Timeline for $N$-body simulation in General Relativity
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2021 at 10:01 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ |
edited tags; edited tags
|
|
| Apr 20, 2019 at 16:55 | answer | added | David Daverio | timeline score: 5 | |
| Jan 10, 2016 at 0:58 | comment | added | Virgo | There are loads of articles on this, see for example arxiv.org/abs/1511.05124 | |
| Jul 28, 2011 at 21:05 | vote | accept | Marton Trencseni | ||
| Jul 28, 2011 at 21:04 | vote | accept | Marton Trencseni | ||
| Jul 28, 2011 at 21:04 | |||||
| Jul 26, 2011 at 12:52 | comment | added | Marton Trencseni | From a technical/computational point of view, is it known how to do N-body simulations in GR? | |
| Jul 26, 2011 at 9:04 | comment | added | genneth | For galaxy rotation curves, I'm guessing that low order post-Newtonian terms (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism) are sufficient as corrections (as pointed out by @Marek). For formation, I would guess that having accurate equations of state would be far more important than any gravitational corrections. | |
| Jul 25, 2011 at 23:27 | answer | added | Helder Velez | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 17:51 | comment | added | yayu | Have a look at the universe sandbox. Everything is classical gravity though. | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 17:03 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
LaTeXed and retagged
|
| Jul 24, 2011 at 16:46 | history | edited | Willie Wong |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 24, 2011 at 16:29 | comment | added | Marton Trencseni | @Willie: yes, I'm also interested in references! | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | Willie Wong | The question is still awfully broad. Are you looking for some references on how to enter the field of numerical GR? Looking for references for particular recipes? Looking for known results? | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 12:34 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhysics/status/95109515632066561 | ||
| Jul 24, 2011 at 9:08 | history | edited | Marton Trencseni | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 54 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2011 at 9:01 | comment | added | Marek | okay, now that is some context. It would be nice if you added this (and more) information to the question. | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 8:37 | comment | added | Marton Trencseni | @Marek: suppose one wants to simulate v(r) for galaxies with N-bodies, and wants to do it in the framework of GR / Einstein equations. | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 7:56 | comment | added | Marek | This isn't a standard reply. As for any physical problem there 10 different approaches with increasing complexity possible. When solving hydrogen atom in QM, you can just solve classical electron picture, you can add relativistic effects, you can add spin-interactions, nucleus composition, QFT effects, etc., etc. Most of these are completely irrelevant for standard purposes. That's why I am asking again: what level of complexity are you after? There's no one single correct approach to numerical GR, there are dozens. If you don't know answer to this then you have no question... | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 7:50 | comment | added | Marton Trencseni | @Marek: added some context. | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 7:49 | history | edited | Marton Trencseni | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 168 characters in body
|
| Jul 24, 2011 at 7:35 | comment | added | Marek | You should be a bit more specific than that. If the conditions are mild than all you need is Newtonian gravity plus some corrections. If the situation is complex (like dynamics of black hole collision, or star collapse) then one needs to discretize full GR equations and this is not simple at all... | |
| Jul 24, 2011 at 7:20 | history | asked | Marton Trencseni | CC BY-SA 3.0 |