Role of Einstein in the Atomic Bomb
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 июл 2024
- Is Einstein's famous equation even relevant for the nuclear bomb? What is the relation between E=mc² and nuclear energy? What was Einstein's role in the development of the atomic bomb?
Einstein-Szilard Letter: rb.gy/u6f7m
Frisch-Peierls Memorandum: rb.gy/rxiib
Playlist Physics of Nuclear Weapons: • Physics of Nuclear Wea...
00:00 E=mc2
01:28 E=mc2 and fission
03:28 enter Mark Oliphant
05:08 MAUD committee
06:27 Einstein-Szilard letter
07:37 America gets serious about the bomb
08:34 Einstein letter vs. Frisch-Peielrs memorandum
________________________________________________________________________________
Scientists' portraits courtesy of AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives
"Snow Walk" by Mikhail Nilov on Pexels www.pexels.com/video/snow-lan...
"The Sun photographed at 304 angstroms" by NASA/SDO (AIA), public domain
"ITER Exhibit" by IAEA Imagebank is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/...
"Poynting Physics building 1" by RexxS is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/...
"SCR-270 Radar Antenna" by brewbooks is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
"Cavity magnetron" by Thinktank Birmingham Science Museum is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/...
"London in WWII" by Franklin D. Roosevelt Library Public Domain Photographs
"Facsimile of the letter of Einstein-Szilard to President F.D. Roosevelt" by Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library & Museum, public domain
"Einstein and Szilard letter to Roosevelt NNSA" by NavioZuber is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/...
"President F.D. Roosevelt" by FDR Presidential Library & Museum is licensed under CC BY 2.0. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/...
"S-1 Committee at Bohemian Grove" by US DoE, public domain
"Note from F.D. Roosevelt to Bush" by National Archives and Records Administration 
Наука
Thank you. As an Australian, I am very proud of Sir Mark Oliphant. It also might explain why Heisenberg never got the bomb. because they never had the breakthrough that frisch and peierls had made. If not for their breakthrough, and the efforts Sir Mark, then I hypothesise that their Uranium project would have gone the same way as the german project from by Heisenberg; and the out of war in the Pacific would have been very different.
I am glad that you liked the necessary mention of Oliphant, I also found it unfair when only a few names get all the credit. Science, like many other human endeavors, is build by many contributors and usually only a few get popular. It is my intention to bring some of the less-known but still crucial names to general audiences.
Great video as always Jorge, please keep posting - you have a talent for explaining difficult concepts in an easy to digest narrative. I also love the mix of history, physics, and mathematics! Please don’t start shying away from deriving/solving formulae as other channels do!
excellent! When I decided to create this channel my goal was precisely to fill this gap with a mixture of history but also some math that people can follow and reproduce. This video was lighter than others but no worries that we will be solving systems of equations for estimating the size of a nuclear blast pretty soon.
@@jkzero Conservation of Spatial Curvature (both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks. (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Mesons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves.
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. We know there is an unequal distribution of electrical charge within each atom because the positive charge is concentrated within the nucleus, even though the overall electrical charge of the atom is balanced by equal positive and negative charge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. The model grew out of that simple idea.
I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.
@@jkzero Dr D, I was commenting to my son that the vids on your page give scientific subjects something that other pages lack... paper presentation of the mathematics underlying the ideas being presented. Thanks for remembering that... and presenting to those who are mathematically literate.
@@RaineyParker thanks for your comment, it is really valuable to find that people notice and appreciate the efforts to fill this gap that you describe. It is my intention to provide some entertaining stories along the way without leaving out the math that in some cases can be quite easy to follow. If the math becomes harder I will make sure to post a "warning sign" but I believe that with some guidance even complex calculation can become illuminating. Thanks again for watching and the candid feedback.
Hey Jorge, love your videos! Came here from the 3B1B shout and got stuck binging all your videos. I'm a physicist as well, so I might be biased and a bad test audience, but is there any chance we'll get the "solving the neutron diffusion equation" video? Doing so with different boundary conditions (like periodic ones for perfect neutron reflectors) could also be a fun lead in to more minutiae of bomb design.
I also found your talk on shockwaves very interesting! I've always wondered how that transition from fast shockwave to sonic went. Another transition of shockwaves I always wondered about is the transition from 1/R² to 1/R scaling of shockfront energy density / overpressure. For the really big guns it is said that once the atmosphere is thin compared to the radius of the shockwave 1/R scaling becomes more accurate than the 1/R² of a sphere. I wonder whether the system of equations you present in that talk is solvable if you add variable ambient densities and speeds of sound with altitude.
Hope you continue making such excellent physics videos and regards from the university of hamburg/DESY!
3b1b was very generous with his review and led to a spike of views and new subscribers. Thanks for stopping by, great to have physicists here too. The video walk-through solving the neutron diffusion equation has received way more support than expected, great to find more people interested in the stories but also in the calculations. It is in the pipeline, coming soon. Thanks fro the suggestions, I cannot guarantee to take all requests but I am collecting them. Regarding the shockwave, stay tuned for the next video ;)
I visited DESY a couple of times for conferences, I am curious, what field do you work on? are you a postdoc there?
Another excellent video by a fantastic author and narrator. Thanks again Jorge
feedback is appreciated, thanks
Thanks for the series, it is the most historical and technical series on YT.
Thanks for the encouragement. As I mentioned to someone else, when I decided to create this channel my goal was precisely to fill this gap with a mixture of less known stories but also some math that people can follow and reproduce.
You have nice videos . I promise I'II lok into them
Greetings from the Sorbonne in Paris
Thanks for watching and the positive feedback. Welcome to the channel and greetings from the other side of the Rhine river.
Thank you for these FANTASTIC Videos explaining the Physica behind the Development of the Atomic Bomb.
Thanks for watching and the positive feedback. I am curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular or the 'mighty algorithm' found you?
@@jkzero I strangely, have been interested on how Nuclear Weapons were developed. Your Videos give more of a technical spin, which even if I am terrible at math, is still interestimng.
@@ericanderson2987 Thanks for watching and the positive feedback. Welcome to the channel.
Thank you, Dr. Jorge S. Diaz, this was once again a very interesting and educational video. I have engaged in discussions with several educated individuals, and I have consistently maintained the position that the theory of relativity was largely irrelevant to the construction of the first nuclear weapons. Even a friend of mine who holds a doctoral degree in physics disagreed with me, asserting that the theory of relativity was essential for the development of the initial atomic bombs. He staunchly refused to concur with my viewpoint that the theory of relativity had no direct influence on the discovery of nuclear fission and was primarily necessary for calculating the energy release. It is worth noting that knowledge of the exact yield is not imperative for the development of such weapons. Furthermore, discrepancies arise due to the fact that the material to be split is not perfectly homogeneous, and the neutrons ejected do not all fly out of the atomic nuclei at exactly the same angle. All of this is much less about the theory of relativity than about calculating the probabilities of the cross section of the material constellation used.
I believe that without the Einstein-Szilard letter, Oliphant would have traveled to the US with the MAUD report and jump-started the little academic American nuclear program into a real military program anyway. This is what I believe, happy to discuss other viewpoints.
*All* energy is mass in GR-even winding a watch increases its mass. Nuclear decomposition is just the first place where you have energy scales significant enough for the change in mass to be noticeable. So I think it is misleading to say that E=mc² is where the energy of nuclear weapons comes from, because that's arguably true of all explosives. It's just that baryon interactions start getting involved instead of purely fermions and photons, and there's a lot more binding energy involved there.
Increibles tus videos jorge. Imagino que sos de españa o sudamerica. Abrazo desde argentina
gracias Francisco por tu positivo comentario, soy de Chile pero hace años que vivo en el otro hemisferio. Un saludo al país transandino
Interesting history on this, I didn’t know much about the other major players in the making of the atomic bomb!
I am glad you found it of interest, I find it good to bring up the stories of some names that are quite unknown for the general public
@@jkzero I think so too, people need to be recognized and remembered for these major discoveries. Glad you used the audience you’ve got to spread the word for these unknown figures!
Please derive the diffusion equation including the calculus in a youtube video. As a person with a Chemical Engineering degree I would be interested since we use such equations in process design. The info is so terrible in its potential consequences yet so curiously attractive. (Chemical Engineering is a bit like that as well , but the magnitudes are generally smaller than in Nuclear Physics.) The wheel of Fortune must turn and we must play our roles as best we can. I have planned to study Krishna's teachings in the Bhagavad Gita which I heard about in the Fourth Turning book by Neil Howe. I must redouble my efforts to do that. Thanks for your videos. They are very interesting.
The video walk-through solving the neutron diffusion equation has received way more support than expected, great to find more people interested in the stories but also in the calculations. It is in the pipeline, coming soon. Interesting that you mention your background in ChemEng, I work in a chemical company and during my training in topics like polymer kinetics and reaction rates, everything looked so familiar to the old-fashioned nuclear physics that I am covering in this video series. Regarding the Bhagavad Gita, I am a complete ignorant.
You made me check out the Frisch-Peielrs memorandum and I found it astonishing how confidently they wrote about the now experimentally confirmed properties of the bomb. They could as well have been time travelers from now. It is a testament to the predictive power of science done right, IMO. Compared to that, the much more famous Einstein-Szilard letter is quite uninteresting. Thanks for the interesting videos.
I am glad that found it of interest. I think the Frisch-Peielrs memorandum is one of the most important documents of the XX century. It has mistakes, they underestimated the critical radius, but still, they triggered such a crucial set of historical events that it is an impressive document. I have always wondered would they have had the true values for uranium density and fission cross-section (which would have lead to a critical mass of the order of 100 kg of U235 instead of 0.6 kg), whether they would have just stayed quiet and kept the result for themselves.
I recall watching a Fermi Lab youtube explaining where mass comes from. Forgetting how the Higgs field is involved he stated mass is made by the Quarks kinetic energy. Their movement causes mass in stuff.
My PhD was on particle physics so I have considered to create in the future a series on particle physics, do you think that would be of interest?
Yes! I subscribe to Fermilab and PBS's Space Time.@@jkzero
@@jkzero curious, what was your phd on?
@@chalkchalkson5639 I did neutrino phenomenology, most of my work was on using neutrino oscillations and weak decays as tests of fundamental symmetries (CPT and Lorentz invariance). I also did some neutral-meson oscillations but most of my publications are on neutrinos.
Einstein never took credit for building atomic bomb, Einstein had lots of genius friends help him write complex equations.
Einstein was an overrated buffoon
I like to think of it as C sq = E/m. That really does something for me....
shut up.
really interesting...been studying this for many years & knew the US military was probably the only way "Tube Alloys" could become real due the massive amount of effort & money involved but did not realize that the Alloys was basically "plug & play" for Los Alamos with "Little Boy". Also interesting is that it took all those scientists coming to Los Alamos to refocus "part 2" on implosion which wasn't considered in Alloys. Still mindbending that with the technology at the time, it took about 12 months to turn Little Boy into reality & another 12 months for Fat Man. Oppenheimer is the marquee name but basically herding all these cats.
It was hardly "plug and play." Every physicist working on atomic physics in the U.S. understood the idea of bringing two subcritical masses together to make a critical mass. You can find the MAUD Report online. I'd suggest reading it. At best it is a compilation of atomic physics knowledge at that time and hardly a blueprint for building a bomb. The gun design was so obvious it was hardly novel. In fact, the gun design described in the MAUD Report is totally different than the final design used for Little Boy. MAUD showed two guns firing subcritical masses at each other, Little Boy used a single mass fired at a stationary target mass. Everything in the MAUD Report was already known by U.S. physicists. The MAUD Report summarized the state-of-the-art at that time in a single report. It provided independent verification that making a bomb was possible and helped convince the U.S. government to prioritize atomic bomb research.
@@buckhorncortez appreciate your insight & was stretching the "plug & play" meaning I'd knew it was advanced but not that advanced. Figured those reading that would get that. Cheers!
@@steveinmidtown Let me go a little further. Atomic bomb physics is really so straightforward that Robert Oppenheimer's first thought for the use of the fission reaction was the ability to make a bomb. Oppenheimer learned of the Hahn and Strassmann fission experiment in January 1939. Within a week of learning of the fission proof, he observed Luis Alvarez duplicate it. Shortly after that, Phillip Morrison (one of Oppenheimer's graduate students) remembered walking into Oppenheimer’s office and seeing on the blackboard, “a drawing - a very bad drawing an execrable drawing - of a bomb.” The MAUD Report was not the magic key to the atomic bomb that some people want to make it into.
If you look at the profile of Gadget, and the profile of the Fat Man bomb, they are identical.
As if, Gadget is taken out of Fat Man bomb.
Did you notice that too?
So, the first test bomb in the universe, the Gadget, had already taken consideration of smooth bomb casing? Packaging?
Does this make sense to you?
Yes, I did notice that the Gadget and Fat Man look identical because the were (except for a slight modification in the plutonium core but that is not visible and I suspect you are not considering).
And yes, "the first test bomb in the universe, the Gadget, had already taken consideration of smooth bomb casing" and this makes perfect sense to me. They were testing a prototype of the bomb to be used soon as a deliverable weapon, of course the casing had been designed in advance to fit the bomb in a B29, that was the objective of the whole project, why would you make it different from the final product? It is like asking "did you notice that the iPhone shown in the first demo fits perfectly inside its box?" well... yeah, that's what it was made for.
I don't understand what is so striking about this. Could you clarify what you mean instead of posing your comment as an open question?
@@jkzero Well, it is highly probable that you have never checked out the iPhone prototype, called M68.
It isn't going to fit in your backpack, let alone some little box.
The Verge has a good article and photos.
Also check out the size of first fusion bomb, Ivy Mike.
It ain't fitting inside any plane, not even inside a battle ship or aircraft carrier for that matter, maybe on top of them.
@@jkzero Also, have you read Szilard Petition?
In it, do you find it odd that Szilard and his colleagues, 70 Manhattan project scientists, never mention if they themselves or the United States built the bombs?
The petition letter was dated 1 day after the trinity test, but it was written and signed weeks before the test.
However, the letter says America, Army already "possesses" (multiple) atom bombs.
Did you get that?
Isn't it strange?
Have you listen to the lectures by J Robert Oppenheimer?
Did he ever mention who built the bomb?
I listened to about 7 lectures by him, none, never., he never tells he/his team/America invented the bombs.
Same thing even for Truman.
He never said directly, explicitly, America built the atom bombs.
@@jkzero Also, have you read Szilard Petition?
In it, do you find it odd that Szilard and his colleagues, 70 Manhattan project scientists, never mention if they themselves or the United States built the bombs?
The petition letter was dated 1 day after the trinity test, but it was written and signed weeks before the test.
However, the letter says America, Army already "possesses" (multiple) atom bombs.
Did you get that?
Isn't it odd?
@@jkzero Open question?
Someone gave us a hint.
History is (re)written by the victors.
And, it's a bunch of lies, said Napoleon.
Do you agree?
Fascinating videos on the bomb by Dr. Diaz. Germany was incapable of producing the bomb because they didn’t have the resources to undertake the massive engineering project that producing the bomb became.
I am glad you found the content of interest. I am curious to know what brings viewers to the channel, were you searching for something in particular? You are right about the failure of the German program, they didn't have the resources but there were also technical mistakes, from wrong calculations to wrong measurements, I have a video about this on my list to do in the near future. Thanks for watching and welcome to the channel.
Einstein's signature on the letter that Leo Szilard wrote to FDR is what started the Manhattan Project
That is the only relevance of Einstein to developing the nuclear bomb, not the mass-energy equivalence equation.
Irony that fusion was discussed before fission
I included this hoping for someone to spot the "Easter egg." I also find it fascinating that artificial fusion was achieved before artificial fission. Oliphant introduced several innovations in the new world of particle accelerators and used them to bombard light elements with one another, this is how he and the team at Cavendish Lab achieved fusion.
Con todo respeto: Puede que la famosa ecuación de A. Einstein no fuera relevante en la parte práctica de la construcción de la bomba. Pero me resulta imposible creer que sin su concepto su bisabuelo hubiera llegado a tales conclusiones. Como tampoco S. Hawking reconoció nunca la aportación del espacio tiempo para las suyas. ¿Se trata de envidia profesional?.
gracias Rubén por el comentario; comprendo y acepto tu esceptisismo, encantado de respetuosamente discrepar. Sin embargo, he leído los documentos científicos y es posible notar que nadie necesitaba conocer el origen de la energía producida en la reacción; es bueno saber de dónde proviene la energía pero no es necesario. Una vez determinado el valor de esta energía liberada, el resto se transformó en un problema de física aplicada e ingeniería más que física fundamental. Encantado cambiaré mi opinión pero para eso necesitaría encontrar evidencia concreta más que opiniones, y en mis años investigado este tema sólo encuentro evidencia de lo contrario: para el desarrollo formal de la bomba nuclear la famosa fórmula de la equivalencia entre masa y energía es irrelevante.
Desconozco a qué refieres con el comentario sobre Hawking, ¿podrías elaborarlo? Y sobre la posible "envidia profesional", no, tenerle envidia a Einstein sería algo demasiado infantil. Es como que un deportista le tenga envidia a los atletas de elite. Se les puede admirar o ignorar, pero ¿tenerles envidia? Eso reflejaría un problema más grave. Yo crecí con un póster de Einstein en mi habitación y hasta tuve un perro con su nombre :)
@@jkzero Buenas tardes, Dr. Gracias por contestarme. Aunque lo mío es el diseño naval deportivo, tuve gran atracción desde pequeño sobre el funcionamiento del cerebro humano y sus emociones (irónicamente creo poco en la psicología terapéutica, por verla demasiado sujeta a la capacidad y personalidad del terapeuta), como asimismo a diversos temas científicos.
Desde siempre he tenido la profunda convicción que entre los males que marcan nuestros senderos, la envidia tiene un papel relevante. Y mi planteo tiene que ver con las posibles motivaciones que llevan a una persona, en este caso Doctor (en Física Aplicada?) a dedicar, en forma de youtuber divulgador de ciencias, exponer la irrelevancia del papel que jugó la famosa fórmula de e=m.c2 en la construcción de la 1º bomba atómica.
En su argumentación expone que su bisabuelo sí tuvo un papel crucial, cosa que no discuto, pero tratando de borrar de un plumazo en ello la figura de Albert Einstein. Este hecho me hace dudar, si su postura es realmente la de un divulgador científico, o, como sospecho, revisionista histórico. Trato de pensar con la frialdad necesaria en mis especulaciones, si en el día de Trinity, en el momento posterior a la prueba, cuando R. Oppenheimer apoyó su cabeza en la almohada de las reflexiones, pensó agradecido en Einstein o por el contrario en su bisabuelo. Y cuando me refiero a la envidia, es la idea que evoca la fantasía de sustituir el segundo por el primero.
Pareciera que me hubiera alejado del tema, pero mi visión de la vida es un todo, y las matemáticas, a pesar de su enorme aporte, analizan poco (de momento) nuestro comportamiento. Su defensa, por lo leído, gira sobre la base de conclusiones demostrables en la familia de científicos que nos ocupa. Pero apuesto doble contra sencillo que en el fondo de estos conocimientos subyace el ignorar lo obvio. Se parte de cosas ahora elementales en forma inconsciente, como el indiscutible poder de un átomo, la posibilidad de liberación de tal energía y su efecto multiplicador en cadena. Sin esa premisa y su ahora obviedad, seguramente los instintos básicos de los investigadores no les hubieran permitido abordar con tanta rapidez el cómo hacerlo (parafraseando el relato de Eureka).
Me vi obligado a extenderme en demasía por la complejidad del tema y la dificultad de explicar mis argumentos, como si fuera que 2 + 2 son 4 (bueno... a veces). Tengo varios amigos y familiares en el campo de la investigación, y si algo los comunica y asocia recurrentemente, es su ego (iniciador recíproco del combustible "envidia"). Creo, hablando siempre en términos de mayoría, que esa característica es el motor genuino de tantos esfuerzos.
¿Y que tiene que ver todo esto con S. Hawking?. Lo tomé como ejemplo paradigmático de la envidia, incluso en sus comparaciones entre Einstein y Newton (seguramente también influido por antagonismos viscerales nacionalistas: Ingleses vs alemanes), personajes históricos que no deberían compararse, grandes los dos, cada uno en su tema y su tiempo. Me tomo la libertad de sugerirle que vea muchas de sus entrevistas dadas a los medios de información (no a sus pares), para encontrar evidencias de mis afirmaciones.
Ruego disculpe mi poca capacidad sintáctica. No suelo contestar a las respuestas, por ser RUclips un medio poco idóneo para el mismo, pero por fortuna, muy muy muy cada tanto, hace que pueda encontrarme con personas con quienes vale la pena comunicarse y disfruto al hacerlo. Nuevamente agradecido, lo saludo.
Einstein was a plagiarist.
‘’In 1875, four years before Albert Einstein was born, Samuel Tolver Preston published an amazing book entitled "Physics of the Ether". In it he set down the now famous formula E = mc2 and thoroughly explained its implications. Preston expressly stated that matter contains a store of energy which if fully utilized could create atomic bombs and atomic energy. He knew that atomic energy would someday replace coal. He also described superconductivity and asserted that gravity propagates at light speed. Long before Einstein, Preston completely relativized unipolar induction. His complete works are republished along with commentary and analysis by Christopher Jon Bjerknes who discovered the fact that Preston had anticipated Einstein by many decades and had a better understanding of E = mc2 than Einstein. Albert Einstein mistakenly believed that atomic bombs and atomic energy were impossible to produce.’’
A plagiarist is somebody who knowingly presents somebody else's work as their own. Your comment accuses Einstein of plagiarism but contains no indication that he was aware of Preston's work.
@@beeble2003 If I wanted to plagarize something I would not let anyone know that I was aware of somebody else's work. Makes sense, doesn't it?
ruclips.net/video/jjzx2Yj7Fwk/видео.html
Einstein was already familiar with E=mc^2, it was an equation that was derived from classical electrodynamics already, before Einstein' published his (and her, his wife was also involved) 'relativistic derivation' of E=mc^2, which contains a fudge factor, so it is not even a correct derivation. That is a strong indication the Einsteins already knew the famous equation before their publication. The Einsteins did not refer to H.A. Lorentz's papers on the 'Lorentz transform', and not to the paper of Waldemar Voigt, who published on a coordinate transform that keeps a wave equation invariant, years before the Einsteins publication, and not to the publication of S.T. Preston. So yes, the Einsteins were plagiarist, since Albert Einstein falsely claimed priority of the E =mc^2 equation. Btw, classical electromagnetism also describes a Poynting vector (an energy flow and momentum flow associated with a TEM wave), but Planck's constant and the Planck relations cannot be derived from classical electromagnetism (yet). So the idea that TEM waves carry energy and momentum was already known before the photon concept.
@@koenraad4618 Nowhere in Einstein's works does E=mc^2 appear. He published m=L/c^2. But it was Olinto de Pretto who published E=mc^2 in 1903.
@@beeble2003 But he was aware of Olinto de Pretto's work who published E=mc^2 in 1903 and Besso gave Einstein that equation. Nowhere in Einstein's works does E=mc^2 appear. He published m=L/c^2. But it was Olinto de Pretto who published E=mc^2 in 1903.
I'm sad that there is no Vietnamese language 😢😢😢
you can add subtitles in any language following the following steps:
- click the gear (cog) icon for Settings on the video
- then click Subtitles CC
- select English (auto-generated), this will show English subtitles on the screen
- then click again in English (auto-generated) and a new option will appear: Auto-translate, select it
- now you can choose your language of choice
I hope this works, note that these subtitles are auto-generated so they might be not perfect. I hope this works, please let me know.
@@jkzero Oh now I can understand you 😮😮😮
@@AnhTran-xd2yk yay! Glad to read that the automatic translation worked properly. Comments, questions, and suggestions are more than welcome. Thanks for watching and welcome to the channel
Define "irrelevant"
The question about the irrelevance of Einstein is intended in the video as "how crucial was his E=mc² for the development of the bomb?"
C= (E/M)^1/2 = 💩 😂😂😂😂😂😂!
Instead of trying to fit the universe into his dumb equation how about we try to fit the equations into the universe and reject this nonsensical crap!