Great Physicists: Werner Heisenberg - but you should not believe everything he said

Despite his great achievements, Heisenbergs personality and his impact
on modern physics are not easy to evaluate.
Keep in mind this is not a biography but a personall assessment.
01:15 Early anecdotes
02:15 Working on Bohr's model of the atom
03:30 Meeting Bohr
04:27 Flash of genius
05:50 Matrix mechanics
07:00 Conflict with Schrödinger
07:25 Uncertainty
09:00 Solvay conference
10:00 Copenhagen interpretation
11:45 Fame
12:00 Politics
13:15 Uranium project
14:00 Meeting Bohr in 1941
15:50 Did Germany enrich uranium?
17:00 Autobiography
17:20 Heisenberg's blackout
18:10 Peace activity
19:03 Isospin relation
19:30 Energy conserved?
20:30 Influence on postwar physics
21:00 Announcing a Unified Theory
21:30 Too Ambitious
22:00 No cosmology
22:45 Summary

[@christophershelton8155]

Fermi's first major contribution involved the field of statistical mechanics. After Wolfgang Pauli formulated his exclusion principle in 1925, Fermi followed with a paper in which he applied the principle to an ideal gas, employing a statistical formulation now known as Fermi-Dirac statistics. Today, particles that obey the exclusion principle are called "fermions". Pauli later postulated the existence of an uncharged invisible particle emitted along with an electron during beta decay, to satisfy the law of conservation of energy. Fermi took up this idea, developing a model that incorporated the postulated particle, which he named the "neutrino". His theory, later referred to as Fermi's interaction and now called weak interaction, described one of the four fundamental interactions in nature.

[@das250250]

I think uncertainty principle is worthy of Einsteins level

[@andsalomoni]

I want to apologize to Alexander Unzicker, because time ago I accused him of removing a comment of mine under one of his videos. Now I am quite sure that my comment was banned by the youtube algorithm, which removes a lot of comments by many people all around on youtube. So I apologize to Alexander Unzicker for my accusation.

[@TheBelrick]

the same people who own and run yt also lead physics down a dead end. The same people who's opponents Unzicker himself called out as crazy for daring to reject [their] physics! 80 years wasted!!!!!!!!!

[@johneonas6628]

Thank you for your video. :)

[@infinitrixtv5847]

I congratulate you on this video. By the way, I loved your books!

[@bjorn7355]

As always a great thought provoking video. Theoretical physics has been developing alongside chess - but where as chess continuously reinvent and test itself - physics are less hardcore. Thank you for testing the issues of physics and pointing that there is still so much to explore in this wonderfull world of ours.

[@TheMachian]

interesting analogy :-) and yes, in physics you can become a "grandmaster" by having published a bunch of papers about the application of the Sicilian Defense... :-)

[@bela22441139]

Sir please share your thoughts on Satyen Bose.

[@Herman47]

Professor Unzicker, will you ever share your thoughts about Enrico Fermi?

[@bjharvey3021]

unzicker's uploads. i cannot hesitate to watch them. like immediately.

[@wtp69]

Me also!

[@stevedriscoll2539]

Mr. Unzicker, your videos are among only a few that I watch all the way through. I sense (but need to watch more of your videos) that you don't subscribe to much of what would be called "modern physics". I noticed in one video, you referred to Lee Smolin's "The Trouble with Physics". I read most of that book and was only half-surprised and half-shocked to find that physics was in trouble. Thank you for clarifying some things about Heisenberg.

[@surendranmk5306]

Interesting!

[@YawnGod]

"It's clear that Heisenberg was much too cultured to have any sympathies for Nazi ideology. But he did not like the idea of a German defeat either." Wittgenstein is rolling in his grave in defiance of conservation of energy. Apparently, Wittgenstein and Hitler were primary school classmates. Amazing coincidence. Godwin's Law in action.

[@htx.raymundo]

Heisenberg and Nazis? Ironic

[@marknewkirk4322]

​@@htx.raymundo "I did it for me. And I was good at it. I was alive."

[@comradeedwin1006]

@@marknewkirk4322 LMFAO

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Heisenberg's unified theory is not as ridiculous as you make it sound, it is the precursor to the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model of mesons, it involves a bifermi condensate producing observed particles, both bosons and fermions. This is how pions and protons are now understood to arise from QCD at low energy. While Heisenberg's idea that this is a grand-unified theory is incorrect, it is still an extremely interesting model which deserved study and respect, not mockery.

[@pyarahindustani8553]

Paulis exclusion principle and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, are they related? 😮

[@DotaMobaUnionRu]

Can the uncertainty principle be the key to the undestanding of electromagnetic paradox of electrostatic divergence of energy for the field energy of static electron? The paradox rises as energy of electron should be mc^2 on one hand, but on other hand the it should be equal to integral of E^2/2 over entire volume, but this integral is equal to infinity as E ~ 1/r^2. So this opens a problem for physics. But if we will ponder about it. The static electron had precise location, therefore according to the uncertainty principle - this means that impulse of electron in this situation should be absolutely uncertain. This means that we cant use standart formula for energy W as W = mc^2, we have to use whole formula: E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2. As now we have potentially infinite impulse. This simple guess shows that maybe standart divergence of electrostatic energy should be coped with help of quantuum mechanics. One must accpmpony for the impulse indeterminance. Just a clue from my side. Maybe Heisenberg's legacy after all is not well used in phycics as it might help to solve one of the crucial problems of Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electron and electromagnetic field.

[@davidsaintjohn4248]

You may enjoy the "Mobius electron" model of Williamson and van DER mark. They sort of imagine the electron as a twisted photon. You could imagine doing something similarly to construct other matter ala Kelvin's knots

[@PrivateSi]

Heisenberg certainly was a double-edged sword in more ways than one. He buried the potential inner workings of a nucleus in an electronic cloud of uncertainty that has stuck around ever since. No more semi-classical, properly mechanical, 100% certain theories permitted in physics now. Statistics became the new king of fundamental physics and here we now are - FUNDAMENTALLY CONFUSED. -- Now every EM field fluctuation that stands out a tiny bit is an 'Important Discovery' (that is of no practical benefit to anyone but the gravy-train riding Scientists careers and bank balance - while the world starves and lives under the nuclear cloud of nuclear armageddon).

[@martinsoos]

1) The best science allows everyone to throw in ideas and allows all ideas to be read about with consensus of correctness of probability and experiments to back up those ideas. 2) Mainstream excepts the best guess as fact with no allowance of "but what if." 3) "Science of facts" Disregards 1 and 2 above and wants only facts that will never be proven wrong. And yet, I still enjoy listening to Sabine Hossenfelder.

[@fwdelangen]

sorry if im ignorant, but why could they calculate those formulas but could not yet produce electricity ?

[@otrondal]

Good series about those old physicists. At 2:15 E=hv or Delta E=h Delta v

[@Pappaous]

Wonderful explanations, Sir. Thank you.

[@rayoflight62]

If you, hypothetically, "cross" the "Theory of Sets" with what we can perceive and measure of an atom, you obtain the Uncertainty Principle. It is not that the speed of light (or, of causality) is variable; it is the structure of Space to be decisively different from all the mathematical constructs we made of it. Minkowski got very close to what could be the reality of Nature, i.e.: Our "true" physics is made mostly of interactions, while the particles are just a "byproduct" that we perceive as such - because of our "Cause and Effect" reasoning model. I've always been fascinated by the interactions between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg; I read the books, I watched the comedy "Copenhagen", and I agree that Heisenberg's personality got into the way. I doubt Heisenberg wanted to meet with Bohr in 1941 to show-off, or to gain some other type of time-sensitive knowledge, as many do suppose. But I remain forever perplexed because of the cadmium-free, modern-art, uranium-cubes-on-ropes, toy-structure that they called "reactor". Thank you for your video Prof. Unzicker, Anthony

[@tensortrain1621]

"Everyone uses Schrödingers wave function instead of the more complicated Heisenberg-picture" Thats just plain wrong!

[@clmasse]

That was right at that time. The Heisenberg picture wasn't so well developed and couldn't describe anything. Today it is used only in special applications.

[@theaman1786]

Also, the presenter's criticism of the Standard Model (the last 3 minutes) seems plain wrong as well! I mean, isn't the Standard Model the most successful scientific theory to date? Sure it's ugly (Einstein believed it was ugly as hell, but Einstein's own Theory of Everything never materialized either), but it works; it makes all the right predictions... [Correct me if I'm wrong; I'm a noob...] I guess that's what happens when historians try to document the development and unfoldment of historical scientific leaps without having any education in those sciences themselves...

[@clmasse]

@@theaman1786 It isn't a theory, it is a collection of empirical facts.

[@clmasse]

@@theaman1786 He is not an historian.

[@theaman1786]

@@clmasse Oh yeah, sorry, The Standard Model is just a model and not a theory; damn, I'm so dumb; I mean, it's in its very name that it's a "model"... I guess the theory is called Quantum Field Theory (which, as far as I understand, is pretty similar sounding to String Theory).

[@affiliatepaid747]

I like your videos as a freelance developer

[@monabuster312]

Who are you to define who is a great physicist and who is not. What have you achieved to make those claims??

[@TheMachian]

As I say, this is my personal assessment, based on what I have studied and read. You are free not to like it. If you want to challenge what I have said, I would recommend that you are specific provide evidence.

[@christophershelton8155]

What do you think about the recent paper released this year titled 'A Contextual Approach to Refute Bell's Theorem' that aims to disprove quantum entanglement?

[@dharmverma7595]

I am a lay- person , therefore pardon me if this is incorrect thinking. When electron is moving around everywhere in it’s orbit with the speed of light in such a extremely small space , isn’t it obvious that it would be impossible to measure it’s position and direction at the same time.

[@TheMachian]

The speed is about c/137. There are also indirect measurements for the electron speed. As a matter of principle, both measurements would be possible if it was a classical particle.

[@hariharansankaran9012]

Hello Sir, 1. Can you make a video about Henri Poincare? Is there any truth that Einstein lifted the ideas from Poincare? 2. Also is there any truth that the Photoelectric effect of Einstein was actually done by his wife's physics teacher?

[@vincenzo7597]

I'm quoting this from Stackexchange: "Poincaré was confused on several points. (See the discussion on Wikipedia regarding "mass energy equivalence".) He could never get the mechanical relations straight, since he could not figure out that E=mc2. Einstein followed Poincaré closely in 1905, he was aware of Poincaré's work, but he derived the theory simply as a geometric symmetry, and made a complete system. Einstein did share the credit with Lorentz and Poincaré for special relativity for a while, probably one reason his Nobel prize did not mention relativity. Pauli in the Encyclopædia Britannica article famously credits Einstein alone for formulating the relativity principle, as did Lorentz. Poincaré was less accomodating. He would say "Einstein just assumed that which we were all trying to prove" (namely the principle of relativity). (I could not find a reference for this, and I might be misquoting. It is important, because it shows whether Poincaré was still trying to get relativity from Maxwell's equations, rather than making a new postulate-I don't know.) Special relativity was ripe for discovery in 1905, and Einstein wasn't the only one who could have done it, although he did do it best, and only he got the E=mc2 without which nothing makes sense. Poincaré and Lorentz deserve at least 50% of the credit (as Einstein himself accepted), and Poincaré has most of the modern theory, so Einstein's sole completely original contribution is E=mc2."

[@hariharansankaran9012]

@@vincenzo7597 thank you.

[@jedgrahek1426]

I have never understood why the majority of physicists/people were and are satisfied with treating the Uncertainty Principle as though it is an absolute simple truth, rather than merely an observation of what information we are unable to access directly, and working with probabilities as though they are final truths in and of themselves, as opposed to a functional substitute for the absolute truth. At the very least it should be an open question, not a closed book treated as gospel by teachers and students and theoreticians.

[@christophershelton8155]

Didn't Bohr say he got motivation for his atomic model partly from how the solar system works? If we explain an atom an the interaction between electrons rotating around the nucleus the same as planets rotating around the sun, then why can't we go a step further and say that the electron and other particles spin on themselves too as they rotate just like the planets do? A lot of theories that propose why some galaxies and objects spin is because that's how they started in their conception and they haven't encountered a force in their nearby area to slow them down. Similar to Newton's Law 'An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by another force'. Also, a bit of a side note but still somewhat relevant, if you look at how most objects form in the universe as well- it starts at an atomic level where elements come in contact with each other, and at this level this is where the 'spin' most galaxies experience begins supposedly. The new bond between these atoms keep them from leaving each other's domain, but the energy and motion they possess must go somewhere, so they spin and move around relative to each other in a plane where they both share similar but limited (compared to when they were separated from each other) freedoms of motion

[@sankarshanharidasan6751]

Even Rutherford thought about the revolving model.

[@markusantonious8192]

Just to note, it was, to my knowledge, John William NIcholson who first discovered / broached the 'quantization of angular momentum'....and that Bohr more or less appropriated this from Nicholson without giving the latter credit, i.e. See Tony Rothman's (superb), 'Everything's Relative: and other fables from science and technology', p. 91 - 93

[@TheMachian]

That's true. Still, Bohr has the merit of having put all together into a coherent model.

[@UncriticalRaceTheory]

You forgot to mention that Heinsenberg attacked Deutsche Physik in his 1942 notebook: Catherine Chevalley was right to write: “the Manuscript of 1942 appeared as an effort to make philosophically impossible an ideological operation as that of Deutsche Physik “ [6, p. 94]. Basarab Nicolescu, HEISENBERG AND THE LEVELS OF REALITY

[@AD-zo5vp]

Dude: - Jungk was a heavy socialist/kommunist who fled Germany from the Nazis. Whith his book he was trying to drag the US in the mud in the upcoming cold war over building and using the bomb, not to "whitewash" his archenemies. Heisenberg strongly objected the depiction of him as a resistance fighter, the story input came mainly from von Weizsäcker. - Bohr argues in his never sent letter(s) how he got his "impression", trying to defend why he did what he did. He ultimately confirms Heisenbergs story of sending Jensen to assure Germany wasn't building a bomb, only a reactor. Bohrs whole reinterpretation of Heisenbergs 41 visit begins only then, and Bohr thinking of reactor bombs. Heisenberg was right, likely Bohr understood that very well when trying to write that letter and therefore never sent it. - Heisenberg was conscripted for the Uranverein, just barely escaped arrest and deportation and was "given a final chance" to proof himself more valuable alive than dead. The fight dragged along quite long, over Sommerfeld succession. The alternatives were russian front or concentration camp. I think he played his cards surprisingly well! - Both the German reports, as well as the farmhall transcripts reveal that he/they (Heisenberg +?) knew much more about bomb physics than they ever revealed to the arms ministry. They definitely concealed crucial knowledge about bomb physics and clearly diverted and delayed the program. The plutonium alternative was only revealed in 1942, they sought out Bohr before that for that very reason, as they claimed.... makes a lot of sense, why else would Heisenberg insist to Bohr that bombs were possible. To get his help?! - He/they were certainly not "loyal" or trying to cover up their "crimes", afraid of accusations or prosecutions by the allies - they were afraid of being lynched by their own countrymen for not having built the damn thing. That's what they were covering up. - Goudsmit retracted his claims and later apologized to Heisenbergs family. Also other Manhattan scientists came out to defend Heisenberg. You should do your research a bit more thoroughly. Some suggestions: DOI 10.1007/s00016-003-0177-8 www.nbarchive.dk/collections/bohr-heisenberg/documents/ (read also later docs!) de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Jungk adpersonam.heisenberg-gesellschaft.de/section-1/jungk.html doi.org/10.3390/jne2010002 physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1292473 www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/sites/default/files/Preprints/P467.pdf arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1609/1609.02775.pdf kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2TKeoOur7mDb7s

[@vatanak8146]

this makes no sense, why would he claim to have helped the germans and potentially be punished by the allied powers? not to mention that the newly formed german republic didnt like people who helped the nazis

[@AD-zo5vp]

@@vatanak8146 I don't see or what you're referring to. Who claimed to have helped "the Germans" with what?

[@titanomachy2217]

So glad the Allies won WWII, now those disgusting white devils will go extinct within a century.

[@JorgeBrown]

It's always a great pleasure and a privilegie to watch Dr Unzicker's lectures! he is one of the lights in the darkness of present pink unicorn physics.

[@mtheonlyone]

can you please upload something about nikola tesla

[@faisal_malallah]

"Say my name"

[@etienne7774]

Did tesla believe in the existence of electrons? You should interview Stephen Crothers and his view on quantum mechanics.

[@dscmaker]

after the Solvay 1927 conference and even before a lot of abitious young scientists were calculating more lots of spectrum lines, stability of two nucleuses bound to one another, and got results in accordance to experiments, and the results were correct without any doubt, so only the interpretation had to be worked on.

[@davidwilkie9551]

"To Be, or Not to Be" that is this real-time logarithmic singularity positioning question, of whether it is possible in the Mind-Body manifestation.., to comprehend QM-TIME Fields Modulation Mechanism. The complications of half-truth authoritarian politics, persist forever. Good value review of our perception paradox problems.

[@clmasse]

Heisenberg didn't though of the quantum number 1/2 as the spin of the electron, but only as a quantum number of a stationary orbit or of the core. Later this was called the non mechanical stress, or duplicity. The spin of the electron has been discovered much later, after the matrix mechanics. The knowledge of atomic physics wasn't advanced enough, they still were big difficulties with the helium atom, the Zeeman effect among others. Other physicists had about as good results with integer quantum numbers.

[@bryanalmeida5342]

You're wrong on so many things and levels. I won't even start correcting you. The character limit would limit my answer.

[@clmasse]

@@bryanalmeida5342 Who are you?

[@ElFachas2005]

ok but was he the one who knocked tho...

[@lugyd1xdone195]

I feel like in Great Physicists you defend them in things you would absolutely criticize Overhyped Physicists for. He did a lot of things, we can appreciate him for his science while also critique him for his character. And nobody can be too mentaly developed not to fall for wrong idealogies. Isnt science about finding the truth among uncertainty?

[@boogerie]

The most disturbing fact I know about Heisenberg is that he participated in the Freikorps' suppression of the Bavarian Council Republic in 1919. He would later characterize his involvement and that of his comrades as being little more than boy scouts. No one seems to have challenge his characterization but given the violence of the Freikorps particularly in Munich I suspect Heisenberg was less than candid. I also wonder how he was awarded the 1932 Nobel outright with no acknowledgement to Born and Jordan.

[@TheMachian]

Thanks for the interesting contribution, would be nice to chat with you. I think however the Nobel should try to do without politics. Jordan, by the way played an even more questionable role than Heisenberg. All this however show that Heisenberg liked to play down the dark points in his biography. he was certainly not honest like Einstein.

[@AD-zo5vp]

As Unzicker hinted: Jordan was an overt Nazi already and had done the major manual work for Born and their 1925 paper. The committee couldn't scratch Jordan without Born. Whether the Nobel should engage in or stay out of politics like that is a question of its' own. However, Heisenberg after the announcement wrote to Born expressing his deep regret and kept emphasizing Borns importance throughout his life. Even though Born never really got over it, they remained friends. For the Freikorps involvement: You got to remember that the revolt was the extended arm of the Russian revolution, an undemocratic movement that openly proclaimed dictatorship and abolition of the Weimar republic. Hitler and all the stuff weren't a thing yet, i.e. unknown. Retrospectively making the link backwards in time is a bit sketchy. I agree that Heisenberg downplayed and reinterpreted things later after newer facts. Most did - on either side, e.g. Bohr with his reactor bomb theory. But Heisenberg never stylized himself on false grounds as resistance either. I see in his "uncertain" stance and recollections often rather a sign of cautiousness, self doubt and even self protection - in a new, young Germany full of former Nazis - rather than an ambition of whitewashing. He knew his conscious, what he did and that people will say about you whatever they want and like anyhow.

[@missbond7345]

@@TheMachian Am not German but Indian, so as an outsider, it feels unfair a bit to judge the actions of someone in 1919 when we have the after-sight of history & how things turned out, while they didnt. Germany's situation in 1919 for its citizens would be a tough one, especially if you were a patriotic one? To me, Heisenberg's contribution should be viewed outside the political developments (I also remember that he was even accused of being a White Jew for supporting Einstein & working with Jewish physicists) of the time and what he tended to do or not do. He even sent a letter to Max Born to apologize for winning the prize , when all three were nominated for the work. So all in all, it seems like he was a man with conscience, with a brilliant mind thrown into circumstances where he had to chose between doing Physics in a country he loved vs abandoning Germany to emigrate. Its not an easy choice by any means.

[@TechnoGlobalist]

@@missbond7345 you're 👍

[@reframer8250]

I agree, that Heisenbergs role within physics is somehow ambiguous. I did never like the "Heisenber-picture", which I find very confusing compared to the "Schrödinger-picture". And one has to add, that those two pictures are ONLY equivalent, when assuming the fundamental probability-interpretation of the wavefunction, which even Schrödinger did not believe in. Therefore I don't like, when people say, the two pirctures are equivalent. For my understanding, they are not. The fundamental probability-interpretation of the wavefunktion, where SOMETIMES the equation of motion of the theory applies, and SOMETIMES not (and no one can really tell you, when it applies and when not), can by any person with clear mind not be seen as a fundamental theory, but rather as a very effective one. And within the Schrödinger-picture I see much more potential in order to get to the bottom of that problem (the measurement problem). But of course nowerdays no one cares about that. Everyone is just calculating correlation functions, spectra and cross sections xD

[@reframer8250]

By the way, it is creepy, that I am again number 137, who likes this video. Maybe we have found the deep understanding of this number... :D:D:D

[@TheMachian]

Let's wait for no. 1836 :-)

[@paulg444]

in my imagination I can see Lindemann thinking to himself for a few days: "oh dear I have taken on too many grad students" .. and then in walks this young kid while the dog is barking... the rest is history.

[@PhotonicallyProjectedAtoms]

I am doing some research to find errors in early physics experiments and Rutherford had no evidence atoms are mostly empty space he could not have determined this without knowing the location and orientation of atoms.

[@fg-zm2yu]

The importance of walking.

[@christophershelton8155]

Do a video on Robert Oppenheimer the father of the atomic bomb and Edward Teller the maker of the Hydrogen bomb !!!

[@jimmypk1353]

Most of us are not physicists or mathematicians. The factual history presented in your videos is instrumental to our understanding and appreciation of key physical concepts. Much Appreciated!

[@ManuelGarcia-ww7gj]

Among the many rumors floating around about Japan during WWII, and this is likely just propaganda by the DPRK, the Japanese tested a fission bomb on an island on the coast of the northern half of the Korean Peninsula. It makes for and intriguing alternative history yarn.

[@pinchopaxtonsgreatestminds9591]

I think that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is wrong in the mechanics of the universe. Mathematics aren't physics as in physical parts of the Universe, they only partly average out a bunch of locations, and directions by using words like force, and energy, with helpers in computer programs such as a 'MOVE' command. To actually understand the universe you need to ignore the maths, and study observations of mechanics instead. So the quote in actual physics doesn't work, because the Universe has to imprint both position, and momentum on a moving body at the same time, else the universe wouldn't work. Maths tend not to be cyclic so much, yet the universe is built in cycles.. gravity has an in-flow, and an out-flow, and works like a lava lamp. You can imprint position, and momentum on a body in a cycle with spin, and tunnels, where spin is position, and tunnel length is momentum. So a vacuum cleaner moves air out of the way of a ball of paper, and the paper has a position, and the hole in the air is forming for momentum in the distance. Although the paper has no momentum, it will have momentum, and both can be worked out at the same time. Your momentum forms ahead of you, and it is physical, and your position is built from quantum physics that all spin to form a location... it is physical. Both exist at the same time. So the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle is wrong.

[@rbc812]

I am not a fan of Quantum Physics and Relativity. Physicist should not explain science using math.Math cannot explain science. It is merely a form of expressing an idea. If the idea is wrong, so is the math.

[@ianhall3822]

It was lucky for Germany that they surrendered in May 1945. In July 1945, the Americans tested their first atom bomb called the Trinity test, and dropped the two bombs on Japan in August 1945. Had Germany still been at war in August 1945, it would have been Berlin on which the bomb would have been dropped.

[@sergioreyes298]

It's easy to criticize Heisenberg for being on the side of "evil" and working on the A-bomb. But to not give him even a minute amount of credit and to choose not to believe him at all is not completely fair. Especially since the Americans actually went all out to create the A-bomb with no trepidations (Oppenheimer can say he was only there for the "science", not militarism; but scientists must always strive to not let their discoveries degenerate into weapons). AND, the Americans actually used the bomb to kill hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT civilians not once, but twice. So, my physics friend, everything is relative.

[@POVShotgun]

It’s pretty obvious how he was a closeted Nazi. He wanted the bomb but he just didn’t have the resources.

[@jungjunk1662]

Yes but we should believe everything you say right?

[@christophershelton8155]

Heisenberg was trying to help Germany develop an atomic bomb while Oppenheimer was helping America develop theirs, during WWII.

[@christophershelton8155]

Although, he was not a part of the Nazi party I don't believe.

[@carlharmeling512]

Heisenberg was making sure the Nazis did not get an atom bomb and that was the purpose of his return to Germany after the start of the war. The Nazis considered him to be what they called a white Jew. Don’t for a minute think he was working in earnest for the Nazis. Same as Wilhelm Canaris and other Germans who hated Hitler.

[@POVShotgun]

He was a closet Nazi

[@dosomething3]

19:00 “you americans should leave - and take your nuclear ☢️ weapons with you” - how will europe defend itself against a russian invasion?

[@TheMachian]

No offense, but I guess you, as many Americans, live in a parallel world fueled by bs news of your msm. As a starter, I recommend, consortiumnews, moonofalabama, Ray Mc Govern, Glenn Greenwald. However, all this is tangential to the physics here :-)

[@titanomachy2217]

Hahaha he seems to think the Soviets would have been utterly benevolent and refused to conquer all of Europe if the Americans hadn't formed NATO. Guess he's a communist sympathizer.

[@travisgould7653]

I want to push back on the idea of Heisenberg being "too ambitious." I dont think this is a correct way to describe it. We should rather differentiate between proper ambition and improper ambition, or true ambition and false ambition. If a person disregards the truth in order to achieve the fruits of true ambition, then he has falsely obtained those fruits. An ambitious person who strives for the confirmation of truth knows that his achievement is won because it is consistent with and grounded in reality. If truth and reality are disregarded, then a fundamental dishonesty is being used. This is not only a lie to others, but more fundamentally, a lie to one's own self. In his search for truth, the falsely ambitious man, even though he may not have made it explicit to himself, will have evaded a fundamental truth or some important detail, just so he can reach an end. This evasion is fundamental to dishonesty and lack of integrity, the nature of true evil. It seems Heisenberg may have evadedbin multiple areas of his life. I have read elsewhere of his possible disagreement with the Nazi regime, but he had to make small rationalizations and evasions to defend Nazi Germany and remain. How would Heisenberg's intellectual ceiling have been raised if he had only defected? Evil succeeds when good people keep their mouths shut. When a great man such Heisenberg evades, he gives evil the podium, and his silence is a validation of the evil. This doesn't have to be applied to such a great damnation as the Nazi pograms, but also to just the mere pursuits of one's own, like Heisenberg's interest in physics. He allowed evasion to become a significant aspect of his thoughts, and it seems it became an infection that spread elsewhere in his thinking, quite unfortunately.

[@nowhereman8564]

The inventor of quantum mechanics and didn't play in the same league with dirac and schrodinger, none sense

[@stephensalzman6444]

You presentations effectively cut through the smoke and mirrors to explain why nothing in Physics has changed or progressed since the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics were identified. The reason is a clear deviation from mathematically accurate calculations and logically derived principles. Is there a point you can identify as a restart point or are other currently closer to realistic science?

[@patrichausammann]

This was an interesting video. I don't think Heisenberg was as great a genius as is often claimed, however. He was a very poor theorist and most of his theoretical work was done by Lise Meitner. I also think Heisenberg was a liar in several ways, which can also be seen on closer inspection of the Farm Hall documents. Heisenberg wasn't the best practitioner either, as Diebner got better results on his practical nuclear research. The real geniuses behind the German nuclear program were perhaps most likely Weizsäcker, but also Bagge, Gerlach, Diebner and Schumann. I mention Schumann here, although this is denied by mainstream historiography. Nevertheless, he was the originator of the "German Way", which ultimately led to the development of the American "Swan Device" (mini nuke). Because if you take a closer look at his plans from the war period, you can see that their structure, like one egg to the next, resembles the plans of the "Swan Device". 9:28 Small correction: "De Broglie" is not expressed as "De Broly" as mentioned in this video, but should be pronounced as "De Broy".

[@dirremoire]

I enjoyed your comment until you became a pronunciation Nazi.

[@patrichausammann]

@@dirremoire I'm sorry to hear that you were bothered by my correction regarding De Broglie's pronunciation. Nevertheless, it was important for me to address all the points with which I was not completely satisfied in the video. I'm not in any way trying to attack the maker of the video, I just wanted to point out that this could be improved in a future video to increase the quality.

[@chrimony]

The decision to leave Germany was a lot easier for Einstein. He was Jewish and under threat. I can't fault Heisenberg for remaining loyal to his native country.

[@vincenzo7597]

You should, because Germany wasn't the same country even Heisenberg used to live in before.

[@chrimony]

@@vincenzo7597 It's easy to say what others should have done in hindsight.

[@AD-zo5vp]

@@vincenzo7597 Dietrich Bonhoeffer left Germany (like Heisenberg) and came back FOR ethical reasons. When you abandon, you surrender. Who doesn't fight, has already lost.

[@vincenzo7597]

@@AD-zo5vp Except Heisenberg didn't leave? And how could you blame Einstein for leaving? Jews were just brutally killed, they did not even get a chance to fight for their rights. We would have lost many other important contributions of Einstein if he did not leave. Same for Enrico Fermi who left Italy because of his wife. He couldn't fight for anything, either he joined the regime or he would get dismissed from professorship and anything related to science.

[@vincenzo7597]

@@chrimony Well, that also applies to your first comment. It's all about reasoning in the hindsight.

[@asamoahadjei9255]

U physics background is questionable

[@TheMachian]

Go ahead and question it.

[@unmurty]

You missed out one important guy-David Bohm. Let's see how much depth you have after reviewing him. If you think he's not important then it means you are missing something in Physical chemical and finally biological sciences. Once consciousness is out of the equation all your analyses falls short: name any science.

[@rineric3214]

Could you PLEASE do a video about Heisenberg's Unified Field Theory and go through it in order and describe what each "symbol" MEANS. Does each symbol MULTIPLY the next symbol? Please show WHY the theory is false. Also, we are ALWAYS falling at supersonic speed so when does "position" EVER happen? Uncertainty? Which he touted as the "final" theory of all theories? It's just ambition under the microscope. And back to the original request, you would truly educate the world about what physics equations are saying if you did this. I managed to learn all the names, but what those names mean and whether they are intended as multiplications or not is a mystery I have been trying to solve for decades!

[@clmasse]

Einstein and Bohr were Jew, obviously they couldn't share Heisenberg's view, it is not a matter of culture. Bohr almost died while flying Danemark that was about to be invaded by the nazi army. As soon as 1933, all Jew civil servant, including the greatest physicists Einstein, Born, and others, were dismissed. It wasn't a pick-nick.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

Your analysis of Heisenberg is absurd. He was not a Nazi. He was not an anti-Semite. He was a great physicist both before and after the war, and he did shoddy work on the atomic bomb project because he didn't believe in it. That's not deliberate sabotage, but it isn't doing a good job either, he miscalculated critical mass, he didn't bother to work out chain-reaction materials, he didn't work on any exposive triggering, nothing. His work postwar on his 'unified theory' was very interesting, because he introduced the concept of Fermi fields with spontaneous symmetry breaking, a generalization of his idea of spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum mechanics. This is one of the inspirations for the Nambu Jona-Lasinio model of quark condesates, which is confirmed experimentally. Please don't make videos on subjects you haven't studied.

[@pedrofigueiredo7850]

The main reason why the Nazis luckily could not make the bomb was twofold : very few physicists and negligible industrial resources compared to those of the huge Manhattan project. They failed even to obtain heavy water from Norway due to a sabotaged sinking of a ferry in Norway. Recall the names of Fermi, Oppenheimer, Bohr, Feynman, Janos von Neumann and Klaus Fuchs, Stalin s spy.

[@TheMachian]

Anna Clara, my old friend who continues to visit the channel she dislikes so much. Well. Did you even watch the video? I did not say the things you are quoting. Yes, there were several miscalculations, not only by him. The project never reached a stage where one could work on explosion triggers. I don't think his postwar work was useful, and it is this with which you are obviously uncomfortable. Evidently, you have some training in modern particle physics of the standard model and thus absorbed some of its creeds. If you had the courage to get out of your anonymity, I'd take you more seriously.

[@advaitrahasya]

Sure, his "uncertainty principle" made his reputation … and his uncertainty about principles damaged it. But he does deserve special mention for his warning, still unheeded by physicists: “What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning,”

[@lt4954]

It seems to me that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle might be a proof how God as creator can not exist.

[@arulsammymankondar30]

Uncertainty from the point of man. It doesn't mean uncertainty for God. In Indian philosophy, we have an example: Just because a blind person cannot a cat ,it doesn't mean the cat doesn't exist . What is revealed is the limitation of human faculty.

[@lt4954]

@@arulsammymankondar30 Hallo to India. I am not a phisicist, but it interests me. Otherwise I would rather involve perpetual motion - and thus certain knowledge, thus will, even tenderness... God's will?

[@shreyadas5065]

I think it is important to distinguish between the work of the scientist and the scientist as a person. Objective thinking would only help us in realizing the pointlessness of hero worship. At the same time, would also help in being critical to anything. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. By the way, thank you also for saying, being ambitious is not particularlyd desirable trait in science. It can delude very easily. People do not always realize that.

[@axeman2638]

Poor Alex, curious but unprepared to look at so many assumptions and fairy tales at the core of your belief system.

[@kondrahtiz7370]

Bohr was a swine with such interpretation and Heisenberg was naiv to tell him somewhat. But fact is, Hiesenberg was allowed to leave abroad and there was never a serios programm of German nuclear bomb. In last years they started to lay about.

[@TheMachian]

temper your language.

[@davidedefilippi754]

Don't believe to this mr nobody and study all the things that w.h. has wrote.