Determine the physical status of discretized eigenmodes in LAADS
Determine how many eigenmodes the continuous linear perturbation equations admit and establish a reliable method for distinguishing physical modes from discretization artifacts, including the possibility of false-positive and false-negative classifications in LAADS.
References
We do not know how many eigenmodes the continuous linear perturbation equations admit, but usually a lot less. Distinguishing between discretisation artefacts and physical modes is a hard problem which, to the best of our knowledge, has not been solved yet. LAADS runs a few sanity checks to eliminate the bulk of the artificial modes (red dots), but we cannot guarantee that there is no false negative or false positive.
In fact, we could not find convincing evidence for pressurised bracket modes in the stellocentric reference frame. We used a continuation algorithm to find the pressurised eigenvalue that connects to the pressure-less eigenvalue, but Fig.~\ref{fig:Bracket_modes}-top left shows that the corresponding pressurised eigenvector has suspicious features such as rapid oscillations and jumps, and no sign of convergence with resolution. This suggests that this pressurised eigenmode is a numerical artefact induced by the discretisation of the eigenvalue problem formed by Eqs.~eq:Fourier-transformed_equations~and~eq:Fourier_transformed_equations_indirect_potential. We therefore conjecture that the stellocentric reference frame does not allow for pressurised bracket modes.