You're pledging to donate if the project hits its minimum goal and gets approved. If not, your funds will be returned.
This project analyzes the historical development of general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics (GRMHD) simulations as a case study in scientific and technological progress. GRMHD has become a central tool in astrophysics, enabling modeling of black hole accretion, jets, and high-energy phenomena. However, the field’s progress has been uneven and driven by a combination of algorithmic innovation, computational scaling, and conceptual breakthroughs.
This project aims to systematically document and analyze these drivers of progress, producing a detailed account of how GRMHD simulations evolved and what factors most strongly influenced their advancement.
The final output will be a long-form research essay suitable for publication on platforms such as LessWrong and arXiv, targeting both academic and meta-science audiences.
Goals:
Identify key inflection points in the development of GRMHD simulations
Quantify the relative importance of:
algorithmic improvements
increased computational power
theoretical insights
Understand bottlenecks that slowed progress
Extract general lessons about how computational science advances
Approach:
Literature review of GRMHD papers over the past ~20–30 years
Categorization of advances (e.g., numerical schemes, resolution, hardware scaling)
Timeline construction of major breakthroughs
Analysis of trends (e.g., performance vs. compute, method adoption)
Synthesis into a structured “progress model” for the field
My PhD program no longer has the funds to provide me a stipend, so this would serve in its place and allow me to complete this project at the intersection of physics and progress studies as the final piece of my dissertation.
I am nearly done with a first-author technical paper on original GRMHD simulations that will be submitted to ApJ.
Risks:
Difficulty obtaining consistent or comparable historical benchmarks
Overly qualitative conclusions if quantitative data is limited
Scope creep (field is broad and technically complex)
Mitigations:
Focus on well-documented milestones and widely used codes
Combine qualitative and quantitative analysis
Maintain a tightly scoped case study
Failure outcome:
A less rigorous or less generalizable analysis, but still a useful descriptive overview of the field’s development
$0