# Code Capabilities The capabilities of AxiSEM3D have been detailed extensively in the papers published about it. We briefly re-iterate them here (so that they are all in one place), but also emphasise the things that the code **cannot** do especially things that we have thought about implementing at some point or another. Largely, we do this so that others can build upon this work if they so fancy. ## Things the code can do These include: - Solve the elastodynamic equations of motion via the weak form of the wave equation for arbitrarily complex 3D media (subject to some boundary condition constraints), - Do this for both solid-fluid coupled bodies, fully solid worlds, and fully fluid ones (e.g. stars), - Account for the oblateness of objects, either directly through mesh deformation or through post-simulation corrections, - Implement a variety of relevant physical processes, including but not limited to seismic attenuation, scattering, arbitrary seismic anisotropy - Represent a variety of relevant physical processes, including but not limited to wave reflection, refraction, diffraction, and dispersion, - Simulate source processes of both infinitesimal and finite size, and - Generate full-waveform sensitivity kernels. ## Things the code cannot do These include the following physical features: - **Patched surface boundary conditions** – These would allow you to simulate a planet where the surface boundary condition is not the same everywhere, without having to implement fudges like having a thin layer of water over the continents. To do this, you would need to re-write the code with localised rather than global basis functions. - **Local timestepping** - potentially a big time saver! The code also does not currently include the following physical effects: - **Rotation** is not currently implemented in AxiSEM3D, however this is not expected to be particularly difficult. A simple Coriolis term should allow for accurate inclusion of rotational effects, though this is not a particular priority as the effects of rotation on high-frequency waves is expected to be small. - **Magnetic fields** - their influence upon the solar mode spectrum is not well constrained. It may be possible, though certainly very challenging, to build some treatment of the linearised MHD equations into our model. - **Gravity** - see note below. ### Self-gravitation We thought about gravity in AxiSEM3D quite a bit more, specifically self-gravity. We eventually decided not to implement it, but a potential cost-saving approach is described in this section. The “Cowling approximation" proposes that the changes in gravitational potential induced in a body by the passage of a seismic wave through it are negligible, and hence can be ignored in forward modelling. Although this assumption holds for most terrestrial seismology applications, it is inappropriate for the Sun, where changes in potential can be quite significant, in addition to long-period seismology ( ≥ ∼ 102 s). However, most models continue to ignore the effects of this “self-gravitation" (or indeed all gravitational terms generally) due to how computationally expensive considering it can be. This comes about because the perturbations to the Poisson equation, which describes the Newtonian gravitational potential *ϕ* in terms of the mass density *ρ*: ```{math} \nabla^{2}\phi = 4\pi G\rho ``` are felt everywhere instantaneously. Furthermore, there exists a coupling such that feedback from wave propagation affects the local gravitational potential, which in turn further changes the wave propagation, and so on. This means that the Poisson equation must be solved on every element at every timestep, which on similar spectral element codes (such as SPECFEM) reduces the efficiency of the code substantially. A second major challenge occurs due to meshing, since the gravitational potential is defined in all of space and has a Dirichlet boundary condition defined at an infinite distance from the model. The reader is referred to publications such as , , and for current methods to overcome this on spectral-element meshes. However, it has recently been proposed a formulation of the Poisson equation derived from the Einstein Field Equations may be significantly faster to implement, as the solutions are wave-like and hence inherently local. The potential *ϕ* is here expressed as the sum of propagating and static terms: ```{math} -\frac{1}{c_g^{2}}\frac{\partial^{2}{\phi}}{\partial{t^{2}}} + \nabla^{2}\phi = 4\pi G\rho ``` where *c**g* is the propagation speed. Physically, this speed is the speed of light (*c*), as this is the velocity at which gravitational effects propagate. However, it has been suggested that using a speed that is significantly slower than *c* but still faster than other relevant timescales (in our case, seismic) is appropriate. This has the advantage of localising the effects of self-gravity, such that the Poisson equation does not have to be solved at every timestep on every element. The question is of course what minimum propagation speed *c**g* needs to be used in order to yield physically meaningful results, as a slower propagation speed permits longer computational timesteps to be used, hence speeding up the simulation. One proposal is that the arrival of the propagating potential at any element only needs to occur a minimum of one seismic period before the arrival of the first acoustic waves. If successfully implemented, this would to our knowledge be the first use of propagating gravity in seismology.