As I know, for example the modelling of the collapse of a neutron star (to a black hole) wasn't done correctly until now.

Why? Yes, I know, the Einstein Field Equations aren't really easy to solve. But, for example, the situation is very similar in the case of the QCD, but there are already fruitful results existing ( http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/nov/21/proton-and-neutron-masses-calculated-from-first-principles ).

Is there any theoretical obstacle in the way? Or we simply didn't have enough fast computers/physicist/programmer manyear until now?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you give more details about the model you have found? $\endgroup$
    – HDE 226868
    Sep 16, 2014 at 15:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps, this sort of calculation is not so interesting (compared to QCD). What has been done is the merging of two BHs (including the gravitational radiation and the resulting anisotropic effects) $\endgroup$
    – Walter
    Sep 16, 2014 at 16:36

1 Answer 1


If you can provide examples of numerical methods in GR you've seen/heard of that would help focus the question.

From the article you linked to: "The technique keeps track of a vast number of quarks and gluons by describing the space and time inside a proton with a set of points that make up a 4D lattice". This almost gets to the main issue with Numerical Relativity. There is no natural computational grid on which to simulate space-time. The whole game with GR is that gravity is space-time so first you have to simulate the space-time and then you have to simulate the objects (neutron stars, black holes, gravitational waves) on top.

As the links below go into, its very difficult to create a consistent computational grid since the physical space-time your trying to simulate for a black hole has "funny" things in it like singularities, or an event horizon pas which we can't really know what's going on.

I think this article: http://astronomy.com/magazine/2016/02/putting-einstein-to-the-test?page=1

does a good job of summing up the field, and its quite accessible.

For something more rigorous please see: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1010.5260v2.pdf That paper gets into some of the math behind the article linked to above.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .