I've recently found myself with copies of both Maple and Mathematica and I'm looking to use it to study relativity and hopefully the field equations of GR.

I mainly study general relativity but I've always been a pen and paper kind of guy except maybe doing some tensor calculations using Maxima when things become monotonous or excessive. I'm particularly keen to start learning some visual GR, if that makes sense. Some time this year, I'll be giving a casual presentation on deriving the Schwarzschild solution and I'd like to be able to display some cool images or animations to keep the (albeit small) crowd interested.

My question is

With regards to a spherically symmetric gravitational field. What are the modern references/resources for visualising GR?


Before answering, please see our policy on resource recommendation questions. Please write substantial answers that detail the style, content, and prerequisites of the book, paper or other resource. Explain the nature of the resource so that readers can decide which one is best suited for them rather than relying on the opinions of others. Answers containing only a reference to a book or paper will be removed!

closed as too broad by John Rennie, David Z Jan 13 '17 at 7:38

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ These kinds of list questions are off topic. I need to get around to writing a meta post about this, because it seems really wasteful to have a site like this and not allow this question, which has HEAPS of potential for educators. For the moment, perhaps you could reframe the question as a reference request: there are some relativity simulations on the Wolfram Demonstrations project site but none are much better than my own (I mean by that that they're not particularly high standard since my own Mathematica capabilities aren't that great). $\endgroup$ – WetSavannaAnimal Jan 13 '17 at 8:30
  • $\begingroup$ @WetSavannaAnimalakaRodVance I agree there is certainly a lot that could be gained. I've re-worded the question so hopefully someone will take it off hold. $\endgroup$ – Rumplestillskin Jan 13 '17 at 11:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Visualisations are always going to be a compromise, but telling your audience that they have to think purely in math terms won't keep their attention long. The most accurate visualisations are the (rather drab) ones you find in textbook. As you probably know, Picasso had a go at trying to depict 4 D, which was as accurate as somee TV graphics. Best of luck with your talk. The best popular depictions I have seen are in Rudy Rucker's books, which are free online as a PDF. $\endgroup$ – user154420 Jul 10 '17 at 12:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A nice derivation of the most general spherically symmetric metric is in Weinberg's "Gravitation and Cosmology" (1972) text book. But it doesn't help with the visualization obviously. $\endgroup$ – Photon Jul 10 '17 at 13:56