1: \resetcounters
2:
3: \def\graxii{{\tt graxi}$_{\tt 0}$}
4: \def\Test{{Unigrid Static Boson Star Code Test}}
5: \def\test#1{{Unigrid static boson star code test: {#1}}}
6:
7:
8:
9: \chapter[\graxi\ Unigrid Static Boson Star Code Test]
10: {} \label{ap9}
11: \vspace{-0.45in}
12: {\bf {\huge
13: \graxi\ Unigrid Static Boson Star Code Test
14: }}
15: \vspace{0.52in}
16:
17: \noi
18: In this appendix we present the results of a test of the
19: code, \graxi, that we use to evolve the massive, complex scalar field and
20: massless real scalar field in axisymmetry~(see Chap.~\ref{bs2d}).
21:
22: \section{Background}
23: {\graxi} is based on a unigrid (i.e.\ no AMR) code described in~\cite{graxi:2003} that
24: solves the Einstein and massless scalar wave equations in axisymmetry.
25: AMR was incorporated into that code by Pretorius~\cite{fransp:phd,graxi:2003b}, who later
26: extended the model to include a self-interacting complex scalar field~\cite{fransp:notes-complex-03}.
27: In original work for this thesis, we extended that code so that it could be initialized with interpolated
28: boson star initial data as described in Sec.~\ref{bincol}; this produced the final
29: version of the code that we refer to as \graxi\ in the thesis.
30:
31: Note that the version of \graxi\ described in~\cite{fransp:phd,graxi:2003b} has been
32: thoroughly convergence tested, so we restrict attention to a test that verifies the
33: boson star initial data interface (our current work) as well
34: as the modifications for the complex scalar field {\em per se} (Pretorius' work).
35:
36: \section{Test Definition}
37: The test involves evolution of static boson star initial data.
38: Although this problem may sound trivial, it is not.
39: In particular, for the complex scalar field it is anything but a time-independent calculation,
40: as a glance at the ansatz~(\ref{bs1dansatz})
41: \[
42: \ph(t,r) = \ph_0(r)\,e^{-i \om t}\,,
43: \]
44: will confirm (recall that we evolve the real and imaginary parts of the complex
45: field separately). In addition, the initial data, $\ph_0(r_i)$, that results from
46: solving a discrete form of the spherically symmetric Einstein-Klein-Gordon system with the
47: above ansatz, must always be interpolated to the cylindrical grid $(\rho_j,z_k)$ and
48: this naturally introduces a certain level of error (including departure from
49: strict spherical symmetry) in the initial conditions $\phi(0,\rho_j,z_k)$ and $\Pi(0,\rho_j,z_k)$.
50: This the finite difference solutions $\ph^h$ are not expected to be precisely
51: time-independent.
52:
53: The parameters for the test are as follows. We initialize the complex
54: scalar field to a single boson star with $\ph_0(0) = 0.02$, centered
55: at the origin $(\rho,z) = (0,0)$, on the domain $0 \le \rho \le 48$,
56: $-48 \le z \le 48$.
57: We use a Courant factor $\De t/\De \rh = \De t/\De z = 0.3$ and a
58: dissipation coefficient $\ep_d = 0.5$.
59:
60:
61: AMR is not enabled for this test. We note that we have also tested the
62: code with AMR enabled, but due to our choice of problem parameters
63: (in particular the truncation error threshold that controls the overall
64: regridding algorithm) no refinement is triggered and the results
65: are thus essentially identical to those presented here.
66:
67: In order to perform convergence tests, we use the above initial data and code
68: parameters and then perform calculations
69: with $N =64, 128, 256$ and $512$ ($N_\rh = N+1, N_z=2N+1$).
70:
71:
72: \section{Test Results}
73: \subsection{Time-independence of $\vert\phi(t,\rho,z)\vert$ and $\psi(t,\rho,z)$}
74: Figs.~\ref{phcvtest} and \ref{psicvtest} are
75: `eye-ball'' tests in which we display plots of $\vert\phi(t,\rho,z)\vert$
76: and $\psi(t,\rho,z)$ that should be static, and which {\em do} exhibit
77: time-independence to ``eye-ball'' accuracy.
78: The data shown here came from the $N = 128$
79: calculation. The length of time spanned by the plots corresponds to slightly
80: more than 20 light-crossing times, and about 160 oscillations of each of the
81: component fields $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$.
82: \begin{figure}
83: \begin{center}
84: \epsfxsize=15.0cm
85: \ifthenelse{\equal{\highQ}{true}} {
86: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/modph4to1.eps}
87: }{
88: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/modph4to1.ps}
89: }
90: \caption
91: [\test{$\vert\phi(t,\rho,z)\vert$}]
92: {\test{$\vert\phi(t,\rho,z)\vert$}.
93: The figure shows $N=128$ calculation.
94: The initial central value of the scalar field
95: is $\ph_0(0) = 0.02$. The period of evolution
96: shown corresponds to
97: roughly 20-crossing times and 160 oscillations of $\phi_1$ and $\phi_2$.
98: To ``eye-ball'' accuracy,
99: $|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$ is time-independent.
100: $0.0 \le |\ph(t,\rh,z)| \le 0.02\times \fr{1}{\sr{2}}$.
101: }
102: \label{phcvtest}
103: \end{center}
104: \end{figure}
105:
106: \begin{figure}
107: \begin{center}
108: \epsfxsize=15.0cm
109: \ifthenelse{\equal{\highQ}{true}} {
110: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/psi4to1.eps}
111: }{
112: \includegraphics[width=15.0cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/psi4to1.ps}
113: }
114: \caption
115: [\test{$\psi(t,\rho,z)$}]
116: {\test{$\psi(t,\rho,z)$}.
117: The figure shows $N=128$ calculation.
118: The initial central value of the scalar field
119: is $\ph_0(0) = 0.02$.
120: As is the case for $\vert\phi(t,\rho,z)\vert$ (Fig.~\ref{phcvtest}),
121: $\psi(t,\rh,z)$ is time-independent to eye-ball accuracy.
122: $1.004 \le \ps(t,\rh,z) \le 1.048$.
123: }
124: \label{psicvtest}
125: \end{center}
126: \end{figure}
127:
128: \subsection{Time-independence of $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$}
129: Fig.~\ref{maxmodph} plots the maximum value of the modulus of the scalar field,
130: $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$, {\em vs} $t$ from the $N=128$ calculation.
131: The figure shows that the maximum value exhibits periodic oscillations as well as
132: a drift that is due to the accumulation of solution error. We fully expect
133: to see such oscillations since numerical errors act as a
134: perturbation to the ``exact'' stationary solution.~\footnote{
135: Note that the notion of ``exact'' in this case is relative to the discretization
136: used by \graxi\, and not to the continuum. Thus, at any resolution,
137: the ``exact'' stationary solution,
138: should one exist, would be the solution of the difference equations for {\graxi}
139: at that resolution, (including all boundary and regularity conditions) with all
140: discrete time
141: derivatives set to zero.
142: }
143:
144: It is an instructive exercise to compare the observed period of oscillation
145: with that computed from perturbation analysis of the
146: initial boson star as described in Sec.~(\ref{perttheory}).
147: Assuming harmonic time-dependence for the perturbed scalar field and metric
148: component (\ref{harmonicdep1}), (\ref{harmonicdep2}), and assuming that the oscillation is
149: in the fundamental mode, we
150: obtain a theoretical value of $\si^2 \approx 0.00035$.
151: (Time averaging $\ph_0(t,0)$ gives $\langle \ph_0(t,0) \rangle \approx 0.02
152: \times \sr{4 \pi} = 0.071$. )
153: On the other hand,
154: Fig.~\ref{maxmodph} shows a period of oscillation $T\approx 382$, corresponding
155: to a frequency $\si \eq 2 \pi /T = 0.0164$.
156: The average of the lapse function is $\langle \al(t,0) \rangle = 0.993$, therefore
157: $\si^2/\al^2 \approx 0.00032$, in good agreement with the perturbation analysis value
158: $0.00035$.
159:
160: \begin{figure}
161: \begin{center}
162: \epsfxsize=10.5cm
163: \includegraphics[width=10.5cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/maxmodph.ps}
164: \caption
165: [\test{Oscillation of $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$ as a measure of
166: perturbation.}]
167: {
168: \test{Oscillation of $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$ as a measure of
169: perturbation}.
170: Results shown here are from the $N=128$ calculation.
171: The initial central value of the scalar field
172: is $\ph_0(0) = 0.02$.
173: The observed oscillation frequency is roughly
174: $\si^2 \approx 0.00032$, and is in good agreement with
175: the fundamental mode frequency computed from perturbation analysis, $\si^2 \approx 0.00035$.
176: }
177: \label{maxmodph}
178: \end{center}
179: \end{figure}
180:
181: \subsection{Time-independence of ADM Mass}
182: Fig.~\ref{massvst} shows the ADM mass $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$ {\em vs} time $t$ for the $N=128$ simulation.
183: The general increase in mass starting at $t\approx 450$ is indicative of
184: an instability, and implies
185: that the evolution will generically break down for a sufficiently long evolution.
186:
187: \begin{figure}
188: \begin{center}
189: \epsfxsize=12.0cm
190: \includegraphics[width=12.0cm,clip=true]{eps/graxi_csf/bs.1s.N/M.ps}
191: \caption
192: [\test{$M_{\rm ADM}(t)$} for $N=128$ calculation]
193: {\test{$M_{\rm ADM}(t)$ for $N=128$ calculation}.
194: The initial central value of the scalar field
195: is $\ph_0(0) = 0.02$.
196: The general increase in mass starting at $t\approx 450$ is indicative of
197: an instability, and implies
198: that the evolution will generically break down for a sufficiently long evolution.
199: In the inset, we show a detail view of the initial fluctuations in $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$.
200: }
201: \label{massvst}
202: \end{center}
203: \end{figure}
204:
205: \subsection{Convergence tests of $\max_{\rh,z}(|\ph(t,\rh,z)|)$ and $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$}
206: Figs.~\ref{cvph4level} shows the maximum value of the modulus of the scalar field,
207: $\max_{\rh,z}(|\ph(t,\rh,z)|)$, {\em vs} $t$ from the calculations at the four different
208: finite difference resolutions, $N=64,128,256$ and $512$.
209: Fig.~\ref{cvM4level} similarly shows the ADM mass as a function of time for the four calculations.
210: The two figures provide strong evidence that both quantities are converging.
211: Finally,
212: Fig.~\ref{convfactor} shows the convergence $Q$-factor for ${\rm
213: Re}(\phi(t,\rho,z))\equiv\phi_1(t,\rho,z)$,
214: where the $Q$-factor for a general grid function $u^h$ is defined by
215: \beq \lab{q_fact}
216: Q \eq \fr{\|u^{4h}-u^{2h}\|_2}{\|u^{2h} - u^{h}\|_2}\,,
217: \eeq
218: and which has a theoretical value $Q=4$ for a second order scheme. Here $\|\cdot\|_2$
219: denotes the $l_2$ norm, and $h=\Delta \rho=\Delta z$.
220: \begin{figure}
221: \begin{center}
222: \epsfxsize=8.5cm
223: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=true]{eps/maxmodph.ps}
224: \caption
225: [\test{4-level convergence test of $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$}]
226: {
227: \test{4-level convergence test of $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$}.
228: The figure shows that $\max_{\rh,z}|\ph(t,\rh,z)|$ converges to a
229: constant as $\Delta \rho, \Delta z \to 0$.
230: }
231: \label{cvph4level}
232: \end{center}
233: \end{figure}
234:
235: \begin{figure}
236: \begin{center}
237: \epsfxsize=8.5cm
238: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=true]{eps/M.ps}
239: \caption
240: [\test{4-level convergence test of ADM mass $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$}]
241: {
242: \test{4-level convergence test of ADM mass $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$}.
243: The figure shows that $M_{\rm ADM}(t)$ generally converges to a
244: constant as $\Delta \rho, \Delta z \to 0$, although there
245: are clearly indications of some problems at later times in this plot which are
246: almost certainly a result of imperfect boundary conditions.
247: }
248: \label{cvM4level}
249: \end{center}
250: \end{figure}
251:
252: \begin{figure}
253: \begin{center}
254: \epsfxsize=8.5cm
255: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=true]{eps/Q.ps}
256: \caption
257: [\test{Convergence rate of ${\rm Re}(\phi(t,\rho,z))\equiv\phi_1(t,\rho,z)$}]
258: {
259: \test{Convergence rate of ${\rm Re}(\phi(t,\rho,z))\equiv\phi_1(t,\rho,z)$}.
260: The theoretical value for a
261: second-order convergent scheme is $Q=4$. See text for further explanation.
262: }
263: \label{convfactor}
264: \end{center}
265: \end{figure}
266: