BB\cdot\nab\times\EE/\mu_0 =\JJ\cdot\EE-\nab\cdot(\EE\times\BB/\mu_0), \label{MagEnergy00} \end{equation} %where we have introduced the Poynting vector $\EE\times\BB/\mu_0$, %but since a divergence under triply-periodic volume averaging vanishes, %we just have where we have introduced the Poynting vector $\EE\times\BB/\mu_0$. { In the following, we often adopt volume averaging, which we denote by angle brackets. They depend just on time $t$, but not on position $\xx$. We also adopt periodic boundary conditions in all three directions, so we call the domain triply periodic. } Since a divergence under triply-periodic volume averaging vanishes, we just have \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t}\bbra{\BB^2/2\mu_0} =-\bbra{\JJ\cdot\EE}\quad\mbox{(ignoring the displacement current)}. \label{MagEnergy0} \end{equation} {The} $\bra{\JJ\cdot\EE}$ term, in turn, has two contributions. Using Ohm's law in the form \begin{equation} \EE=\JJ/\sigma-\uu\times\BB, \label{Ohm3} \end{equation} we find $\bra{\JJ\cdot\EE}=\bra{\JJ^2}/\sigma-\bra{\JJ\cdot(\uu\times\BB)}$, or, using $-\JJ\cdot(\uu\times\BB)=\uu\cdot(\JJ\times\BB)$, we have \begin{equation} \bra{\JJ\cdot\EE}=\bra{\JJ^2/\sigma}+\bra{\uu\cdot(\JJ\times\BB)}, \label{Ohm4} \end{equation} so part of the electromagnetic energy turns into Joule (or magnetic) heating, $\epsM\equiv\bra{\JJ^2/\sigma}$, and another part is converted into kinetic energy through work conducted by the Lorentz force, $W_{\rm L}\equiv\bra{\uu\cdot(\JJ\times\BB)}$, which eventually also becomes converted into heat through viscous (kinetic) heating, $\epsK$. In the case of dynamo action discussed in the introduction, of course, $W_{\rm L}$ is negative, so work is conducted \hl{against} the Lorentz force.%MDPI: Italic is removed, please confirm. This is why the direction of the arrow in Figure~\ref{pboxes_dyn} is reversed. { Force-free magnetic fields have $W_{\rm L}=0$ and can therefore not be sustained against dissipation, but they can be long lived if the current density is small enough; see Ref.~\cite{Henriksen19} for examples. } In the scenario where reheating is caused by the feedback from the Schwinger effect, there would be thermal energy supply both from $\epsK$ and $\epsM$, leading therefore to a direct coupling between the resulting heating and the emergence of $\sigma$. The flows of energy between magnetic, electric, and kinetic energy reservoirs is illustrated in Figure~\ref{pboxes_BEU}. We denote those by \begin{equation} \EEM\equiv\bra{\BB^2/2\mu_0},\quad \EEEl\equiv\bra{\epsilon_0\EE^2/2},\quad\mbox{and}\quad \EEK\equiv\bra{\rho\uu^2/2}, \label{EnergyDefs} \end{equation} respectively. Their evolution equations can be obtained from \Eqs{dEdt}{dBdt}, along with the momentum and continuity equations, \begin{equation} \rho\frac{\DD\uu}{\DD t}=-\nab p+\JJ\times\BB+\nab\cdot(2\rho\nu\SSSS), \label{Momentum} \end{equation} \begin{equation} \frac{\DD\ln\rho}{\DD t}=-\nab\cdot\uu, \label{Continuity} \end{equation} where $\DD/\DD t\equiv\partial/\partial t+\uu\cdot\nab$ is the advective derivative, $p=\rho\cs^2$ is the pressure for an isothermal equation of state with sound speed $\cs$, which is constant, $\nu$ is the viscosity, and ${\sf S}_{ij}=(\partial_i u_j+\partial_j u_i)/2-\delta_{ij}\nab\cdot\uu/3$ are the components of the rate-of-strain tensor $\SSSS$. %FIG3 \begin{figure}[H] \hspace{-0.7cm} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pboxes_BEU} \caption[]{ Energy conversion from magnetic to kinetic energies via the electric energy reservoir. }\label{pboxes_BEU}\end{figure} { Note that, unlike the cases depicted in \Figs{pboxes_hyd}{pboxes_dyn}, there is no energy input in the system shown in Figure~\ref{pboxes_BEU}. This would change if we were to add forcing in the momentum equation in \Eq{Momentum}. We allude to this interesting possibility at the end of the conclusions in \Sec{Conclusions}. Another possibility that we do discuss in some detail is energy input during the reheating phase at the end of inflation. We turn to this aspect in \Sec{EnergyConversionsReheating}. } Taking the dot product of \Eq{Momentum} with $\uu$, using \Eq{Continuity}, integration by part, and the facts that $\partial_i u_j$ can be written as the sum of a symmetric and an antisymmetric tensor, but that the multiplication with $\SSSS$ (a symmetric and trace-free tensor) gives no contribution when $\delta_{ij}\nab\cdot\uu/3$ is added, we find that ${\sf S}_{ij}\partial_i u_j=\SSSS^2$, and thus obtain the evolution equation for the kinetic energy is of the form \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t} \bbra{\rho\uu^2/2}=-\bbra{\uu\cdot\nab p} +\bbra{\uu\cdot(\JJ\times\BB)}-\bbra{2\rho\nu\SSSS^2}, \label{EEKeqn1} \end{equation} which we can also write more compactly as $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm K}=W_{\rm P}+W_{\rm L}-\epsK$, where $W_{\rm P}=-\bra{\uu\cdot\nab p}$ has been defined as the work conducted by the pressure force, $\epsK=\bra{2\rho\nu\SSSS^2}$ is the viscous (or kinetic) heating, and the dot on the kinetic energy denotes a time derivative. Here we have made use of the fact that the divergence $\nab\cdot(p\uu)=\uu\cdot\nab p+p\nab\cdot\uu$ has a vanishing volume average for a triply-periodic domain, and therefore $-\bra{\uu\cdot\nab p}=\bra{p\nab\cdot\uu}$, making it clear that this term leads to compressional heating and was found to be important in gravitational collapse simulations \cite{BN22}. We will see later that, when energy is supplied through $W_{\rm L}$, the energy is used to let the kinetic energy grow ($\dot{\cal E}_{\rm K}>0$) and to drive viscous heating, i.e., we have \begin{equation} W_{\rm L}=\dot{\cal E}_{\rm K}+\epsK-W_{\rm P}. \label{EEKeqn3} \end{equation} We recall that the dot on $\EEK$ denotes a time derivative. The term $W_{\rm P}$ is usually small and negative and thus also contributes (but only little) to increasing thermal energy. In the present simulations, we used an isothermal equation of state and thus ignored the evolution of thermal energy, ${\cal E}_{\rm T}=\bra{\rho e}$, where $e=\cv T$ is the internal energy, $\cv$ is the specific heat at constant volume, and $T$ is the temperature. If we had included it, we would have had \begin{equation} \dot{\cal E}_{\rm T}=\epsM+\epsK-W_{\rm P}. \label{EETeqn} \end{equation} This thermal evolution is important in simulations of thermal magneto-convection \citep{Bra+96}, where it facilitates buoyancy variations, or in simulations of the magneto-rotational instability, where potential energy dissipates into heat and radiation \cite{BNST95}. For our purposes, however, it suffices to integrate instead the kinetic and magnetic contributions in time, i.e., to compute $\int\epsK\,\dd t$ and $\int\epsM\,\dd t$, respectively. Let us now discuss the interplay between electric and magnetic energies. This interplay is usually ignored in magnetohydrodynamics, where the evolution of the electric field, i.e., the Faraday displacement current, is ignored \cite{Alfven42}. Taking the dot product of \Eq{dEdt} with $\EE/\mu_0$ and noting that $1/(\mu_0 c^2)=\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity, we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\epsilon_0\EE^2/2\right)= \frac{\EE}{\mu_0 c^2}\cdot\frac{\partial\EE}{\partial t}= \EE\cdot\nab\times\BB/\mu_0-\JJ\cdot\EE, \label{dE2dt} \end{equation} so, after averaging, we have \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t}\bbra{\epsilon_0\EE^2/2}= \bbra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB/\mu_0}-\bbra{\JJ\cdot\EE}. \label{dE2dt2} \end{equation} {Next}, taking the dot product of \Eq{dBdt} with $\BB/\mu_0$, we obtain \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\BB^2/2\mu_0\right)=-\BB\cdot\nab\times\EE/\mu_0. \label{MagEnergy1} \end{equation} {In} view of the $\bra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB/\mu_0}$ term in \Eq{dE2dt2}, it is convenient to rewrite \Eq{MagEnergy1} in the form \begin{equation} \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\BB^2/2\mu_0\right)=-\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB/\mu_0 -\nab\cdot(\EE\times\BB/\mu_0). \label{MagEnergy2} \end{equation} {Again}, given that the Poynting flux divergence vanishes under a triply-periodic volume averaging, we have \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t}\bbra{\BB^2/2\mu_0}=-\bbra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB}/\mu_0. \label{MagEnergy3} \end{equation} {{Note} here the difference to \Eq{MagEnergy0}, which ignores the displacement current. An equation similar to \Eq{MagEnergy0} can only be recovered for the sum of electric and magnetic energies, which yields \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t} \left[\bbra{\BB^2/2\mu_0}+\bbra{\epsilon_0\EE^2/2}\right] =-\bbra{\JJ\cdot\EE}. \label{MagEnergy4} \end{equation} {An} important property of well-conducting media that are considered in magnetohydrodynamics is that the electric field is negligible compared to the magnetic energy. In that limit, \Eqs{MagEnergy0}{MagEnergy4} do indeed become equivalent. } More compactly, we can then write \Eq{MagEnergy3} in the form $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm M}=-Q_{\rm E}$, where $Q_{\rm E}=\bra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB}$ acts as a source in $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}=Q_{\rm E}-\epsM-W_{\rm L}$. Thus, we clearly see that the electric energy reservoir is not a secondary one whose energy content is small because of inefficient coupling, but it is an unavoidable intermediate one through which magnetic energy is channeled efficiently further to kinetic and thermal energies. This raises the question how {safe is} the neglect of the displacement current when prior to the emergence of conductivity the electric energy dominates over magnetic. This is a typical situation in inflationary magnetohydrodynamics scenarios that we consider later in this paper. Before that, we discuss first the standard case when electric and magnetic energies are equally large in the nonconducting case. \section{Numerical Experiments with Different Temporal Conductivity Variations} To illustrate the conversion from electromagnetic energy to magnetohydrodynamic and thermal energies during the emergence of electric conductivity, let us begin with a simple one-dimensional experiment. \subsection{Electromagnetic Waves and Their Suppression by Conductivity} In one dimension with $\partial/\partial x\neq0$ and $\sigma=0$, we can have electromagnetic waves, for example $B_y^\pm(x,t)=B_0 \sin k(c\mp ct)$ and $E_z^\pm(x,t)=\mp k B_0\sin k(c\mp ct)$, traveling in the positive (negative) $x$ direction. Note that the electric and magnetic energies are always equal to each other. However, when $\sigma$ becomes large, $|\EE|$ becomes suppressed. To understand this suppression, let us look at \Eq{dEdt}. When $\sigma$ becomes large, the $\nab\times\BB$ term no longer needs to be balanced by the displacement current, but by the actual current. Inserting $\JJ=\sigma\EE$ (for the comoving current density), we find $\EE=\eta\nab\times\BB$, so we expect $|\EE|/|c\BB|=O(\eta k/c)$. Thus, once $\sigma$ becomes large, $|\EE|/c$ becomes suppressed relative to $|\BB|$ by a factor, $\eta k/c=k/(c\mu_0\sigma)$. Additionally, as mentioned above, both $|\EE|$ and $|\BB|$ become suppressed due to the intermediate phase when $\sigma$ is neither small nor large yet. This was discussed in the appendix of Ref.~\cite{BS21}, who found that for a linearly increasing conductivity profile $\sigma(t)=\sigma_{\max}\,t/t_{\rm trans}$ during a certain time interval $t_0\leq t\leq t_0+t_{\rm trans}$ of duration $t_{\rm trans}$ and starting at $t=t_0$, there was an amplitude drop, whose value increases approximately inversely proportional to $\eta_{\min} k^2t_{\rm trans}$, where $\eta_{\min}=1/\mu_0\sigma_{\max}$. To specify the temporal variation of the conductivity profile, we define a piecewise linear function that goes from 0 (for $t\leq t_0$) to 1 (for $t\geq t_0+\tau_0$) through \begin{equation} \Theta=\max\left[\min\left(\frac{t-t_0}{\tau_0},\,1\right),\,0\right]. \end{equation} {The} linear $\sigma$ profile used in Ref.~\cite{BS21} is given by \begin{equation} \sigma(t)=\sigma_{\min}+(\sigma_0-\sigma_{\min})\,\Theta(t), \end{equation} where $\sigma_0=1/\eta_0$ and $\sigma_{\min}=1/\eta_{\max}$. Here, we also study a profile whose logarithm is linearly varying. We therefore refer to it as a logarithmic profile, which is of the form \begin{equation} \sigma(t)=\sigma_0\exp\left\{\ln(\sigma_{\max}/\sigma_0)\, \left[1-\Theta(t)\right]\right\}, \end{equation} which allows us to specify the duration, during which $\sigma$ transits by an order of magnitude for any value of $\sigma$. For the linear $\sigma$ profile, by contrast, the duration would be different for different $\sigma$ ranges, and it would be very short for large values of $\sigma$. For the simulations, we use the {\sc Pencil Code} \cite{JOSS}, which employs the magnetic vector potential $\AAA$, so that $\BB=\nab\times\AAA$ is always divergence-free. The evolution equation for $\AAA$ can then be written as \begin{equation} \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{\partial^2\AAA}{\partial t^2}-\nabla^2\AAA+\nab\nab\cdot\AAA +\frac{1}{\eta(t)} \left(\frac{\partial\AAA}{\partial t}+\uu\times\BB\right)=0, \label{FullAeqn} \end{equation} where $\nab\cdot\AAA=0$ if the Coulomb gauge is used. { In the {\sc Pencil Code}, different gauges are possible, but the Weyl gauge with $\partial\AAA/\partial t=-\EE$ is the convenient one. In that case, the $\nab\nab\cdot\AAA$ term must be retained. } \EEq{FullAeqn} shows that in a vacuum, where $1/\eta\to0$, one recovers a standard wave equation for waves with propagation speed $c$. In the opposite limit, where $\eta\to0$, one can neglect the $(\eta/c^2)\,\partial^2\AAA/\partial t^2$ term and one recovers the usual induction equation, where $\eta\nabla^2\AAA$ acts as a diffusion term. \subsection{Transition to the High-Conductivity Regime for Different Parameters} \label{Transition} The transition to the high-conductivity regime involves the conversion of electromagnetic waves to magnetohydrodynamic waves \cite{Alfven42}. One can imagine that this process is more efficient when the frequencies of both waves are equal. In the high conductivity regime, the frequency of magnetohydrodynamic waves depends on the strength of the imposed magnetic field, $B_0$, which determines the nominal Alfv\'en speed, $\vAz=B_0/\sqrt{\rho\mu_0}$. Since Alfv\'en waves propagate along the magnetic field, and since $\partial/\partial x\neq0$, we impose the magnetic field also in the $x$ direction, i.e., we write $\BB=\xxx B_0+\nab\times\AAA$, where $\nab\times\AAA$ is the departure from the imposed magnetic field. In the following numerical experiments, we choose $t_0=0$. \textls[-20]{The result is shown in Figure~\ref{pmaps}, where we compare $B_y(x,t)$ as a colored contour plot in the $xt$ plane. We compute the solution in a domain of size $L$, so the lowest wave number is $k_1=2\pi/L$. The density is initially uniform and equal to $\rho_0$. In the following, we use units where $c=k_1=\rho_0=1$. We see that for $\vAz=1$, the wave propagates almost unaffectedly by the switch to high conductivity. Here, the frequency of the electromagnetic wave is $ck_1=1$ and the nominal frequency of the Alfv\'en wave, $\vAz k$, is also unity but the actual frequency is slightly less than that. This is because of special relativity effects forcing the wave speed to be always less than $c$. In fact, the actual wave speed is $\vA=\vAz/(1+\vAz^2/c^2)^{1/2}$ \cite{Gedalin93}.} %FIG4 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{pmaps} \caption[]{ Evolution of $B_y(x,t)$ for the logarithmic $\sigma$ profile with (\textbf{a}) $\vAz=1$, (\textbf{b}) $\vAz=0.3$ and\linebreak (\textbf{c}) $\vAz=0.1$, and $t_{\rm trans}=10$ in all cases. }\label{pmaps}\end{figure} For smaller values of $\vAz$, we see that not only the wave speed is less, as seen from the shallower inclination of the pattern in Figure~\ref{pmaps}b,c, but there is also a certain drop of the wave amplitude, and there is also an additional modulation resulting from an effective initial condition at $t=0$ that does not match the eigenfunction for an Alfv\'en wave. In Figure~\ref{pmaps03}, we compare the logarithmic $\sigma$ profile with the linear one using $\vAz=0.3$. For the logarithmic profile, the drop in amplitude is clearly larger than that for the linear $\sigma$ profile. To obtain a similar drop with the linear $\sigma$ profile, one would need to increase $t_{\rm trans}$ to about 500; see Figure~\ref{pmaps03}c. %FIG5 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{pmaps03} \caption[]{ Evolution of $B_y(x,t)$ for the logarithmic $\sigma$ profile with $\vA=0.3$ and (\textbf{a}) the logarithmic $\sigma$ profile with $t_{\rm trans}=10$, (\textbf{b}) the linear $\sigma$ profile with $t_{\rm trans}=10$, and (\textbf{c}) the linear $\sigma$ profile with $t_{\rm trans}=500$. }\label{pmaps03}\end{figure} To be more quantitative, we compare in Figure~\ref{pvid_last_D128e}a the evolution of $B_y$ at one specific point $x=x_*$ for the three runs of Figure~\ref{pmaps03}a,c. Note that the drop of the wave amplitude after $t=0$ is similar for runs \textbf{\hl{a}} and \textbf{\hl{c}}, but much less for \textbf{\hl{b}}.%MDPI: Please confirm if the bold is unnecessary and can be removed. The following highlights are the same. %FIG6 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{pcomp_diff_eta_prof_b03} \caption[]{ (\textbf{a}) \hl{Evolution} of $B_y$ at one specific point $x=x_*$ in the three%MDPI: Figures is moved closer to its first citation, please confirm. runs of Figure~\ref{pmaps03}a,c. Note that the drop of the wave amplitude after $t=0$, {and specifically at $t=50$,} is similar for runs \textbf{\hl{a}} and \textbf{\hl{c}}, but much less for \textbf{\hl{b}}. (\textbf{b}) Dependence of {the nondimensional resistivity} $R(t)=\eta(t) k/c$ for the logarithmic profile with $t_{\rm trans}=10$ in run \textbf{\hl{a}} (black), and the linear profile with $t_{\rm trans}=10$ in run \textbf{\hl{b}} (red) and $t_{\rm trans}=500$ in run \textbf{\hl{c}} (blue). { The inset shows a blow-up around a narrow strip around $R=1$ using a logarithmic time axis. } We see from the inset that the time spent in $R(t)$ traversing unity by a margin of one order of magnitude {(marked by the thick part of the black line)} is similar for \textbf{a} and \textbf{c}, but virtually non-existing for \textbf{b}. }\label{pvid_last_D128e}\end{figure} In {Figure~\ref{pvid_last_D128e}b,} we also show how $\sigma$ varies. We do this by plotting the nondimensional resistivity \begin{equation} R(t)\equiv\eta(t) k/c, \end{equation} which decreases from $10^4$ to $5\times10^{-4}$. { We recall that it is also this ratio that we identified in the beginning of this section as the one that characterizes the value of $|E|/|cB|$. } We see that most of the decay happens when it transits through unity. Owing to the logarithmic nature of the profile, the quantity $R(t)$ spends a time interval of about $ck t_{\rm trans}=5$ while $R(t)$ changes from 10 to 0.1. By contrast, for the linear profile, the time interval is virtually non-existing. For $t_{\rm trans}=500$, on the other hand, $ck t_{\rm trans}$ is similar to what led to the to a similar decay for the logarithmic profile. This is also confirmed by the inset of panel \textbf{b}, which shows that $R(t)$ traverses unity by a margin of one order of magnitude for \textbf{a} and \textbf{c}, but not for \textbf{b}. The results discussed above confirm that the relevant time interval is indeed that where $R(t)$ is within an order of magnitude around unity. {Looking at Figure~\ref{pdec_D128j_T10a_etaE0_nu1em2}, we see that the electric energy was initially equal to the magnetic one, but as the conductivity increases, there is a rapid decline of electric energy ($\dot{\EEEl}<0$), and most of it dissipates thermally, while only a small fraction ($<10\%$ for $t_{\rm trans}=10$) is transferred into kinetic energy. It turns out that the mean magnetic and electric energy densities decay like $\exp(-\nu k^2 t)$, i.e., without a factor of $2$ in the exponent, reflecting therefore not a change in the kinetic energy, but rather in the velocity, which enters through the work term $W_{\rm L}$\hl{. }%MDPI: ``.)'' is removed, please confirm. Furthermore, the ratio is here $\EEEl/\EEM\approx10$ for $\Pm=20$. Note that the oscillations in $\EEM+\EEK$ (orange line) are compensated mostly entirely by those in $\EEEl$ (blue~line).} %FIG7 \begin{figure}[H] %MDPI: Figures is moved closer to its first citation, please confirm. \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{pdec_D128j_T10a_etaE0_nu1em2} \caption[]{ \hl{Initially}, all the energy is in electromagnetic energy, $\EEEl+\EEM$ for $\nu=0.01$ and $\eta_{\rm fin}=5\times10^{-4}$. In the end, all the energy is converted into heat. The red lines give the integrated Ohmic and viscous energy gains, $\int\epsM\,\dd t$ and $\int\epsK\,\dd t$, respectively. At intermediate times, this energy is distributed to equal amounts among kinetic energy $\EEK$ (green lines) and magnetic energy $\EEM$ (gray lines). The orange line shows their sum, $\EEK+\EEM$. The blue lines represent $\EEEl$. { The inset shows a blow-up of the same graph around the origin. We see that $\EEEl$ varies in phase with $\EEK$, but an anti-phase both with $\EEM$ and the residual $\EEM+\EEK$. } }\label{pdec_D128j_T10a_etaE0_nu1em2}\end{figure} In Figure~\ref{presults_Tdep}, we show the evolution of various energy fluxes. We see that the magnetic energy decays and gives off energy to the electric energy reservoir through the term $Q_{\rm E}=\bra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB}>0$. The magnetic heating is thus composed of the following terms: \begin{equation} \epsM=-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}+Q_{\rm E}-W_{\rm L} \label{epsM_eqn} \end{equation} For rapid transits, $t_{\rm trans}\la5$, $Q_{\rm E}$ is small compared with $-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$, so $\epsM$ is mostly entirely the result of exhausting electric energy, i.e., $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}<0$. For longer transits, $t_{\rm trans}>10$, $Q_{\rm E}\approx-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$, so $\epsM$ is supplied to about 50\% through $Q_{\rm E}$ and to another 50\% through $-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$. These differences are summarized in Table~\ref{Tregimes}. %FIG8 \begin{figure}[H] %MDPI: Figures is moved closer to its first citation, please confirm. \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{presults_Tdep} \caption{{Evolution} of energy fluxes for the model with the logarithmic conductivity profile with $\eta=5\times10^{-4}=\nu$ at late times. In all cases, the initial diffusivity is $\eta_{\rm ini}=10^4$. The main difference to the run with a larger viscosity is that $\epsK$ is larger. }\label{presults_Tdep}\end{figure} \vspace{-9pt} \begin{table}[H] \caption{The two regimes of energy transfer for short and long transits.\label{Tregimes}} \newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X} \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{CCC} \toprule & \textbf{Rapid Transits} & \textbf{Long Transits} \\ \midrule criterion & $t_{\rm trans}<10$ & $t_{\rm trans}>10$ \\ Lorentz work & $W_{\rm L}/\epsM\approx0.1$ & $W_{\rm L}/\epsM\approx5\,t_{\rm trans}^{-1.6}$ \\ heating & $\epsM\approx-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$ and $Q_{\rm E}\ll\epsM$ & $\epsM\approx-0.5\,\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}\approx0.5\,Q_{\rm E}$ \\ \bottomrule \end{tabularx} \end{table} In connection with Figure~\ref{pmaps}, we noted that there is a certain drop of the wave amplitude after the transit to large conductivity. This drop was larger for a larger ratio of the electromagnetic to Alfv\'en wave speeds. When the nominal Alfv\'en speed was equal to the speed of light, the drop was small. In Figure~\ref{presults_Tdep_energies} we quantify this by plotting $\EEM$ at $t=100$, i.e., after the conductivity has increased to a large value, vs. $t_{\rm trans}$ for different values of $\vAz/c$. We confirm the results of Ref.~\cite{BS21} where the logarithmic drop was found to depend linearly on the value of $t_{\rm trans}$. However, we now also see that the slope of this curve decreases with increasing Alfv\'en wave speed. %FIG9 \begin{figure}[H] %MDPI: Figures is moved closer to its first citation, please confirm. \includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{presults_Tdep_energies} \caption[]{ $\EEM$ at $t=100$, i.e., {after} the conductivity has increased to large value, vs. $t_{\rm trans}$ for $\vAz/c=1$ (orange), $\vAz/c=0.3$ (red), and $\vAz/c=0.1$ (blue). }\label{presults_Tdep_energies}\end{figure} \section{Cosmological Application Prior to Radiation Domination} As alluded to above, the end of inflation might provide an opportunity to illustrate electromagnetic energy conversion, because in that case, the electric energy can greatly exceed the magnetic one. \subsection{Magnetic Fields in Cosmology} In the present Universe, magnetic fields are constantly being regenerated by dynamo action on all scales up to those of galaxy clusters. The energy source is here gravitational, which is released through accretion or direct collapse. Magnetic fields may also be present on even larger scales. However, in the locations between galaxy clusters, i.e., in what is often referred to as voids, it is generally thought impossible to produce magnetic fields through contemporary dynamo action; see Refs.~\cite{DN13, Sub16} for reviews on the subject. Nevertheless, indirect evidence for the existence of magnetic fields in voids, and more specifically for lower limits of the magnetic field strength, comes from the non-observation of secondary photons in the halos to blazars, which are active galactic nuclei producing TeV photons. These photons interact with those of the extragalactic background light through inverse Compton scattering to produce GeV photons. Those secondary GeV photons are not observed. Their non-observation could be explained by an intervening magnetic field of about $10^{-16}\Gauss$ on a megaparsec scale \cite{NV10, Taylor+11}. This field would deflect electrons and positrons in opposite directions, preventing them from recombining and thereby disrupting the energy cascade toward the lower GeV photons. The non-observation of GeV photons might have other reasons, for example plasma instabilities that disrupt the electron--positron beam \cite{Broderick+12, Broderick+18}. Nevertheless, even then, a certain fraction of the plasma beam disruption might still be caused by magnetic fields \cite{Sironi14}, which could explain the GeV halos of at least some blazars \cite{AlvesBatista+19}. If magnetic fields really do exist on very large cosmological scales, they may be primordial in origin. This may mean that they have been created during or before the radiation-dominated era of the Universe, for example during one of the cosmological phase transitions or during inflation. Inflation was a phase where the conversion from electromagnetic fields to magnetohydrodynamic fields played an important role, which is what we are interested in here. \subsection{Use of Comoving Variables and Conformal Time} The universe is expanding with time, as described by the scale factor $a(t)$. The equations of magnetohydrodynamics therefore contain additional terms with factors of $a(t)$ and its time derivatives. However, by using scaled variables, $\tilde{\AAA}=a\AAA$, $\tilde{\BB}=a^2\BB$, $\tilde{\EE}=a^2\EE$, $\tilde{\JJ}=a^3\JJ$, $\tilde{\xx}=\xx/a$, along with conformal time, $\tilde{t}=\int\dd t/a(t)$, all $a(t)$ factors and other terms involving $a(t)$ disappear from the magnetohydrodynamic equations \cite{BEO96}. The velocity is the same in both frames, i.e., $\tilde{\uu}=\uu$. Given that the equations with tilded variables are equal to the ordinary ones in a non-expanded Universe, it is convenient to skip all tildes from now on. However, when discussing the evolution of the scale factor, for example, we do need again physical time, which will then be denoted by $t_{\rm phys}$, while $t$ then still denotes conformal time. Here is where we have a notational dilemma, because in cosmology, derivatives with respect to physical (or cosmic) time are often denoted by dots, while those with respect to conformal time are denoted by primes. We therefore decided here to follow the same convention, so $a'=\dd a/\dd t$ and $a''=\dd^2 a/\dd t^2$ denote derivatives with respect to conformal time. \subsection{Inflationary Magnetogenesis} \textls[-20]{Inflationary magnetogenesis models assume the breaking of conformal invariance through {a coupling to a scalar field such as the inflaton. Another possible coupling is through an axion field, which would result in helical magnetogenesis, but this will not be considered here. The dynamics of the scalar field is interesting in its own right; see Refs.~\cite{Adshead+15, Adshead+16, Adshead+20} for numerical investigations.} To simplify the model, one commonly replaces this coupling by a prefactor $f^2$, where $f$ depends on the scale factor of the universe. This factor $f^2$ enters in the electromagnetic} energy contribution to the Lagrangian density $f^2 F^{\mu\nu} F_{\mu\nu}$, where $F_{\mu\nu}$ is the Faraday tensor~\cite{Ratra92}. Early approaches to inflationary magnetogenesis exposed specific problems: the strong coupling and the backreaction problems \cite{Mukhanov09}, as well as the Schwinger effect constraint, which can lead to a premature increase in the electric conductivity. This shorts the electric field and prevents further magnetic field growth \cite{KA14}. This is particularly important for models that solve the backreaction problem by choosing a low energy scale inflation \citep{Ferreira+13}, but could be avoided if charged particles become sufficiently large masses by some mechanism in the early Universe \cite{Kobayashi+Sloth19}. The three problems are avoided by requiring the function $f$ to obey certain constraints \cite{Sharma+17,Sharma+18}. Successful models of inflationary magnetogenesis are thus possible, but this does not mean that the underlying cosmological models are also physically preferred options. Nevertheless, for the purpose of discussing the electromagnetic energy conversion, which is the goal of this paper, those models are a useful choice. \textls[-20]{Three-dimensional simulations of inflationary magnetogenesis have been performed by assuming an abrupt switch from electromagnetism without currents and magnetohydrodynamics where the displacement current is already neglected \cite{BS21, BHS21}. They solved the evolution equations for the scaled magnetic vector potential, $\AAAA\equiv f\AAA$, in the Coulomb gauge: \begin{equation} \left[\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} -\nabla^2-k_*^2(t)\right]\AAAA=0. \label{dA2dt2} \end{equation} where $k_*^2(t)=f''/f$ is a generation term, because it destabilizes the field at large length scales for wave numbers $k0$ during inflation and $f\propto a^{-\beta}$ with $\beta>0$ during reheating \cite{Sub10}. We are here only interested in the reheating phase where $a(t)\propto t^2$ \cite{Sharma+17,Sharma+18} such that it is unity when the radiation-dominated era begins, and therefore $f=1$ and $k_*^2(t)=0$ for $a>1$. For $a<1$, by contrast, we have \begin{equation} k_*^2(t)=\beta\left[(\beta+1)(a'/a)^2-a''/a\right]. \end{equation} {Note} that for $a=t^2$, we have $a'=2t$ and $a''=2$, so $(a'/a)^2=4/t^2$ and $a''/a=2/t^2$, and therefore $f''/f=2\beta(2\beta+1)/t^2$. Contrary to the earlier numerical work \cite{BS21, BHS21}, the displacement current is now included at all times. However, there is still a problem in that $k_*^2(t)$ has a discontinuity from $k_*^2(1)=\beta(\beta+1)\neq0$ to zero at the moment when the conductivity is turned on. In the simulations, this did not seem to have any serious effect on the results, because the magnetic field at the end of the electromagnetic phase only acted as an initial condition for the magnetohydrodynamic calculation after the switch. In a continuous calculation without switch, however, this problem must be avoided. This will be addressed next. \subsection{Continuous Version of the Generation Term} \textls[-20]{An instructive way of obtaining a smooth transition from a quadratic to a linear growth profile of $a(t)$ is obtained by solving the Friedmann equations for a piecewise constant equation of state, $w(a)$, which relates the pressure with the density through $p=w\rho$. Under the assumption of zero curvature, i.e., the Universe is conformally flat, but expanding, the Friedmann equations can be written as a single equation which, in physical time, takes the form} \begin{equation} a^{-1}\,\dd^2a/\dd t_{\rm phys}^2 =-\half H^2\left[1+3w(a)\right], \label{Friedmann_phys} \end{equation} where $H=a^{-1}\dd a/\dd t_{\rm phys}$ is the standard Hubble parameter. Here, $w(a)=1/3$ during the radiation-dominated era and $w(a)=0$ during reheating when there were no photons, which is there equivalent to the matter-dominated era that also occurs later after recombination and before the Universe began to accelerate again. The accelerated exponential expansion of the universe during inflation, and also the late acceleration of the present Universe, correspond to $w=-1$, but this will not be considered in the present paper. It is convenient to solve the Friedmann equation with zero curvature in conformal time. It then takes the form $a''/a=\half{\cal H}^2\,(1-3w)$, where ${\cal H}=a'/a$ is the conformal Hubble parameter. It is related to the usual one, $H$, through ${\cal H}=\dd a/\partial t_{\rm phys}=aH$. Note the opposite sign of the terms on the right-hand side and the opposite sign in front of $3w(a)$ compared to the formulation in terms of physical time. The equation for $a''$ is easily solved by splitting it into two first-order equations and introducing a new variable $b(t)$ and solving for \begin{equation} a'=b, \quad b'=(b^2/2a)(1-3w); \end{equation} see also Ref.~\cite{HRPB23} for similar work in another context. Figure~\ref{pprof} shows the solution for $a(t)$ and the ratios $a'/a$ and $a''/a$ compensated by $t$ and $t^2$, respectively, which allows us to see more clearly how $a'/a$ changes from $2/t$ to $1/t$ and $a''/a$ changes from $2/t^2$ to zero as we go from the reheating era to the radiation-dominated universe after reheating. %FIG10 \begin{figure}[H] \hspace{-3pt}\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pprof} \caption[]{ $t$ \hl{dependence} of (\textbf{a})~the scale factor $a(t)$, (\textbf{b})~the compensated Hubble coefficient ${\cal H}t=t\,a'/a$, and (\textbf{c})~the compensated left-hand side of the Friedmann equation, $t^2\,a''/a$. In (\textbf{a}), the asymptotic dependences $a=t^2$ and $2t$ for $t\ll1$ and $\gg1$ are overplotted as dashed-dotted orange lines. In (\textbf{c}), the function $3w(a(t))$ is overplotted as a dotted red line. \label{pprof}}\end{figure} %MDPI: Please add the label abc of the picture What is important here is the generation term $k_*^2(t)\equiv f''/f$. It determines the wave number below which the solution is still unstable. However, since $k_*^2(t)=2\beta(2\beta+1)/t^2$, we have $ctk=\const\approx2\beta+1/2$; see Table~\ref{Tbet}. In Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}, we plot the evolution $\EEEl$, $\EEM$, and $\EEK$ for $k=10$ for all three values of $\beta$: 1, 2, and 4. Here and below, the initial amplitudes have been arranged such that $\EEM=10^{-4}$ at $t=t_0$. In all cases, the solution has become stable by the time $t=t_0=1$, and we see electromagnetic oscillations toward the end of the reheating phase before conductivity turns on at $t_0=1$. This is here referred to as Set~(i). %FIG11 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.7\columnwidth]{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA} \caption{\textls[-5]{$t$ dependence of $\EEM$ (red), $\EEEl$ (blue), and $\EEK$ (green) for runs with $\beta=1$ (dotted lines), $2$~(dashed lines), and $4$ (solid lines) for Set~(i) with $k=10$, $t_0=1$, and $t_{\rm trans}=10$. The initial amplitudes have been arranged such that $\Brms=0.01$ at $t=1$. {From the double-logarithmic representation, we see that the growth of $\EEM$ and $\EEEl$ is algebraic, and much faster for the models with a larger value of $\beta$. Before $t=1$, $\EEEl$ dominates over $\EEM$, but drops immediately after $t=1$, when resistivity emerges and kinetic energy is being generated. Both $\EEM$ and $\EEK$ are larger for larger values of $\beta$.}} \label{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}}\end{figure} \vspace{-9pt} \begin{table}[H] \caption{Parameters relevant for the models with different values of $\beta$.\label{Tbet}} \newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X} \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{CCCC} \toprule \boldmath{$\beta$} & \boldmath{$2\beta+1$} & \boldmath{$2\beta+1/2$} & \boldmath{$k_*(1)$} \\ \midrule 1 & 3 & 2.5 & 2.45 \\ 2 & 5 & 4.5 & 4.47 \\ 4 & 9 & 8.5 & 8.49 \\ \bottomrule \end{tabularx} \end{table} It is easy to see that on large length scales, when the $\nabla^2$ operator in \Eq{dA2dt2} is negligible compared with $k_*^2(t)$, we have \begin{eqnarray} &{\cal A}_z(x,t)=A_0 t^{2\beta+1}k^{-1}\cos kx,\quad A_z(x,t)={\cal A}_z/f=A_0 t^{\beta+1}k^{-1}\cos kx,\\ &B_y(x,t)=A_0 t^{\beta+1}\sin kx,\quad E_z(x,t)=-\partial A_z/\partial t=-(\beta+1) A_0 t^{\beta}k^{-1}\cos kx. \end{eqnarray} \hl{Thus}, for $ckt\ll1$, corresponding to super-horizon scales, where and when the modes are still unstable, we have $t\Erms/\Brms\approx\beta+1$. On smaller length, scales, i.e., for larger $k$ values, the modes become stable and we have the usual electromagnetic waves. When modeling the transition from a vacuum to that of high conductivity and the corresponding Joule heating, we still need to make a choice as to when $\sigma$ would begin to increase, i.e., we need to choose values of $t_0$ and $t_{\rm trans}$. If we choose the value of $t_0$ to be too large, we obtain solutions where electromagnetic waves have already been established; see Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}. The smallest wavenumber in our one-dimensional domain is $k=10$, so by the time $t=1$, even the largest modes in the domain are stable. We also see that at early times, $\EEEl$ and $\EEM$ grow in an algebraic fashion and then become oscillatory when $k_*(t)$ has dropped below $k$. At $t=t_0=1$, when conductivity turns on, the electric energy decreases rapidly, while the magnetic energy diminishes only very slowly. The generated hydrodynamic energy is however small. This is similar to what we studied in \Sec{Transition}. Our objective here is to study cases that are different from what was studied in \Sec{Transition}. Therefore we now choose Set~(ii) with $t_0=0.1$ and $t_{\rm trans}=1$ (Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_nocurlyA}) and another Set~(iii) with $k_1=1$ and $t_0=1$ (Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_nocurlyA}). Again, the electric energy drops significantly when conductivity turns on, but now there is a much larger spread in the resulting maximum magnetic energies for the three cases with $\beta=1$, 2, and 4. For $\beta=4$, $\EEK$ reaches about one percent of $\EEM$ at $t=0.2$, for example. %FIG12 \begin{figure}[H] %\hspace{-3pt} \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{pcomp_eb_nocurlyA} \caption[]{ Similarly to Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}, but for Set~(ii) with $k=10$, $t_0=0.1$, and $t_{\rm trans}=1$. \label{pcomp_eb_nocurlyA}}\end{figure} \vspace{-8pt} %FIG13 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{pcomp_eb_toff1_nocurlyA} \caption[]{ Similarly to Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}, but for Set~(iii) with $k=1$, $t_0=1$, and $t_{\rm trans}=10$. \label{pcomp_eb_toff1_nocurlyA}}\end{figure} When increasing the wavenumber to $k=1$, the largest modes are still unstable for the three cases with $\beta=1$, 2, and 4; see Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_nocurlyA}. Here, $k=1$ and $t_0=1$ and $t_{\rm trans}=10$. The spread in the magnetic energy is similar, but the maximum kinetic energy is now much larger; see Table~\ref{Tbet2}. \begin{table}[H] %MDPI: Please confirm new position and alignment of the table. \caption{\hl{Summary} of various extrema for each of the three sets of models and values of $\beta$.\label{Tbet2}} \newcolumntype{C}{>{\centering\arraybackslash}X} \begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{CCCCCCC} \toprule \textbf{Set} & \boldmath{$k$} & \boldmath{$t_0$} & \textbf{Variable} & \boldmath{$\beta=1$} & \boldmath{$\beta=2$} & \boldmath{$\beta=4$} \\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max{\cal E}_{\rm E}$&$1.3\times10^{-4}$&$4.1\times10^{-5}$&$8.3\times10^{-5}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$1.8\times10^{-4}$&$6.4\times10^{-4}$&$5.8\times10^{-3}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$2.7\times10^{-3}$&$1.4\times10^{-2}$&$2.1\times10^{-1}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max{\cal E}_{\rm M}$&$1.6\times10^{-4}$&$1.1\times10^{-4}$&$1.8\times10^{-4}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$1.5\times10^{-4}$&$4.3\times10^{-4}$&$4.2\times10^{-3}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$3.2\times10^{-4}$&$9.6\times10^{-4}$&$1.2\times10^{-2}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max{\cal E}_{\rm K}$&$2.5\times10^{-9}$&$9.0\times10^{-10}$&$3.9\times10^{-9}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$6.9\times10^{-8}$&$4.2\times10^{-7}$&$6.6\times10^{-5}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$9.8\times10^{-7}$&$2.3\times10^{-5}$&$7.7\times10^{-3}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max Q_{\rm G}$&$1.4\times10^{-4}$&$2.0\times10^{-4}$&$1.4\times10^{-3}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$4.4\times10^{-3}$&$3.8\times10^{-2}$&$8.6\times10^{-1}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$8.4\times10^{-3}$&$7.8\times10^{-2}$&$2.7\times10^{0}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max(-Q_{\rm E})$&$2.0\times10^{-3}$&$9.3\times10^{-4}$&$2.0\times10^{-3}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$5.3\times10^{-3}$&$2.2\times10^{-2}$&$2.7\times10^{-1}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$1.3\times10^{-3}$&$4.7\times10^{-3}$&$5.9\times10^{-2}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max\epsM$&$2.0\times10^{-3}$&$4.1\times10^{-4}$&$2.5\times10^{-3}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$2.1\times10^{-2}$&$1.1\times10^{-1}$&$1.5\times10^{0}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$3.5\times10^{-2}$&$2.5\times10^{-1}$&$5.8\times10^{0}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max(-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E})$&$3.3\times10^{-3}$&$6.3\times10^{-4}$&$2.7\times10^{-3}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$1.6\times10^{-2}$&$5.9\times10^{-2}$&$5.6\times10^{-1}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$2.4\times10^{-2}$&$1.3\times10^{-1}$&$1.9\times10^{0}$\\ \midrule (i) & 10 & 1 &$\max\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$&$1.2\times10^{-3}$&$3.4\times10^{-4}$&$8.0\times10^{-4}$\\ (ii) & 10 &0.1& &$8.6\times10^{-3}$&$5.4\times10^{-2}$&$5.4\times10^{-1}$\\ (iii) & 1 & 1 & &$1.8\times10^{-2}$&$1.3\times10^{-1}$&$2.0\times10^{0}$\\ \bottomrule \end{tabularx} \end{table} %TAB \subsection{Energy Conversions during Reheating} \label{EnergyConversionsReheating} During reheating, there is an additional source of energy resulting from the generation term $k_*^2(t)$. The term $k_*^2(t)$ appeared in \Eq{dA2dt2} for $\AAAA=f\AAA$. However, to write down the relevant equation for $\EE=-\partial\AAA/\partial t$, we have to revert to the original equation for $\AAA$, which reads \cite{Sub10} \begin{equation} \left[\frac{1}{c^2}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial t^2} +2\frac{f'}{f}\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\right) -\nabla^2\right]\AAA=0. \label{nocurlyA} \end{equation} {Thus}, \Eq{dEdt} with the current density term restored, now becomes \begin{equation} \frac{1}{c^2} \left(\frac{\partial\EE}{\partial t} +2\frac{f'}{f}\EE\right)=\nab\times\BB-\mu_0\JJ, \label{dEdt_infl} \end{equation} and therefore, \Eq{dE2dt2} for the electric energy now has an extra term and reads \begin{equation} \frac{\dd}{\dd t}\bbra{\epsilon_0\EE^2/2}=-2(f'/f)\bbra{\epsilon_0\EE^2} +\bbra{\EE\cdot\nab\times\BB/\mu_0}-\bbra{\JJ\cdot\EE}. \label{dE2dt3} \end{equation} {During} reheating with $f\propto a^{-\beta}\propto t^{-2\beta}$, we have $f'/f=-2\beta/t$, so the first term on the right-hand side of \Eq{dE2dt3} is positive for $\beta>0$, so there is growth of the electric energy. Similarly to what was performed in \Sec{Transition}, we can write the electric energy equation more compactly as $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}=Q_{\rm G}+Q_{\rm E}-\epsM-W_{\rm L}$, where $Q_{\rm G}=-4(f'/f)\EEEl$ is now the dominant source, but $Q_{\rm E}$ plays here the role of a sink during the first part of the evolution. This equation generalizes \Eq{epsM_eqn} to the case with electromagnetic field generation during reheating; see also Figure~\ref{pboxes_G}. { Unlike the earlier case of Figure~\ref{pboxes_BEU}, where there was no energy input, we have here a system that it driven by energy input through the $Q_{\rm G}$ term. } %FIG14 \begin{figure}[H] \hspace{-0.7cm} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{pboxes_G} \caption[]{ Similar to Figure~\ref{pboxes_BEU}, but now with inflationary magnetogenesis energy generation and energy exchange between electric and magnetic energies in both directions. }\label{pboxes_G}\end{figure} The evolution of $Q_{\rm G}$, $Q_{\rm E}$, $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$, and $\epsM$ is shown in Figure~\ref{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA} during magnetic field generation in the case (ii) for all three values of $\beta$. It is instructive to write the electric energy equation as \begin{equation} Q_{\rm G}=\epsM+\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}+W_{\rm L}-Q_{\rm E}. \end{equation} Comparing the three panels of Figure~\ref{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA}, we thus see that for $\beta=1$, there is a slow generation phase starting much before $t_0$. It should be noted, however, that the ranges on the vertical axis are different for the different panels. At $t=t_0=0.1$, there is a rise of conductivity, and therefore a sharp rise in Ohmic heating, $\epsM$. This is also the time when $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$ reaches a maximum and becomes negative shortly thereafter. For large values of $\beta$, this moment happens a bit later, at $t=0.11$ compared to $t=0.10$ for $\beta=1$. Note that, while for $\beta=4$ the maxima of $Q_{\rm G}$ and $\epsM$ are similar, for smaller values of $\beta$, the maxima of $\epsM$ are much larger than those of $Q_{\rm G}$. Instead, for $\beta=1$, for example, we have $\epsM\approx-\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$, i.e., almost the entire heating is here caused by dissipation of electric energy. In Figure~\ref{pcomp_infl_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}, we show a plot similar to Figure~\ref{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA}, but for the case (i), where all modes were already oscillatory at $t=t_0=1$, when conductivity turned on. The Ohmic heating now plays a minor role in the sense that its maximum value is much less than the extrema of $Q_{\rm G}$, $Q_{\rm E}$, and $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$. For $\beta=1$ and 2, we see that $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$ and $Q_{\rm E}$ are nearly in phase shortly before conductivity turns on. This means that the electric and magnetic energies are strongly coupled and a flow of energy from magnetic to electric energy ($Q_{\rm E}>0$) leads to an increase in electric energy ($\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}>0$). This is expected, because there is just an oscillatory exchange between electric and magnetic energies. For $\beta=4$, on the other hand, the oscillatory phase just started to develop shortly before $t=1$, but the curves are similar to those for $\beta=1$ and 2, although at earlier times. The time of the first maximum of $Q_{\rm G}$ is at $t=0.9$ for $\beta=4$, while for $\beta=2$, it is at $t=0.46$ and for $\beta=1$ it is at $t=0.25$, and we see that the profiles of all curves are indeed very similar around those times. %FIG15 \begin{figure}[H]%MDPI: Please add explanation for subfigures a--c in figure caption. \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA} \caption[]{ $t$ \hl{dependence} of $Q_{\rm G}$ (red), $Q_{\rm E}$ (green), $\epsM$ (black), $\dot{\cal E}_{\rm E}$ (blue), and $W_{\rm L}$ (orange) for the runs of Set~(ii) in Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_nocurlyA} with $t_0=0.1$ and $t_{\rm trans}=1$. \label{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA}}\end{figure} %FIG16 \begin{figure}[H] \includegraphics[width=.9\columnwidth]{pcomp_infl_toff1_k10_nocurlyA} \caption[]{ Similarly to Figure~\ref{pcomp_infl_nocurlyA}, but for the runs of Set~(i) in Figure~\ref{pcomp_eb_toff1_k10_nocurlyA} with $t_0=1$ and $t_{\rm trans}=10$. Note that $Q_{\rm G}$ and $Q_{\rm E}$ vary in anti-phase. \label{pcomp_infl_toff1_k10_nocurlyA}}\end{figure} \section{Conclusions} \label{Conclusions} In this paper, we have studied the conversion of electromagnetic energy into kinetic and thermal energies as the electric conductivity transits from zero (vacuum) to large values. This problem has relevance to the reheating phase at the end of cosmological inflation and before the emergence of an relatively long radiation-dominated era before the time of recombination, which is much later (on a logarithmic time scale). While not much is known about the physical processes leading to reheating and the emergence of conductivity, a lot can now be said about the general process of such an energy conversion. Already in the absence of cosmological expansion, we have seen that the transition to conductivity involves an oscillatory exchange between electric and magnetic energies. It is mainly the electric energy reservoir that delivers energy to the kinetic and thermal energy reservoirs, and not magnetic energy directly, as in magnetohydrodynamics. We knew already from earlier work that the duration of the transit plays a significant role in causing a drop in magnetic energy. We now also see that this drop depends on the magnetic field strength and thus the typical Alfv\'en speed. The drop can become small if the Alfv\'en speed becomes comparable to the speed of light. Furthermore, for short transits, we have seen that energy transfer between electric and magnetic energies is small and that the initial electric energy goes directly into thermal energy. For longer transits, however, the mutual exchange with magnetic energy becomes approximately equal to the thermal energy loss, so thermalization now also involves the magnetic energy reservoir. When applying electromagnetic energy conservation to the problem of reheating, we have a new quality in the model in that there is now also energy transfer through conformal invariance breaking, which may occur during inflation and reheating. This is obviously speculative {\cite{Ratra92, Kronberg94, Widrow02, Giovannini04, Kandus+11, DN13, Sub16, Vachaspati21}}, but a very promising scenario for the generation of large-scale magnetic fields in the early Universe and for explaining the observed lower limits of the intergalactic magnetic field on megaparsec length scales \cite{NV10, Taylor+11}. The present study has shown that significant work can be performed by the Lorentz force when the electromagnetic energy conversion happens early and on scales large enough so that the modes are still growing in time. This is because there is then significant excess of electric energy over magnetic. This is an effect that was ignored in previous simulations of inflationary magnetogenesis and, in particular, in studies of the additional contributions to the resulting relic gravitational wave production \cite{BS21, BHS21}. It will be useful to extend these studies to turbulent flows and magnetic fields, but this is not easy because of numerical and perhaps even physical instabilities. Once these problems are overcome, it would also be interesting to study dynamo action in situations of moderate magnetic conductivity where coupling with the electric energy reservoir could reveal new aspects. We leave this for future work. \vspace{6pt} \authorcontributions{Conceptualization, A.B. and N.N.P.; methodology, A.B.; software, A.B. and N.N.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.} \funding{This research was funded by Vetenskapsr{\aa}det grant number 2019-04234 and NASA ATP award number 80NSSC22K0825.} \institutionalreview{\hl{XXX}%MDPI:In this section, you should add the Institutional Review Board Statement and approval number, if relevant to your study. You might choose to exclude this statement if the study did not require ethical approval. Please note that the Editorial Office might ask you for further information. Please add “The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving humans. OR “The animal study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of NAME OF INSTITUTE (protocol code XXX and date of approval).” for studies involving animals. OR “Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to REASON (please provide a detailed justification).” OR “Not applicable” for studies not involving humans or animals. } \dataavailability{ The source code used for the simulations of this study, the {\sc Pencil Code} \citep{JOSS}, is freely available on \url{https://github.com/pencil-code/} (accessed on 1 August 2023). The DOI of the code is \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2315093} (accessed on 1 August 2023). The simulation setups and the corresponding secondary data are available on\\ \url{http://norlx65.nordita.org/~brandenb/projects/EMconversion} (accessed on 1 August 2023) and on \url{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8203242} (accessed on 1 August 2023). } \acknowledgments{The authors thank Johan Anderson for suggesting this contribution to the special issue on Energy Transfer and Dissipation in Plasma Turbulence. We are also indebted to the comments and suggestions of the two referees, which have helped to improve the presentation. We acknowledge the allocation of computing resources provided by the Swedish National Allocations Committee at the Center for Parallel Computers at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and Link\"oping.} \conflictsofinterest{The authors declare no conflict of interest.} %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %\end{paracol} \begin{adjustwidth}{-\extralength}{0cm} \reftitle{References} \begin{thebibliography}{999} \bibitem[{Moffatt}(1978)]{Mof78}%MDPI: Unnecessary URLs are removed from all references since doi numbers are provided, please confirm. {\hl{Moffatt}}, H.K. \newblock {\em {Magnetic Field Generation in Electrically Conducting Fluids}}; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. \bibitem[{Tobias}(2021)]{Tobias21} {Tobias}, S.M. \newblock {The turbulent dynamo}. \newblock {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 2021}, {\em 912},~P1. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2020.1055}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg}(2014)]{Bra14} {Brandenburg}, A. \newblock {Magnetic Prandtl Number Dependence of the Kinetic-to-magnetic Dissipation Ratio}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2014}, {\em 791},~12. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/791/1/12}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} and {Rempel}(2019)]{BR19} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Rempel}, M. \newblock {Reversed Dynamo at Small Scales and Large Magnetic Prandtl Number}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2019}, {\em 879},~57. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab24bd}}. \bibitem[{Mahajan} et~al.(2005){Mahajan}, {Shatashvili}, {Mikeladze}, and {Sigua}]{Mahajan+05} {Mahajan}, S.M.; {Shatashvili}, N.L.; {Mikeladze}, S.V.; {Sigua}, K.I. \newblock {Acceleration of Plasma Flows Due to Reverse Dynamo Mechanism}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2005}, {\em 634},~419--425. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1086/432867}}. \bibitem[{Field} and {Carroll}(2023)]{FC23} {Field}, G.B.; {Carroll}, S.M. \newblock {Axions and Cosmic Magnetic Fields}. \newblock {\em arXiv} {\bf 2023}, arXiv:2307.05425. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.05425}}. \bibitem[{Sharma} et~al.(2017){Sharma}, {Jagannathan}, {Seshadri}, and {Subramanian}]{Sharma+17} {Sharma}, R.; {Jagannathan}, S.; {Seshadri}, T.R.; {Subramanian}, K. \newblock {Challenges in inflationary magnetogenesis: Constraints from strong coupling, backreaction, and the Schwinger effect}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2017}, {\em 96},~083511. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083511}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} and {Sharma}(2021)]{BS21} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Sharma}, R. \newblock {Simulating Relic Gravitational Waves from Inflationary Magnetogenesis}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2021}, {\em 920},~26. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac1599}}. \bibitem[{Alfv{\'e}n}(1942)]{Alfven42} {Alfv{\'e}n}, H. \newblock {Existence of Electromagnetic-Hydrodynamic Waves}. \newblock {\em Nature} {\bf 1942}, {\em 150},~405--406. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1038/150405d0}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(1996){Brandenburg}, {Enqvist}, and {Olesen}]{BEO96} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Enqvist}, K.; {Olesen}, P. \newblock {Large-scale magnetic fields from hydromagnetic turbulence in the very early universe}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 1996}, {\em 54},~1291--1300. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.54.1291}}. \bibitem[Christensson et~al.(2001)Christensson, Hindmarsh, and Brandenburg]{CHB01} Christensson, M.; Hindmarsh, M.; Brandenburg, A. \newblock Inverse cascade in decaying three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic turbulence. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 2001}, {\em 64},~056405. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.64.056405}}. \bibitem[{Banerjee} and {Jedamzik}(2004)]{BJ04} {Banerjee}, R.; {Jedamzik}, K. \newblock {Evolution of cosmic magnetic fields: From the very early Universe, to recombination, to the present}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2004}, {\em 70},~123003. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.70.123003}}. \bibitem[{Kahniashvili} et~al.(2013){Kahniashvili}, {Tevzadze}, {Brandenburg}, and {Neronov}]{Kahn+13} {Kahniashvili}, T.; {Tevzadze}, A.G.; {Brandenburg}, A.; {Neronov}, A. \newblock {Evolution of primordial magnetic fields from phase transitions}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2013}, {\em 87},~083007. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.083007}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(2015){Brandenburg}, {Kahniashvili}, and {Tevzadze}]{BKT15} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Kahniashvili}, T.; {Tevzadze}, A.G. \newblock {Nonhelical Inverse Transfer of a Decaying Turbulent Magnetic Field}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. L} {\bf 2015}, {\em 114},~075001. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.075001}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} and {Kahniashvili}(2017)]{BK17} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Kahniashvili}, T. \newblock {Classes of Hydrodynamic and Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulent Decay}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. L} {\bf 2017}, {\em 118},~055102. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.055102}}. \bibitem[{Hosking} and {Schekochihin}(2022)]{HS22} {Hosking}, D.N.; {Schekochihin}, A.A. \newblock {Cosmic-void observations reconciled with primordial magnetogenesis}. \newblock {\em arXiv} {\bf 2022}, arXiv:2203.03573. \bibitem[{Silk}(1968)]{Silk68} {Silk}, J. \newblock {Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and Galaxy Formation}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 1968}, {\em 151},~459. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1086/149449}}. \bibitem[{Kolb} and {Turner}(1990)]{Kolb+Turner90} {Kolb}, E.W.; {Turner}, M.S. \newblock {\em {The Early Universe}}; \hl{Avalon Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 1990}; Volume 69.%MDPI: Publisher and location are added, please confirm. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(1997){Brandenburg}, {Enqvist}, and {Olesen}]{BEO97} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Enqvist}, K.; {Olesen}, P. \newblock {The effect of Silk damping on primordial magnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Phys. Lett. B} {\bf 1997}, {\em 392},~395--402. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-2693(96)01566-3}}. \bibitem[{Kobayashi} and {Afshordi}(2014)]{KA14} {Kobayashi}, T.; {Afshordi}, N. \newblock {Schwinger effect in 4D de Sitter space and constraints on magnetogenesis in the early universe}. \newblock {\em J. High Energy Phys.} {\bf 2014}, {\em 2014},~166. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP10(2014)166}}. \bibitem[{Henriksen}(2019)]{Henriksen19} {Henriksen}, R. \newblock {Solar and Galactic Magnetic Halo Structure: Force-Free Dynamos?} \newblock {\em Galaxies} {\bf 2019}, {\em 7},~53. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.3390/galaxies7020053}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} and {Ntormousi}(2022)]{BN22} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Ntormousi}, E. \newblock {Dynamo effect in unstirred self-gravitating turbulence}. \newblock {\em Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 2022}, {\em 513},~2136--2151. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac982}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(1996){Brandenburg}, {Jennings}, {Nordlund}, {Rieutord}, {Stein}, and {Tuominen}]{Bra+96} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Jennings}, R.L.; {Nordlund}, {\r{A}}.; {Rieutord}, M.; {Stein}, R.F.; {Tuominen}, I. \newblock {Magnetic structures in a dynamo simulation}. \newblock {\em J. Fluid Mech.} {\bf 1996}, {\em 306},~325--352. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112096001322}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(1995){Brandenburg}, {Nordlund}, {Stein}, and {Torkelsson}]{BNST95} {Brandenburg}, A.; {Nordlund}, A.; {Stein}, R.F.; {Torkelsson}, U. \newblock {Dynamo-generated Turbulence and Large-Scale Magnetic Fields in a Keplerian Shear Flow}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 1995}, {\em 446},~741. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1086/175831}}. \bibitem[{Pencil Code Collaboration} et~al.(2021){Pencil Code Collaboration}, {Brandenburg}, {Johansen}, {Bourdin}, {Dobler}, {Lyra}, {Rheinhardt}, {Bingert}, {Haugen}, {Mee}, {Gent}, {Babkovskaia}, {Yang}, {Heinemann}, {Dintrans}, {Mitra}, {Candelaresi}, {Warnecke}, {K{\"a}pyl{\"a}}, {Schreiber}, {Chatterjee}, {K{\"a}pyl{\"a}}, {Li}, {Kr{\"u}ger}, {Aarnes}, {Sarson}, {Oishi}, {Schober}, {Plasson}, {Sandin}, {Karchniwy}, {Rodrigues}, {Hubbard}, {Guerrero}, {Snodin}, {Losada}, {Pekkil{\"a}}, and {Qian}]{JOSS} {Pencil Code Collaboration}; {Brandenburg}, A.; {Johansen}, A.; {Bourdin}, P.; {Dobler}, W.; {Lyra}, W.; {Rheinhardt}, M.; {Bingert}, S.; {Haugen}, N.; {Mee}, A.; et~al. \newblock {The Pencil Code, a modular MPI code for partial differential equations and particles: Multipurpose and multiuser-maintained}. \newblock {\em J. Open Source Softw.} {\bf 2021}, {\em 6},~2807. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02807}}. \bibitem[{Gedalin}(1993)]{Gedalin93} {Gedalin}, M. \newblock {Linear waves in relativistic anisotropic magnetohydrodynamics}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. E} {\bf 1993}, {\em 47},~4354--4357. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.47.4354}}. \bibitem[{Durrer} and {Neronov}(2013)]{DN13} {Durrer}, R.; {Neronov}, A. \newblock {Cosmological magnetic fields: Their generation, evolution and observation}. \newblock {\em Astron. Astrophys. Rev.} {\bf 2013}, {\em 21},~62. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7}}. \bibitem[{Subramanian}(2016)]{Sub16} {Subramanian}, K. \newblock {The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 2016}, {\em 79},~076901. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/79/7/076901}}. \bibitem[{Neronov} and {Vovk}(2010)]{NV10} {Neronov}, A.; {Vovk}, I. \newblock {Evidence for Strong Extragalactic Magnetic Fields from Fermi Observations of TeV Blazars}. \newblock {\em Science} {\bf 2010}, {\em 328},~73. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184192}}. \bibitem[Taylor et~al.(2011)Taylor, Vovk, and Neronov]{Taylor+11} Taylor, A.M.; Vovk, I.; Neronov, A. \newblock {Extragalactic magnetic fields constraints from simultaneous GeV-TeV observations of blazars}. \newblock {\em Astron. Astrophys.} {\bf 2011}, {\em 529},~A144. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201116441}}. \bibitem[{Broderick} et~al.(2012){Broderick}, {Chang}, and {Pfrommer}]{Broderick+12} {Broderick}, A.E.; {Chang}, P.; {Pfrommer}, C. \newblock {The Cosmological Impact of Luminous TeV Blazars. I. Implications of Plasma Instabilities for the Intergalactic Magnetic Field and Extragalactic Gamma-Ray Background}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2012}, {\em 752},~22. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/752/1/22}}. \bibitem[Broderick et~al.(2018)Broderick, Tiede, Chang, Lamberts, Pfrommer, Puchwein, Shalaby, and Werhahn]{Broderick+18} Broderick, A.E.; Tiede, P.; Chang, P.; Lamberts, A.; Pfrommer, C.; Puchwein, E.; Shalaby, M.; Werhahn, M. \newblock {Missing Gamma-ray Halos and the Need for New Physics in the Gamma-ray Sky}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2018}, {\em 868},~87. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aae5f2}}. \bibitem[{Sironi} and {Giannios}(2014)]{Sironi14} {Sironi}, L.; {Giannios}, D. \newblock {Relativistic Pair Beams from TeV Blazars: A Source of Reprocessed GeV Emission rather than Intergalactic Heating}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2014}, {\em 787},~49. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/787/1/49}}. \bibitem[{Alves Batista} et~al.(2019){Alves Batista}, {Saveliev}, and {de Gouveia Dal Pino}]{AlvesBatista+19} {Alves Batista}, R.; {Saveliev}, A.; {de Gouveia Dal Pino}, E.M. \newblock {The impact of plasma instabilities on the spectra of TeV blazars}. \newblock {\em Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.} {\bf 2019}, {\em 489},~3836--3849. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stz2389}}. \bibitem[{Adshead} et~al.(2015){Adshead}, {}, {Scully}, and {Sfakianakis}]{Adshead+15} {Adshead}, P.; Giblin, J.T., Jr.; {Scully}, T.R.; {Sfakianakis}, E.I. \newblock {Gauge-preheating and the end of axion inflation}. \newblock {\em J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 2015}, {\em 2015},~34. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2015/12/034}}. \bibitem[{Adshead} et~al.(2016){Adshead}, {Giblin}, {Scully}, and {Sfakianakis}]{Adshead+16} Adshead, P.; Giblin, J.T.; Scully, T.R.; Sfakianakis, E.I. \newblock {Magnetogenesis from axion inflation}. \newblock {\em J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 2016}, {\em 2016},~039. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/039}}. \bibitem[{Adshead} et~al.(2020){Adshead}, {Giblin}, {Pieroni}, and {Weiner}]{Adshead+20} {Adshead}, P.; {Giblin}, J.T.; {Pieroni}, M.; {Weiner}, Z.J. \newblock {Constraining axion inflation with gravitational waves from preheating}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2020}, {\em 101},~083534. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083534}}. \bibitem[{Ratra}(1992)]{Ratra92} {Ratra}, B. \newblock {Cosmological ``Seed'' Magnetic Field from Inflation}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J. Lett.} {\bf 1992}, {\em 391},~L1. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1086/186384}}. \bibitem[{Demozzi} et~al.(2009){Demozzi}, {Mukhanov}, and {Rubinstein}]{Mukhanov09} {Demozzi}, V.; {Mukhanov}, V.; {Rubinstein}, H. \newblock {Magnetic fields from inflation?} \newblock {\em J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 2009}, {\em 8},~025. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2009/08/025}}. \bibitem[{Ferreira} et~al.(2013){Ferreira}, {Jain}, and {Sloth}]{Ferreira+13} {Ferreira}, R.J.Z.; {Jain}, R.K.; {Sloth}, M.S. \newblock {Inflationary magnetogenesis without the strong coupling problem}. \newblock {\em J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 2013}, {\em 2013},~004. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2013/10/004}}. \bibitem[{Kobayashi} and {Sloth}(2019)]{Kobayashi+Sloth19} {Kobayashi}, T.; {Sloth}, M.S. \newblock {Early cosmological evolution of primordial electromagnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2019}, {\em 100},~023524. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023524}}. \bibitem[{Sharma} et~al.(2018){Sharma}, {Subramanian}, and {Seshadri}]{Sharma+18} {Sharma}, R.; {Subramanian}, K.; {Seshadri}, T.R. \newblock {Generation of helical magnetic field in a viable scenario of inflationary magnetogenesis}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rev. D} {\bf 2018}, {\em 97},~083503. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.083503}}. \bibitem[{Brandenburg} et~al.(2021){Brandenburg}, {He}, and {Sharma}]{BHS21} {Brandenburg}, A.; {He}, Y.; {Sharma}, R. \newblock {Simulations of Helical Inflationary Magnetogenesis and Gravitational Waves}. \newblock {\em Astrophys. J.} {\bf 2021}, {\em 922},~192. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac20d9}}. \bibitem[{Subramanian}(2010)]{Sub10} {Subramanian}, K. \newblock {Magnetic fields in the early Universe}. \newblock {\em Astron. Nachr.} {\bf 2010}, {\em 331},~110. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1002/asna.200911312}}. \bibitem[{He} et~al.(2023){He}, {Roper Pol}, and {Brandenburg}]{HRPB23} {He}, Y.; {Roper Pol}, A.; {Brandenburg}, A. \newblock {Modified propagation of gravitational waves from the early radiation era}. \newblock {\em J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.} {\bf 2023}, {\em 2023},~025. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/025}}. \bibitem[{Kronberg}(1994)]{Kronberg94} {Kronberg}, P.P. \newblock {Extragalactic magnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 1994}, {\em 57},~325--382. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/57/4/001}}. \bibitem[{Widrow}(2002)]{Widrow02} {Widrow}, L.M. \newblock {Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 2002}, {\em 74},~775--823. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.775}}. \bibitem[{Giovannini}(2004)]{Giovannini04} {Giovannini}, M. \newblock {The Magnetized Universe}. \newblock {\em Int. J. Mod. Phys. D} {\bf 2004}, {\em 13},~391--502. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271804004530}}. \bibitem[{Kandus} et~al.(2011){Kandus}, {Kunze}, and {Tsagas}]{Kandus+11} {Kandus}, A.; {Kunze}, K.E.; {Tsagas}, C.G. \newblock {Primordial magnetogenesis}. \newblock {\em Phys. Rep.} {\bf 2011}, {\em 505},~1--58. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2011.03.001}}. \bibitem[{Vachaspati}(2021)]{Vachaspati21} {Vachaspati}, T. \newblock {Progress on cosmological magnetic fields}. \newblock {\em Rep. Prog. Phys.} {\bf 2021}, {\em 84},~074901. \newblock {\url{https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6633/ac03a9}}. \end{thebibliography} \PublishersNote{} \end{adjustwidth} \end{document} \end{document}