Gravity simulation with arbitrary geometries

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on simulating the gravitational trajectory of planets around bodies with arbitrary geometries in a 2D plane. The original poster seeks methods to efficiently calculate gravitational fields without solving Poisson's equation in full 3D due to computational limitations. Suggestions include breaking complex shapes into simpler geometries, like triangular prisms, and using Dirac masses to compute potential based on point masses. The conversation also touches on the possibility of using algorithms for polygon triangulation and considering 2D integration with the divergence theorem for an alternative approach. Overall, the thread emphasizes finding efficient computational methods for gravitational simulations.
debilo
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I want to study the trajectory of planets (considered as points) around a body with arbitrary geometry (cube,...). I would like to restrict the simulation to a 2D plane, which would be a plane of symmetry of the 3D object (for example a plane that would cut the cube into two equal parts). I thought I'd solve Poisson's equation in 3D. But my computer is not very efficient (and I only know Finite difference methods).

Are there methods to avoid calculating the field in all the pure space to focus on the field in the plane? I couldn't find any articles on this subject.

Thanks.

Edit : I want to do the simulation with Python.
 
Technology news on Phys.org
When I did this for 2d polygonal gravity sources, it turned out to be possible to write an analytical expression for the gravitational field of a parallelogram. Any polygon can be divided into parallelograms, and then calculating the total field was just the sum of the parallelogram fields.

Can you find an algorithm to break your shape into standard simpler shapes - triangular prisms with sloped ends, for example? Can you write down an expression for the gravitational field of that kind of simple shape?
 
  • Like
Likes aaroman
Hello,

thank you for your answer.

Can you find an algorithm to break your shape into standard simpler shapes - triangular prisms with sloped ends, for example?

I really don't know how to do these things.

I had a new idea. Instead of solving the Poisson equation I consider that each point of my grid is Dirac-mass and I calculate the potential on the whole space using the well-known formula : $$V(r)=\sum Gm(r')/|r-r'|$$ I don't know if it's a good idea.
 
It depends what you want. You can, of course, split your object up into a cubical grid and pretend each little cube is a point mass at its center. That will get more accurate the smaller your cubes are - in fact, the limiting case of infinitely small cubes is an integral over the volume, which is exactly what I was proposing.

Algorithms to divide a polygon up into triangles are easy to find online. Imagine drawing a wireframe of your object looking down on it from above - you immediately get a set of polygons that you can triangulate. That gives you the simple polygons. The only question then is if you can write down and/or do the integral to get the gravitational force from such a prism.

However, if you are not going for an analytical solution, then you will have to balance precision (more and smaller cubes) versus the computational cost of doing so.
 
debilo said:
I thought I'd solve Poisson's equation in 3D.

How about a 2D integration over the surface of the body using the divergence theorem?
 
I tried a web search "the loss of programming ", and found an article saying that all aspects of writing, developing, and testing software programs will one day all be handled through artificial intelligence. One must wonder then, who is responsible. WHO is responsible for any problems, bugs, deficiencies, or whatever malfunctions which the programs make their users endure? Things may work wrong however the "wrong" happens. AI needs to fix the problems for the users. Any way to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K