Computation of some dispersive equations through their iterated linearisation

Guannan Chen, Arieh Iserles, Karolina Kropielnicka and Pranav Singh

arXiv: 2405.04958v1 · PDF · 8 May 2024
Categories: math.NA, cs.NA, physics.comp-ph
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

It is often the case that, while the numerical solution of the non-linear dispersive equation \mathrm{i}\partial_t u(t)=\mathcal{H}(u(t),t)u(t) represents a formidable challenge, it is fairly easy and cheap to solve closely related linear equations of the form \mathrm{i}\partial_t u(t)=\mathcal{H}_1(t)u(t)+\widetilde{\mathcal H}_2(t)u(t), where \mathcal{H}_1(t)+\mathcal{H}_2(v,t)=\mathcal{H}(v,t). In that case we advocate an iterative linearisation procedure that involves fixed-point iteration of the latter equation to solve the former. A typical case is when the original problem is a nonlinear Schrödinger or Gross–Pitaevskii equation, while the ‘easy’ equation is linear Schrödinger with time-dependent potential. We analyse in detail the iterative scheme and its practical implementation, prove that each iteration increases the order, derive upper bounds on the speed of convergence and discuss in the case of nonlinear Schrödinger equation with cubic potential the preservation of structural features of the underlying equation: the \mathrm{L}_2 norm, momentum and Hamiltonian energy. A key ingredient in our approach is the use of the Magnus expansion in conjunction with Hermite quadratures, which allows effective solutions of the linearised but non-autonomous equations in an iterative fashion. The resulting Magnus–Hermite methods can be combined with a wide range of numerical approximations to the matrix exponential. The paper concludes with a number of numerical experiments, demonstrating the power of the proposed approach.

Items 12

Lemma

Lemma 1

XYVM

For every t\in[t_n,t_{n+1}] it is true that

\rho_{k+1}(t)\leq h\|\mathcal{G}(u^{[k]})-\mathcal{G}(u)\|_{\mathrm{L}_2}\cdot\,\|u\|_{\mathrm{L}_2},

where h=t_{n+1}-t_n.

Theorem

Theorem 2

5YU7

Given that \mathcal{G} is Fréchet differentiable in \mbox{\Bbb T}^d, it is true that

\rho_k(t)\leq \left[\mathcal{G}'(u)\|u\|_{\mathrm{L}_2}\right]^{k-1} c_1 h^{p_1+k},\qquad k\in\mbox{\Bbb N}

and the method (2.2) converges for h<[\mathcal{G}'(u)\|u\|_{\mathrm{L}_2}]^{-1}.

Theorem

Theorem 3

UZDG

Let H(u)=\mathcal{G}(|u|)u, where \mathcal{G}(v)=\mathcal{L}+f(v), \mathcal{L} is a self-adjoint linear differential operator and f a real-valued scalar function. Provided that the first step of the algorithm (2.2) is solved by the Strang splitting, it is true that p_k=k+1, k\in\mbox{\Bbb N} and in place of (2) we have the error bound

\rho_k(t)\leq \left[\mathcal{G}'(u)\|u\|_{\mathrm{L}_2}\right]^{k-1} c_1 h^{k+2},\qquad k\in\mbox{\Bbb N}.

As before, convergence is assured provided that h<[\mathcal{G}'(u)\|u\|_{\mathrm{L}_2}]^{-1}.

Theorem

Theorem 4

110M

Subject to periodic boundary conditions it is true that \|u^{[k]}(t)\|=\|u_0(t)\| and the method (?) preserves \mathrm{L}_2 energy.

Theorem

Theorem 5

28DO

The method (?) conserves momentum.

Theorem

Theorem 6

Q07R

Once iterated linearisation is applied to the NLS (?), it is true that

\mathcal{H}(u^{[k]})-\mathcal{H}(u)={\cal O}\!\left(h^{k+1}\right),\qquad k\in\mbox{\Bbb N}.

Example

Example 1 (GP, defocusing, with external time-dependent field)

3N8O

In this example, we consider the potential

V(u, x, t) = V^0(x) + V^{\mathrm{e}}(x,t) + V^{\mathrm{nl}}(u) , \qquad \text{with}\ \lambda = 10\ \text{in}\ V^{\mathrm{nl}},

with static potential V^0(x), external field V^{\mathrm{e}}(x,t), and nonlinear potential V^{\mathrm{nl}}.

The evolution of solution is shown in Figure ?, ?, while the convergence of the L^2 error of u at t = 1 computed by different methods is shown in Figure ?, ?. Observables over time are shown in Figure ?, and the change in observables with time is shown in Figure ?.

The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

Example

Example 2 (GP, defocusing, without external time-dependent field)

HYS9

In this example, we consider the potential

V(u, x, t) = V^0(x) + V^{\mathrm{nl}}(u) , \qquad \text{with}\ \lambda = 10\ \text{in}\ V^{\mathrm{nl}},

while the external field V^{\mathrm{e}}(x,t) is absent.

Example

Example 3 (GP, focusing, without external time-dependent field)

0FJZ

In this example, we consider the potential

V(u, x, t) = V^0(x) + V^{\mathrm{nl}}(u) , \qquad \text{with}\ \lambda = -10\ \text{in}\ V^{\mathrm{nl}},

while the external field V^{\mathrm{e}}(x,t) is absent.

Example

Example 4 (NLS, defocusing)

Q499

In this example, we consider the potential

V(u, x, t) = V^{\mathrm{nl}}(u), \qquad \text{with}\ \lambda = 10\ \text{in}\ V^{\mathrm{nl}},

i.e., with the nonlinear potential only.

Example

Example 5 (nonlinear, with external time-dependent field)

GVEA

We consider external time-dependent field

V^{\mathrm{e}}(t) = \sin(5\pi t).

Example

Example 6 (nonlinear, without external time-dependent field)

BAZ6

We consider no external time-dependent field

V^{\mathrm{e}}(t) \equiv 0.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2405.04958v1 by Guannan Chen, Arieh Iserles, Karolina Kropielnicka and Pranav Singh, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2405/2405.04958.jsonl.