Nice video I enjoyed it thank you

I think the important thing to remember this was just a movie based on the events surrounding Oppenheime’s life, and not a historical thesis. License should be given for this very thing as it played no part in the story, but only served as backdrop to fill in the scene. It could have been the recipe for making Coca Cola just as well without effecting the story. Now had he walked in, studied his formula, and changed it because of the information he had received then studying the before and after would have been significant and justified exactly what was in there.

Can you do a course on Markov / Semi Markov / Hidden Markov / Semi Hidden Markov models please.

What a shame that Christopher Nolan could not take the time and trouble to depict the British contribution in a more historically accurate and significant light, it appeared he set out to be derogatory even insulting to the significant part Britain and its scientists all 19 of them played in developing the bomb. Fuchs as he points out was German and a traitor but to describe him as the only British contribution (contingent) is appalling . He clearly does not know anything of the history of the Manhattan project which was significantly built on the British project Tube Alloys and significant fathers of Atomic science such as Chadwick and other Brits who lead various teams on the Manhattan project ..quite sad and disrespectful but suppose it is Hollywood.

I looked at my 4k version of the film for the date in the newspaper that you analyzed and it's actually "January 29, 1939"

So not a math or physics mistake, but a history mistake.

Black holes was not used because it had bad connotations in certain counrties. They were call collapsars.

This video is wonderfully pedantic lol, i love it ❤

thank you! that was a lot of fun!

I'm pretty sure notation was used first for academic purposes. The notation was published later, after it's proven to be useful.

Black Hole..... No Black Star......Yes

How likely Is it that the articles are written in an older notation due to typesetting requirements at the time?

It seems likely the bra-ket notation was used intentionally for the same reason the term "black hole" was: so people in the audience that understand the modern notation can easily recognize it.

It is known as artistic license, and in this case, portraying an obsolete and casually used technology like chalkboard and chalk through our current technology is more than forgivable.

Lol. Even after you showed that scene again I thought, "that seems to be a benign QM equation. What could be wrong with it?"

ok. Let's twist your brain, shall we. Consider two high mass neutron stars on a close hyperbolic interaction. So close that the gravitational field strength (space-time curvature properly) is so great that for a segment of the hyperbolic passage that a segment on the back of the star experiences conditions where light cannot escape outward on the line from the center of mass of the system. It begins as a point on the outside (far side of the star from the barycenter). As the two stars approach more closely, the point grows first to a disk, then larger until it interferes with the forward path of its orbit, driving it closer yet to the barycenter and hugely distorting the star in space-time, energy, density, .... What you have on your hands is a partial "black hole". If it becomes trapped, it will become a short lived millisecond period orbiting pair of neutron stars caught between partial black hole surfaces collapsing to a black hole with high spin. If the stars pass at just the right range of distances you will have a temporary set of partial black hole surfaces appear and disappear. Now imagine a pair of unmatched mass stars and do the same. Now it is akin to a spinning flashlight with an impenetrable back - all horribly distorted by space-time relativistic impacts. In that case, if they are close enough the heavy mass stars will siphon mass from the lower mass star and slowly close to become a black hole with a trapped close binary that is progressively distorted, smeared, torn apart and then "eaten". Now, consider differently. Recognize that in the extreme curvature of space-time at a black hole surface that space and time are not representable as scalars, nor even tensors.

A DEAM BI-POLAR DISORDER ! 4:13

good catch however I think it is picky picky picky🤔😉🤗🤗🤗great video 12:14

4:22 Don't confuse 'pedantic' (which you weren't) with technical (which you were). And never apologize for introducing technicalities - suitably explained, of course. Trust your audience! We're here to learn, not be condescended to.

2:23 Were whiteboards used in those days?

Nope.

I can barely see what he wrote on the board, and someone came up with a proof that the formula is wrong.

I suspect you are correct in your analysis, but I feel obliged to mention that Physical Review was (and is) notorious for having its own notation conventions that strive for accessibility over modernity. Of course this is a question easily answered by noting when Physical Review allowed such notation into its publication for the first time.

IMHO Oppenheimer wasn't an architect of modern physics, he was an occupier of modern physics and the hegemonic occupiers of geopolitics used him as a tool and threw him in the dust bin after he served his purpose. I attended kindergarten in Los Alamos in 1954 while my father was working for Teller on the "Super". I was too young to appreciate the sense of joy then despair that fell over Los Alamos when Bikini atoll was vaporized. I think physicists and mathematicians who idolize Oppenheimer should take pause for self reflection and consider the agenda of the ones signing their pay checks.

Wow, it's amazing how easily mathematicians can work in other fields, while others not so much. Amazing work. I am sure soon or late you will get a call from Hollywood!

I have a PhD in theoretical physics. And I loved this video! I must admit, I DID NOT spot these two mistakes

The third funny mistake is the way you pronounce the name "Schwarzschild" (meaning in fact "black shield"). kzbin.info/www/bejne/ini1Z3ipgtidmrMsi=M3yuneeCrFDlwkNa

Nice, what about Banach spaces? Can one do without all the Hilbertian tools (adjoints, orthogonal bases, etc.)?

For the people that can’t access the papers just get the DOIs and go to scihub, you would probably find them

you really need to improve your communication skills. This is a terrible exposition..

Sherlock Holmes 🔍of Math's

Sheesh, I didn't know that mathematicians used the bra / ket notation differently. Isn't it enough for you to use different definitions for Euler angles?

The film lied. There were no black physics students at Berkley in the early 1040s.

Damn I thought you were about to tell me Japan won or something

The biggest mistake was using a gasoline bomb for the Trinity test. Like, it clearly looked like a hydrocarbon explosivr, not an atom bomb

Thank you for this very important video essay!

Hollywood gets lots of things wrong. They still think there is sound in outer space.

Is this really important in the great scheme of things?

In Fatman and Littleboy they showed us a few of the EXPERIMENTS. They treated we the audience like we're SMART. Movies do that anymore. They dumb down everything to MORON level. 🤦 In FM & LB They showed us the SCIENCE of the atom bomb. 1) They talked about the implosion problem, then showed us. 2) Tickling the dragon's tail experiment; amazing to SEE! 3) Demon Core accident and the experiment that led to it. SHOCKING and fascinating! 😳🤓 4) Consequences of exposure to high radiation and horrible death. 🫣 5} The atom bomb explosion itself was amazing in that movie. It was NOT very realistic. The explosion in Oppenheimer was too realistic! It was BORING because it happens too fast to process with a human brain. 🧠 Dwight Schultz Paul Newman John Cusack Laura Dern

In my opinion "Fatman and Littleboy" is a way BETTER movie. Sorry Matt Damon, you're no Paul Newman. 😒 The movie Oppenheimer showed a cyclotron in the movie, but they didn't show in action. What a WASTE that scene was. It even had Josh Harnet and they couldn't do better? 🤦

Why would “ket” be written under it though? Seems like something someone would do if they were explaining a new notation to someone. Perhaps a visitor was explaining an upcoming publication to Oppenheimer? Papers and notation don’t come out of nowhere, so bra ket likely existed for some time prior, and a traveller to/from Cambridge could have visited Dirac and then Oppenheimer and excitedly showed the latter the former’s work. Which he then did not adopt.

Of course the math is wrong. Worst Manhattan Project movie ever. Pathetic movie. All about relationships, little about science and inaccurate. Left out many significant scientists and events. Without Fermi and his team nothing would have happened. Left out Pauli, Schrödinger to name a few. Typical American gibberish. Last man standing after the war. Make it up anyway you want to.

What if Oppenheimer and Dirac did correspond before Dirac published. Mind you it can take 6 up to 12 or more months to publish a paper after you submitted it

What I enjoy about the subject of the video isn't that you found the 'mistake' that EVERYONE missed or that you were commenting about a movie that inserted a mistake (it's a movie); I enjoyed the investigation you followed because you thought you found a mistake in the movie. I often express such a pursuit as "time well wasted". Full points awarded!

Any chance we can pull in the good old "Personal Communication"? After all, once you are used to using that notation you don't write bra and ket on the board anymore. You would only do that when you were introducing it. So if Oppenheimer or somebody else had gotten wind of this new trick, they might have scribbled it on the board to explain it to colleagues.

Love it

|ψ> = α|0> + β|1>

Details are important, especially when it comes to science. I applaud you for catching this mistake and explaining in detail why it was incorrect, - great use of critical thinking in proving you claim.

This is the place where we note that given the DOI, you can often look up the paper on sci-hub. Those in the list of Oppie's papers, included.

5:02 Wait, wait... You are telling us that mathematicians and quantum physicists define the inner product differently (when the 'scalar' field for the vector space is the complex numbers one). Never heard about that. In one hand, it solves me a problem I had with the general concept of vector space where the field is whatever field, and a given field may not have a conjugate thing (or might it be defined for any field? But that does not come with the definition of field). On the other hand, it is an important question, because without counter-linearity, how would we deal with interference, where phase of complex numbers matter? (I guess it moves somewhere else in its description, can't say very well where.... Am I starting to mess things up? Help, please!!)