Heisenberg was indeed working on developing an atomic weapon for the Nazis, but he was still a couple of years behind the efforts at Los Alamos. The American project had better resources and the aid of Neils Bohr, Heisenberg's former mentor and colleague.

Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
-- Niels Bohr

Feynman was brilliant. I don't doubt for a moment that he has had his own internal strife regarding his involvement in the project. Many of the scientists on the project were afflicted with a sort of tunnel vision as they focused on completing the job at hand, or felt that they had to get it done before the technology was used on them, only to later feel some version of guilt about their work. Feynman expresses his feelings about around 3:15 and goes on to say that he felt "that things were sort of doomed."

The only Manhattan Project scientist to leave the project was Józef Rotblat.

IN MARCH 1944 I experienced a disagreeable shock. At that time I was living with the Chadwicks in their house on the Mesa, before moving later to the "Big House;' the quarters for single scientists. General Leslie Groves, when visiting Los Alamos, frequently came to the Chadwicks for dinner and relaxed palaver. During one such conversation Groves said that, of course, the real purpose in making the bomb was to subdue the Soviets. [...] Remember, this was said at a time when thousands of Russians were dying every day on the Eastern Front, tying down the Germans and giving the Allies time to prepare for the landing on the continent of Europe. Until then I had thought that our work was to prevent a Nazi victory, and now I was told that the weapon we were preparing was intended for use against the people who were making extreme sacrifices for that very aim. [/reformation.org]

In the letter above, Rotblat goes on to explain that Neils Bohr shared concerns of a possible arms race between West and East, and his thoughts about why other scientists did not make the same choice to leave the project, and of accused of being a spy for the Russins after quitting the project. He was instructed speak to no one of his reasons for leaving.

Rotblat later went on to found the Pugwash Conference, with Bertrand Russell, which aimed to bring together scientists to work toward reducing the danger of (nuclear) armed conflict, and worked towards nuclear disarmament.

An excellent interview with him is over at the Vega Science Trust website:
http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/22

The National Film Board of Canada recently produced a documentary about on the work of Rotblat and the work of Pugwash. Trailer here:

Oh, okay, so you believe everything you read. That's not very intelligent, or at least it's not very SMART. The bible was written hundreds of years ago, and has since been translated and re-translated to and from dozens of different languages. Individuals and groups in power throughout different points in history have taken it upon themselves to modify the bible, adding and omitting pieces here and there to suit their agenda. They knew that gullible sheep, unable to think for themselves, are easily swayed by religion, and what better way to control a populace than by attacking their very basis for the way they live their lives?

God pre-exists everything. We know God exists because He lets us know, and He would let you know that if you sought Him out. The New Testament was written 2000 years ago. The Old Testament is at least 1000 years older than that. We have copies of the early manuscripts so we know what the original bibles looked like. So the translations today are accurate, and this idea that they are corrupt is just outright false. Yes, man has used the bible for evil ends, but this is no different from anything else man does. The very reason that Jesus Christ came to Earth is because man is so desperately wicked and needs Gods redemption.

Additionally, if one is intelligent, and they believe in ancient myths, obviously they're going to be some of the greatest minds the world has ever known, right? That's why all the geniuses of the world are devout Christians or whatever religion you want to name, right? WRONG.

NASA is not run by rocket scientists who go to church on Sunday. Great inventors and genius-level individuals such as Stephen Hawking are not religious specifically BECAUSE they are intelligent. They are able to think for themselves, not be told what to think.

Some of the greatest minds in history were devout Christians..and some of the greatest scientists:

Francis Bacon - Originated the scientific method
Johannes Kepler - Laws of Planetary motion
Galileo Galilei - Father of modern astronomy
Nicolaus Copernicus - Heliocentric Universe
James Clerk Maxwell - Electromagnetic field
Neils Bohr - the Atom
Louis Pasteur - germ theory of disease
Rene Descartes - Philosopher and mathematician
Issac Newton - Invented classical mechanics
Max Planck - Founder of quantum mechanics

A lot of modern science is built on the backs of Christian thinkers, as you can see, and that is just a short list. Today, around 10 percent of scientists believe in God. At least 50 nobel laureates believe in God. Now, if you want to talk about great thinkers, how about Albert Einstein? He believed in God. Although not a Christian, here is what he had to say about Jesus:

"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?"
"Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot!"
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."7

Of course, religion and science are completely unrelated topics, and one does not have to be non-secular in order to be a scientist, but typically, the two mindsets would conflict, as religionists base their beliefs off of emotion and other irrational concepts. Scientists use a thought process, experimentation, and ruling out possibilities in order to come to conclusions and figure out FACTS about the universe around us. There are scientists who believe in the possibility of a god, but it takes a different form than that of some all-seeing being that created everything. I'll never try to explain that to you, though, as you're too blinded by foolish nonsense that has been force-fed to you since childhood.

I will leave you with this though: Adam and Eve. Here's some fruit. I'm going to tempt you with it, and then create a snake to TALK to you and tell you you should eat some of it, and THEN I'm gunna come back and be all "OH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK?! I SMITE THEE FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!" just to fuck with humanity. Wow. You worship a pretty evil, and vindictive force. Why would you want to do that? The fucker's up there just fucking with us like a little kid with a magnifying glass over an ant hill. Jesus christ, you must really enjoy misery. I'll take the reality of humanity surviving on our own acquiescence and compassion over that bullshit any day!

I base my belief off of personal revelation. I was an agnostic my entire life and raised without religion, and I was a secular humanist and a strict materialist who didn't see any evidence for God or spirit. God woke me up to the truth and let me know He is real. If you want science facts, you only have to examine the first page of the bible:

In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER)

And God said, “Let there be light (ENERGY),” and there was light.

It took mankind 3000 years to catch up and figure out the Universes foundation is based on these principles. There is also no better description which uniquely fits the big bang theory. Creation ex-nihilio, which is creation from nothing.

The serpent you're referring to was Satan. God put the tree there because He gave mankind free will to follow His commands or not. He also warned them of the consequences if they ate of the fruit. Adam and Eve decided to disobey God and believe the lie because Satan promised them they would have Gods power if they did it. So, instead of trusting God, they lusted after His power and betrayed Him. That's why they were kicked out of the garden. Their sin brought death into the world.

No, God didn't damn us for eternity. It's the very reason God sent His son Jesus to die on the cross, to save us from this fate we created and redeem mankind. So we could have eternal life with God again in the Kingdom of Heaven. We are sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Gods gift of salvation is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

It's a bit simplistic to say that the conservative physicists like Bohr and Dirac rejected Feynman's diagram because they loved their complex mathematics so much. Fact is that Feynman diagrams are very dumbed down versions of reality, as quantum particles do not move in such simple straight lines as implied by the diagrams. Their power lies in how they are an exquisite intuitive tool for keeping track of how the complex equations should be put together. When you first hear of them there is a danger of mistaking them for being meant as accurate pictures of reality, and I think this was a big part of Bohr and Dirac's misgivings.

Anyhow, when you keep in mind that the diagrams are always to be used in conjuntion with the complex mathematics, they are perhaps the most useful tool ever discovered in physics.

^I took AST 205: Stars and Galaxies awhile back and had to learn all about the particle physics, GUT and spectroscopy, etc.

Bear with me, it was a few semesters ago so I may forget/muddle some of the details. Basically, as the molecules of hydrogen, helium and other trace gases are squeezed together by gravity, the electron shells of the individual atoms begin to collide with one another. When they do, the electrons collide and change their orbit around the nucleus, and then revert back to their original orbit. This releases a store of energy as photons. The same thing happens when an X particle strikes a weak boson. The larger the bang, the farther the change in orbit and the more energy is released, when it returns back to its original orbit. Or something like that. Look up the Bohr model, Planck's Constant, etc for more info.

Long story short, the resulting photons which are released make up the electromagnetic energy in the universe, depending on frequency, etc.

It's all through measuring light via spectroscopy and a little triangulation that we can tell the size, rotation speeds, mass, velocity, age, composition, etc, of the stars and galaxies, nebulae and other celestial objects. Pretty crazy once you get your head all wrapped around it.

If you really want to understand or discuss economics you should try to replace "free market theory" with "physics" and see if your arguments make sense. Economics is a science, not a social philosophy. Physics predicts what will happen when you drop a ball, and economics predicts what will happen when demand is increased. Physics does not say whether you *should* drop a ball, and economics does not say whether you *should* increase demand.

"Physics exists, but not in the way you, Einstein, or Bohr would like it to exist"
"Physics has no respect for labor, natural resources or society in general"
"Physics has no qualms about taking huge bailouts"

Do those statements make any sense?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^It exists, but not in the way you, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman would like it to exist. The so called 'free market' exists just as Chomsky describes, with no regard or respect for labor, natural resources or society in general, and no qualms about taking huge bailouts.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.

You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.
Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?


My own opinion is that evolutionary theory is rather easy to grasp and understand. Quantum mechanics, not so much. I mean, I can recite some of the implications of quantum mechanics, but they're still beyond imagination and I have no concept of how these things happen.

And no, quantum mechanics doesn't say anything about cats transforming into horses. Quantum mechanics says that quantum particles exist in all possible states at all times unless they are observed. You'll be nominated for a golden crocoduck yourself if you keep saying things like that.

Einstein and Planck essentially founded quantum theory, though Einstein wasn't fond of its implications, and Schrodinger is famous for pointing out how ridiculous it is. They all still believed it because the evidence indicates it's true. Not sure if you were implying that they were all disbelievers, but that's how I read that part of your comment.

>> ^Aendolin:
^I'd say evolutionary theory is harder to accept, not grasp.


You think quantum mechanics is easy to accept? Planck, Bohr, Schroedinger, and Einstein all considered it ludicrous, and they were much smarter men than most.

Quantum mechanics says that if you place a cat under a large box, and lift the box to peek in enough times, one of those times it will be a horse. You're okay with that?

I'm admittedly not a quantum physicist, but there's something not-quite-right about their explanation of alternate universes. The introduction was confusing because it seemed not to be talking about alternate universes but probabilities within our own, single, universe. It's the "infinite monkeys chained to a typewriter" argument. If you have infinite monkeys chained to a typewriter, eventually (given infinite time) probability dictates that one of those monkeys will accidentally press the keys in the right order to compose all the works of Shakespeare (or any other author you may choose). So what they seem to be saying in the intro is that if the universe is infinitely large, probability dictates that there is direct copy of Earth out there somewhere (they forget about the time factor--that alternate Earth may have existed 2,000,000 years ago or won't exist for another 2 billion or so years).

EDIT: Originally I questioned whether there was evidence that the quantum rules that apply to light also apply to matter, but then I found info that shows the same principle holds for both. See http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm, in particular the experiment done at the Niels Bohr Institute for more details.

bohring