-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Strange behaviour for the KerrGeoSeparatrix for a=1 #46
Comments
There is definitely something funny going on with the a->1 limit as follows. Let SepPolyx by the separatrix polynomial as a function of x (called
Now evaluate with exact quantities (no floating point issues):
When a=1, there is an extra root pair at p=1+e; can be easily verified:
This is actually a quadratic root, as can be verified by polynomial division. However I don't think we can just divide out these roots and discard them; for example the extremal equatorial separatrix is in fact at p=1+e (our Eq. (32) in our paper). Need to do some more careful analysis. Any thoughts? |
I ran into this today when testing somethings this morning. So, I think the following is true in the extremal case: When |
We should be able to double check this from the results in this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.03478. I've not had a chance to look yet so just putting this here as a reminder. |
I started to discuss it with Adrien today and kept working on it. Adrien then found a typo in my code. Here is the update. My conclusion is that in the |
@GeoffreyCompere @MvdMeent Sorry I haven't touched this at all... I guess we need to do this in a LaTeX document, but I think github issues won't let us attach .tex files. I propose we do this in an overleaf document that everyone can edit. |
For a prograde, inclined orbit the separatrix seems to jump at a=1:
KerrGeoSeparatrix[0.9999`30, 0.9`30, 0.5`30]
3.961820089411271084584110527
KerrGeoSeparatrix[1, 0.9`30, 0.4`30]
1.900000000000000000000000000
It looks like the correct a=1 answer should be near the top one but I could not work out why the code is jumping to the bottom answer. Seems to be something about how the root of the polynomial is bracketed in the a=1 case. Need to check carefully if this limit is meant to be continuous.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: