
Advertisement
Sign in to follow this
Followers
0
ParticleParticle Simulation: Magnetic/Electric Fields & Nbody Orbitals
By
PlayStationX, in Math and Physics
This topic is 3538 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.
If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.
Advertisement
PlayStationX 100
Quote:
At numerical analysis (is this how it's called?) classes I had to simulate a simple 2 fixedbodies and one moving body over a gravitational field, at the time I came accross this:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_what_is.html
At the bottom of the page there is a link to "N body problem", might be useful for you. Even tough this is for gravitational fields, as you stated, they're preety similar, after you figured out the forces
i'm sorry, hopefully after i fix tags the message will be more readable.
im very familiar with nbody problem and numerical integration, perhaps even more than anyone else. in any case, familiar enough to be able to program all that you can see on YouTube videos. have you seen anything like it before, can you share some links?
these are with question mark:
1.) what is the force behind covalent bond?
2.) links and info about 3D nbody simulation software that deals with dynamics of charges and taking into account both electric and magnetic fields?
3.) did you really think humans are on some "bottom" of grand scale of dimensions and that particle accelerators could be close to finding the fundamentalindivisible particles?
thanks
0
h4tt3n 1974
Hi there,
A bit of googling gave me this applet + complete source:
http://www.falstad.com/qmatom/
The reference section of wikipedias article on atomic orbitals has several similar links.
I watched your youtube vids and think they are all very beautiful. I've made something very similar with gravitational interaction  as have many others.
I think the reason you won't find much on numerical atomic particle simulation is that it's simply not possible to do with the same degree of accuracy as gravitational interaction. Any numerical "newtonian" simulation completely evades the dualistic particle / wave form of particles and phenomenons having to do with relativistic speed. This is not a problem when simulating stars & planets, but it's a huge problem when simulating subatomic particles.
Cheers,
Mike
A bit of googling gave me this applet + complete source:
http://www.falstad.com/qmatom/
The reference section of wikipedias article on atomic orbitals has several similar links.
I watched your youtube vids and think they are all very beautiful. I've made something very similar with gravitational interaction  as have many others.
I think the reason you won't find much on numerical atomic particle simulation is that it's simply not possible to do with the same degree of accuracy as gravitational interaction. Any numerical "newtonian" simulation completely evades the dualistic particle / wave form of particles and phenomenons having to do with relativistic speed. This is not a problem when simulating stars & planets, but it's a huge problem when simulating subatomic particles.
Cheers,
Mike
0
PlayStationX 100
Quote:
At numerical analysis (is this how it's called?) classes I had to simulate a simple 2 fixedbodies and one moving body over a gravitational field, at the time I came accross this:
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_what_is.html
At the bottom of the page there is a link to "N body problem", might be useful for you. Even tough this is for gravitational fields, as you stated, they're preety similar, after you figured out the forces
hey, thanks.
i've seen all that, quantum mechanics and probability clouds... very interesting.
however, what im looking for is more similar to these gravity simulators  there are plenty of solar system simulators out there. well, why not  it is rather simple equation that does it all: F= m*a = G*m1*m2/r^2
slightly different for electrical fields (charges): F= m*a = k*Q1*Q2/r^2
but still i can not find anything in 3D, and even less to include magnetic fields, why? not commercial, nor hobbyist software of this kind?
how come? for example, you could simulate and design wiring in electronic equipment to minimize interference and nullify unwanted fields, you could simulate workings of TV, cathode ray tube (CRT) and stuff like that.
im actually freaked out that there is no some, at least educational, software to make use of this as a visualization method and very cheap way to experiment with all sort of particles and voltages and strong magnets and high speeds and whatever else is too expensive or unpractical to demonstrate in a lab...
so, where the is this software? whats going on?
0
taby 1265
You calculate the scalar force, divide it by the scalar mass to get the scalar acceleration, which is finally multiplied by a unit vector that points from the gravitated body to the gravitating body to arrive at the final acceleration vector. Ditto for electrostatics. The unit and acceleration vectors can be either 1, 2 or 3 dimensional depending on what you want.
Don't let the distance squared factor confuse you into thinking it's a 2Donly equation. The distance squared is actually derived from the math related to solid angle, which is an inherently 3D concept (see: inverse square falloff).
Modeling Maxwell's equations (full of calculus) is very difficult compared to basic electrostatics and classical gravitation (minimal calculus). I would recommend learning these easier ones first before tackling the harder stuff.
If you want to learn a simple model of the hydrogen atom, try the Bohr model.
Don't let the distance squared factor confuse you into thinking it's a 2Donly equation. The distance squared is actually derived from the math related to solid angle, which is an inherently 3D concept (see: inverse square falloff).
Modeling Maxwell's equations (full of calculus) is very difficult compared to basic electrostatics and classical gravitation (minimal calculus). I would recommend learning these easier ones first before tackling the harder stuff.
If you want to learn a simple model of the hydrogen atom, try the Bohr model.
0
PlayStationX 100
Quote:
What gives you the impression that these equations aren't inherently 3D? They are.
i simply do not see what is it you are referring to, can you quote my sentence please?
Quote:
Don't let the distance squared factor confuse you into thinking it's a 2Donly equation. The distance squared is actually derived from the math related to solid angle, which is an inherently 3D concept (see: inverse square falloff).
can you please explain why did you say that?
i have no idea what is it you are saying. are you correcting me? did i make some mistake? did i say something wrong? please quote it.
0
taby 1265
Quote:
Original post by PlayStationX Quote:
What gives you the impression that these equations aren't inherently 3D? They are.
i simply do not see what is it you are referring to, can you quote my sentence please?
"but still i can not find anything in 3D"
I think I see my error. You were referring to software, and not the equations?
I have some basic OpenGL code that simulates Mercury orbiting around the Sun. Although the orbit naturally lies along a 2D plane, the code is fully 3D. Did you want it?
0
PlayStationX 100
Quote:
I think I see my error. You were referring to software, and not the equations?
yes, i agree those equations are "3D", since inverse square ratio comes out as an effect of 3 dimensions  ratio of increase in surface area of an expanding sphere or something like that.
Quote:
If you want to learn a simple model of the hydrogen atom, try the Bohr model.
well, i kind of think i learned all about it i could learn without actually doing experiments myself.
with all that knowledge i decide to start this project and i got amazed with the results, so i wanted to see what others have got  and what i find is that there are no other simulations like this... and i wonder, why?
[Edited by  PlayStationX on January 8, 2009 11:33:20 PM]
0
h4tt3n 1974
Quote:
Original post by PlayStationX
with all that knowledge i decide to start this project and i got amazed with the results, so i wanted to see what others have got  and what i find is that there are no other simulations like this... and i wonder, why?
As already mentioned, because you simply can't do it. I suppose you can use a particle engine to simulate a beam of electrons moving in a magnetic field, but once you try to simulate electron orbitals it gets hopeles. Once an electron forms an orbit it doesn't have particle properties any longer, it is a standing electromagnetic wave.
0
Sign in to follow this
Followers
0

Advertisement
http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_what_is.html
At the bottom of the page there is a link to "N body problem", might be useful for you. Even tough this is for gravitational fields, as you stated, they're preety similar, after you figured out the forces
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites