Timeline for Which timestep should I use for a $N$-body simulation of the Solar system?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 29, 2016 at 21:17 | comment | added | BigONotation | @garyp Yes I am aware Euler has issues :) But I just want to get a "quick and dirty" model working. Then I will switch to something more sophisticated such as Runge-Kutta 4. Will also definitely look into the "symplectic integrator", thanks for the pointer! I am using C++ as an implementation language, so the idea is to make the different integration algorithms "switchable". | |
| May 29, 2016 at 13:55 | comment | added | BigONotation | @Qmechanic I think my question is about computational physics. Computational Science is too broad in that sense. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 22:07 | answer | added | Count Iblis | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 28, 2016 at 20:55 | comment | added | Qmechanic♦ | Would Computational Science be a better home for this question? | |
| May 28, 2016 at 20:54 | history | edited | Qmechanic♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| May 28, 2016 at 17:23 | vote | accept | BigONotation | ||
| May 28, 2016 at 16:19 | comment | added | garyp | The time step is not the only source of error. The integration scheme has inherent problems. The simplest Euler method does not conserve energy, and will present errors no matter how small the time step. (This depends on you tolerance for errors, of course). There are better integrators. You might search for "symplectic integrator" to get started. | |
| May 28, 2016 at 15:49 | answer | added | lemon | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 28, 2016 at 15:36 | review | First posts | |||
| May 28, 2016 at 15:53 | |||||
| May 28, 2016 at 15:33 | history | asked | BigONotation | CC BY-SA 3.0 |