Hubbard The Nuclear Physicist

everfree

Patron Meritorious
It was almost inevitable that my path would cross that of Hubbard's. I was raised with dreams of peace on earth by a feminist hippy mom. I was a very bright kid, learned the Scientific Method at a very young age. I learned much faster than my peers in school. I would understand a week's worth of lessons in the first 20 minutes or so, then be bored out of my skull for days. I have always loathed having insufficient intellectual stimulation, it is very painful for me, I flounder. So even though I always knew all the answers, read at a college level by 11 or 12, got A's on all tests, and spent a great deal of time helping my peers understand, I hated school. It was a miserable experience for me, I felt alienated.

I didn't feel like I learned much in school, but on my own you couldn't stop me from learning. I did science projects, played with my chemistry set, took everything apart to see how it worked, had my nose in a book at all times, built radios. All on my own. No one ever had to tell me to study and learn. I was highly interested in physics and the other physical sciences, had aspirations of perhaps being a physicist, perhaps a astrophysicist. I learned about the theory of relativity as a teenager. I read philosophy for pleasure, many works of Plato. I read about mysticism like Carlos Castaneda. One of my heroes was Sci Fi Author Robert Heinlein, who was friends with Hubbard. Through him I learned of General Semantics and attempted "Science And Sanity" by Korzybski. In contrast to the misery I experienced at school, I took great joy in learning and in contemplating the great questions of life: who are we, where did we come from, what is out place in the universe, how do we really know anything etc etc.

When I was introduced to Scientology, one of the first things I really appreciated was the checksheet and corresponding self-paced study.

I could see that like me Hubbard was really smart and I immediately suspected he had similar experiences to me in school, which he had fixed with self paced study. I was really excited, because I knew that if I had had that in my school growing up, instead of feeling alienated I would have had a college degree when I was a teenager and got multiple advanced degrees as astrophysicist or maybe something else interesting may have caught my attention. I knew it! And I knew that there had to be other bright young students out there suffering similar fate and now I had a tool to fix it! It was very natural for me to become a Course Supervisor, because learning and teaching is what I'm all about.

It was a huge deal for me. I resonated with Hubbard. When I did the Student Hat and he described the education of Alistair Crowley devotee and rocket scientist Jack Parson's education as someone giving him some equipment and letting him have at it, I was super excited about that too because I knew if I had even had that that my life would have been so much better. This Hubbard fellow, he's pretty smart indeed.

But then there was something else I learned on Student Hat. On one of the tapes he takes a pot shot at Einstein, saying something like the speed of light can't be a constant, otherwise it wouldn't be split by a prism, so there may not even be anything to Einstein's work.

It is very true that the speed of light isn't a constant when it goes through a prism. Isaac Newton and others had pioneered optics and prisms back in the late 1600s and it was well known that light changed speeds while transversing differing media (air to glass, air to water etc).

The constant C in Einstein's famous equation E=MC(2) is the speed of light IN A VACUUM.

When I encountered Hubbard making this obvious elementary mistake it really threw me because I had known better since I was 12 or 13. I quickly came to terms that Hubbard wasn't infallible and sometimes criticized things that he really didn't understand and even though he was wrong it was at least a bright observation. He just wan't a physicist. No big deal, neither am I.

However, many years later I came into possession of an old copy of the Scn book "All About Radiation by a Nuclear Physicist and Medical Doctor" - the nuclear physicist of course refering to Hubbard. The inside cover says "L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists, famed author, and explorer, has comprehensively analyzed these facts..."

Even though he was missing most basic facts about nuclear physics that a smart teenager might know, he was representing himself as a nuclear physicist with the ability to speak authoritatively about it. He had actually taken one class on the subject in school, and I believe he got a D in the class.

This lead me to conclude that although he was quite bright, not only does Hubbard at least sometimes opine about things he knows not wot of, he has also represented himself as some thing that he is not, and has at least on this occasion pretended authority that he does not have.

Personally, I believe it is important to keep that in mind when evaluating Hubbard.

These were the things that first attracted me to Hubbard, and the things that first started getting me out again.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
This book cover? He doesn't just say he was a nuclear physicist, he claimed he was one of the FIRST nuclear physicists!

48.gif


gwuniversity.gif


* LRH's grades from George Washington University are as follows (57)

For the year 1930-1931, the first semester.

English 1/2, Rhetoric C
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4 B

Analytical Geometry F
Physical Education C
First Year German E
Civil Engineering B

For the year 1930-1931, the second semester.

English 112 Rhetoric B
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering C
Physical Education A
First Year German * F
Differental Calculus F

For the year 1931-1932, the first semester.

Physics, dynamics of sound
and light E
Differential Calculus D
Integral Calculus
Plane Anal. Geometry
English, short stories B

For the year 1931-1932, the second semester.

Integral Calculus D
English, Short Stories B
Physics, electricity
and magnetism D
Nuclear Physics F

Hubbards grade average was 2.28, or a "D" average.

More like this LINK
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
It was almost inevitable that my path would cross that of Hubbard's. I was raised with dreams of peace on earth by a feminist hippy mom. I was a very bright kid, learned the Scientific Method at a very young age. I learned much faster than my peers in school. I would understand a week's worth of lessons in the first 20 minutes or so, then be bored out of my skull for days. I have always loathed having insufficient intellectual stimulation, it is very painful for me, I flounder. So even though I always knew all the answers, read at a college level by 11 or 12, got A's on all tests, and spent a great deal of time helping my peers understand, I hated school. It was a miserable experience for me, I felt alienated.

I didn't feel like I learned much in school, but on my own you couldn't stop me from learning. I did science projects, played with my chemistry set, took everything apart to see how it worked, had my nose in a book at all times, built radios. All on my own. No one ever had to tell me to study and learn. I was highly interested in physics and the other physical sciences, had aspirations of perhaps being a physicist, perhaps a astrophysicist. I learned about the theory of relativity as a teenager. I read philosophy for pleasure, many works of Plato. I read about mysticism like Carlos Castaneda. One of my heroes was Sci Fi Author Robert Heinlein, who was friends with Hubbard. Through him I learned of General Semantics and attempted "Science And Sanity" by Korzybski. In contrast to the misery I experienced at school, I took great joy in learning and in contemplating the great questions of life: who are we, where did we come from, what is out place in the universe, how do we really know anything etc etc.

When I was introduced to Scientology, one of the first things I really appreciated was the checksheet and corresponding self-paced study.

I could see that like me Hubbard was really smart and I immediately suspected he had similar experiences to me in school, which he had fixed with self paced study. I was really excited, because I knew that if I had had that in my school growing up, instead of feeling alienated I would have had a college degree when I was a teenager and got multiple advanced degrees as astrophysicist or maybe something else interesting may have caught my attention. I knew it! And I knew that there had to be other bright young students out there suffering similar fate and now I had a tool to fix it! It was very natural for me to become a Course Supervisor, because learning and teaching is what I'm all about.

It was a huge deal for me. I resonated with Hubbard. When I did the Student Hat and he described the education of Alistair Crowley devotee and rocket scientist Jack Parson's education as someone giving him some equipment and letting him have at it, I was super excited about that too because I knew if I had even had that that my life would have been so much better. This Hubbard fellow, he's pretty smart indeed.

But then there was something else I learned on Student Hat. On one of the tapes he takes a pot shot at Einstein, saying something like the speed of light can't be a constant, otherwise it wouldn't be split by a prism, so there may not even be anything to Einstein's work.

It is very true that the speed of light isn't a constant when it goes through a prism. Isaac Newton and others had pioneered optics and prisms back in the late 1600s and it was well known that light changed speeds while transversing differing media (air to glass, air to water etc).

The constant C in Einstein's famous equation E=MC(2) is the speed of light IN A VACUUM.

When I encountered Hubbard making this obvious elementary mistake it really threw me because I had known better since I was 12 or 13. I quickly came to terms that Hubbard wasn't infallible and sometimes criticized things that he really didn't understand and even though he was wrong it was at least a bright observation. He just wan't a physicist. No big deal, neither am I.

However, many years later I came into possession of an old copy of the Scn book "All About Radiation by a Nuclear Physicist and Medical Doctor" - the nuclear physicist of course refering to Hubbard. The inside cover says "L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists, famed author, and explorer, has comprehensively analyzed these facts..."

Even though he was missing most basic facts about nuclear physics that a smart teenager might know, he was representing himself as a nuclear physicist with the ability to speak authoritatively about it. He had actually taken one class on the subject in school, and I believe he got a D in the class.

This lead me to conclude that although he was quite bright, not only does Hubbard at least sometimes opine about things he knows not wot of, he has also represented himself as some thing that he is not, and has at least on this occasion pretended authority that he does not have.

Personally, I believe it is important to keep that in mind when evaluating Hubbard.

These were the things that first attracted me to Hubbard, and the things that first started getting me out again.
As far as I know Hubbard had very little if anything to do with the writing of All about Radiation. And the other person was very annoyed at Hubbard making it look like it was from him.
 

Gib

Crusader
It was almost inevitable that my path would cross that of Hubbard's. I was raised with dreams of peace on earth by a feminist hippy mom. I was a very bright kid, learned the Scientific Method at a very young age. I learned much faster than my peers in school. I would understand a week's worth of lessons in the first 20 minutes or so, then be bored out of my skull for days. I have always loathed having insufficient intellectual stimulation, it is very painful for me, I flounder. So even though I always knew all the answers, read at a college level by 11 or 12, got A's on all tests, and spent a great deal of time helping my peers understand, I hated school. It was a miserable experience for me, I felt alienated.

I didn't feel like I learned much in school, but on my own you couldn't stop me from learning. I did science projects, played with my chemistry set, took everything apart to see how it worked, had my nose in a book at all times, built radios. All on my own. No one ever had to tell me to study and learn. I was highly interested in physics and the other physical sciences, had aspirations of perhaps being a physicist, perhaps a astrophysicist. I learned about the theory of relativity as a teenager. I read philosophy for pleasure, many works of Plato. I read about mysticism like Carlos Castaneda. One of my heroes was Sci Fi Author Robert Heinlein, who was friends with Hubbard. Through him I learned of General Semantics and attempted "Science And Sanity" by Korzybski. In contrast to the misery I experienced at school, I took great joy in learning and in contemplating the great questions of life: who are we, where did we come from, what is out place in the universe, how do we really know anything etc etc.

When I was introduced to Scientology, one of the first things I really appreciated was the checksheet and corresponding self-paced study.

I could see that like me Hubbard was really smart and I immediately suspected he had similar experiences to me in school, which he had fixed with self paced study. I was really excited, because I knew that if I had had that in my school growing up, instead of feeling alienated I would have had a college degree when I was a teenager and got multiple advanced degrees as astrophysicist or maybe something else interesting may have caught my attention. I knew it! And I knew that there had to be other bright young students out there suffering similar fate and now I had a tool to fix it! It was very natural for me to become a Course Supervisor, because learning and teaching is what I'm all about.

It was a huge deal for me. I resonated with Hubbard. When I did the Student Hat and he described the education of Alistair Crowley devotee and rocket scientist Jack Parson's education as someone giving him some equipment and letting him have at it, I was super excited about that too because I knew if I had even had that that my life would have been so much better. This Hubbard fellow, he's pretty smart indeed.
But then there was something else I learned on Student Hat. On one of the tapes he takes a pot shot at Einstein, saying something like the speed of light can't be a constant, otherwise it wouldn't be split by a prism, so there may not even be anything to Einstein's work.

It is very true that the speed of light isn't a constant when it goes through a prism. Isaac Newton and others had pioneered optics and prisms back in the late 1600s and it was well known that light changed speeds while transversing differing media (air to glass, air to water etc).

The constant C in Einstein's famous equation E=MC(2) is the speed of light IN A VACUUM.

When I encountered Hubbard making this obvious elementary mistake it really threw me because I had known better since I was 12 or 13. I quickly came to terms that Hubbard wasn't infallible and sometimes criticized things that he really didn't understand and even though he was wrong it was at least a bright observation. He just wan't a physicist. No big deal, neither am I.

However, many years later I came into possession of an old copy of the Scn book "All About Radiation by a Nuclear Physicist and Medical Doctor" - the nuclear physicist of course refering to Hubbard. The inside cover says "L. Ron Hubbard, one of America's first nuclear physicists, famed author, and explorer, has comprehensively analyzed these facts..."

Even though he was missing most basic facts about nuclear physics that a smart teenager might know, he was representing himself as a nuclear physicist with the ability to speak authoritatively about it. He had actually taken one class on the subject in school, and I believe he got a D in the class.

This lead me to conclude that although he was quite bright, not only does Hubbard at least sometimes opine about things he knows not wot of, he has also represented himself as some thing that he is not, and has at least on this occasion pretended authority that he does not have.

Personally, I believe it is important to keep that in mind when evaluating Hubbard.

These were the things that first attracted me to Hubbard, and the things that first started getting me out again.

there a few holes in your story.

Could you provide some time frame. Like how old you are, when did you read hubbard.

I don't recall hubbard mentioning Crowley in the study tapes. Let alone Parson.
 

Dean Blair

Silver Meritorious Patron
there a few holes in your story.

Could you provide some time frame. Like how old you are, when did you read hubbard.

I don't recall hubbard mentioning Crowley in the study tapes. Let alone Parson.

I thought it was the study tapes where Ron says "My good friend Alister Crowley." I had to look up that name as I didn't know who he was at the time.
 

everfree

Patron Meritorious
there a few holes in your story.

Could you provide some time frame. Like how old you are, when did you read hubbard.

I don't recall hubbard mentioning Crowley in the study tapes. Let alone Parson.

Sorry, I am 46. I started in Scientology in 1990. I'll do an introductory post - finally! - soon.

Hubbard doesn't mention Crowley in the Study Tapes, he mentions Parsons. He holds him up as an example of an unorthodox education that really worked compared the standard educational system.

The mention of Crowley as a "dear friend" is from one of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures.
 

Gib

Crusader
I thought it was the study tapes where Ron says "My good friend Alister Crowley." I had to look up that name as I didn't know who he was at the time.

I pretty sure it's the PDC's.

But I also heard that in a few other tapes.

Gets one to think that maybe there were edits and combining of tape lectures to form Tape Series. LOL

How does one know?
 

Anonycat

Crusader
I pretty sure it's the PDC's.

But I also heard that in a few other tapes.

Gets one to think that maybe there were edits and combining of tape lectures to form Tape Series. LOL

How does one know?

Philidelphia Doctorate Course tape #3, 1952?
 

Gib

Crusader
Sorry, I am 46. I started in Scientology in 1990. I'll do an introductory post - finally! - soon.

Hubbard doesn't mention Crowley in the Study Tapes, he mentions Parsons. He holds him up as an example of an unorthodox education that really worked compared the standard educational system.

The mention of Crowley as a "dear friend" is from one of the Philadelphia Doctorate Course lectures.

understood.

What Hubbard said was actually hard to follow, comprehend.

For instance,

he gave the definition of a floating needle, several times.

And yet it's a science. Go figure.

In fact, the new definition is implied as 3 swings, but yet Hubbard never said it was 3 swings.

When I did Grade 0 auditing as an auditor, back in 1990. I never saw 3 swings, nor was it mentioned that I had to have 3 swings for a floating meter.

WTF and LOL :duh:
 

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free
This book cover? He doesn't just say he was a nuclear physicist, he claimed he was one of the FIRST nuclear physicists!

48.gif


gwuniversity.gif


* LRH's grades from George Washington University are as follows (57)

For the year 1930-1931, the first semester.

English 1/2, Rhetoric C
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering 3/4 B

Analytical Geometry F
Physical Education C
First Year German E
Civil Engineering B

For the year 1930-1931, the second semester.

English 112 Rhetoric B
General Chemistry 3/4 D
Mechanical Engineering C
Physical Education A
First Year German * F
Differental Calculus F

For the year 1931-1932, the first semester.

Physics, dynamics of sound
and light E
Differential Calculus D
Integral Calculus
Plane Anal. Geometry
English, short stories B

For the year 1931-1932, the second semester.

Integral Calculus D
English, Short Stories B
Physics, electricity
and magnetism D
Nuclear Physics F

Hubbards grade average was 2.28, or a "D" average.

More like this LINK

I never cease to laugh when I see these things, lol! So many 'cogs' gotten from reading all you have at your wonderful website, Arnie. It's been 12 years since I dared to poke around the internet search and search for the first time the word 'scientology'. I was so afraid until I arrived at lermanet.com

Many internet 'old timers' ( and I am a baby old timer ) tend to forget how others - newbies, lurkers and so forth- need to be introduced to these documents and links. Seeing the real history of Scientology and Hubbard is so important for those leaving it's physical and mental confines... Thanks for sharing it on this most interesting thread.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
understood.

What Hubbard said was actually hard to follow, comprehend.

For instance,

he gave the definition of a floating needle, several times.

And yet it's a science. Go figure.

In fact, the new definition is implied as 3 swings, but yet Hubbard never said it was 3 swings.

When I did Grade 0 auditing as an auditor, back in 1990. I never saw 3 swings, nor was it mentioned that I had to have 3 swings for a floating meter.

WTF and LOL :duh:


Hubbard was making it up as he went along..
Which Seems to be working for Herr Dwarf too..
Seriously... The Oiliness table?

whathubbardwasthinking.jpg
 
Last edited:

AnonyMary

Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

Dear everfree,

Belated welcome and thanks for your wonderful post. Many here realized the things you wrote of but you stated it in a way that I think will open the eyes of many who have not seen it or thought of it as significant.... as you read more and more, your opinion of Hubbard's brilliance may change a bit but you will find more truths which will make sense to you. That's really all that matters but helping others see things is an added gift and your story about your revelations concerning Hubbard the Nuclear Physicist will help many as time goes by.

Don't regret what did not come of things for you in the past. Keep moving forward and read everything you can get your hands on. Truth has a way of evaporating lies.

You may find this thread on lists of links helpful:

Internet Resources on Scientology for newcomers
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?21499-Internet-Resources-on-Scientology-for-newcomers

Best wishes,

Mary McConnell
 

Veda

Sponsor
Hubbard claimed that his skills as a nuclear physicist had been coveted by the US government.

Here's Hubbard explaining that, during World War II, he was repeatedly asked to work on the Manhattan Project (the secret project building the atomic bomb), and each time refused, and each time was sent into a combat theater as punishment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1-6I-d4jK0
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard claimed that his skills as a nuclear physicist had been coveted by the US government.

Here's Hubbard explaining that, during World War II, he was repeatedly asked to work on the Manhattan Project (the secret project building the atomic bomb), and each time refused, and each time was sent into a combat theater as punishment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1-6I-d4jK0

The only way Hubbard would have been asked to serve on the Manhattan project would have been if they discovered a magnetic anomaly at Los Alamos that needed depth charging.

And anyone who knows anything about the history of American nuclear physics knows that Hubbard was about a generation to late to be one of the first ones. That would have been the cohort in Arthur Compton's generation (Compton (1892-1962) was the first American to win the Nobel Prize for Physics which could be described as Nuclear or Atomic, doing his work while Hubbard was in grade school and winning the Prize when Hubbard was 16). Hubbard was of the second generation of US Atomic Physicists, led by Ernest Lawrence (Nobel in 1939, born a decade before Hubbard) and John Wheeler (exactly contemporaneous with Hubbard). Not that Hubbard did anything worthy of being in the same sentence with Lawrence or Wheeler, but it's temporally impossible for him to be one of the first American nuclear physicists when they were in grad school while Hubbard was gestating. Not even the Co$ has claimed Hubtard was that precocious.

Yet.
 
Last edited:

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
First of all, Hubbard got an F in an introductory physics course. In a course like that, you normally only get an F if you don't try at all. He was never any kind of physicist at all.

Beyond that, Hubbard never even studied nuclear physics at all. There are two online versions of his GWU transcript, and the one that mentions him failing Nuclear Physics seems to have been a bad reconstruction of the original, which can be found on Arnie Lerma's site. The original lists the course as being about atomic and molecular physics, which is as different from nuclear physics as sociology is from cellular biology.

I don't think Hubbard was too late to be in the first generation of nuclear physicists, though. He was too early. Nuclear physics as we know it did not even exist when L. Ron Hubbard was failing out of college. Nuclear physics could hardly get going before we knew about the neutron, which was only discovered in 1932; nothing nuclear was suitable for any undergraduate courses until long after Hubbard abandoned his incomplete studies. Compton's prize was for the interaction between electrons and light, not anything nuclear.

The fact that Hubbard claimed to know nuclear physics proves he was either a deliberate liar or else just too ignorant of actual physics to know the difference between nuclear physics and the atomic physics course in which he got an F. Or, of course, both.

Hubbard wasn't an idiot. He was a competent though not brilliant writer, and he ran a successful cult. He was not remotely a genius; not even a flawed one. His vaunted 'Study Tech' is only really useful for giving students confidence in learning very simple things, like the rote gibberish of Scientology. It is a serious impediment to learning anything that's actually difficult. Traditional high school education has a lot of flaws, but Hubbard's Study Tech only promises to do better. It doesn't deliver.
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron
As I've pointed out a few times, Hubbard never actually studied nuclear physics at all. There are two online versions of his GWU transcript, and the one that mentions him failing Nuclear Physics seems to have been a bad reconstruction of the original, which can be found on Arnie Lerma's site. The original lists the course as being about atomic and molecular physics, which is as different from nuclear physics as sociology is from cellular biology. Nuclear physics as we know it did not even exist when L. Ron Hubbard was failing out of college.

The fact that Hubbard claimed to know nuclear physics proves he was either a deliberate liar or else just too ignorant of actual physics to know the difference between nuclear physics and the atomic physics course in which he got an F. Or, of course, both.

Hubbard wasn't an idiot. He was a competent though not brilliant writer, and he ran a successful cult. He was not remotely a genius; not even a flawed one. His vaunted 'Study Tech' is only really useful for giving students confidence in learning very simple things, like the rote gibberish of Scientology. It is a serious impediment to learning anything that's actually difficult. Traditional high school education has a lot of flaws, but Hubbard's Study Tech only promises to do better. It doesn't deliver.

Well, technically you are correct, but I would submit that atomic physics, as the class would have been called in the 20s and 30s, was the direct precursor of nuclear physics, and would have included the rudiments of nuclear physics as it was understood at the time. It would have included many other topics, that is true, as the physics of the nucleus just wasn't as well understood or appreciated then.

It wasn't until after Hahn and Milner demonstrated nuclear fission that the discipline really took on that name.
 
First of all, Hubbard got an F in an introductory physics course. In a course like that, you normally only get an F if you don't try at all. He was never any kind of physicist at all.

Beyond that, Hubbard never even studied nuclear physics at all. There are two online versions of his GWU transcript, and the one that mentions him failing Nuclear Physics seems to have been a bad reconstruction of the original, which can be found on Arnie Lerma's site. The original lists the course as being about atomic and molecular physics, which is as different from nuclear physics as sociology is from cellular biology.

I don't think Hubbard was too late to be in the first generation of nuclear physicists, though. He was too early. Nuclear physics as we know it did not even exist when L. Ron Hubbard was failing out of college. Nuclear physics could hardly get going before we knew about the neutron, which was only discovered in 1932; nothing nuclear was suitable for any undergraduate courses until long after Hubbard abandoned his incomplete studies. Compton's prize was for the interaction between electrons and light, not anything nuclear.

The fact that Hubbard claimed to know nuclear physics proves he was either a deliberate liar or else just too ignorant of actual physics to know the difference between nuclear physics and the atomic physics course in which he got an F. Or, of course, both.

Hubbard wasn't an idiot. He was a competent though not brilliant writer, and he ran a successful cult. He was not remotely a genius; not even a flawed one. His vaunted 'Study Tech' is only really useful for giving students confidence in learning very simple things, like the rote gibberish of Scientology. It is a serious impediment to learning anything that's actually difficult. Traditional high school education has a lot of flaws, but Hubbard's Study Tech only promises to do better. It doesn't deliver.

ron was never any kind of academic. and he blew a lot of smoke. he was still highly intelligent and widely read
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Well, technically you are correct, but I would submit that atomic physics, as the class would have been called in the 20s and 30s, was the direct precursor of nuclear physics, and would have included the rudiments of nuclear physics as it was understood at the time. It would have included many other topics, that is true, as the physics of the nucleus just wasn't as well understood or appreciated then.

Early twentieth century atomic physics was a precursor of nuclear physics sociologically, in that the same community of researchers developed the disciplines. But the subjects are just radically different.

The energy scales of nuclei are 100,000 times higher than those of atoms: the nucleus is 100,000 times smaller than the rest of the atom, and if a nucleus does anything other than sit there as a tiny charged speck, it does it 100,000 times faster than anything that happens in an atom. That's like the difference in scale between planets and stars, or atoms and cells, and it's only natural that drastic qualitative differences arise over such a great range in scales. Atomic physics is entirely about electromagnetic forces, while electromagnetism is a very minor player in nuclear physics, which is dominated by the entirely separate strong nuclear force. Nuclear forces are very strange compared to electromagnetism. The most importance nuclear force involves three distinct kinds of charge, both of which can be either positive or negative. What really makes nuclear physics a whole new world, however, is just the fact that the nuclear forces are so strong. The dance is bigger than the dancers, and this changes everything, kind of like moving from a remote rural district to downtown Tokyo.
 

Ted

Gold Meritorious Patron
Hubbard the nuclear physicist?

He thought mightily high of himself, didn't he?
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
 
Top