Opje - "Father of the Atom Bomb"

Robert J. Oppenheimer is known as the "Father of the Atom Bomb".

A title like that carries a lot of weight, but in a well-researched, deeply thought and woven biography, "Inside The Centre: The Life of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Ray Monk, I learned that such a heavy weight was put on his shoulder due to his scientific interests and passion.

Figure 1: The cover of the most remarkable biography about Oppenheimer.

Reading about someone famous who impacted different sectors globally, I would like to share pieces of this biography that stuck with me.

Oppenheimer was born in a family that migrated from Germany and lived his childhood with his brother Frank and his parents, Ella and Julius Oppenheimer. He was raised relatively sheltered from the outside world, which later in life, he attributed to his lack of social and romantic skills. According to Oppenheimer:

"his [father's] idea of what to do for people was to let them find out what they wanted."

Honestly, that is the most incredible service towards another human being. Finding out what one wants can take longer than others, and Oppenheimer struggled with it for a while, especially during his studies when he was figuring out what field he should follow.

During his time in Utrecht, his colleagues started calling him Oppie, but for close friends, he was Opje (hence the title). Learning about his nickname humbled my idea of Oppenheimer furthermore. The intimate relationships he had with the few contrasted with his social standing from his background and his reputation as a scientist.

Despite his ever-increasing reputation as a remarkable physicist, his colleagues continuously repeated a remark about Oppenheimer related to his mathematical skills, which came as a shock or a revelation. A physicist Robert Serber said:

“[Oppenheimer's] physics was good but his arithmetic awful.”

Furthermore, in a letter to Edwin Kemble of Harvard, the British physicist Ralph Fowler wrote:

"I fancy he is not a very good lecturer and his work is still apt to be full of mistakes due to lack of care, but it is work of the highest originality and he has an extremely stimulating influence in a theoretical school as I had ample of opportunities of learning last fall."

There are numerous other instances where Oppenheimer's mathematical skills were criticised to ridicule, but that didn't stop him from pursuing a career in theoretical physics. According to his biography, he was great with physics and had remarkable ideas. Oppenheimer could keep up with the latest updates of science and questions or relate two pieces of research together into something of outstanding contribution. Essentially, he was

a theoretical physicist who lacked mathematical skills.

Recognising someone's intellect and great ingenuity despite their shortcomings regarding specific criteria was why Oppenheimer became the person we know. It proves that sometimes, being great is not getting excellent marks or impeccable report writing. Sometimes, being exceptional is acknowledging your strength and harnessing it towards whatever your goal is. Failing at some things doesn't mean you failed.

Oppenheimer's dedication to his work and students is evident throughout the book. The theoretical physicist and mathematician Dyson expresses that with his colleague Oppenheimer,

"we rejoiced together as we watched [the students] grow over our heads into great scientific leaders."

What a magnificent sentiment. Dyson and Oppenheimer understood that the legacy of a mentor is most often not their victory but rather the wave of energy or successes that propagates through their successors. The energy that the same mentor nonetheless initiated.

Oppenheimer loved what he did. People compared him to another physicist James Chadwick, who is said to have "worked at a problem to solve it, [while] Oppenheimer took pleasure in the work itself." I was delighted reading that sentence because I am guilty of it! Also, in science, one must accept that a method may not always lead to a positive result, even though a negative result is a result nonetheless. The joy of doing science is the process of executing the scientific method. Getting the results that one hopes is a great bonus!

The political climate during World War II brought many challenges for Oppenheimer. Everyone accused the other countries of espionage, and each country tried to identify spies in their backyard. In America, at the time, those who aligned with "western" communism were instantly put on a blacklist to be investigated for alleged espionage in favour of the Soviets. Oppenheimer, much to his disbelief, was one of those on the list due to his prior affiliations. His friend Rabi said that Oppenheimer loved America for what it was but that America didn't love him back. That may be the case, but it didn't stop him from leading a team of brilliant scientists to break through every limit and deliver a bomb at a time when there was no blueprint on how to begin to even think of one.

Oppenheimer was briefly aware of many's suspicions about his loyalties, but he knew where his commitment lay. Despite the FBI's investigation, he was already unofficially chosen to contribute to the bomb's development. From the FBI's perspective, there was no doubt about his disloyalty. Still, their circumstantial evidence didn't provide concrete proof to convince others that Oppenheimer should not get close to the atom bomb's confidential details. Even when things looked as if his security clearance would never come through, Oppenheimer was steered to lead the project by forces that, on the one hand, admired him greatly but suspected of him nonetheless. Later, General Groves admitted that

“no one with whom I talked showed any great enthusiasm about Oppenheimer as a possible director of the project.”

Yet a director he became. Despite the resistance, people admitted that "as chairman, Oppenheimer showed a refined, sure, informal touch.". He "set about coordinating that basic science [needed to build the bomb using a metal] while at the same time designing a bomb that would make use of the results", and that was what he strived for.

The distinguished scientists succeeded in delivering the bomb. For years since Einstein defined his famous formula, people have used the equation to calculate the energy released from a would-be atom bomb. Whilst Einstein did develop his equation; he was not involved directly in building the bomb.

Einstein's equation made the atom bomb theoretically possible, but it doesn't explain how to build that bomb!

The Manhattan Project managed to achieve what its counterparts in Europe didn't. America succeeded in focusing its human resources on one goal, bringing scientists together and building new communities, all in the name of peace. Yes, they were making a bomb, but they were at war!

The enthusiasm began to shift when they tested the bomb, also known as the Trinity Test, and the detonation was successful. The scientists comprehended and feared what their work would lead to. Many didn't celebrate at all. Oppenheimer described the event as follows:

"We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried. Most were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad Gita: Now I am become death, the destroyers of worlds. I suppose we all thought that one way or another."

The majority of scientists understood what a horrible weapon they had built. Oppenheimer was concerned but understood that a singular bombing was unavoidable to stop the war. He inherited this justification for using the bomb on civilians from the scientist Bohr, which Oppenheimer took to heart and was the centre of his work's mantra towards a policy encouraging nuclear weapon regulations. After the bombing of Nagasaki, Oppenheimer was heard saying that

"the atomic bomb is so terrible a weapon that war is now impossible."

In his mind, the atom bomb was intended to end the war of all wars. His loyalties lay with America, but despite the scientific advancement and achievements they acquired together in Los Alamos, the horrendous aftermath of Nagasaki had most scientists wonder whether they did the right thing. A sentiment that their military colleagues didn't share. During The Manhattan project, the scientists and military personnel had some issues with the ways of working, specifically revolving around secrecy and contribution. Not every scientist had the clearance required to discuss different levels of the bomb's development, and the scientists wouldn't hear of it. According to them, rightly so, science strives for collaboration and bouncing off ideas from each other. The military wanted more structure and organisation. Oppenheimer made a remarkable statement in this regard.

"Oppenheimer spoke in general terms about the need scientists felt for freedom, making what he described as a plea for not over-organising the work of scientists, and for trusting, as we have in the past, their own judgement of what work is worth doing."

Micro-management occurs when your coworkers or manager want you to accomplish something by their way of doing things without leaving any freedom to make your mark or input. It is suffocating, and for a scientist, it defies everything we enjoy doing. In its traditional form, science involves a scientist who has a lot of questions or wants to understand what they are observing. Referring to The Scientific Method article I wrote a while ago, scientists try different experiments that may or may not lead to answers. So being told what you should try and should not, almost like being ordered around, takes away the fun from science.

One then wonders whether "scientists should have built the bomb in the first place." Many of you reading this have also thought that the atom bomb wouldn't have been possible if Einstein hadn't defined the formula. Oppenheimer also wondered whether the scientists' passion for looking and learning whether an atom bomb is possible was justified. Ultimately he gave an elegant answer that, for scientists, will make the most sense.

"If you are a scientist you cannot stop such a thing. If you are a scientist you believe that it is good to find out how the world works; that is is good to find out what the realities are; that it is good to turn over to mankind at large the greatest possible power to control the world and to deal with it according to its lights and values."

Scientists explore new ways to understand the world around them, which we call "observables", and then attempt to create a model to explain what is happening. Doing science for the sake of science, that is, to understand the observable phenomena and ultimately predict them, is not dangerous. The risk arises when the tools developed by scientists are used by individuals who do not understand what they are holding. Most often than not, and we saw it happen during the last two years, once the complete information is out, those who toyed with such tool blame scientists and their curious minds. It also happened after the atom bomb's development, when Senator for Colorado Edwin Johnson made the below comment about the secrecy of the atomic program.

"Our scientists already have created a bomb that has six times the effectiveness of the bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki and they’re not satisfied at all; they want one that has a thousand times the effect of that terrible bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki that snuffed out the lives of 50,000 people just like that. And that’s the secret, that’s the big secret that the scientists in America are so anxious to divulge to the whole scientific world."

A comment like that undermines and twists a lot of the things that were happening. Yes, science always strived to break frontiers but generally not to destroy the world but to understand it. Those in power want to use it as a show of force or dominion. During World War II, scientists encouraged President Truman and Prime Minister Churchill to share their project's advances with the Russians to display collaboration. But politicians have rejected such friendly gestures. Truman had on one occasion planned to share the secret, but at a later conversation with Oppenheimer, he explained why he did not.

Truman asked Oppenheimer when [Oppenheimer] thought the Russians would develop their own atomic bomb. Oppenheimer replied, as he had when asked the same questions in Congress, that he did not know. Truman then said that he did know. The answer, he said confidently, was ‘never’.

This answer worried Oppenheimer and other scientists because scientists understand that there is no "secret" when understanding the laws of the universe. It may take another scientific party some more time, but they would get there eventually. To believe that other scientists would not be capable of coming up with the same solution is arrogant. The beauty of science is in its universality. It disregards everything that makes "us" and "them" and embraces everyone with similar curious minds.

The scientists are not just criticised for the inventions that others use as weapons. Scientists are also attacked when they use their knowledge to educate about a subject, especially if the information they hold contradicts what many want to hear. Telling Truman and Churchill that other scientists would figure out how to build an atom bomb put Oppenheimer among Truman's least favourite scientists, almost to the point that confirmed the FBI's suspicions of espionage. Oppenheimer spoke the truth, and a few years later, there was another race between the US and Russia, one in which the US NASA was well behind for a long time.

Oppenheimer dedicated his life to education and fought tooth and nail to establish some control on how nuclear weapons ought to be built, controlled and stored. For this, he was accused of alleged espionage because, according to authorities at the time, the only reason a scientist had to suggest that such power should not be held by one nation (as a weapon against another) was treason. These accusations were to follow him around for a while until, eventually, Oppenheimer rose again.

He continued to preach toward peace, and I will conclude this article by quoting a part of his speech that hints at his perception of Los Alamos and the atom bomb used against humanity during the war.

"It is the knowledge of the inwardness of evil, and an awareness that in our dealings with this we are very close to the center of life. It is true of us people that we tend to see all devils as foreigners; it is true of ourselves, most of us, who are not artists, that in our public life, and to a distressing extent our private life as well, we reflect and project and externalise what we cannot bear to see within us. When we are blind to the evil in ourselves, we dehumanise ourselves, and we deprive ourselves not only of our own destiny, but of any possibility of dealing with the evil in others."