Previous ToC Up Next

## 18.1. Interleaving Positions and Velocities

Carol: Erica, we now have a second-order algorithm, modified Euler, but you mentioned an other one, quite a while ago, that you seemed to prefer.

Erica: Yes, the leapfrog algorithm, a nice and simple scheme. I just learned about that in class, so it is still fresh in my memory.

Dan: What a strange name. Does it let particles jump around like frogs?

Carol: Or like children jumping over each other?

Erica: Something like that, I guess. I never thought about the meaning of the name, apart from the fact that something is leaping over something, as we will see in a moment. The algorithm is used quite widely, although it has different names in different fields of science. In stellar dynamics you often hear it called leapfrog, but in molecular dynamics it is generally called the Verlet method, and I'm sure there must be other names in use in other fields.

Here is the idea. Positions are defined at times , spaced at constant intervals , while the velocities are defined at times halfway in between, indicated by , where .

It is these positions and velocities that `leap over' each other. The leapfrog integration scheme reads: Note that the accelerations are defined only on integer times, just like the positions, while the velocities are defined only on half-integer times. This makes sense, given that the acceleration on one particle depends only on its position with respect to all other particles, and not on its or their velocities. To put it in mathematical terms, for many situations in physics the acceleration depends on velocity and position, as . The motion of an electron in a magnetic field is one example, with the Lorentz force being velocity dependent. And in any situation in which there is friction, the friction is typically stronger for higher velocities. However, in the case of Newtonian gravity, the velocity dependence is absent: .

Carol: I like the nice symmetric look of Eq. (87). But how do you get started? If you know the positions and velocities at time , how are you going to construct the velocities at time ?

Erica: The simplest way to extrapolate the velocities from to is by using a Taylor series. and the simplest nontrivial Taylor series is the one that takes only one term beyond the initial value. It turns out that such utter simplicity is already enough!

Concretely, we can start with the initial conditions and , and take the first term in the Taylor series expansion to compute the first leap value for : We are then ready to the first line of apply Eq. (87) to compute the new position , using the first leap value for . Next we compute the acceleration , using Newton's law of gravitation, and this enables us to compute the second leap value, , using the second line of apply Eq. (87). In this way we just march on.

Carol: And when you want to stop, or pause in order to do a printout, you can again construct a Taylor series in order to synchronize the positions and velocities, I presume? If you make frequent outputs, you'll have to do a lot of Tayloring around. I wonder whether that doesn't affect accuracy. Can you estimate the errors that will be introduced that way?

Erica: Ah, the beauty here is: you do not introduce any extra errors! In fact, what we usually do is never use the half-integer values for the velocity in any explicit way. Here, let me rewrite the basic equations of the algorithm, in such a way that position and velocity remain synchronized, both at the beginning and at the end of each step. Dan: That looks totally different.

Erica: Ha, but looks deceive! Notice that the increment in is given by the time step multiplied by , effectively equal to . Similarly, the increment in is given by the time step multiplied by , effectively equal to the intermediate value . In conclusion, although both positions and velocities are defined at integer times, their increments are governed by quantities approximately defined at half-integer values of time.

## 18.2. Time Symmetry

Dan: I'm still not quite convinced that Eq. (87) and Eq. (92) really express the same integration scheme.

Erica: An interesting way to see the equivalence of the two descriptions is to note the fact that the first two equations are explicitly time-reversible, while it is not at all obvious whether the last two equations are time-reversible. For the two systems to be equivalent, they'd better share this property. Let us check this, for both cases.

Carol: Eq. (87) indeed looks pretty time symmetric. Whether you jump forward or backward, in both cases you use the same middle point to jump over. So when you first jump forward and then jump backward, you come back to the same point.

Erica: Yes, but I would like to prove that, too, in a mathematical way. It is all too easy to fool yourself with purely language-based analogies.

Dan: Spoke the true scientist!

Carol: Well, I agree. In computer science too, intuition can lead you astray quite easily. How do you want to check this?

Erica: Let us first take one step forward, taking a time step , to evolve to . We can then take one step backward, using the same scheme, taking a time step of , back in time. Clearly, after these two steps the time will return to the same value since .

We now have to inspect where the final positions and velocities are indeed equal to their initial values . Here is the calculation. First we apply the first line of Eq. (87) to compute as the result of the step back in time, and then we again apply the first line of Eq. (87), to compute the forward step, and we see that indeed . Next we apply the second line of Eq. (87) two times, to find that . Here is the whole derivation: Carol: Can't argue with that! This is a crystal clear derivation. In an almost trivial way, we can see clearly that time reversal causes both positions and velocities to return to their old values, not only in an approximate way, but exactly. This has amazing consequences! When we write a computer program for the leapfrog algorithm, we can evolve forward a thousand time steps and then evolve backward for the same length of time. Although we will make integration errors at every step, and although the errors will get compounded, all those errors will exactly cancel each other.

Don: Amazing indeed, but I would be really amazed if the same time symmetry would hold for that other set of equations, Eq. (92), that don't look time symmetric at all!

Erica: Yes, that's where the real fun comes in. The derivation is a bit longer, but equally straightforward, and the steps are all the same. Here it is: In this case, too, we have exact time reversibility. Even though not at all obvious at first, as soon as we write out the effects of stepping forward and backward, the cancellations become manifest.

## 18.3. A Vector Implementation

Dan: Okay, I'm convinced now that Eq. (92) does the right thing. Let's code it up, and for convenience, let me write down the equations again: Obviously, this is the better set of expressions to use. It is more convenient than Eq. (87) since in the above equations we can forget about any leaping and frogging, and just move from time to time , with both positions and velocities.

Let me see whether I'm getting the hang of using vectors now. I will put it in file leapfrog_try1.rb:

``` require "vector.rb"
include Math

def print_pos_vel(r,v)
r.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
v.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
print "\n"
end

r = [1, 0, 0].to_v
v = [0, 0.5, 0].to_v
dt = 0.01
print_pos_vel(r,v)

1000.times{
r2 = r*r
r3 = r2 * sqrt(r2)
a = -r/r3
v += 0.5*a*dt
r += v*dt
r2 = r*r
r3 = r2 * sqrt(r2)
a = -r/r3
v += 0.5*a*dt
print_pos_vel(r,v)
}
```

and let me make a picture right away, in figure 38:

``` |gravity> ruby leapfrog_try1.rb > leapfrog_try1.out
```
Carol: Now that is a clear improvement over modified Euler. Presumably both schemes are second-order, but the orbit integration is clearly more accurate in the case of the leapfrog. Modified Euler gave figure (unknown label euler_modified_1000_steps_sparse) for the same time step size. In fact, our leapfrog is almost as good as Modified Euler for a ten times smaller time step, as given in figure 33, in the sense that the orbit does not drift away.

Erica: That is in fact an essential part of the leapfrog algorithm. If it would drift in one direction, and if you would then play time backward, it would have to drift in the other direction -- which means it would not be time symmetric. So because the leapfrog is time symmetric, it is impossible for the orbits to drift!

## 18.4. Saving Some Work

Dan: Ah, I just noticed something. In my leapfrog implementation, I compute the acceleration at the end of the loop, and then at the beginning of the next loop, I calculate the exact same acceleration once again. Since the position r does not change between the two calculations, the value of the acceleration a is bound to be the same. That's a waste of computing time!

Carol: Well, for the two-body problem, we don't have to worry too much about exactly how many milliseconds of computer time we are spending.

Erica: True, but when we go to a thousand-body problem, this will become an issue. Good point, Dan, why don't you leave one of the acceleration calculations out from the loop.

Dan: The question is, which one. If I leave out the first one, the acceleration is not yet defined, when the loop gets transversed for the very first time. But if I leave out the second one, I cannot calculate the value of the velocity at the end of the loop.

Hmmm. The second acceleration calculation is clearly essential. But . . . , aha, I see! I can take out the first acceleration calculation and place it before the loop. That way, the length of the computer program does not change. However, inside the loop unnecessary calculations are no longer being done.

``` require "vector.rb"
include Math

def print_pos_vel(r,v)
r.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
v.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
print "\n"
end

r = [1, 0, 0].to_v
v = [0, 0.5, 0].to_v
dt = 0.01
print_pos_vel(r,v)

r2 = r*r
r3 = r2 * sqrt(r2)
a = -r/r3

1000.times{
v += 0.5*a*dt
r += v*dt
r2 = r*r
r3 = r2 * sqrt(r2)
a = -r/r3
v += 0.5*a*dt
print_pos_vel(r,v)
}
```

Let me check first to see that we get the same result. The first code gives:

``` |gravity> ruby leapfrog_try1.rb | tail -1
0.583527377458303  -0.387366076048216  0.0  1.03799194001953  0.167802127213742  0.0
```
and the second version gives:

``` |gravity> ruby leapfrog_try2.rb | tail -1
0.583527377458303  -0.387366076048216  0.0  1.03799194001953  0.167802127213742  0.0
```
Good.

Carol: Let's check whether you really made the computation faster. We can redirect the standard output to /dev/null, literally a null device, effectively a waste basket, which is a Unix way of throwing the results away. That way, we are left only with output that appears on the standard error channel, such as timing information provided by the time command.

The first code gives:

``` |gravity> time ruby leapfrog_try1.rb > /dev/null
0.352u 0.001s 0:00.38 92.1%    0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
```
and the second version gives:

``` |gravity> time ruby leapfrog_try2.rb > /dev/null
0.194u 0.000s 0:00.21 90.4%    0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
```
Dan: Indeed, a bit faster. If all the computer time would have been spend on acceleration calculation, things would have sped up by a factor two, but of course, that is not the case, so the speed increase should be quite a bit less. This looks quite reasonable.

## 18.5. The DRY Principle Once Again

``` require "vector.rb"
include Math

def print_pos_vel(r,v)
r.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
v.each{|x| print(x, "  ")}
print "\n"
end

def acc(r)
r2 = r*r
r3 = r2 * sqrt(r2)
-r/r3
end

r = [1, 0, 0].to_v
v = [0, 0.5, 0].to_v
dt = 0.01
print_pos_vel(r,v)

a = acc(r)

1000.times{
v += 0.5*a*dt
r += v*dt
a = acc(r)
v += 0.5*a*dt
print_pos_vel(r,v)
}
```

and as always, I'll test it:

``` |gravity> ruby leapfrog.rb | tail -1
0.583527377458303  -0.387366076048216  0.0  1.03799194001953  0.167802127213742  0.0

Previous

ToC

Up

Next

```