Skip to main content

Where did those neutrons go? (Monte Carlo method, part 2)

This is the second of four posts on the mathematical approach known as the Monte Carlo method, following 'Breaking the bank...'

Moving from the bank being broken at a casino to a mathematical method occurred as the Second World War came to a close. A number of scientists on the US nuclear programme were attempting to model neutron diffusion from a nuclear bomb. This was because a conventional nuclear explosion is effectively the trigger for the (then theoretical) thermonuclear explosion of a fusion bomb - and a major factor in its effectiveness is how neutrons travel out from the primary fission stage.

Like his colleague John von Neumann, the Polish-American physicist Stanislaw Ulam had an interest in the game of poker and the probabilistic nature of games. The new possibility of electronic calculation using the ENIAC computer made it possible to consider a novel approach to modelling neutron diffusion. At the heart of nuclear fission is the idea of a chain reaction. A neutron hits a nucleus, which splits, giving off more than one neutron. Each of these then has the opportunity to do the same. But predicting how such a process would occur, given the probabilistic nature of particle interactions, was a problem.

The idea behind the Monte Carlo method is to use the output of a (pseudo-) random number generator combined with known distributions of the chance of various interactions taking place to effectively simulate what is happening. By making many multiple runs of the model, an an accurate probability-driven picture is built up. This approach became widely used in a whole range of simulation applications - for instance predicting what would happen over time in complex queuing systems.

Ulam claimed to have come up with the idea while recovering from a serious illness, playing a variant of the card game solitaire (patience). He realised that it would take considerable mental effort to work out the chances of succeeding in any particular attempt. But if, instead, the game was repeatedly played - say 100 times - the percentage of successful plays would converge on the actual probability. He described this idea to von Neumann and began work on it with him.

Perhaps surprisingly, neither of these enthusiastic game players thought up the name. Greek-American physicist Nicholas Metropolis claimed to be responsible, writing 'It was at that time [early 1947] that I suggested an obvious name for the statistical method - a suggestion not unrelated to the fact that Stan had an uncle who would borrow money from relatives because he "just had to go to Monte Carlo." The name seems to have endured.' Initially it was a code name, but it became one of mathematics' more entertainingly named methods.

To make such simulations effective there needs to be a source of random(ish) numbers - but how was that to be achieved? We will look into those in more detail in the next, penultimate post.

Main source The Beginning of the Monte Carlo method by Nicholas Metropolis in the 1987 Los Alamos Science special issue.

Image from Unsplash by Hal Gatewood

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense