Talk:Robert Oppenheimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Robert Oppenheimer is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 22, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 12, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted April 5, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top importance within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh Already assessed as a featured article. Tom 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
	This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. The following comments have been left for this page: Already assessed as a featured article. Tom 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Core	This article is listed on this project's core biographies page.
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: Already assessed as a featured article. Tom 23:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC) needs inline citations --plange 20:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (edit)

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

---

A number of old discussions from this talk page have been moved to: Archive.

Contents 1 Radical Politics - "progressive" isn't left wing? 2 Cluttering of Icons 3 first name? 4 Picture 5 Infobox? 6 I am death... 7 Vandalism 8 Rehabilitation 9 Chevalier incident needs clarification 10 Positron paper 11 Oppie 12 CPUSA 13 defense screen 14 Role Playing 15 "Other interests"? section 16 Oppenheimer Volkoff Mass Limit of Neutron Stars 17 Fermi Award given by Johnson 18 Fermi or Teller? 19 Poisoned apple 20 That damned "J" 21 Humorous quote mentioning Oppenheimer 22 Cultural depictions of Robert Oppenheimer 22.1 Oppenheimer as Dr. Robert Stadler in "Atlas Shrugged"? 23 Legacy section 24 "Senior Professor of Physics" 25 About citations 26 Memory 27 Kitty a communist? 28 Chemist's war 29 Red Scare 29.1 Pacifisim 30 Oppenheimer's favourite books 31 Primary documents 32 Ethnicity in lead sentence 33 Even smart people have dumb moments 34 Image and Style 35 Picky eater 36 Oppenheimer in Popular Media 37 J. Robert Oppenheimer

[edit] Radical Politics - "progressive" isn't left wing?

"After inheriting over $300,000 (equivalent to about $4.3 million in 2006 dollars) upon his father's death in 1937, he donated to many progressive efforts which were later branded as "left-wing" during the McCarthy era."

This sentence is pretty stupid - when has progressivism ever been right-wing or centrist? Krazychris81 (talk) 03:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cluttering of Icons

I wasn't sure how to send this message to the right place, but it seems that the icon for spoken article is forced on top of the donations phrase in the top right hand of the article. This should probably be ammended.

---

[edit] first name?

does the "J." in his name not stand for anything? somebody clear this up, pronto.

• Oppenheimer himself said that the first initial “J” didn't stand for anything, but his birth certificate says that his name was Julius Robert Oppenheimer, named after his father Julius.

• While Oppenheimer did indeed say that the "J" did not sand for anything he certainly knew better. The reason why he said otherwise was because in Jewish tradition a child is not to be named after a living relative. Julius Robert Oppenheimer was his real name. This is a irrefutable fact and I believe that this addition should be made.

• Did you miss this section of the article? --Fastfission 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

• That's quite a nice picture of Oppie. I think it conforms more to the general public conception of him.--Ashujo April 15, 09.58 UTC
  • But I'm reasonably sure it is not public domain. I can double-check that though. It was obviously taken by a professional photographer in the post-Los Alamos years, and so is likely anything but fair-use, which is not ideal if we have a public domain photograph that could easily substitute. --Fastfission 15:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• What about the profile picture from Bethe's memoirs (NAP)?--Ashujo 16:26, April 15, 2005

• • My guess is probably not. Almost all pictures of Oppenheimer from his non-Los Alamos years are held by copyrights of some sort (either by institutions, image archives, or news media). His earlier years and Los Alamos years are a bit easier, since they were taken by two national labs (and thus inelligible for copyright). And none of it is old enough to be inellible because of age. (If you find this restrictive -- I do too! But unfortunately this is how photographs are regulated under US Copyright law, which is ridiculously restrictive for historical figures. If you want to be really shocked, check out how much corbis.com charges for image use of any sort! If Wikipedia was publishing for profit, we would just buy a license and chalk it up to normal cost of business) --Fastfission 22:24, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I've removed the images User:Kasparov has added because I'm positive that none of them are in the public domain. I've reinstated the public domain images. I don't believe any of these would qualify for fair use, either, because there ample enough public domain photographs to illustrate his life (fair use is to be used only when there is nothing else available). The pictures in question, which I have listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, are: Image:Robert Oppenheimer-Theoretical Physicist.jpg, Image:Julius Robert Oppenheimer.jpg, and Image:Professor Oppenheimer.jpg. They are all very lovely pictures but that is because they have been taken by professional photographers (some are owned by the photographers, some are owned by photography clearing houses, etc.). --Fastfission 01:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's ugly. There are alot of better images of Dr. Oppenheimer on the web, you just have to look for them.

• We are only using images which are in accordance with our copyright policy. Find a good image which is definitely in the public domain and we'll be happy to consider it. --Fastfission 01:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox?

I think that infobox is beyond ugly, and contains no more information than is already immediately viewable (name, birth and death dates, etc.). Many biographical articles do not have infoboxes, so I do not think it is a requirement in any sense. What do others think? Compare: infobox vs. no infobox. Lets have an informal poll/discussion about this before making such a drastic aesthetic change. --Fastfission 14:25, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am death...

The original was misquoted as 'I am death, the destroyer of worlds.' It ought to be 'I am become death...' at least that's how I've usually seen it translated. A trifling edit.

• I was going to say the same thing...

166.20.114.10 13:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen it as "I am become Shiva" etc

Yggdrasilsroot 14:46, 22 April 2005

• • It is usually "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds," though sometimes is quoted as "I am become death, the shatterer of worlds." The most authoritative source on this is this paper, I believe. --Fastfission 14:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • • "i am become" is not proper english, it would be "i have become", in fact the only example i have ever seen of "i am become" is in reference to this quote from the Hindu scripture or more commonly attributed to Oppenheimer himself

Can a translation contain incorrect English? That's a question ah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Longinus876 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is a reliable source: http://rpp.missouri.edu/disciplines/D35.shtml , but they say that "I become death" quote was after the "thousand suns" one. I'm not sure if it is correct to put them together like that on the first paragraph. Schnarr (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Is it possible to lock this page to avoid the constant vandalism? Particularly while it is featured article... Gblaz

[edit] Rehabilitation

A decade later, President Lyndon B. Johnson awarded him the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of rehabilitation.

'I do not think that word means what you think it means.' I don't think the word rehabilitation is appropriate here. Maybe reconciliation?

Rehabilitation was used for people who had been branded as Communists in one way or another. In JRO's case, it was the administration saying, "This person is no longer off limits, they are recognized by the government". (the awarding of the Fermi award to JRO, by the way, provoked a lot of controversy over the purpose of the award, as a number of congressmen thought it was just going to old Manhattan Project veterans and questioned whether it was worth the money) --Fastfission 14:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chevalier incident needs clarification

IN one section we have:

In August 1943, Oppenheimer told Manhattan Project security agents that three of his students had been solicited for nuclear secrets by a friend of his with Communist connections. When pressed on the issue in later interviews with General Groves and security agents, he identified the friend as Haakon Chevalier, a Berkeley professor of French literature. Oppenheimer would be asked for interviews related to the "Chevalier incident," and he often gave contradictory and equivocating statements, telling Groves that only one person had been actually been approached, and that that person was his brother Frank.

Later in the section about having his clearance revoked, it states he admitted to making it all up. However it is rather unclear when this happened, did he state this in the 1950s, or during the original investigation? And what is the story here, in retrospect, did Chevalier (the the "other two") get approached or not? After all, this was going on during the project.

Maury 11:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Part of it is I think that it is somewhat confused in general. But as I understand it, the timeline (for those who want to work on it), is:

• 1943, JRO tells MED security that 3 of his students were solicited, won't elaborate who was solicited or by whom
• Later, grilled by Groves on this, says that it was Chevalier who solicited his students, says he won't reveal who was solicited
• Later still, tells Groves in private that Frank was solicited
• At his hearing in 1954, says he made the whole thing up

The one thing I can't quite remember how it fits into everything is that I believe Chevalier is also supposed to have solicited Oppenheimer -- I can't remember exactly how that works though. If I get a chance I will try to look this all up again; it is a very confusing set of purposely contradicting stories in the first place, though, but some coherency should be able to found in its explanation... --Fastfission 14:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Positron paper

The added text is:

About the same time, he also wrote a paper essentially predicting the existence of the positron (which was predicted by Paul Dirac), a formulation that he however did not carry to its natural outcome, because of his skepticism about the validity of the Dirac equation.

• The preceding sentence sets the same time as the laste 30's. Do we wish to claim that JRO predicted the positron half-a-dozen years after it had been observed?

• Even if valid, the two uses of predict should be distinguished; present text suggests Oppenheimer deserved Dirac's reputation. Such a claim should be made explicitly, and explained. Septentrionalis 22:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You are right. I changed it to 1930- Ashujo

[edit] Oppie

I was just wondering: am I mistaken or hadn't he been called "Oppie" by his friends? Even if the former case applies, I still think he should be called "Oppie" because

1. it is cute and

2. (1) implies more familiarity to Oppenheimer for the general audience.

The text already contains a reference to his "Oppie" nickname. Use your browser's search function. And don't change the captions to silly things. --Fastfission 04:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Silly? I don't find it "silly". I think it is important for any Oppie beginner to get a grip of his personal facts before he/she starts learning Oppie's professional works. That'll facilitate the beginner's interest in Oppie. You don't think my suggestion is important? That's why you are normal -- and you'll be so for the rest of ur life :) -- Orz

His nickname is not a "personal fact" of such gravity that it belongs in the first sentence of the article. --Fastfission 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There you go, I put in a paragraph which explicitly states when and why he got his nickname. --Fastfission 20:28, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Fastfission, I really appreciate the rare information. --Orz

[edit] CPUSA

Oppenheimer, so it seems, was a member of the CPUSA until 1941. Anyone interested in helping me write that portion. Nobs 02:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's your source for that information? The article now says that he never joined. Thanks, -Willmcw 05:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

At best he has been called an "unofficial member" (whatever that means) of a faculty committee which had some ties to CPUSA people, but that is still pretty speculative and a source of considerable disagreement among Oppenheimer scholars. See, i.e. Gregg Herken's little page on the subject here and his notes here, but this is still pretty much in flux as far as historical conclusions go and should not be in the article until it has settled down a bit (a number of prominent historians disagree pretty sharply with Herken), or at least proceed with some careful gloves on. --Fastfission 20:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The evidence is Oppenheimer was a member of the CPUSA til 1941 (joined about 1936, I beleive) To be clear, there is no suggestion he was involved in the CPUSA's "secret apparatus" which went underground about about 1932 and conducted infiltration and espionage. This is no attempt to smear the man, only setting the record straight. Nobs01 21:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Letter from Boris Merkulov to Lavrenty Beria [1] Nobs01 22:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the pages I linked above, they cover this in detail (specifically here). Nobody trusts anything which came from Kheifitz in part because he knew his neck was on the line if he didn't report that he was recruiting people. Eventually his luck ran out and he was recalled and sent to the gulag (again). The professional historians on the subject don't take the internal NKVD memos at face value for a variety of reasons. The question as to whether Oppenheimer was officially or unofficially a Communist has not been satisified in any straightforward way. He certainly did not officially and openly join CPUSA at any point, though his younger brother Frank did as did his wife Katherine/Kitty. --Fastfission 22:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the issue, one needs to look at the money. In those days Communist party members paid dues to the party. It seems this is tried to be explained away as "donations" or some sort of humanitarian gesture (imagine that, someone being a "humanitarian benefactor" of the Communist Party). In the final analysis, we have him paying dues, and the gubmint suspending his security clearance. And it appears the gubmint likewise tried to CY their A by being a party to the myth that "he never joined", so as to avert another scandel. Nobs01 00:47, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listen, whatever your "personal impressions" are on this, this is a topic of active debate among full-time academic historians who have each written lengthy books on Oppenheimer. There is no consensus on this and it has been a controversy for a number of decades. The fact that he provided funds for a number of left-wing groups, some of which were later found out to have CPUSA affiliations, does not mean he was "paying dues". The reasons he got his clearance revoked are many and did not have to do with the AEC commissioners having any evidence, besides his inconclusive FBI file, that he was a member of the party. It is telling that, despite their damnest attempts and hundreds of pages of data, the FBI could never conclusively link Oppenheimer with the CPUSA. --Fastfission 01:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Listen, instead of debating here, why don't those who are interested look at the two latest books about Oppie, that by Cassidy, and the one by Bird and Sherwin. Despite hundreds of files and pages collected on him by the FBI, they could never find any conclusive evidence that he was an actual member of the CP. We don't need to reiterate the Greek philosphers' philosophy of perpetually theorizing about the number of horse's teeth, instead of simply resolving the matter by looking him in the mouth :-) --Ashujo 01:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Clearly (a) he held views consistent with Communist doctrine (athiesm, radical non-democratic takeover of institutions etc.) (b) he supported Communist institutions with his own hard cold cash. No one denies his sympathy for the cause, in fact its worn as a badge of honor.

My personal impression again is I'm satisfied with the contortions people bend themselves into in order to justifing views, then deny the people who hold them actually are sincere. Thank you. Nobs01 19:33, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, alright, you can have your "personal impression" all you want (though I think it is pretty under-informed on the particulars to this one), but just don't insert it into the article. I agree with Ashujo on this one. --Fastfission 02:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The External from the AEC is fine. And the denials speak loud enough.Nobs01 02:51, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record let me insert Haynes & Klehr reading on the subject (paraphrased from Venona pp. 327-330):

"he had been an ardent Popular Front liberal and ally...gave generous contributions often deliverd to Isaac Folkoff...Oppie did not know just the secrets of some parts of the project; as director, he knew all the secrets, and just as soon as they came into being...up to the time he reported the Chevalier approach, he may have overlooked the conduct of others... a passivity motivated by personal and political ties to those persons.". Sins of ommission or neglect, it appears. (Although another theory states the Chevalier approach may not have been an attempt at recruitment, but part of the big shake up after Stalin publicly disbanded the Comintern in 1943, and agents had to be reassigned new case officers). thx. Nobs01 21:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, you're not really responding to the questions up for debate. Furthermore, you've gone from asserting you had proof of party membership to now saying that he just donated money to leftist groups and resting on the "denials" to prove your point. I don't think you know much about this character and the specifics of his dealings either way, and I'm not sure why you feel compelled to keep up this silly exchange. --Fastfission 22:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, presently I am reviewing 349 persons (some named, some yet unidentified) in Venona transcripts. Oppie has not been the focus of review, and I suspect it may be 18 to 24 months before I can focus on his case. I am curious however, about the explainations and denials, particularly among living biographers familiar with the case. It seems the guy was extremely sympathetic to this anti-democratic cause, and no one denies that. I'm just confused if this is hero-worship of a dead guy or what. Nobs01 00:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He was a rich guy who dated a Communist girl and cared about lofty ideals for a few years of his life during the 1930s and 1940s. Hardly a surprising case in that respect. Unlike his brother he was smart enough not to openly join the party. The question of whether he was a party member or not was a key question investigated at length by the FBI (who couldn't provide any evidence of such) and his previous affiliations led to his big security hearing which eventually left him stripped of clearances and all of that. If you read the article you can see why people have spent considerable time trying to research this. I'm certainly not hero-worshipping the guy, you're just drawing conclusions that don't reflect a lot of knowledge on the subject and you don't seem to care about nuance in the slightest. --Fastfission 05:55, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Robert Oppenheimer contributed 150 dollars a month to the Communist Party [Jerrold L. Schecter and Leona Schecter, Sacred Secrets: How Soviet Intelligence Operations Changed American History (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 2002) FBI document attesting to that in Appendix 1].

Oppenheimer is mentioned in a KGB/NKVD communication:

In 1942 one of the leaders of scientific work on uranium in the USA, Professor R. Oppenheimer while being an unlisted [nglastny] member of the apparatus of Comrade Browder informed us about the beginning of work. On the request of Kheifetz, confirmed by Comrade Browder, he provided cooperation in access to research for several of our tested sources including a relative of Comrade Browder…Due to complications…it is expedient to immediately sever contacts of leaders and activist of the American Communist Party with scientists and specialists engaged in work on uranium. Sacred Secrets p. 50.

This is the same stuff I cited up above -- see the Herken pages I linked to. The Schecter stuff is not regarded highly by historians, and the mention in the communication is via Khefetz who was known to lie about such things to avoid being recalled for the gulag. What is lacking is any substantiating evidence. We know he gave money to what were later discovered to be popular front groups (things like "Railway Workers Against Fascism" and so forth). That does not make him a CPUSA member in and of itself. --Fastfission 30 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I've yet to examine the FBI document in Appendix 1 of their book, nor the "KGB/NKVD" material cited; if valid, it cannot be attributed to the Schecters'. I place it here for reference to anyone who wishes to examine the material. Nobs01 30 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

Well, the problem is the interpretation of the material, of course. You can of course reference anything you wish but it would be good to note what interpretations are taken by the mainstream historical community (that is, that Khefits was an unreliable source and none of what he reported has been substantiated in any source not originating with him). --Fastfission 02:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Testimony of Paul Crouch, September 15, 1953 before the Senate PSI, [2] pgs. 1833-1841 (in the full text link, this reference occurs just after discussion of the murder of Laura Law in 1940), declassified January 2003, lends credence to the thesis the gubmint covered up Oppie's involvement as an "unlisted" member, excerpted:

Mr. Crouch. I was called as an expert witness in rebuttal, but was not permitted to describe my knowledge of him as a member of the party, or to describe the closed meetings of the Communist party I had attended. And my wife [Sylvia Crouch], who was under subpoena in the trial, was not called at all, and I was advised informally to the effect that it was impossible for us to give our testimony without bringing in the name of an internationally famous scientist who was also a member of the Communist party, who had been present at the meetings with Scientist X.

The Chairman. Who in the Justice Department told you you could not be used to testify about your knowledge of Scientist X, his Communist activities?

Mr. Crouch. Mr. Cunningham, of the Justice Department, and Mr. Hitz, assistant United States attorney, advised me that I would not be questioned because our testimony would bring in his name.

The Chairman. Bring in the name of Robert Oppenheimer?

Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir. Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer.

The Chairman. Both you and your wife, I understand, then, were available; the Justice Department knew you had attended Communist party meetings with Scientist X, and one of the issues was whether or not he was a Communist?

Mr. Crouch. Yes, sir. Nobs01 23:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Nobs, that doesn't support your theory at all, because Scientist X was not Oppenheimer -- it was Joseph Weinberg, one of Oppenheimer's many left-leaning students. If I could hazard an opinion, you'd do better at interpretting documents if you knew a bit more of the basic background historical work which had been done on it. For more information on Weinberg and "Scientist X", see Herken's book, Brotherhood of the Bomb. --Fastfission 00:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The above extract does not state Oppenheimer is Scientist X; it alludes to the testimony of Crouch regarding Scientist X, that would include answering questions about Dr. Oppenehimer. nobs 03:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

From the first paragraph, "an internationally famous scientist who was also a member of the Communist party, who had been present at the meetings with Scientist X", should clarify that "an internationally famous scientist" and Scientist X are two different persons. nobs 02:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] defense screen

Question for people knowledgeable on Oppoie's bio: In the early 1950s Oppenheimer appears to have taken a position in opposition of the development of delivery vehicles for the H-bomb, advocating that funding for research should not go it missile development and building a modern Air Force, but rather be channeled into a "screen of defense", or "missile defense", which may be a proto-plans for SDI. Anyone care to comment. Nobs01 20:52, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• My understanding of JRO's general defense position was lots of "small" atomic bombs rather than focusing on unnecessarily large ones. I don't know much about any missile defense plans but in the 1950s that would have been far to early for anything resembling later missile defense and SDI plans (they didn't have the technology at all -- the most advanced early warning and response system by the late 1950s and early 1960s, SAGE, was lightyears behind the tech needed for missile defense), so I'd want to know the details on what he or anyone else meant by "missile defense" before assuming I knew what that meant. --Fastfission 02:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It essentially was a policy discussion regarding U.S. Defense spending priorities (pre-Sputnik). The U.S Air Force was created separate from the Army Air Corp in 1947; during the Korean War, the debate was on building a modern jet powered Air Force and rocket delivery systems for the H-bomb. A more "pacifist" position, if you will, was that the huge ammounts of money needed should be channeled into more sophisticated defensive systems rather than offensive fire power. Oppenheimer, an influential spokesman. seems to have taken the position which could be characterized as a Maginot Line type mentallity (despite the fact that (a) the Soviet Union had nukes (b) the U.S. was already at war. Unfortunately, Oppie lost much influence in a national discussion like this cause of his de-certification. It is an interesting line of investiggation to pursue however, given some of the critics of a strategic defense screen today. Politics as usual, it seems. Nobs01 18:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Role Playing

Can anyone verify the rumor that Oppenheimer fancied himself as a thin, chain-smoking, intense Sherlock Holmes with brother Frank as a bumbling, simple Watson?

• Frank: But, Holmes, you haven't touched your food!
• Robert: You and your flesh-pots. This spherical implosion is definitely a three-pipe problem.

Lestrade 01:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Lestrade

That's humorous but no, I've never heard that. --Fastfission 17:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Where did you get that from Lestrade?- Ashujo

[edit] "Other interests"? section

This section was recently added. I don't think it adds much and the text already describes him as being cultured. I'm not sure a list of Oppenheimer's favorite books really helps us in an encyclopedia entry about him. The bits about him studying Sanskrit and the quoting of the Gita are already in the article in their appropriate places. Other thoughts? --Fastfission 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it definitely detracts from the article.--ragesoss 03:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppenheimer Volkoff Mass Limit of Neutron Stars

Let's not forget that Oppenheimer and his student George Volkoff determined (roughly) the limit on how massive a neutron star could be, before it would collapse into a black hole, just as Chandrasekhar set the limit for white dwarfs. The fact that this isn't a more prominent topic on Oppenheimer's Wiki page is suprising. See page on Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff Limit.

Done :-) -Ashujo

[edit] Fermi Award given by Johnson

The Fermi award was given by Lyndon B Johnson, not by Kennedy as the main page currently states. I see from an earlier comment on this page that it used to read that it was given by Johnson so I don't know why it was changed. I'm a novice Wiki-er so I don't want to edit a featured article, but here is a link to a photo of Johnson presenting the award: http://dsd.lbl.gov/ImgLib/COLLECTIONS/BERKELEY-LAB/SEABORG-ARCHIVE/index/96B05399.html History channel FTW.

Kennedy was the one who awarded Oppenheimer the Fermi Award, but it was Johnson who physically when through with the award ceremony, as Kennedy had been assassinated about a week before. This is what the wiki page currently states, as well as the Berkeley page you have linked from, and it is correct. --Fastfission 09:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fermi or Teller?

I always thought it was Fermi, not Edward Teller as reported here, who suggested that the Bomb might ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere. Can anyone confirm this? ---- iaingleslie 07-sep-06

• It was Teller who first suggested it, at the summer conference in Berkeley. See, i.e. Hoddeson, et al, Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos During the Oppenheimer Years, 1943-1945, p. 45: "At one point, a frightening idea came up. Teller asked, if the fission bomb could ignite deuterium, could it not ignite the nitrogen in the atmosphere?" --Fastfission 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Teller suggested it first at the Berkeley conference. However, during the preparations for the Trinity test, Fermi purportedly took side bets on the possibility of the atmosphere getting ignited. Admittedly, he was doing this in jest. For the best explanation of why this is not possible, see Hans Bethe's article on it reprinted in his book 'The Road from Los Alamos' ----Ashujo 14:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poisoned apple

The reason I think we should keep out the poisoned apple incident is because even after much investigation, it remains ambiguous. Oppenheimer may have actually kept the fruit on the future Nobel laureate Blackett's table, but this almost certainly is not true to my knowledge. His telling of the incident was more likely some kind of symbolism, that may have stemmed from his jealousy of Blackett's prowess as an experimentalist. Or it could have been a downright delusion and a figment of his imagination. In any case, details about the incident are speculative enough not to warrant inclusion, because otherwise one may have to engage in a long digression on the matter in case it is included, which would not make sense for a general encyclopedic article on Oppenheimer. All those who are trying to pen a few lines about the poisoned apple may want to keep this extremely speculative nature of the incident in mind. ----Ashujo 14:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Unfortunately Malcolm Gladwell seems to have made a big deal about this incident in the New Yorker recently[3] trying to illustrate a completely unrelated point (and making no effort to actually correctly recount the facts of the situation) which is, I assume, why it keeps showing up here. I don't think most of those who are trying to add it are aware of its speculative nature, I doubt they have read about it in a reputable source (i.e. Bird & Sherwin's biography, or the good coverage it gets in the Letters of Robert Oppenheimer book). At the best it is a strange incident which might give some indication of how psychologically confused Oppenheimer was at this stage in his life (frankly, how many of us would be of totally sound mind beginning graduate study in physics abroad at the age of 18?) and even then it is speculative. --Fastfission 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Gladwell is otherwise a fine writer, and it's quite surprising how he has not consulted some good sources to look up this incident before writing the article. And the main theme of the article itself has a pretty tenuous connection with the incident per se. As you indicated, Gladwell could have not included this incident at all and still gotten his message across. I doubt if he even has taken a look at Bird & Sherwin, which communicates the ambiguity of the incident quite well. Sad.--Ashujo 18.14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The latest edit about the apple was downright hilarious.--Ashujo 18.14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As usual, a direct confession is thrown out. We want to believe that Oppenheimer was confused, deluded, stressed, etc., etc. But, it seems to me that a clear assertion by a man of strong intellect should be taken seriously. He tried to kill Blackett. That is clear following his own admission.72.73.196.13 18:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)SgtColumbo

[edit] That damned "J"

OK, I made a bunch of style/cleanup edits, but the thing that really bugs me most about the articles is that huge "note" about the initial J. That J gets more inches of text than Oppenheimer's relationship with Teller, or even with his wife. I'd like to reduce that whole note to a single sentence, like "the meaning of Oppenheimer's initial J is unknown." But I expect someone would get really fussy about such a drastic cut. Any support? Any alterantive ideas how to reduce the emphasis in the article on a meaningless letter? -- The Photon 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• What if we converted the note to a footnote? That would make it take up a lot less space and would also indicate that it is part of the marginalia rather than the content. --Fastfission 13:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous quote mentioning Oppenheimer

In the episode It's Only a Paper World by Pinky and the Brain, Brain tells Pinky to: “Please make like Oppenheimer's theory of nuclear fission and - SPLIT”. This is after Pinky has been distracting Brain during his Conqueror's block. Unsure about policy on TV quotes so I'll refrain from uploading a clip rather I'll just link to one.--Steve 21:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's trivial enough not to need including, though it is sort of humorous, I guess (it is usually "make like a banana and split"; Oppenheimer didn't have a "theory of nuclear fission" though that's clearly beyond the point). --Fastfission 19:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Robert Oppenheimer

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think that such pages really only serve a purpose when the topic of cultural depictions is something which can be spoken about in a synthetic sense rather than just a list (see, for example, Nuclear weapons in popular culture, which is a coherent topic on which people have written). I don't see much advantage to "a list of references to Oppenheimer in misc. media" — that's not really what an encyclopedia should have in it, in my mind. At its best it is a way for editors who know very little about a topic to feel they have something to contribute, at its worst it is a sort of pop-culture pedantry which serves no real purpose. --Fastfission 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppenheimer as Dr. Robert Stadler in "Atlas Shrugged"?

Recently browsed this article and the article on Edward Teller. Noticed that both the Teller article itself and the discussion on Teller mention the possibility that he was one of the inspirations for the character of Dr. Strangelove (presumably, the non-Nazi, non-Seig-Heil-ing portion of Dr. S's personality.)

Accordingly, would like to know whether anyone with more RS credentials than this editor (none) considers Robert Oppenheimer to be the inspiration for the character of Dr. Robert Stadler in the Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged. Rand, a staunch anti-Communist, would have disliked Oppenheimer's leftist leanings and Communist links, and, like Oppenheimer, Dr. Stadler, the head of the "State Science Institute", invents a weapon of mass destruction, then is shocked to find it used by an authoritarian government as a means of coercion.

From the current version of the Oppenheimer article:

"... he symbolized for many the folly of scientists thinking they could control how others would use their research."

From "Atlas Shrugged" (hardback p. 1066), in the speech berating the nation for its intellectual and moral bankruptcy:

"Some of you might plead the excuse of your ignorance... But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to sell their intelligence into cynical servitude to force... who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. .... [S]ince they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on this earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness. Do you hear me, Dr. Robert Stadler?" (emphasis from original; © 1957 Ayn Rand; brief excerpt from original for the purpose of scholarly discussion permitted under Fair Use.)

Perhaps the fact that the first name of both is "Robert" was not a coincidence.

Anyway, to reiterate, not attempting OR here, but rather wondering if anyone has knowledge of authoritative sources remarking on this possibility.

And, again, wouldn't even have mentioned it were it not that the possible Teller/Strangelove connection was regarded as a significant addition to the life of Edward Teller. Thanks, Unimaginative Username 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy section

The section Legacy presents several views of Oppenheimer using phrases like "many have asked...", "some scientists and historians have speculated...", "he symbolized for many...", etc. Current Wikipedia standards recommend that these kinds of statements should have sources cited. I will try to work on cleaning up the section, but any help tracking down references for the various claims would be very helpful. -- The Photon 04:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Senior Professor of Physics"

Ok, it is confirmed that Oppenheimer was professor of physics at IAS. I actually found this referenced in the Time online archive after editing it out of the article. But I didn't put it back in because I think it's trivia, and doesn't tell us anything new about Oppenheimer. Oppenheimer was director at IAS until 1966, and he died in 1967. Isn't it more important to say that he was director? If we want to make the link to Einstein, isn't it more important to say his time as director overlapped with Einstein's tenure at the Institute (the picture implies this, but the text doesn't say it)?

Also the Time reference doesn't say he was "senior professor", and the IAS website doesn't indicate that any such position as "senior professor" exists there (today), though Rhodes (the current cite) does use exactly that phrase. Was "senior professor" an actual title, or just a rhetorical device of Rhodes? Time says O. held the same chair as Einstein had held. Neither the Time reference nor Rhodes (the current cite) say when he took that chair or became senior professor.

Anyway, I don't intend to start a revert-war -- but please consider what is more important to include in the article: That O. was director of the Institute, or that in the last year or so of his life, when he made little contribution to physics, his pay happened to be taken from the same endowment that had paid Einstein? Further, which fact should introduce the section on his time at IAS, and which would be more appropriate in the Final Years section?

--The Photon 04:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if Rhodes uses it as a rhetorical device, but 'Senior Professor' definitely was a formal term used in British Universities, and so it is likely that this was a common, if unofficial, title at the IAS. --Ashujo 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About citations

Citations are of course necessary, but it does not make sense to ask for citations for every statement. I think that one should ask for citations somewhere in an entire paragraph which talks about a common theme, or else about a particularly important or controversial statement. In any case, I have added some citations.

--Ashujo 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for your help on the citations. I put those tags there because I don't know whether a particular paragraph is all based on a single source, or combines information from several sources. So I tried to place the {{cite-needed}} to indicate the parts of the statements that most need support from citations. If the actual citations can be placed differently to better indicate what material comes from what source, please do move them around. This is in response to Fastfission's request I not change the article to pull in citations without giving him and other editors time to place the citations to the material they've contributed.

As a side note, do you have a page number for the book reference you added? -- The Photon 17:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do have page numbers. I will put them in by tomorrow.-- Ashujo 13.58, 31 October (UTC)

[edit] Memory

According to my memory I've placed a link to a highly interesting article on Oppenheimer and the Baghavadgita here. The person who has deleted it should please tell me why. Austerlitz 88.72.21.240 09:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• http://www.aps-pub.com/proceedings/1442/Hijiya.pdf

That's the link I've been talking about, I found it. So: why has it been deleted from the mainpage? Austerlitz 88.72.21.240 09:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article is quite interesting, but citing it once should be enough-- Ashujo November 6, 2005

Yeah. It's in the article twice — once in the footnotes and once in the references. I don't think it needs to also be there as an external link. --Fastfission 04:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kitty a communist?

out of curiousity, why is it that there only seemed to be a problem that Oppenheimer was communicating with Jean Tatlock? concidering that his wife, Katherine Harrison, was a former communist.

(In November 1940, he married Katherine ("Kitty") Puening Harrison, a radical Berkeley student and former Communist Party member)

Seems odd that the gov't didn't have a problem with Kitty (to my knowledge) even though they found Oppenheimer's connection to Tatlock a security risk.

Any clarification would be great.

-Nic

The explanation that's usually given is that security agents did question and keep a watch on Kitty at Los Alamos, but they decided that her ambition to see her husband become highly successful and influential was too great for her to let any of her communist background interfere in matters. In fact, the same facts were concluded about Oppenheimer himself; that he was too dedicated to making the project a success to let any of his background interfere (not to mention the fact that he was not really a communist in the conventional sense of the term but rather a soul searcher who was interested intellectually in many aspects of communist philosophy)-- Ashujo November 6, 2005 21:15

[edit] Chemist's war

Hi Ashujo,

It may be said that WW1 was a chemist's war, and poison gas was surely the greatest horror to come out of that war. But

1. There were other technical advances that contributed to the militarization of science, or to the technicalization of warfare; for example in aeronautics, where technology advanced from pilots firing their pistols at each other to wing-mounted engine-syncronized machine guns, along with other improvements in engines, bombing technology, etc. and I would also guess in medicine, etc. World War 1 is also well widely known as the first air war, for example.

2. Mentioning it doesn't further the point being made. The point is that the use of science in warfare was unprecedented. As an aside, or to show we have considered the alternatives, we mention that technology also was used in world war 1, but it was much less. The fact that chemistry was the dominant science of the time doesn't make it any less scientific or technological, so why mention it?

It's certainly "okay" to say it. But the article is already long. The standard shouldn't be to include anything that's "okay". It should be to include everything that's necessary, and as little extraneous or distracting material as possible.

--The Photon 03:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The other major chemical contributions are in places like nitrates for explosives and synthetic fuels. But in any case most of the "chemist's war" was also a European war and about developments by the UK, France, and Germany. In the US it wasn't even really a chemist's war to any great degree. (It was more of a "manufacturing" war. But now we're really nitpicking.) I don't think we need to mention the chemists. --Fastfission 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You can also add tanks to the list of technologies developed during the first war. And the mention of a "manufacturing war" is important, because it relates to the development of the "military-industrial complex" that was the major funding source for Big Science. Anyway, my point is that all of that is probably more relevant in an article like Big Science than in this one. -- The Photon 04:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind taking out the chemist's war part. The US did get into the chemical weapons program later, and WW1 was primarily a European war at the beginning and in general compared to WW2. If we really had to pin down WW1 as belonging to a particular breed of scientists, it would have to be chemists. But I agree that it's not necessary and would shorten the article. Let me remove it. --Ashujo Novelber 7, 2005 11.55

[edit] Red Scare

"He is also known as one of the most improbable victims of the Red scare, for having been "ludicrously" penalized for his earlier left-wing associations by removal of his security clearance, after having been so closely involved with nuclear weapons development."

• This strikes me as misleading. He was not improbable at all — he had the same sorts of 1930s political ties that tripped up other victims of the Red Scare, and as the article explains though these may have been the means by which his security clearance was stripped they were not the only reason it was (more and more books have come out lately showing that pretty close to the #1 reason on the list was making an enemy of Lewis Strauss, which perhaps the article ought to have a little more on). I'm not sure this sentence does much work. The "ludicriously" in the original article is pretty clearly related to a somewhat different turn of phrase (and even then it is somewhat silly — Oppenheimer "knew all the secrets" but only about certain weapons and at certain points in time. More ludicrious is the fact that his security clearance would have expired in a few days anyway). But anyway I thought I would check here to see if there is a good reason to keep this sentence... --Fastfission 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The most well-known victims of the red scare were actors and other entertainers. Robert Oppenheimer was known as "the father of" the weapon that everyone thought was responsible for winning the war. He already knew so many secrets that it made little sense to take away his clearance, but not lock him up for life (if you really believed he was a security risk). That's what I had in mind when I wrote "improbable." But definitely if you can think of a clearer wording, please change it. -- The Photon 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is more misleading than it is clarifying, and is based on your own somewhat idiosyncratic beliefs about what is "probable" (the question was never whether or not he would release the secrets he already had; the question was whether he should be in contact with future secrets). I don't think we need to have it there. As for the Red Scare, a large number of physicists and chemists were also swept into it as well; they are less well-known than the actors and entertainers, but they were certainly out there. --Fastfission 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Oppenheimer cannot be labeled as a consistent pacifist. His kind of pacifism is more subtle, and not like that of Mahatma Gandhi, who embraced pacifism and non-violence for its own sake as a universal philosophy. But after WW2, much of Oppenheimer's actions were related to trying to secure world peace through international control of atomic energy. In those terms, I believe he was definitely a pacifist. Of course, he also understood the strategic futility in developing nuclear weapons after a certain extent. He probably understood that merely being a 'conventional' pacifist would not be the most effective way to change policy, which after all was the main goal. He was a pacifist, but he was also politically knowledgable and prescient (but unfortunately not very politically savvy and shrewd) I also agree that we could put in a somewhat detailed section about Lewis Strauss and Oppenheimer; as Fastfission noted, it has become exceedingly clear that Strauss was the primary mover and shaker in getting Oppenheimer's clearance revoked and trying to get his name maligned. Priscilla McMillan's book gives a clear account of this. In the case of Oppenheimer, much of his background was such that it was benign by itself, but by clever political maneuvering, it could possibly be used against him, and Lewis Strauss knew exactly how to do that. Such is politics, where circumstantial evidence is often used to implicate someone, and Strauss did that. Logic does not apply in such quarters.--Ashujo Novelber 7, 2005 12.03

On the question about emphasizing Strauss' influence, we actually cover that fairly well in the Security hearings section, although it might be reasonable to increase the emphasis. In general, I think there's some biographical content in the Legacy section that probably ought to be pushed back up into the earlier parts of the article. Rather than add discussion of Strauss under Legacy, I'd clean up the earlier section and refer back to it later.

--The Photon 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pacifisim

I retroactively rearranged my earlier statements to bring together the question of whether Oppenheimer is a pacifist. This discussion began with Ashujo's comment on Nov. 7 in the section above.The Photon 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Oppenheimer himself claim to be a pacifist?

In my dictionary (Webster's New Collegiate 1960-something) pacifism is "Opposition to war or military force for any purpose; esp., an attitude of mind opposing all war and advocating settlement of international disputes entirely by arbitration." The Wikipedia definition in Pacifism is broader, but I wouldn't consider that normative — Encyclopedias are about ideas, not words.

From his quote about Guernica, etc., its clear Oppenheimer felt that military action was justified at least in self-defense. Also in the post-war years his advocacy for increasing fission bomb stockpiles, and developing tactical nuclear weapons instead of the H-bomb is clearly not a pacifist position.

However, if people widely believe Oppenheimer was a pacifist, that's certainly valid material for the Legacy section. As with anything where we might say "it's widely believed..." or "many say...", we should try to demonstrate it through sources per WP:Avoid weasel words.

--The Photon 02:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the dictionary definition of pacifist does not apply to Oppenheimer, or to many other people who were called or who called themselves pacifists for that matter. Linus Pauling was also a well-known pacifist, and he also supported aggression for self-defense. So was James Bryant Conant. As far as Oppenheimer's advocacy for fission weapons is concerned, it could also be interpreted as being done for deterence, which is after all a form of keeping the peace. If I am a pacifist and I realise that the threat of violence may be the only way to prevent a cycle of violence initiated by the other side, then I would support the display of the threat of violence. So yes, Oppenheimer was not a dictionary pacifist, but then that also opens the question of how many more such people's monikers as pacifists we should strike out from Wikipedia. I do agree that putting in a general statement saying "Oppenheimer was a pacifist" wrongly simplifies and falisfies the true matter, as do most of the adjectives that you can use for Oppenheimer; nothing was simple with him! So I am open to not including that adjective for him in the entry. --Ashujo November 8, 2005 19.57 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Pauling to know whether he was truly a pacifist or not. But according to our article, he refused to work on the Manhattan Project and campaigned against nuclear weapons testing. Those are both more to the side of pacifism than Oppenheimer's actions.

I would characterize Oppenheimer's attitude as conflicted, which I've used in the article. Maybe there are some other descriptive terms that are apropriate. Maybe the quote in which he told Truman he felt he had "blood on my hands" could be used to show this aspect of his personality. --The Photon 03:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Advocating international control didn't make one a pacifist at all — wanting to avoid war, and nuclear war in particular, does not make one a pacifist. A pacifist believes that war should never be fought, that violence should be rejected as a way of forcing change. I've never read anything written by Oppenheimer that suggested he held these beliefs. If you call Oppenheimer a pacifist you have to also call Edward Teller a pacifist — both thought nuclear war was something which should be avoided at all costs, though they had different strategies on how to avoid it.

I don't know where one draws the line between "conflicted" and "self-contradicting", but I think Oppenheimer is somewhere in between there. He's terribly inconsistent in his beliefs and actions; while I think it is tempting to see this in a romantic light I think it is also quite possible he lacked the steadfast convinctions which allowed others to maintain more stable paths. --Fastfission 00:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people would say that Linus Pauling was a pacifist, but he certainly advocated armed aggression as a means of fighting oppression, certainly something that involves a "change". And Oppenheimer was inconsistent in some of his beliefs and opinions; I personally would not call him "terribly" so. Conflicted probably describes him the best. Personally, I would never equate Oppenheimer with Teller of course (not that you are) . But this is really hairsplitting, because under the dictionary definition of pacifist, probably only Mahatma Gandhi was a pacifist. And he was severely criticised for some aspects of his pacifism (such as his opinion that the Jews in Germany should have committed mass suicide). I think we can be glad that Oppenheimer was not a pacifist!--Ashujo

[edit] Oppenheimer's favourite books

I don't think a complete listing of all ten of Oppenheimer's favourite books is very pertinent in the paragraph. At most, I think we should state that the Gita was among Oppenheimer's ten favourite books, but the listing of all the books looks sort of out of place there. If this list really needs to be included, why don't we include it as a footnote? --Ashujo 11.59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't need to list the books. This is an encyclopedia article, not a trivia book. --Fastfission 00:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We can say it was one of the most influential books in his life. --Ashujo

[edit] Primary documents

• Oppenheimer in 1910 US Census
• Oppenheimer in 1920 US Census

[edit] Ethnicity in lead sentence

I removed this per wp:mosbio. --Tom 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Even smart people have dumb moments

"If you're in a small boat in a pool, and you throw a stone that was resting in the bottom of the boat into the water, will the water level rise, stay the same, or fall? Try this and other conundrums related to buoyancy. (Careful: This one stumped even the great physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer.)" from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lasalle/

[edit] Image and Style

Why is there no mention of Oppenheimer's attempt to imitate Basil Rathbone's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes? The chain–smoking, the thinness, the gimlet glance, the self–starvation, the focused obsession with work, the porkpie hat were all homage to Basil.Lestrade 15:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)lestrade

^{[citation needed]} --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that Rathbone didn't play Holmes until 1939. Oppenheimer's own habits were long in place before then, by the late 1920s/early 1930s, at least chain smoking, self-starvation, gimlet glance, thinness, focused obsession with work, etc. Don't know about the hat, though! --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picky eater

Did Oppenheimer eat only for the aesthetic pleasure? Did he merely want to experience the taste of the food? This is similar to the way a wine–taster samples the wine's taste and then spits out the wine, having no interest in imbibing. If so, he would be noted for ordering food that has exotic or spicy taste, without having his stomach affected by indigestion. This may have been the case. As a heavy smoker, the taste buds on his tongue were probably destroyed and could only detect the taste of strong food.Lestrade 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Oppenheimer in Popular Media

An anonymous editor wrote,

As a point of interest, the person standing next to him at the time, a colleague, Ken Bainbridge, leaned over to Oppenheimer and whispered to him "Now we are all sons of bitches." source: script of the new TV show "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles"episode 3 Jan 21 2008 on Fox The quote above of Oppenheimer's was uttered verbatim in the show, so I am assuming this was also actually said^{[citation needed]}.

The portrayal of any person or event in the popular media cannot be taken as fact.Fconaway (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the quip is fictional. It is mentioned for example in Bainbridge's biography at the National Academy of Sciences http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/biomems/kbainbridge.html Ashujo March 25, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The quip is true (there is even extensive back-and-forth about it in the Bainbridge papers, at Harvard—Oppenheimer didn't remember it, Bainbridge explained to him that he really had meant it, and what he had meant by it: that they were all going to be thought of as SOBs, not that they necessarily were SOBs in his mind), but using the television show as the specific citation is silly. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J. Robert Oppenheimer

Shouldn't the title of this article be "J. Robert Oppenheimer", considering that's his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladder to Heaven (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)