Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Dilaton-Axion: LNRF isn't Minkowski #52

Open
fjebaker opened this issue Sep 30, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Dilaton-Axion: LNRF isn't Minkowski #52

fjebaker opened this issue Sep 30, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working geometry Relating to a geometrical problem needs investigating A deeper look is required. theory Related to mathematical theory

Comments

@fjebaker
Copy link
Member

Opening an issue so I remember to address this later: when using the (forthcoming) LNRF calculator, the tests for the Dilaton-Axion metric fail, since

4×4 Matrix{Float64}:
 1.0          0.0  0.0   0.0
 0.0          1.0  0.0   0.0
 0.0          0.0  1.0   0.0
 2.22045e-16  0.0  0.0  -1.0

is not Minkowski. We have the correct signature, but it seems to be in the wrong order?
@fjebaker fjebaker added bug Something isn't working theory Related to mathematical theory geometry Relating to a geometrical problem labels Sep 30, 2022
@fjebaker fjebaker moved this to Todo 🐣 in Gradus.jl Sep 30, 2022
fjebaker added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2022
@fjebaker
LNRF test
050b7d9 
Also removed Dilaton-Axion from tests (see issue #52).
fjebaker added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 2, 2022
@fjebaker
Generic source-to-disc flux (#53)
15b0a5c 
* julia formatting

* bugfixes in tetrad + new basis function

* formatting and clean

* LNRF test

Also removed Dilaton-Axion from tests (see issue #52).

* lnrf tests and correct domain

* use correct analytic expressions

* divide flux by time * energy bin size

* allow type to be inferred

* switch default solver + inference

* revert to Tsit5 since other default too noisy

* slightly altered api

* update exports

* fix tetrad tests

* voronoi disc profile stores geodesic points as well

* julia formatting

* source-to-disc flux model

* formatting

* bump version

* typo fixes, includes, and exports
@fjebaker fjebaker mentioned this issue Oct 3, 2022
Merged
@fjebaker fjebaker added the needs investigating A deeper look is required. label Aug 11, 2023
fjebaker added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 22, 2023
@fjebaker
Generic source-to-disc flux (#53)
59a186f 
* julia formatting

* bugfixes in tetrad + new basis function

* formatting and clean

* LNRF test

Also removed Dilaton-Axion from tests (see issue #52).

* lnrf tests and correct domain

* use correct analytic expressions

* divide flux by time * energy bin size

* allow type to be inferred

* switch default solver + inference

* revert to Tsit5 since other default too noisy

* slightly altered api

* update exports

* fix tetrad tests

* voronoi disc profile stores geodesic points as well

* julia formatting

* source-to-disc flux model

* formatting

* bump version

* typo fixes, includes, and exports
@fjebaker fjebaker mentioned this issue Oct 14, 2024
Merged
@fjebaker
Copy link
Member Author

This is still the case even after #210, but when Beta is 0, everything succeeds. It could be that, because we're within the ISCO and beta is non zero, the poloidal components of the velocity are violating some assumption in the LNRF calculation? Perhaps the order of orthonormalisation needs to change?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working geometry Relating to a geometrical problem needs investigating A deeper look is required. theory Related to mathematical theory
Projects
Gradus.jl
Status: Todo 🐣
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
1 participant
@fjebaker