How do scientists make sophisticated calculations in general relativity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Starship
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculations
Starship
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
How do professional scientists make sophisticated calculations, e.g the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0412/0412064.pdf in general relativity? Are there any special algorithms for this?

I'd really like to solve these equations but it's almost impossible without computer help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Using calculators...?The equations in physics are usually nonintegrable analytically,many of them are quasi/nonlinear (starting with Newton's gravity law,for example) and therefore the dynamics is found either intuitively or using a computer...

There are fortunate exceptions...The Schwarzschild solution is one of them.

Daniel.
 
dextercioby said:
Using calculators...?The equations in physics are usually nonintegrable analytically,many of them are quasi/nonlinear (starting with Newton's gravity law,for example) and therefore the dynamics is found either intuitively or using a computer...

There are fortunate exceptions...The Schwarzschild solution is one of them.

Daniel.

Thanks dexter. Do i need to develop my own algorithms?

The Einstein equations are nonlinear, therefore are very difficult to solve without a computer.
 
Last edited:
Starship said:
How do professional scientists make sophisticated calculations, e.g the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/math-ph/pdf/0412/0412064.pdf in general relativity? Are there any special algorithms for this?

I'd really like to solve these equations but it's almost impossible without computer help.

The symbolic tensorial and spinorial calculations in the paper above are probably done by hand.
One can use tools like GRTensor and others to symbolically verify some calculations or evaluate tensor components [given component functions of the metric, for example].

To go beyond symbolic calculations, you'll need to find or write specialized software to solve systems of nonlinear PDEs. For these, you might start here
http://jean-luc.aei.mpg.de/
http://numrel.aei.mpg.de/
http://bh0.physics.ubc.ca/People/matt/555/
and the Numerical Relativity articles at
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/subject.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
robphy said:
The symbolic tensorial and spinorial calculations in the paper above are probably done by hand.
One can use tools like GRTensor and others to symbolically verify some calculations or evaluate tensor components [given component functions of the metric, for example].

To go beyond symbolic calculations, you'll need to find or write specialized software to solve systems of nonlinear PDEs. For these, you might start here
http://jean-luc.aei.mpg.de/
http://numrel.aei.mpg.de/
http://bh0.physics.ubc.ca/People/matt/555/
and the Numerical Relativity articles at
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/subject.html

Thanks robphy. This was a great help.

Most of these calculations are indeed symbolic but in order to really solve it, one either needs a strong software or a small supercomputer with a quite simple algorithm.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Sticky
Replies
0
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
33K
Back
Top