MA Emilio Schmidt/Lothars Notes: Difference between revisions

From Arbeitsgruppe Kuiper
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(mew)
 
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?

Revision as of 23:56, 31 May 2026

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?