Hi all,

I’m the author of a cosmological initial data thorn in the ET; FLRWSolver. I’m 
currently working on improving the initial data to solve the constraint 
equations exactly (instead of previously using an approximation), for a given 
metric and Kij. The way this works is to calculate the metric terms on the LHS 
of both the constraints and solve for the relevant rest mass density and 
peculiar 3-velocities from the matter terms. 

I have my own routines from a post-processing analysis code to calculate the 
metric terms, and I’ve incorporated these into the ET for both generating the 
initial data but also then double checking the constraint violation after the 
initial data is set up. 

I noticed something strange: my checks immediately after FLRWSolver is called 
in the ET show the constraints are satisfied essentially to roundoff error 
(i.e. the momentum constraint violation has magnitude ~ 1.e-15), but when I 
take the 3D dump of the initial time slice and run this through my analysis 
code (which uses the same routines as I use to set up initial data), I see the 
momentum constraint is violated at the ~ 1e-7 level.

I thought this might be my post processing code, so I added a second call to 
check the constraints using my routines after the full initial process is 
finished. The first call which immediately follows my FLRWSolver routine is 
placed in group HydroBase_Initial, and I added another call in CCTK_POSTINITIAL 
which gives the same result, however, if I instead schedule this call in 
POSTPOSTINITIAL I see the momentum constraint violation is identical to what I 
see when post processing the initial dump, at ~ 1.e-7. I can see the specific 
terms which are causing this difference are the terms which use 
finite-difference derivatives (the curvature terms in the momentum constraint), 
while all others are identical. 

So my question is the following: is there any way that the metric and curvature 
variables could suffer a loss of precision between the POSTINITIAL and 
POSTPOSTINITIAL phases of the run? Especially, a loss in precision which is 
then translated to the 3D dumps. 

The momentum constraint violation I have is satisfactory, but I am trying to 
pinpoint why this jump happens to make sure it’s not a bug in my separate code 
somewhere (also to explain why the constraints aren’t satisfied to roundoff 
level when they should be, by construction of my initial data :) ).

Any help is much appreciated!
Best wishes,
Hayley 

----

Hayley Macpherson | NASA Einstein Fellow

Email: [email protected]
Pronouns: she/her/hers

Office: ERC 479
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
Eckhardt Research Center
5640 South Ellis Avenue
Chicago, IL, 60637

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.einsteintoolkit.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to