Talk:Robert Oppenheimer/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Soviet asset? 2 Baruch plan 3 Tatlock reference 4 Modifications 5 Photo

Soviet asset?

There is a discussion at the Cold War International History Project about a recently discovered Soviet document from 1944 that claims nuclear secrets were given by Oppenheimer to the Soviets. The document itself is presented there. It ought to be mentioned in this article with a link, but this is not my field so I'll let someone else do it. --Zero 11:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Schechter documents are fairly controversial as to their interpretation (most historians take Herken's view, as represented in that article, where it seems more likely that Kheifets lied quite a bit to his superiors so he wouldn't get recalled and sent the gulag--which eventually happened anyway--than it does that Oppenheimer was a Soviet agent). No serious historians think that Oppenheimer was actually a spy (unreliable, perhaps, and he certainly had friends with dubious qualities). But maybe we can work something in on it in a responsible way... --Fastfission 21:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Baruch plan

I removed the line at the end about the Baruch plan:

However, in recent years, because of the present renewed concern about nuclear proliferation, the Baruch plan is being seen in a new light for the international control of atomic energy.

First, this isn't clear at all about what "new light" it is purportedly being seen it (the entire point was international control of atomic energy from the get-go, so that can't be a "new" interpretation of it). Second, all scholarly works I've read about the Baruch plan says that Oppenheimer didn't like it, as though it was tenuously based on the conclusions of the Lilienthal-Acheson Report (which Oppenheimer did contribute heavily to and I suspect you're getting the Baruch plan confused with), it added provisions which made it clear that its intention was simply to stall the Soviet atomic program and was seen as a transparent bid for a U.S. nuclear monopoly. As such, it was no surprise to anyone that the Soviets rejected it (Oppenheimer disliked Baruch very much on a personal level, something which comes out of the taped phone conversations in his FBI file), and if I recall many scientists and policymakers at the time thought it was a purposeful attempt to scuttle any attempts at the international control of atomic energy. But I'm willing to listen to it another way if you think this line ought to be added to the end of the article. I'm thinking it shouldn't: it isn't very clear as to what it means, I don't think it reflects scholarly assessments of the Baruch plan, and it assumes that Oppenheimer had a strong role in the Baruch plan, which is a somewhat misleading assumption. --Fastfission 18:15, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tatlock reference

I removed: "in honor of his old girlfriend Tatlock, who had committed suicide some months before". In the many references that I have read, there is no mention of him coming up with the name in honour of Jean Tatlock. But you give me a reference, I will be happy to let it be.--Ashujo, 9 Feb, 2005

Almost every work which discusses the name of the "Trinity" test says that it was probably a reference to Donne which was itself probably a reference to Tatlock. Even that extremely poor Fat Man and Little Boy movie picks up on this. Herken in particular certainly does. I'll dig up a page number when I get home. I'll also dig up the page number on his equations often being incorrect (he apparently often made mathematical mistakes in his work in the 1920s and 1930s, which he was criticized for by his contemporaries), which is from the Schweber book. I didn't write the "palliative" part (I actually thought you did in one of your un-logged-in sessions, but I guess not). Given that the Rhodes book is some 800 pages long, if you could give an indication to what general section you are thinking about, it might be a bit more useful. --Fastfission 21:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another thing. In "But he was also troubled throughout his life, and professed to experiencing periods of depression so profound that only hard work was a "palliative." I think you are getting this statement about work being a "palliative" confused with Lawrence's statement to his brother in a letter. Take a look at Rhodes.-Ashujo

OK. We can fix the "palliative" part. And I will dig up the Rhodes book page number. As far as I remember, Rhodes never said that "Trinity" was an allusion to Tatlock, just to Donne. And I am perfectly aware of his work in the 1920s and 30s that contained 'mistakes'. See Bernstein or Cassidy (I will tell you which one of them) in which it is said that he used to publish papers which had calculations off by a factor of pi or something similar. That was only because it was rather hastily written. How does one decide whether such a thing is 'incorrect' or 'incomplete'? I would choose the latter, because obviously Oppenheimer would not have made those mistakes on purpose.---Ashujo, 9 Feb, 2005

Sorry, but 'thusly' sounds like archaic English-Ashujo

"Mistakes", by their definition, are not done on purpose. They are also, by their definition, "incorrect." To say that Oppenheimer's work was "incomplete" implies that he didn't finish it, or he didn't take it to its logical conclusions. Saying that it was often "incorrect" implies that it was often found to not work. The latter case seems to be the situation. But rather than quibble over this, I'm just going to change it to the most specific: "though he was sometimes criticized for making mathematical mistakes, presumably out of haste." I'm not trying to be unsympathetic but "incomplete" is certainly the wrong word choice. Also, I don't know if Rhodes says Tatlock, but I'm almost certain than Herken does. The whole thing was listed under a "possibly" qualifier anyhow, but we can add another "perhaps" in there if it would please you. --Fastfission 22:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure. That sounds OK for now.--Ashujo 9 Feb, 2005

OK, the Rhodes reference is on page 151 of 'The making of the atomic bomb'. Maybe you or me can find a way to work Oppenheimer's opinions about 'the virtue of discipline' as a way to ward off depression and as a driving force for life, stated in an eloquent letter to Frank, into the body of the text. By the way, I checked the idea behind 'Trinity' and at least Rhodes does not say it had anything to do with Tatlock. Rhodes is a very meticulous researcher, and I would trust that he would have put in this detail if it had existed.--Ashujo

Remember though that Rhodes wrote his book in 1986, though, well before a good deal of information had come out, including the FBI files, I'm fairly sure. (I know Rhodes is meticulous, I have spoken with him many times over e-mail and once over the phone. He's a very nice guy, at that). Here's the citation from Herken, Brotherhood of the Bomb, page 129:

For reasons that Oppenheimer decided to keep obscure, he had named the test site Trinity—a secret tribute to Jean Tatlock, who had committed suicide at her San Francisco apartment the previous January.

Herken also notes on page 29:

Oppenheimer's students believed that Jean Tatlock had a humanizing influence upon their mentor. ("I need physics more than friends," Robert once wrote to Frank during his bachelor days.) Jean introduced Oppie to the romantic poetry of John Donne.

I think it's entire plausible that it was a Tatlock reference, I think it at least deserves being mentioned as a possibility. It would make sense that he would be veiled about it in explaining it to people—his visit to Tatlock in California in 1943 is generally interpreted (based on FBI records) to have been as the end point of some sort of affair. Also, perhaps we can use the "friends more than physics" quote rather than the palliative, ja? I think it conveys the same sort of thing we are trying for. --Fastfission 00:36, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Now where does Herken come up with the source for this statement? If it's just Herken's opinion, then it could very well be an interpretation of Herken rather than a fact. It is quite likely that he linked Trinity to Donne (a true fact as enunciated by Oppie himself) and thence to Tatlock (which could be an interpretation, not a fact). If it was a Tatlock reference, I am not aware of there being any authentic source for it, at least nowhere in the seven or eight biographies and books about Oppenheimer that I have read (Rhodes, Schweber, Michelmore, Cassidy, Goodchild, Bernstein being the main ones) . Did it specifically come out of the FBI files? (I have also communicated with Rhodes over email and have met him once and had a nice chat. He IS a very nice guy.) And Herken himself seems to be unsure here. From what you have quoted, it seems that first he says "For reasons that Oppenheimer decided to keep obscure" and then he says "...a secret tribute to Jean Tatlock" a somewhat contradictory phrasing, which confirms my suspicion that the Tatlock reference is probably an interpretation of Herken's. On the other hand, the Donne reference is an authentic one, as quoted by Oppie himself in a communication with Groves in 1962 (Rhodes, p. 571). So I don't think you should put in the Tatlock reference, whereas the Donne reference seems to be just fine.--Ashujo 10 Feb, 2005

I suspect it to be Herken's speculation (he footnotes it but the references are obscure to me), but given the rest of his argument about Oppenheimer, I think it is probably a good guess (he makes a number of such guesses in the book that I think are quite insightful, and most scholars who I've seen talk with Herken seem to find them to be as well). The FBI files contain a good deal of info about how stricken Oppenheimer was after learning of Tatlock's death, which is what Herken connects up with the Trinity reference, noting that Tatlock had introduced Oppenheimer to Donne. It sounds as likely as anything to me, and gives some more details about his enigmatic test name, even if it is just speculation (albeit informed speculation, and from a well-respected academic historian). I don't think it takes away from anything to have it in, nor do I think it misleads, nor do I think it slanders. Let's keep it.

And hey—don't just list titles and think that means anything. They are not homologous books (different types of narratives), and some of them don't even include discussions of the Trinity naming at all. If you want to look up something and quote it here, that would be useful. Listing names does not. Let's try to stay productive here. --Fastfission 04:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not a question of merely listing references. The fact is that only one person, Herken, seems to think it was inspired by Tatlock. I would suggest you give a reference right where you made the statement. Casual readers could possibly view this exactly the way people would want to romanticize about Oppenheimer; the name of the first atomic bomb explosion inspired by a fond, dead lover is exactly the kind of gossip people would like to indulge in. It just may give rise to excessively romantic notions and more unfounded rumours. By the way, where did you get the information from the FBI files?--Ashujo 11 Feb, 2005

Herken's the only person who has recently done any new work on Oppenheimer (significantly engaging new sources), and I'd stand by most of it. Most of the scholars I've talked with seem to think Herken is generally dead-on when it comes to making good guesses in this regard. It also is completely plausible. Tatlock was very much into Donne, Oppenheimer was very much into Tatlock (they were engaged twice), and she died in a rather tragic way shortly before he would have been naming the first atomic weapons test. Of course, he wouldn't say, "I named it after my dead lover, who had a few times seem to have had affairs with"—his marriage was strained enough for him to have not said something like that in the 1950s. The FBI files are on microfilm and can be viewed at a number of libraries. I looked at quite a lot of them (there are 900 pages or so total) on the copy held by UC Berkeley. --Fastfission 22:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He later held Albert Einstein's old position of senior professor of theoretical physics, an association which came to annoy Oppenheimer, as he felt overshadowed by the legacy of the famous physicist. Where did you get this? I don't recall reading it. (Would be nice if you could give me a reference other than Herken)--Ashujo Feb 11, 2005

This is actually from a talk on Oppenheimer at Harvard about a month ago from a respected scholar (who wrote one of the books on the reference section but I'm not going to name by name until he publishes it in a final form). He'll be publishing it as part of the Einstein 2005 World of Physics whatnot that is going on in Germany. So I don't have a specific reference to it, but it's fairly concrete stuff, lots of letters and other evidence that Oppenheimer resented Einstein's legacy (and didn't seem to like Einstein that much as a person, either, but I thought I would leave that out) hanging over him. I figured it was worth putting in there since we didn't have too much else on the Oppenheimer-Einstein connection. --Fastfission 22:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Modifications

I modified some of the text about Oppenheimer and the Nobel Prize, moved it to the earlier section about his work, put in a few words about Haakon Chevalier in the part about the Manhattan Project, and added a few words in the last section about Oppenheimer's legacy.--Ashujo Feb 11, 2005

Looks good. I fixed up the Chevalier stuff based on my understanding of it, and I think "fabricated" is a little strong (I don't know if anybody knows how much of that is true or not, or why Oppenheimer told so many different versions of it). --Fastfission 23:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Luis Alvarez quote is in Rhodes (p. 454). Another thing is that Oppenheimer did actually fabricate the story involving Chevalier. In fact he himself admitted during his hearing that he had 'been an idiot' in doing this. Chevalier confirms this in his book Oppenheimer: The Story of a Friendship. I can get the exact reference. However, if you still think 'fabricated' is a strong word (although I think it is the apt word), you are free to substitute it with a synonymous word, but one that does not lose the meaning of the term.--Ashujo Feb 12, 2005

Obviously Chevalier's version of this cannot be held as official. Oppenheimer did say he had been an idiot but it was not because the entire event was fabricated, if I recall from the trial transcripts, but because he had changed his version of the story many times. When he first told the MED people about it, he had said that three students had been approached, then he said that he had been approached, then he said that only one student had been approached, etc. He later told Groves that the only person who had been approached was Frank Oppenheimer, though Frank later denied knowing anything about this. This information is in Herken, which again, seems to be the only source which has so far included the FBI file information, (which is of course not gospel, but gives better insight than the speculation). Fabricated seems to imply he made the whole thing up, which nobody except for Chevalier seems to believe, and obviously he's somewhat of an interested party here, being the one accused of being a Russian spy. In any event, it is worth choosing words which indicate the ambiguity of the situation—did Oppenheimer lie when he talked to the agents, or when he was at the hearing? How would anybody know? etc. This ambiguity of truth was largely why he was judged as so "unreliable" afterwards. Whatever your personal opinion on this, I would advise not to base it uncritically on Chevalier's autobiography, for reasons that I expect are obvious.

Also, I dont' doubt Luis Alvarez said that, the question is how relevant it is to say "people like Luis Alvarez." Grammatically that's problematic (do you mean experimental physicists with Nordic backgrounds but hispanic names?), but beyond this, if one is going to attribute a name it is better to use a full quote if possible and remove any pretentions to generalizeability. If you are trying to say that it was somewhat generalizable (multiple people thought this), and you want to list Alvarez as one of these people, you have to put a barrier between the generalizable and the specific. Does that make sense? It would have to read, "many have speculated that he could have won, etc. Physicist Luis Alvarez, for example, said that, "XYZ"." It's a bad thing to mix them up, from a standpoint of good writing and the standpoint of logical consitency. --Fastfission 21:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me tell you what. I will get references for the Chevalier incident. Then I will combine the information from all and write a coherent paragraph. Let us see if we can work it in.--Ashujo Feb 13, 2005

The problem with saying "Oppenheimer was one of the most brilliant men of the century" or something akin to that is not a factual one. Most people would admit to that. The problem is one of encyclopaedic value. Ideally then, we would have to append this line to the biography of most brilliant people in the century. So don't think your opinion is being disrespected by me, Fastfission, or anyone else. It's just that this statement a general statement which does not look good in an encyclopaedic article.--Ashujo March 28, 2005

Well, it could be both. It would not be hard to argue that Oppenheimer is not really of the same league in terms of his influence on physics as was Einstein or Feynman. In any event, it hardly matters as it is not an appropriate line for this page. Also, please mark the copyright status of any images you upload before trying to add them to the page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information on that. I don't think the image you uploaded is in the public domain, it looks like it is from a wire service. --Fastfission 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Put in the source--Ashujo 22:29, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Photo

What reason do you have to think that picture is legally in the public domain? I am almost certain that it is not-- it looks tremendously like something produced by a wire service. Most photographs of Oppenheimer are NOT in the public domain -- they are copyrighted and owned by their copyright holders (just because other websites have ignored this does not mean we should do so on Wikipedia, and generally we try not to). All of the photos I've added of him are very carefully chosen from ones I know are in the public domain (produced by Los Alamos, which makes them PD in the USA). You can't just choose any photo and put it on here, and I don't read the native language of the source page you posted so I can't tell if it says it is the public domain, however I would still be suspicious of it as I'm fairly sure I've seen that photograph around with a copyright notice on it. Actually, I can read the native language, now that I look at it again (I didn't realize it was just in German, the URL threw me off), and I don't see anything to indicate it is in the public domain. At least one of the other images on the page (the one of JRO and Groves at the Trinity site) which is not public domain (it was taken by either an AP or a UPI photographer some time after the attacks on Hiroshima and is not free of copyright, unlike the bomb photos on the page which were produced by LANL and are thus in the public domain). It is certainly not old enough to be in the public domain from its age alone (1940s).

Aside from this -- why do you think it should be the first photograph on the page? I do not think it is very good quality (there are lots of noticeble compression artifacts) and not nearly as clear as the one it replaced, but I'm willing to discuss this. But most important is the copyright question. --Fastfission 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK. I have another better one which I will soon put up.--Ashujo 20:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, make sure it is PD (produced by Los Alamos) and good quality (no JPEG artifacts). What do you have against the current photograph, might I inquire? I'm not wedded to it but I think it works well as a main photograph (it doesn't have any huge political implications or any overriding moral implications and it is very clear). --Fastfission 00:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I just thought it looks unnecessary emphasizing [Oppenheimer's Jewish descent] in the opening line. What you have added looks OK-- Ashujo 19:28, April 5, 2005 (UTC)