Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 10, 2013, 04:36:28 PM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 10, 2013, 03:45:30 PM

Quote from: TomUnderSea on June 10, 2013, 04:02:34 AM

Quote from: Dasneko on June 10, 2013, 03:49:18 AM

Oh please like I care what you bother to call any particular phenomena, theory, function etc... Its just a waste of time to go through the trouble.

Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.

Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..

I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.

I guess the cookie question was too much for you. When I was 19, it was all the rage in the crowd I ran with.

"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are uranium-235 (235U) and plutonium-239 (239Pu)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel

Only fissile isotopes of certain elements have the potential for use in nuclear weapons. Additionally they must be produced in sufficient quantity and purity to be usable. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are well known examples for which this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade

U-235 and Pu-239 are both fuel and, in a more refined form, weapons grade material. I expected you to be familiar with this.

What if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter? No idea. What if Leó Szilárd didn't write it? What if Teller and Wigner had not agreed with the concerns in the letter? What if Alexander Sachs had failed to deliver it? Sounds like Al gets 20% of the credit.

BTW, it would be discovered electricity and invented the battery. One existed before it was discovered where the other one was created for the first time.

... Great... remind me never to play "lets pretend" with you since you do not understand what imagination is. Whatever equivalency aside you actually graced my point here. What if Leo Szilard had not written that letter? Would there have been someone else who could or would have? Most likely YES. Could you have taken those 130,000 people involved in the manhattan project and replace them while still end up with a nuke? Most likely YES. Would it have been possible without Einstein? No.

If Einstine had not given this project his support and done the discoveries he did before that there would have been no nuke above Hiroshima Monday, August 6, 1945.

So. Your proof for this statement is?

I am of the opinion that some other luminary would be point man on the letter with as much effect.

What proof do you provide that nuclear physics would not have developed with out E=mc^2?

BTW, what was the first practical experiment that showed E=mc^2 was the correct equation? This might help you determine how important this idea was to building the atom bomb.

E=mc^2 does not necessarily need to be directly proven because its a consequence of Special relativity. Not to mention its proven useful in practice. Its kind of like how we dont need to directly observe black holes or the higgs to assume they are there because assuming they exist helps us understand other parts like how much energy can be released from a nuke.

Without Einstein saying you can make a bomb out of radioactive materials is like saying i can make a bomb out of peanut butter. Its not like gunpowder where you just need to add fire and watch it explode. The whole point of the Manhattan project was to figure out in practice how to do something they had already done on paper.

Aside from that E=mc^2 has very little implications to nuclear physics (and i never said otherwise). It only comes into effect when you go from atoms to energy or back and unifies nuclear physics with energy physics.