Thursday, February 19, 2009

Nuclear explosions

Nuclear explosions
No article about Taylor would be complete without including the often told story about his calculation of the energy in a nuclear blast. Fables of this story abound. As told by Taylor himself,16 during the early years of World War II he was told by the British government about the development of the atomic bomb, and was asked to think about the mechanical effect produced by such an explosion. He realized that the energy released from the bomb would quickly lose memory of its initial shape and distribution, and would produce a strong shock in the air. The structure of the shock far from the ground would be well-approximated as spherical.

With these simplifications Taylor recognized that the parameters in the problem are the energy E, the density r of air, the pressure p in the air, the radius R(t) of the blast wave, and the time t since the blast. Because the blast is very strong, the air pressure will not affect the wave very much, and so p is not a relevant parameter. Taylor realized that this implies that there is a single dimensionless number characterizing the process; the reader can verify that Et2/rR5 is dimensionless.

Because this quantity does not depend on any aspect of the problem, it must be a constant. This implies that the radius of the blast wave is given by

    R(t) = c(Et2/r)1/5,

where c is a constant. In fact, it turns out that for air c~1.033 according to a calculation. Therefore, given a picture that shows the radius of the blast, a reference length scale, and the time since the blast, one can deduce the energy.

Much after the fact, Taylor analyzed photographs taken by J. E. Mack of the first atomic explosion in New Mexico. These pictures were taken at precise time intervals from the instant of the explosion, and Taylor confirmed that the scaling law agrees very nicely with the data. It is interesting to note that, of the papers written in the early 1950s reporting independent discoveries of the blast scaling law (authors including John von Neumann and Leonid Sedov), only Taylor’s paper took publicly available data to show that the above equation agrees with experiments.

There are many topics that we have not been able to cover in this article, or in our course—among them, the bulk of Taylor’s contributions to solid mechanics. Another effort to design a course around Taylor’s papers would likely arrive at a completely different list of topics. We encourage interested readers to browse Taylor’s collected works and to design their own course using his papers as a gateway to the modern literature. 

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/brenner/taylor/physic_today/taylor.htm

Sunday, December 14, 2008

General Chemistry

I didn't come to this blog for almost a year.

Maybe I should keep posting some class notes for the general chemistry course I taught this year.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

pchem 3 textbook


The students of pchem 3 created this textbook for the course. It contains the lecture notes of K. Nelson and the problem sets handed out last year. It is really nice.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Some more data from the US house representative since 1942

The black dots in the figure stands for the election result of US house representatives since 1942. Note that the slope seems to be not so dramatic like the presidential election.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Election as a titration process (revised)



The basic idea is that the current election based on the new electoral system is very similar to the US presidential election - winner of a state get all the electoral votes of that state. So I expect I can get useful information from the data of US presidential election.

So I define x as

Fraction of electoral votes = electoral votes obtained by republican's presidential candidate /Total electoral votes

and y

for US election as

Fraction of popular votes = popular votes obtained by republican's presidential candidate /Total popular votes

but for Taiwan election as

Fraction of seats = seat obtained by KMT /Total seats

As an example, the US presidential election in 2000, (Bush vs. Gore), we have

Popular votes: 50456002(Repulican) , 50999897 (Democrat)
Electoral votes : 271 (Repulican), 266 (Democrat)
Thus, in this case, I have
x=50456002/(50456002+50999897 )=0.497
y=271/(271+266)=0505

I plot the fraction of electoral votes vs. popular votes using the data of US presidential election since 1932 (blue circles in the figure). The result can be fitted by a hyperbolic function: y=tanh(x). There are fluctuation, of course. That was the reason why G. W. Bush got elected, even though Gore got more popular votes.
Additionally, I have also tried to write this function in the form of Henderson-Hasselbalch equation in order to make a connection to the titration curve most chemists are familiar with.

What surprised me was that data from the Taiwan's past 縣市長 election (red solid squares) and result of current election (單一選區, red solid star) roughly fall on this curve given by the US presidential elections! In the figure, I also drew another curve generated by four data points (triangles) taken from previous 立委選舉. Apparently, the slope of this curve is smaller.

This kind of behavior is very similar to phase transition in natural science. I am not sure whether it is possible to work out a theory for this kind of behavior or not.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Election as a titration process

Election is similar to a titration process if we choose a suitable coordinate system.

Sunday, January 6, 2008

Quantum weirdness

Quantum weirdness is so counterintuitive that to comprehend it is to become not enlightened but confused. As Niels Bohr liked to say, "If someone says that he can think about quantum physics without becoming dizzy, that shows only that he has not understood anything whatever about it."

In Murray Gell-Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar. New York: Freeman, 1994, p. 165. Bohr liked to joke about the difficulty of expressing quantum precepts in ordinary language by telling the following story: "A young rabbinical student went to hear three lectures by a famous rabbi. Afterwards he told his friends: ´The first talk was brilliant, clear and simple. I understood every word. The second was even better, deep and subtle. I didn't understand much, but the rabbi understood all of it. The third was by far the finest, a great and unforgettable experience. I understood nothing and the rabbi didn't understand much either.' "

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/WritingScience/Ferris.htm