9 ms·

I would love to see a choice of initial conditions, one of which being a couple 'galaxies' of particles on a collision course. Also, a way to reset the simulat

I would love to see a choice of initial conditions, one of which being a couple 'galaxies' of particles on a collision course. Also, a way to reset the simulation without reloading the page would be nice.

acadien 13y ago
Galaxies would require coupling of the particles, interactions through gravity... this would kill the efficiency of the solver. N-Particle simulations are always O(N^2) (or more).
- bochi 13y ago
  Barnes-Hut is O(n log n) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation
  - acadien 13y ago
    Yes, once you start cutting off long range effects you can improve on the strict O(N^2) limitations.
    - cscheid 13y ago
      It's not cutting off. It's replacing many long-range effects with a single one weighted more (and done it carefully so that the floating-point error is literally smaller than you could tell). There's even better methods that take O(n) time, like the fast multipole expansion ones.
      - darkmighty 13y ago
        Btw this goes into numerical analysis, and O(-) is important but so is error convergence. I imagine these big-O figures are for a constant error, but I figure the asymptotic may change behavior as the other parameter changes.
    - ngoldbaum 13y ago
      One could also use FFTs and the particle-mesh method or a TreePM method. Basically, the particle masses are deposited on a fine mesh. Poisson's equation gets solved using FFTs and then the particle accelerations are computed by interpolating on the gradient of the potential field.
- mistercow 13y ago
  You could potentially do better than N^2 (ish) by approximating. Quantize the world into a grid, add up mass at each grid point. Then each particle is affected by this weighted grid, which is made up of a relatively small number of pseudo-particles. Of course, you'd still need to fall back to N^2 for the nearest particles, or the accuracy would be unusably bad. But it's a much smaller N.
ep103 13y ago
I moved the mouse very slightly at the edge, which caused all the particles to eventually settle in two separate spinning groups. Then I started making fast circles around one of the groups, and once the group started following the pattern, added a slowly moving center of rotation towards the other undisturbed group. This caused it to slowly move towards the stationary one, until they collided, each ripping from the other, until they merged.
- minikomi 13y ago
  This reads like something on erowid

acadien 13y ago

Galaxies would require coupling of the particles, interactions through gravity... this would kill the efficiency of the solver. N-Particle simulations are always O(N^2) (or more).

bochi 13y ago
Barnes-Hut is O(n log n) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes%E2%80%93Hut_simulation
- acadien 13y ago
  Yes, once you start cutting off long range effects you can improve on the strict O(N^2) limitations.
  - cscheid 13y ago
    It's not cutting off. It's replacing many long-range effects with a single one weighted more (and done it carefully so that the floating-point error is literally smaller than you could tell). There's even better methods that take O(n) time, like the fast multipole expansion ones.
    - darkmighty 13y ago
      Btw this goes into numerical analysis, and O(-) is important but so is error convergence. I imagine these big-O figures are for a constant error, but I figure the asymptotic may change behavior as the other parameter changes.
  - ngoldbaum 13y ago
    One could also use FFTs and the particle-mesh method or a TreePM method. Basically, the particle masses are deposited on a fine mesh. Poisson's equation gets solved using FFTs and then the particle accelerations are computed by interpolating on the gradient of the potential field.
mistercow 13y ago
You could potentially do better than N^2 (ish) by approximating. Quantize the world into a grid, add up mass at each grid point. Then each particle is affected by this weighted grid, which is made up of a relatively small number of pseudo-particles. Of course, you'd still need to fall back to N^2 for the nearest particles, or the accuracy would be unusably bad. But it's a much smaller N.

ep103 13y ago

I moved the mouse very slightly at the edge, which caused all the particles to eventually settle in two separate spinning groups. Then I started making fast circles around one of the groups, and once the group started following the pattern, added a slowly moving center of rotation towards the other undisturbed group. This caused it to slowly move towards the stationary one, until they collided, each ripping from the other, until they merged.

minikomi 13y ago
This reads like something on erowid