Miguel Alcubierre et al 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 589 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/21/2/019
Miguel Alcubierre1, Gabrielle Allen2, Carles Bona3, David Fiske4, Tom Goodale2, F Siddhartha Guzmán2, Ian Hawke2, Scott H Hawley5, Sascha Husa2, Michael Koppitz2, Christiane Lechner2, Denis Pollney2, David Rideout2, Marcelo Salgado1, Erik Schnetter6, Edward Seidel2, Hisa-aki Shinkai7, Deirdre Shoemaker8, Béla Szilágyi9, Ryoji Takahashi10 and Jeff Winicour2,9
Show affiliationsIn recent years, many different numerical evolution schemes for Einstein's equations have been proposed to address stability and accuracy problems that have plagued the numerical relativity community for decades. Some of these approaches have been tested on different spacetimes, and conclusions have been drawn based on these tests. However, differences in results originate from many sources, including not only formulations of the equations, but also gauges, boundary conditions, numerical methods and so on. We propose to build up a suite of standardized testbeds for comparing approaches to the numerical evolution of Einstein's equations that are designed to both probe their strengths and weaknesses and to separate out different effects, and their causes, seen in the results. We discuss general design principles of suitable testbeds, and we present an initial round of simple tests with periodic boundary conditions. This is a pivotal first step towards building a suite of testbeds to serve the numerical relativists and researchers from related fields who wish to assess the capabilities of numerical relativity codes. We present some examples of how these tests can be quite effective in revealing various limitations of different approaches, and illustrating their differences. The tests are presently limited to vacuum spacetimes, can be run on modest computational resources and can be used with many different approaches used in the relativity community.
04.40.Nr Einstein-Maxwell spacetimes, spacetimes with fluids, radiation or classical fields
83C05 Einstein's equations (general structure, canonical formalism, Cauchy problems)
Issue 2 (21 January 2004)
Received 5 May 2003
Published 10 December 2003
Miguel Alcubierre et al 2004 Class. Quantum Grav. 21 589
Chris A Clarkson and Richard K Barrett 2003 Class. Quantum Grav. 20 3855
Ted W Cranford et al 2008 Bioinspir. Biomim. 3 016001
S. Bhatnagar et al. 2011 ApJ 739 L20
B. Li et al. 2011 ApJ 738 L9
Joost van Summeren et al. 2011 ApJ 736 L15
M. J. Mumma et al. 2011 ApJ 734 L7
S. Brown et al. 2011 ApJ 727 L25
K. Todorov et al. 2010 ApJ 714 L84
Alexander M Akulshin and Russell J McLean 2010 J. Opt. 12 104001