tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post8928675768462075105..comments2024-03-25T09:11:17.877-07:00Comments on The Curious Wavefunction: What if the Manhattan Project had been like an Alzheimer's disease drug discovery projectWavefunctionhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-4870350795256591792014-10-13T15:38:35.720-07:002014-10-13T15:38:35.720-07:00I think Derek Lowe had a similar topic or an expre...I think Derek Lowe had a similar topic or an expression in one of his blog posts and I remember leaving a comment there. Anyway; in summary, I don't agree with you and Feynman.<br /><br />The project itself might include more engineering than science (I still don't think so though). But, when we look at the outcome, I see more science instead of engineering. I agree a lot was known about nuclear physics even before the project. But, the project helped the scientists to learn much more than they could ever learn in their whole careers. I do believe that the project fast forwarded at least 50 years of nuclear physics/chemistry and computer science and technology. I used to consider it as an engineering project before reading Edward Teller's Memoirs. I strongly suggest reading it to anyone who haven't yet.<br />Chemdiaryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06428076032546974013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-83985843004095574862014-09-24T08:00:10.318-07:002014-09-24T08:00:10.318-07:00That's a good point. Injecting $26 billion int...That's a good point. Injecting $26 billion into finding a cure for AD would be a tremendous development. It's just that much of that money would have to spent on exploratory research without any fixed endpoints. That's where the difference lies. Actually I don't even have a problem with politicians casually extending the analogy; I have a bigger problem with people like Sergey Brin or Andy Grove or Peter Thiel thinking that AD could actually be "solved" by "rational" engineering-type approaches.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-90491468043011332832014-09-24T02:53:43.899-07:002014-09-24T02:53:43.899-07:00As you say, developing a cure for Alzheimer's ...As you say, developing a cure for Alzheimer's (or almost any other disease) is a very different challenge from developing the nuclear bomb. But when people suggest a "Manhattan project" approach, I tend to think they're referring to the scale of the project rather than the science/engineering. In other words, a project funded by the government on a massive scale to attempt to solve a problem of huge importance.<br /><br />According to Wikipedia, the Manhattan project employed about 130 000 people and spent around 26 billion dollars (2014 dollars). I'm not really sure if that sort of money would have a massive impact or not (given that it was over several years) but that's how I interpret the calls for a "Manhattan project" to solve "X".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-20246947600486424352014-09-22T13:17:32.547-07:002014-09-22T13:17:32.547-07:00Yes, that's exactly the point. The project was...Yes, that's exactly the point. The project was possible only because it could stand on the shoulders of a hundred years of fundamental discoveries in physics. That is precisely why describing an Alzheimer's disease drug design project or brain mapping project in those terms is futile, because those fields have simply not had the time to evolve and reach the stage of maturity that nuclear physics did in the 30s.Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14993805391653267639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9633767.post-15625804765201309782014-09-22T12:09:55.434-07:002014-09-22T12:09:55.434-07:00"However I am ready to take bets on whether t..."However I am ready to take bets on whether this mandate - given to all those brilliant minds in 1942 - would have led to Little Boy or Fat Man by 1945."<br /><br />I think you are being too conservative with that statement Ash. I would say that given the mandate as you frame it, it could not be done in that time frame. Richard Rhodes begins his story with the discoveries in 1895, 1896 and 1897 by Wilhelm Rontgen, Henri Becquerel and JJ Thompson respectively, making it a story of discovery and engineering. It is also a story intimately tied to the efforts of both American and British chemists and physicists and a fair number of German, Austrian, Italian, Polish and Hungarian immigrants. The Canadians were also in on the effort. The myth makers love to present it as an all American story dominated by physicists. They leave out the whirlwind explosion of discovery in both chemistry and physics that began before the beginning of the 20th century.<br /> <br />My take on implosion is that it was the closest part of the project to an actual discovery that was made by those working at Los Alamos. It was a completely unknown technique. It required a chemical genius, Kistiakowsky, and the ability to apply not very well known theory to an actual working device. Those who I think do not get enough credit for the success of implosion include Robert Christy (the suggestion for the solid pit or core of plutonium) and Bruno Rossi (all those hundreds of implosion tests called the RaLa tests to prove the effectiveness of implosion) and Stanisław Ulam, a gifted mathematician who worked with von Newmann and Kistiakowski. But it’s a very big story with many more that I have not mentioned who deserve credit and certainly more than the myth that a couple on New Yorkers made it happen.<br />M TuckerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com