💥 I Watched Oppenheimer for the First Time!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- The Movie Oppenheimer was a spectacular Masterpiece. Not only the visuals and haunting music, but the acting especially from Cillian Murphy was out of this world.
Enjoy my first-time watching reaction!
It's a real pleasure to watch a science movie that reactor understands so well!
One of my family members also worked on A-bombs, but for the other side, as one of Kurchatov's students. He watched this movie last night and was very impressed.
Evidently it gets a few things wrong or alters them a bit, for instance Truman did call Oppenheimer a crybaby wuss, but not directly after the meeting.
But yeah I'm a bit of a geek no avoiding that fact. :P
I think your channel definitely needs to get more subscribers. I like your humanity and insightfulness.
Much appreciated. :)
No, his famous quote wasn't done at the first explosion, that was the subsequent popularization.
Oppe4nheimer is on record as saying that was the thought that came to him at the Trinity test.
Incredible movie!
It's a truly great movie about a fascinating man and much more. The book it's based on is also brilliant. What an experience it was to watch it for the first time in IMAX. I enjoyed yours and Dave's reaction! Thanks!
They had to calibrate their explosive semi-empirical equation, non-linear differential equations are not solvable in closed form. Numerical calculations were done by a program where human computers were the subroutines, developed by Feynman.
You can't say from an outsiders viewpoint how worthwhile someones life is. Meaning is subjective and therefore changes person to person.
An interesting concept.
I think the best one can reach is how widely someone's life affects the whole of the world and the people in it.
@KineticReactions-kg7xq Yeah but I think that can manifest in many ways. You can impact just a few people and if it was meaningful to them then it mattered. If you impact many people but not quite as strongly that is worth alot too. Those are just two examples out of many. I guess you gotta be pretty humble at least sometimes to admit just how much we don't know.
@@shadyd2544 We know nothing. Therefore everyone is forgiven ;-)
@williambranch4283 Not everything. But most things yeah.
FYI are the effects were practical no CGI
Vannevar Bush was FDR's chief scientist.
It was the Soviet tardy declaration of war on Japan that made the Japanese surrender. They were afraid of the Soviets not the Americans.
Is that right? I'll have to look that up then, I always thought it was directly from the bombs.
@@KineticReactions-kg7xq Myth is strong, particularly if the US thinks they won a war ;-). The Japanese came within 5 mins of never surrendering at all (failed coup against Emperor). The question of honor was uppermost, not the survival of the Japanese people. The nukes were actually unimpressive at that time, because radiation poisoning wasn't yet understood.
This is highly debatable. As has been noted other online forums, It wasn't the Soviet declaration of war in itself but rather the fact tat for the past 3 years and then some Japan suffered a series of military defeats that brought it to the brink of annihilation. The Atomic bomb and the Soviet declaration of war were the two elements that probably kicked some sense into the senior japanese leadership finally accepting that they were defeated and nothing they could do would reverse that and their unconditional surrender was non-negotiable so it was better to surrender now.
The overwhelming force of the Soviet Union wasn't much worse than the overwhelming force of the United States and its western allies. Just more of the same. Plus the Soviets showed they were not able to invade the Japanese home islands when they landed on the island of Shumshu they suffered hard casualties and risked even to be pushed back, they won in the end but realized they were not going to invade the home islands without some more serious experience and organization. They simply never did that and the atomic bombings ended the conflict in short order, and the Soviets had little idea of how to perform large amphibious landing in the same vein of the U.S. and western allies who had been doing that for several years at that point.
While many Historians agree that the Soviet declaration played a role in the surrender but not many believe nor would outright state that as the main cause. However this is mainly more of an attempt to give better context to the atomic bomb and the surrender rather than making the Soviet declaration of war the main reason for the Japanese to capitulate.
@@lestatdelc Your thoughtful comments are appreciated.
The nuclear reactor in Chicago provided the criticality parameters.
In some sense Oppenheimer was right about the "end of war" (or at least toal war) between super-powers, but Teller and Strauss were right about the need for the H-bomb to bring about MAD that facilitated the end of direct total war. If we only had the atomic weapon arsenals (as opposed to thermonuclear ones) there are credible arguments that they would have been used again in war. So it can be credibly argued that Oppenheimer's position on not developing the H-bomb would have likely resulted in war with atomic weapons.
It's also worth remembering that the allies were already wiping out entire cities with conventional incendiary bombings well before the atomic bomb was tested much less used. The allies killed far more people in Dresden, Tokyo, Yokohama, etc. than were killed in the combined bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That is not to belittle the direct mass deaths in those two atomic bomb attacks, or the terrible deaths from radiation afterwards. But the two atomic bombs in the end killed less Japanese (and Americans) then would have died without their use in the months of continued warfare and invading the Japanese homeland.
The early H-bomb design was impractical. Teller was another ambitious sociopath.
That and, as the movie touches on, required a fission bomb to initiate, so they need to build a working fission bomb regardless.
Matter is pseudo-random. Even photons. The statistical laws are the pseudo-part. Space-time being smooth, is part of the paradox of Relativity vs QM.
You know things, compared to the average reactor ;-)
The R vs D was part of the C vs C drama.
There is a good European (Italian?) bio of young Einstein.
Paul and Dave