Timeline for Phase-space integral of n-body decay
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 25, 2021 at 19:45 | comment | added | InertialObserver | I'm doing this exact same thing now. Did you ever find anything? | |
| Apr 13, 2018 at 2:19 | history | edited | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ |
edited tags
|
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 22:36 | answer | added | Michael Seifert | timeline score: 4 | |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 21:36 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackMma/status/984545777182826503 | ||
| Apr 12, 2018 at 21:14 | comment | added | amrual | Oh, sure, you're right. Thanks! I've edited this typo in the question. I've also tried to separate equations but it still doesn't work. | |
| Apr 12, 2018 at 21:09 | history | edited | amrual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo fixed, thanks to Michael Seifert
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 20:24 | comment | added | Michael Seifert |
Also, I'm pretty sure those functions should be px1 + px2 + px3 = 0 (and similarly for y and z); right now you have px1 + py1 + pz1 = 0 (and similarly for 2 and 3.)
|
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 20:17 | comment | added | Michael Seifert |
A couple suggestions: (1) Mathematica supports DiracDelta, so you may be able to implement that directly. (2) You'll probably have more luck if you describe your implicit region as a list of separate equations $f_1 = 0$, $f_2 = 0$, etc. rather than as a single equation $f_1^2 + f_2^2 + ... = 0$. While these are mathematically equivalent, Mathematica usually finds it easier to deal with the former than the latter (it has to do with the gradient vanishing on the constraint surface.)
|
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 19:41 | history | edited | amrual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1559 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 19:06 | history | edited | amrual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 12 characters in body
|
| Apr 12, 2018 at 18:51 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 12, 2018 at 23:59 | |||||
| Apr 12, 2018 at 18:48 | history | asked | amrual | CC BY-SA 3.0 |