Did Einstein's E=mc^2 equation really make atom bomb possible? No

Q: Did Einstein’s E = mc^2 equation
really make the atom bomb possible?

A: No



October 15, 2006
www.mentalfloss.com/trivia/questions/?p=143

It’s probably the most famous equation of all-time. And we all know that the much-adored genius Albert Einstein was the one who whipped it up.

Yet, in the popular mind, despite the fact that many of his brilliant discoveries and positions have bettered humanity, Einstein isn’t always thought of in the most positive of light.

In fact, a great many naysayers are of the belief that it was Einstein’s discovery of E = mc^2 which made the atom bomb possible – quite an ignoble claim to fame if it were true.

Fortunately for us Einstein fanatics, it’s not true. Before his prized equation was even formulated, the discovery of radioactivity had already shown that there was a million times more energy available than in ordinary chemical reactions.

So, Einstein can finally rest assured knowing that he was not the cause of so much destruction. Although, technically he wasn't anyway because Robert Oppenheimer was the "brain" behind the bomb. However, Einstein is quoted to have said that if he would have known that the splitting of the atom was going to be used for destruction he would have never revealed it.

Anyway, I think that any assumption that Einstein contributed to the construction of the Atomic bomb is quite erroneous.

its like saying that Nobel took down the Wtc because hes part in explosion devices

True,

Be he did write the letter to the president advising him of the ability to create such a release of energy in the form of a weapon...
Of which the US created the project after reading this letter!

Ive personally seen the letter, and its amazing to see how one mans thoughts changed the world.

The concept was ALWAYS around, logically.

But einstein presented it in a way that the US military could utilise.

A smart man would never blame him for the bomb,
a smart man would thank him for allowing the US to utilise its potential, before a evil foe did.

Einstein's letter to President Roosevelt was far more important than an equation or anything else in getting the Manhattan Project started.

Originally posted by Spartannic
its like saying that Nobel took down the Wtc because hes part in explosion devices

Right. As the article explains, the information to create the bomb was already there. Einstein just explained where the energy was coming from.

I'm not in favor of vilifying Einstein on any level. He was a man, a flawed man, who did his best to understand the world he lived in and in doing so, explained or made possible much of what we take for granted today.

But, Einstein was instrumental in the US efforts to develop the atom bomb. This doesn't make him a bad person, in fact, his doing so may have saved a million lives or more.

What happens in the future is up to us. Einstein did his part and has left the premises.

On August 2, 1939, just before the beginning of World War II, Albert Einstein wrote to then President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Einstein and several other scientists told Roosevelt of efforts in Nazi Germany to purify uranium-235, which could be used to build an atomic bomb. It was shortly thereafter that the United States Government began the serious undertaking known then only as "The Manhattan Project." Simply put, the Manhattan Project was committed to expediting research that would produce a viable atomic bomb.

inventors.about.com...

Einstein's greatest role in the invention of the atomic bomb was signing a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt urging that the bomb be built. The splitting of the uranium atom in Germany in December 1938 plus continued German aggression led some physicists to fear that Germany might be working on an atomic bomb. Among those concerned were physicists Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner. But Szilard and Wigner had no influence with those in power. So in July 1939 they explained the problem to someone who did: Albert Einstein. According to Szilard, Einstein said the possibility of a chain reaction "never occurred to me", altho Einstein was quick to understand the concept (Clark, pg. 669+; Spencer Weart & Gertrud Weiss Szilard, eds., "Leo Szilard: His Version of the Facts", pg. 83). After consulting with Einstein, in August 1939 Szilard wrote a letter to President Roosevelt with Einstein's signature on it. The letter was delivered to Roosevelt in October 1939 by Alexander Sachs, a friend of the President. Germany had invaded Poland the previous month; the time was ripe for action. That October the Briggs Committee was appointed to study uranium chain reactions.

The atomic bomb related work that Einstein did was very limited and he completed it in two days during December 1941. Vannevar Bush, who was coordinating the scientific work on the a-bomb at that time, asked Einstein's advice on a theoretical problem involved in separating fissionable material by gaseous diffusion. But Bush and other leaders in the atomic bomb project excluded Einstein from any other a-bomb related work. Bush didn't trust Einstein to keep the project a secret: "I am not at all sure... [Einstein] would not discuss it in a way that it should not be discussed." (Clark, pg. 684-685; G. Pascal Zachary, "Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century", pg. 204).

www.doug-long.com...

Google Search

All of that may be true. However, if there is any blame to be dealt for the development of the atomic bomb, it is this man.

Robert Oppenheimer

Although, to be fair, Oppenheimer did try to warn Truman of the dangers of dropping the bomb.

[edit on 17-10-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

There is no blame to be attached to the development of technology. The blame is to be attached to its use.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
There is no blame to be attached to the development of technology. The blame is to be attached to its use.

Love it,
You have voted GradyPhilpott for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Best reply ive heard in a long time.

Grady, that is probably correct. Although, I am not sure at what cost we are "progressing". Sometimes I think the cost of all of this "progress" far exceeds benefit.

Life is always about survival and adaptation. Maybe our development of such weapons pushes us to limits of development and evolution we would never reach otherwise and we are faced with destruction or enhancement.