pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06487 · v1 · pith:VBKO77GEnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌀 gr-qc

Numerical self-force calculations for scalar particles, formulated in the lab frame

Stamatis Vretinaris , Erik Schnetter , Badri Krishnan This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords self-forcescalar fieldeffective sourcelab framenumerical methodsequations of motionradiation reactionfinite discretization
0
0 comments X

The pith

Scalar self-force equations derived in the lab frame with finite particle size h simplify and become directly suitable for numerical discretization.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives equations of motion for scalar particles that self-consistently interact with their scalar field, including radiation produced by acceleration. It does so by treating the particle as a small finite object of size h, selecting the state vector before writing the equations, and working explicitly in the lab frame rather than in covariant form. This produces simpler equations that lend themselves to an effective source treatment and to direct numerical implementation. A sympathetic reader would care because the resulting method is shown to work in one-dimensional tests that match analytic solutions and is presented as immediately generalizable to electrodynamics or general relativity.

Core claim

By assuming a small but finite discretization length scale h, choosing the state vector for the system before deriving equations of motion, and formulating the equations explicitly in the lab frame, the authors obtain self-consistent equations of motion for scalar particles interacting with a scalar field. This approach greatly simplifies the resulting equations and their derivation while remaining directly suitable for numerical calculations via an effective source method. The method is illustrated with two possible discretizations based on finite volumes and spectral methods; one-dimensional calculations exhibit excellent agreement with analytic solutions.

What carries the argument

The lab-frame effective source method constructed with finite discretization length h, which treats the particle as a small finite object and carries the simplification of the equations.

If this is right

  • The equations admit direct discretization by finite-volume or spectral methods.
  • One-dimensional implementations agree with analytic solutions to high accuracy.
  • The effective source construction extends straightforwardly to electrodynamics and general relativity.
  • Self-force effects that include radiation reaction are captured without additional regularization steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The lab-frame starting point may reduce the need for coordinate transformations when the same method is applied inside existing Cartesian numerical codes.
  • Testing the same construction for a particle on a circular orbit in Schwarzschild spacetime would check whether the reported simplification survives curvature.
  • The finite-h regularization might be compared directly with other point-particle regularizations to measure any difference in the extracted self-force.

Load-bearing premise

That selecting the state vector before deriving the equations and writing them in the lab frame rather than covariantly produces a self-consistent simplification that remains accurate when h is taken small but finite.

What would settle it

A numerical solution of the discretized equations in a known analytic self-force problem that deviates from the exact radiation-reaction force when h is reduced would show the approach fails to remain accurate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06487 by Badri Krishnan, Erik Schnetter, Stamatis Vretinaris.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Field Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Space-time evolution of Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Zoom onto the particle: Space-time evolution of Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Convergence order for Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Scaled errors of the numerical fields Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Scaled errors for Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Resolutions for Π [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: A particle’s self-field and its effective source. In one space dimension, a particle’s field is proportional to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We compare two cases – a particle where the radiation reaction has been turned off (the particle sees [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Particle position and velocity vs. time both without and with radiation reaction. Both graphs are very similar. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: A convergence test showing the scaled particle position and velocity differences for four resolutions. As ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Generated radiation field at the final time, compared to the Li´enard-Wiechert approximation which ignores [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: A convergence test showing the scaled radiation field differences at the final time. As expected, our discretiza [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Particle estimated radiation power vs. time, calculated via a Li´enard-Wiechert potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Particle energy vs. time. The particle energy decreases over time. It does so in bursts because the particle is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We derive equations of motion for scalar particles self-consistently interacting with a scalar field,including the radiation produced by the particles' acceleration. Our approach differs in three key aspects from current methods: (1) we assume a small but finite discretization length scale $h$, which allows us to treat the particle as a small but finite object, (2) we choose the state vector for the system before deriving equations of motion, and (3) we formulate the equations explicitly in the lab frame and not in a manifestly covariant manner. This approach, which is self-consistent, happens to greatly simplify the resulting equations and their derivation, and is directly suitable for numerical calculations. The result is an effective source method which generalizes to electrodynamics or general relativity in a straightforward manner (although we do not consider this here). We then provide two possible discretizations of these equations, based on finite volumes and spectral methods, and show results of one-dimensional calculations. These calculations show excellent agreement with analytic solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper derives equations of motion for scalar particles self-consistently interacting with a scalar field by assuming a small but finite discretization length h, selecting the state vector prior to deriving the equations, and formulating everything explicitly in the lab frame rather than in a manifestly covariant way. This produces an effective-source formulation that the authors state greatly simplifies the equations and is directly amenable to numerical discretization. Finite-volume and spectral discretizations are presented, with one-dimensional numerical results shown to agree with known analytic solutions to high accuracy. Generalization to electrodynamics or general relativity is asserted to be straightforward but is not carried out.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the lab-frame finite-h approach offers a numerically practical route to self-force calculations for the scalar case, with the 1D agreement to analytic solutions providing concrete evidence of self-consistency and implementability. The explicit choice of state vector and avoidance of manifest covariance are presented as sources of simplification; if these survive detailed scrutiny they could reduce the technical overhead of effective-source methods.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph on the three key aspects: the claim that the approach 'greatly simplifies the resulting equations and their derivation' rests on a derivation that is summarized rather than exhibited in full; without the explicit steps showing how the lab-frame state-vector choice eliminates terms or yields the effective source, it is difficult to assess whether the simplification is genuine or merely a re-arrangement.
  2. [Numerical results] The numerical section (1D calculations): while agreement with analytic solutions is reported, the manuscript does not quantify the dependence on the free parameter h (e.g., convergence rate as h is reduced while remaining finite) or demonstrate that the physical solution is recovered in the h o0 limit; this is load-bearing for the assertion that finite but small h remains physically accurate.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the state vector and the effective source should be introduced with an explicit definition before first use to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the lab-frame formulation.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a short table comparing the number of terms or the structure of the equations obtained here versus a standard covariant effective-source derivation, even if only schematic.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address the two major points below and indicate the revisions that will be incorporated.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the paragraph on the three key aspects: the claim that the approach 'greatly simplifies the resulting equations and their derivation' rests on a derivation that is summarized rather than exhibited in full; without the explicit steps showing how the lab-frame state-vector choice eliminates terms or yields the effective source, it is difficult to assess whether the simplification is genuine or merely a re-arrangement.

    Authors: We agree that the derivation steps are presented in summarized form and that additional explicit detail would allow readers to evaluate the claimed simplification directly. In the revised manuscript we will expand the derivation section to exhibit the intermediate steps, showing how the pre-chosen lab-frame state vector removes specific terms and produces the effective source. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Numerical results] The numerical section (1D calculations): while agreement with analytic solutions is reported, the manuscript does not quantify the dependence on the free parameter h (e.g., convergence rate as h is reduced while remaining finite) or demonstrate that the physical solution is recovered in the h→0 limit; this is load-bearing for the assertion that finite but small h remains physically accurate.

    Authors: The existing 1D results demonstrate agreement at a fixed small but finite h. We acknowledge that a quantitative study of the h-dependence is needed to support the physical accuracy claim. We will add a new subsection (or supplementary figure) that varies h, reports the observed convergence rate, and explicitly shows recovery of the analytic solution as h approaches zero. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The derivation begins from explicit assumptions (finite h, chosen state vector, lab-frame formulation) and produces effective-source equations that are then discretized and validated against independent analytic solutions in 1D. No step reduces a claimed prediction or result to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The generalization claim is explicitly scoped as future work and not used to support the scalar results. The central claims remain independent of the paper's own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard scalar-field theory plus the modeling choice of finite h; full ledger requires the manuscript.

free parameters (1)
  • h
    Small but finite discretization length scale introduced to treat the particle as a finite object.
axioms (1)
  • standard math Scalar field equations govern the particle-field interaction
    Background assumption invoked for self-consistent interaction including radiation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5706 in / 1059 out tokens · 27808 ms · 2026-06-27T23:53:26.778731+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Self-force on a static scalar charge in traversable wormholes

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Mode-sum computation of static scalar self-force in Konoplya-Zhidenko wormholes shows parameter-dependent sign changes and slower-than-usual large-distance decay for large redshift parameter p.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    As described above, we assume thatρ 0 has a finite support of sizeℓ, withℓ≲hwherehis a given length cutoff parameter

    Particle at rest We define the charge distribution for a particle at rest at the origin to beρ 0(xi). As described above, we assume thatρ 0 has a finite support of sizeℓ, withℓ≲hwherehis a given length cutoff parameter. 4 This charge distribution is associated with a scalar field Φ 0(xi) through the Poisson equation δij∂i∂jΦ0 :=ρ 0 . (4) This particle has...

  2. [2]

    We describe the particle at a fixed instance of time in the lab frame

    Moving particle We consider a particle located at positionz i and moving with a constant three-velocityv i. We describe the particle at a fixed instance of time in the lab frame. This will allow us below to make the particle part of the state vector; a state vector describes a physical system at an instance of time. The charge distribution and potential a...

  3. [3]

    at rest at that instant in time

    Zeno’s Arrow Paradox In the arrow paradox [37, 38], Zeno of Elea (c. 490–430 BC) argues: . . . If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest at that instant of time, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless at that instant of time and at the next instant of time ...

  4. [4]

    Particle equations of motion We describe the particle trajectory by the functionsz i p(t) andv i p(t). The well-known equations of motion for the particle in a given external (background) potential Φ e are then ∂tzi p =v i p (18) γ(M 0 +QΦ e)∂ tvi p ≈ −Qδ ij∂jΦe(zi p) (19) with the particle charge distribution ρp(t, xi) :=ρ lab(zi p(t), vi p(t);x i).(20) ...

  5. [5]

    Representing the particle field We choose to define the particle field Φ p (at a timet) as the field of a non-accelerating particle (at that same time t), as seen in the lab frame. We already defined these quantities in section III B 2 above: Φp(t, xi) := Φ lab(zi p(t), vi p(t);x i) (24) Πp(t, xi) := Π lab(zi p(t), vi p(t);x i) (25) ρp(t, xi) :=ρ lab(zi p...

  6. [6]

    one dimension

    Equations of motion The equations of motion for the remainder fields Φ r and Πr are now automatically also defined. They follow from the equations of motion for the physical fields Φ and Π. They are ∂tΦr =∂ tΦ−∂ tΦp (36) = Π−Π p −S Φ (37) = Π r −S Φ (38) ∂tΠr =∂ tΠ−∂ tΠp (39) =δ ij∂i∂jΦ−ρ−δ ij∂i∂jΦp +ρ p −S Π (40) =δ ij∂i∂jΦr −S Π (41) These are the same ...

  7. [7]

    First-order formulation We rewrite the system (36) above in a fully first-order form by introducing a new variable Ψ i :=∂ iΦ: ∂tΦr = Π r −S Φ (42) ∂tΠr =δ ij∂iΨr,j −S Π (43) ∂tΨr,i =∂ iΠr −S Ψ (44) where SΨ :=∂ iSΦ . (45)

  8. [8]

    Characteristics We represent the field equations as a first-order hyperbolic system. We define the field state-vectorU f and the evolution system as: ∂t ¯Uf +A∂ x ¯Uf =S(46) where Uf =   Πr Ψr Φr   , A=   0−1 0 −1 0 0 0 0 0   , S=   −ai∂viΠlab −ai∂viΨlab −ai∂viΦlab   ,(47) whereU f is the field part of the state-vector,Ais the principal part a...

  9. [9]

    We employ a staggered grid where thei-th cell is defined by the interval Ωi = (xi−1/2, xi+1/2).(51) wherex i±1/2 =x i ±h/2

    Computational grid We discretize the spatial domain [−L, L] intoNcells of widthh. We employ a staggered grid where thei-th cell is defined by the interval Ωi = (xi−1/2, xi+1/2).(51) wherex i±1/2 =x i ±h/2. The discrete variable ¯U n i describes the average value ¯U n i = 1 h Z Ωi U(t n, x) dx.(52) By working with cell averages we can ensure the numerical ...

  10. [10]

    Weak formulation Since (46) contains low regularity source terms, we interpret the evolution in a weak sense. Specifically, we require the residual of the evolution equation to be orthogonal to our basis functionsb i(x): ⟨∂tU+∂ x(AU)−S, b i⟩= 0.(57) Expanding the inner product using the definition ofb i(x) yields: Z Ωi ∂tUdx+ Z Ωi ∂x(AU) dx= Z Ωi Sdx.(58)...

  11. [11]

    Numerical fluxes Since the flux calculations are being performed at the cell faces, we need to introduce a numerical flux to approximate the fluxes at the faces based on the values ofUat the cell centers. We use the Godunov flux [50], which is the same 10 as the Rusanov flux [57] for the linear wave equation, since the local Lax-Friedrichs speed [58] is g...

  12. [12]

    These methods are also known as Monotonic Upstream-centered Scheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) [59, 60]

    Second-order approximation To resolve discontinuous data at second order, a standard practice is to employ slope limiters and linear reconstruc- tion in characteristic space. These methods are also known as Monotonic Upstream-centered Scheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) [59, 60]. The homogeneous part is thus ensured to be Total Variation Diminishing (TVD...

  13. [13]

    The source contribution is computed ana- lytically by evaluating the cell-averaging integral over each computational cell

    Source treatment We employ an unsplit method for the time evolution of the field equations, wherein the source term is incorporated directly into the right-hand side of the homogeneous evolution equations. The source contribution is computed ana- lytically by evaluating the cell-averaging integral over each computational cell. To accurately capture the be...

  14. [14]

    smearing

    Convergence analysis While smooth solutions allow for pointwise convergence analysis in theL∞ (max) norm, discontinuous data typically undergoes “smearing” over a few grid cells due to numerical diffusion. In such cases, the error at the jump does not decrease in the infinity norm regardless of the grid refinement. Therefore, we quantify convergence using...

  15. [15]

    We do this exactly, summing the spectral basis functions and their derivatives

    We evaluate the fields Φr and Πr and their gradients at the particle positionz. We do this exactly, summing the spectral basis functions and their derivatives. We then evaluate the terms in the particle’s equations of motion (18). We also add a forcing term for some test cases (see below)

  16. [16]

    spectrally

    We apply the Laplace operator to Φ n r . Since we already calculated the particle accelerationa=d/dt vwe can evaluate the source terms at each Gauss-Legendre quadrature node. This allows us to explicitly project the source terms onto each basis function, filtering out all high-frequency noise. It well known that specral methods converge “spectrally” (esse...

  17. [17]

    approximately corrected for radiation

    Forced motion We simulate a particle with chargeq= 1 that oscillates with maximum velocityv max = 0.1 and amplitudeA= 0.01. We evolve for a total timet f = 2.5 during which the particle oscillate 4 times, thus we choose the domain [−L, L] with L= 6. This domain size is chosen specifically so that, during the time frame of the four oscillations, any numeri...

  18. [18]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Classical theory of radiating electrons, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A167, 148 (1938)

    1938

  19. [19]

    B. S. DeWitt and R. W. Brehme, Radiation damping in a gravitational field, Annals Phys.9, 220 (1960)

    1960

  20. [20]

    Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka, Gravitational radiation reaction to a particle motion, Phys. Rev. D55, 3457 (1997)

    1997

  21. [21]

    T. C. Quinn and R. M. Wald, An axiomatic approach to electromagnetic and gravitational radiation reaction of particles in curved space-time, Phys. Rev. D56, 3381 (1997)

    1997

  22. [22]

    Detweiler and B

    S. Detweiler and B. F. Whiting, Self-force via a green’s function decomposition, Phys. Rev. D67, 024025 (2003)

    2003

  23. [23]

    S. E. Gralla and R. M. Wald, A rigorous derivation of gravitational self-force, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 205009 (2008)

    2008

  24. [24]

    Pound, Self-consistent gravitational self-force, Phys

    A. Pound, Self-consistent gravitational self-force, Phys. Rev. D81, 024023 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Rosenthal, Regularization of the second-order gravitational perturbations produced by a compact object, Phys

    E. Rosenthal, Regularization of the second-order gravitational perturbations produced by a compact object, Phys. Rev. D 72, 121503 (2005)

    2005

  26. [26]

    Rosenthal, Second-order gravitational self-force, Phys

    E. Rosenthal, Second-order gravitational self-force, Phys. Rev. D74, 084018 (2006)

    2006

  27. [27]

    Pound, Second-order gravitational self-force, Phys

    A. Pound, Second-order gravitational self-force, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 051101 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    S. E. Gralla, Second order gravitational self force, Phys. Rev. D85, 124011 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    Detweiler, Gravitational radiation reaction and second order perturbation theory, Phys

    S. Detweiler, Gravitational radiation reaction and second order perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D85, 044048 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Poisson, A

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, The motion of point particles in curved spacetime, Living Reviews in Relativity14, 7 (2011)

    2011

  31. [31]

    Detweiler, Perspective on gravitational self-force analyses, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, S681 (2005)

    S. Detweiler, Perspective on gravitational self-force analyses, Classical and Quantum Gravity22, S681 (2005)

    2005

  32. [32]

    Barack, Gravitational self-force in extreme mass-ratio inspirals, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 213001 (2009)

    L. Barack, Gravitational self-force in extreme mass-ratio inspirals, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 213001 (2009)

    2009

  33. [33]

    Blanchet, A

    L. Blanchet, A. Spallicci, and B. Whiting, eds.,Mass and motion in general relativity. Proceedings, School on Mass, Orleans, France, June 23-25, 2008, Vol. 162 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2011)

    2008

  34. [34]

    Mino, Perturbative approach to an orbital evolution around a supermassive black hole, Phys

    Y. Mino, Perturbative approach to an orbital evolution around a supermassive black hole, Phys. Rev. D67, 084027 (2003)

    2003

  35. [35]

    S. A. Hughes, S. Drasco, E. E. Flanagan, and J. Franklin, Gravitational radiation reaction and inspiral waveforms in the adiabatic limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 221101 (2005)

    2005

  36. [36]

    Drasco and S

    S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Gravitational wave snapshots of generic extreme mass ratio inspirals, Phys. Rev. D73, 024027 (2006)

    2006

  37. [37]

    P. A. Sundararajan, G. Khanna, and S. A. Hughes, Towards adiabatic waveforms for inspiral into kerr black holes. i. a new model of the source for the time domain perturbation equation, Phys. Rev. D76, 104005 (2007)

    2007

  38. [38]

    Barack and A

    L. Barack and A. Ori, Mode sum regularization approach for the self-force in black hole space-time, Phys. Rev. D61, 061502 (2000)

    2000

  39. [39]

    Barack, Y

    L. Barack, Y. Mino, H. Nakano, A. Ori, and M. Sasaki, Calculating the gravitational self-force in schwarzschild space-time, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 091101 (2002)

    2002

  40. [40]

    Poisson and A

    E. Poisson and A. G. Wiseman, Suggestion at the 1st capra ranch meeting on radiation reaction (1998)

    1998

  41. [41]

    W. G. Anderson and A. G. Wiseman, A matched expansion approach to practical self-force calculations, Class. Quant. Grav.22, S783 (2005)

    2005

  42. [42]

    Casals, S

    M. Casals, S. Dolan, A. C. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, Self-force and green function in schwarzschild spacetime via quasi- normal modes and branch cut, Phys. Rev. D88, 044022 (2013). 22

    2013

  43. [43]

    Wardell, C

    B. Wardell, C. R. Galley, A. Zenginoglu, M. Casals, S. R. Dolan, and A. C. Ottewill, Self-force via green functions and worldline integration, Phys. Rev. D89, 084021 (2014)

    2014

  44. [44]

    Zenginoglu and C

    A. Zenginoglu and C. R. Galley, Caustic echoes from a schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D86, 064030 (2012)

    2012

  45. [45]

    Barack and D

    L. Barack and D. A. Golbourn, Scalar-field perturbations from a particle orbiting a black hole using numerical evolution in 2+1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D76, 044020 (2007)

    2007

  46. [46]

    Vega and S

    I. Vega and S. Detweiler, Regularization of fields for self-force problems in curved spacetime: Foundations and a time-domain application, Phys. Rev. D77, 084008 (2008)

    2008

  47. [47]

    S. R. Dolan and L. Barack, Self force via m-mode regularization and 2+1d evolution: Foundations and a scalar-field implementation on schwarzschild, Phys. Rev. D83, 024019 (2011)

    2011

  48. [48]

    Diener, I

    P. Diener, I. Vega, B. Wardell, and S. Detweiler, Self-consistent orbital evolution of a particle around a schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 191102 (2012)

    2012

  49. [49]

    Warburton and B

    N. Warburton and B. Wardell, Applying the effective-source approach to frequency-domain self-force calculations, Phys. Rev. D89, 044046 (2014)

    2014

  50. [50]

    Heffernan, A

    A. Heffernan, A. C. Ottewill, N. Warburton, B. Wardell, and P. Diener, Accelerated motion and the self-force in schwarzschild spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 194001 (2018)

    2018

  51. [51]

    Advances and Challenges in Computational Relativity

    P. Diener, Challenges in the self-consistent evolution of extreme mass ratio inspirals, Talk presented at the ICERM Workshop “Advances and Challenges in Computational Relativity” (2020), september 16, 2020; in collaboration with Barry Wardell and Niels Warburton

    2020

  52. [52]

    N. A. Wittek, A. Pound, H. P. Pfeiffer, and L. Barack, Worldtube excision method for intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals: Self-consistent evolution in a scalar-charge model, Phys. Rev. D110, 084023 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    N. A. Wittek, L. Barack, H. P. Pfeiffer, A. Pound, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, A. Macedo, K. C. Nelli, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, Relieving scale disparity in binary black hole simulations, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 251402 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    H. D. P. Lee,Zeno of Elea(Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  55. [55]

    Vlastos, A note on zeno’s arrow, Phronesis11, 3 (1966)

    G. Vlastos, A note on zeno’s arrow, Phronesis11, 3 (1966)

    1966

  56. [56]

    Huggett, Zeno’s Paradoxes, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E

    N. Huggett, Zeno’s Paradoxes, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2025) Winter 2025 ed

    2025

  57. [57]

    Laertius,Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume I: Books 1-5, Loeb Classical Library, Vol

    D. Laertius,Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Volume I: Books 1-5, Loeb Classical Library, Vol. 184 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1925)

    1925

  58. [58]

    Barack and A

    L. Barack and A. Pound, Self-force and radiation reaction in general relativity, Reports on Progress in Physics82, 016904 (2018)

    2018

  59. [59]

    I. Vega, P. Diener, W. Tichy, and S. Detweiler, Self-force with (3 + 1) codes: A primer for numerical relativists, Phys. Rev. D80, 084021 (2009)

    2009

  60. [60]

    Heffernan, A

    A. Heffernan, A. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, High-order expansions of the detweiler-whiting singular field in schwarzschild spacetime, Phys. Rev. D86, 104023 (2012)

    2012

  61. [61]

    Detweiler, E

    S. Detweiler, E. Messaritaki, and B. F. Whiting, Self-force of a scalar field for circular orbits about a schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D67, 104016 (2003)

    2003

  62. [62]

    I. Vega, B. Wardell, and P. Diener, Effective source approach to self-force calculations, Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 134010 (2011)

    2011

  63. [63]

    Bourg, A

    P. Bourg, A. Pound, S. D. Upton, and R. P. Macedo, Simple, efficient method of calculating the detweiler-whiting singular field to very high order, Phys. Rev. D110, 084007 (2024)

    2024

  64. [64]

    Heffernan, A

    A. Heffernan, A. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, High-order expansions of the detweiler-whiting singular field in kerr spacetime, Phys. Rev. D89, 024030 (2014)

    2014

  65. [65]

    Wardell, I

    B. Wardell, I. Vega, J. Thornburg, and P. Diener, Generic effective source for scalar self-force calculations, Phys. Rev. D 85, 104044 (2012)

    2012

  66. [66]

    R. J. LeVeque,Finite Volume Methods for Hyperbolic Problems, Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  67. [67]

    S. K. Godunov, A difference method for numerical calculation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of hydrodynamics, Matematicheskii Sbornik47, 271 (1959), original Russian title:Raznostnyi metod chislennogo rascheta razryvnykh reshenii uravnenii gidrodinamiki

    1959

  68. [68]

    W. E. Schiesser,The Numerical Method of Lines: Integration of Partial Differential Equations(Elsevier Science, 2012)

    2012

  69. [69]

    S. J. Ruuth, Global optimization of explicit strong-stability-preserving runge-kutta methods, Mathematics of Computation 75, 183 (2006)

    2006

  70. [70]

    B. A. Finlayson,The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles(Society for Industrial and Applied Math- ematics, Philadelphia, PA, 2013) https://epubs.siam.org/doi/pdf/10.1137/1.9781611973242

    work page doi:10.1137/1.9781611973242 2013

  71. [71]

    I. G. Bubnov, Report on the works of professor timoshenko which were awarded the zhuranskyi prize, inSymposium of the institute of communication engineers, Vol. 81 (1913)

    1913

  72. [72]

    B. G. Galerkin, Series solution of some problems of elastic equilibrium of rods and plates, Vestnik inzhenerov i tekhnikov 19, 897 (1915)

    1915

  73. [73]

    Petrov, Application of galerkin’s method to the problem of stability of flow of a viscous fluid, J

    G. Petrov, Application of galerkin’s method to the problem of stability of flow of a viscous fluid, J. Appl. Math. Mech4, 3 (1940)

    1940

  74. [74]

    Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Math- ematics and Mathematical Physics1, 304 (1962)

    V. Rusanov, The calculation of the interaction of non-stationary shock waves and obstacles, USSR Computational Math- ematics and Mathematical Physics1, 304 (1962)

    1962

  75. [75]

    K. O. Friedrichs and P. D. Lax, Systems of conservation equations with a convex extension, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences68, 1686 (1971), https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.68.8.1686. 23

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.68.8.1686 1971

  76. [76]

    Van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme

    B. Van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. IV. A new approach to numerical convection, Journal of Computational Physics23, 276 (1977)

    1977

  77. [77]

    van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme

    B. van Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. v. a second-order sequel to godunov’s method, Journal of Computational Physics32, 101 (1979)

    1979

  78. [78]

    Harten, High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Computational Physics49, 357 (1983)

    A. Harten, High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws, Journal of Computational Physics49, 357 (1983)

    1983

  79. [79]

    FastGaussQuadrature.jl Julia package (2025),https://github.com/JuliaApproximation/FastGaussQuadrature.jl

    2025