Why Einstein Thought Nuclear Weapons Were Impossible

[@aquaman1257]

"Damn" - Albert Einstein

[@classified4798]

No I didn’t said That 😁

[@nicness8882]

@@classified4798 lol

[@rakeshrakhi8029]

🤣 🤣

[@elijahflynt3217]

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

[@rakeshrakhi8029]

@@elijahflynt3217 full of chaos

[@SecretRaginMan]

"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]

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

[@SpydersByte]

great quote :D

[@20502chris]

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

[@NLTops]

@@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]

@@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.

[@panda4247]

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

[@nrb1177]

Chaotic neutral

[@devvydoesstuff]

I get it

[@oolalafuega2591]

Shame on you

[@verica4b]

🤣

[@tonyvu3235]

Lmao

[@johnchessant3012]

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]

Shows what humans really care about

[@spacemann1425]

Based🗿

[@valerierodger]

@@captainplane398 war drives technological progress more than anything else

[@VinnyUnion]

​@@valerierodgerSo we need more war

[@tiquays9342]

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

[@FishyBoyo1]

“The longest supporter of this channel: Audible” his first patreon supporter:

[@impazie]

try commenting on a more recent video next time

[@54phoules85]

@@impazie no

[@MrLappes]

@@54phoules85 madlad

[@holytaco.]

longest, not first. his first patreon probably stopped donating by now. but yeah

[@Ethorbit]

@@impazie Try not commenting at all next time

[@Crazy-stew.1548]

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]

Lol

[@fredtherndmrtpstr5052]

that may not have happenned but it is funny

[@varadleleot2084]

@@fredtherndmrtpstr5052 that happened. In reality it happened

[@fredtherndmrtpstr5052]

@@varadleleot2084 oh it did? Well, fantastic!

[@zenmkultra]

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

[@danieljensen2626]

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]

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

[@evilseedsgrownaturally1588]

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

[@nancybabbage1169]

Einstein was the equivalent of a "keyboard warrior" in his day, writing countless letters as an amateur physicist to whomever he thought would listen, its this extremely limited and conceited attitude about who can add value to a discussion and who cant that makes asses like you in the field just wrongheaded and insufferable.

[@danieljensen2626]

@@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]

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

[@rana1561]

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

[@calipoxcalipso]

what makes a particle turn neutral? lust for gold? power?

[@rana1561]

@@calipoxcalipso partical thinks it's apolitical.

[@StruggleButtons]

@@calipoxcalipsoor is born with with a heart full of neutrality?

[@ridwansetiadi8393]

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

[@zaza-ik5ws]

What I predicted came to pass

[@guifdcanalli]

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

[@CaptainFalcoyd]

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

[@bravomike4734]

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

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

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

[@Fender96]

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]

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]

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]

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

[@NitroNinja324]

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]

@@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

[@amazingannyoing1716]

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]

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

[@lithiumfpv9254]

@@devin6272 What exactly don't you get?

[@sacrismortem70]

@@devin6272 situational humor

[@CosmicTeapot]

​@@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.

[@medexamtoolscom]

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

[@willerwin3201]

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]

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

[@crusaderACR]

@@naleck2922 But it's not. It's literally impossible. A uranium fuel rod cannot become a bomb even if you try. Proof at work: Fuel rods are sold to any country anywhere and given to power companies. Because no matter what, it cannot be turned into a bomb.

[@vast9467]

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

[@leogama3422]

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]

​@@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

[@TheShadowIsMine]

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

[@PlanetJigobotTV]

This is the truest fact ever.

[@user-zo3wy4we3t]

Uh oh I did

[@elck3]

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

[@mikmorpheus]

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

[@PlanetJigobotTV]

@@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.

[@FatMan2539]

"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]

especially how many are in a grain of sand

[@lunakid12]

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]

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

[@pavel9652]

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

[@bunsenn5064]

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

[@choxoletyo8518]

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

[@Trathien-]

Ima do it

[@orangeboy97]

**time travel

[@Xllbvnzzz]

Step 4 is invent time travel

[@DJdeliverance]

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

[@fitzjordy]

Stonks

[@Carfeu]

I love how great discoveries are made just leaving stuff around

[@FallenWolf64]

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

[@alainlalonde]

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

[@cali2608]

@@FallenWolf64 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.

[@GehkGekhe]

​@@FallenWolf64Not really good. Aint no way you could make a computer out of wood though...

[@TheBoundBowman]

Imagine throwing uranium in your drawer next to your keys.

[@Karreth]

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

[@108108qwerty]

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

[@bloomball356]

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]

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

[@108108qwerty]

​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.

[@向你祖母問好]

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

[@WadcaWymiaru]

That same about global warming a fake news.

[@safir2241]

CRISPR on humans in a nutshell

[@RagafragaMuffin]

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

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Global warming IS fake...

[@safir2241]

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

[@letsmakegames947]

“People really should stop misquoting me” Albert Einstein

[@kevin-7091]

"Ok boomer" -Albert Einstein

[@earth3882]

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

[@outsidechambaz]

@@evalais2070 “Replying Ok Boomer is the ultimate burn, no matter the circumstance.” - Albert Einstein

[@jerma1493]

“Eh” -Albert Einstein

[@jessejamesainger3263]

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

[@joshuaschrager4747]

Thanks!

[@kamisama9715]

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

[@bb-gb7jv]

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

[@yaptchannel]

Santos Drumont few years before Wright brothers: Done!

[@dLimboStick]

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

[@NeutralAlien]

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

[@paulooo_yo]

@@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

[@mixey01]

Time travel Not gonna Happen 2358 Time travel is prohibited

[@alonelyperson6031]

Unlikely that anyone would even attempt time travel, due to the literal mountain of problems that come with it. Things like paradoxes which are basically equal to self destruct buttons for the universe and time itself, or the even worst unknown probabilities/properties waiting to be discovered that came with a giant DEATH FLAG. So yeah, if time travel does get discovered, it would be guarded harder than a black hole hides it's own mass.

[@justgame5508]

Time travel to the past is most likely not possible. This isn’t the same situation as was raised by Einstein’s however. Time travel to the past isn’t an engineering issue like splitting the atom was, but more of a fundamental issue in physics. Time travel to the future is definitely possible and has been observed many times

[@wenigmehl]

I'm traveling through time on a daily basis. About 24 hours into the future every day.

[@reidchave7192]

@@alonelyperson6031 Good thoughts-- but if you're going to go Kamikaze (as one does), then Time Travel is the most exotic way to do that, at the very least. Someone is DEFINITELY going to attempt time travel.

[@alonelyperson6031]

@@reidchave7192 Then they must be stopped no matter the cost.

[@gursimarmiglani9143]

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]

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

[@WaveOfDestiny]

It's copypaste from other chemistry jokes put together

[@Cyberspine]

Helium is such an alpha.

[@Purpleturtlehurtler]

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

[@adnauseam412]

Racist bartender..

[@Psycandy]

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]

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]

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").

[@myMotoring]

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

[@stephentrueman4843]

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

[@beaclaster]

Underrated

[@347Jimmy]

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]

@@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]

@@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 KZbin are unable to do the same

[@Verlisify]

Imagine if that dude never put the rock in the drawer

[@composamurai]

What's up checkmark

[@gps9715]

Someone else would have.... history is full of multiple people coming up with the same experiment/solution at around the same times.

[@HazySkies]

@@gps9715 I think the point they're trying to make is: What if that particular man hadn't done that, and no-one thought of it until like... 10 years later, 20 or even more. How different the world would be now if that were the case.

[@gps9715]

@@HazySkies Yeah I don't think so. I mean he uses "never" to define his timeframe. 😉

[@rvxn]

The discovery would have been delayed. But eventually be discovered anyways.

[@micahphilson]

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]

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

[@brendarua01]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[@jamesraymond1158]

Excellent. So much I didn't know in this video.I met Szilard's wife Trudy in La Jolla in the early 1970s. I didn't realize how brilliant Szilard was until later and have been kicking myself ever since for not talking to Trudy about him.

[@Shubodh42]

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]

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

[@MrInterpriser]

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

[@Shubodh42]

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

[@ldekker97]

That's awesome! Congrats!

[@Shubodh42]

Lianne Dekker Thank you!

[@kbee225]

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

[@Idontknow-vm1iy]

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]

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]

@@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.

[@Dopaaamine27]

@@alaididnalid7660 Einstein was a fraud plagiarist.

[@alaididnalid7660]

@@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.

[@peesweezy4553]

Uranium protecc Uranium atacc But most importantly, uranium shine uv light bacc

[@nyx4020]

Oh yeah

[@meranger92]

depp

[@N0Xa880iUL]

Absorb uv and shine visible light back

[@8iosx9ios16]

pee sweezy spitting facts

[@pandakso3365]

Underrated comment

[@ranglix1]

man someone should make a movie about this

[@callmeSkoob]

I feel like your comment on nuclear power plants becoming unstable due to absorbing too few neutrons, while true, is misleading in that you mentioned the explosion at Chernobyl after talking about nuclear bombs. The explosion at Chernobyl was not a nuclear one. A nuclear power plant (even a poorly designed one like Chernobyl) just doesn't have uranium in a dense enough formation to make that happen. The explosion at Chernobyl was actually caused when the balance you were talking about caused a rapid buildup of steam pressure which ruptured the reactor and spread fuel and fission products into the atmosphere. It saddens me to see the misconception "Nuclear power plants are unsafe because they can become a nuclear bomb." being spread anywhere and I like to do what I can to stop it. Nuclear power is statistically the safest, and most efficient, form of energy by far, and its arguably the cleanest form of energy production as well. Unfortunately we wont use it because we are afraid of it due to wrong and outdated information and misconceptions. I've been a subscriber to your channel for years now and love all of the content you put out. You do a fantastic job of teaching people about science, and the universe around us. Thanks for doing what you do, I am always looking forward to you're next video.

[@sherryhere8498]

What happened at Chernobyl was no less than a nuclear catastrophe. Irrespective of the cause, the effect was ten times that of Hiroshima, and it wouldn't have happened if it weren't a 'nuclear' plant. So directly or indirectly, his statement is right. Nuclear plants are nuclear bombs ready to be triggered any time thanks to human error.

[@asier_getxo]

I was looking for this comment 👍

[@asier_getxo]

@@sherryhere8498 no, they really aren't nuclear bombs. If you were commenting on pewdiepie's channel, the misconception could be reasonable, but definitely not in this channel. The explosion wasn't nuclear, but thermal. And ofc, the radioactive uranium and fission products in the power plant lead to huge damage... But still not a nuclear bomb. In fact, there is a military weapon that acts similarly to that, they're called dirty bombs: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb . And as you can see, even if these ones are definitely designed as bombs, they make the clear distinction that they're not nuclear bombs.

[@asier_getxo]

I know it's Wikipedia, but they have an amazingly well explained text there:

[@Banana_Cognac]

@@studentsforademocraticsoci9836 after i eat taco bell, my farts are thermonuclear bombs

[@idontknow2453]

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

[@helojoeywala6622]

*lets use it to destroy other people*

[@exponentialcomplexity3051]

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

[@pradhumnkanase8381]

@@exponentialcomplexity3051 yes they have

[@sid8823]

@@exponentialcomplexity3051 hope it remains that way

[@lady_deaths_head]

why not tho, war crimes are so stylish

[@LP-ui8gl]

6:10 "Hey Vsauce here"

[@VertexNull]

Well, this is surprisingly relevant today

[@gregcandy8900]

relevant because Einstein is still right about nuclear weapons

[@ct6502c]

@@gregcandy8900

[@gregcandy8900]

@@ct6502c amazing how fast you resorted to lying about what I believe LMAOOO do you even have internal monologue?

[@ct6502c]

@@gregcandy8900 You conspiracy theorist nuts are all the same.

[@gregcandy8900]

@@ct6502c I'd say we should have a debate but I already know you're too much of a coward seeing as you're not even replying to comments from your main channel LOL

[@ArpanD]

"The world is moving so fast these days that a man who says something is not possible is usually interrupted by someone doing it."...

[@donalain69]

The world has also become a place where belief rules over knowledge... so it probably won’t stop that man from saying it’s not possible, even if someone does it right in front of him.

[@ArpanD]

@@donalain69 yes, I guess u r right

[@JarthenGreenmeadow]

@@donalain69 Humans are slowly turning into WH40K orks. We da wagghhiest and da shootiest.

[@KINGOFTHEWORLD888]

Forbiden knowlegde from fallen angels

[@ronensuperexplainer]

Though, Einstein himself said it's impossible, and then immediately did it (he worked at the Manhattan Project)

[@iliketrains0pwned]

1920: "It's physically impossible to harness energy just from radioactive decay" 2020: "Alright, is the RTG ready for the next Mars rover?"

[@alexeikafe5388]

Good one! Perseverance is nearly ready to launch!

[@mulindwajoseph5176]

Too much astroneer going on here,

[@Disgruntled_Dave]

I never knew about RTG's before. Looked it up after reading this comment. Thank you.

[@iliketrains0pwned]

@@alexeikafe5388 It made it!!!

[@alexeikafe5388]

@@iliketrains0pwned yes!

[@superj1e2z6]

Not gonna happen. _happens._ woops

[@lipid9119]

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." ~Carl Sagan

[@TommoCarroll]

superj1e2z6 haha

[@TommoCarroll]

Lipid, Gotta love a good bit of Carl Sagan - that man had some really great thoughts, and even though the quote you gave might seem silly to some people it's a good reminder!

[@Trowblood]

They laughed at Tesla, Hannes Alfven, Halton Arp and they still are, in a century full of junk science and a completely wrong cosmological understanding. Much to learn they have.

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

We like to remember bad predictions by people who aught to know better. We don't bother to remember the good predictions by the knowledgable or any prediction by idiots.

[@lucasgarcia822]

Watching this after watching his latest video about Oppenheimer shows how much his work has improved! Amazing job!

[@brandy1011]

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.

[@djmahy]

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.

[@jeewansingh5241]

Neutron is a hero Neutron is a villan So, neutron is someone in between. Neutron is NEUTRAL Hence, prooved

[@Strumwith_aryan]

Neutron is deadpool

[@milansajan1001]

@@Strumwith_aryan 🤣🤣 *CooL*

[@dragonridley]

If you combine heroes with antiheroes, will they annihilate each other?

[@pluto8404]

Neutron is hero Neutron is villian 1/x at 0 is infinity and negative infinity, so is undefined. Neutron is undefined. Neutron is fake, nasa lied to us, space is a lie, Earth is flat.

[@rindirputra619]

Well, according to schrodinger neutron can be a hero and a villain at the same time...

[@VegasViking420]

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

[@autisticboi2992]

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

[@andrewpatton5114]

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]

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

[@Pmpeak]

I think his mind went wild when he witnessed end of WW2, since he argued that nuclear weapons are impossible to build

[@alpheendomination]

@@Pmpeak He never said they were impossible, he said that there was no evidence at the time to suggest that they would ever be possible. Two completely different things.

[@Tmanaz480]

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]

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

[@polygontower]

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

[@markener4316]

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]

@@alejandroenciso9650 its called click bait.

[@AscendantStoic]

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

[@manojr1852]

Neutron was discovered by James Chadwick in 1932 _You should've said it. Helps us get the timeline_ 😁

[@mertakkaynak2901]

Manoj Ravoori 3:24 he mentioned 1932 (but not chadwick)

[@manojr1852]

Lol. I missed it. Short, well hidden and quick He should've said it like at 2:25, 2:45 to help us - the attention handicapped 😁

[@munozrick]

So, Mr (Dr?). V: how about an episode on how the Neutron was discovered? That was left unexplained.

[@ncooty]

+Manoj Ravoori Why all the extra spaces?

[@manojr1852]

Rick Munoz. Discovery of neutron is interesting(perhaps every discovery is), though it might be too nerdy for general audience. It involved works of Rutherford; Bothe & Becker; Curie('s daughter) & Joliot; Chadwick & bit of others too(like Majorana, Feather). kzbin.info/www/bejne/aJOxlYCwl66osNk Reminds me of Humanity's edge - its collective brain of millions/billions of thinkers(of language,maths,farming,science,record keepers,teachers,fiction writers,etc) over thousands of years, let free(from mere survival) by billions of common farmers, workers,engineers,doctors,etc. Now, the Internet amplifies the network many times more :D

[@joecoolmusic5373]

Where can I mine some uranium 235? Asking for a friend.

[@joecoolmusic5373]

You spelled butthole wrong the first time lol. You fuckin douche.

[@alfaleqh185]

What it use for?

[@josefaschwanden1502]

If you get some be prepared to be hunted by the cia

[@SuperVstech]

JoeCoolMusic 235 is actually fairly simple to make... from thorium

[@josefaschwanden1502]

@@SuperVstech dude ur getting everyone on this comment in trouble, seriosly. Btw. You added a thing to my to do list

[@kog582]

“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.”

[@Sanguinnius]

Bravo vince!

[@nikolajankovic7082]

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]

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

[@ericparrish1515]

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

[@IBUILTTHAT]

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_]

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]

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

[@MrTurbo_]

@@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]

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

[@JimmyMon666]

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.

[@WyvernApalis]

Scientists: nuclear power is impossible to be harnessed Nuclear power: I AM INEVITABLE

[@enderlul5367]

Comrade Stalin Albert Einstein: And I am wrong

[@Rammers06]

And I am just a random person ..........

[@teopalafox]

I am Chernobyl

[@poelwe8157]

I am iron man

[@Alan-mq9om]

Well steam

[@raffimolero64]

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]

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

[@ducc995]

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]

also excuse me for being 9 months late

[@YouberChannel]

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

[@Leafsdude]

@@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.

[@SauerkrautIsGood]

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]

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]

Nice... I enjoyed that. Well said.

[@mheermance]

"The World Set Free" is a good read as it's interesting to see a vision of the future that is now our past.

[@andrewkovnat]

_That Vsauce pop-up at the end._

[@milkywegian]

Andrew Kovnat reported for misleading comment :p

[@andrewkovnat]

I can't tell if you're joking or not. If you aren't, let me try to convey to you what I meant. Vsauce is known for popping up from the bottom of the screen during screen transitions, and near the conclusion of this video, good ol' Veritasium does the same, reminding me of Michael and his mischievous motions.

[@milkywegian]

k

[@hadriennouvel2665]

Where are your fingers ?

[@adamhearnsberger9312]

I know it’s been a year, but woooosh

[@r2avixv497]

He knew the spoilers of Oppenheimer...5 years back

[@SUPERVAX]

I swear youtube channels like these should have 100 Million subs

[@Figure000]

no man, that's no how it works, you get more subs, if you make KZbin more money, they basically recommend it more. So the quality of the content only matters a portion.

[@vibaj16]

@@Figure000 If you have high quality content, more people will watch and continue watching, giving you more subs. No, I don't think the amount of money you make affects how much it is recommended

[@fabio5286]

@@vibaj16 the basics of youtube is, if it keeps someone in the website it will be recomended to others

[@Jacob-ge1py]

@@fabio5286 And the basics of what keeps someone on the website is that the appeal of the content to a general audience

[@DoubleAAce]

@@Jacob-ge1py that right is reserved for pewdiepie

[@this_too_shaII_pass]

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]

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

[@barabbasrosebud9282]

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

[@brandy1011]

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]

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]

@@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.

[@powerwagon3731]

Here I'am laying on my couch sick on a cold winter day in the Colorado mountains and I'm on a Veritasium binge...... Maybe I need to get sick more often? You make science so awesome! Next video please.

[@fear8220]

Einstein probably knew Barbienheimer was coming.

[@rvxn]

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

[@sleepyrowdy1826]

My war

[@lunakid12]

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

[@flow_987]

Tatakae

[@x--qz1fd]

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

[@garypiont6114]

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

[@halleffect5439]

"Haha, how didnt they know it?" -Me sitting in my coach watching videos.

[@baldwinivofjerusalem47]

🤣😂😂

[@paulmarynissen]

A Higgs Boson walks into a church, the priest says “we don’t believe in you”. The Higgs Boson says “What‽ You can’t have mass without me!”

[@arvindraghavan403]

Christians don't approach of this Only satanist do

[@krishnamandava8838]

Basically higgs give you very low energy and the field not the particle that restricts the massed particles to travel with speed less than C! !

[@pewpew9711]

@@arvindraghavan403 Someone is insecure

[@semicolone]

@@arvindraghavan403 ah yes, there are only 2 religions

[@cherubin7th]

Most of our mass comes from gluons. But whiteout Higgs we cannot have electron shells in the atom.

[@maximumoverdrive2676]

Plot twist: He knew it was possible and wanted to discourage people from figuring it out.

[@zv7ws]

Ww4 fought with sticks and stones

[@angelvalencia6782]

Good to see your not dead

[@evanw2195]

Wut tf

[@subitman12]

Chernobyl was not a result of a nuclear explosion. It was the result of the heat caused by low safety standards in maintaining the fission reaction for a nuclear reactor. Nuclear reactors do not use the same technology as nuclear weapons. The heat caused the surrounding water and air to explode which opened the reactor.

[@arnogerbil]

true, but it was still caused by the same general idea as he described, an unstable reaction that caused more energy to go into the system than out of it thus causing a chain reaction that ended in a massive explosion

[@subitman12]

It wasn't an unstable reaction. It was a stable reaction without the capability to remove the heat from that reaction. At Chernobyle, scientists were doing testing and they basically dismantled all the safety protocols that day in order to do the testing. A nuclear reactor has only enough fissionable material to generate heat. That's the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear weapon.

[@rsrt6910]

@@arnogerbil The physics involved between what happened at SL1, K431 and Chernobyl weren't even in the same ballpark as a nuclear explosion. SL1, K431 and Chernobyl went prompt critical on thermal neutrons, the bomb goes critical on fast neutrons. Their physical designs and materials make it impossible for either one to operate like the other.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

*Rs Rt* RBMK compare to SL and K431 has additional neutron-absorbing rods inside called "the buffer". They absorb "neutron flux" allowing higher energies without bursting. in Unit 4 they were ejected by mad Dr. Diatłow order.

[@fatoeki]

@@WadcaWymiaru And, additionally, the tips of the rods where made of grafite, a major design flaw, which sped up the reactions when they put them back as a last resort. This increased the reaction like it should never happen in a reactor.

[@scatteredvideos1]

Kid you not, on my Physics II final today I had a question that was something like "How do fission reactors work?" as an extra credit and I watched this video this morning right before it.

[@nickharrison3748]

How simple education has become...we had to study from books...and depend on our teacher's imagination!

[@raphidermaphi6409]

Funny that this video gets recommended right before I want to watch Oppenheimer

[@TommoCarroll]

"Is talking moonshine" aha! Can we talk like this again please?

[@xspager]

You don't mention Chernobyl and nuclear explosion without making clear Nuclear Power Plants are incapable of exploding like a Nuclear Bomb!!

[@rsrt6910]

@Jakob Jones Actually, one of the lessons learned from theSL1 accident is that it is impossible for a thermal power reactor to explode like a bomb. Because while there may be enough fissile material to compose a bomb, it can only maintain critical mass and geometry for thermal neutrons for normal power operations undamaged, and impossible to achieve critical mass and geometry for fast neutron criticality even when then entire core is destroyed and melts into a singular spherical mass. Sorry, but the OP is correct.

[@pjnaruto1]

Was about to say this myself

[@clansman89]

Except much worse if their design is bad. Like Chernobyl and even Fukushima

[@DataScienceDIY]

Not to mention that water moderated, or other thermally moderated reactors are not “balancing on a knifes edge” as Veritasium put it, but are inherently stable because the heating of the reactor tends to shut it down by allowing more neutrons to escape before causing fission.

[@notbob555]

@@clansman89 So many people ignoring the fact that Chernobyl was practically on purpose. They knew it was gonna fail long before it did. But they did absolutely nothing to stop it. This is what happens when you cut too many corners and don't build things properly.

[@lachlancooke]

Neutron protecc Neutron attacc But most importantly Neutron give energy bacc

[@meranger92]

depp

[@SephirothRyu]

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.

[@Eddyhartz]

What they certainly didn't foresee: Man discovers how to harness the power of the atom. What's the first thing they do with it? Blow up Japan.

[@Ratio16180]

Eddyhartz I like your pfp

[@lordx4641]

alephii ppl like u r the reason for us lagging today

[@aevangel1]

Well actually, the first thing we did was blow up a New Mexico desert.

[@Nijeguhz]

We blew up Japan? Wow! When did that happen?

[@DankDungeon]

@@Nijeguhz tomorrow

[@elgunlee]

6:10 I thought he gonna say "Hey It's Vsauce!"

[@tusharbansal75]

Lol thought the same 🤣

[@BillHFA]

Same here!

[@blendyboi5023]

Hey! Vsauce, Michael here

[@fox_gold4340]

Scientist: e=mc2 Fiction writer: makes up story about how they can make weapons Scientist:no that's impossible just fiction Scientist: reads fiction book and thinks about how to make weapon Scientist in 1945: we did it 👏

[@debasischakrabarty9028]

Fox Gold you are right Einstein was a fiction writer .99% people believe all this rabish .you have to learn how to unlearn then relearn .After researching for a long time I found what we strongly believe repeatedly they tell us is all lies ..They control the earth .

[@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я]

@@debasischakrabarty9028 are you braindead or just that much stupid?

[@FutureChaosTV]

@@debasischakrabarty9028 Turd.

[@debasischakrabarty9028]

Дмитрий Прищепа 😀I am researcher ,International chess player,solve runic cube less than 30 sec ,Sorry to prove

[@salmon3669minecraft]

@@debasischakrabarty9028 And head of the illuminati I bet. What else is new.

[@TheB0sss]

Wow, this video just taught me the difference between how an atom bomb and a power plant works in less than a minute (at least, the easy explanation). Genuinely great

[@Guitarman7133]

I HAVE A SIMPLER EXPLANATION. NO SUCH THING AS ATOMIC WEAPONS. URANIUM AND PLUTONIUM ARE METALLIC ATOMS, WHICH CAN NEVER CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. ONLY CHEMICALS CAN CAUSE AN EXPLOSION. THATS WHY ANY NUKE EXPLOSION HAS ALL THAT DIRTY BLACK SMOKE. ITS ALL HUGE AMOUNTS OF TNT.

[@TheB0sss]

@@Guitarman7133 lol, good one

[@MarcelloSevero]

I read "How Neurons Changed Everything," prompting me to think this was an AI video.

[@danteregianifreitas6461]

same

[@rishab7746]

Sciencephile

[@feynstein1004]

lol same

[@briandiehl9257]

I know right?

[@bilel114]

me too. I was confused for a good portion of the video

[@hiccup3.14]

So wait NEUTRON WAS DISCOVERED AFTEERRRRR Einstein energy mass relation...... I never Expected.....that... Wow 3min silence for neutron

[@gordonrichardson2972]

Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize was not for special relativity (it was for the photoelectric effect). E=mc2 was considered theoretical, and irrelevant to everyday life.

[@MrAlRats]

The neutron was discovered by James Chadwick, a student of Ernest Rutherford, in 1932. Albert Einstein published four groundbreaking scientific papers in 1905, one of which expressed the idea that mass and energy are equivalent.

[@soxboy25]

Oddly enough the thing Einstein proposed, E=mc^2 , is useful for more than just fission discussed here. Even normal chemical reactions like baking soda and vinegar will technically convert mass to energy.

[@soxboy25]

@@anonymousetrapper it does do what you said but because (we think it's the cause) elections are tangled up in the Nuclear force (specifically the weak component) all sorts of weird things are possible. In this case one of those weird things is a mass being turned into energy.

[@WaveOfDestiny]

@@anonymousetrapper atomic and molecular bonds are "energy" in a way: for example energy stored in the electromagnetic field (autoinduction and stuff). If i'm not mistaken if you break a bond the whole thing actually has more mass becouse you put energy into it, and when it makes bonds it releases energy for most reactions and so it looses mass

[@CaptianWinky17]

Hey Vsauce, Micheal here!

[@EchoHeo]

CaptianWinky17 Hey! Veritasium! I forgot his name!

[@EchoHeo]

Tech Is What I Do Dalek. Dang geeze

[@TommoCarroll]

Michael should just pop up at the beginning of seemingly random videos and then just leave without saying anything - it would actually not be considered weird if he did it haha!

[@3ckitani]

Wrong channel, dude

[@EchoHeo]

3C Kitani OR is it

[@geoffreywilliams9324]

Excellent explanation of the neutron and the chain reaction . .

[@angusrl4834]

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 :)

[@soggyflipp1810]

Scientists: **make a groundbreaking discovery that can help all of the humanity** America: "finally... A weapon that can cause an ever massive destruction"

[@Helperbot-2000]

"Sometimes my genius is, its almost frightning"

[@benpeeples4265]

Yeah, America was the only one interested...

[@kpbendeguz]

Actually Leo Szilard was terrified with his discovery because he also realized that eventually German scientists will come to the same conclusion. That's why America rushed to create the atomic bomb: to get ahead of Germany.

[@TechAndBeyond381]

@@benpeeples4265 same thing I thought

[@Krokant17]

@@kpbendeguz I agree if u state that the development was legitimated by the fascism threat, but I think we should never forget that USA used two nuclear bombs and there are still many people justifying the use, even though we saw the consequences.

[@plainlogic]

I know time travel will remain impossible in my lifetime. I know for sure, because I haven told myself about it yet.

[@yr5135]

Traveling in the future is actual possible it's just not as instant as most people imagine it to be. Einstein already proved it.

[@danielsharp2402]

@@yr5135 Yeah you travel into the future at a rate of 1 second / second.

[@yr5135]

@@danielsharp2402 search up einstein theory of relativity. The faster you go time around you remains constant while time for everyone speeds up in comparison.

[@mikelang4853]

You THOUGHT you did, but you were having hallucinations so was committed and told a fellow patient who has dementia before you died.

[@unitedspacepirates9075]

Just take a different path through space time to offset spacial divergence.

[@orpheneus77]

Went back to this vid after watching the Oppenheimer one. Spot on explanation as always (almost same with the 2023 version for the nuclear reaction but with better graphics).

[@defaultmesh]

Einstein: There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will. Future humans: *_shatter atoms at will_* Einstein: *surprise pikachu face*

[@death_parade]

If people read what Einstein said, he never said that nuclear weapons will never happen. He said that there is *no indication* that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. Key word: "no indication". If he had an indication, he would have bloody well discovered the neutron bombardment path, wouldn't he?

[@Tore_Lund]

@@death_parade In los Alamos there was several bets amongst the scientists whether this would work before the first test blast.

[@therion5458]

@ Einstein's quote in this video was from 1933. The Manhattan Project started in 1939... Nuclear fission wasn't discovered by Leo Szilard. It was discovered by the German chemist Otto Hahn, in 1938. By 1939, any number of individuals with a grasp of science could have written a letter to FDR about creating a fission bomb.

[@raffaeledivora9517]

@@therion5458 Exactly... by then Fermi was already building the first nuclear reactor

[@christopherg2347]

Then neutron and nuclear chain reaction, were at best a unconfirmed theory when he said that, 1933. If you asume he even knew - with stuff heating up for WW2, transmission of knowledge is no longer quick. By 1939 Einstein had accepted the fact.

[@KevinGreenJ]

5:27 This is not how reactors vs bombs work. Bombs require specific isotopes and precise configurations. You can't change a reactor into an atomic bomb! Any explosions that have ever occurred in reactors are chemical as in the case of Chernobyl, and not atomic.

[@doktork3406]

@ yeah ..he is correct atomic reactors use weakly enriched fissile material bombs require a lot of very enriched fissile material an atomic powerplant could never cause a nuclear explosion it doesn't have the right stuff and it can't create a fast enough reaction

[@rsrt6910]

@ Well... you could if you completely disassemble the core, cut open all the fuel rods, separate the fuel from the ceramic pellets it's stored in, centrifuge out the remaining 95% Uranium 238 until you're left with 235 (or separate out the Plutonium 239), reassemble the core, surround the core with high explosives, detonate the high explosives in a very precise timed sequence... THEN it would explode like a bomb... oh wait...

[@azmanrafee]

I don't agree with the "balancing on a knife edge" analogy. Reactors are usually controlled by letting only delayed neutrons increase the power which occurs at a pace very easy to time. Also nuclear reactor designs inherently have a negetive feedback system that prevents such power escalation. Chernobyl is an exception because the design was very different, that allowed positive feedback to kick in.

[@JarthenGreenmeadow]

They were also like "Lets turn off every single safety feature and see if something happens"

[@Xylos144]

Yeah, it's more like 'balancing a ball at the bottom of a valley." as in... the opposite of difficult, it's naturally preferable to the system to be precisely critical.

[@chrismanuel9768]

When a scientist says "it's impossible", what they mean to say is they lack imagination

[@Jalee4852]

"What we usually consider are impossible are simply engineering problems ... there's no law of physics preventing them."

[@alfredsutton7233]

Perfect ... well and concisely said.

[@d.bcooper2271]

How is this applied to atomic bomb?

[@isaackvasager9957]

@@d.bcooper2271 The top scientists of the time thought an A-bomb wasn't possible, not because there was a law preventing it, but because they couldn't fathom how to split a nucleus of an atom. It was an engineering problem. Not a law of physics problem.

[@Grabbearjet]

I know I'm in a good place when I don't find a single "hold my beer" comment

[@ButtKickington]

Hold my beer, I'm about to ruin this place.

[@obi-wankenobi1750]

Hold my beer, I’ve got to hold Kiddobyte’s

[@lorenzoelesterio8937]

Hold my beer, ive got to hold Obi-Wan Kenobi's

[@humain1025]

Literally 2 comments down is one about Oppenheimer.

[@redrob6026]

What an incredibly creative mind HG Wells had.

[@Vk-gv3sc]

long time no see. one of best channeels on youtube

[@EquiliMario]

uchiha sasuke Long time no see. I bet Sakura says the same. Be a better husband and father Sasuka-kun!

[@leerman22]

He forgot to mention delayed neutrons. You can't use 100% prompt neutrons (neutrons from fission event) to run a reactor because the power would jump from zero power to exploded/molten core almost instantly. Some fraction of neutrons come from the decay of fission products giving you time to control the population of neutrons. Nuclear plant engineers get quite uncomfortable when they hear "prompt critical". Neutrons also do lots of other stuff other than fission, like bouncing off nuclei, getting captured by any non-fissile nuclei, or just decaying into a proton and electron. If the neutron is fast enough it can throw neutrons from a heavy nuclei.

[@gordonrichardson2972]

True, but its not a thesis on nuclear physics. Its a summary of how nuclear power became possible.

[@stemtuber]

Agreed. The story of the delayed neutron is a fascinating consequence of fission that is the feature which enables reactor feedback control at human (mechanical) timescales. It has never been clear to me if the Chicago pile crowd knew of this safety cushion when they build their open-air reactor...

[@gordonrichardson2972]

stemtuber There is quite a good Wikipedia article on the Chicago pile-1. It operated at very low power of 0.5 watt, and was carefully instrumented, with electronic safety systems. See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1

[@danielawesome36]

This sounds like how a bunch of Minecrafters figured out how to break bedrock without creative mode.

[@jackieking1522]

Wow...someone I respect recommends a book I've already read.... that makes me so chuffed. And it really is a fascinating read.

[@perolovson1715]

Good info! One thing though, Chernobyl was no nuclear explosion. It was a steam explosion triggered by an experiment that run out of hands of the personel.

[@readdescriptionforanaughty3344]

Talking moonshine sounds like he knew it was gonna be some strong stuff.

[@bhgtree]

3:50 Rutherford: "I wish I had hair like Albert." :)

[@sergiolagunilla770]

Who’s here after Oppenheimer and Veritasium’s video about it?

[@cheese_cookie]

"I want to be the Hokage" -Albert Hawking

[@DoubleAAce]

😆