A Velocity Verlet for relativistic simulation

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter Philip Koeck
  • Start date Start date
Philip Koeck
Gold Member
Messages
801
Reaction score
229
I'm simulating a situation that's partly relativistic and I'm wondering if it's wise to use Velocity Verlet.

A fast electron (200 keV or roughly 208 000 000 m/s) travels along the z-axis and intersects a beam of slower electrons (1 keV or roughly 20 000 000 m/s) that are moving along the x-axis.

I treat the slower electrons as non-relativistic.

For the fast electron I assume it's travelling essentially in the z-direction at all times, which is very accurate as far as I can see.
So I use the parallel corrected mass in the z-direction and the orthogonal in x and y to get the acceleration of the fast electron at every time step.

I realise that velocity verlet is not intended for accelerations that are velocity-dependent, but in this case the velocity of the fast electron is almost constant so γ and γ3 are almost constant during the whole simulation.

Does it sound okay to use Velocity Verlet in this case or should I consider a different algorithm?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know the answer to your question about the integrator, but you could try working with four-vectors. The four velocity has a constant magnitude by definition and the Lorentz force law relates to it via the four momentum which is the invariant mass times the four velocity.
 
  • Like
Likes Philip Koeck
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top