Fully relativistic, cosmological N-body simulations

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Current cosmological N-body simulations, such as the Millennium Run, primarily utilize the Newtonian limit, neglecting significant relativistic effects. The discussion highlights the potential benefits of fully relativistic cosmological N-body simulations, particularly in understanding backreaction effects that may mimic accelerated expansion, as suggested by Buchert. Participants express skepticism about the feasibility and necessity of these simulations, given the computational expense and the limited impact of general relativity on sub-Gpc scales. The conversation emphasizes the need for further exploration and references in this emerging field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Newtonian gravity in cosmological simulations
  • Familiarity with general relativity and its implications for cosmology
  • Knowledge of backreaction effects in cosmological models
  • Experience with N-body simulation techniques and their limitations
NEXT STEPS
  • Research fully relativistic N-body simulation techniques
  • Study the implications of backreaction effects on cosmological expansion
  • Examine the work of Buchert regarding accelerated expansion
  • Investigate the computational challenges of simulating merging black holes
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, cosmologists, and researchers in computational physics interested in advancing the understanding of cosmological structures and the role of relativistic effects in N-body simulations.

matt8282
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hi,

as you all know, current cosmological N-body simulations (like the Millenium run) are based on the Newtonian limit. Gravitational fields are supposed to be rather weak and therefore the force between dark matter particles reduces to Newtonian gravity. Other relativistic effects are neglected. The cosmological background expands independently of the non-linear processes inside the simulation box. In connection with backreaction studies it might be very useful to have fully-relativistic cosmological N-body simulations. I know that it is extremely difficult to simulate only two merging black holes with all relativistic effects so N-body codes might be completely out of reach. But still, I am interested in this topic. I am not aware of any work on this field.

Can anybody recommend me any article, paper, book or whatsoever? Any source of information is welcome.

Thank you very much in advance!

Best wishes,

Matt
 
Space news on Phys.org
What aspects do you think would require non-linear treatment on cosmological scales?
 
Well, I don't really have a strong opinion on that. But there are claims that backreaction effects could mimic accelerated expansion (see Buchert, for instance) and standard N-body simulations suppress these effects by construction. So that's why I think it would be nice to check that in fully relativistic simulations (if possible..).

Again, any references concerning this are very welcome!
 
The backreaction arguments, and associated large-scale inhomogenous concepts, have never been at all convincing to me---but I certainly don't understand them well enough to have a solid opinion. They are certainly not given much credence in the community.

In any case, these effects are only appreciable on scales comparable to the Hubble volume! Just about all long-duration cosmological structure formation simulations are entirely sub-Gpc scale... I just don't see any GR nonlinearities having any effect in that regime.
 
Why fully relativistic? Surely you really don't need all that extra computation, and any kind simulation would be prohibitively expensive. The next step would presumably just be to include the lowest order corrections to Newtonian gravity, although I suspect these terms are neglected for a good reason ;)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K