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.

Your video, Richard Feynman cracking safes at Los Alamos - Numberphile, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

The smart folks at energyfromthorium fackbook group are owed all the credit! In the end, the history of the bomb might undermine my own new goal of the advancement of nuclear energy, so perhaps I am not doing myself any favors...doh!
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Glad to see this made it up. Good find.

Glad to see this made it up. Good find.

Your video, Feynman - Los Alamos Censhorship (funny), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

From what I recall (from reading his books, and a biography) he was young and wanted to help the war effort. I think the quote was his, but also that if he had been a bit more mature he would probably have still done the same... just not without considering the consequences.

The safe cracking etc. was just thumbing his nose at authority, being a smart alec, and trying to point out that the regulations were stupid and the safes weren't that secure... the directive sent out in response was that everybody should keep their safes locked while Feynman was about.
>> ^dannym3141:

@Yogi
I understand. I don't know the history of it, but perhaps his inclusion was in some way not optional? Or perhaps he felt morally obliged to help. If he merely suspected that he had expertise valuable to the protection of his country, he may be easily coerced into doing something to protect his family, or some other propaganda story.
I remember reading a scientist's musings on helping develop the bomb, but i can't remember who it was. It may well have been feynman but i did a project on einstein recently, could have been him. I belive they said something to the tune of working really hard in conjunction with other great minds to develop something, almost for the pride of developing it, but also for their country, and not considering the consequences of what they were working on. Only in retrospect did they wish they had considered their actions first.
My brain wants to tie that story to this, because it would fit nicely and explain why he didn't just leave. I'll try and find the information.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Yogi:
By the way I wish he would've just walked away from the project if he was given this much trouble. These are the smart people and they're being pushed around like they're morons by asshole army guys. Fuck them, they want to unleash the power of the atom have them figure it out. Till then and I know this sounds very "Ayn Randish" but take your big brain and go elsewhere. Where people will be happy to see you instead of constantly viewing you with suspicion.

I know what you're saying and i agree in sentiment, but uh... where? It's not like there's a john galt to build a secret country for the intelligent and fair of the world.
I imagine a man like feynman wouldn't expect preferential treatment anyway, why would being intelligent entitle you to being exempt to rules designed for the safety of potentially thousands?
I mean, Feynman had an amazing brain; he could have been good at anything, but his interest lay in physics and he was great at it. Now take another guy with an amazing brain, but his interest lies in writing. Movie stars get paid millions and millions and millions. How many brilliant writers do you know with mansions vs. how many movie stars that can't act but were merely born 'more attractive' than others but have mansions and plaudits?
The world just doesn't work like that even if it should. If you want money and special treatment then you don't want to be going into physics, trust me on that one.
Edit:
Hell, how many of the world's businessmen would join Galt's "strike" in OUR world? They'd strike for money but they'd never strike for honesty and fairness.


Well I'd go back to a university or just go work somewhere else. I'm not saying STOP working on physics...I'm saying stop working for the army if they're going to treat you like crap. They treat you right or you move on, you're not in the army, you have expertise they value.

>> ^Yogi:

By the way I wish he would've just walked away from the project if he was given this much trouble. These are the smart people and they're being pushed around like they're morons by asshole army guys. Fuck them, they want to unleash the power of the atom have them figure it out. Till then and I know this sounds very "Ayn Randish" but take your big brain and go elsewhere. Where people will be happy to see you instead of constantly viewing you with suspicion.


I know what you're saying and i agree in sentiment, but uh... where? It's not like there's a john galt to build a secret country for the intelligent and fair of the world.

I imagine a man like feynman wouldn't expect preferential treatment anyway, why would being intelligent entitle you to being exempt to rules designed for the safety of potentially thousands?

I mean, Feynman had an amazing brain; he could have been good at anything, but his interest lay in physics and he was great at it. Now take another guy with an amazing brain, but his interest lies in writing. Movie stars get paid millions and millions and millions. How many brilliant writers do you know with mansions vs. how many movie stars that can't act but were merely born 'more attractive' than others but have mansions and plaudits?

The world just doesn't work like that even if it should. If you want money and special treatment then you don't want to be going into physics, trust me on that one.

Edit:
Hell, how many of the world's businessmen would join Galt's "strike" in OUR world? They'd strike for money but they'd never strike for honesty and fairness.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

It is a very good, and funny book.
To those who don't know--Feynmann's wife was in a Tuberculosis (TB) hospital in Albuquerque. She died while he was at Los Alamos. When he talks about the last letter she sent (7:28) he's talking about the LAST letter she wrote to him.
>> ^RhesusMonk:
What a gift this man was to the world. It's a great thing that so many of his antics were recorded. I've said this before: if you have any interest in this guy, Surely You're Joking M.r Feynman is a must-read. Quick read, totally worth every minute.



HAHAAAA His wifes dead!...wait that wasn't one of the funny pranks?!

It is a very good, and funny book.

To those who don't know--Feynmann's wife was in a Tuberculosis (TB) hospital in Albuquerque. She died while he was at Los Alamos. When he talks about the last letter she sent (7:28) he's talking about the LAST letter she wrote to him.

>> ^RhesusMonk:

What a gift this man was to the world. It's a great thing that so many of his antics were recorded. I've said this before: if you have any interest in this guy, Surely You're Joking M.r Feynman is a must-read. Quick read, totally worth every minute.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'magnetics, tesla, magnet, capacitors, energy, joules' to 'magnetics, tesla, magnet, capacitors, energy, joules, los alamos' - edited by RhesusMonk

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.
My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.
On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.
I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-Who-s-More-Pro-Science-Repubs-or-Dems

I have always wanted to make a plot of federal funding for science plotted as a function of year for the last 50 years.

My suspicion is that Bush was one of the worst supporters of scientific research.

On a separate but related point, I also suspect that major contractions at government research institutions (like NIST, Argonne, Los Alamos, Lincoln labs, etc) occurred during this time, making the places older on average and thereby less apt to do cutting-edge research.

I firmly believe that funding science is correlated with economic prosperity. And that academic and government research can lead to innovation in the private sector. I think this is the primary reason I could never support a candidate that advocated the dismantling or castration of government science.

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:

Smug? I think you are not hearing things in the interview that contradict your belief.

He said that it was a stark contrast between the celebration in Los Alamos (for having succeeded in doing something that no one had done before) and people in Hiroshima suffering and dying. Later he felt that building things was a waste of time because the weapon that he had helped create would destroy civilization as it was. (Admittedly, the end part of the prior sentence is logical extension from the points at the end of his talk.)

If you listen, you will hear him say that he originally agreed to the project to defeat Germany (from him saying that he failed in reevaluating his reasoning to work on the project when the original reason was removed by defeating Germany.) ...Time 2:00 -> "But what I did immorally, I would say, was to not remember the reason that I said I was doing it. So when the reason changed, which was that Germany was defeated, not the singlest thought came into my mind at all about that. That that meant now that I have to reconsider why I'm continuing to do this. I simply didn't think."

People don't grieve or even accept responsibility in the same way. Because someone doesn't show the emotion that you expect them to have doesn't mean that they haven't had long nights and years having an internal battle about the personal responsibility for the situation.