Review Part Deux

So, this seemed to work a little bit the last time I did it and really I can think of no other way to study and I think to end the class than in this manner.

The Principle of Induction and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle
I am not a science, math, or test taking person at all. A main reason for this is my reluctance to believe and lack of faith in the Principle of Induction. Just because y has happened x times does not mean that y will also occur on the x+1 time. Everything is an independent event and previous events do not affect the future events. I think about it like keno. Number 37 may not be called for 20 consecutive games. This does not mean that on the 21st game number 37 will not be called, nor does it mean that on the 21st game the number 37 will be called. The 21st game is an independent event the 20th game has no influence. Unfortunately, pretty much all mathematical and scientific principles are based on this theory. Without it we wouldn't get anywhere in society because we would constantly be trying to prove to ourselves the same events are true. I am probably over simplyfying this whole concepty, but that's just how I view science and math. ANYWAYS, for some reason I thought my lack of faith in the Principle of Induction would be explained scientifically by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Quickly this hope of resolution dimminished. Upon further review the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle admits that a particles location cannot be predicted with 100% certainty. This is due to the size and speed at which particles move. Instead, particles can only be predicted with a certainty that is less than 100% as to their current location. It represents a break from classical physics where everything could be quantified because everything in classical physics was on the macroscopic scale.

Einstein's Politics
Moving on to a little bit of history. I find Einstein's "Manifesto to the Europeants", written in October of 1914, to be a particularly engaging document. Einstein makes an appeal to the citizens of Europe to come together and call for an end to the war. He sites how science has been interrupted in the first sentence of the document, "While technology and traggic clearly drive us toward a factual recognition of international relations, and thus toward a common world civilization, it is also true that no war has ever so intensively interrupted the cultural communalism of cooperative work as this present war does." Einstein is clearly concerned about the war's affect on scientific cooperation among the European countries. After the war Einstein's fears about the state of German science are confirmed when German scientists are essentially left out of international forums and publications. Furthermore, in his "Manifesto to the Europeans" Einstein specifically calls for his scientific comrades in other European nations to use their influence to bring an end to the war. A sign of the influence scientists had during the era. In addition to the "Manifesto to the Europeans", Einstein also commented on the war in, "My Opinion of the War". In this document Einstein believes that to prevent a war similar to World War I in the future two things need to happen. First, an organization eerily similar to the League of Nations needed to be established as a forum for European Nations to meet. Second, the people themselves need to be cured of their nationalistic thoughts they harbor. Patriotism and nationalism according to Einstein are harbors of, "bestial hatred and mass murder". It is only after these two conditions have been met that future war on the continent can be averted. Therefore, Einstein's initial political activities began during the First World War. Einstein following the war became a major component to the pacifist movement. In 1955 Einstein coauthored the "Russell-Einstein Manifesto". In it Einstein and Bertrand Russell (a leader of the anti-war movement in England) warned the world that the amount of nuclear proliferation and hatred in the world would mean the death of humanity. They call for a conference of scientists to assess the risks that have developed because of nuclear weapons. Einstein even explains how a bomb could cause deadly radiation in areas hundreds of miles away, citing the Daigo Fukuryū Maru incident that occurred just a year earlier. Towards the end of the document Russell and Einstein make a grim proposal, "There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose, death, because we cannot forget our quarrels?"

In the manner of physicis, Einstein was concerned both during and following the war that Germans would be shut in by the world scientific community as punishment. Of course this happened. Afterall, the German scientists were responsible for the development of various chemical agents used against Allied troops. Yet, this brings up the discussion of whether the scientists should be held responsible for their deployment because they created them, or the commanders who ordered their use, but that's for another time. After the war, Einstein was involved politically with the rise of the Third Reich. Einstein's theories of relativity were attacked as being "Jew Science". Einstein, Germany's most recognized scientist, was attacked by party officials for his zionist beliefs and his work for the zionist movement.

Moderators
During the nuclear energy process chain reactions need to be controlled. Unlike in nuclear weapons where chain reactions go uncontrolled, in nuclear power plants want to have close control over the chain reactions. In order to do this, the speeds of neutrons are slowed in nuclear reactors. Moderators are used to regulate speeds of neutrons in nuclear reactors. In the United States water is used as the moderator. In European countries deuterium (heavy water) and graphite are often used as moderators. The moderators are used to absorb neutron energy, not the neutrons themselves. In the lightwater reactors in the United States there is a great deal of neutron absorption. This simply means that the number of neutrons available to sustain the reaction are reduced and the reactor cannot run on unenriched nuclear fuel. Again, I fail to understand how the assumption can be made that only three neutrons will result from a fission event. What would happen to nuclear reactors started to give off more than 3 neutrons with each fission event? I know that it has been observed that each fission event gives off 3 neutrons, but I can't bring myself to believe that there are instances or at least possible instances where 4 neutrons or more could be given off.

National Socialism, Communism, McCarthyism, and Physics
Pointing out the subtle differences between these three periods in the three different countries will be rather tedious. I think that by discussing them together is much more effective and interesting. All three periods occur in different countries with differing government structures, but all have roughly the same affect. In Germany during the Third Reich scientists were forced to do the work of the government in a variety of ways. If a scientist was Jewish he was sent to some kind of forced labor or concentration camp and his research didn't matter. Even scientists' like Heisenberg who had close relationships with Jewish scientists faced great resistance as to whether they should be allowed to practice. If a scientist's work was not beneficial to the war effort then it was useless. He was told to join the army where he will be more useful to the war effort. In the Soviet Union under Stalin a similar situation was observed. If a scientist was not loyal to the communist party they would be detained, sent to a labor camp, or even killed. In the United States under Mccarthyism a similar situation arose. Scientists who were not in line with the scietific goals of the United States government were deemed a communist and forced into a trial. For example, the Oppenheimer Affair. In all three instances the government's dictated what scientists in their country were to research. There was little open research. If research did not directly benefit a country and its short term goals then there were methods of persuading scientists to refocus their efforts onto experiments and projects that will help the national effort.

George Koval

This morning I found this article to be interesting and very relevent to class. During class we had talked about Klaus Fuchs and his espionage work. The discussion inevitably led to how much did the Soviets learn on their own and how much was the result of espionage, especially given the quick turnaround between the American bomb and the Soviet version. Even with all the difficulties the Soviet bomb program had during World War II. The lack of resources, especially, that hindered the development of the atomic bomb project. To develop an atomic bomb under those circumstances in less than five years after the Americans is truly remarkable.

The article today is further evidence that perhaps the Soviet's had taken more from the Americans than at once was believed. The article mentions the exploits of George Koval specifically, but also mentions that Koval was only one of a number of Soviet espionage agents working to steal the United States' atomic secrets. Koval has been a member of G.R.U, the military intelligence agency. He had unprecedented access to the Manhatten Project at Oak Ridge. Having the administrative clearance to gain access to the most sensitive areas of the plant to understad how the Americans were manufacturing nuclear fuel, perhaps the most difficult component to mass producing nuclear weapons.

Of course it makes sense to disclose of Koval's status as a spy until now. The Soviets went to great lengths to present themselves as the orgininators of their own bomb. By admitting that the bomb had been acquired through espionage, the status of Soviet science is somehow diminished, and with that the entire concept of having a bomb being correlated with a scientifically advanced society is tarnished. Yet with Klaus Fucks and now George Koval along with numerous unknown others it is becoming more evident that the ability of the Soviet Union to develop a nuclear weapon in such a quick span of time is largely due to espionage, rather than scientific activities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/12koval.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1194886909-6Gc1nDRj+G5mxZUDmEeyAg

Understanding Different Forms of Deterrence

Trying to rationalize Reagan's decision to embark on the "Star Wars" is proving to be very difficult. In order to do so you need to convince yourself that creating such a system is 1) possible and 2) 100% effective. Two decades of research has shown that a missle defense system is possible, but far from effective. Reagan states that Americans should feel safe not because they know American retaliation is imminent, but because the United States possesses the ability to actually intercept and destroy a Russian missle before it reaches its target. This is where the assumption that a missle defense system must be 100% effective. If the United States were bombed while a missle defense system was in place what would the next action be? With so much investment in the missle defense system, could the United States then retaliate with nuclear weapons after the failure of the missle defense system? In such an environment instead of an arms race, countries will simply build missles that can evade the missle defense system, or even worse, launch multiple missles at once under the reasoning that one has to get through. Did Reagan actually believe that a missle shield could be 100% effective?

Mutually assured destruction was a very effective detterence policy that had prevented nations from using nuclear weapons against one another. So, why introduce a new policy of deterrence to replace one that had proven to work? I can think of two explanations. First, Reagan possibly believed that it was a cause the nation would rally around like the Space Race of the 50's and 60's. Encouraging more children to learn science and math in order to contribute to the building missle defense system. This did not come to fruition. Second, more outragious, but not entirely impossible given the subsequent medical information about Reagan's deteriorating mental health, Reagan desired the United States have an omnipotent status over the rest of the world. An essay in the 1950's by Robert Strauss-Hupe called "The Balance of Tomorrow" called on the United States to extend its influence and values over the entirety of the world. By creating a missle defense system in the way Reagan likely envisioned it (100% effective), Reagan could claim dominion over the rest of the world. Expanding American influence over the entirety of the globe with no threat of resistance. With a perfectly effective missle defense system in place the United States could make demands of any country backed up by a large nuclear arsenal. That country would then be powerless to do anything but comply because the principle of mutal destruction no longer would exist.

After much thought those are the only two reasons I can come up with to explain a missle defense program. Essentially, neither is a good reason. So, there is/was no good reason for the development of a missle defense system.