Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the oldest problems in physics is that of calculating the motion of N particles under a specified mutual force: the N-body problem. Much is known about this problem if the specified force is non-relativistic gravity, and considerable progress has been made by considering the problem in one spatial dimension. Here, I review what is known about the relativistic gravitational N-body problem. Reduction to one spatial dimension has the feature of the absence of gravitational radiation, thereby allowing for a clear comparison between the physics of one-dimensional relativistic and non-relativistic self-gravitating systems. After describing how to obtain a relativistic theory of gravity coupled to N point particles, I discuss in turn the two-body, three-body, four-body, and N-body problems. Quite general exact solutions can be obtained for the two-body problem, unlike the situation in general relativity in three spatial dimensions for which only highly specified solutions exist. The three-body problem exhibits mild forms of chaos, and provides one of the first theoretical settings in which relativistic chaos can be studied. For N≥4, other interesting features emerge. Relativistic self-gravitating systems have a number of interesting problems awaiting further investigation, providing us with a new frontier for exploring relativistic many-body systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".