it is interesting i could not find many particle-particle simulators that simulate electrical fields even thought dynamics is pretty similar to that of planetary orbitals. there are few i could find but they are mostly 2D and defining problem in mathematical/geometrical terms, with sin/cos or some harmonic oscillator functions. none, however, i could find that simulate CLASSICAL ELECTRODYNAMICS (Stochastic El.Dynm. - SED) in 3D n-body system and even less to include MAGNETIC FIELDS, which are the effect of moving electric fields, says Lorentz and friends... this is kind of situation and type of particles i want to simulate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Quote: what is the force behind covalent bond? what came first, chicken or egg? Merovingian: - You see, there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth - Causality. Action, reaction. - Cause and effect. how wonderful, the mystery and essence of Life, Universe and Everything lies in contradiction - the cause that is an effect of itself. ah, beautiful self-emerging craziness... im talking about field forces here, magnetic and electric. ...are magnetic dipoles the essence of Life, Universe and Everything? these dipoles would then need to be infinitely divisible while retaining its original properties, including the Yin-Yang duality, which is also kind of holographic quality, fractalous smell it has.... but, what the hell does it all mean? ehmm, would you not think infinity goes both ways? infinite microcosmos, as well as macrocosmos... did you really think humans are on some "bottom" of grand scale of dimensions? hahaha... it's funny because its true, but not in the spatial sense, size does not matter scale-wise. well, if there is any meaning in this blabbering, then let it be that universe is ANALOG, rather then digital... so, these particle accelerators and search for the smallest indivisible "atom" from which everything is composed will always be futile and more and more expensive, until it causes black hole and doom us all. science is great! ...its like smashing a clock off the wall in a hope to figure out how it works, by looking at all the broken pieces flying around. Equations: http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/PHYS1169/beilby/magnetism.html

You may have mused in the past, why one of my ....., or my girlfriend's .... is smaller than the other? well, look at that photo above, CHIRALITY is built-in. this universe is rather quier, it pulls on one side more than on the other. breaking of the symmetry... - CHARGES & MAGNETO-ELECTRIC FIELD FORCES - Magnetic Fields - test1

"> Electric and Magnetic Fields: Positron & Electron do the helix dance

"> DIPOLE MAGNETIC FIELDS due to moving electric charges (not spin yet)... HydrogZen-2

"> HydrogZen-1, Spontaneous formation of NEUTRAL Quazi-Hydrogen atoms

"> - MASS & GRAVITY FIELD FORCE - Chaos in a Box: Inverse Square and Fractal kind of Randomness http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4342269507182595610 little twitching worms, all right, lets see how does it compare... http://www.bo.infn.it/antares/bolle_proc/foto.html in essence, i hope to be able to manage and somehow force these virtual atoms to aggregate with the use of "covalent bonds" by simulating it all with classical mechanics rather than quantum, which is contradictory to the "analog universe" somewhat.... anyway, any idea? any similar software out there? [Edited by - PlayStationX on January 10, 2009 5:43:24 PM]

At numerical analysis (is this how it's called?) classes I had to simulate a simple 2 fixed-bodies 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

Quote:
At numerical analysis (is this how it's called?) classes I had to simulate a simple 2 fixed-bodies 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 n-body 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 n-body 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 fundamental-indivisible particles?



thanks

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

Quote:
At numerical analysis (is this how it's called?) classes I had to simulate a simple 2 fixed-bodies 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?

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 2D-only 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.

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 2D-only 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.

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?

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]

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.