User:Nnorton94/Oppenheimer (film)

User:Nnorton94/Oppenheimer (film)

Article Draft
The film Oppenheimer covers the events leading to the creation of the first nuclear weapon by following the US Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project and the scientific director of the Los Alamo’s Laboratory J. Robert Oppenheimer. The film does a great job at portraying the events at the Los Alamos but there were several other components of the Manhattan project that led to the success at the Los Alamos lab. The Manhattan Project was the U.S. Army’s top-secret program launched during World War II to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. . This project led to the development of the world’s first nuclear explosion (Trinity) along with the bombs Little Boy and Fat Man that were responsible for the surrender of the Japanese. Within the Oppenheimer film, there are many aspects referred to that are both accurate and inaccurate to the real-life Manhattan Project. Some of those accurate aspects range from the beginning ideas, creating the bombs, and technical problems the scientists faced. Other events that were inaccurate or not portrayed include some of the internal engineering of the bombs and the important work done by General Groves which resulted in the success of the project. The technical problems that the scientists encountered were portrayed in several ways throughout the Oppenheimer film and resulted in accurate descriptions of the events.The film accurately discusses the technical issues achieving critical mass, constructing the plutonium and uranium bombs, and the successfully testing and usage of the an atomic bomb as a military weapon.

Events Leading to the creation of the Manhattan Project:

The path to the atomic bomb started with Chadwick discovering the neutron in 1932 followed by scientists Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie, producing artificial radioactivity in 1933. Enrico Fermi and other scientists began bombarding uranium with Chadwick’s discovery, the neutron, which produced a new transuranic element. Scientific interest in this topic grew as scientists sought to find an explanation for this phenomenon. Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann published a paper detailing how barium was produced when they bombarded Uranium with a nucleus but had no explanation for why this was occurring. Over Christmas in 1938 Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch were able to explain what was happening in Hahn and Strassmann’s experiment using Niels Bohr’s recent theory of the liquid drop nucleus. They determined that when Uranium was bombarded by a neutron it was causing the nucleus to split, they termed the process “fission”, comparing it to what happens when cells divide.

Bohr announced this discovery in January 1939 at a theoretical physics conference in Washington, D.C. which brought the question to the mind of many scientists, “Could this fission produce neutrons triggering further fission?”. Fermi continued work on fission with Uranium, but it was not producing the fission that was expected. Uranium has two different isotopes meaning they differ in the number of neutrons, 235U and 238U. Naturally occurring Uranium has a ratio between the two isotopes 235U and 238U which provides information about the enrichment level of the nuclear material. In 1939 Bohr along with physicist John A. Wheeler published a study that found the rarer 235U isotope of Uranium was more likely to undergo fission.

With the heightened political climate at this time, due to Hitler beginning his tirade scientists were frightened by the thought of Germany using fission to create an atomic bomb. At this time they still did not know if this was possible but wanted to ensure that they stayed ahead of Germany. Scientists Rudolf Peierls and Frisch began determining the critical mass of pure 235U that would be necessary to create a fission bomb. They found that only about a kilogram of 235U would be necessary, and a 5 kg 235U bomb would produce the effects of setting off several thousand tons of dynamite. Given that such a small mass could generate such a profound explosion their fear surrounding this technology increased. In April 1940 the British scientific committee on atomic bomb research known by the code name MAUD, convened for the first time. Peierls and Frisch presented their findings to the committee and the Maud committee organized their analysis and findings into the MAUD Report. The report outlined that it was possible to make an effective uranium fission bomb, the use and separation of 235U, the size of the bomb, and the potential damage.

Before this, in 1939 U.S. scientists worked with Einstein to draft Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt which outlined similar concerns on the implications of this technology. Up to this point, the U.S. was not formally in the war but that changed on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The U.S. could no longer stay neutral in the war and nuclear research. Finally, the U.S. knew they needed to be involved in the atomic bomb research, in June 1942 a Corps of Engineers District was formed for atomic bomb research. The headquarters was in the borough of Manhattan in New York City, where the name “Manhattan Engineer District” (MED) came from and later “Manhattan Project” . In September General Leslie Groves was appointed the director of the project. The foundation of the Manhattan Project was built on these pivotal scientific discoveries and the geopolitical climate of the escalating World War II set the stage for one of the most consequential scientific periods in human history.

As the Manhattan Project gained momentum due to the urgency of World War II, General Leslie Groves structured the project to solve the large unknowns surrounding the creation of the atomic bomb which included the complex uranium processing and the development of the plutonium implosion bomb. Due to Bohr’s scientific research, it was known that 235U was the isotope of uranium that was able to be used to create a fission reaction. Natural Uranium has a ratio of the two isotopes and to get a pure 235U uranium needs to be separated into the two different isotopes. Since 235U is found in such a smaller amount than 238U it takes a lot of uranium processing to get a critical mass of 235U.

Throughout the Manhattan Project, these scientists were faced with having trouble completing uranium obtention. The film successfully encompasses the urgent need for obtaining uranium-235. The country was desperate to succeed in building a bomb before anyone else did. This film preserved this event in an accurate manner. The film is centered around Oppenheimer who was the director at Los Alamos, so it makes sense that the film is largely centered around this facility. However, the other huge key to the success of the bomb is obtaining the critical mass of plutonium and uranium at the enrichment plants at Hanford Washington, and Oak Ridge. These sites were not shown in the film, or the difficulties overcome to enrich the uranium. The only representation of this in the film is when they drop marbles into a fishbowl showing the collection of the critical mass while they are solving the technical details of the implosion bomb.

General Groves purchased land in Oak Ridge Tennessee which became the site for all uranium enrichment as well as the administrative headquarters for the Manhattan Project. At this site, there was centrifugal separation which didn’t last long and was eventually abandoned by Groves, electromagnetic separation, and gas diffusion. The U.S. adopted the following separation techniques to gain a critical mass of 235U. Electromagnetic separation, in this process a powerful magnetic field is used to create a looping stream of uranium ions and the lighter isotope can concentrate at the fringes and it can be collected. The next was gaseous diffusion where uranium in the gaseous form is forced through a porous barrier, the lighter isotope can navigate through the barrier faster. Thermal diffusion is the process where extreme heat and cold are applied to opposite sides of a long column that contains uranium gas, the lighter isotope concentrates at one end of the column. Lastly, centrifugal enrichment is where the uranium gas is rapidly spun, and the lighter isotope is concentrated in the center of the mixture. This technique was eventually abandoned because it requires many stages and proved to be less promising than other methods

While Groves was buying land and setting up different sites to answer the three big questions surrounding the, Fermi and Szilard answered one of these questions. In 1942 they achieved the first controlled nuclear reaction, proving that a fission chain reaction was possible using uranium and graphite. The weight this event had on the road to the atomic bomb was not displayed in the film. The only mention of this event was a brief clip of the first fission reaction done by Fermi and Szilard, this was a key component that needed to be answered and was done outside of the Manhattan Project. Enrico Fermi was a main scientist involved in the Manhattan Project, was the one who discovered that plutonium was the element necessary to produce a spontaneous fission reaction, as well as proving that a fissionable reaction was possible. His contributions to the Manhattan Project were not included in the film as much as they were recognized in real-life. This can be said to be one of the main inconsistencies within Oppenheimer.

Another element, plutonium was found to have fissionable properties that were more favorable than uranium. A site in Hanford Washington was purchased to be the location of the plutonium processing. Plutonium is processed in large nuclear reactors, there were three reactors built at Hanford. These reactors produced about 570 g of plutonium per day, or each reactor could produce 10 kg bombs every 18 days once steady production was achieved. These two sites at Oak Ridge and Hanford were responsible for obtaining the critical mass responsible for the atomic bomb. The last key to the puzzle was figuring out the bomb design.

Groves appointed Robert Oppenheimer as the scientific director of the Manhattan Project. The site at Los Alamos was created to be the intellectual center of the Manhattan Project, responsible for all of the theory and creating the bomb design. Once fissionable material was produced at Hanford and Oak Ridge it was delivered to Los Alamos for experiments. They were responsible for arranging enough fissionable uranium and plutonium together in a bomb encasing, providing a source of neutrons to start the fission and a system to deliver the bomb. They were able to come up with a straightforward design for the uranium bomb, the Gun Design. This design was modeled after a gun, two pieces of fissionable uranium placed on opposite ends and the projectile piece is fired at the target piece, this forms the critical mass necessary for the chain reaction to happen, see Figure 1 below for a detailed schematic of the device. This device was called Little Boy and was the bomb responsible for the damage at Hiroshima.

Another technical problem accurately represented throughout the film was the production of the plutonium bomb. This can be analyzed through the occurrence of discussions of fizzle, ingenuity, engineering breakthroughs and setbacks, and once again, the determination to succeed. Oppenheimer focused on the great cost it took to obtain the plutonium, bomb design but focused little on the production of the plutonium which happened in the Hanford Washington site. There are several problems that can arise in bomb design that will result in a fizzle. A fizzle is when a premature reaction happens before the critical mass is achieved, an explosion still occurs but the yield is much less than anticipated. One way this can happen is if the material has any impurities. The next is that uranium and plutonium can both undergo spontaneous fission. This caused a large issue for the use of plutonium in the gun design because it would need to be purified beyond what they were capable of doing at that moment or it would need to be fired at a higher velocity. The Pu was much more attractive to use though because it required a smaller critical mass, and the enrichment process was faster. The implosion program was started to find a bomb design for Pu using the technique of implosion and by 1944 this program was the top priority at Los Alamos. The implosion technique involves crushing the Pu core at a critical speed and temperature to reduce the probability of the pre-detonation which was the issue with using Pu in the Gun design. This was done by imploding a tamper sphere that was surrounded by a shell of explosives with a very fast implosion rate, see Figure 2 below for an illustration of implosion.



All of the years of research and theory all came together as the last question was answered in the Trinity Test, proving that an implosion of the Pu atomic bomb was possible. Scientists were confident in the gun design bomb but there was no way to ensure that the implosion bomb truly worked until a test was made. With the implosion bomb, there were several issues, the core needed to be compressed the same at the same time or there would be a fizzle. This means all the explosives needed to detonate at the same time. Further, the cores that surrounded the critical mass had to have the same density and be free of impurities. On July 16, 1945, the Trinity test was carried out at a remote site in New Mexico. This test was much more successful than expected and was the equivalent of 20,000 tons of TNT, setting the new standard for explosives (20 kilotons). The conclusion and success of the project were shown by the detonation of the Little Boy bomb in Hiroshima and the Fat Man bomb over Nagasaki which forced Japan to surrender. This showed the project's success at overcoming the challenge of creating a uranium bomb which the obtaining the critical mass was very slow, but the bomb design proved to be fairly simple. On the other side, the plutonium bomb has a much faster route to critical mass production, but the bomb design was very difficult. The U.S. overcame both challenges with the successful detonation and use of a plutonium and uranium atomic bomb. The portrayal of the Trinity test and the challenges of the implosion bomb design is one of the things that the film did very well. This was the final technical challenge and key to the success of the Manhattan Project. They accurately portray the weight of the event and what the success of the event meant for the scientists.

Summary

The film Oppenheimer by Christopher Nolan which was released in the summer of 2023 provides a good insight into this whole process in showing how the U.S. overcame those challenges with very high historical accuracy. However, there were a few things that he left out of the picture. The road to the atomic bomb had lots of input from scientists all over the world the key discoveries that led to the discovery of fission were described above. This background was left out in the film and started with Oppenheimer’s Road to being the scientific director at Los Alamos. At this time scientists all over the world were working on experiments related to fission years before it was discovered. Nolan portrayed that the scientists at the time could have banded together and suppressed the knowledge of fission, but this is not how science operates. The scientists did not have this power back in the day and with the political environment, they did not have authority over the politicians to be able to suppress the use.

The main problem that was explained throughout the film was the moral dilemma faced by the scientists. Oppenheimer presents this real-life event through displaying the frustration and determination of the scientists: Enrico Fermi, Robert Oppenheimer, Leo Szillard, and Edward Teller. This is successful at displaying the themes of the role of science vs ethics during this period. For those watching the movies, this story can relate to many present anxieties relating to the line between science and ethics not only relating to nuclear annihilation but in medicine

The film focuses more on the technical problems as a whole rather than each individually. Each technical problem is touched based but not detailed. When the problems are discussed in the film, the little information included is accurate, often though many details are left off and processes seem much simpler than they actually were.

Overall, Oppenheimer portrays the technical problems throughout the Manhattan Project in an accurate way. There is more historically accurate information present in the film than there is inaccurate or missing information. The film does not focus on every single event, but relays enough information to be understood. Accuracy can be difficult to achieve in a film about a difficult and complex time in the world. It does a great job at portraying the technical details that needed to be overcome surrounding the implosion bomb but doesn’t show the difficulties in the enrichment process. It does however show that the end of the movie the “success” of the Manhattan Project at using the bombs on Japan and the moral quandaries that come along.

It is important for Oppenheimer to be honest and truthful. This film represents a major period in history, the Manhattan Project, that paved the way for new bomb innovations in the world. People watch the film to learn about the history and viewers should be given the upmost respect with accurate information. Oppenheimer can also be beneficial for someone who is in Cold War related classes as it can influence better learning. It can be used to correlate new information and help visual learners understand the physical aspects. Therefore, having the assurance that the information is accurate and correct is crucial. Hopefully this article was able to provide more context as to how the events in Oppenheimer fit into the bigger picture of the road to the atomic bomb.

History of Oppenheimer
"Oppenheimer" unfolds the narrative of a prominent individual deeply involved in the wartime project associated with significant technological advancements. Guided by a celebrated filmmaker, the production delves into the protagonist's multifaceted persona, his scientific feats, and the ethical challenges he faces.

Set against the backdrop of a renowned educational institution in the early 20th century, the storyline introduces the central figure as a luminary in the field of physics. Against the backdrop of geopolitical tensions, his apprehensions about the militarization of scientific knowledge intensify, leading him to become a participant in a clandestine initiative orchestrated by multiple nations.

As the protagonist delves deeper into the endeavor, the plot navigates the intricate moral dilemmas that emerge. Despite his initial motivations to hinder the weaponization efforts of certain regimes, he grapples with the profound implications of his contributions. Interactions with colleagues and confidants offer glimpses into his inner struggles and the toll exacted by his involvement.

The narrative also delves into the personal realm of the central figure, depicting his familial ties and their impact on his psyche. These intimate portrayals provide insight into the complexities of his character and the emotional burdens he carries.

As the project advances, tensions escalate both within the scientific community and on the global stage. The storyline portrays the frantic race to achieve technological milestones before adversaries do. Amidst heightened secrecy and mounting pressure, the protagonist confronts the weight of his responsibilities and the potential repercussions of his actions.

The climax of the narrative culminates in a significant event, marked by the successful demonstration of the technological achievement. Witnessing the aftermath, the protagonist experiences a range of emotions, including awe, apprehension, and remorse. The destructive capabilities of the innovation serve as a sobering reminder of the ethical considerations intertwined with scientific progress.

In the aftermath of this pivotal moment, the protagonist reflects on his role in shaping history and contemplates the implications of his actions. The narrative concludes with a poignant reference to philosophical discourse, encapsulating the protagonist's sense of accountability and introspection.

"Oppenheimer" offers a thought-provoking exploration of an individual's journey through the moral complexities inherent in scientific pursuits. Through meticulous craftsmanship and nuanced performances, the production delivers a compelling reflection on the human dimensions of technological advancement and the enduring legacies they engender