this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
9 points (90.9% liked)
A Series of Tubes
5 readers
1 users here now
For posting videos, papers, and blog posts covering:
- interesting projects
- makes-you-think philosophy stuff
- engineering/research techniques that blow your mind
- obscure but fascinating phenomena
- amateur/diy engineering and science
Leave a short description on your post. What about your link excites you?
Do not post things that are too:
- Pop sciency/surface level/unsubstantial
- repeat posts, within the last month
or they may be removed.
Encouraged kinds of links are:
- SciHub (https://sci-hub.st/)
- Wikipedia
- PeerTube
- YouTube
- Books! (Title - Author) (Z-Library)
Use Archive.org to keep the most interesting material on the internet safe.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I haven't seen "Oppenheimer," so I don't know how much of this is reflected in the film, but saying (as this article seems to) that Oppenheimer was the "father of the bomb" because he was a physicist is incorrect. Oppenheimer had plenty of physics chops, but he also had a wide breadth of knowledge and the personal inspirational nature to the scientists involved -- basically, the vision and the will -- to carry it out. So much so that they put him in charge of it even though he was a Communist, basically an enemy at the time to the United States government. So they put him in charge of the bomb, and then after the project he tragically returned to his original status as the enemy.
And, in fact, that was exactly how it happened:
All of this is from the the Wikipedia article, which is a wild ride from start to finish. I like Oppenheimer. He didn't want the Nazis to win the war, but he also went in Harry Truman's office after the office and made him furious by telling him he had blood on his hands. Like I say I haven't seen the movie, but this article I feel like sells him short a little bit by putting him in the "physicist" category.
It's true that Oppenheimer was a great administrator and communicator as well as a physicist, but that's not really what I'm talking about. Even in your comment, it seems you're laboring under some of the exact same assumptions Kaiser's work (the historian I rely on) dispels.
Kaiser really is a wonderful scholar of the history of science. He's both a physicist and historian, and he's also an incredible writer, because sometimes god just picks favorites. I really, really, really recommend checking him out if you like this stuff. I'm sure I didn't do his point justice. I was lucky enough to have him as a professor when I was an undergraduate, and I remember his lectures to this day, almost 15 years later.
Hm... maybe I was mistaken. What assumptions are you saying I'm laboring under? And yes, I read Kaiser's writing because of your comment and found it illuminating; I didn't know a lot of these things.