Talk:N-body problem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] Name of the page
Why not rename the page "The n-body problem" to avoid the naming convention problem? [anon 1/6/06]
"The two-body problem is simple; its solution is that each body travels along a conic section and their common focus is the center of mass."
This is far from clear. Should it perhaps be: "... each body travels along a conic section whose focus [or: one of whose foci] is the two bodies' common center of mass"?
S.
Perhaps "...each body travels along a conic section which has a focus at the centre of mass of the system". -- Khendon 14:24 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)
I have added the definition of the n-body problem to the page. Someone should expand the mathematical content a bit further (and perhaps illustrate my rather technical definition). I think the Many-body_problem is useless and the little content on the page should be merged into this page. MathMartin 14:47, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
It's a big decision, since many-body applies to quantum, typically, and N-body to celestial mechanics. Of course many-body should have better content.
Charles Matthews 14:53, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, then I will not merge the pages. I did not know there was a semantic difference between the many-body-problem and the n-body-problem. MathMartin 14:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Mathematical Formulation
The parameter γ is not defined.
- Done Oub 17:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC):
[edit] Sundmans Theorem
Plz someone give me Sundman's series !!! I want to know them!! I cant believe they are not here either ive been looking on the web a lot and nowere to find (read hate >-( ) and put it on here too. Thanks in advance tommy plz send a copy of the series to my email : tommy1729@hotmail.com bye.
- I send you an email: are you still interested?Oub 14:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC):
[edit] Cannot Be Solved vs. Impossible to Solve
I've found a bit of disagreement in people I've talked to about the three-body problem. All of them know that no analytical solution is known at the moment, but they disagree as to if an (as yet unknown) solution exists. It's an abscence of proof/proof of abscence thing -- Some simply shrug and say we don't know yet, and others are insistent that it has been proven that there never will be an nalytical solution (like it has been proven that pi is trancendental). Unfortunately, none of them can say where they have heard that. I guess what I'm asking is for more information as to the mathematical status of the problem. -- 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- You are right. As a matter of fact Sundmans Theorem provides a global solution of the 3 body problem. Still even many textbooks claim that no such solution can exist. This wrong believe goes back to results of Bruns and Poincaré about the non existence of certain integrals. I think that even Poincaré claimed that from his result it would follow that certain perturbation series, for example the Linstedt series would diverge. That proved wrong see Sundman.
Oub 14:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC):
[edit] Animated GIF
The animated GIF is way too large -- 2MB! Is there some wikipedia standard for animated things? Flash would be a much better idea (or SVG, though that wouldn't work for many people). ehudshapira 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this too, at first. I found that it's explained here, however, that (with regards to images) "You don't have to worry about server disk space and the loadtime of the Wikipedia pages that refer to them, since the software automatically generates and caches smaller (as specified in the articles) versions." Caillan 09:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Later edit: Opps, I see now that 2MB is the size of the image in the article, not just the size of the file in the Commons. I've got a reduced version the image I'll talk to the contributer about replacing the current one. Caillan 09:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it of crashing my whole computer. It adds about 200meg to firefox's memory usage.
