'Oppenheimer' and all those marbles

'Oppenheimer' and all those marbles

The 2023 film Oppenheimer includes a clever plot device where Los Alamos scientists gradually add marbles to both a fish bowl and wine glass to signify the steady progress towards building a bomb. As with most of the science behind the film, little explanation is provided but the point is made.

Here’s the story behind that:

In 1939 fission was discovered – the ability to pry apart the largest atom in nature, uranium, and release millions of times more energy than any chemical reaction. Shortly thereafter a new element, even heavier than uranium, was synthesized in the lab – and named plutonium. (Plutonium’s discoverer, Glenn Seaborg, jokingly suggested the symbol “Pu” for the new element and the label stuck around like a bad smell – true story.)

Not only can plutonium, like uranium, fission and release similarly vast amounts of energy – but it also happens to be manufactured in a nuclear reactor during the uranium fission process: uranium turns into plutonium, making it the only energy source that creates more fuel as it consumes itself.

Under the cloak of WWII secrecy, the Manhattan Project scientists therefore saw two routes to an atomic bomb: uranium or plutonium. With essentially infinite resources from an “all-in” US government bent on winning not just the war but also the peace to follow, they chose to do both.

Hence the two glass receptacles for the marbles: one huge, one small.

They knew that neither route would be easy. To make a bomb with uranium they needed to separate its rarest natural component, U-235, from thousands of tonnes of ore: forget about marbles – imagine filling a bucket of sand one grain at a time, with tweezers.

In a secluded valley in Tennessee, they built the largest building on earth (44 acres under one roof) and an entire town for 30,000 workers and their families – to get the job done as quickly as possible.

To make a bomb with plutonium they needed to first invent nuclear reactors (achieved by late 1942), then build the biggest reactors they could to convert uranium to plutonium, then invent a chemical process to separate the plutonium from the highly radioactive waste fuel: again, sand grains and tweezers – only now radioactive.

On a secluded plateau in Washington state, they built three behemoth reactors and a chemical separation plant, employing over 45,000 workers – to get the job done as quickly as possible.

By mid-1945 they had enough plutonium for three bombs: one to test in the New Mexican desert, and two to drop on Japan – about 6 kg of plutonium apiece. (In the end only one of these was used, at Nagasaki, before Japan surrendered.)

They had enough uranium (about 60 kilograms) for one more bomb: this design was much simpler and needed no test. The first uranium atomic bomb – and the first atomic bomb used in war – would be the one dropped on Hiroshima.

You may have noticed the factor of ten difference between the required amounts of plutonium and uranium – reflected with laudable accuracy in the film's contrasting marble collections. This can be chalked up to both engineering (the plutonium design was simply more efficient), and physics (you need much less plutonium to make an explosive ‘critical mass’).

For both these reasons the plutonium design concept – in ever-increasing levels of macabre sophistication – has been the path of choice for the global nuclear arms race ever since.

On a more positive note: plutonium – the element unheard of before the war – went on to achieve greatness in the cores of hundreds of power reactors around the world. In a far more pleasant role than first assigned during WWII, uranium and plutonium have been working together – the one born from the other – to keep our lights on without polluting the planet, for almost 70 years.

Today, between one-third and one-half of our nuclear electricity is from plutonium, generated in situ.

If we don’t lose our marbles, this will hopefully be the only fissioning that plutonium sees from now on.

Joe Torres

Project Management

11 个月

Good read man. Thanks.?

赞
回复
Matt Mullins

Science and Energy Museum at American Museum of Science and Energy

1 å¹´

Great read!

赞
回复
Dick Groves

Concept Developer (documentary series)

1 å¹´

Great summary. Thanks.

赞
回复
Kevin Lee

Lead - Disruptive, Innovative and Emerging Technologies at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

1 å¹´

Thanks Jeremy for another great article.

Jeremy - this is the best “description” of Fat Man and Little Boy that I have seen. I’ve just visited (July/23) the museum in Los Alamos where mockups of the two bombs were displayed and wish they could have showed this there! I believe that Pu was abandoned for the inertial impact device (Little Boy) because it contained too many isotopic impurities (in those days) and required the backup implosion device (Fat Boy) which itself was an ingenious design. Unfortunately, my visit to Los Alamos preceded the movie and I still have not seen it! I will think of the glasses with marbles when I do!

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Jeremy Whitlock, PhD, FCNS的更多文章

  • Reprocessing and non-proliferation

    Reprocessing and non-proliferation

    Since its discovery plutonium has symbolized the Faustian bargain of nuclear fission: the unshackling of energy from…

    15 条评论
  • The buzz around Canada

    The buzz around Canada

    Canada comes up a lot in nuclear conversations – always has. Half a century ago the curiosity focused on why Canada was…

    9 条评论
  • Why should safeguards by design be a global effort?

    Why should safeguards by design be a global effort?

    (Opinion article published March 2024 in 'Nuclear News' by the American Nuclear Society) I can't think of a more…

  • Yes, Virginia, There is Still Science

    Yes, Virginia, There is Still Science

    (with apologies to Francis P. Church, 1839-1906) DEAR INTERNET: I am eight years old.

  • Canada's Big Modular Reactor

    Canada's Big Modular Reactor

    Canada is a big country. It has big energy needs, big natural resources, big environmental challenges – and big ideas.

    26 条评论
  • Saving the world from itself

    Saving the world from itself

    It’s hard to find a shining example of successful global policy these days, with the world apparently coming apart at…

    6 条评论
  • Ten Nuclear Waste Myths

    Ten Nuclear Waste Myths

    Today many countries with nuclear power programs are developing, or plan to develop, a deep geological repository (DGR)…

    14 条评论
  • I SEE

    I SEE

    I see the rocks; they broach the landscape around me, with layered colours that tell a story of fire and cataclysm and…

    3 条评论
  • 'Oppenheimer' and the problem of ‘near zero’

    'Oppenheimer' and the problem of ‘near zero’

    Contrary to the portrayal in the film Oppenheimer (and now widespread public belief), the atomic scientists did not…

    18 条评论
  • 'Oppenheimer' and the Canadians

    'Oppenheimer' and the Canadians

    Christopher Nolan’s 2023 opus Oppenheimer sparked renewed public interest in the Manhattan Project – the US…

    12 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了