MA Emilio Schmidt/Lothars Notes - Revision history

Lothar.brendel: /* Pressure Truncation */ effect?

2026-06-01T06:57:32Z

Pressure Truncation: effect?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:57, 1 June 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Pressure Truncation =		= Pressure Truncation =

	While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore ''all'' mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of letting the density vanish continuously and thus ignoring ''less'' of the mass?		While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore ''all'' mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of letting the density vanish continuously and thus ignoring ''less'' of the mass? Is the background pressure (or density) supposed to have an ''effect'' or is it just a means to an end, namely to define a finite \(R_\text{max}\)?

Lothar.brendel: /* Pressure Truncation */ peter out

2026-05-31T21:56:10Z

Pressure Truncation: peter out

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:56, 31 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= Pressure Truncation =		= Pressure Truncation =

	While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore all mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of ignoring ~~it altogether and letting \(R_\text{max}\to\infty\)? In other words, does~~ the mass ~~from \(\rho_\text{background}\) contained in \(r<R_\text{max}\) play any physical role, or is rather \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\) an "excuse" for a finite \(R_\text{max}\)~~?		While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore ''all'' mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of letting the density vanish continuously and thus ignoring ''less'' of the mass?

Lothar.brendel: mew

2026-05-31T18:38:20Z

mew

New page

= Pressure Truncation =

While it's true that space is not vacuum, in which sense and to what degree is it more accurate to ignore all mass beyond \(R_\text{max}\) (being defined via \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\)) instead of ignoring it altogether and letting \(R_\text{max}\to\infty\)? In other words, does the mass from \(\rho_\text{background}\) contained in \(r<R_\text{max}\) play any physical role, or is rather \(\rho(R_\text{max})=\rho_\text{background}\) an "excuse" for a finite \(R_\text{max}\)?