4 ms·

Respectfully, I disagree. The fundamental discoveries necessary for the nuclear bomb weren't discover until after Leo Szilard [0] proposed the weapon. Given t

by iaw 10y ago

Respectfully, I disagree. The fundamental discoveries necessary for the nuclear bomb weren't discover until after Leo Szilard [0] proposed the weapon. Given that none of us were alive between 1906 and 1945 it's hard to fully grasp how the scientific understanding evolved over those 39 years. Einstein's work paved the way for Leo Szilard's vision but that vision was in no way a given. If it weren't for WWII, and Einstein's support, Leo would not have been able to garner the $2 Billion (1940's money) in support that was necessary to build the bomb. Even then, there was a coin-toss level certainty that it would do anything. Similar to Einstein's work preceding the discovery of Fission and the Atomic bomb. We have a great deal of work in biology around aging, telomere's, transcription errors, and more that hasn't been leveraged by the medical industry for varying reasons. I'm not ready to be a naysayer on this topic, historically as a species we've had remarkable success in accomplishing things that were considered impossible before we did them. [0] http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html

rayiner 10y ago
The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. That's totally different than the current situation with say cancer. In the world of physics and engineering, a "coin-toss" shot at working is actually a pretty well-developed idea. There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."
- iaw 10y ago
  I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb. > By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that the basic mechanisms of the fission reaction were as well understood then as we understand the basic mechanisms behind cancerous mutations now. > There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer." Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened. What would you prefer Zuckerberg does with his money? I mean, he could build a massive yacht like Jobs before he died... As a species we have consistently accomplished feats that were as unlikely as the mitochondrial symbiosis that allowed us to exist in the first place, is there a reason to discount our abilities to continue this trend? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
  - rayiner 10y ago
    > Over what time-horizon? The relevant time is right now. If the U.S. government had said "yes, we can do it!" and invested $20 billion in building an atom bomb in 1915, they would've pissed that money away. It would've been mindless optimism. Doing it after fission had been discovered was a calculated investment.
  - nixos 10y ago
    > Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened. The issue is that we're quite a few "Nobel-worthy" inventions away from curing Cancer. I mean, biologically we're not in the equivalence of 1950's physics. We're holding in 1300's physics. I saw that someone once compared curing Cancer to landing on a moon without knowing basic Newtonian physics. I expect that before we cure cancer, we'd have found ways to cure all "normal" diseases, have "designer babies" without side-effects, have "instant, proof-perfect medicines", etc. I'd want his to work on those issues. Right now it'll probably end up like Google X. A great lab, makes great prototypes, but practically get left behind by incremental technology.
nixos 10y ago
It wasn't a coin-toss away. The Hiroshima bomb was almost guaranteed to work. The question if Nagasaki would work, which is why they did Trinity. The theory was there when the Manhattan project started - it was an engineering hurdle, not a scientific one. Manhattan Project : Curing Cancer :: Apollo : Warp Drives
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Just amplifying and clarifying your point: Hiroshima was the first practical test of the uranium-bullet method. Nagasaki was the second practical test of the plutonium implosion method.

by iaw 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

The discovery of fission was not the product of the Manhattan Project but a continuation of research into the atomic nucleus that had been proceeding for decades. Once that happened, Einstein's theory told you that the process would release a large amount of energy, and a bomb became simply an engineering task. By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. That's totally different than the current situation with say cancer. In the world of physics and engineering, a "coin-toss" shot at working is actually a pretty well-developed idea. There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer."

iaw 10y ago
I don't know where you see me stating that the discovery fission was a result of the Manhattan Project, it was a predecessor. The order of actions was: Einsteins Relativity -> Leo's Bomb Patent -> Discovery of Fission -> Manhattan Project -> Bomb. > By the time someone wrote a check, the basic mechanism of the runaway fission reaction was understood. I find that to be a gross simplification. I would challenge that the basic mechanisms of the fission reaction were as well understood then as we understand the basic mechanisms behind cancerous mutations now. > There is no ready-to-go idea you can point to and say "if we spent $20 billion building this it's have a coin-toss's chance of curing cancer." Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened. What would you prefer Zuckerberg does with his money? I mean, he could build a massive yacht like Jobs before he died... As a species we have consistently accomplished feats that were as unlikely as the mitochondrial symbiosis that allowed us to exist in the first place, is there a reason to discount our abilities to continue this trend? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
- rayiner 10y ago
  > Over what time-horizon? The relevant time is right now. If the U.S. government had said "yes, we can do it!" and invested $20 billion in building an atom bomb in 1915, they would've pissed that money away. It would've been mindless optimism. Doing it after fission had been discovered was a calculated investment.
- nixos 10y ago
  > Over what time-horizon? We've achieved a great deal in the last 100 years that would have received less than a coin-toss probability if one were to be having this same argument in the early 1900s. The Haber Process [0] is a great example of something that we had no way of expecting we could accomplish (the energy efficiency aspect) before it happened. The issue is that we're quite a few "Nobel-worthy" inventions away from curing Cancer. I mean, biologically we're not in the equivalence of 1950's physics. We're holding in 1300's physics. I saw that someone once compared curing Cancer to landing on a moon without knowing basic Newtonian physics. I expect that before we cure cancer, we'd have found ways to cure all "normal" diseases, have "designer babies" without side-effects, have "instant, proof-perfect medicines", etc. I'd want his to work on those issues. Right now it'll probably end up like Google X. A great lab, makes great prototypes, but practically get left behind by incremental technology.

nixos 10y ago

It wasn't a coin-toss away. The Hiroshima bomb was almost guaranteed to work. The question if Nagasaki would work, which is why they did Trinity. The theory was there when the Manhattan project started - it was an engineering hurdle, not a scientific one. Manhattan Project : Curing Cancer :: Apollo : Warp Drives

dredmorbius 10y ago
Just amplifying and clarifying your point: Hiroshima was the first practical test of the uranium-bullet method. Nagasaki was the second practical test of the plutonium implosion method.