Main Question or Discussion Point
When can we expect to see numerical simulations of GR for cases that are not highly symmetric? Say 10^3 blobs of matter in an arbitrary initial configuration.
resolution - 1 meterEstimate parameters of the problem.
Size of the simulation region?
Duration of simulation?
You'd need 40 exabytes (40,000,000 terabytes) of memory or disk storage just to store all values of metric tensor on one timeslice.resolution - 1 meter
size of region - 10^6 steps = 10^6 meters
I am thinking of times near the big bang. So whatever t gives us 10^3 objects within 10^6 meters. OK it may be the case that things were less clumpy and more uniform in that case we would need more objectsOut of curiosity, why are you thinking about this? Seems very random.. What situation is there where there are 10^3 relativistic, interacting masses?
Thank you. Cool paper. Are you in New York or California?If you want to investigate on your own, you can check out any of the papers that come out of the research group. Here's one, for example:
Can you point any software that uses GR to model Solar system? To model just Earth's orbit around the Sun, what is QM equation for that? - This is my equation: F = m*a = k* m1m2/r^2, and it can model planets and all their moons pretty accurately, so I do not see how can QM equations can be any better and what could possibly be the difference?We certainly do. I make (and am currently working with identical data, actually!) movies like the one hamster143 just posted, as a matter of fact! The project is called sxs, and you can find the website here: www.black-holes.org . That's where that video comes from, although it's a few years dated at this point. We also do things like neutron star - black hole mergers, but I don't know of any simulations anyone in our group is doing or has done with 3 or more celestial bodies.
No you cannot.I can do the same thing with Newton's law of gravity.
First off, these are not quantum mechanics calculations. It is GR, but still classical.This is my equation: F = m*a = k* m1m2/r^2, and it can model planets and all their moons pretty accurately, so I do not see how can QM equations can be any better and what could possibly be the difference?
Even so, it sounds like you are getting some interesting exposure to these things. I never learned stuff like that in undergrad.What I personally do is boring undergraduate slave labor, so I'm not a terribly interesting case!
Is there anyway you could coax a gradstudent to come on here and answer a few questions for the curious folks? Maybe they'd enjoy bragging about their work for a bit :)I must confess that I am only a 2nd year undergraduate and my knowledge of a lot of the methodology behind how we solve and evolve the Einstein equations is minimal (I mostly just do visualization of the data to make the movies like you saw above). However, I believe hamster143's explanation is correct, at least in spirit if not in detail. One starts with a set of additional conditions and constraints, and then you solve spatial slices always enforcing (or checking) the constraints. Sorry I can't give a better explanation, perhaps in a couple of years!
Gravitational radiation? Can you support that statement with some reference where I can see exact equations used in such simulations, or if you can just write the equation down here, please?No you cannot.
That video shows decaying orbits due to gravitational radiation. Neither is possible in Newton's law of gravity.
What are you talking about? You have yet to show me any GR software that can simulate the complete Solar system, while there is thousands of them that can do it Newton's laws of motion and gravity, and with great precision even through millions of years of simulated time. The "error" then is obviously not in the equation, but in our measurements, estimates, approximation of point masses and computer precision.And second, even in Einstein's time, astronomy measurements of bodies in the solar system showed deviations from Newton's Laws. The data fits GR though. Also, with current measurements, the deviations from Newton's laws can be even more interesting.
It is not a problem to be solved exactly in any case, it's a chaotic system, hence numerical integration. N-body problem, like any other time-integral, is "problem" only because we need to make discrete time steps in our simulation, so the real problem is approximation of the time intervals and computer power/precision.Maybe your question is: Why do GR simulations?
Because while we can solve the two body problem in Newtonian mechanics (but have trouble with the three body and above).
Can, or can not? You should be able to solve n-body problems with GR just like it can be solved (approximated) classically, equations can be different but the time integration algorithm stays pretty much the same, and all the problems from above apply just the same.We can't solve the two body problem in GR!
I absolutely agree, that's how I know Newton's law of gravity works amazingly well. On the other hand, I wonder how you can confirm that simulation of two black holes is valid?So simulations are very important.
It currently is the only way to make contact between experiment and theory in many cases (especially in the gravitational wave calculation like in that video).
As with any other question, the point is to get answer.What's your point?
It's not the question of what I "need", but what GR can or can not do.You're correct, you do not need full GR to model the solar system. To leading order, you probably don't need GR at all. But for planets like mercury, you can probably use a newtonian approximation to GR, or some other such approximation, in order to get a result within the desired precision.
Huh?!?! Why would that be a waste of computer time?I don't understand what the point of your post is... Do you want someone to do a solar system simulation using full GR? If so, this would be a colossal waste of computing time.
It would be a waste of computer time because the gravity is so weak in the solar system, that you can calculate the metric due to a massive body (we CAN analytically solve some one body problems in GR), and then just treat the planets as test particle moving in this background. I do not know of any orbit measurements in the solar system that this level of approximation doesn't fully cover. Maybe someone in astronomy can comment.Huh?!?! Why would that be a waste of computer time?
Write down the equation and I will do it in less than 5 hours.
Are you not a programmer?
We're saying the predictions were made with GR to within the experimental limits. There is no reason they must solve everything the way you are suggesting, as that is often overkill.Are you really saying that no one ever even bothered to check those GR equations by simulating complete Solar system? Why then do you think those equations are better than Newton's equations, how can you verify them otherwise, by observing black holes collisions ?
Ugh.You have yet to show me any GR software that can simulate the complete Solar system, while there is thousands of them that can do it Newton's laws of motion and gravity, and with great precision even through millions of years of simulated time. The "error" then is obviously not in the equation, but in our measurements, estimates, approximation of point masses and computer precision.