3 ms·
"Also, in the U.S., the empirical way of approaching physics was predominant" So at the time, practically all US physicist were interested in building actual s
by anta40 3y ago
"Also, in the U.S., the empirical way of approaching physics was predominant"
So at the time, practically all US physicist were interested in building actual stuffs, and not working on theoritical models/math equations?
- defrost 3y agoSure, bashing already existing lego bricks together to see how they combine. You didn't quote the immediately following: [whereas European theorists were pursuing new concepts] which explains a great deal. US physicists were focused on power and making bigger "piles" than had been made in Rutherfords Lab. It was European (and Australian and New Zealand) physicists that thought of something new, and worked out the detailas, and developed the means of seperation. These were the things that were vital to the creation of an atomic bomb .. along with a lot of mining and processing and further refining and isotopic seperation.
- usrbinbash 3y ago> So at the time, practically all US physicist were interested in building actual stuffs, and not working on theoritical models/math equations? The problem with that approach is: It inevitably leads to stagnation. If all I do is build practical stuff from what exists, I will get very big, very efficient, very impressive steam engines. But I will never arrive at an internal combustion engine. Because that requires exploring another path that, in the beginning, and probably for quite some time, will be less efficient compared to my best steam engines.
- anta40 3y agoYep. That's why in the movie, Bohr (if I'm not mistaken) saw Oppenheimer going to teach quantum physics in US to be... funny.