> I've looked into why there's a total vacuum of numerical simulation, and the reason is simply snobbery. There's a philosophy that numerical methods are what m

> I've looked into why there's a total vacuum of numerical simulation, and the reason is simply snobbery. There's a philosophy that numerical methods are what mere engineers do, and not as intellectually pure as symbolic solutions. This is basically false as far as I can see. Numerical methods are basically the only way to solve either general relativity or quantum equations, but even then it's extremely difficult to get accurate calculations with a practical amount of compute power. There's intense competition over who can get the best results here (in fact the leading group in lattice QCD keeps their code a secret, which is not great science). I think the core reason you don't see much visualisations is the visualisations are not very useful. The little visualisations I've seen of extremely simplified versions quickly dissolve into complete mush as everything overlaps. It would not suprise me if the more complex interactions (like two real particles in 3d) were basically unintelligable and extremely difficult to make intelligable without becoming 'cartoons'.