Hollywood Movie Aside, Just How Good a Physicist Was Oppenheimer? (science.org) 91
sciencehabit shares a report from Science: This week, the much anticipated movie Oppenheimer hits theaters, giving famed filmmaker Christopher Nolan's take on the theoretical physicist who during World War II led the Manhattan Project to develop the first atomic bomb. J. Robert Oppenheimer, who died in 1967, is known as a charismatic leader, eloquent public intellectual, and Red Scare victim who in 1954 lost his security clearance in part because of his earlier associations with suspected Communists. To learn about Oppenheimer the scientist, Science spoke with David C. Cassidy, a physicist and historian emeritus at Hofstra University. Cassidy has authored or edited 10 books, including J. Robert Oppenheimer and the American Century. How did Oppenheimer compare to Einstein? Did he actually make any substantiative contributions to THE Bomb? And why did he eventually lose his security clearance?
Q: Oppenheimer's name appears in the early applications of quantum mechanics and the theory of black holes. How good a physicist was he? A: Well, he was no Einstein. And he's not even up to the level of Heisenberg, Pauli, Schrodinger, Dirac, the leaders of the quantum revolution of the 1920s. One of the reasons for this was his birth date. He was born in 1904, so he was 3 years younger than Heisenberg, 4 years younger than Pauli. Those few years were enough to place him in the second wave of the quantum revolution and behind the main wave of discovery, in what [philosopher of science] Thomas Kuhn called the "mopping-up operation," applications of the new theory.
Q: Even some of his contemporaries said he was a dilettante. How good he was in terms of raw skill?
A: He had the skill and the brilliance. But he didn't have the focus. He was not absolutely devoted to physics the way one of the great physicists would be. It was just one of his many passions. At the time he was doing physics, he read a lot of literature and languages. Also, in the U.S., the empirical way of approaching physics was predominant [whereas European theorists were pursuing new concepts]. So the theorists' job was to help experimentalists understand their data. As the physics and the experiments were shifting, his interest shifted, too.
One of his main contributions had only a tenuous connection to observation, and that was black holes. That was an unfortunate situation. In 1939, he and a student, Hartland Snyder, published a paper predicting [collapsing stars could form] black holes, and the whole thing got ignored. They couldn't pursue it because the war was breaking out. A lot of people just ignored it because it seemed impossible -- how could anything collapse to an infinitely dense point? -- until [physicist John] Wheeler revived the matter in the 1960s. Not until the 1990s was there any experimental evidence for black holes. I think Oppenheimer would have gotten a Nobel Prize if he was still alive at that point.
Q: Did Oppenheimer make specific technical contributions to the bomb's design?
A: In one very important way. In 1942, [President Franklin D.] Roosevelt ordered a crash program for the bomb. Arthur Compton selected Oppenheimer to head a theory group at [the University of California] Berkeley to work out all the details -- what they would need, how they would do it. The group handed the results to Compton, and the Manhattan Project was born. When scientists arrived at the laboratory [in Los Alamos, New Mexico], they were given a series of lectures by Oppenheimer's closest assistant, Robert Serber, on how the bomb would work based on that research. So it's Oppenheimer and his group who are setting up the whole theory for the project.
You can read the full interview here.
Not that good. (Score:2, Funny)
He eventually had to switch careers and take a job as a psychiatrist, and even at that he got thwarted by the Batman.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is after he moonlighted as a gypsy gang leader in the 1920's.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My uncle said he was a fraud and was one of the lizard people. But then this is the same uncle that tried to patent 50 different designs for a tin foil hat. Not sure he was a reliable source of information.
Day After Trinity (Score:5, Informative)
"Day After Trinity" is another movie from 1980 about Oppenheimer and the development of the atomic bomb. A documentary, the filmmaker interviewed numerous physicists, mathematicians, and others who were there when the bomb was built and tested. It also serves into the postwar developments and his troubles regarding his political views.
Re:Day After Trinity (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to see a movie that looked at the decision making process to use the bombs, and where to drop them. And the background of the on-going attempts to negotiate peace with Japan.
It's not really been covered in great detail as far as I'm aware, at least on in a movie. There were definitely some things going on to make sure they could drop them before surrender was accepted, and on targets that had both military value and large civilian populations. The desire to know what the effects of atomic war would
Re: (Score:1)
Was there ever a real choice?
The bombs ultimately saved more lives than they took by pushing unconditional surrender across the line. And even that was by a hair's breadth when the emperor stepped in to break a tie vote.
Okinawa showed what lay ahead with an invasion of Japan. It would have cost millions of lives on both sides.
Re: (Score:1)
Was there ever a real choice?
The bombs ultimately saved more lives than they took by pushing unconditional surrender across the line. And even that was by a hair's breadth when the emperor stepped in to break a tie vote.
Okinawa showed what lay ahead with an invasion of Japan. It would have cost millions of lives on both sides.
Any time someone tells you there isn't, or wasn't, any real choice? Keep one hand on your wallet.
In the case of something like the dropping of atomic weapons on major cities, you really think there was a black-and-white choice with only two options? Yes/No? No range of possible targets? Because [alternate history full of assumptions, so we HAD to]?
There were enormous moral consequences to that decision, such as it was. I'm not at all clear that it was even really thought through. The strategic bombings of W
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...a US base is coming to keep the peace...
The idea that the USA just ... militarily taking over the world as a net-positive is debatable. Be it the WWII era USA or today's.
Assuming that would have simply ended war by the threat of atomic annihilation is silly. You can nuke a city but you can't nuke a culture. You can't nuke a dispersed resistance movement. You can't nuke ideology - just look at what happened in Afghanistan the moment we left.
Could it have helped better unify the world? Maybe. Would it have been all sunshine and rainbows? De
Re: (Score:1)
Why is it necessary to say anything more than "They started it"?
Re:Day After Trinity (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to see a movie that looked at the decision making process to use the bombs, and where to drop them. And the background of the on-going attempts to negotiate peace with Japan.
It's not really been covered in great detail as far as I'm aware, at least on in a movie. There were definitely some things going on to make sure they could drop them before surrender was accepted, and on targets that had both military value and large civilian populations. The desire to know what the effects of atomic war would be like was a big factor, but is rarely mentioned.
There is some stuff on Youtube with declassified documents discussing when and where to use atomic bombs when and if they became available.
As for the decision making process, what we have is of course people dividing into camps. And some of them seem to think that the powes that be in th eUS needed great foresight while operating form 20/20 hindsight.
WW2 was an interesting and complex war (to say the least) where there were 2 groups, the japanese and the germans who had no plans to surrender, no matter the cost to their civilian population. The other axis power, Italy was relatively normal, and its citizens seems a lot less interested in fighting than its rulers.
So after Germany surrendered post Hitler and his Nerobefehl decree, and the Japanese willingness to fight to the last person - long after fighting was pointless, punctuated by the island hopping campaign, and especially the Okinawa campaign. There's part one
Second was that Germany was actively attempting to develop a nuclear fission device. Their paradigm was incorrect, but who knew at the time?
Third was Japan was a smoldering ruin by that time. The stubborn demand to fight to the last person needed some shock process if they were to be convinced to call it off.
So even though the firebombings had caused more damage than the nuclear bombs did, the fact that single devices could wreak such damage provided that shock.
Finally there was a big desire to end the damn carnage. The closest thing to victory that Japan's military leaders hoped for was the allies just giving up, leaving Japan's military and it's attitudes in place. Otherwise they were believing that the allies were going to have to commit genocide, and lose many of their own people. Japan was working it's own version of Nerobefehl.
Finally - and this is the part not often addressed, after Germany surrendered, it was well known that the allies were going to be involved in a long reconstruction process. And that long reconstruction process required a defeated enemy.
Japan needed a similar reconstruction. So what to be done? If the allies simply gave up and stopped fighting - the japanese best hope, how does one reconstruct a mortal enemy's land, when they are still at war with you?
The war had to have an actual ending for the rebuilding process to begin.
As much fun as it is to crap on the US for using the weapons, it would be interesting to hear the alternatives that people might have to offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Shaun's discussion of the history is the best I've seen so far: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go [youtu.be]
He covers how the decision was made by the US, and the attempts by the Japanese to surrender leading up to the bombings. The really sad thing is that the only thing that delayed surrender in the end was the status of Japanese islands post-war, and the US ended up giving them what they wanted anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Shaun's discussion of the history is the best I've seen so far: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go [youtu.be]
He covers how the decision was made by the US, and the attempts by the Japanese to surrender leading up to the bombings. The really sad thing is that the only thing that delayed surrender in the end was the status of Japanese islands post-war, and the US ended up giving them what they wanted anyway.
I've always wondered though - those who believe that dropping the atomic bomb was an evil act that shows how the USA is the worst country in the world.
What is their solution? Surrender to Japan? Just give up, go home, and leave the country in a shouldering ruin? Surrender the day that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor?
Okay - so let's assume that there was never any valid or moral reason to drop the bombs.
What should the USA have done that would have made the people who agree with that first statement say w
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The other option was to accept Japan's surrender. The video I linked has all the details, but the offer was there and the US could have simply agreed to it. As I said, in the end it would have been the same deal that they accepted anyway - unconditional surrender, Japan keeps all its islands but accepts US military bases.
Japan offered armistice, not surrender (Score:5, Interesting)
The other option was to accept Japan's surrender.
Not really. The diplomats looking for a deal were operating unofficially and under constant fear of discovery by the military and execution as traitors. The government was officially pursing an armistice, not a surrender.
The emperor did not make the decision to surrender until after the atomic bombings. Even then a military coup nearly stopped him. The militarists trying to rescue the emperor from the defeatists who were telling him lies.
We learned the errors of armistice in WW1, it was not going to be repeated in WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't diplomats, it was senior government ministers.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't diplomats, it was senior government ministers.
Ministers with a diplomatic function, and/or diplomatic experience, and/or status in royal family, who could meet with foreigners without raising too military suspicion.
Its a myth Japan was about to surrender before Hiroshima.
"Naotake Sato, a former foreign minister, served as Japan’s ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1945. In Moscow he existed beyond lethal reach by the most fanatical elements of Japan’s armed forces and thus could speak candidly. But he performed one astonishing other role
Placing total faith in counter-invasion battle (Score:4, Informative)
Buttressing the Sato-Togo exchange, Joseph C. Grew, the American deemed to possess the best insight into Japan based on his long service as ambassador to that country, assessed the weight to be accorded Konoe’s mission to Moscow. Grew supported the interpretation that the Konoe initiative was not a real effort for peace, but only a ploy to stave off defeat by playing on American war weariness. On July 27, an analysis attached to the daily summary of diplomatic intercepts for top American leaders affirmed that collectively all the intercepts—diplomatic and military read together demonstrated that Japan was nowhere near peace, but placing total faith in the great counter-invasion battle. As late as August 7, the day after Hiroshima, Grew still believed the militarists remained in firm control of Japan and thus peace was not near.
Thus, Sato’s withering cross examination by cable, not just hindsight, validates the dismissal by American leaders of Japan’s sole authentic diplomatic initiative in 1945, the totally ineffectual approach to the Soviets."
Re: (Score:2)
Buttressing the Sato-Togo exchange, Joseph C. Grew, the American deemed to possess the best insight into Japan based on his long service as ambassador to that country, assessed the weight to be accorded Konoe’s mission to Moscow. Grew supported the interpretation that the Konoe initiative was not a real effort for peace, but only a ploy to stave off defeat by playing on American war weariness. On July 27, an analysis attached to the daily summary of diplomatic intercepts for top American leaders affirmed that collectively all the intercepts—diplomatic and military read together demonstrated that Japan was nowhere near peace, but placing total faith in the great counter-invasion battle. As late as August 7, the day after Hiroshima, Grew still believed the militarists remained in firm control of Japan and thus peace was not near.
And he was correct.
The emperor was prepared to accept the Potsdam declaration on July 26th, but the rest of the ministry was not.
On August 9th, it was decided to accept the Potsdam declaration. Sometime afterward, the emperor made a tape accepting that.
There was an attempted Coup on the 14th and 15th of August. It attempted to place the emperor under house arrest, destroy the audio tape the emperor made declaring defeat, and to continue the war. It failed.
The official declaration was on the 15th of
Re: (Score:2)
The other option was to accept Japan's surrender.
Not really. The diplomats looking for a deal were operating unofficially and under constant fear of discovery by the military and execution as traitors. The government was officially pursing an armistice, not a surrender. The emperor did not make the decision to surrender until after the atomic bombings. Even then a military coup nearly stopped him. The militarists trying to rescue the emperor from the defeatists who were telling him lies.
This is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]j_incident
After Major Kenji Hatanaka had his conspirators murder Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division. Then tried to counterfeit an order to permitting them to occupy the Tokyo Imperial Palace and place Emperor Hirohito under house arrest.
It sounds a bit like some recent activities in the US, with fake electors and a coup attempt! back to the matter at hand.
Even after the emperor and officials met, there were those i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like to see a movie that looked at the decision making process to use the bombs, and where to drop them. And the background of the on-going attempts to negotiate peace with Japan.
It's not really been covered in great detail as far as I'm aware, at least on in a movie. There were definitely some things going on to make sure they could drop them before surrender was accepted, and on targets that had both military value and large civilian populations. The desire to know what the effects of atomic war would be like was a big factor, but is rarely mentioned.
This is not a movie and it may not go into as much detail as you would like, but here is a documentary done in 1965 by NBC that covers a bit of what you want: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, I will take a look.
Dropping the bomb (Score:1)
Bomb targets were to show Japanese the damage (Score:2)
The decision where to drop was made because the two cities involved, were basically "bomb free" and had not much war damage. "They" wanted to see how much damage was done by the [atomic] bomb, ...
These target cities were left unharmed during normal bombing to show the damage the atomic bombs did to the Japanese. They did not want any confusion in the minds of the JAPANESE leadership. They wanted to pre-empt any Japanese militarists attempt to minimize the damage in the reports to leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Day After Trinity (Score:2)
I enjoyed Fat Man and Little Boy too, but it sorta skipped over "why" and "should we" and focused on the "how" and the love story, with a lot of interesting rid-bits from the Manhattan project.
I was under the impression that Oppenheimer's value was in his Rolodex and his ability to bring people together, not as the "best" scientist.
Oppenheimer had a messy past, was very useful at a time when his country needed him, and couldn't escape his past after his contributions brought an end to the war in the Pacific
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoyed Fat Man and Little Boy too, but it sorta skipped over "why" and "should we" ...
That argument/process would require two three-hour movies. It's more complicated than "Dune".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In 1945, people weren't obsessed with their personal fame in the way that we take it for granted everybody is today. Nobody was there with their phones out - recording it all to gain likes from their followers.
I doubt it will be in the film too, since it would be imposing contemporary values on vastly different society, not that Hollywood isn't above that, but we can hope they would respect history this one time.
Re: (Score:2)
>In 1945, people weren't obsessed with their personal fame in the way that we take it for granted everybody is today
Have you studied history?
Re: (Score:3)
How good of a murderer was he? He tried to murder his professor with a poisoned apple but failed, so that's +0.
Well, that magic mirror deserves at least some of the blame - it should have just left well enough alone and told Oppenheimer he was the fairest in the land.
He was a successful feral cat herder (Score:5, Insightful)
One might say he was a successful feral cat herder.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:He was a successful feral cat herder (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Physicist he was a good leader ... as an Engineer he was good at organising... ...But he was the best kind of leader, one who understands what the people they lead actually do ,..
Re: (Score:2)
Science comes in many forms, from a lone naturalist hiking in the woods with a sharp eye and a backpack full of specimen jars to the scientist administrator running giant projects that tackle problems beyond the scope of what any single mind could manage in a single lifetime. They're all scientists, and they can be "great" in completely different ways.
We tend to mythologize scientists as if they were all *mad* scientists, just with varying degrees of madness. And there's a place in science for the brillian
Re: (Score:3)
He was good enough to organize, direct, lead and motivate the very best scientists. Leadership ability at that level is also an extremely rare skill.
So much this. So many really intelligent and smart people have really poor organizational skills, especially when dealing with other intelligent and smart people.
There was a reason Leslie Groves picked Oppenheimer as director. Oppenheimer had the organizational skills, knew enough to know what he was doing, and knew enough to not be bullshitted when the other smart people started up with their ego games.
Re: (Score:2)
Barbenheimer (Score:1)
The real question, how good of a pink physicist was Barbenheimer?
This is truly a rare event, like a solar eclipse! (Score:3)
Re: This is truly a rare event, like a solar eclip (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: This is truly a rare event, like a solar ecli (Score:2, Insightful)
Movies like this inspire the mind the same way that Red Bull nourishes the body. You technically get your calories and electrolytes but that's about it.
I remember watching Hidden Figures a while back and quite frankly it looked like live action children's cartoon all around.
People are complex individuals and deserve more than a cavalcade of lazy tropes and mugging into a camera.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen that claim about the Big Bang Theory made before but I've never seen any real data to support it and having watched a few episodes of the show I find this incredibly hard to believe. I honestly don't know how any character on that show could inspire someone out of a paper bag let alone into a degree in the sciences.
Even when I think about the 3 or 4 coworkers who recommended the show as something that would fit my tastes, nice people but not a one of them were into nerd culture or science. Basical
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't grasp the reality that media influences and inspires people that's on you
Of course I never said that. What I actually said was I doubted this was the case with Big Bang Theory.
Every time I've seen Big Bang Theory come up on Slashdot I've seen multiple "blackface for nerds" references here along with plenty on the wider internet so I'm hardly alone in this opinion. Personally, Ive never seen a more horrible representation of nerd culture this century. Being into nerdy shit and science doesn't make one a pathetic individual.
Re: This is truly a rare event, like a solar ecl (Score:2)
I remember watching Hidden Figures a while back and quite frankly it looked like live action children's cartoon all around.
The problem with that movie was that the key scenes most people talk about were made up, like the "we all pee the same color" scene. [vice.com]
There are lots of movies that "involve" scientists, but a movie ABOUT a scientist would only be so entertaining - I've seen movies about Edison, Bell, Tesla, Currie, etc., the problem is, they can either be entertaining or accurate, achieving both (seems) impossible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: This is truly a rare event, like a solar eclip (Score:3)
Re: This is truly a rare event, like a solar eclip (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is the point where someone is supposed to tell you that Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, so if you see something wrong you can just go edit it.
And then the rest of us roll our eyes and snort because edits from people outside the Wikipedia clique just get reverted as spam, original research, edit wars, unsourced material, or the like.
Re: (Score:2)
According to Wikipedia there are only 39 biographic movies about scientists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Nerds, it is your duty to see this movie and drag someone you know along as well.
My question is, is it any good? I rarely go to cinemas (I save the big budget snore-fest superhero movies for my next long haul flight, because if there's one place where you need your brain switched off it's in a pressurised metal tube at FL380 sandwiched between inconsiderate arseholes) but if this film is any good I'll happily see it on the big screen.
It may only be £5 a ticket... but there's £4 for parking, £13 for a "large" popcorn and drink and £15-20 for dinner because i
Michael Bay should have produced that movie (Score:2)
Who cares whether Openheimer was a good physician if we could have a movie with a lot of mega explosions?
Now we're fed this 2 hour movie with all kinds of difficult things to think about.
Re: (Score:3)
Now we're fed this 2 hour movie with all kinds of difficult things to think about.
You should have stayed for the third hour. That's when the explosions start.
He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:5, Insightful)
He was a project manager, which is fine. He was a great physicist too, btw. He wasn't on Einstein or Fermi's level but he was a good physicist. His biggest contribution was knowing which physicists and mathematicians to hire and also what paths to pursue and not pursue. What to spend money on and what not to. So he wasn't a great physicist, but a good one. Just because he ran the program doesn't mean he was the smartest one there. To clarify that point it's like how people think Elon Musk is a great rocket scientist, inventor, and engineer when he didn't come up with any new concepts. He just funded existing ideas and hired the right people. Him an Oppenheimer are like the people who bet on the right horse at the Kentucky derby. Not to be confused with the horse, horse trainer, or jockey.
Re:He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:4, Insightful)
Having the technical level of depth to understand who the "right people" are is critically underrated. Oppenheimer and Musk both have (had) a very keen engineering level of understanding what is going on.
In a way he was kind of a Feynman of his time, as the full interview notes:
Groves picked him specifically. First of all, because of Oppenheimerâ(TM)s grasp of the physics and his ability to explain it to him. Also, because Oppenheimer was highly respected by the other physicists.
That's not just some good project manager, that's someone who understands the problem domain deeply.
Re:He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:5, Interesting)
In a way he was kind of a Feynman of his time
Err... Feynman was the Feynman of Oppenheimer's time.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorta, but not really. Feynman was fourteen years younger. and died 21 years later. He was pretty much the next generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying Feynman was not a great physicist? I'm not qualified to say but I did enjoy his books.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you saying Feynman was not a great physicist?
Nope I'm saying Oppenheimer was, as well. Was Feynman at the level of Einstein either? Doesn't seem like it. But he could be brilliant regardless - and so could Oppenheimer.
Re:He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, he was no Einstein. And he's not even up to the level of Heisenberg, Pauli, Schrodinger, Dirac
(Emphasis mine)
That's like looking at a Mercedes AMG and saying, "Well of course it's no Pagani, but it's not even at the level of a Ferrari!". Yeah, those other cars may be on a different level, but most people can only dream of ever having something as nice as that Mercedes.
Re:He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:5, Insightful)
Nitpick: having read a few biographies of Elon Musk, I disagree with your claim that he: (1) "just funded existing ideas and hired the right people", but didn't (2) come up with any new concepts. He might have done more of (1) than (2), but it is incorrect to claim he didn't do any (2) at all.
It is relatively common for a person to be highly skilled at a core competency (programming, physics, art, carpentry, plumbing, cooking and so on) but to have mediocre skills, at best, in other areas, such as management/leadership, communication, marketing, sales, logistics, financial planning, customer service, and so on. This is one reason why it is common for start-up companies to fail: the product idea is great and the core skills required to implement it are present, but the other skills required to have a successful business are lacking. If you think of the Manhattan Project as being a start-up, then having enough people with the core skills (nuclear physics) was important, but the project would have failed if it didn't have the required non-core skills too. The tone of the interview questions in this posting fall into the trap of thinking that only core skills were important for the Manhattan Project and if Oppenheimer's skills in that area were not quite as good as those of others, then his contributions must have been negligible.
Re:He was a good but not one of the greatest (Score:4, Informative)
What original ideas has Musk had that worked out? There is Starlink I guess, in the sense that it provides funding for SpaceX. Assuming he did come up with it - I have a feeling it was more about application of new RF technology that someone else developed. Points for the application I suppose.
His other big ideas... Hyperloop he admitted was just to scupper California's high speed rail. His Vegas tunnel is a joke, and wasn't even comparable with the speed at which the Chinese have been building their new subway systems for quite some time now.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Uh, Starlink was NOT his original idea! He stole the idea from WorldVu (now called OneWeb) which came to him to launch their satellites. When WorldVu/Oneweb backed out he started Starlink. Reference: https://spacenews.com/41755wor... [spacenews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What original ideas has Musk had that worked out?
From the top of my head...
Zip2, co-founded by Elon and his brother Kimbal (later, co-founder status was awarded to an early angel investor too), was a web server that combined maps (think Google Maps but years before that was invented), directions on how to get from one location to another, and a customer review service of businesses (think Yelp but years before that was founded). Elon did most/all of the web server back-end coding for the initial version.
What people know of as PayPal was the result of th
Re: (Score:1)
What original ideas has Musk had that worked out? There is Starlink I guess, in the sense that it provides funding for SpaceX. Assuming he did come up with it - I have a feeling it was more about application of new RF technology that someone else developed. Points for the application I suppose.
His other big ideas... Hyperloop he admitted was just to scupper California's high speed rail. His Vegas tunnel is a joke, and wasn't even comparable with the speed at which the Chinese have been building their new subway systems for quite some time now.
Dude. You suck. What do other billionaires do with their money? How did he become a billionaire from a mere millionaire?
If money has to be wasted on stupid shit, I will choose the stupid shit that Elon Musk is involved with rather than the stupid shit that Jeff Bezos or Larry Ellison are involved in. (Don't even mention Bill gates here, he is not merely enjoying his wealth, he is still amassing it in unethical ways)
And WTF is Warren Buffet doing with his wealth? Or Jack Ma? Or... you get the idea. There is
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify that point it's like how people think Elon Musk is a great rocket scientist, inventor, and engineer when he didn't come up with any new concepts. He just funded existing ideas and hired the right people. Him an Oppenheimer are like the people who bet on the right horse at the Kentucky derby. Not to be confused with the horse, horse trainer, or jockey.
I'd differentiate between someone who's good at running a large R&D project and someone who's good at founding, promoting, and managing companies.
Not to devalue what Musk's done, but his (exceptional) skills have far more to do with business, management, and marketing.
Not EVEN up to Heisenberg! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Not EVEN up to Heisenberg! (Score:5, Funny)
Not even up to the level of Heisenberg - what a loser! Hahaha! Lo-o-o-ser! Pfffff...Heisenberg, my cat understands his silly equations.
Are you sure?
I thought my cat did as well, but the moment I got my cat to hold still long enough to really check he suddenly seemed to be very uncertain...
How Good Was Oppenheimer? (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like at least 3 of his major projects blew up on him.
Smarter than anyone on Slashdot (Score:3)
Edward Teller betrayed him (Score:2)
Edward Teller was the one that torpedoed Oppenheimer, out of professional jealousy. He was responsible for the whisper campaign that destroyed Oppenheimers career. I met Teller in the 1980's when he was on his "look at me and my Star Wars Program" tour and brought this up to his face.
Re: (Score:3)
Edward Teller was the one that torpedoed Oppenheimer, out of professional jealousy. He was responsible for the whisper campaign that destroyed Oppenheimers career. I met Teller in the 1980's when he was on his "look at me and my Star Wars Program" tour and brought this up to his face.
Yep. And Teller paid for it professionally throughout his entire life. Other physicists let him know that they knew he had done it and were not respectful of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Teller continued to push for SDI (ie Star Wars) in 1996 after congress swung to the republicans. I actually had an email exchange with him at the time. I argued SDI was a bad idea: 1) no way to test the software required if a full scale launch was made and so 2) it would give political people an unrealistic idea that nuclear war was survivable/winnable thereby increasing the risk of such a war. He never addressed either point directly, though he implied the software wasn't the problem. Bit later Scientific
Hollywood (Score:2)
I would be very very dubious of anything in a film from Hollywood that makes any claims about reality. It is guaranteed, for example, that various scenes will be invented from whole cloth "for dramatic effect." In addition, there will be narratives that will be pushed, for example how brilliant was Oppenheimer, or whether he was really a Communist. The latter is an open question, and even more of an open question is whether he really subscribed to any of it, or was just doing it to keep his girlfriend or
More like thank the Russkies (Score:1)
August 8: USSR declares war on Japan and immediately invades Japanese-occupied territory.
August 9: Second atomic bomb dropped on Japan by USA.
August 15: Japan surrenders.