Closing Remarks

This trimester is slowly coming to a close, and I feel that it was only yesterday that I stepped into this class without a clue as to what to expect. I have expanded my physics and historical knowledge in terms of international science problems and inventions, as well as, have a greater understanding of various physics concepts. Initially, I had an unsure feeling about this class as I am not a strong physics student, but I slowly learned that I was able to grasp concepts and now I have a better understanding of how the world works. In terms of history, I have never really learned about international history in depth especially in terms of Russia. Russia and the US have been fighting a scientific and political battle for many years. One of the most interesting pieces of information that I learned was about Albert Einstein's impact on science and politics. I never saw him as a political leader or involved with history, but rather just a man who invents thing. His political stances were quite controversial in terms of him being pro Israel. He was also quite controversial because he was Jewish in Germany at the beginning of the "Aryan Physics" era.

Heisenberg was another scientist who had a difficult time trying to get his peers to respect him and listen to his scientific innovations. One of his greatest contributions to physics was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which stated that it is impossible to precisely measure two measurables such as position and speed at the same point in time. This is in contradiction to classical physics because we have always believed that we can measure everything at a given moment, and there are no unanswered questions in physics. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle proves this notion wrong. Throughout this course I have learned about the physics of everyday interaction and now I look at everything from a new perspective.

This week one of our readings was George Bush's State of the Union Address and the other was U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 address to the U.N. Security Council. In both speeches they talked about Iraq. President Bush's speech was interesting because he talks about everything he has accomplished a few short months after 9/11, and his speech seems uplifting to the common American. He talks about terrorists who we captured, and how the American troops freed innocent Afghans. He also mentions that the government found out that the enemy has diagrams of our nuclear power plants and making chemical bombs. His tone makes it seem that through his leadership we will fight this war on terrorism and with the government's hard work we have arrested tons of terrorists. The world is becoming a better place with the persistent action of the government. He also talks about weapons of mass destruction and his goal is to get rid of them. Bush wants to increase military spending in order to deter Iraqi production of weapons of mass destruction. Bush pledges to win the war, protect the homeland, and revive the economy, but now from a current perspective one can laugh at his pledges. I believe that he has successfully accomplished one of those, which is to protect the homeland. We have been in Iraq for what seems like an eternity and we have not proven anything except that we are destroying their land and destroying many innocent lives. The Iraq situation is almost analogous to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty situation in Europe. In both cases we want to deter nuclear weapons and are trying to find the best ways to defeat the enemy. In the Iraq War we are trying to get other countries to support us and aid us in fighting this war. Similarly, for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty the US wanted to get specific countries on their side to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. It seems that we have always been involved in trying to stop the potential of having a nuclear war. In terms of Colin Powell's address he spoke about Resolution 1441, which was to disarm Iraq of its nuclear weapons. In our efforts to stop the war on terror we have given Iraq multiple opportunities to comply, but nothing has worked. His speech talks about how the US has given Iraq many chances, but they have been reluctant to do anything, thus we must take stern measures. His speech also talks about how we are not only worried about the weapons, but what terrorists can do with these weapons who will use it against innocent people. He denotes a very strong message in his speech; that being the American people and government will not stop until Saddam is stopped and the US can't run the risk of the American people being hurt. Throughout his speech, as well as, throughout Bush's speech his words are strong and puts up a fierce facade for his audience. From the start of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty and continuing to the present time, we have had a strong stance against other countries and nuclear weapons, as we are fearful of the destruction that can be done to our country.

In terms of politics and history, I have learned how various presidents have dealt with international conflict and how different scientists have dealt with oppression and being ousted from their science communities. For not being a science person, I never realized how great a role science plays in the international community, and without one country essentially the entire link is broken. International relations are key in every discipline, not just politics which was always my assumption. Of course political international relations affects history and how things are done, but every country is reliant on each other for information. This class has showed me the extent to which the country is a global community and has opened my eyes up to thinking of science in a whole new way.

The Decisions Leaders Have to Make

Leaders have to make detrimental choices in times of war. The issue of defense is a tough problem that leaders have to grapple with. At one end, they need to do what is in the best interest for the country and the other viewpoint is to do what is best for humanity. War is always a problem in terms of ethics. Leaders often have a hard time separating their interests from what is best for the country. Specific international policies are created for the purpose of war, so that the leader's interests don't spiral out of hand, and there doesn't evolve a full out world war. It is often hard to find a happy medium solution between countries as we have seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the Cold War. Also, it is very hard to fathom how much money our government puts into the military budget. We are always trying to develop new weapons and out do other countries. War is not necessarily a good thing, so to see that our government is extremely concerned about weapons and war, is very disheartening to an individual.
There is always a possibility that the other side will attack, and then it comes down to who has the bigger weapons. Leaders have to try and predict what the other side is going to do and sometimes have to make rash decisions. They have to grapple with trying to figure out what is best for the country, and their citizens. Sometimes people forget that weapons have other side effects aside from killing a population; they can also destroy homes and land which make it impossible for a country to rebuild after disaster. Survivability is an important topic that leaders have to consider; is my population going to survive after a nuclear attack? In the Nuclear Age Reader article, it said that when people heard of a possible attack they did not run out and get bottled water and supplies. If this situation occurred today, people would be running to the stores and loading up on supplies. In the case of 9/11, when we had high terrorism warnings, duck tape was flying off the shelves and people were stocking up on bottled water and canned soup. It was comical looking back at this instance, and it depicts how easily society believes authority. The government was making requests to get duck tape and wood, and people didn't question it, but rather ran out and got the supplies. As a citizen, I would feel better if the government funded some of these safety precautions instead of pumping all of the money into the military. In a way, wartime is a huge propaganda stunt for the government because society is so vulnerable and fearful, they will believe anything. People will waste money on superfluous things; no wonder there is always an economic bomb during wartime. In the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis the government made society worried about the effects of an attack and spurred the fallout shelter campaign. If the government was so worried about building shelters, then they should have contributed to the cause and given money to build them instead of putting all of it toward military spending.

The game of war is one of risk and predictions. You have to always be on your toes and guess when and how the enemy is going to strike. Should we do a first strike launch or wait until the enemy does something to us and then retaliate? The problem with first strike initiative is that the second strike could be worse and once you strike there is not going back. Leaders have to always be quick on their feet and try to do what is in the best interest for themselves as well as the country. Once a war starts, it is hard to stop it and one might think the enemy doesn't have the capability to destroy them, when in actuality they do, then what happens? You can't rewind time, and for some of history, including the current war that we are in, I feel that leaders wish they had a remote control so that they could undo their mistakes.

The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

The readings for this week, start off with assessing the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear reactors from the viewpoints of two scientists. Edward Teller asks the government to look at the safety of the reactors and wants an advisory committee to be formed in order to regulate and oversee the nuclear reactors. On the contrary, Weinberg sees nuclear reactors as advantageous to society, and believes that they are as risky as any other scientific invention. Throughout history, society has always looked at nuclear power plants as a huge hazard to the environment and safety of society. This article enlightened me that the risk of a power plant being blown up or having a meltdown is as common as anything else that were to happen on the earth ( a hurricane, earthquake, getting hit by a car etc.). People automatically think that nuclear reactors will illicit radioactive particles that can kill them, which is true, but the amount of radioactivity that it takes to cause cancer is more then is given off by the reactors. People don't really think in perspective of how dangerous something really is and is the danger has a realistic effect on their life. Essentially, anyone can get cancer from the sun, standing in front of the microwave etc. I think that society has been brainwashed by science. We see scientists as authority figures, and society doesn't seem to question authority, thus everything they see if true. When one really analyzes the benefits of the nuclear reactors, especially the breeders, one will see it will be more efficient at a cheaper cost.

I don't think that Teller was discounting nuclear reactors all together, but he wanted the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to regulate the reactors. He recognizes the fact that in the past, explosions haven't been very detrimental to society. He stipulates the fact that the one thing that people are most worried about is the possibility of the reactor to explode. Although these fears are eminent, an explosion will only affect the people in the immediate surrounding areas. The thing that he is most worried about is the nuclear poison from the reactors. He acknowledges the fact that although the possibility of an accident is small, we can't be naive, and if an accident were to happen it would be disastrous to the community. Weinberg looks at this same point from a different perspective and believes that although accidents are inevitable, their is a small probability they would happen, and it wouldn't have as great an effect on the community as we think. Unless the community is built right on top of the plant, one doesn't notice the effects until way after the explosion. Teller also realizes that the construction of reactors are inevitable, and so are accidents thus, no legislation will be able to stop accidents or mitigate the effects. Teller has a realistic view to the creation of reactors, although we can't stop them, the government can aid in making them safer. He also notices that they are a good thing for the advancement of science. Lastly, Teller believes that a less expensive source of fissionable materials needs to be found, which Weinberg has the solution to this problem via breeders. Teller states that the lower the cost of atomic weapons, the more we can produce which is advantageous for our military.

Weinberg is an advocate for the breeders because they will produce more energy in an efficient manner both scientifically and economically. The breeder creates more fissile material then it destroys and " a breeder extracts so much more energy from a gram of uranium than does a burner, we can afford to pay very much more for that gram of uranium if we burn it in a breeder than if we burn it in a burner" (Weinberg 9). Inevitably, he is arguing that we should expend all of our resources to build breeders, but with the changing government there is a halt in creating breeders ( ie. Carter's energy policy and the Clinch River Breeder Reactor which will just be an image). Similar to Teller, people are afraid of the nuclear waste, the potential meltdowns and other accidents, and economical aspects of breeders. Weinberg argues that in the long run we will be successful if we use breeders and we shouldn't worry about the effects. He is a strong advocate for breeders. It we put the right people in charge of overseeing breeders and reactors then their should be little to worry about. Society is so afraid of nuclear technology, and what we need is for scientists to precisely depict how nuclear technology can benefit society, so that it will assuage apprehensions against such projects.

The effects of Chernobyl were shocking, and that made people hesitant of bringing nuclear power to the United States. Chernobyl was a freak accident that could happen anywhere, and although we don't want it on our turf, we should not discount the positive effects that nuclear energy has for society. Teller and Weinberg give two different accounts of their views of nuclear energy, as Teller doesn't necessarily not like it, but would feel better if there were safeguards. Whereas, Weinberg is a strong advocate for nuclear energy and believes it has many promising effects. Where do you stand?

Atomic Euphoria

I was intrigued by the images from the National Geographic readings posted at the beginning of this week. The photographs ranged from ships being blown up to people using uranium and radiation in science, medicine, and technology experimentation. It is amazing that people would be scared and intrigued at the same time by the effects of a bomb, as people hid in shelters during the blasts, while others in Nevada watched the blast outside with their family. It is interesting to think that uranium can be called a "friendly atom", as it was both friend and foe to scientists in terms of producing a bomb, and using it in order to cure health issues.

The images from National Geographic depict people with helmets, lab coats, and behind glass so that the radioactive liquids don't touch them. obot hands were used to pour radioactive liquids in order to protect the scientist from exposure. If people know uranium's harmful effects and that it could kill anyone, how did scientists happen to come across this material and decide to use it for bombs? If it is so dangerous how could scientists possibly have done all of the necessary background research in order to find all of its effects. In connection with the reading for this week in Nuclear Choices, it seems that scientists still don't know all of its effects on society. No one imaged the great destruction that uranium could do to society, and not only to a little section of the world, but a bomb dropped would affect everyone in one way or another. Although uranium and other radioactive materials have grave effects on society, it was interesting to see how overtime these materials are constantly being used in order to advance science and medicine. Uranium was used for cancer patients, gamma was used in order to keep foods from perishing, and carbon-14 was used in order to see how photosynthesis works in plants. These elements are often seen as harmful, and indeed they are, but according to these images, we must take risks if we want to advance our knowledge in the science and medical realm.

I feel that one could almost argue that the images in the National Geographic to some extent, as well as, the Plowshare movie were examples of government propaganda. The whole time that I was watching the Plowshare movie, I felt that the government was trying to sell me something and tell me that Plowshare can give economic growth for the community, as well as, can pave the way for nuclear technology and nuclear expansion. The images in National Geographic represent the "good things" that uranium and other radioactive materials can bring to the community and essentially change society's life. The movie stated that Americans shouldn't be afraid of nuclear technology and that through rigorous experimentation and studies they will find a way to control explosions and make them safe. Plowshare can make the technology that the United States needs in order to move toward their nuclear goal. Also, Plowshare made a convincing argument that their goal will not be costly; by using the different graphs and comparing their methods to conventional methods and costs it seemed promising to the average American. Although the Plowshare movie looked like the United States was on their way to finding prosperous nuclear technology, the American public was not persuaded by the idea. Although through pictures and statistics they were showed that it can benefit them, is safe, and is not a waste of money, the public was still skeptical about the government's motivations, as well as, fearful for their own lives.

During the era of nuclear power magazines and media attempted to depict the benefits of nuclear power to society. They used persuasive pictures and convincing arguments to tell people that nuclear power would not only advance our nation but would aid the United States scientifically, medically, and technologically.

Nuclear Destruction and its Effects on Earth

The effects of a nuclear bomb can be deadly. As I read Nuclear Choices, I wondered how anyone could use a weapon that has such grave effects on society. The idea that the United States made nuclear weapons and actually used them is shocking. From what I can infer from the reading, we could have theorectically destroyed a a significant chunk of Japan, not just Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I am amazed that people survived the blast, although they did obtain flash burns and radiation. One would imagine that the radiation would be the effect that causes the most harm, but the heat that radiates from the fireballs can cause fires and severe burns on people who are as far as 20 miles away (316). Nuclear weapons not only have effects on people in their explosive vicinity but also people many miles away. It is difficult to fathom the fact that mankind is able to create something that is so destructive.

Another hazard from the destruction of bombs is the overpressure that could essentially crush objects. The bomb's energy is responsible for most of the physical destruction. Although humans are immune to overpressure, the objects that are harmed by it can kill people. I don't understand how people are immune to this overpressure if it is so great, but that is another subject of physics. Also, the fires that are started by the thermal flash, as mentioned earlier, not only have effects on the ground but also in the atmosphere. The fire consumes remaining oxygen which suffocates the remaining survivors of the blast (321). Clearly, the bombs suit the purpose they are intended for, major destruction and killing. The explosions from the bombs can kill people either thousands of miles away or right in the vicinity of the bomb.

An interesting concept is that the United States is cognizant about the destruction of an all out nuclear war, but when it comes down to saving society from the bomb's after effects, they would not be prepared to save people's lives. Thermal flash burns could affect people hundreds of miles away and the burns require special treatment. That being said, the United States does not have adequate facilities to treat all of the people that would be affected by the burns or any other injuries. If the United States was involved in a full out war, people would be affected by it no matter if they were 10 miles or across the country from the bomb. Atomic radiation can cause lowered disease resistance which can lead to death, and if bombs blow up medical facilities there aren't enough adequate places to get care for all of the people who are harmed (332). Besides a health crisis, transportation would be greatly affected because it would be blocked by debris and potentially blown up. In addition, neighborhoods and neighboring cities would be in shambles. Therefore, there would be nowhere or noone to ask for aid. Lastly, a large scale nuclear war would elicit dust and chemicals into the atmosphere. The excess chemicals would seep into the ozone layer and burn through it, thus causing ultra-violet radiation to reach Earth. The increase in UV would affect humans, plants, and animals. Atomic bombs not only affect the enemy directly but the areas around it, as well as, drastically change the environment one lives in.

It is no surprise that nuclear weapons caused a huge raucous among the public. The morality and health effects of a nuclear attack need to be questioned and the reasoning behind using a destructive weapon needs to be reevaluated. In the end, it seems like the atomic bomb could so more harm then good to a society.

Morality and Responsibility of the Atomic Bomb

As we first learned in class, it is hard to separate politics and science, and the atomic bomb is a prime example of this discord. Truman wanted to drop the bomb but not everyone's motives were the same, as the scientists knew the destruction that the bomb would bring. The ongoing battle between politicians and scientists show that it is hard for anything in international politics to be accomplished when varying ideologies have to work together.

Ethics plays a large part in the decision of dropping the bomb. In order to advance the U.S. and minimize Russian influence do we drop the bomb and risk innocent lives or are there other ways to deter Russian influence? Oppenheimer said that " the more horrible and inhumane the weapon, the stronger the case would be for its postwar control". Therefore, dropping the bomb looked like it would help the U.S. obtain its goal. It is hard when different ideologies are working on a common goal. Politicians, scientists, and historians, all have differing opinion on if the bomb should have been dropped. Politicians would want to advance the status of the country and make it powerful, as well as, increase international relations. While scientists would look at the bomb as scientific advancement and it opens up another window in the science realm that can be further explored. Historians could look at it from the perspective of how the bomb impacted events that spurred from the incident. Would certain wars have spurred if the bomb wasn't dropped or would our relations be any different between countries if we did not have the atomic bomb?

The notion of morals always comes into question in science and politics. From a politician's viewpoint, we wanted our country to be in a powerful position, so dropping the bomb would put the U.S. at the paramount of the international realm. Morally, it can be argued, it was right to drop the bomb because we were fearful Germany was working on an atomic bomb and we were scared of the Soviet power. We didn't want Germany to beat us or the Soviet to take over the world. It was in our best interest, especially later in life to drop the bomb. Looking at the atomic bomb from a scientifically moral standpoint is a little harder. Scientists often know better then anyone else the impact of such an explosion and how the after effects are going to hamper society. It is their duty to warn others who are less knowledgeable about the atomic bomb in this respect, of the consequences. In a sense, they were morally obligated to fully explain how the explosions would affect society. One must also think about the psychological factor that comes with the bomb. Killing civilians has the greatest psychological affect on anyone no matter your role in the act.

The dichotomy between the scientist and the politician is one that we grapple with. The Interim Committee was formed to decide what happens with the bomb and they had a Scientific Advisory Panel which aided them in their decision. One argument is that the scientist should be responsible because they built the bomb. Contrarily, the scientist believes that he is not held responsible because he did not launch the bomb; that is the responsibility of the politician. He was employed to build the bomb, but he has not responsibility with what happens to it. The issue between responsibility makes people wonder why even build something so destructive as a bomb is no one wants to take credit for it. It is common knowledge that a bomb causes ruin and chaos so inevitably someone has take responsibility.

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a debate that will be left unanswered. President Truman's initial reaction was that it was a good idea because the war was going to be over. The public became uneasy of the fact that nuclear bombs existed because they feared their long term impact. The dropping of the atomic bomb was a pivotal point in history and no matter how long people scrutinize over it, there will always be an argument about it is was the appropriate thing to do.

Bombs and Black Holes

Black holes are a mysterious topic that in the past people have thought of as a myth. Einstein was the genius who discovered that gravity warps space-time, and that black holes are essentially large masses that warp space-time into a hole. He also concluded that light bends, and he applied this notion to the idea of black holes. Since light bends, scientists examined stars in space, and concluded that when the light path bends, it must be getting pulled by the gravitational force. The gravitational force from the hole is so large that it sucks in anything that comes its way. This phenomenon is quite scary if one thinks about it. Where does this light go after it is sucked into this bottomless pit? Although we know this much about black holes there is so much to learn that unfortunately might be left undiscovered. It is hard to find answers for this phenomenon because essentially close observance is a matter of life and death. Even if we sent satellites into orbit, we would have no way of knowing if they would ever come back, or be sucked into the pit of despair. Einstein's theory of black holes could be seen as skeptical by others, but it is an interesting concept that one must ponder.

The notion of the atomic bomb and Germany's ability to create the bomb is another issue that leaves people frightened and skeptical. Historians pondered if Germans had the ability and resources to make the atomic bomb, and the answer according to Professor Walker was yes. Although, the German war economy had less money then the successful American creators of the Manhattan Project, and Hitler's plan to oust non-Aryan scientists succeeded, they still had creative and intelligent physicists and chemists and an abundance of resources. Hitler's fault, some argue, was detrimental and a determining factor to German's success or failure of creating an atomic bomb.

In the science realm, the discovery of nuclear fission opens up new doors. Once they learned about nuclear fission, they realized that there were areas for exploration. Due to the state that Germany was in at the time, people might see the development of the nuclear bomb and their ability to use atomic fission as dangerous and a threat to the world. Scientists were only trying to contribute to German's technological and military advancement, expand their knowledge and use their creativity. Although, scientists were going to use nuclear weapons for the future, it was worth the time and effort to create them. It is somewhat surprising that German scientists and officials disagreed with the idea of expending time and effort into nuclear weapons. The German uranium project had little effect on the war economy and the scientists had difficulty in getting things that they needed. This was due to lack of priority, and it is surprising that such an extreme and important project would be demoted. Looking back at the situation, scientists probably wish they put more time and effort into the research, since the United States and Soviet Union succeeded in developing the weapon.

Ultimately, I believe the German scientists gave up without a fight. The funding, resources, and intellect was there to build successful nuclear weapons but the motivation was lost. Not until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, did the scientists realize their loss and they became disturbed. Hahn was in denial of the situation and believed that his work didn't have to do with weapons. The scientists didn't want to believe the disastrous impact of nuclear fission. The discovery of nuclear fission essentially took a path that was not foreseen, and instead of aiding Germany it only created more controversy.

Classifiable or Quantifiable

The world that we live in is comprised of classifications and labels. In science, politics, and history we have seen how classifying objects and people have had repercussions on society. For example, as we have been learning, we classify physics as being quantifiable or measurable. For the most part, up until Einstein, people have accepted the truths about science being that a theory is only right if it is measurable. Einstein came along and tried to disprove what scientists in the past have stated as truth. No wonder he is such a controversial figure in science, as he tried to show the world that science isn't as clear cut as previously stated, and there is mystery in science. A scientist's job is to find answer to life's mysteries, so when scientists such as Heisenberg and Einstein said that it is impossible to find measurements for everything there was controversy. Isn't it cool to think that there isn't an answer to everything and no matter how hard one tries jsomethings just can't be explained? That is the beauty of the world.

In the 1930's, Stark and Lenard instituted this idea of classifying science as"Aryan Physics" or "Jewish Physics". Aryan Physics was non Jewish, perfect and pure science. Aryan Physics did not agree with relativity and quantum mechanics because it left unanswered questions. Once again, Einstein is belittled and hated among the German scientific community for his work. Einstein also did not agree with the National Socialist party, as he was part of the anti-Fascist movement. This discord between his political views and the National Socialist party, as well as, his scientific views gave Stark a reason to hate Einstein.

As Hitler slowly took power, the German citizens were classified as either Aryans or non-Aryans. These classifications allowed people to start to reject non-Aryans in the educational and scientific realms. There was a law against the overcrowding of German schools and universities, which essentially was an excuse for Germans to not accept Jews into their schools. The creation of all these bogus laws, justified the Germans' claims, and to the average citizen made the Germans' actions appear legal. I don't understand how a government can legally classify a person and how the Nazis got away with their actions. A non-Aryan was defined as someone who had one practicing Jewish grandparent. This definition is quite vague, and not until the 1935 Nuremberg laws did Germany have a concrete definition. Under these laws, a non-Aryan was a person who had three grandparents who were registered as practicing Jews. The reason behind having such an extensive family guideline was because many grandparents were dead or wouldn't change their faith, thus people couldn't easily change their faith. It is easier for a person to say that they are Jewish if they have extensive family lineage that demonstrates Jewish practices, then going by one relative who could have converted. Once again, this idea of the government not being able to easily classify things upset the Nazis. It was easier for the government to take control over scientists' practices, schools etc. if they have a "black and white" law instead of a "gray" one. Classification, in this instance, put the government's worries at ease. It allowed for the easy extermination of Jews years later, as well as, the ability of the Nazi's to take over science, education, and ultimately the German government.

Throughout our readings we have seen many concepts classified and the scientists, government officials, etc. use these classifications as justification for their actions and beliefs. Whether we are classifying science as "Aryan", "quantifiable", or "pragmatic", science should be universal and respected, and these classifications should not have any effect on how people view the concepts. Similarly, if we classify people as "Nazi", "Jewish" "White Jews" etc., we are saying that we must section people off and we can not see "eye to eye". By classifying something it give a sense of status and states that one group is not related to another. Society might be able to understand each other and the inner workings of the world, by erasing all of these classifications and labels and just looking at a concept or a person for what it is worth.

Radiation and the Russians

While I was walking in the sun the other day, I remembered what I learned in class earlier that afternoon about heat. The infra-red light from the sun was heating me up as I walked back to my cold house. I always thought that it was the UV rays that were heating me up, but I learned otherwise. I also thought that it was interesting that the larger the wavelength, the smaller the energy level. Normally, one would assume the opposite conditions. Also, I was intrigued by the fact that everything emits heat, even if an object is stationary. Normally, one would think of something as hot if one can feel the energy that it is emitting, but that is not necessarily true. Our bodies are constantly emitting heat in order to keep a steady temperature. As I am sitting here, freezing in my house, I wish that the heat was being transferred from the air and florescent lighting, to my body.

In response to Professor Walker's lecture on the Russian Revolution and our readings, it was interesting to learn that throughout the years, Russians became accepting of science and eventually became dependent on it, in order to increase its power in the world. I was intrigued to learn how divided Russia became in regards to scientific policy and the government. People were either against science because it would spur capitalism or people wanted scientists because it offered specialities, but unfortunately having scientists lead to distrust. Scientists were needed in order to create new innovations that would aid the prosperity of Russia. A country with a strong economy is a key factor in order to be a super power, and if the Russians knew that scientists could spur this growth in economy, why were they so opposed to the idea?

The idea of technocracy is puzzling, as Soviets according to the term, wanted to rule by scientific and technical elite, but at the same time believed that scientists were untrustworthy. There was no ideal situation as something had to give, but it was a matter of what was more important, advancing science or keeping the same political structure. Throughout the years, Russia formed many scholarly and political groups, as well as, instituted many policies, in order to solve this dichotomy.

Throughout the time, I believe that each individual was selfish and did not fully think about the benefits science would contribute to the country. The scientists should have been left alone to do their own thing, and advance the country as they please. Everyone's opinions of what should have been done only hindered the advancement of science. I agree with the Prolekult idea that everyone should be able to practice science, not only the elite, but sometimes the professionals are the only ones who will be able to advance the country. The Bolshevik ideology of controlling science, obstructed the advancement of science because they had to create for the state, and it was often hard to predict what the state needed in the future.

The idea of the Five Year Plan, was also problematic for scientists because they were unable to foresee the industry of the country down the road. They can't reasonably anticipate what the state will need, so the hard work that they expended into projects could have been useless. The scientists were also fearful that they would not perform up the expectations of the state. They were told that they had to expand, but were not given any guidance on how to do so. This left scientists in a bubble, with no guidelines, only expectations. Another point that I agree with is that the physicists were afraid that the new system of planning would constrain research, and they were unable to advance the state in other aspects. Scientists should be free to exercise their knowledge and creativity to whatever extent they please, but the government restraint under the Five Year Plan veered them off the creativity path.

Lastly, the Soviets wanted the scientists to create new products, but by cutting them off from communicating and collaborating with other scientists, it essentially defeated the purpose. They were unable to easily advance themselves because they couldn't get help from others. The whole point of "scientific nationalism" is to create products off of each other, and to throw around ideas until an idea is perfected. By cutting off Russian scientists, it was hard to advance their state industry, and ultimately advance their country's position in the world. The physicists were unable to take advantage of the international collaboration which dominated physics in the West. I don't blame the scientists who left Russia and never came back because they were able to freely expand their knowledge and not be oppressed by Stalin. All of the regulations of the government impeded the scientists' abilities to make Russia a prosperous nation.

Finding the Right Formula for International Relations

When I first entered this class I didn't know what to expect. I had no idea how physics and politics related to each other. Science to me is just a bunch of numbers and formulas, but after the first few readings and classes I have realized that physics plays a huge role in my everyday life. My everyday actions are affected one way or another by science and I hope that by taking this class I will gain a better understanding of the physical world around me. I am very interested in politics, so it will be interesting to see how science can also be political, and how people in history have used science to advance themselves in the international realm.

I never realized the international role that science played during World War I, and the importance of the role it currently plays in our world. In order for science to be successful and benefit everyone there needs to be a free market of ideas in order to create new products that will advance society. Therefore, in order for a country to prosper and make a difference for its society, it has to have good international relations so that the country's scientists are able to collaborate with others. Unfortunately, during times of war it is often hard for countries to be civil with one another, and different political ideologies make it harder to find a common solution. Countries are often unable to put their differences aside and work for a common purpose, which arises in more problems. The articles that we read depict the specific problems that arise in the science field and in politics when there is dissidence among nations.

It was interesting to learn how two scientists took different approaches to science and life during World War I and after it. I never knew that Albert Einstein was a pacifist and a Zionist. I admire Einstein because even though his views drastically differed from the rest of society's, he still fought for what he believed was rthe right solution for the country during wartime. Even though he was hated by most during war, centuries later he is revered by almost everyone. In a time when most Germans would be afraid to speak against the government, Einstein's passion for peace did not deter him from speaking his mind. When the Germans were solely interested in making things for their export and dominating the world, Einstein was trying to make sense of the physical world, and show the Germans a different approach to the war.

Similar to Einstein, Hale was also trying to unite scientists across the world in order to improve the war effort. He knew the importance of international science, and did not want the Germans to influence the science realm anymore then they were. He felt that they were already too powerful. He did anything in his power to keep the Germans out of the international scientist organizations. With every country trying to make new innovation and advance their science and military, he believed that there needed to be agency of war that could surpass the Germans.Hale ran into a lot of trouble while he was trying to win support from the neutrals, but with his relentless effort he never gave up. Both Hale and Einstein were persistent in trying to get their ideas accepted by others. They were both passionate about advancing science and did anything in their power to successfully attain their goals. These scientists can be seen as role models by many, as they never gave up, and have greatly contributed to the science world.

I have never thought of science as a status of power, but rather that power lies within the country's government. Germany had a very powerful government that was driven by scientific and military advancements. Unfortunately for them, their power ostracized them from the rest of the world. Is there a way for a country to have the best of both worlds; scientific and world power without being shunned by the rest of the world? Science contributes to a country's power and throughout the years, we have seen how science has hindered and helped international relations. Hopefully, we can learn from our past mistakes and continue this notion of scientific internationalism.