←back to thread

93 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
olao99 ◴[] No.42188229[source]
I fail to understand how these nuclear bomb simulations require so much compute power.

Are they trying to model every single atom?

Is this a case where the physicists in charge get away with programming the most inefficient models possible and then the administration simply replies "oh I guess we'll need a bigger supercomputer"

replies(10): >>42188257 #>>42188268 #>>42188277 #>>42188283 #>>42188293 #>>42188324 #>>42189425 #>>42189704 #>>42189996 #>>42190235 #
p_l ◴[] No.42188283[source]
It literally requires simulating each subatomic particle, individually. The increases of compute power have been used for twin goals of reducing simulation time (letting you run more simulations) and to increase the size and resolution.

The alternative is to literally build and detonate a bomb to get empirical data on given design, which might have problems with replicability (important when applying the results to rest of the stockpile) or how exact the data is.

And remember that there is more than one user of every supercomputer deployed at such labs, whether it be multiple "paying" jobs like research simulations, smaller jobs run to educate, test, and optimize before running full scale work, etc.

AFAIK for considerable amount of time, supercomputers run more than one job at a time, too.

replies(2): >>42188395 #>>42188718 #
Jabbles ◴[] No.42188718[source]
> It literally requires simulating each subatomic particle, individually.

Citation needed.

1 gram of Uranium 235 contains 2e21 atoms, which would take 15 minutes for this supercomputer to count.

"nuclear bomb simulations" do not need to simulate every atom.

I speculate that there will be some simulations at the subatomic scale, and they will be used to inform other simulations of larger quantities at lower resolutions.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=atoms+in+1+gram+of+uran...

replies(1): >>42188942 #
p_l ◴[] No.42188942[source]
Subatomic scale is the perfect option, but we tend to not have time for that, so we sample and average and do other things. At least that's the situation within aerospace's hunger for CFD, I figure nuclear has similar approaches.
replies(1): >>42188971 #
Jabbles ◴[] No.42188971{3}[source]
I would like a citation for anyone in aerospace using (or even realistically proposing) subatomic fluid dynamics.
replies(1): >>42189017 #
p_l ◴[] No.42189017{4}[source]
Ok, that misreading is on me - in aerospace generally you care to level of molecules, and I've met many people who would love to be just able to brute force it this way. Hypersonics do however end up dealing with simulating subatomic particle behaviours (because of things like air turning into plasma)
replies(1): >>42189187 #
Jabbles ◴[] No.42189187{5}[source]
> in aerospace generally you care to level of molecules

I would like a citation for this.

> Hypersonics do however end up dealing with simulating subatomic particle behaviours

And this.

---

For example, you could choose to cite "A Study on Plasma Formation on Hypersonic Vehicles using Computational Fluid Dynamics" DOI: 10.13009/EUCASS2023-492 Aerospace Europe Conference 2023 – 10ᵀᴴ EUCASS – 9ᵀᴴ CEAS

At sub-orbital altitudes, air can be modelled as a continuous flow governed by the Navier-Stokes equations for a multicomponent gas mixture. At hypersonic speeds, however, this physical model must account for various non-equilibrium phenomena, including vibrational and electronic energy relaxation, dissociation and ionization.

https://www.eucass.eu/doi/EUCASS2023-492.pdf

replies(1): >>42189366 #
1. p_l ◴[] No.42189366{6}[source]
"I wish I could give the finger to Navier-Stokes and brute force every molecules kinematics" does not make for a paper that will get to publication if not accompanied with actually doing that at speed and scale that makes it usable, no matter how many tenured professors dream of it. So instead they just ramp up resolution whenever you give them access to more compute

(younger generations are worse at it, because the problems that forced elder ones into more complex approaches can now be an overnight job on their laptop in ANSYS CFX)

So unfortunately my only source on that is bitching of post-docs and professors, with and without tenure (or rather its equivalent here), at premier such institutions in Poland.