[elashri]

It looks interesting. I will take this chance to say that I notice a lot of tools get dubbed “physics simulation frameworks” when they’re really more about mechanics,. As much as “physics” covers—from quarks to quasars—calling these tools something like "mechanics simulators” might be more on the nose. But, yeah, getting the naming conventions to shift might be a lost cause at this point. But hi, its better thab CERN naming the most used tool for their field "ROOT" and compete with every IT person in linux world on search engine space.

[sphw]

You are completely correct; right now it is just mechanics that we have built out. But, there isn't any theoretical reason you couldn't use this framework for other types of simulation. In particular, the Monte Carlo runner is super flexible. Since we are based on JAX you can utilize a ton of the tooling that others have built in the physics space like https://github.com/tumaer/JAXFLUIDS or https://github.com/DifferentiableUniverseInitiative/jax_cosm... . The goal right now though is pretty firmly focused on controls engineers and their needs, but we envision this becoming broadly used.

[semi-extrinsic]

I came to say the same as GP. In my world, if you don't solve time-dependent coupled PDEs in 3D you're not doing real physics. In someone else's world, if you don't have particle-in-cell functionality or symplectic integrators or P3M methods or whatever, you're not doing real physics.

To my mind any software that calls itself a generic physics engine is not doing "real" physics, more like "Blender physics".

Of course this can still be super useful! But the field of numerical physics is super broad and deep, and different sub-fields require dramatically different data structures and algorithms.