Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Were Impossible

Abone ol 14 Mn

görünümler 6 Mn

99% 192 000

Without neutrons, harnessing nuclear energy would be impossible.
Try Audible free for 30 days: audible.com/veritasium
I have a new documentary coming out in a few months - sign up here to be notified and see a sneak preview: vitamaniathemovie.com
Special thanks to Patreon supporters:
Tony Fadell, Donal Botkin, Michael Krugman, Jeff Straathof, Zach Mueller, Ron Neal, Nathan Hansen, Yildiz Kabaran,
Terrance Snow
A few years ago I made a documentary about uranium, radioactivity and radiation. I always thought of the characters in our story as the scientists and maybe the uranium nucleus itself. It was only through making the documentary that I realized the real hero of the story is the neutron. Without a neutral nuclear particle, it would be virtually impossible to release the energy from the nucleus. But with it, and the idea of a chain reaction, nuclear energy went from science fiction to reality. That is something I had not grasped as clearly before and it motivated me to make this video.
Filmed by Raquel Nuno.

katma

29 Nis 2018

Paylaş:

Herunterladen:

Yük bağlantısı.....

Ekle:

Çalma listem

Daha sonra izle

YORUMLAR : 7 B

@danieljensen2626 4 yıl önce

Important thing to remember, sometimes even brilliant scientists are completely wrong, but they are always proven wrong by people who are also experts in the field, not random keyboard warriors.

@emperorfaiz 4 yıl önce

At least the scientists willing to accept and learn new idea despite contradicting their old uninformed opinions, unlike the keyboard warriors.

@evilseedsgrownaturally1588 4 yıl önce

EmperorFaiz untrue, as history reveals the opposite to also sometimes be the case

@danieljensen2626 4 yıl önce

@@nancybabbage1169 Einstein already had the equivalent of a bachelor's in math/physics before he started working at the patent office, that doesn't really count as ameteur and it's certainly a lot more than your average keyboard warrior.

@barnacleboi2595 4 yıl önce

I mean, im pretty sure all scientists are humans and humans make mistakes

@Fender96 2 yıl önce

Nuclear fission is sort of like balancing on a knife’s edge, as you put it. However, for anyone who doesn’t have a good understanding of nuclear power generation, its important to point out that in the case of a reactor core, this seemingly terrifying “knife’s edge”, where too many neutrons can cause a nuclear explosion, isn’t actually possible. There are two main reasons for this; 1) Fuel-grade Uranium is nowhere near enriched enough to sustain a runaway supercritical nuclear reaction that results in a nuclear explosion. Weapons-grade Uranium must be enriched to about 90% U-235 for a bomb to be possible. Fuel-grade Uranium is only enriched to around 3% U-235. Therefore, there just aren’t enough fissionable nuclei present in a fuel rod for this to occur. 2) Nuclear fuel rods, by virtue of being shaped as elongated rods, have way too much surface area for neutrons to escape the fissile material before triggering too many more fissions. For this very reason, a bomb core has to be a near-perfect sphere in order for it to actually work (in addition to being above the supercritical mass for the Uranium or Plutonium used). So even if the Uranium in a reactor core were weapons-grade (it never would be), and even if the neutrons were perfectly moderated (slowed down to maximize the probability of triggering more fissions, and hence releasing more neutrons), the fact that the fuel rods are rods completely ruins any possibility of the core ever acting as a bomb (and thankfully so!). Anyway, I just thought I’d add this information just so that nobody gets the false idea that the knife’s edge analogy means that nuclear power reactors are just one mistake away from being a potential nuke, which is impossible.

@Project2457official 2 yıl önce

DUDE THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS COMMENT I was about to say THE SAME DAMN THING and you saved me some time so thanks! People manufacture false dichotomies from statements all the time and I am glad that someone else saw this too, especially in a time of anti-nuclear fission sentiment.

@DOSRetroGamer 2 yıl önce

Thanks. I had the strong suspicion that a nuclear reactor doesn't simply turn into a bomb, for a few reasons, but you actually explained why.

@northerniltree 2 yıl önce

You have allayed my fears, which was Chernobyl of you to do.

@NitroNinja324 2 yıl önce

What about other radioactive materials, like Thorium? I've heard that they're better for nuclear power plants, but could you explain why?

@Benny-xy4oz 2 yıl önce

@@NitroNinja324 thorium is more common on earth than uranium and is less radioactive over long periods of time. it also is a "slow-neutron breeder" which means it can use slow-moving neutrons to create more fissile material by decaying into other fissile elements (as opposed to uranium, which breeds with fast neutrons into plutonium after several other steps, which is highly dangerous and has an extremely long half-life). because it requires slow neutrons to breed also means that the richness of the material can be lower to produce similar energy levels, extending the lifetime of the material on earth

@purifiedh2027 2 yıl önce

isn’t it crazy that this whole “atom” and science knowledge is still new. Imagine in 100 years how much we evolved with knowledge.

@vibaj16 2 yıl önce

No, it's not new

@hybmnzz2658 2 yıl önce

Yeah it's a conveniently forgotten fact. You can't praise any human being that was objectively influential before 100 years ago because hurr durr misogyny and slavery and bigots.

@hybmnzz2658 2 yıl önce

@@vibaj16 atoms were thought of in Ancient Greece but there was no way to testify or experiment these things. Atomic science is new.

@vibaj16 2 yıl önce

@@hybmnzz2658 I'd say new means within the past decade, not century

@theazworkshop9280 2 yıl önce

@@vibaj16 then obviously you enjoy being ignorant about the time a century takes as compared to humankind’s entire history.

@johnchessant3012 4 aylar önce

It's crazy how quickly it developed. The neutron was discovered in 1932. Thirteen years later, you had atomic bombs dropped on two cities.

@captainplane398 3 aylar önce

Shows what humans really care about

@spacemann1425 3 aylar önce

Based🗿

@valerierodger 3 aylar önce

@@captainplane398 war drives technological progress more than anything else

@VinnyUnion 3 aylar önce

@@valerierodgerSo we need more war

@tiquays9342 3 aylar önce

It also shows how far away technologies that are '15 years away' actually are...

@FatMan2539 2 yıl önce

"The fission of a single Uranium atom releases 20 times less energy than the amount required to raise a grain of sand the thickness of a piece of paper" - that's still a pretty impressive amount of energy tbh considering how small atoms are

@harrietjameson 2 yıl önce

especially how many are in a grain of sand

@lunakid12 2 yıl önce

Exactly. I had to stop in awe to process that. Incredible. There are 10^19 atoms in a grain of sand, so just a tiny fraction of them could power-lift the whole thing basically to any height, including shooting it to the Moon (for that, burning just one millionth of it, roughly).

@sfdjk 2 yıl önce

He said its much fore the size of an atom.but not much for the human world

@pavel9652 2 yıl önce

@@lunakid12 Thanks for doing the math! I was curious, but don't have time now to check myself ;)

@bunsenn5064 2 yıl önce

Nuclear fusion: *I’m gonna do what’s called a pro gamer move*

@willerwin3201 Yıl önce

One factual error: it’s actually easy to keep a nuclear reactor operating at a steady level of power. The physics involved make reactors self-stabilizing. It’s not a matter of balancing on a knife’s edge; it’s a matter of getting into and staying in a deep rut. Making a nuclear weapon is far harder than making a nuclear reactor; you have to overcome those factors by creating a combination of unnatural conditions with a hundredth-of-a-millionth-of-a-second precision timing. Nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear weapons can. Worst case, they can spike in heat and cause a much smaller chemical or steam explosion.

@naleck2922 Yıl önce

Interesting, I still find using all nuclear devices balancing on a knifes edge, but the clarity is appreciated.

@vast9467 6 aylar önce

@@naleck2922 at this point in time, it’s better to just not do that

@leogama3422 6 aylar önce

My 2 cents: yes, nuclear reactors can be made in such a way that, even if a supercritical state can be reached, it is not sustained for very long, preventing core melting or explosions from happening. However, not all reactors are built that way (Chernobyl's one wasn't), for cost-effectiveness or whatever reason.

@nocturn9x 6 aylar önce

@@leogama3422And yet that reactor didn't explode because of the nuclear reaction, but rather the superheated gases that blew off the 40 ton cement ceiling of chamber number 4

@SecretRaginMan 5 yıl önce

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong." -Arthur C. Clarke

@gordonrichardson2972 5 yıl önce

Thanks. I didn't have time to track down the quote. Very relevant to this video...

@SpydersByte 5 yıl önce

great quote :D

@20502chris 4 yıl önce

Saying that the speed of light is possible will likely be wrong

@NLTops 4 yıl önce

@@20502chris Do you mean TRAVELING AT the speed of light? Because light having a speed is certainly possible. Anything that moves has a speed at which it moves, and light is never stationary as far as we know...though it travels at different speeds depending on the medium.

@CanIHasThisName 4 yıl önce

@@NLTops Everyone know what you mean when you say "speed of light". And if you want to be pedantic, you should not be making mistakes yourself. The speed of light is constant and it doesn't slow down inside of a "medium", it just has more distance to cover. The issue is obviously that from what we can tell, the universe has a speed limit and we'd like to break it.

@kbee225 2 yıl önce

It's mind boggling to think Einstein published the general theory of relativity before the discovery of neutrons.

@Idontknow-vm1iy 2 yıl önce

That’s the beauty of it all, how things relate to each other before the discovery of other relevant ideas. It’s amazing honestly. That’s a testament to the near infallibility of the scientific method if practiced to the absolute best of ones ability

@MegaMaxiepad 2 yıl önce

why is that? also, Relativity did not start with Einstein, it had been under development for years/decades by other scientists/mathematicians when he published his paper (and whom Einstein failed to acknowledge) and which (incidentally) did NOT win him the Nobel Prize, a common misconception

@alaididnalid7660 2 yıl önce

@@MegaMaxiepad Einstein did acknowledge quite a few people actually such as Maxwell, Lorentz and many others. You can't name everyone but he definitely acknowledged the idea that his work would not would have been possible without the previous work of those that came before him.

@alaididnalid7660 Yıl önce

@@Dopaaamine27 He admitted being influenced by other scientists but he gave new meaning to previous work and contributed quite a bit during his lifetime. Such influence is very common when making any scientific contribution. If you're tired of people saying he is "the best scientist/physicist", I fully get that. I feel that many other scientists and physicists may be underrated because of Einstein hysteria. I haven't done the math but I have spent 2 years to understand how time ticks at different rates depending on context (place, speed and in the case of GR, curvature/gravity) while all events remain consistent nonetheless. That very notion was brand new at the time and relevant for both GR and SR. I did a bit of simple math when it comes to special relativity but while I grasp general relativity in a more intuitive way, I have not done the math but I do understand to some extent why the calculations are way more complicated. When it comes to plagiarism: wasn't he the first to state that something that has mass inherently has energy? Saying he had zero original contribution is simply false.

@davidm.1548 2 yıl önce

When Charlie Chaplin met Albert Einstein, Albert said "What I most admire about your art, is your universality. You don't say a word, yet the world understands you" Chaplin: 'True. But your glory is even greater! The whole world admires you, even though they don't understand a word of what you say

@hi-sn1pw 2 yıl önce

Lol

@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 2 yıl önce

that may not have happenned but it is funny

@varadleleot2084 2 yıl önce

@@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 that happened. In reality it happened

@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 2 yıl önce

@@varadleleot2084 oh it did? Well, fantastic!

@zenmkultra Yıl önce

@@varadleleot2084 That happened in a reality that's inside your head, yes. Not in the actual reality

@VegasViking420 4 aylar önce

Imagine how wild Einstein mind would go if he saw our technological capabilities today.

@autisticboi2992 4 aylar önce

i think his brain is in a jar somewhere so we might still be able to show him

@andrewpatton5114 3 aylar önce

He'd be amazed that we used his General Theory of Relativity to build GPS. I doubt he ever suspected there'd be an application for which the time dilation caused by the Earth's gravity and the velocity of a satellite in orbit around the Earth would be relevant to the results, but GPS requires such extreme precision in clocks that it would be completely useless without an understanding of General Relativity (i.e., it would develop errors of several kilometers per day).

@tranceworld4057 2 aylar önce

@@andrewpatton5114 There were frequent train crashes in Europe because of time imbalance. Einstein was curious about it and maybe contributed to his GR

@amazingannyoing1716 3 yıl önce

Leo Szilard: *crosses a street* Leo Szilard thinking to himself: "If i can find an element which is split by neutrons and emit 2 neutrons when hit 1 neutron then such an element assembled in sufficiently large mass could sustain a nuclear reaction "

@devin6272 3 yıl önce

i don’t understand the point of this comment. Your just repeating the video??

@lithiumfpv9254 3 yıl önce

@@devin6272 What exactly don't you get?

@sacrismortem70 3 yıl önce

@@devin6272 situational humor

@SonOfMontreal 3 yıl önce

@@devin6272 The joke is that not many people have such thoughts while crossing the street. Your average 1900s citizens mostly had thoughts about how it's amazing that the Bifurcation Diagram from the Logistic Map appears in the Mandelbrot set in perfect correspondence with the ratio calculated from Feigenbaum's constant, when one is a geographical representation of iterative stability while the other is a polynomial mapping showing how chaotic behaviour can arise from simple non-linear dynamical equations... and to think that this Leo Szilard guy was only thinking about splitting atoms... pfft.

@medexamtoolsdotcom 3 yıl önce

Me: *crosses a street* Me thinking to myself: "If I mixed mayonnaise with barbecue sauce, would that be absolutely disgusting or not?"

@gasperstarina9837 3 aylar önce

Its just amazing how BRILLIANT those physisist are, and doing it in 1940s just amazing,things we barely imagine with simpliest animations they understood back then, fusion and fision, theory, practical, making of an A and H bombs

@jonfreeman9682 3 aylar önce

True pioneers and remember back then there was no computers or smartphones or internet to collaborate and chat so they all thought independently on their own figuring things out. It's frankly unimaginable as we're getting into abstract theoretical physics.

@gursimarmiglani9143 5 yıl önce

A proton, a neutron, and helium walk into a bar and order three beers. The bartender appears with 3 beers and asks the proton, “Are you sure you’re over 21?” The proton replies, “I’m positive.” So the bartender gives him the first beer. He gives the second beer to the neutron and says, “For you, no charge.” He throws the third beer in helium’s face. Helium doesn’t react.

@tree-huggersans-cur4371 4 yıl önce

Was the electron left behind because it was a negative Nancy?

@WaveOfDestiny 4 yıl önce

It's copypaste from other chemistry jokes put together

@Cyberspine 4 yıl önce

Helium is such an alpha.

@Purpleturtlehurtler 4 yıl önce

@@WaveOfDestiny if I haven't seen it it's new to me.

@Tmanaz480 2 yıl önce

Notice how carefully Einstein put it: "There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable". He spoke in the present tense about the current state of science in 1933. He did not pronounce it impossible like the others.

@alejandroenciso9650 2 yıl önce

Yes, and “Veritasium” is using the word “impossible “ in his title which is not true and misleading

@polygontower 8 aylar önce

"will ever be" refers to the infinite future from the time of speech.

@markener4316 7 aylar önce

Lets not forget in Einsteins time science in general, every bit of information back then, was WAY less then today, and so he had a good point there aswell

@saxombie8614 5 aylar önce

@@alejandroenciso9650 its called click bait.

@AscendantStoic 5 aylar önce

"Ever" clearly suggests that he is talking about the future, so no.

@djmahy 2 yıl önce

I studied biochemistry & chemistry at college, but decided that it wasn't a career I wanted to pursue. Your channel keeps me interested in the scientific field I love. I'm super grateful for this. Thanks, a secret science nerd.

@rana1561 4 aylar önce

Neutron is neither hero, nor a villain, it is truly in its essence, neutral

@cat_intensifies 2 yıl önce

Great video but at 5:39 I think it's worth noting that the explosion in chernobyl was not the same kind of explosion as in a atomic bomb. Big difference between a reactor going promptly critical and causing a steam explosion versus the fuel in an atomic bomb reaching a critical mass. I think that might be a common misconception about the risks of nuclear power

@HelgaCavoli 2 yıl önce

Also, the series Chernobyl gives a great contribution to this understanding in deeper level. I recommend it.

@barabbasrosebud9282 2 yıl önce

It's nice to know that there's at least one person on the internet who understands physics!

@brandy1011 2 yıl önce

But in both cases, it is a runaway chain reaction. Just in a bomb this is the desired outcome, in a power reactor - not.

@ericdew2021 2 yıl önce

I don't think the concentration of U235 would be sufficient to go critical in any conventional nuclear fission power plant. The problem with Chernobyl is that the explosion, caused by the build-up of steam as you mentioned, also spewed radioactive material all over the region. It would be a "dirty bomb" type problem.

@brandy1011 2 yıl önce

@@ericdew2021 A nuclear reactor even has to go supercritical in order to start working in the first place ("critical" = the chain reaction is self-sustaining), it is just done in a very different way to a nuclear bomb in order to keep the reaction controllable. Not all the material is put in one big lump, but it is spread across a large volume and the neutron energy is influenced using a moderator, their number using control rods, in order to control the power output. Another part in keeping the reaction controllable is relying on delayed neutrons that are not released basically at the moment of a fission happening, but some time later (on the order of seconds) as part of the decay of the fission products. This makes the time constant of changes in the output power long enough so it becomes controllable by technical means. The problem in Chernobyl was that the reactor went prompt supercritical, thus the power increased exponentially with a time constant that was too short to control (remember, mechanical systems moving large, heavy parts around), until physics (the steam explosion) dispersed the material enough to end the supercritical state.

@kog582 4 aylar önce

“Albert. When I came to you with those calculations we thought we might start a chain reaction that would destroy the entire world.” “I remember it well.” “I believe we did.”

@randomstruggler4631 4 aylar önce

Bravo vince!

@Shubodh42 5 yıl önce

Woah man, I don't see your videos often these days. The last time I binge-watched your videos was about 3.5 years ago, you were the reason I got very passionate into Science and Engineering. I even experimented making few science videos, inspired by your zeal. I got into engineering now. And I'm gonna graduate in a few weeks. Thanks for being there at the beginning of my journey, although I didn't get into pure sciences, you were the reason for my curiosity. I'm graduating as a proud engineer now. Your passion will continue to motivate me and I will probably make videos on Engineering in the future.

@YTRingoster 5 yıl önce

That's awesome, man! Congratulations. I hope Derek sees your comment!

@MrInterpriser 5 yıl önce

Dayum, dude, that's marvelous! Good luck with your future projects.

@Shubodh42 5 yıl önce

Egor Gorshenin Thanks a lot man! Have a good day.

@ldekker97 5 yıl önce

That's awesome! Congrats!

@Shubodh42 5 yıl önce

Lianne Dekker Thank you!

@kamisama9715 2 yıl önce

"Heavier than air flying machines are impossible" ~Lord Kelvin, 1895 Wright Brothers, 1903: Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today.

@bb-gb7jv 2 yıl önce

He had to be dumb to say that because birds, bats are heavier than air

@yaptchannel 2 yıl önce

Santos Drumont few years before Wright brothers: Done!

@dLimboStick 2 yıl önce

@@yaptchannel You mean after. Wright Bros flew in 1903. Santos-Dumont in 1906.

@Roman92UA 2 yıl önce

Such a silly thing to say for such a smart man. Has he not heard of birds ?

@paulol150 2 yıl önce

@@dLimboStick Actually, i know u guys from USA are convinced that Wright Bros did it first. But as a brazillian, everyone I know, includding history teachers and others important people too, said it was Santos-Dumont. Actually there is more proof for Santos-Dumont side of story, but we can't really tell if Wright Bros didn't get it first... Well, if u ask anyone here in Brazil, they all agree it was Santos, I don't sutudied it deeper, so if u ask me, i would say Santos-Dumont too, but, i won't deny that Wright Bros could have a chance of winning this race. Well, actually u can believe in who ever u want, i just gonna choose my county side of the story, cus I believe in it. And at this point, I don't know if somebody has discovered who actually did it (not theory, but facts and proof that 100% shows it), anyway, nice day dude

@brandy1011 2 yıl önce

3:14 Never having thought about it in that way, I think it is quite amazing that the energy from a single nuclear reaction is only an order of magnitude off from some vaguely "macroscopic" energy.

@jamesharvey5068 Yıl önce

Einstein probably stated this to oppress the fact that nuclear weapons can be a thing in future decades. The fact that Einstein said that statement is truly remarkable to adhere to his moral ethics as a scientist because such invention can be destructive and can cause humanity's extinction. But nowadays, scientists are literally becoming "Mad Scientists" forgetting their moral ethics and their purpose to improve human living on this planet.

@TheShadowIsMine 3 yıl önce

Word to the wise, never be the person quoted as saying something can’t be done haha.

@PlanetJigobotTV 3 yıl önce

This is the truest fact ever.

@user-zo3wy4we3t 3 yıl önce

Uh oh I did

@elck3 3 yıl önce

unless you're Einstein in which case it doesn't affect your credibility one bit because your net credibility is so high

@mikmorpheus 3 yıl önce

2020 can't get any worse, quote me on that 👌

@PlanetJigobotTV 3 yıl önce

@@mikmorpheus if you live here in Vegas, 2021 will absolutely be worse. We have zero conferences for the year and that's wear a 3rd of our budget comes from. Casinos are down about 80%, and gambling is another 3rd of our budget. So 2/3 down with no way to bring money in 2021 is gonna suck... Don't know If you seen the news but people are getting shot and beat up right on the Vegas Strip. It's so bad some hotels won't even let you enter unless you have a room or dinner reservations.

@charchar5914 Yıl önce

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shared at will,” Einstein said in 1933. Well that aged well only 12 years later

@TheBoundBowman 4 yıl önce

Imagine throwing uranium in your drawer next to your keys.

@Karreth 3 yıl önce

The decay chain is mostly alpha and beta decay, you''d be fine.

@108108qwerty 3 yıl önce

@@Karrethlol, sure. Constant extra exposure should be fine.

@bloomball356 3 yıl önce

Wolf Davis It is fine. A lot of things emit alpha and beta particles in their decay chain. Just to explain to you why, it is because alpha bad beta particles are to large, they get stopped by molecules in air lol, even if they pass through the air, they will still get blocked by your skin.

@shashikanthp3145 3 yıl önce

@@Karreth well beta particles are electrons... So you might get a minor electric shock if it falls on your metal keys right ?

@108108qwerty 3 yıl önce

Tldr: Don't worry about the electric shock, there is not nearly enough electricity there, let alone a good way to harvest it. Say it was just U 238 ore, and it went down the decay chain as normal. It would emit alpha/beta particles during its lifespan, eventually becoming lead. All the beta particles would be β-, and be coming from elements down the decay chain like Th, Po, Hg, and Bi. So now we have a bunch of α and β- particles being emitted, why wouldn't I get an electric shock? Well, there aren't nearly enough "electrons" present for this in the first place, so that's our first bottleneck. The second reason, and most important, is because they aren't flowing in a current. Imagine electricity as water in a bucket, being poured down a tube. This tube would be the path, like wires for example, and the water would be the electrons. The motion of the water going down the tube would be the electricity itself, and we could measure the 'current' of it based on how fast its moving. Now imagine a waterwheel at the end of this tube, with blades that spin when water hits it. If the tube has a good current, the blades are going to spin faster. If it has a slow current, it is going to spin slower, (if the tube is a constant size.). This is electricity, flowing, and doing work. Great! In radiation decay of β-, there is water e.g. electrons, but the problem is that there's not really a tube. We just have a bucket of water, its "evaporating" away at a given half life, becoming a cloud, and then raining. There may be the same mount of water, but its doing very little work to the water wheel, as its just kind of bombarding everything. Instead of being put through a tube and directed at the fans of this waterwheel, its going everywhere. This is what β- radiation would look like in this analogy. Yes, it will hit your keys, but it wont shock you. There is not really a current. If you wanted to look into this more, and you read this far, I strongly recomend you look into betavoltaics, and other radiation based batteries. They are really cool, even though they aren't the strongest batteries.

@nikolajankovic7082 3 yıl önce

It's so refreshing seeing a somewhat advanced topic done so well and interesting. It reminds me of your older videos that got me hooked on your channel

@Mr.Robert1 Yıl önce

How true, sometimes the comment section after a video can be a very aggravating place to be.

@ericparrish1515 Yıl önce

Yeah it can be. Then a person could take it the wrong way. Too many different subjects to see on this thing.

@rvxn 2 yıl önce

Albert Einstein : "Genius has its limits" Modern Scientists : _Yesn't, war pushes you beyond your limits_

@sleepyrowdy1826 2 yıl önce

My war

@lunakid12 2 yıl önce

(Hehe, thx for that yesn't...)

@flow_987 2 yıl önce

Tatakae

@x--qz1fd 2 yıl önce

@@sleepyrowdy1826 monster !!!! monster!!!!! monster!!!!!!!

@garypiont6114 3 aylar önce

That's why he married his own cousin & played a poor violin

@NormReitzel Yıl önce

When asked what valuable info he got from the Americans, Igor Kurchatov replied, "The single most important insight the Soviets learned was that it was 'Possible.' " So Einstein's attitude was very understandable.

@user-fw7wr9sq7e 2 yıl önce

Honestly he just did not expect humans would develop a weapon that would literally end themselves...But inevitably, they did

@alduinfeetpic9250 2 yıl önce

...No? "Hurr durr humans bad" wasnt his reason for saying that. Not knowing something like the neutron exists was his reason for saying that.

@user-fw7wr9sq7e 2 yıl önce

@@alduinfeetpic9250 No, I’m just making fun of human history.

@user-xu4xj2cd2j 4 aylar önce

He didn't think it was impossible he just didnt want it to happen, he was right about the dangers

@letsmakegames947 2 yıl önce

“People really should stop misquoting me” Albert Einstein

@kevin-7091 2 yıl önce

"Ok boomer" -Albert Einstein

@earth3882 2 yıl önce

"People should no longer be saying 'ok boomer' as it is a long dead not funny joke" -Albert Einstein

@outsidechambaz 2 yıl önce

@@evalaisserant2070 “Replying Ok Boomer is the ultimate burn, no matter the circumstance.” - Albert Einstein

@jerma1493 2 yıl önce

“Eh” -Albert Einstein

@jessejamesainger3263 2 yıl önce

"Durrrrrr, I'm a Fizzacyst" -Albert Einstein

@danijayyy1 4 aylar önce

If only Einstein could’ve known about neutrons a few years earlier. Just imagine. 😊

@lynxfirenze4994 Yıl önce

To be fair, Einstein did (intentionally or not) qualify his statement by implying that sure: If you could split the atom at will you could make nuclear power. But there was no method known at the time.

@mskellyrlv Yıl önce

The key to sustained, stable chain reactions is the fact that some of the fission neutrons generated are delayed by as much as a few milliseconds. That transforms the "knife edge balance" problem into a trivial control problem. Well, that and the design of the reactor to only achieve criticality with thermal neutrons, i.e. neutrons moving as slowly as a hydrogen atom at room temperature. The probability of a neutron causing a fission is maximum at such low energy, and drops dramatically with increasing neutron energy. So reactors have to employ a moderator, to slow down the fission neutrons - something like hydrogen (as in water) or carbon (as in graphite). It's best not to use both, or you get a Chernobyl situation, just FYI.

@kosc88 Yıl önce

It only shows how unpredictable turns can science take, and we tend to think we've unlocked the entire "science tree", yet our knowledge might be a tiny fragment of what's possible. Even the greatest minds are still subject to fall under their ego.

@dontcheckmyaboutpagelink7068 Yıl önce

I'm honestly impressed by the time and effort you put into these videos, Keep it up! 🥰

@user-mw1cm1kl3s 4 yıl önce

Scientists : "YOU CANT DO THAT!" Also scientists : "Look just did it lol "

@WadcaWymiaru 4 yıl önce

That same about global warming a fake news.

@safir2241 4 yıl önce

CRISPR on humans in a nutshell

@RagafragaMuffin 4 yıl önce

@@WadcaWymiaru i'm not sure if you're saying global warming is fake news or not

@WadcaWymiaru 4 yıl önce

Global warming IS fake...

@safir2241 4 yıl önce

Władca Wymiaru You can call it fake, but even Exxon (an oil company) KNEW way before the government, by doing their own scientific research.

@brianuuuSonicReborn 2 yıl önce

I'm going to remember right now that people think fusion energy is an impossibility, I'm really hoping this will happen within the next 100 years, I would love to see this in my lifetime

@bigl5343 2 yıl önce

Being that fusion has successfully been done, thinking that it is an impossible source of energy is absurd. It currently requires more energy to initiate a fusion reaction than what is yeilded, but shows it is possible and as research develops, it will be the future of energy production.

@logitech4873 2 yıl önce

@@bigl5343 I mean people still think nuclear bombs are impossible so I'm not surprised.

@MrDoitfrombehind 2 yıl önce

thats not even true

@slamyourheadin9449 Yıl önce

@@logitech4873 people still believe the earth is flat. Nothing really is surprising these days.

@robinsonner5461 2 yıl önce

I think the real lesson here is not about physics but about how even the smartest people can be very unwise. Having said that it may be slightly easier to say in 2021 that Humans will eventually be able to do anything, and therefore slightly easier to 'be wise', than it was in 1921. ( when we didn't have tiny computers in our pockets communicating with orbiting satellites and able to retrieve any piece of human knowledge we want)

@coreymckinney7423 3 aylar önce

Everyone thought dividing the atom was impossible because theoretically it was impossible, Albert Einstein was a theorist. But without theorists, experimentalists couldn’t carry out their experiments. Sometimes it just takes a bit of messing around in the lab, an almost educated guess.

@Kilo-sz4ch 2 yıl önce

This is the reason I hate when people argue that something is unrealistic or impossible because it goes against these “laws” people made like 100 years ago. They had nowhere near the amount of knowledge about the world which we have now. Those laws worked for a while, but we can’t just going into the unknown saying “well this goes against a law some guy that didn’t know the moon orbits the earth made so it’s impossible”

@sepro5135 2 yıl önce

Well it wasn‘t that the laws were wrong, it was that they at first didn’t knew what was going on. Also Einstein and the others didn’t know of the neutron, so they didn’t think it was possible. The laws of conservation of mass and energy aren‘t violated under the theory of relativity. Keppler‘s laws are unviolated, the laws of thermodynamics are unviolated and they will remain to be. I think you have a wrong ideas of these supposedly broken laws.

@brendanyazzie2774 Yıl önce

So basically, at the time, we had no idea how to cause a chain reaction to release all of that energy at once. Therefore, deemed impossible because we have never seen an atom, let alone split them at will.

@panda4247 4 yıl önce

6:04 ...the neutron is the hero.. or the villain. No, i think he is neither, he is quite neutral. (sorry, bad joke)

@nrb1177 4 yıl önce

Chaotic neutral

@devvydoesstuff 4 yıl önce

I get it

@oolalafuega2591 4 yıl önce

Shame on you

@verica4b 4 yıl önce

🤣

@tonyvu3235 4 yıl önce

Lmao

@ChrisWoodBandit 2 yıl önce

I swear I was in the process of writing a comment about "making of the aTomic bomb" when you mentioned it. It's my favorite book on the subject. The intertwined stories are more like a novel than history. I never knew how we were to losing that race. What I don't understand is how they got the one version to work where they had to use a sphere of lesser bombs to compress the plutonium at just the right time or something like that.

@Carfeu 2 yıl önce

I love how great discoveries are made just leaving stuff around

@fallenwolf3368 Yıl önce

Imagine what the earth would be like if humans never mined it for materials other then the basic material like water,wood, food.

@alainlalonde Yıl önce

They're not all good discoveries. But, I feel ya... I need to clean the place... sigh...

@cali2608 Yıl önce

@@fallenwolf3368 we wouldn't have much of our modern technologies, or just have technologies that are drastically different from now. That would be interesting to see, we wouldn't have tools or technologies that require those but we could have made alternatives that may be as useful. Thank you for the idea.

@AhkoGojak 4 aylar önce

@@fallenwolf3368Not really good. Aint no way you could make a computer out of wood though...

@muhammadislam5138 3 aylar önce

I deeply admire this great human! One of the greatest explainers🤎! Those days were outstanding! God bless him abundantly with everything!

@dutchdragon2472 4 aylar önce

It's very cool that Einstein wasn't technically wrong, he stated a condition that turned out to be true!

@SephirothRyu 2 yıl önce

Its not nearly so much a knife's edge as you make it out to be with regards to a fission reactor. Individual fuel pieces are large enough to generate enough neutrons such that, if you absorb a little fewer of them, the reaction gets back to where you want it with some ease. If anything, absorbing too many neutrons just reduces power output.

@micahphilson 5 yıl önce

Wow, and to think (I believe) all of the people whose quotes were featured were still around just over 10 years later when all of that became absolutely possible, and most saw it become used in power plants as well!

@brendarua01 5 yıl önce

Micah Yeah that's very cool. It's not often we see such things. Maybe we'll see something similar with dark matter.

@brendarua01 5 yıl önce

Sebastian Stop with the B/S. You've absolutely know idea what will happen in the dark matter area - because no one does. You may be right. But if so it's just blind luck. Not very impressive.

@MrRolnicek 5 yıl önce

Much more likely something will happen with dark energy instead. Dark matter seems to be just matter but dark energy (much like mysteriously radiating rocks) SEEMS to violate the law of conservation of energy.

@micahphilson 5 yıl önce

justsomeguy, no, I meant they saw it be harnessed during WWII in the form of bombs, and most (I don't know exactly if any died in the meantime) saw it even be used as a power plant.

@brendarua01 5 yıl önce

MrRolnicek Yes that's possible. While this is not my field, I try to follow along. Dark matter may turn out to be WIMPS or something much like it. My point is that this is not known yet. Darkside is not entirely clear in its results best I can see. Nor has it been replicated. The rest is hypothesizing. Rocks are my field and I get your reference about mysterious radiation. I would love for either dark (side) phenomena to result in something similar - in my lifetime.

@MrStarchild3001 3 yıl önce

This was lovely! Haven't seen a more cogent and easy to understand description of nuclear weapons and power.

@firelord3361 2 yıl önce

Imagine if Einstein knew it was possible, but didn't say anything, because he knew about the destruction it would cause if they were built

@AhkoGojak 4 aylar önce

I think it was indeed like that. But then it punchs a question; what if he lied about the speed of light too? I highly doubt that though, his claims there do have a scientific background but still...

@mikgol81 Yıl önce

very clear explanation... well done in explaining a complex topic so that people who aren't in that particular field of science/engineering can understand

@Celis.C 3 yıl önce

I remember first learning about the physics theory behind nuclear fission and the literal goosebumps of horror I got. Each U235 atom split releases around 202.8 MeV, which is the energy equivalent in Joules of 203 electron charges. In comparison, that is roughly several dozen to a hundred times more energy released per event compared to detonating TNT. Now imagine an exponential chain reaction of this much energy, and it's not hard to imagine the horrendous mushroom-shaped clouds we've come to know. One step further is the hydrogen bomb, where the nuclear fission reaction is used to create the conditions for the second (and even third stage) of a fusion bomb, which is various factors more powerful than a fission bomb. Weapons are "easier" to make than energy harnessing facilities, because nuclear reactors using fission to tap energy require a supercritical chain reaction (1 fission event triggers exactly 1 other fission event), whereas bombs can just let it go on uncrontrollably. The reason that the reaction can even be kept at a supercritical rate with Uranium is because it has an inherent delay in the chain reaction, making it possible to reverse/stop the reaction using the rods nuclear reactors are known to have, which absorb neutrons to halt or reduce the chain reaction when needed. Fusion energy is theoretically possible by creating and magnetically controlling a plasma in a 30x30x30m toroid chamber, where the weight equivalent of a post stamp's worth of deuterium-tritium is brought to 150 million degrees kelvin to create self-sustaining fusion conditions. In this type of reactor, a meltdown is impossible because of the extremely small amount of matter being superheated. This theory is at the basis of what the global scientific community is attempting in the ITER project in France.

@ruthk618 3 aylar önce

This is the exact explanation i was looking for, thank you!

@idontknow2453 3 yıl önce

Humans: discover nuclear energy, Also humans: let's use it to destroy ourselves

@exponentialcomplexity3051 3 yıl önce

Yes but it can not be denied that n bombs have prevented large wars between countries for decades. Mutually assured destruction prevents wars

@pradhumnkanase8381 3 yıl önce

@@exponentialcomplexity3051 yes they have

@sid8823 2 yıl önce

@@exponentialcomplexity3051 hope it remains that way

@_laryssa 2 yıl önce

why not tho, war crimes are so stylish

@gregorycolvin-garcia3908 2 yıl önce

Derek, HUGE fan of your work - I work in Nuclear Power and the only exception I take to this episode is your use of Chernobyl and atomic bomb in the same sentence relative to disaster. Its important to separate these two ideas given that the chain reactions that lead to Nuclear bombs occur only in "bomb grade" Uranium or Plutonium, meaning they have near 100% densities of fissile isotopes, unlike commercial Nuclear Power plant fuel which has less than 10% fissile isotope density... Your audience needs to be aware of this because it is a common misconception concerning Nuclear Power Electric Production and future high tech Nuclear Power plants still have the potential to provide the most carbon neutral and environmentally beneficial power - ever.

@vincentlequang2 3 yıl önce

Frankly, if mankind hadn't yet discovered nuclear bombs, nobody would have believed it'd be possible to make a bomb that destroys entire cities.

@Ketchup_And_Rice 6 aylar önce

Einstein: I think nuclear weapons are impossible Also Einstein: Energy equals mass times the constant velocity

@Hejabibani 3 yıl önce

You did an extremely good job sir; thanks for the insight. Keep up the good work.

@stanleyurey1013 Yıl önce

Imagine if we were able to absorb energy in a matter, then we would be able to stop neuclear explosions.

@myMotoring 3 yıl önce

Short answer: neutron had not been found yet when he said that.

@stephentrueman4843 3 yıl önce

yeah, Einstein obviously kept up with science and the evidence changed his mind later on.

@beaconblaster33 3 yıl önce

Underrated

@347Jimmy 3 yıl önce

Einstein's quote is from 1934, two years after the discovery of the neutron It took him another five years to catch up to reality and change his opinion

@apostle9209 3 yıl önce

@@347Jimmy coz the nuetron was yet to be studied.scientists only new it existed but it took time to figure out how it interacted

@347Jimmy 3 yıl önce

@@apostle9209 Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch had worked out that nuclear weapons were feasible by 1938 Einstein was still on the wrong side of the discussion at the time Albert was able to admit that he was wrong, it amazes me that people on TRvid are unable to do the same

@Richard_de_Jong35 2 yıl önce

Thermonuclear reactors are generally not controlled by the primary fission reaction of uranium. As you rightly mentioned, the fast time exponential nature makes it practically impossible to regulate this fission process. Rather stability is achieved by controlling the radioactive daughter products that appear in the consecutive chain of nuclear reactions. Some essential radioactive daughter products have a much longer half-life, which makes it feasible to control the assemble critical condition. Uranium itself is kept at sub-critical level.

@EhurtAfy 2 yıl önce

Alright, but the real shock is going from impossible to reality in just ten years, makes you realize how fast technology can come along

@Ullish1989 3 aylar önce

Imagine if that film was only ever developed after the Uranium saw sunlight again... How far back would that push so many discoveries

@rayoflight6220 2 yıl önce

Great video, thanks. It was Lise Meitner, a genius in disguise (and exile), who opened the eyes to Otto Hann, by describing - out of thin air - the chain of transmutation caused by fission, so opening the entire field of practical applications of nuclear reactions.

@danarrington2224 Yıl önce

I think it is important to point out that nuclear power plants and coal fired power plants are almost identical. The only difference is the fuel. They both use heat to boil water to create highly pressurized steam. That steam is then channeled into a turbine connected to a generator.

@aquaman1257 2 yıl önce

"Damn" - Albert Einstein

@classified4798 2 yıl önce

No I didn’t said That 😁

@nicness8882 2 yıl önce

@@classified4798 lol

@rakeshrakhi8029 2 yıl önce

🤣 🤣

@elijahflynt3217 2 yıl önce

Yeah and just imagine what the world would be like today without these capabilities. OH MY GOD.

@rakeshrakhi8029 2 yıl önce

@@elijahflynt3217 full of chaos

@Blackholefourspam 2 yıl önce

Technically it was always possible to harness nuclear decay for energy. You just had to do it in mass quantities. That’s in large part the heat that drives geothermal energy.

@nniklask 2 yıl önce

It's insane how advanced scientists from the early 1900s already have been

@Lucas-mt9nb Yıl önce

Crazy how we discovered the neutron in 1932 and then utilized an atomic bomb in warfare only 13 years later

@drpoundsign 3 aylar önce

The Military has historically been on the cutting edge of Technology.

@samuelshafritz8572 4 aylar önce

I always thought that an atom bomb was the splitting or "fission" of a single atom. This video was very eye opening for me.

@trendnwin6545 4 aylar önce

Makes me wonder what we consider impossible today can be accomplished in a decade.

@choxoletyo8518 4 yıl önce

Step 1: become a scientist Step 2: say space travel isn't possible Step 3: wait 20 years Step 4:?? Step:5 profit

@Trathien- 4 yıl önce

Ima do it

@orangeboy97 4 yıl önce

**time travel

@ismaelcornejo9026 4 yıl önce

Step 4 is invent time travel

@DJdeliverance 4 yıl önce

how would u profit off THAT I would stick with the lottery! Lmao

@fitzjordy 4 yıl önce

Stonks

@Bozothcow 2 yıl önce

Truly this would have been a fascinating era to live in, where theoretical physics could quickly translate to practical uses.

@donalain69 2 yıl önce

What has changed?

@Bozothcow Yıl önce

In the realm of theoretical physics, the things we are discovering are impractical to use in the real world. It doesn't make them any less valid, just not really practical anymore.

@electrolysisresearch8013 Yıl önce

The true reason he didn't think it was possible, is because he did not yet understand the electrical ignition system. The only way this reaction works is if the ignition system is the correct resonance frequency to shatter the atoms. Because the energy they create to split the atom is astronomically not even close to enough to split the atom.

@delukard07 Yıl önce

the thing is, that this just proves that things we consider impossible , could be very possible , we just lack the knowledge.

@cojohnso80 4 aylar önce

Thanks for the Becquerel exposure anecdote. It's crazy how certain discoveries might have been postponed if circumstances had not caused unintended experiments

@ridwansetiadi8393 3 yıl önce

The Sci-Fi writer: "They called me a mad man."

@zaza-ik5ws 3 yıl önce

What I predicted came to pass

@guifdcanalli 3 yıl önce

A perpetual radioactive bomb active for years still doesnt exis... oh wait thats Chernobyl

@CaptainFalcoyd 3 yıl önce

True story: Before his death in 1946, he dictated his epitaph should read "I told you so, you damned fools."

@bravomike4734 3 yıl önce

The Scientist: "They called me a Sci-Fi man."

@ibeforeaexceptafterk6854 3 yıl önce

I'm still holding out hope that the guy who first wrote about hyperdrives gets similarly vindicated.

@johntomasik1555 3 yıl önce

Curious whether Veritasium has done anything about the new nuclear reactors? My understanding (not an expert....just read a few articles) is that the new reactors are very safe and some don't produce the waste of the old reactors. Using the new reactors, we could stop all of the expendable fuel use and those weak, low-energy producing renewable energy methods.

@kintex6441 4 aylar önce

I know this is a 5yo video, but he shouldve added the story of Enrico Fermi, who while trying to create a new element, accidentally became the man who unlocked the first physical clue to nuclear reactions, splitting uranium in half.

@MottiShneor Yıl önce

One of your best. I think almost anyone, even a 10YO with mediocre schooling, could understand the basis and basics of nuclear engineering. Thanks. and again.

@donaldweber3606 2 yıl önce

The thing with You Tube videos are content, interesting topics and for me a host whose voice and manner of speaking isn't irritating or worse, boring. This guy hits all the buttons to the good side. I was a US Navy nuke back in the mid 70's. Nuke School and all that stuff. Didn't go into that field after my hitch but it has always held a fascination for me. The best thing I can say about Veritasium is that it makes me think. Good Video's!

@Psycandy Yıl önce

Einstein wrote to FDR warning him of the outcome of Fermi's discovery which pretty much shows he was well aware of the possibility of such a weapon.

@slevinchannel7589 Yıl önce

I LOVE SCIENCE, so i wanna ask if you want Recommendations, but asking that repeatedly (to reach more people) is of course automatically risking that i seem like a robot, which makes people decline.

@Feargal011 4 aylar önce

Leo Szilard penned the letter, with support from Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller. He persuaded Einstein to sign it to give it more weight. When Szilard and Wigner explained the risk of a nuclear chain reaction in Uranium using a neutron moderator that could be used as an atomic bomb on July 12 1939 Einstein commented "Daran habe ich gar nicht gedacht" ("I did not even think about that").

@IBUILTTHAT 4 yıl önce

Calling a stable reaction a "Balancing on a Knife Edge" is ridiculous. On paper it might be, but in practice it is much more stable. Chernobyl wasn't a simple "Whoops, it fell off the knife edge" it was a disaster caused by a long string of poor decisions. Chernobyl was a ticking time bomb upon it's completion.

@MrTurbo_ 4 yıl önce

Not really, chernobyl would have been perfectly fine if not for the decision to run the reactor anyway while knowing it wasn't at all prepared, if the management would have listened to the scientists it would probably have been completely fine and nuclear power would never have gained such a unnececeraly bad name, could have saved a lot of co2 pollution

@noahlail4018 4 yıl önce

@@MrTurbo_ That's what he's saying. The decision to run the plant before it was ready or safe to do so.

@MrTurbo_ 4 yıl önce

@@noahlail4018 what he is saying is that it was flawed from the beginning and never would have worked, that's not true, it was that final decision that made it go wrong

@noahlail4018 4 yıl önce

@@MrTurbo_ Oh I see that now... My bad

@jimmym3352 4 yıl önce

What the video isn't showing is that nuclear reactors (at least most Western ones) use water as a moderator and coolant. Water naturally moderates neutrons. Chernobyl used graphite as a moderator (though they still used water as coolant I believe hence the steam explosion that blew the lid off). Graphite is best known for 2 significant nuclear accidents. Now in the Navy we used water as a moderator which helps control the reaction as it gets hotter. The video also does not mention the difference between fast neutrons and thermal neutrons. Just know that hotter water slows down less neutrons than colder water. So as the reaction increases and the water gets hotter, less neutrons are slowed down to thermal neutrons thus regulating the reaction (fast neutrons are not efficient at splitting nuclei like thermal neutrons). This generally works pretty good. The biggest danger was in flashing the water to steam in the case of pressurized water reactors like we used in the Navy which would cause all sorts of problems. Also there is a danger of injecting cold water into the reactor coolant. Anyways it's been over 20 years since my days in Navy nuke plants, this is best I can go from memory. Don't go thinking nuclear accidents can't happen even in ours. Loss of coolant is still extremely dangerous as we seen in Japan recently. And it's always an issue for Navy ships as well. You have to keep the core covered with water.

@theworldturnsdaily 2 yıl önce

H.G. Wells called this out long before Eisenstein called it wrong. HG Wells first imagined a uranium-based hand grenade that "would continue to explode indefinitely" in his 1914 novel The World Set Free.

@spence26 3 yıl önce

What blows my mind is how the smallest things create a power that we can't comprehend!

@Schattengewaechs99 2 yıl önce

Not just your mind.

@NikTsalch 4 aylar önce

I like how the scientist were talking about harnessing the power of the atom as an alternative to coal... And the military was like "Thats so nice! Make a bomb out of it."

@list9016 Yıl önce

I've never imagined how such a powerful bomb would obtain it's energy from the nucleus of atoms.. the smallest unit of matter. Also, HOW ON EARTH DID Einstein figure out that the energy was coming from the mass of the nucleus?

@cikicikibumbum259 Yıl önce

He's not the first one who figured it out, because electron is relatively massless, hence the mass must come from proton (neutron wasn't discovered yet). but the discovery of new model of atom was more phenomenal, because they found out that protons are glued together inside nucleus which thought impossible since particle with same charge should repel each other and also the nucleus is pretty much small relative to atom size. the force that glued the protons inside nucleus later was called nuclear force. that is the force that Albert Einstein thought impossible to harness until the discovery of neutron (particle that has neutral charge).

@omgdodogamer4759 Yıl önce

"the smallest unit of matter" quarks: am i a joke to you?

@Preposter 2 yıl önce

From fiction to non-fiction. That's amazing. This is why I like science.

@SauerkrautIsGood 4 yıl önce

Hi, just passing by to mention that it is impossible for a nuclear reactor to cause a nuclear explosion. Chernobyl was not a nuclear explosion, neither was 3 mile island. The grade of plutonium or uranium used in a reactor is not high enough to sustain that reaction. It is high enough to cause a "meltdown". This is simply where the reaction gets out of control (as you mentioned), but since the quality of the fuel is low all that happens is the temperature of the reaction spikes and literally melts the reactor. This is usually accompanied by a steam explosion (see the two previous examples) as a massive amount of water is converted to steam very quickly and the pressure builds up until the whole thing just explodes. It isn't a nuclear explosion, but it still sends radioactive material all over the place. Why write this small essay? Well, this is a common misconception and a lot of people are irrationally scared of nuclear power because of it. It doesn't help when media outlets insinuate that this is possible.

@omgdodogamer4759 Yıl önce

technically a nuclear reaction is just a nuclear bomb but slowed to the point where it cant go crazy, if you removed all the control methods and just let the reaction go wild it would basically turn into a nuclear bomb but it would be weaker since a nuclear bomb is supposed to cause damage which means packing a bunch of uranium in one spot to reach peak destruction, a stable nuclear reaction is only meant for creating energy for everyday use, meaning 5 megatons of tnt worth of energy isnt necessary, meaning it would be impossible to create anything as strong because it isnt designed to do that

@alainlalonde Yıl önce

Nice... I enjoyed that. Well said.

@hareecionelson5875 Yıl önce

Surprising that scientists can't predict the unstoppable force that is the human urge to make things go boom.

@nocturn9x 2 yıl önce

Btw chernobyl's issue was the pressure, the reactor didn't explode per-say. The issue with chernobyl's plant was that it hadn't been designed to spec and couldn't bear the pressure caused by the nuclear reaction spiraling without control and so the "ceiling" of the reactor was blew up by the enormous pressure, which then released the lethal fumes in the atmosphere. The reason why chernobyl was such a big deal is exactly because the fission kept going after the fact and kept releasing radiations

@Sans-ih2el 2 yıl önce

I wonder how Einstein would react to nuclear physics if he was alive

@AjfixejCiwnies-qo9rq 5 aylar önce

Wtf? He didn't say it was impossible, he was the first to realize it was his own theory which would bring about placing the power to end human life in its own hands...the information was so devastating he withdrew and denied any possible connection to building the device despite his offers. I agree with his stance. Not to mention the timing when his works were constantly raided, his life under constant pressure and torn to shreds before his eyes from the stress of war. And whom he cared for saw a shortened and pressured life. We can understand why such devastating phenomena in his eyes was denied existence in any astrophysical form. But he also played it smart. Revolting against the possible use of something he would have (whether or not he accepted it irrelevant-) become the fore-father thereof without the capability to be in charge of pulling the trigger in use, could you accept that?

@raffimolero64 2 yıl önce

Notice Einstein's quote: "There is not the slightest *indication* (not 'possibility') that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable." He then provides the _requirement_ to finish the problem. Man didn't think it was purely impossible. Just not with current tech.

@kyoukan91 Yıl önce

Einstein definitely believed we could harness Nuclear Power. His friend literally built a nuclear reactor...

@ducc995 Yıl önce

Well, I feel like "indication" refers more towards "proof" or "a hint", so if I'm right, he would've meant "There is not the slightest proof/hint that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable".

@ducc995 Yıl önce

also excuse me for being 9 months late

@YouberChannel Yıl önce

@@ducc995 lol, Its ok, im still here, also, that make sense

@Leafsdude 5 aylar önce

@@kyoukan91 Einstein also wrote (along with Szilard) the famous letter to Roosevelt encouraging the Manhattan Project in 1939. So while he might not have believed it in 1933, the evidence had convinced him within 6 years. Any decent scientist changes their minds in the face of new evidence, regardless of their previously held convictions. Einstein was a decent scientist. Want to see someone who was not? Look at Fred Hoyle.

@angusrl4834 5 yıl önce

I love how interesting these videos are. They make me think about everything that has ever happened and ever existed. It's a good feeling :)

@zombiegun71 6 aylar önce

I like Einsteins quote. He doesn’t say it’s impossible, just that there’s no known way for it to be done.

@danielsheehy9530 2 yıl önce

I wonder how much longer it would have taken to develop nuclear devices if uranium 235 didn't exist. I believe it is the only naturally occurring isotopes which generates more neutrons in the nuclear fission process than are used. Plutonium 239 could have been made from uranium 238 with other neutron sources but that would have been a difficult feat.

@carbsncaffeine9254 Yıl önce

I just read about this in a chemistry textbook, everything is pretty accurate. The only thing I'm surprised he didn't talk about was Marie Curie and her research in radioactivity. She won two nobel prizes.

@The_Quaalude 6 aylar önce

She won the Darwin award ☠️

@jacek5809 2 yıl önce

Some corrections 1. You cannot turn a nuclear plant into a bomb if u dont absorb neutrons. The core would just melt down. 2. There was no nuclear explosion in Chernobyl.