Skip to main content

numerics - Animated Wave Propagation using Fourier & InverseFourier


This is a continuation off of previous help on the first part of my project: fourier issue arising from input miscommunication Now I want to go one step further in the current code. Here's the code from earlier with some comments to explain the thought-process:


xdomain = Table[i, {i, -10, 10, .1}];

initialState= E^-2#^2 & /@ xdomain;

f1 = E^-I #^2*Δt & /@ xdomain;

(* For the first step, I want to multiply my initial function by a second function and then fourier transform it. So I'm breaking down both function into a table of points and then fourier-transforming the product of the multiplied-points, because (I think) this is the most efficient way of doing this numerically.*)


f2 = E^-I #^2*Δt & /@ xdomain;

(* The second step is the same principle. We then take this fourier'd result, multiply it by another function, and then Inverse-fourier transform back *)


finalstate=InverseFourier[Fourier[f1*initialState]*f2];


(* ^This line is doing the two steps mentioned in the above two comments. *)


My result represents a wave that is propagated 1-unit-delta-t forward in time. To find out what this wave looks like 2-units in time, we need to take our "finalstate" function and use that instead of our intial state. (so to find something 10-units in time forward, I would have to run this 10 times, each time replacing the output with the input.)


Eventually I'd want to have a series of plots that I would assemble to form a movie of the wave's behavior.


This is what I have so far:


xdomain = Table[i, {i, -50, 50, .05}];
initialState = E^-#^2 & /@ xdomain;

cache = {initialState};
(*For 1\[Rule]10 *)
Δt = .001;


f1 = E^-I #^2*Δt & /@ xdomain;
f2 = E^-I #^2*Δt & /@ xdomain;

For[i = 0, i < 15, i++,
 ftot = Abs@InverseFourier[Fourier[f1*initialState]*f2];
 initialState = ftot;
 cache = Join[cache, {ftot}];
 ListLinePlot[
   Partition[Riffle[xdomain, cache[[i + 1]]]/Norm[cache[[i + 1]]], 

    2]] // Print]

So there are two things that I'm looking for answers for:




  1. If my method numerically fourier-transforming these functions by turning them into points and multiplying the points individually, makes sense and is the best way of handling it numerically in Mathematica.




  2. How can I export these printed for-loop pictures into an animation. (I eventually will decrease the value of delta_t, and increase the amount of pictures taken, so I won't be able to export the animation by hand.)





Thanks again everyone for your help so far! Let me know what you think.


P.S. In case anyone's interested, what I'm constructing is a program that numerically performs the Split-Operator method for solving the wave equation in an arbitrary potential (that commutes with p).




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more