The Sedov solution is fairly complicated to code, so I'm just using Frank Timmes solution (it's written in horrendous F77 syntax, not really worth reading)
And am going to interpolate the data for use in a test-case for my hydro code
I mucked around with the units for about 20 minutes, getting bunk data quite a lot
Turns out I wasn't changing the length scale into pc, so it was trying to compute as if I dumped $10^{51}$ erg into about 1/120 cm of space on a scale of 1.2 cm
I hope this practical question is not OT and not too trivial for this forum. I am renting an apartment in a duplex with a shared water heater and dryer. Turns out, both water heater and the dryer are connected to my meter. The neighbors seem willing to pay their share for the past 6 months, only...
@Kyle: If your vote doesn't survive, the post just gets out of the queue. You may not be able to VTC the question again, and thereby get it into the queue... That's it!
Meh, only when our vote is the last vote, we should think a while about it... Else, we don't have to! :P
@kyle kanos again, you judged my question but never answered it. You apparently are not good at judging questions nor good at answering them. Several other gentlemen saw fit to answer the question even in its original form. You continue to argue my question is in the wrong place. I submit that if you can reason it is in the wrong place you too can then reason what i am asking. I then reason that the problem is that you just are not able to answer and thus want the question moved because you feel obliged to answer as long as it is here. Answer the question or not? — pjameslamar9 mins ago
in my mind everything has to exist in nothing. There has to be such a thing as nothing. That nothing is where everything that is exists. Without nothingness then everything touches something else and would be one large mass with areas of lesser and greater density.
Space then must be the nothin...
@KyleKanos Meh, you don't have to prove anything there... Others recognize it (well, you can see the downvotes :D). My suggestion would be to stop responding to such comments :)
@KyleKanos Honestly, at the start, I really felt happy to get as much as consecutives (even after earning the Fanatic badge) - so, there were days when I came to the site, just to get consecutives (No, seriously!) :P
Do anyone remember the XKCD comic, when two people have a chat (teasing philosophers I think) starting with some topic which eventually goes to terminologies at the end?
Yeah, I'll agree with Waffle here. Losing a point is a lot to those with <500 rep. We with intermediate rep don't care about 1 and will aggressively downvote
@dmckee I guess when you flag as VLQ or NAA the expectation is that the post will be deleted, so it shouldn't really matter whether you downvote it or not
@dmckee Because:1. They will probably be deleted soon. 2.when you downvote an answer you implicitly accept it as an answer, although wrong or misleading. At least that's the way I think about downvoting.
@DavidZ I've flagged the recent computational question(http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98261/are-there-simple-ways-to-numerically-solve-the-time-dependent-schodinger-equatio) for migration to SciComp. But till now the flag'e status has remained *Active*. Is there anyone who disagree or a new policy? (The same situation with Uncle Al's inappropriate post on meta(http://meta.physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5462/why-is-there-a-down-voting-option-on-this-website/5463#5463))
As the answerer to the aforementioned post, I'd rather not lose the 120 points for the migration :(. I also agree with both parties: it is indeed a question that could/should be asked on Computational Science, but it is also a question that probably is useful for physicists
@Mostafa I disagree that you are accepting it as an answer, you are noting that it is poor content. And this is important, because in the case the case of dispute we (the mods) are likely to leave that content on the site.
@dmckee Last year I had to prove that after a Compton scattering, pair production is impossible, but I can't remember the proof. Now I've read that it's possible. Do you know which stament is correct?
@jinawee Pair production by a photon requires a heavy spectator (i.e. it can not happen in free space).
I can imagine that this implies a difference in expectation for dense, atomic matter (where a Compton scattering event implies a nearby nucleus to serve as the spectator) and diffuse, highly ionized plasma (where there is no such guarantee).
However, I have never seen the question framed in relation to Compton scattering in particular.
@KyleKanos oh, that makes sense. But in that case, they shouldn't be used as justification to keep the latest question here. (They might be good candidates for a historical lock)
1 hour later…
user54412
11:36 PM
@dmckee well, when adding my flag to things already in the flag queue, there's no interface for voting - I have to open the question in a new tab to do it
user54412
(which I sometimes but not always do, given that whether or not a post is an answer depends on what was being asked)
I have a data analysis question if anybody is around
user54412
@jinawee a typical graph of cross sections, such as those on this page, shows that the Compton (e.g. Klein-Nishina) and pair-production cross sections are equal somewhere around 10^7 eV photon energy
given that the photon will be mostly forward scattered by Compton in that energy range, you'd expect it to still be quite capable of pair producing provided, as dmckee says, there's a way to dump momentum
user54412
this works if you have either (1) a nucleus lying around, (2) you are at around 10^8 eV so you can efficiently pair produce off another electron, or (3) you have strong magnetic fields (think neutron star) to carry away the extra momentum