Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Were Impossible

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024

ความคิดเห็น •

  • @aquaman1257
    @aquaman1257 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9540

    "Damn"
    - Albert Einstein

    • @classified4798
      @classified4798 3 ปีที่แล้ว +174

      No I didn’t said That 😁

    • @nicness8882
      @nicness8882 3 ปีที่แล้ว +56

      @@classified4798 lol

    • @rakeshrakhi8029
      @rakeshrakhi8029 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      🤣 🤣

    • @elijahflynt3217
      @elijahflynt3217 3 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      Yeah and just imagine what the world would be like today without these capabilities. OH MY GOD.

    • @rakeshrakhi8029
      @rakeshrakhi8029 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@elijahflynt3217 full of chaos

  • @SecretRaginMan
    @SecretRaginMan 6 ปีที่แล้ว +15952

    "If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C. Clarke

    • @gordonrichardson2972
      @gordonrichardson2972 6 ปีที่แล้ว +603

      Thanks. I didn't have time to track down the quote. Very relevant to this video...

    • @SpydersByte
      @SpydersByte 6 ปีที่แล้ว +51

      great quote :D

    • @20502chris
      @20502chris 5 ปีที่แล้ว +96

      Saying that the speed of light is possible will likely be wrong

    • @NLTops
      @NLTops 5 ปีที่แล้ว +352

      @@20502chris Do you mean TRAVELING AT the speed of light? Because light having a speed is certainly possible. Anything that moves has a speed at which it moves, and light is never stationary as far as we know...though it travels at different speeds depending on the medium.

    • @CanIHasThisName
      @CanIHasThisName 5 ปีที่แล้ว +151

      @@NLTops Everyone know what you mean when you say "speed of light". And if you want to be pedantic, you should not be making mistakes yourself. The speed of light is constant and it doesn't slow down inside of a "medium", it just has more distance to cover.
      The issue is obviously that from what we can tell, the universe has a speed limit and we'd like to break it.

  • @ridwansetiadi8393
    @ridwansetiadi8393 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3427

    The Sci-Fi writer: "They called me a mad man."

    • @zaza-ik5ws
      @zaza-ik5ws 4 ปีที่แล้ว +60

      What I predicted came to pass

    • @guifdcanalli
      @guifdcanalli 4 ปีที่แล้ว +96

      A perpetual radioactive bomb active for years still doesnt exis... oh wait thats Chernobyl

    • @CaptainFalcoyd
      @CaptainFalcoyd 4 ปีที่แล้ว +120

      True story: Before his death in 1946, he dictated his epitaph should read "I told you so, you damned fools."

    • @bravomike4734
      @bravomike4734 4 ปีที่แล้ว +38

      The Scientist: "They called me a Sci-Fi man."

    • @IBeforeAExceptAfterK
      @IBeforeAExceptAfterK 4 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      I'm still holding out hope that the guy who first wrote about hyperdrives gets similarly vindicated.

  • @johnchessant3012
    @johnchessant3012 ปีที่แล้ว +450

    It's crazy how quickly it developed. The neutron was discovered in 1932. Thirteen years later, you had atomic bombs dropped on two cities.

    • @captainplane398
      @captainplane398 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      Shows what humans really care about

    • @spacemann1425
      @spacemann1425 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Based🗿

    • @valerierodger
      @valerierodger ปีที่แล้ว +56

      @@captainplane398 war drives technological progress more than anything else

    • @VinnyUnion
      @VinnyUnion ปีที่แล้ว +5

      ​@@valerierodgerSo we need more war

    • @tiquays9342
      @tiquays9342 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      It also shows how far away technologies that are '15 years away' actually are...

  • @panda4247
    @panda4247 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3097

    6:04
    ...the neutron is the hero.. or the villain.
    No, i think he is neither, he is quite neutral.
    (sorry, bad joke)

  • @FishyBoyo1
    @FishyBoyo1 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2957

    “The longest supporter of this channel: Audible”
    his first patreon supporter:

    • @impazie
      @impazie 4 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      try commenting on a more recent video next time

    • @54phoules85
      @54phoules85 4 ปีที่แล้ว +268

      @@impazie no

    • @MrLappes
      @MrLappes 4 ปีที่แล้ว +121

      @@54phoules85 madlad

    • @holytaco.
      @holytaco. 4 ปีที่แล้ว +33

      longest, not first. his first patreon probably stopped donating by now. but yeah

    • @Ethorbit
      @Ethorbit 3 ปีที่แล้ว +38

      @@impazie Try not commenting at all next time

  • @danieljensen2626
    @danieljensen2626 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7941

    Important thing to remember, sometimes even brilliant scientists are completely wrong, but they are always proven wrong by people who are also experts in the field, not random keyboard warriors.

    • @emperorfaiz
      @emperorfaiz 5 ปีที่แล้ว +903

      At least the scientists willing to accept and learn new idea despite contradicting their old uninformed opinions, unlike the keyboard warriors.

    • @evilseedsgrownaturally1588
      @evilseedsgrownaturally1588 5 ปีที่แล้ว +92

      EmperorFaiz untrue, as history reveals the opposite to also sometimes be the case

    • @nancybabbage1169
      @nancybabbage1169 5 ปีที่แล้ว +88

      Einstein was the equivalent of a "keyboard warrior" in his day, writing countless letters as an amateur physicist to whomever he thought would listen, its this extremely limited and conceited attitude about who can add value to a discussion and who cant that makes asses like you in the field just wrongheaded and insufferable.

    • @danieljensen2626
      @danieljensen2626 5 ปีที่แล้ว +466

      @@nancybabbage1169 Einstein already had the equivalent of a bachelor's in math/physics before he started working at the patent office, that doesn't really count as ameteur and it's certainly a lot more than your average keyboard warrior.

    • @barnacleboi2595
      @barnacleboi2595 5 ปีที่แล้ว +63

      I mean, im pretty sure all scientists are humans and humans make mistakes

  • @rana1561
    @rana1561 ปีที่แล้ว +115

    Neutron is neither hero, nor a villain, it is truly in its essence, neutral

    • @calipoxcalipso
      @calipoxcalipso 10 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      what makes a particle turn neutral? lust for gold? power?

    • @rana1561
      @rana1561 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@calipoxcalipso partical thinks it's apolitical.

    • @StruggleButtons
      @StruggleButtons 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@calipoxcalipsoor is born with with a heart full of neutrality?

  • @Crazy-stew.1548
    @Crazy-stew.1548 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1785

    When Charlie Chaplin met Albert Einstein, Albert said "What I most admire about your art, is your universality. You don't say a word, yet the world understands you"
    Chaplin: 'True. But your glory is even greater! The whole world admires you, even though they don't understand a word of what you say

    • @hi-sn1pw
      @hi-sn1pw 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      Lol

    • @fredtherndmrtpstr5052
      @fredtherndmrtpstr5052 3 ปีที่แล้ว +129

      that may not have happenned but it is funny

    • @varadleleot2084
      @varadleleot2084 3 ปีที่แล้ว +81

      @@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 that happened. In reality it happened

    • @fredtherndmrtpstr5052
      @fredtherndmrtpstr5052 3 ปีที่แล้ว +49

      @@varadleleot2084 oh it did? Well, fantastic!

    • @zenmkultra
      @zenmkultra 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@varadleleot2084 That happened in a reality that's inside your head, yes. Not in the actual reality

  • @TheShadowIsMine
    @TheShadowIsMine 4 ปีที่แล้ว +9368

    Word to the wise, never be the person quoted as saying something can’t be done haha.

    • @PlanetJigobotTV
      @PlanetJigobotTV 4 ปีที่แล้ว +262

      This is the truest fact ever.

    • @user-zo3wy4we3t
      @user-zo3wy4we3t 4 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      Uh oh I did

    • @elck3
      @elck3 4 ปีที่แล้ว +738

      unless you're Einstein in which case it doesn't affect your credibility one bit because your net credibility is so high

    • @mikmorpheus
      @mikmorpheus 4 ปีที่แล้ว +85

      2020 can't get any worse, quote me on that 👌

    • @PlanetJigobotTV
      @PlanetJigobotTV 4 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      @@mikmorpheus if you live here in Vegas, 2021 will absolutely be worse. We have zero conferences for the year and that's wear a 3rd of our budget comes from. Casinos are down about 80%, and gambling is another 3rd of our budget. So 2/3 down with no way to bring money in 2021 is gonna suck... Don't know If you seen the news but people are getting shot and beat up right on the Vegas Strip. It's so bad some hotels won't even let you enter unless you have a room or dinner reservations.

  • @amazingannyoing1716
    @amazingannyoing1716 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2505

    Leo Szilard: *crosses a street*
    Leo Szilard thinking to himself: "If i can find an element which is split by neutrons and emit 2 neutrons when hit 1 neutron then such an element assembled in sufficiently large mass could sustain a nuclear reaction "

    • @devin6272
      @devin6272 4 ปีที่แล้ว +60

      i don’t understand the point of this comment. Your just repeating the video??

    • @lithiumfpv9254
      @lithiumfpv9254 4 ปีที่แล้ว +211

      @@devin6272 What exactly don't you get?

    • @sacrismortem70
      @sacrismortem70 4 ปีที่แล้ว +305

      @@devin6272 situational humor

    • @CosmicTeapot
      @CosmicTeapot 4 ปีที่แล้ว +556

      ​@@devin6272 The joke is that not many people have such thoughts while crossing the street. Your average 1900s citizens mostly had thoughts about how it's amazing that the Bifurcation Diagram from the Logistic Map appears in the Mandelbrot set in perfect correspondence with the ratio calculated from Feigenbaum's constant, when one is a geographical representation of iterative stability while the other is a polynomial mapping showing how chaotic behaviour can arise from simple non-linear dynamical equations... and to think that this Leo Szilard guy was only thinking about splitting atoms... pfft.

    • @medexamtoolscom
      @medexamtoolscom 4 ปีที่แล้ว +279

      Me: *crosses a street*
      Me thinking to myself: "If I mixed mayonnaise with barbecue sauce, would that be absolutely disgusting or not?"

  • @willerwin3201
    @willerwin3201 2 ปีที่แล้ว +303

    One factual error: it’s actually easy to keep a nuclear reactor operating at a steady level of power. The physics involved make reactors self-stabilizing. It’s not a matter of balancing on a knife’s edge; it’s a matter of getting into and staying in a deep rut. Making a nuclear weapon is far harder than making a nuclear reactor; you have to overcome those factors by creating a combination of unnatural conditions with a hundredth-of-a-millionth-of-a-second precision timing.
    Nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear weapons can. Worst case, they can spike in heat and cause a much smaller chemical or steam explosion.

    • @naleck2922
      @naleck2922 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Interesting, I still find using all nuclear devices balancing on a knifes edge, but the clarity is appreciated.

    • @crusaderACR
      @crusaderACR ปีที่แล้ว

      @@naleck2922 But it's not. It's literally impossible. A uranium fuel rod cannot become a bomb even if you try.
      Proof at work: Fuel rods are sold to any country anywhere and given to power companies. Because no matter what, it cannot be turned into a bomb.

    • @vast9467
      @vast9467 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@naleck2922 at this point in time, it’s better to just not do that

    • @leogama3422
      @leogama3422 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      My 2 cents: yes, nuclear reactors can be made in such a way that, even if a supercritical state can be reached, it is not sustained for very long, preventing core melting or explosions from happening. However, not all reactors are built that way (Chernobyl's one wasn't), for cost-effectiveness or whatever reason.

    • @nocturn9x
      @nocturn9x ปีที่แล้ว +22

      ​@@leogama3422And yet that reactor didn't explode because of the nuclear reaction, but rather the superheated gases that blew off the 40 ton cement ceiling of chamber number 4

  • @TheBoundBowman
    @TheBoundBowman 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3579

    Imagine throwing uranium in your drawer next to your keys.

    • @Karreth
      @Karreth 4 ปีที่แล้ว +167

      The decay chain is mostly alpha and beta decay, you''d be fine.

    • @108108qwerty
      @108108qwerty 4 ปีที่แล้ว +86

      @@Karrethlol, sure. Constant extra exposure should be fine.

    • @bloomball356
      @bloomball356 4 ปีที่แล้ว +173

      Wolf Davis It is fine. A lot of things emit alpha and beta particles in their decay chain. Just to explain to you why, it is because alpha bad beta particles are to large, they get stopped by molecules in air lol, even if they pass through the air, they will still get blocked by your skin.

    • @shashikanthp3145
      @shashikanthp3145 4 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      @@Karreth well beta particles are electrons... So you might get a minor electric shock if it falls on your metal keys right ?

    • @108108qwerty
      @108108qwerty 4 ปีที่แล้ว +148

      ​Tldr: Don't worry about the electric shock, there is not nearly enough electricity there, let alone a good way to harvest it.
      Say it was just U 238 ore, and it went down the decay chain as normal. It would emit alpha/beta particles during its lifespan, eventually becoming lead. All the beta particles would be β-, and be coming from elements down the decay chain like Th, Po, Hg, and Bi. So now we have a bunch of α and β- particles being emitted, why wouldn't I get an electric shock?
      Well, there aren't nearly enough "electrons" present for this in the first place, so that's our first bottleneck. The second reason, and most important, is because they aren't flowing in a current. Imagine electricity as water in a bucket, being poured down a tube. This tube would be the path, like wires for example, and the water would be the electrons. The motion of the water going down the tube would be the electricity itself, and we could measure the 'current' of it based on how fast its moving.
      Now imagine a waterwheel at the end of this tube, with blades that spin when water hits it. If the tube has a good current, the blades are going to spin faster. If it has a slow current, it is going to spin slower, (if the tube is a constant size.). This is electricity, flowing, and doing work. Great!
      In radiation decay of β-, there is water e.g. electrons, but the problem is that there's not really a tube. We just have a bucket of water, its "evaporating" away at a given half life, becoming a cloud, and then raining. There may be the same mount of water, but its doing very little work to the water wheel, as its just kind of bombarding everything. Instead of being put through a tube and directed at the fans of this waterwheel, its going everywhere. This is what β- radiation would look like in this analogy. Yes, it will hit your keys, but it wont shock you. There is not really a current.
      If you wanted to look into this more, and you read this far, I strongly recomend you look into betavoltaics, and other radiation based batteries. They are really cool, even though they aren't the strongest batteries.

  • @gursimarmiglani9143
    @gursimarmiglani9143 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4572

    A proton, a neutron, and helium walk into a bar and order three beers.
    The bartender appears with 3 beers and asks the proton, “Are you sure you’re over 21?” The proton replies, “I’m positive.” So the bartender gives him the first beer.
    He gives the second beer to the neutron and says, “For you, no charge.”
    He throws the third beer in helium’s face. Helium doesn’t react.

    • @tree-huggersans-cur4371
      @tree-huggersans-cur4371 5 ปีที่แล้ว +344

      Was the electron left behind because it was a negative Nancy?

    • @WaveOfDestiny
      @WaveOfDestiny 5 ปีที่แล้ว +54

      It's copypaste from other chemistry jokes put together

    • @Cyberspine
      @Cyberspine 5 ปีที่แล้ว +170

      Helium is such an alpha.

    • @Purpleturtlehurtler
      @Purpleturtlehurtler 5 ปีที่แล้ว +46

      @@WaveOfDestiny if I haven't seen it it's new to me.

    • @adnauseam412
      @adnauseam412 5 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      Racist bartender..

  • @Fender96
    @Fender96 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3349

    Nuclear fission is sort of like balancing on a knife’s edge, as you put it. However, for anyone who doesn’t have a good understanding of nuclear power generation, its important to point out that in the case of a reactor core, this seemingly terrifying “knife’s edge”, where too many neutrons can cause a nuclear explosion, isn’t actually possible. There are two main reasons for this;
    1) Fuel-grade Uranium is nowhere near enriched enough to sustain a runaway supercritical nuclear reaction that results in a nuclear explosion. Weapons-grade Uranium must be enriched to about 90% U-235 for a bomb to be possible. Fuel-grade Uranium is only enriched to around 3% U-235. Therefore, there just aren’t enough fissionable nuclei present in a fuel rod for this to occur.
    2) Nuclear fuel rods, by virtue of being shaped as elongated rods, have way too much surface area for neutrons to escape the fissile material before triggering too many more fissions. For this very reason, a bomb core has to be a near-perfect sphere in order for it to actually work (in addition to being above the supercritical mass for the Uranium or Plutonium used). So even if the Uranium in a reactor core were weapons-grade (it never would be), and even if the neutrons were perfectly moderated (slowed down to maximize the probability of triggering more fissions, and hence releasing more neutrons), the fact that the fuel rods are rods completely ruins any possibility of the core ever acting as a bomb (and thankfully so!).
    Anyway, I just thought I’d add this information just so that nobody gets the false idea that the knife’s edge analogy means that nuclear power reactors are just one mistake away from being a potential nuke, which is impossible.

    • @Project2457official
      @Project2457official 3 ปีที่แล้ว +280

      DUDE THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS COMMENT
      I was about to say THE SAME DAMN THING and you saved me some time so thanks!
      People manufacture false dichotomies from statements all the time and I am glad that someone else saw this too, especially in a time of anti-nuclear fission sentiment.

    • @DOSRetroGamer
      @DOSRetroGamer 3 ปีที่แล้ว +143

      Thanks. I had the strong suspicion that a nuclear reactor doesn't simply turn into a bomb, for a few reasons, but you actually explained why.

    • @northerniltree
      @northerniltree 3 ปีที่แล้ว +113

      You have allayed my fears, which was Chernobyl of you to do.

    • @NitroNinja324
      @NitroNinja324 3 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      What about other radioactive materials, like Thorium? I've heard that they're better for nuclear power plants, but could you explain why?

    • @Benny-xy4oz
      @Benny-xy4oz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +70

      @@NitroNinja324 thorium is more common on earth than uranium and is less radioactive over long periods of time. it also is a "slow-neutron breeder" which means it can use slow-moving neutrons to create more fissile material by decaying into other fissile elements (as opposed to uranium, which breeds with fast neutrons into plutonium after several other steps, which is highly dangerous and has an extremely long half-life). because it requires slow neutrons to breed also means that the richness of the material can be lower to produce similar energy levels, extending the lifetime of the material on earth

  • @Carfeu
    @Carfeu 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

    I love how great discoveries are made just leaving stuff around

    • @FallenWolf64
      @FallenWolf64 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Imagine what the earth would be like if humans never mined it for materials other then the basic material like water,wood, food.

    • @alainlalonde
      @alainlalonde 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      They're not all good discoveries. But, I feel ya... I need to clean the place... sigh...

    • @cali2608
      @cali2608 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@FallenWolf64 we wouldn't have much of our modern technologies, or just have technologies that are drastically different from now. That would be interesting to see, we wouldn't have tools or technologies that require those but we could have made alternatives that may be as useful. Thank you for the idea.

    • @GehkGekhe
      @GehkGekhe ปีที่แล้ว

      ​@@FallenWolf64Not really good. Aint no way you could make a computer out of wood though...

  • @choxoletyo8518
    @choxoletyo8518 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6782

    Step 1: become a scientist
    Step 2: say space travel isn't possible
    Step 3: wait 20 years
    Step 4:??
    Step:5 profit

    • @Trathien-
      @Trathien- 5 ปีที่แล้ว +44

      Ima do it

    • @orangeboy97
      @orangeboy97 5 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      **time travel

    • @Xllbvnzzz
      @Xllbvnzzz 5 ปีที่แล้ว +44

      Step 4 is invent time travel

    • @DJdeliverance
      @DJdeliverance 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      how would u profit off THAT I would stick with the lottery! Lmao

    • @fitzjordy
      @fitzjordy 5 ปีที่แล้ว +12

      Stonks

  • @向你祖母問好
    @向你祖母問好 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3322

    Scientists : "YOU CANT DO THAT!"
    Also scientists : "Look just did it lol "

    • @WadcaWymiaru
      @WadcaWymiaru 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      That same about global warming a fake news.

    • @safir2241
      @safir2241 5 ปีที่แล้ว +59

      CRISPR on humans in a nutshell

    • @RagafragaMuffin
      @RagafragaMuffin 5 ปีที่แล้ว +87

      @@WadcaWymiaru i'm not sure if you're saying global warming is fake news or not

    • @WadcaWymiaru
      @WadcaWymiaru 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Global warming IS fake...

    • @safir2241
      @safir2241 5 ปีที่แล้ว +103

      Władca Wymiaru
      You can call it fake, but even Exxon (an oil company) KNEW way before the government, by doing their own scientific research.

  • @FatMan2539
    @FatMan2539 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2100

    "The fission of a single Uranium atom releases 20 times less energy than the amount required to raise a grain of sand the thickness of a piece of paper" - that's still a pretty impressive amount of energy tbh considering how small atoms are

    • @harrietjameson
      @harrietjameson 3 ปีที่แล้ว +223

      especially how many are in a grain of sand

    • @lunakid12
      @lunakid12 3 ปีที่แล้ว +273

      Exactly. I had to stop in awe to process that. Incredible. There are 10^19 atoms in a grain of sand, so just a tiny fraction of them could power-lift the whole thing basically to any height, including shooting it to the Moon (for that, burning just one millionth of it, roughly).

    • @sfdjk
      @sfdjk 3 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      He said its much fore the size of an atom.but not much for the human world

    • @pavel9652
      @pavel9652 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      @@lunakid12 Thanks for doing the math! I was curious, but don't have time now to check myself ;)

    • @bunsenn5064
      @bunsenn5064 3 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      Nuclear fusion: *I’m gonna do what’s called a pro gamer move*

  • @jamesraymond1158
    @jamesraymond1158 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Excellent. So much I didn't know in this video.I met Szilard's wife Trudy in La Jolla in the early 1970s. I didn't realize how brilliant Szilard was until later and have been kicking myself ever since for not talking to Trudy about him.

  • @letsmakegames947
    @letsmakegames947 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3902

    “People really should stop misquoting me” Albert Einstein

    • @kevin-7091
      @kevin-7091 3 ปีที่แล้ว +318

      "Ok boomer"
      -Albert Einstein

    • @earth3882
      @earth3882 3 ปีที่แล้ว +307

      "People should no longer be saying 'ok boomer' as it is a long dead not funny joke"
      -Albert Einstein

    • @outsidechambaz
      @outsidechambaz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +192

      @@evalais2070 “Replying Ok Boomer is the ultimate burn, no matter the circumstance.” - Albert Einstein

    • @jerma1493
      @jerma1493 3 ปีที่แล้ว +53

      “Eh” -Albert Einstein

    • @jessejamesainger3263
      @jessejamesainger3263 3 ปีที่แล้ว +41

      "Durrrrrr, I'm a Fizzacyst" -Albert Einstein

  • @kamisama9715
    @kamisama9715 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1739

    "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible"
    ~Lord Kelvin, 1895
    Wright Brothers, 1903: Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today.

    • @bb-gb7jv
      @bb-gb7jv 3 ปีที่แล้ว +257

      He had to be dumb to say that because birds, bats are heavier than air

    • @yaptchannel
      @yaptchannel 3 ปีที่แล้ว +39

      Santos Drumont few years before Wright brothers: Done!

    • @dLimboStick
      @dLimboStick 3 ปีที่แล้ว +53

      @@yaptchannel You mean after. Wright Bros flew in 1903. Santos-Dumont in 1906.

    • @NeutralAlien
      @NeutralAlien 3 ปีที่แล้ว +48

      Such a silly thing to say for such a smart man. Has he not heard of birds ?

    • @paulooo_yo
      @paulooo_yo 3 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      @@dLimboStick Actually, i know u guys from USA are convinced that Wright Bros did it first. But as a brazillian, everyone I know, includding history teachers and others important people too, said it was Santos-Dumont. Actually there is more proof for Santos-Dumont side of story, but we can't really tell if Wright Bros didn't get it first... Well, if u ask anyone here in Brazil, they all agree it was Santos, I don't sutudied it deeper, so if u ask me, i would say Santos-Dumont too, but, i won't deny that Wright Bros could have a chance of winning this race. Well, actually u can believe in who ever u want, i just gonna choose my county side of the story, cus I believe in it. And at this point, I don't know if somebody has discovered who actually did it (not theory, but facts and proof that 100% shows it), anyway, nice day dude

  • @myMotoring
    @myMotoring 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3115

    Short answer: neutron had not been found yet when he said that.

    • @stephentrueman4843
      @stephentrueman4843 4 ปีที่แล้ว +281

      yeah, Einstein obviously kept up with science and the evidence changed his mind later on.

    • @beaclaster
      @beaclaster 4 ปีที่แล้ว +31

      Underrated

    • @347Jimmy
      @347Jimmy 4 ปีที่แล้ว +128

      Einstein's quote is from 1934, two years after the discovery of the neutron
      It took him another five years to catch up to reality and change his opinion

    • @apostle9209
      @apostle9209 4 ปีที่แล้ว +172

      @@347Jimmy coz the nuetron was yet to be studied.scientists only new it existed but it took time to figure out how it interacted

    • @347Jimmy
      @347Jimmy 4 ปีที่แล้ว +143

      @@apostle9209 Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch had worked out that nuclear weapons were feasible by 1938
      Einstein was still on the wrong side of the discussion at the time
      Albert was able to admit that he was wrong, it amazes me that people on TH-cam are unable to do the same

  • @Psycandy
    @Psycandy 2 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    Einstein wrote to FDR warning him of the outcome of Fermi's discovery which pretty much shows he was well aware of the possibility of such a weapon.

    • @slevinchannel7589
      @slevinchannel7589 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      I LOVE SCIENCE, so i wanna ask if you want Recommendations, but asking that repeatedly (to reach more people) is of course automatically risking that i seem like a robot, which makes people decline.

    • @Feargal011
      @Feargal011 ปีที่แล้ว

      Leo Szilard penned the letter, with support from Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller. He persuaded Einstein to sign it to give it more weight. When Szilard and Wigner explained the risk of a nuclear chain reaction in Uranium using a neutron moderator that could be used as an atomic bomb on July 12 1939 Einstein commented "Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht" ("I did not even think about that").

  • @Shubodh42
    @Shubodh42 6 ปีที่แล้ว +349

    Woah man, I don't see your videos often these days. The last time I binge-watched your videos was about 3.5 years ago, you were the reason I got very passionate into Science and Engineering. I even experimented making few science videos, inspired by your zeal. I got into engineering now. And I'm gonna graduate in a few weeks. Thanks for being there at the beginning of my journey, although I didn't get into pure sciences, you were the reason for my curiosity. I'm graduating as a proud engineer now.
    Your passion will continue to motivate me and I will probably make videos on Engineering in the future.

    • @YTRingoster
      @YTRingoster 6 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      That's awesome, man! Congratulations. I hope Derek sees your comment!

    • @MrInterpriser
      @MrInterpriser 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Dayum, dude, that's marvelous! Good luck with your future projects.

    • @Shubodh42
      @Shubodh42 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Egor Gorshenin Thanks a lot man! Have a good day.

    • @ldekker97
      @ldekker97 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      That's awesome! Congrats!

    • @Shubodh42
      @Shubodh42 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lianne Dekker Thank you!

  • @micahphilson
    @micahphilson 6 ปีที่แล้ว +821

    Wow, and to think (I believe) all of the people whose quotes were featured were still around just over 10 years later when all of that became absolutely possible, and most saw it become used in power plants as well!

    • @brendarua01
      @brendarua01 6 ปีที่แล้ว +68

      Micah Yeah that's very cool. It's not often we see such things. Maybe we'll see something similar with dark matter.

    • @brendarua01
      @brendarua01 6 ปีที่แล้ว +35

      Sebastian Stop with the B/S. You've absolutely know idea what will happen in the dark matter area - because no one does. You may be right. But if so it's just blind luck. Not very impressive.

    • @MrRolnicek
      @MrRolnicek 6 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Much more likely something will happen with dark energy instead. Dark matter seems to be just matter but dark energy (much like mysteriously radiating rocks) SEEMS to violate the law of conservation of energy.

    • @micahphilson
      @micahphilson 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      justsomeguy, no, I meant they saw it be harnessed during WWII in the form of bombs, and most (I don't know exactly if any died in the meantime) saw it even be used as a power plant.

    • @brendarua01
      @brendarua01 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      MrRolnicek Yes that's possible. While this is not my field, I try to follow along. Dark matter may turn out to be WIMPS or something much like it. My point is that this is not known yet. Darkside is not entirely clear in its results best I can see. Nor has it been replicated. The rest is hypothesizing.
      Rocks are my field and I get your reference about mysterious radiation. I would love for either dark (side) phenomena to result in something similar - in my lifetime.

  • @mixey01
    @mixey01 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2835

    Time travel
    Not gonna Happen
    2358
    Time travel is prohibited

    • @alonelyperson6031
      @alonelyperson6031 5 ปีที่แล้ว +167

      Unlikely that anyone would even attempt time travel, due to the literal mountain of problems that come with it.
      Things like paradoxes which are basically equal to self destruct buttons for the universe and time itself, or the even worst unknown probabilities/properties waiting to be discovered that came with a giant DEATH FLAG.
      So yeah, if time travel does get discovered, it would be guarded harder than a black hole hides it's own mass.

    • @justgame5508
      @justgame5508 5 ปีที่แล้ว +144

      Time travel to the past is most likely not possible. This isn’t the same situation as was raised by Einstein’s however. Time travel to the past isn’t an engineering issue like splitting the atom was, but more of a fundamental issue in physics. Time travel to the future is definitely possible and has been observed many times

    • @wenigmehl
      @wenigmehl 5 ปีที่แล้ว +198

      I'm traveling through time on a daily basis. About 24 hours into the future every day.

    • @reidchave7192
      @reidchave7192 5 ปีที่แล้ว +17

      @@alonelyperson6031 Good thoughts-- but if you're going to go Kamikaze (as one does), then Time Travel is the most exotic way to do that, at the very least. Someone is DEFINITELY going to attempt time travel.

    • @alonelyperson6031
      @alonelyperson6031 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@reidchave7192 Then they must be stopped no matter the cost.

  • @joshuaschrager4747
    @joshuaschrager4747 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thanks!

  • @Verlisify
    @Verlisify 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3719

    Imagine if that dude never put the rock in the drawer

    • @composamurai
      @composamurai 3 ปีที่แล้ว +61

      What's up checkmark

    • @gps9715
      @gps9715 3 ปีที่แล้ว +445

      Someone else would have.... history is full of multiple people coming up with the same experiment/solution at around the same times.

    • @HazySkies
      @HazySkies 3 ปีที่แล้ว +249

      @@gps9715 I think the point they're trying to make is: What if that particular man hadn't done that, and no-one thought of it until like... 10 years later, 20 or even more. How different the world would be now if that were the case.

    • @gps9715
      @gps9715 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      @@HazySkies Yeah I don't think so. I mean he uses "never" to define his timeframe. 😉

    • @rvxn
      @rvxn 3 ปีที่แล้ว +57

      The discovery would have been delayed. But eventually be discovered anyways.

  • @kbee225
    @kbee225 3 ปีที่แล้ว +437

    It's mind boggling to think Einstein published the general theory of relativity before the discovery of neutrons.

    • @Idontknow-vm1iy
      @Idontknow-vm1iy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +57

      That’s the beauty of it all, how things relate to each other before the discovery of other relevant ideas. It’s amazing honestly. That’s a testament to the near infallibility of the scientific method if practiced to the absolute best of ones ability

    • @MegaMaxiepad
      @MegaMaxiepad 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      why is that? also, Relativity did not start with Einstein, it had been under development for years/decades by other scientists/mathematicians when he published his paper (and whom Einstein failed to acknowledge) and which (incidentally) did NOT win him the Nobel Prize, a common misconception

    • @alaididnalid7660
      @alaididnalid7660 3 ปีที่แล้ว +32

      @@MegaMaxiepad Einstein did acknowledge quite a few people actually such as Maxwell, Lorentz and many others. You can't name everyone but he definitely acknowledged the idea that his work would not would have been possible without the previous work of those that came before him.

    • @Dopaaamine27
      @Dopaaamine27 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@alaididnalid7660 Einstein was a fraud plagiarist.

    • @alaididnalid7660
      @alaididnalid7660 2 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@Dopaaamine27 He admitted being influenced by other scientists but he gave new meaning to previous work and contributed quite a bit during his lifetime. Such influence is very common when making any scientific contribution. If you're tired of people saying he is "the best scientist/physicist", I fully get that. I feel that many other scientists and physicists may be underrated because of Einstein hysteria. I haven't done the math but I have spent 2 years to understand how time ticks at different rates depending on context (place, speed and in the case of GR, curvature/gravity) while all events remain consistent nonetheless. That very notion was brand new at the time and relevant for both GR and SR.
      I did a bit of simple math when it comes to special relativity but while I grasp general relativity in a more intuitive way, I have not done the math but I do understand to some extent why the calculations are way more complicated.
      When it comes to plagiarism: wasn't he the first to state that something that has mass inherently has energy? Saying he had zero original contribution is simply false.

  • @peesweezy4553
    @peesweezy4553 5 ปีที่แล้ว +346

    Uranium protecc
    Uranium atacc
    But most importantly, uranium shine uv light bacc

    • @nyx4020
      @nyx4020 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Oh yeah

    • @meranger92
      @meranger92 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      depp

    • @N0Xa880iUL
      @N0Xa880iUL 4 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Absorb uv and shine visible light back

    • @8iosx9ios16
      @8iosx9ios16 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      pee sweezy spitting facts

    • @pandakso3365
      @pandakso3365 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Underrated comment

  • @lucasgarcia822
    @lucasgarcia822 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Watching this after watching his latest video about Oppenheimer shows how much his work has improved! Amazing job!

  • @callmeSkoob
    @callmeSkoob 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1382

    I feel like your comment on nuclear power plants becoming unstable due to absorbing too few neutrons, while true, is misleading in that you mentioned the explosion at Chernobyl after talking about nuclear bombs. The explosion at Chernobyl was not a nuclear one. A nuclear power plant (even a poorly designed one like Chernobyl) just doesn't have uranium in a dense enough formation to make that happen. The explosion at Chernobyl was actually caused when the balance you were talking about caused a rapid buildup of steam pressure which ruptured the reactor and spread fuel and fission products into the atmosphere.
    It saddens me to see the misconception "Nuclear power plants are unsafe because they can become a nuclear bomb." being spread anywhere and I like to do what I can to stop it. Nuclear power is statistically the safest, and most efficient, form of energy by far, and its arguably the cleanest form of energy production as well. Unfortunately we wont use it because we are afraid of it due to wrong and outdated information and misconceptions.
    I've been a subscriber to your channel for years now and love all of the content you put out. You do a fantastic job of teaching people about science, and the universe around us. Thanks for doing what you do, I am always looking forward to you're next video.

    • @sherryhere8498
      @sherryhere8498 5 ปีที่แล้ว +55

      What happened at Chernobyl was no less than a nuclear catastrophe. Irrespective of the cause, the effect was ten times that of Hiroshima, and it wouldn't have happened if it weren't a 'nuclear' plant. So directly or indirectly, his statement is right. Nuclear plants are nuclear bombs ready to be triggered any time thanks to human error.

    • @asier_getxo
      @asier_getxo 5 ปีที่แล้ว +39

      I was looking for this comment 👍

    • @asier_getxo
      @asier_getxo 5 ปีที่แล้ว +165

      @@sherryhere8498 no, they really aren't nuclear bombs. If you were commenting on pewdiepie's channel, the misconception could be reasonable, but definitely not in this channel. The explosion wasn't nuclear, but thermal. And ofc, the radioactive uranium and fission products in the power plant lead to huge damage... But still not a nuclear bomb. In fact, there is a military weapon that acts similarly to that, they're called dirty bombs: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb . And as you can see, even if these ones are definitely designed as bombs, they make the clear distinction that they're not nuclear bombs.

    • @asier_getxo
      @asier_getxo 5 ปีที่แล้ว +74

      I know it's Wikipedia, but they have an amazingly well explained text there:

    • @Banana_Cognac
      @Banana_Cognac 5 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      @@studentsforademocraticsoci9836 after i eat taco bell, my farts are thermonuclear bombs

  • @idontknow2453
    @idontknow2453 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1224

    Humans: discover nuclear energy,
    Also humans: let's use it to destroy ourselves

    • @helojoeywala6622
      @helojoeywala6622 4 ปีที่แล้ว +66

      *lets use it to destroy other people*

    • @exponentialcomplexity3051
      @exponentialcomplexity3051 4 ปีที่แล้ว +132

      Yes but it can not be denied that n bombs have prevented large wars between countries for decades.
      Mutually assured destruction prevents wars

    • @pradhumnkanase8381
      @pradhumnkanase8381 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@exponentialcomplexity3051 yes they have

    • @sid8823
      @sid8823 3 ปีที่แล้ว +57

      @@exponentialcomplexity3051 hope it remains that way

    • @lady_deaths_head
      @lady_deaths_head 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      why not tho, war crimes are so stylish

  • @ArpanD
    @ArpanD 4 ปีที่แล้ว +172

    "The world is moving so fast these days that a man who says something is not possible is usually interrupted by someone doing it."...

    • @donalain69
      @donalain69 3 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      The world has also become a place where belief rules over knowledge... so it probably won’t stop that man from saying it’s not possible, even if someone does it right in front of him.

    • @ArpanD
      @ArpanD 3 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      @@donalain69 yes, I guess u r right

    • @JarthenGreenmeadow
      @JarthenGreenmeadow 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@donalain69 Humans are slowly turning into WH40K orks.
      We da wagghhiest and da shootiest.

    • @KINGOFTHEWORLD888
      @KINGOFTHEWORLD888 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Forbiden knowlegde from fallen angels

    • @ronensuperexplainer
      @ronensuperexplainer 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Though, Einstein himself said it's impossible, and then immediately did it (he worked at the Manhattan Project)

  • @VegasViking420
    @VegasViking420 ปีที่แล้ว +31

    Imagine how wild Einstein mind would go if he saw our technological capabilities today.

    • @autisticboi2992
      @autisticboi2992 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      i think his brain is in a jar somewhere so we might still be able to show him

    • @andrewpatton5114
      @andrewpatton5114 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      He'd be amazed that we used his General Theory of Relativity to build GPS. I doubt he ever suspected there'd be an application for which the time dilation caused by the Earth's gravity and the velocity of a satellite in orbit around the Earth would be relevant to the results, but GPS requires such extreme precision in clocks that it would be completely useless without an understanding of General Relativity (i.e., it would develop errors of several kilometers per day).

    • @tranceworld4057
      @tranceworld4057 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@andrewpatton5114 There were frequent train crashes in Europe because of time imbalance. Einstein was curious about it and maybe contributed to his GR

    • @Pmpeak
      @Pmpeak 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I think his mind went wild when he witnessed end of WW2, since he argued that nuclear weapons are impossible to build

    • @alpheendomination
      @alpheendomination 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@Pmpeak He never said they were impossible, he said that there was no evidence at the time to suggest that they would ever be possible. Two completely different things.

  • @iliketrains0pwned
    @iliketrains0pwned 4 ปีที่แล้ว +294

    1920: "It's physically impossible to harness energy just from radioactive decay"
    2020: "Alright, is the RTG ready for the next Mars rover?"

    • @alexeikafe5388
      @alexeikafe5388 4 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Good one! Perseverance is nearly ready to launch!

    • @mulindwajoseph5176
      @mulindwajoseph5176 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Too much astroneer going on here,

    • @Disgruntled_Dave
      @Disgruntled_Dave 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I never knew about RTG's before. Looked it up after reading this comment. Thank you.

    • @iliketrains0pwned
      @iliketrains0pwned 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@alexeikafe5388 It made it!!!

    • @alexeikafe5388
      @alexeikafe5388 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@iliketrains0pwned yes!

  • @djmahy
    @djmahy 3 ปีที่แล้ว +16

    I studied biochemistry & chemistry at college, but decided that it wasn't a career I wanted to pursue. Your channel keeps me interested in the scientific field I love. I'm super grateful for this. Thanks, a secret science nerd.

  • @brandy1011
    @brandy1011 3 ปีที่แล้ว +30

    3:14 Never having thought about it in that way, I think it is quite amazing that the energy from a single nuclear reaction is only an order of magnitude off from some vaguely "macroscopic" energy.

  • @ranglix1
    @ranglix1 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    man someone should make a movie about this

  • @jeewansingh5241
    @jeewansingh5241 5 ปีที่แล้ว +645

    Neutron is a hero
    Neutron is a villan
    So, neutron is someone in between.
    Neutron is NEUTRAL
    Hence, prooved

    • @Strumwith_aryan
      @Strumwith_aryan 5 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Neutron is deadpool

    • @milansajan1001
      @milansajan1001 5 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@Strumwith_aryan 🤣🤣 *CooL*

    • @dragonridley
      @dragonridley 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      If you combine heroes with antiheroes, will they annihilate each other?

    • @pluto8404
      @pluto8404 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Neutron is hero
      Neutron is villian
      1/x at 0 is infinity and negative infinity, so is undefined.
      Neutron is undefined.
      Neutron is fake, nasa lied to us, space is a lie, Earth is flat.

    • @rindirputra619
      @rindirputra619 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      Well, according to schrodinger neutron can be a hero and a villain at the same time...

  • @LP-ui8gl
    @LP-ui8gl 3 ปีที่แล้ว +65

    6:10 "Hey Vsauce here"

  • @nikolajankovic7082
    @nikolajankovic7082 4 ปีที่แล้ว +54

    It's so refreshing seeing a somewhat advanced topic done so well and interesting.
    It reminds me of your older videos that got me hooked on your channel

    • @Mr.Robert1
      @Mr.Robert1 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How true, sometimes the comment section after a video can be a very aggravating place to be.

    • @ericparrish1515
      @ericparrish1515 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Yeah it can be. Then a person could take it the wrong way. Too many different subjects to see on this thing.

  • @raffimolero64
    @raffimolero64 3 ปีที่แล้ว +76

    Notice Einstein's quote: "There is not the slightest *indication* (not 'possibility') that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable."
    He then provides the _requirement_ to finish the problem.
    Man didn't think it was purely impossible. Just not with current tech.

    • @kyoukan91
      @kyoukan91 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Einstein definitely believed we could harness Nuclear Power. His friend literally built a nuclear reactor...

    • @ducc995
      @ducc995 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well, I feel like "indication" refers more towards "proof" or "a hint", so if I'm right, he would've meant "There is not the slightest proof/hint that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

    • @ducc995
      @ducc995 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      also excuse me for being 9 months late

    • @YouberChannel
      @YouberChannel 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ducc995 lol, Its ok, im still here, also, that make sense

    • @Leafsdude
      @Leafsdude ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@kyoukan91 Einstein also wrote (along with Szilard) the famous letter to Roosevelt encouraging the Manhattan Project in 1939. So while he might not have believed it in 1933, the evidence had convinced him within 6 years.
      Any decent scientist changes their minds in the face of new evidence, regardless of their previously held convictions. Einstein was a decent scientist. Want to see someone who was not? Look at Fred Hoyle.

  • @manojr1852
    @manojr1852 6 ปีที่แล้ว +671

    Neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932
    _You should've said it. Helps us get the timeline_ 😁

    • @mertakkaynak2901
      @mertakkaynak2901 6 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Manoj Ravoori 3:24 he mentioned 1932 (but not chadwick)

    • @manojr1852
      @manojr1852 6 ปีที่แล้ว +26

      Lol. I missed it. Short, well hidden and quick
      He should've said it like at 2:25, 2:45 to help us - the attention handicapped 😁

    • @munozrick
      @munozrick 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      So, Mr (Dr?). V: how about an episode on how the Neutron was discovered? That was left unexplained.

    • @ncooty
      @ncooty 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Manoj Ravoori Why all the extra spaces?

    • @manojr1852
      @manojr1852 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Rick Munoz.
      Discovery of neutron is interesting(perhaps every discovery is), though it might be too nerdy for general audience. It involved works of Rutherford; Bothe & Becker; Curie('s daughter) & Joliot; Chadwick & bit of others too(like Majorana, Feather).
      th-cam.com/video/2bNdMzbIuzw/w-d-xo.html
      Reminds me of Humanity's edge - its collective brain of millions/billions of thinkers(of language,maths,farming,science,record keepers,teachers,fiction writers,etc) over thousands of years, let free(from mere survival) by billions of common farmers, workers,engineers,doctors,etc.
      Now, the Internet amplifies the network many times more :D

  • @Tmanaz480
    @Tmanaz480 3 ปีที่แล้ว +155

    Notice how carefully Einstein put it: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable". He spoke in the present tense about the current state of science in 1933. He did not pronounce it impossible like the others.

    • @alejandroenciso9650
      @alejandroenciso9650 3 ปีที่แล้ว +25

      Yes, and “Veritasium” is using the word “impossible “ in his title which is not true and misleading

    • @polygontower
      @polygontower ปีที่แล้ว +27

      "will ever be" refers to the infinite future from the time of speech.

    • @markener4316
      @markener4316 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Lets not forget in Einsteins time science in general, every bit of information back then, was WAY less then today, and so he had a good point there aswell

    • @saxombie8614
      @saxombie8614 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      @@alejandroenciso9650 its called click bait.

    • @AscendantStoic
      @AscendantStoic ปีที่แล้ว +12

      "Ever" clearly suggests that he is talking about the future, so no.

  • @superj1e2z6
    @superj1e2z6 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2323

    Not gonna happen.
    _happens._
    woops

    • @lipid9119
      @lipid9119 6 ปีที่แล้ว +157

      "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." ~Carl Sagan

    • @TommoCarroll
      @TommoCarroll 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      superj1e2z6 haha

    • @TommoCarroll
      @TommoCarroll 6 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      Lipid, Gotta love a good bit of Carl Sagan - that man had some really great thoughts, and even though the quote you gave might seem silly to some people it's a good reminder!

    • @Trowblood
      @Trowblood 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      They laughed at Tesla, Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp and they still are, in a century full of junk science and a completely wrong cosmological understanding.
      Much to learn they have.

    • @CarFreeSegnitz
      @CarFreeSegnitz 6 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      We like to remember bad predictions by people who aught to know better. We don't bother to remember the good predictions by the knowledgable or any prediction by idiots.

  • @r2avixv497
    @r2avixv497 ปีที่แล้ว +11

    He knew the spoilers of Oppenheimer...5 years back

  • @WyvernApalis
    @WyvernApalis 5 ปีที่แล้ว +394

    Scientists: nuclear power is impossible to be harnessed
    Nuclear power: I AM INEVITABLE

    • @enderlul5367
      @enderlul5367 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      Comrade Stalin Albert Einstein: And I am wrong

    • @Rammers06
      @Rammers06 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      And I am just a random person ..........

    • @teopalafox
      @teopalafox 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      I am Chernobyl

    • @poelwe8157
      @poelwe8157 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I am iron man

    • @Alan-mq9om
      @Alan-mq9om 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Well steam

  • @powerwagon3731
    @powerwagon3731 4 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Here I'am laying on my couch sick on a cold winter day in the Colorado mountains and I'm on a Veritasium binge...... Maybe I need to get sick more often? You make science so awesome! Next video please.

  • @joecoolmusic5373
    @joecoolmusic5373 5 ปีที่แล้ว +422

    Where can I mine some uranium 235? Asking for a friend.

    • @joecoolmusic5373
      @joecoolmusic5373 5 ปีที่แล้ว +73

      You spelled butthole wrong the first time lol. You fuckin douche.

    • @alfaleqh185
      @alfaleqh185 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      What it use for?

    • @josefaschwanden1502
      @josefaschwanden1502 5 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      If you get some be prepared to be hunted by the cia

    • @SuperVstech
      @SuperVstech 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      JoeCoolMusic 235 is actually fairly simple to make... from thorium

    • @josefaschwanden1502
      @josefaschwanden1502 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @@SuperVstech dude ur getting everyone on this comment in trouble, seriosly. Btw. You added a thing to my to do list

  • @kog582
    @kog582 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    “Albert. When I came to you with those calculations we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world.”
    “I remember it well.”
    “I believe we did.”

  • @this_too_shaII_pass
    @this_too_shaII_pass 3 ปีที่แล้ว +162

    Great video but at 5:39 I think it's worth noting that the explosion in chernobyl was not the same kind of explosion as in a atomic bomb. Big difference between a reactor going promptly critical and causing a steam explosion versus the fuel in an atomic bomb reaching a critical mass. I think that might be a common misconception about the risks of nuclear power

    • @HelgaCavoli
      @HelgaCavoli 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      Also, the series Chernobyl gives a great contribution to this understanding in deeper level. I recommend it.

    • @barabbasrosebud9282
      @barabbasrosebud9282 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      It's nice to know that there's at least one person on the internet who understands physics!

    • @brandy1011
      @brandy1011 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      But in both cases, it is a runaway chain reaction. Just in a bomb this is the desired outcome, in a power reactor - not.

    • @ericdew2021
      @ericdew2021 3 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      I don't think the concentration of U235 would be sufficient to go critical in any conventional nuclear fission power plant. The problem with Chernobyl is that the explosion, caused by the build-up of steam as you mentioned, also spewed radioactive material all over the region. It would be a "dirty bomb" type problem.

    • @brandy1011
      @brandy1011 3 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@ericdew2021 A nuclear reactor even has to go supercritical in order to start working in the first place ("critical" = the chain reaction is self-sustaining), it is just done in a very different way to a nuclear bomb in order to keep the reaction controllable. Not all the material is put in one big lump, but it is spread across a large volume and the neutron energy is influenced using a moderator, their number using control rods, in order to control the power output. Another part in keeping the reaction controllable is relying on delayed neutrons that are not released basically at the moment of a fission happening, but some time later (on the order of seconds) as part of the decay of the fission products. This makes the time constant of changes in the output power long enough so it becomes controllable by technical means.
      The problem in Chernobyl was that the reactor went prompt supercritical, thus the power increased exponentially with a time constant that was too short to control (remember, mechanical systems moving large, heavy parts around), until physics (the steam explosion) dispersed the material enough to end the supercritical state.

  • @mheermance
    @mheermance 5 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    "The World Set Free" is a good read as it's interesting to see a vision of the future that is now our past.

  • @IBUILTTHAT
    @IBUILTTHAT 5 ปีที่แล้ว +335

    Calling a stable reaction a "Balancing on a Knife Edge" is ridiculous. On paper it might be, but in practice it is much more stable.
    Chernobyl wasn't a simple "Whoops, it fell off the knife edge" it was a disaster caused by a long string of poor decisions. Chernobyl was a ticking time bomb upon it's completion.

    • @MrTurbo_
      @MrTurbo_ 5 ปีที่แล้ว +33

      Not really, chernobyl would have been perfectly fine if not for the decision to run the reactor anyway while knowing it wasn't at all prepared, if the management would have listened to the scientists it would probably have been completely fine and nuclear power would never have gained such a unnececeraly bad name, could have saved a lot of co2 pollution

    • @noahlail4018
      @noahlail4018 5 ปีที่แล้ว +55

      @@MrTurbo_ That's what he's saying. The decision to run the plant before it was ready or safe to do so.

    • @MrTurbo_
      @MrTurbo_ 5 ปีที่แล้ว +23

      @@noahlail4018 what he is saying is that it was flawed from the beginning and never would have worked, that's not true, it was that final decision that made it go wrong

    • @noahlail4018
      @noahlail4018 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@MrTurbo_ Oh I see that now... My bad

    • @JimmyMon666
      @JimmyMon666 5 ปีที่แล้ว +27

      What the video isn't showing is that nuclear reactors (at least most Western ones) use water as a moderator and coolant. Water naturally moderates neutrons. Chernobyl used graphite as a moderator (though they still used water as coolant I believe hence the steam explosion that blew the lid off). Graphite is best known for 2 significant nuclear accidents. Now in the Navy we used water as a moderator which helps control the reaction as it gets hotter. The video also does not mention the difference between fast neutrons and thermal neutrons. Just know that hotter water slows down less neutrons than colder water. So as the reaction increases and the water gets hotter, less neutrons are slowed down to thermal neutrons thus regulating the reaction (fast neutrons are not efficient at splitting nuclei like thermal neutrons). This generally works pretty good. The biggest danger was in flashing the water to steam in the case of pressurized water reactors like we used in the Navy which would cause all sorts of problems. Also there is a danger of injecting cold water into the reactor coolant. Anyways it's been over 20 years since my days in Navy nuke plants, this is best I can go from memory.
      Don't go thinking nuclear accidents can't happen even in ours. Loss of coolant is still extremely dangerous as we seen in Japan recently. And it's always an issue for Navy ships as well. You have to keep the core covered with water.

  • @maximumoverdrive2676
    @maximumoverdrive2676 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    Plot twist: He knew it was possible and wanted to discourage people from figuring it out.

    • @zv7ws
      @zv7ws 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Ww4 fought with sticks and stones

  • @halleffect5439
    @halleffect5439 4 ปีที่แล้ว +123

    "Haha, how didnt they know it?"
    -Me sitting in my coach watching videos.

  • @rvxn
    @rvxn 3 ปีที่แล้ว +235

    Albert Einstein : "Genius has its limits"
    Modern Scientists : _Yesn't, war pushes you beyond your limits_

    • @sleepyrowdy1826
      @sleepyrowdy1826 3 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      My war

    • @lunakid12
      @lunakid12 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      (Hehe, thx for that yesn't...)

    • @flow_987
      @flow_987 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Tatakae

    • @x--qz1fd
      @x--qz1fd 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@sleepyrowdy1826 monster !!!! monster!!!!! monster!!!!!!!

    • @garypiont6114
      @garypiont6114 ปีที่แล้ว

      That's why he married his own cousin & played a poor violin

  • @paulmarynissen
    @paulmarynissen 5 ปีที่แล้ว +225

    A Higgs Boson walks into a church, the priest says “we don’t believe in you”. The Higgs Boson says “What‽ You can’t have mass without me!”

    • @arvindraghavan403
      @arvindraghavan403 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Christians don't approach of this
      Only satanist do

    • @krishnamandava8838
      @krishnamandava8838 4 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Basically higgs give you very low energy and the field not the particle that restricts the massed particles to travel with speed less than C! !

    • @pewpew9711
      @pewpew9711 4 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@arvindraghavan403 Someone is insecure

    • @semicolone
      @semicolone 4 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      @@arvindraghavan403 ah yes, there are only 2 religions

    • @cherubin7th
      @cherubin7th 4 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Most of our mass comes from gluons. But whiteout Higgs we cannot have electron shells in the atom.

  • @TheB0sss
    @TheB0sss 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Wow, this video just taught me the difference between how an atom bomb and a power plant works in less than a minute (at least, the easy explanation).
    Genuinely great

    • @Guitarman7133
      @Guitarman7133 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      I HAVE A SIMPLER EXPLANATION. NO SUCH THING AS ATOMIC WEAPONS. URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM ARE METALLIC ATOMS, WHICH CAN NEVER CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. ONLY CHEMICALS CAN CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. THATS WHY ANY NUKE EXPLOSION HAS ALL THAT DIRTY BLACK SMOKE. ITS ALL HUGE AMOUNTS OF TNT.

    • @TheB0sss
      @TheB0sss 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Guitarman7133 lol, good one

  • @fox_gold4340
    @fox_gold4340 5 ปีที่แล้ว +691

    Scientist: e=mc2
    Fiction writer: makes up story about how they can make weapons
    Scientist:no that's impossible just fiction
    Scientist: reads fiction book and thinks about how to make weapon
    Scientist in 1945: we did it 👏

    • @debasischakrabarty9028
      @debasischakrabarty9028 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Fox Gold you are right Einstein was a fiction writer .99% people believe all this rabish .you have to learn how to unlearn then relearn .After researching for a long time I found what we strongly believe repeatedly they tell us is all lies ..They control the earth .

    • @ДмитроПрищепа-д3я
      @ДмитроПрищепа-д3я 5 ปีที่แล้ว +89

      @@debasischakrabarty9028 are you braindead or just that much stupid?

    • @FutureChaosTV
      @FutureChaosTV 5 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      @@debasischakrabarty9028 Turd.

    • @debasischakrabarty9028
      @debasischakrabarty9028 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Дмитрий Прищепа 😀I am researcher ,International chess player,solve runic cube less than 30 sec ,Sorry to prove

    • @salmon3669minecraft
      @salmon3669minecraft 5 ปีที่แล้ว +48

      @@debasischakrabarty9028 And head of the illuminati I bet. What else is new.

  • @SUPERVAX
    @SUPERVAX 3 ปีที่แล้ว +52

    I swear youtube channels like these should have 100 Million subs

    • @Figure000
      @Figure000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      no man, that's no how it works, you get more subs, if you make TH-cam more money, they basically recommend it more. So the quality of the content only matters a portion.

    • @vibaj16
      @vibaj16 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@Figure000 If you have high quality content, more people will watch and continue watching, giving you more subs. No, I don't think the amount of money you make affects how much it is recommended

    • @fabio5286
      @fabio5286 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@vibaj16 the basics of youtube is, if it keeps someone in the website it will be recomended to others

    • @Jacob-ge1py
      @Jacob-ge1py 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@fabio5286 And the basics of what keeps someone on the website is that the appeal of the content to a general audience

    • @DoubleAAce
      @DoubleAAce 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@Jacob-ge1py that right is reserved for pewdiepie

  • @Eddyhartz
    @Eddyhartz 5 ปีที่แล้ว +386

    What they certainly didn't foresee:
    Man discovers how to harness the power of the atom. What's the first thing they do with it? Blow up Japan.

    • @Ratio16180
      @Ratio16180 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Eddyhartz I like your pfp

    • @lordx4641
      @lordx4641 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      alephii ppl like u r the reason for us lagging today

    • @aevangel1
      @aevangel1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +73

      Well actually, the first thing we did was blow up a New Mexico desert.

    • @Nijeguhz
      @Nijeguhz 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      We blew up Japan? Wow! When did that happen?

    • @DankDungeon
      @DankDungeon 5 ปีที่แล้ว +20

      @@Nijeguhz tomorrow

  • @SephirothRyu
    @SephirothRyu 3 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Its not nearly so much a knife's edge as you make it out to be with regards to a fission reactor. Individual fuel pieces are large enough to generate enough neutrons such that, if you absorb a little fewer of them, the reaction gets back to where you want it with some ease. If anything, absorbing too many neutrons just reduces power output.

  • @elgunlee
    @elgunlee 3 ปีที่แล้ว +51

    6:10 I thought he gonna say "Hey It's Vsauce!"

    • @tusharbansal75
      @tusharbansal75 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Lol thought the same 🤣

    • @BillHFA
      @BillHFA 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Same here!

    • @blendyboi5023
      @blendyboi5023 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Hey! Vsauce, Michael here

  • @andrewkovnat
    @andrewkovnat 6 ปีที่แล้ว +282

    _That Vsauce pop-up at the end._

    • @milkywegian
      @milkywegian 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

      Andrew Kovnat reported for misleading comment :p

    • @andrewkovnat
      @andrewkovnat 6 ปีที่แล้ว +24

      I can't tell if you're joking or not. If you aren't, let me try to convey to you what I meant.
      Vsauce is known for popping up from the bottom of the screen during screen transitions, and near the conclusion of this video, good ol' Veritasium does the same, reminding me of Michael and his mischievous motions.

    • @milkywegian
      @milkywegian 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      k

    • @hadriennouvel2665
      @hadriennouvel2665 6 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      Where are your fingers ?

    • @adamhearnsberger9312
      @adamhearnsberger9312 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      I know it’s been a year, but woooosh

  • @SauerkrautIsGood
    @SauerkrautIsGood 5 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    Hi, just passing by to mention that it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to cause a nuclear explosion. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, neither was 3 mile island. The grade of plutonium or uranium used in a reactor is not high enough to sustain that reaction. It is high enough to cause a "meltdown". This is simply where the reaction gets out of control (as you mentioned), but since the quality of the fuel is low all that happens is the temperature of the reaction spikes and literally melts the reactor. This is usually accompanied by a steam explosion (see the two previous examples) as a massive amount of water is converted to steam very quickly and the pressure builds up until the whole thing just explodes. It isn't a nuclear explosion, but it still sends radioactive material all over the place.
    Why write this small essay? Well, this is a common misconception and a lot of people are irrationally scared of nuclear power because of it. It doesn't help when media outlets insinuate that this is possible.

    • @omgdodogamer4759
      @omgdodogamer4759 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      technically a nuclear reaction is just a nuclear bomb but slowed to the point where it cant go crazy, if you removed all the control methods and just let the reaction go wild it would basically turn into a nuclear bomb but it would be weaker since a nuclear bomb is supposed to cause damage which means packing a bunch of uranium in one spot to reach peak destruction, a stable nuclear reaction is only meant for creating energy for everyday use, meaning 5 megatons of tnt worth of energy isnt necessary, meaning it would be impossible to create anything as strong because it isnt designed to do that

    • @alainlalonde
      @alainlalonde 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Nice... I enjoyed that. Well said.

  • @fear8220
    @fear8220 ปีที่แล้ว +8

    Einstein probably knew Barbienheimer was coming.

  • @scatteredvideos1
    @scatteredvideos1 6 ปีที่แล้ว +10

    Kid you not, on my Physics II final today I had a question that was something like "How do fission reactors work?" as an extra credit and I watched this video this morning right before it.

    • @nickharrison3748
      @nickharrison3748 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      How simple education has become...we had to study from books...and depend on our teacher's imagination!

  • @angusrl4834
    @angusrl4834 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    I love how interesting these videos are. They make me think about everything that has ever happened and ever existed. It's a good feeling :)

  • @TommoCarroll
    @TommoCarroll 6 ปีที่แล้ว +20

    "Is talking moonshine" aha! Can we talk like this again please?

  • @captainjacksparrow1518
    @captainjacksparrow1518 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Scientists today: Light-speed travel is impossible.
    Science: Hold my lab coat

  • @subitman12
    @subitman12 6 ปีที่แล้ว +45

    Chernobyl was not a result of a nuclear explosion. It was the result of the heat caused by low safety standards in maintaining the fission reaction for a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors do not use the same technology as nuclear weapons. The heat caused the surrounding water and air to explode which opened the reactor.

    • @arnogerbil
      @arnogerbil 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      true, but it was still caused by the same general idea as he described, an unstable reaction that caused more energy to go into the system than out of it thus causing a chain reaction that ended in a massive explosion

    • @subitman12
      @subitman12 6 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      It wasn't an unstable reaction. It was a stable reaction without the capability to remove the heat from that reaction. At Chernobyle, scientists were doing testing and they basically dismantled all the safety protocols that day in order to do the testing. A nuclear reactor has only enough fissionable material to generate heat. That's the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear weapon.

    • @rsrt6910
      @rsrt6910 5 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@arnogerbil
      The physics involved between what happened at SL1, K431 and Chernobyl weren't even in the same ballpark as a nuclear explosion.
      SL1, K431 and Chernobyl went prompt critical on thermal neutrons, the bomb goes critical on fast neutrons.
      Their physical designs and materials make it impossible for either one to operate like the other.

    • @WadcaWymiaru
      @WadcaWymiaru 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      *Rs Rt*
      RBMK compare to SL and K431 has additional neutron-absorbing rods inside called "the buffer". They absorb "neutron flux" allowing higher energies without bursting. in Unit 4 they were ejected by mad Dr. Diatłow order.

    • @fatoeki
      @fatoeki 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@WadcaWymiaru And, additionally, the tips of the rods where made of grafite, a major design flaw, which sped up the reactions when they put them back as a last resort. This increased the reaction like it should never happen in a reactor.

  • @MarcelloSevero
    @MarcelloSevero 6 ปีที่แล้ว +133

    I read "How Neurons Changed Everything," prompting me to think this was an AI video.

  • @lachlancooke
    @lachlancooke 5 ปีที่แล้ว +75

    Neutron protecc
    Neutron attacc
    But most importantly Neutron give energy bacc

  • @cv990a4
    @cv990a4 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Anyone seeking an overview of the intellectual history of how the physicists (with assists from a few key chemists) figured out (over the course of decades) everything necessary to construct the bomb should read Richard Rhodes The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which has a very detailed account. It includes accounts of such things as Fermi's construction of the first atomic pile (i.e. first primitive nuclear reactor) in Chicago, including discussions of how he ensured that it would operate enough, but not too much... Rhodes's book is a must read.

  • @angelvalencia6782
    @angelvalencia6782 6 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Good to see your not dead

    • @evanw2195
      @evanw2195 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Wut tf

  • @soggyflipp1810
    @soggyflipp1810 3 ปีที่แล้ว +113

    Scientists: **make a groundbreaking discovery that can help all of the humanity**
    America: "finally... A weapon that can cause an ever massive destruction"

    • @Helperbot-2000
      @Helperbot-2000 3 ปีที่แล้ว +15

      "Sometimes my genius is, its almost frightning"

    • @benpeeples4265
      @benpeeples4265 3 ปีที่แล้ว +10

      Yeah, America was the only one interested...

    • @kpbendeguz
      @kpbendeguz 3 ปีที่แล้ว +18

      Actually Leo Szilard was terrified with his discovery because he also realized that eventually German scientists will come to the same conclusion. That's why America rushed to create the atomic bomb: to get ahead of Germany.

    • @TechAndBeyond381
      @TechAndBeyond381 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@benpeeples4265 same thing I thought

    • @Krokant17
      @Krokant17 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@kpbendeguz I agree if u state that the development was legitimated by the fascism threat, but I think we should never forget that USA used two nuclear bombs and there are still many people justifying the use, even though we saw the consequences.

  • @Grabbearjet
    @Grabbearjet 4 ปีที่แล้ว +56

    I know I'm in a good place when I don't find a single "hold my beer" comment

    • @ButtKickington
      @ButtKickington 4 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Hold my beer, I'm about to ruin this place.

    • @obi-wankenobi1750
      @obi-wankenobi1750 3 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Hold my beer, I’ve got to hold Kiddobyte’s

    • @lorenzoelesterio8937
      @lorenzoelesterio8937 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Hold my beer, ive got to hold Obi-Wan Kenobi's

    • @humain1025
      @humain1025 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Literally 2 comments down is one about Oppenheimer.

  • @mskellyrlv
    @mskellyrlv 2 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    The key to sustained, stable chain reactions is the fact that some of the fission neutrons generated are delayed by as much as a few milliseconds. That transforms the "knife edge balance" problem into a trivial control problem. Well, that and the design of the reactor to only achieve criticality with thermal neutrons, i.e. neutrons moving as slowly as a hydrogen atom at room temperature. The probability of a neutron causing a fission is maximum at such low energy, and drops dramatically with increasing neutron energy. So reactors have to employ a moderator, to slow down the fission neutrons - something like hydrogen (as in water) or carbon (as in graphite). It's best not to use both, or you get a Chernobyl situation, just FYI.

  • @defaultmesh
    @defaultmesh 5 ปีที่แล้ว +259

    Einstein: There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.
    Future humans: *_shatter atoms at will_*
    Einstein: *surprise pikachu face*

    • @death_parade
      @death_parade 5 ปีที่แล้ว +21

      If people read what Einstein said, he never said that nuclear weapons will never happen. He said that there is *no indication* that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. Key word: "no indication". If he had an indication, he would have bloody well discovered the neutron bombardment path, wouldn't he?

    • @Tore_Lund
      @Tore_Lund 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @@death_parade In los Alamos there was several bets amongst the scientists whether this would work before the first test blast.

    • @therion5458
      @therion5458 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

      @ Einstein's quote in this video was from 1933. The Manhattan Project started in 1939...
      Nuclear fission wasn't discovered by Leo Szilard. It was discovered by the German chemist Otto Hahn, in 1938.
      By 1939, any number of individuals with a grasp of science could have written a letter to FDR about creating a fission bomb.

    • @raffaeledivora9517
      @raffaeledivora9517 4 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      @@therion5458 Exactly... by then Fermi was already building the first nuclear reactor

    • @christopherg2347
      @christopherg2347 4 ปีที่แล้ว

      Then neutron and nuclear chain reaction, were at best a unconfirmed theory when he said that, 1933. If you asume he even knew - with stuff heating up for WW2, transmission of knowledge is no longer quick.
      By 1939 Einstein had accepted the fact.

  • @hiccup3.14
    @hiccup3.14 6 ปีที่แล้ว +72

    So wait
    NEUTRON WAS DISCOVERED AFTEERRRRR Einstein energy mass relation......
    I never Expected.....that...
    Wow
    3min silence for neutron

    • @gordonrichardson2972
      @gordonrichardson2972 6 ปีที่แล้ว +13

      Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was not for special relativity (it was for the photoelectric effect). E=mc2 was considered theoretical, and irrelevant to everyday life.

    • @MrAlRats
      @MrAlRats 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      The neutron was discovered by James Chadwick, a student of Ernest Rutherford, in 1932. Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking scientific papers in 1905, one of which expressed the idea that mass and energy are equivalent.

    • @soxboy25
      @soxboy25 6 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      Oddly enough the thing Einstein proposed, E=mc^2 , is useful for more than just fission discussed here. Even normal chemical reactions like baking soda and vinegar will technically convert mass to energy.

    • @soxboy25
      @soxboy25 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@anonymousetrapper it does do what you said but because (we think it's the cause) elections are tangled up in the Nuclear force (specifically the weak component) all sorts of weird things are possible. In this case one of those weird things is a mass being turned into energy.

    • @WaveOfDestiny
      @WaveOfDestiny 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @@anonymousetrapper atomic and molecular bonds are "energy" in a way: for example energy stored in the electromagnetic field (autoinduction and stuff). If i'm not mistaken if you break a bond the whole thing actually has more mass becouse you put energy into it, and when it makes bonds it releases energy for most reactions and so it looses mass

  • @danielawesome36
    @danielawesome36 4 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    This sounds like how a bunch of Minecrafters figured out how to break bedrock without creative mode.

  • @orpheneus77
    @orpheneus77 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Went back to this vid after watching the Oppenheimer one. Spot on explanation as always (almost same with the 2023 version for the nuclear reaction but with better graphics).

  • @plainlogic
    @plainlogic 5 ปีที่แล้ว +183

    I know time travel will remain impossible in my lifetime.
    I know for sure, because I haven told myself about it yet.

    • @yr5135
      @yr5135 5 ปีที่แล้ว +14

      Traveling in the future is actual possible it's just not as instant as most people imagine it to be. Einstein already proved it.

    • @danielsharp2402
      @danielsharp2402 5 ปีที่แล้ว +37

      @@yr5135 Yeah you travel into the future at a rate of 1 second / second.

    • @yr5135
      @yr5135 5 ปีที่แล้ว +5

      @@danielsharp2402 search up einstein theory of relativity. The faster you go time around you remains constant while time for everyone speeds up in comparison.

    • @mikelang4853
      @mikelang4853 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      You THOUGHT you did, but you were having hallucinations so was committed and told a fellow patient who has dementia before you died.

    • @unitedspacepirates9075
      @unitedspacepirates9075 5 ปีที่แล้ว

      Just take a different path through space time to offset spacial divergence.

  • @Vk-gv3sc
    @Vk-gv3sc 6 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    long time no see. one of best channeels on youtube

    • @EquiliMario
      @EquiliMario 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      uchiha sasuke Long time no see. I bet Sakura says the same. Be a better husband and father Sasuka-kun!

  • @Jalee4852
    @Jalee4852 3 ปีที่แล้ว +39

    "What we usually consider are impossible are simply engineering problems ... there's no law of physics preventing them."

    • @alfredsutton7233
      @alfredsutton7233 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Perfect ... well and concisely said.

    • @d.bcooper2271
      @d.bcooper2271 3 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      How is this applied to atomic bomb?

    • @isaackvasager9957
      @isaackvasager9957 3 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      @@d.bcooper2271 The top scientists of the time thought an A-bomb wasn't possible, not because there was a law preventing it, but because they couldn't fathom how to split a nucleus of an atom. It was an engineering problem. Not a law of physics problem.

  • @joelkoh7365
    @joelkoh7365 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    To say Einstein is wrong is an overstatement. He is just stating facts through the lens of what was observed then. What was understood about atoms back then vastly differs from what we have now. Imagine showing Einstein the formula to an atomic weapon, he definitely would've understood it.

  • @xspager
    @xspager 6 ปีที่แล้ว +132

    You don't mention Chernobyl and nuclear explosion without making clear Nuclear Power Plants are incapable of exploding like a Nuclear Bomb!!

    • @rsrt6910
      @rsrt6910 5 ปีที่แล้ว +22

      @Jakob Jones
      Actually, one of the lessons learned from theSL1 accident is that it is impossible for a thermal power reactor to explode like a bomb.
      Because while there may be enough fissile material to compose a bomb, it can only maintain critical mass and geometry for thermal neutrons for normal power operations undamaged, and impossible to achieve critical mass and geometry for fast neutron criticality even when then entire core is destroyed and melts into a singular spherical mass.
      Sorry, but the OP is correct.

    • @pjnaruto1
      @pjnaruto1 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Was about to say this myself

    • @clansman89
      @clansman89 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Except much worse if their design is bad. Like Chernobyl and even Fukushima

    • @DataScienceDIY
      @DataScienceDIY 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

      Not to mention that water moderated, or other thermally moderated reactors are not “balancing on a knifes edge” as Veritasium put it, but are inherently stable because the heating of the reactor tends to shut it down by allowing more neutrons to escape before causing fission.

    • @notbob555
      @notbob555 5 ปีที่แล้ว +8

      @@clansman89 So many people ignoring the fact that Chernobyl was practically on purpose. They knew it was gonna fail long before it did. But they did absolutely nothing to stop it. This is what happens when you cut too many corners and don't build things properly.

  • @michaelmele3954
    @michaelmele3954 3 ปีที่แล้ว +13

    Thank you! I've always wondered what the output of a single split atom would be, and specifically whether it would be able to generate an explosion visible to the naked eye. Thanks for the answer

    • @Guitarman7133
      @Guitarman7133 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      YOU CANT SPLIT ATOMS. ITS ALL HORSESHIT. WHEN PLUTONIUM AND URANIUM ARE COMBINED TOGETHER IN A SLOW, CONTROLLED MANNER, THEY PRODUCE HEAT, WHICH BOILS THE WATER, MAKING STEAM, WHICH TURNS THE TURBINES. THATS IT. THE MAX TEMP OF A NUCLEAR REACTOR IS 135 DEGREES. NO SUCH THING AS NUKES OR ATOMIC WEAPONS.

    • @Guitarman7133
      @Guitarman7133 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      YOU CANT SPLIT AN ATOM, FUCKWAD.

    • @michaelmele3954
      @michaelmele3954 ปีที่แล้ว

      @The Ring you're assuming the number of atoms split inside a nuclear reactor is common knowledge. If a single atom made enough energy to be visible, then the reactors would just split an appropriate number to harvest the right amount of energy, duh.

    • @-p2349
      @-p2349 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@michaelmele3954why did that person mock the potential of nuclear energy with that quote? That’s an insane amount of energy for one atom

  • @michaniewiadomski869
    @michaniewiadomski869 5 ปีที่แล้ว +9

    Actually Chernobyl sidenote at 5:37 triggered me- unproper neutron absorbing was not the reason of reactor failure...

    • @WadcaWymiaru
      @WadcaWymiaru 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      It was but...because of xenon poison and lack of heat absorber. (water)

  • @VertexNull
    @VertexNull 2 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Well, this is surprisingly relevant today

    • @gregcandy8900
      @gregcandy8900 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      relevant because Einstein is still right about nuclear weapons

    • @ct6502c
      @ct6502c 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@gregcandy8900

    • @gregcandy8900
      @gregcandy8900 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ct6502c amazing how fast you resorted to lying about what I believe LMAOOO do you even have internal monologue?

    • @ct6502c
      @ct6502c 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@gregcandy8900 You conspiracy theorist nuts are all the same.

    • @gregcandy8900
      @gregcandy8900 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@ct6502c I'd say we should have a debate but I already know you're too much of a coward seeing as you're not even replying to comments from your main channel LOL

  • @SciencewithKatie
    @SciencewithKatie 6 ปีที่แล้ว +517

    So it was Rutherford who was technically the one “talking moonshine” in the end? 👨🏻‍🔬

    • @alejosagues426
      @alejosagues426 6 ปีที่แล้ว +38

      Well, you can't blame them

    • @adityarao1098
      @adityarao1098 6 ปีที่แล้ว +16

      Science with Katie You are in the comments section of literally every youtube channel

    • @Lillu700
      @Lillu700 6 ปีที่แล้ว +29

      It really vexes me when people say "literally", but actually mean "figuratively". Quit with it or I will go and find a video she hasn't commented on!

    • @CarmenLC
      @CarmenLC 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      Atheist Lillu sounds prescriptivist but ok

    • @lowlize
      @lowlize 6 ปีที่แล้ว +11

      He was right until the neutron was discovered.

  • @wtvideoclip422
    @wtvideoclip422 6 ปีที่แล้ว +5

    Lise Meitner - The mother of nuclear power
    realised that the extra neutron wasn't sticking to the uranium, but smashing it in two smaller pieces and soon realised it had the potential to unleash unimaginable amounts of energy. In 1938, this was considered impossible by every respectable scientist.

  • @muhammadislam5138
    @muhammadislam5138 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I deeply admire this great human! One of the greatest explainers🤎! Those days were outstanding! God bless him abundantly with everything!

  • @KevinGreenJ
    @KevinGreenJ 6 ปีที่แล้ว +14

    5:27 This is not how reactors vs bombs work. Bombs require specific isotopes and precise configurations. You can't change a reactor into an atomic bomb! Any explosions that have ever occurred in reactors are chemical as in the case of Chernobyl, and not atomic.

    • @doktork3406
      @doktork3406 5 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      @
      yeah ..he is correct
      atomic reactors use weakly enriched fissile material
      bombs require a lot of very enriched fissile material
      an atomic powerplant could never cause a nuclear explosion
      it doesn't have the right stuff
      and it can't create a fast enough reaction

    • @rsrt6910
      @rsrt6910 5 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      @
      Well... you could if you completely disassemble the core, cut open all the fuel rods, separate the fuel from the ceramic pellets it's stored in, centrifuge out the remaining 95% Uranium 238 until you're left with 235 (or separate out the Plutonium 239), reassemble the core, surround the core with high explosives, detonate the high explosives in a very precise timed sequence... THEN it would explode like a bomb... oh wait...

  • @zmeyagosho
    @zmeyagosho 5 ปีที่แล้ว +7

    3:16 single uranium atom division gives 1/20 of the energy required to lift a grain of sand 0.1 mm... that's actually A LOT of energy if you think about it.
    Energy given of by a single atom can lift billions of atoms!
    One grain of sand contains 78 000 000 000 000 000 000 atoms, imagine this getting lifted by ONE atom! It is a hella of A LOT of energy!

    • @thetelekiller9714
      @thetelekiller9714 3 ปีที่แล้ว +2

      But he said compared people big as us and its really insignificant but you are also right in your own way ur spitting straight facts

    • @Guitarman7133
      @Guitarman7133 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      IDIOT

    • @hiredfiredtired
      @hiredfiredtired 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@thetelekiller9714 for perspective: just a billion atoms would be enough to lift a human (assuming average weight of human)

  • @MrShoopezino
    @MrShoopezino 5 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    "Florescent Uranium Ore!...yeahhhh...." 1:00 vary scientific....much eloquence

  • @jackieking1522
    @jackieking1522 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Wow...someone I respect recommends a book I've already read.... that makes me so chuffed. And it really is a fascinating read.

  • @leerman22
    @leerman22 6 ปีที่แล้ว +6

    He forgot to mention delayed neutrons. You can't use 100% prompt neutrons (neutrons from fission event) to run a reactor because the power would jump from zero power to exploded/molten core almost instantly. Some fraction of neutrons come from the decay of fission products giving you time to control the population of neutrons. Nuclear plant engineers get quite uncomfortable when they hear "prompt critical".
    Neutrons also do lots of other stuff other than fission, like bouncing off nuclei, getting captured by any non-fissile nuclei, or just decaying into a proton and electron. If the neutron is fast enough it can throw neutrons from a heavy nuclei.

    • @gordonrichardson2972
      @gordonrichardson2972 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      True, but its not a thesis on nuclear physics. Its a summary of how nuclear power became possible.

    • @stemtuber
      @stemtuber 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      Agreed. The story of the delayed neutron is a fascinating consequence of fission that is the feature which enables reactor feedback control at human (mechanical) timescales. It has never been clear to me if the Chicago pile crowd knew of this safety cushion when they build their open-air reactor...

    • @gordonrichardson2972
      @gordonrichardson2972 6 ปีที่แล้ว

      stemtuber There is quite a good Wikipedia article on the Chicago pile-1. It operated at very low power of 0.5 watt, and was carefully instrumented, with electronic safety systems. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1