@@zarapopo7442 I’m glad you liked it! Happy to have you here!
@efoxxok7478Күн бұрын
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.
@sirinathКүн бұрын
Can you do a course on Markov / Semi Markov / Hidden Markov / Semi Hidden Markov models please.
@johnhynes78912 күн бұрын
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.
@JoelRosenfeld2 күн бұрын
@@johnhynes7891 honestly he downplayed the role of everyone but Oppenheimer. Bethe, Feynman, and everyone else pretty much go unmentioned.
@sambulls2 күн бұрын
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"
@JoelRosenfeld2 күн бұрын
@@sambulls thank you!
@lazerbungalow2 күн бұрын
So not a math or physics mistake, but a history mistake.
@thadtheman37512 күн бұрын
Black holes was not used because it had bad connotations in certain counrties. They were call collapsars.
@JoelRosenfeld2 күн бұрын
Oh that’s interesting! A new term for me to dig into!
@noahhosking4953 күн бұрын
This video is wonderfully pedantic lol, i love it ❤
@JoelRosenfeld2 күн бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@briananderson6873 күн бұрын
thank you! that was a lot of fun!
@JoelRosenfeld3 күн бұрын
I’m glad you liked it!
@Iblis2Lakon3 күн бұрын
I'm pretty sure notation was used first for academic purposes. The notation was published later, after it's proven to be useful.
@grandunifiedtheory51274 күн бұрын
Black Hole..... No Black Star......Yes
@themghicks4 күн бұрын
How likely Is it that the articles are written in an older notation due to typesetting requirements at the time?
@nbooth4 күн бұрын
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.
@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj4 күн бұрын
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.
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
I have planted my flag. And I will die on this hill. But yeah, seriously, it's a movie and the video is just for fun.
@superneenjaa7184 күн бұрын
Lol. Even after you showed that scene again I thought, "that seems to be a benign QM equation. What could be wrong with it?"
@tunneloflight4 күн бұрын
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.
@rajibuzzaman4 күн бұрын
A DEAM BI-POLAR DISORDER ! 4:13
@richardlynch57454 күн бұрын
good catch however I think it is picky picky picky🤔😉🤗🤗🤗great video 12:14
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
I'm glad you liked it!
@davidwright84324 күн бұрын
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.
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
Cheers! I really appreciate your comment.
@frogandspanner4 күн бұрын
2:23 Were whiteboards used in those days?
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
@@frogandspanner no not really. Whiteboards became popular in the 90s as a cheap alternative to chalkboards. Mathematicians and Physicists often have a preference to chalk boards.
@user-xq8mk5qu8n4 күн бұрын
Nope.
@longhoacaophuc82934 күн бұрын
I can barely see what he wrote on the board, and someone came up with a proof that the formula is wrong.
@387tallen4 күн бұрын
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.
@fredwright97234 күн бұрын
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.
@RSLT4 күн бұрын
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!
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
@@RSLT I’m glad you liked it! I had a lot of fun working on the video
@boominem81774 күн бұрын
I have a PhD in theoretical physics. And I loved this video! I must admit, I DID NOT spot these two mistakes
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
@@boominem8177 I’m glad you liked it! Welcome to the channel!
@boominem81774 күн бұрын
Thank you!
@andreasaste10774 күн бұрын
The third funny mistake is the way you pronounce the name "Schwarzschild" (meaning in fact "black shield"). kzbin.info/www/bejne/ini1Z3ipgtidmrMsi=M3yuneeCrFDlwkNa
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
@@andreasaste1077 yes indeed! I need to work on that
@OmarLakkis4 күн бұрын
Nice, what about Banach spaces? Can one do without all the Hilbertian tools (adjoints, orthogonal bases, etc.)?
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
You lose a lot with non-Hilbert Banach spaces. Adjoints are well defined, and that's fine. However, the definition of compact operators is no longer equivalent to being approximable by finite rank operators. Orthogonal bases are also tricky. You COULD define an inner product on a Banach space for orthogonality, but it wouldn't mesh the same way. For instance, you could put an L2 inner product on the space of continuous functions, but the space isn't going to be complete under the L2 metric.
@OmarLakkis2 күн бұрын
@@JoelRosenfeld indeed, it looks quite difficult without an inner product. It is surprising as eigentheory goes through easily (so to speak). Do you have a reference for the non-Hilbert case?
@JoelRosenfeld2 күн бұрын
@@OmarLakkis no I don’t. I will try to see if I could find something.
@ArturQML4 күн бұрын
For the people that can’t access the papers just get the DOIs and go to scihub, you would probably find them
@jfndfiunskj52995 күн бұрын
you really need to improve your communication skills. This is a terrible exposition..
@JoelRosenfeld5 күн бұрын
@@jfndfiunskj5299 I’m always open to input. What could I change to improve it?
@Joe-jv5mm5 күн бұрын
Sherlock Holmes 🔍of Math's
@JoelRosenfeld4 күн бұрын
@@Joe-jv5mm 🕵🏻♂️
@christosvoskresye5 күн бұрын
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?
@RupertLazzano5 күн бұрын
The film lied. There were no black physics students at Berkley in the early 1040s.
@jakehobrath77215 күн бұрын
Damn I thought you were about to tell me Japan won or something
@supreetsahu19645 күн бұрын
The biggest mistake was using a gasoline bomb for the Trinity test. Like, it clearly looked like a hydrocarbon explosivr, not an atom bomb
@richardboland19355 күн бұрын
Thank you for this very important video essay!
@georgesealy47065 күн бұрын
Hollywood gets lots of things wrong. They still think there is sound in outer space.
@MrRobertX705 күн бұрын
Is this really important in the great scheme of things?
@SciHeartJourney5 күн бұрын
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
@SciHeartJourney5 күн бұрын
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? 🤦
@byz-blade5 күн бұрын
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.
@renscience5 күн бұрын
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.
@chritophergaafele89225 күн бұрын
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
@chritophergaafele89225 күн бұрын
Maybe I should have listened before throwing in a comment🤦♂
@thorntontarr28945 күн бұрын
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!
@paulpinecone24645 күн бұрын
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.
@davidvhoustonmobile25375 күн бұрын
Love it
@UHyperZero5 күн бұрын
|ψ> = α|0> + β|1>
@CharlieTechie5 күн бұрын
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.
@JoelRosenfeld5 күн бұрын
@@CharlieTechie thank you! I’m glad you liked it
@sciptick5 күн бұрын
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.
@juan_ta5 күн бұрын
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!!)
@JoelRosenfeld5 күн бұрын
@@juan_ta yep. It’s a constant annoyance for someone working in both fields. The bra ket notation makes sense from a function sort of view, since we usually apply functions to an argument from the left.
@juan_ta5 күн бұрын
@@JoelRosenfeld Thanks!! I was editing my comment in the meanwhile, and found your answer when back from this. It would be fantastic if you reread it now and point whatever you consider... 😋
@juan_ta5 күн бұрын
Actually, let's put a phase in a quantum state's ket (then the ket having norm = 1). The mathematician's inner product gets that phase doubled (with respect to the self inner product of the initial ket) while the physicist's inner product remains the same. Hard to make QM using the mathematician's inner product. Even more shocking to me... mathematician's inner product is on the vector space's field, not on the field of real numbers. Can't say now if that's right...