Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 619 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
A
Arun Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
I have also been working in this field for last few years. We do not have any analytic theory to solve "gravitational N-body probelm" so the use
of supercomputers seems to be ultimate choice.
There are many drawbacks of this approch. Computers work like "black box", we do not know what "actually happens" when a system evolve.
Everbody use his or her own "codes" and "machnines" for simulation and there is no standerization so there is little hope to compare results of one simulation to another.
Last but not lest in place of trying to understand physics, most of the time people just compete for bigger and bigger simulation and it cause wastage of governments money.

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
How will the understanding of Physics help solve the problem...?

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
A
Arun Offline OP
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2
The main aim of science is not just to know the
answers, it also want to know, how the answer was
obtained. My point is that, in order to solve scientific problems we should follow that approach, which can ge used for other problems also.

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I don't think that the N-body problem exactly qualifies as a black-box type problem, but I think I understand your argument. For some problems, particularly certain types of complex adaptive systems, I can't imagine a better approach than simulation - that is, I can't imagine an analytic solution to the problem.

Computer time is now cheap and so it's easier and vastly less expensive to solve certain problems numerically than to attempt analytic solution. My perception is that in the 60s and 70s the Russians were doing much better at developing math than the US mainly because they didn't have computing resources and they had no choice other than to get smarter.

I think it's a situation with perceived cost-benefit. People think, "Why spend all these resources when we can just do it numerically?" OTOH, it would be good for N-body even if we had a proof, say, that there is no analytic solution. That way we'd know up front if it were a waste of time.

Somehow I think we're going to be waiting for the next Newton, Gauss, or Erdos for an analytic solution to N-body. In the mean time there's all these underutilized computing resources lying about.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5