Skip to main content

differential equations - Solution diverges in periodic PDE


Problem introduced in 11.0.1 and persisting through 11.3


Mathematica version 11 introduces PeriodicBoundaryCondition which is very useful in solving periodic PDE systems. I'm considering using it to solve a 1D time-dependent Schrodinger equation (1D periodic in space + time). But as a first test, I find that the norm of the solution I get is diverging as a function of time, which seems to be incorrect.


Consider a periodic potential


V[x_] := -0.2 (Cos[(π x)/5] + 1)


The eigenstates of this periodic potential can be calculated using NDEigensystem


{vals, funs} = 
 Transpose@
  SortBy[Transpose[
    NDEigensystem[{-(1/2) u''[x] + V[x] u[x], 
      PeriodicBoundaryCondition[u[x], x == -5, 
       TranslationTransform[{10}]]}, 
     u[x], {x} ∈ Line[{{-5}, {5}}], 3, 
     Method -> {"SpatialDiscretization" -> {"FiniteElement", 

         "MeshOptions" -> {"MaxCellMeasure" -> 0.01}}}]], First];

And these are the first five eigenstates


Plot[funs, {x, -5, 5}]

enter image description here


Now as a test, I take the second eigenstates and do a free time-propagation


ufun = NDSolveValue[{I D[u[t, x], t] == -(1/2) D[u[t, x], {x, 2}] + 
     V[x] u[t, x], u[0, x] == funs[[2]],
   PeriodicBoundaryCondition[u[t, x], x == -5, 

    TranslationTransform[{10}]]
   }, u, {t, 0, 5}, {x} ∈ Line[{{-5}, {5}}], 
  Method -> {"FiniteElement", 
    "MeshOptions" -> {"MaxCellMeasure" -> 0.01}}, MaxStepSize -> 0.01];//AbsoluteTiming
(*{13.1789, Null}*)

Since there is no external interaction with the system (there is no term like f[t]*u[t,x] in the equation), the solution should be the same as the initial condition, except for a phase difference. And the norm of the solution should be independent of time. However, for this example, the norm seems to diverge


ListPlot[Table[
  NIntegrate[Abs[ufun[t, x]]^2, {x, -5, 5}], {t, 0, 3, .1}], 
 DataRange -> {0, 3}, PlotRange -> All, Mesh -> Full, 

 FrameLabel -> {"time", "Norm"}]

enter image description here


So why does the numerical solution diverge? I tried to make MaxStepSize and "MaxCellMeasure" smaller, but it doesn't seem to help.



Answer



The results presented in the question suggest an inconsistency between NDEigensystem and NDSolveValue using the new PeriodicBoundaryCondition. This inconsistency can be localized by plotting ufun at various times.


Table[Plot[Evaluate[ReIm[ufun[t, x]]], {x, -5, 5}], {t, 0, 1, .2}]

enter image description here


Evidently, an error is occurring at the boundaries and propagating in. Moreover, spatial derivatives of the solution visibly are not periodic at the boundary, even though the solution itself is. In contrast, derivatives of funs[[2]] do appear to be periodic, if a bit noisy away from the boundary.



Plot[(-(1/2) D[funs[[2]] , {x, 2}] + V[x] funs[[2]]) /. x -> z, {z, -5, 5}]

enter image description here


(The noise can be reduced by decreasing "MaxCellMeasure". Nonetheless, using {"MaxCellMeasure" -> 0.001} in both functions, although painfully slow, reproduces the spurious growth shown in the second plot of the question.) Thus it appears that a bug in NDSolveValue has been introduced in Version 11.


Addendum


Plot[Im[ufun[0, x]], {x, -5, 5}]

enter image description here


I would have expected Im[ufun] to be zero at t == 0, as Im[funs[[2]]] is.


By the way, WorkingPrecision is not an allowed option for NDEigensystem. I hope it will be accommodated in future versions.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....
Post a Comment
Read more