Physicist Lise Meitner’s brilliance led to the discovery of nuclear fission. But her long time collaborator Otto Hahn, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry without her in 1944, even though she had given the first theoretical explanation.

Albert Einstein called Meitner “our Marie Curie." She also adamantly refused to work on the atomic bomb during WWII. https://whyy.org/articles/lise-meitner-the-forgotten-woman-of-nuclear-physics-who-deserved-a-nobel-prize/ #science #history

Lise Meitner – the forgotten woman of nuclear physics who deserved a Nobel Prize

Left off publications due to Nazi prejudice, this Jewish woman lost her rightful place in the scientific pantheon as the discoverer of nuclear fission.

WHYY
@Sheril 😲 That’s horrible…

@Sheril Meitner's Nobel snub was terrible on so many levels.

For everyone who doesn't pay attention to the periodic table, she did get an element named after her (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meitnerium), though only after her death.

Meitnerium - Wikipedia

@Sheril She was the brains of that outfit.

@Sheril Nobel typically awards based on lab results, not theoretical research. Dr Lise Meitner figured out what Hahn (et al) had observed, but the discovery wasn't hers...

Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

@JonKramer @Sheril That's not correct. Nobel prizes honor both confirmed theories and laboratory discoveries. Example: Peter Higgs won the Nobel Prize purely for his theoretical work, but it wasn't awarded until the Higgs boson was discovered.
@not2b @Sheril I had forgotten Higgs. What stuck in my mind was Bell Labs in 1964, background radiation measurements.

@not2b @Sheril I have to say, a lot of contemporaries really liked Dr Meitner.

https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/archive/show_people.php?id=6097

Nomination%20archive%20-%20%20%20

mycontent

NobelPrize.org
@JonKramer @Sheril One thing that handicaps the theorists is that you have to be alive and your theory has to be confirmed. If the confirmation happens after your death, sorry, no Nobel. But for DNA, the lab work was by Rosalind Franklin and Watson and Crick were the theorists, and yet she was denied.
@not2b @Sheril excellent example. Although if I remember correctly, she was a student researcher?
@JonKramer Probably too much discussion in someone else's thread so I will let it go.

@not2b, no, enough. I learned a misconception I had. And it addressed the OPs' post. The best type of thread right here.

Thanks.

@not2b @Sheril

The other one that popped to mind was relativity and the photoelectric effect. The former made Einstein famous, the latter got him a Nobel. But ya, relativity wasn't solidly confirmed until well after his death, was it?

@JonKramer @Sheril I have read that there was a dispute about Eddington's data confirming general relativity (light bending measurement during a solar eclipse).
@not2b @Sheril when I look at those types of experiments, I am astounded, and have a hard time believing anyone got any credible results. Atmospheric refraction should have introduced so much noise in the data that the results were meaningless. But, they still did it. I would have loved to hear the arguments that went on before anything like that was accepted. But, I'm sitting here with the advantage of having seen confirmed photos of gravitational lensing, and several million transistors in my hand. They had three sticks, and a grandparent that discovered fire. It's astonishing.
@Sheril It takes a woman to show how stupid men are.
@Sheril the look on her face like what else you going to steal Otto. Funny they even let women in the lab but they knew they weren’t smart enough and they could steal their ideas
@Sheril I like how you actively cover women's achievements in the field of science. Great! We need more people like you.
@Sheril From here on out, all science textbooks need to start with the woman or PoC that did most of the grunt work but legally could not publish and the man to be listed as a co-author. Ex: The study of the Double Helix by Franklin, Watson and Crick.
@Sheril "So he published without her, falsely claiming that the discovery was based solely on insights gleaned from his own chemical purification work and that any physical insight contributed by Meitner played an insignificant role"
History tells us scientists are human, and that they have human flaws. Such flaws are not limited to a particular point in history, and we have good reason to expect they continue to manifest. Particularly when it comes to whose name gets included on the paper.
Nobel prizes are a distraction. Attribution to this or that figure should not divert us from the content of the science. Nobel himself made a fortune from weapons manufacturing. It was probably only due his realization that history would remember him for how he made his pile, that we even have the Nobel prize.
@Sheril so emmm where is movie about her?
@Sheril Sigh. Oh, here we go again. Another woman's achievements erased. So tired of this.

@Sheril

I have heard that Hahn was not that adamant …

@Sheril

I often wonder why there's so little recognition of the physicists who'd the level of skill to work on the Manhattan project but refused considering they must have considered the likelihood of blacklisting or career suicide.

It's like some minor but consistent conspiracy against those who said "Fuck that" to "Well if I don't do it someone else will" and go off to do the thing that will make things worse.

@barcode @Sheril I had a book about her when i was about 13 or so. One thing I still remember very much is that after the war she was awarded lots of prizes by american women associations. Praising her work because it led to the bomb and therefore peace. She refused the prizes that argued this way, as she always was so immensely abhorred by the idea of the nuclear bomb
@Sheril the school I went to renamed itself in her name 💪
@Sheril God created Eve to be world leaders. Eve was God’s perfect creation was happy and rested. Golden Ages were ruled by women. God made a mistake by giving Adam a dick along with a male ego riddled with jealousy therefore suppressing women for thousand of years. It took the year 2023 for Barbie to wake up and speak out. #wtf

@Sheril

That last information "She also adamantly refused to work on the atomic bomb during WWII."

Is the most important. If a larger portion of scientists had acted half as responsibly as she did, we would not be in the situation of "mutually guaranteed annihilation" that we have been in for 65 years.

@WolfgangFeist @Sheril

Agreed. No scientist should have contributed to the technology of nuclear fission, in peace or in war.

But I didn't find mention of refusing to work on the bomb in the linked article, so I looked in Wikipedia and they also didn't mention it. Is there a source for this info Wolfgang?

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

German Wikipedia-article on Lise Meitner:

"Meitner, inzwischen überzeugte Pazifistin, weigerte sich, Forschungsaufträge für den Bau einer Atombombe anzunehmen, obwohl sie von den USA immer wieder dazu aufgefordert wurde."

and another source:

https://etheritage.ethz.ch/2018/10/26/flucht-und-floetentoene-lise-meitner-zum-gedenken/

Flucht und Flötentöne – Lise Meitner zum Gedenken – ETHeritage

Fast wäre die Atomphysikerin und verhinderte Nobelpreisträgerin Lise Meitner (1878-1968) Professorin an der ETH geworden. Ein amerikanischer Spion überbrachte i

ETHeritage
@WolfgangFeist @Sheril Thank you! Weird that the English Wikipedia doesn't include that fact as far as I could find.

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

But also something to "think" about:

At the time of the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_letter

informed physicists really feared that Nazi Germany was working on the atomic bomb.

I can imagine why Einstein signed that letter and why Fermi, Oppenheimer and others worked on the "Manhattan" project.

I also know that Einstein later regretted signing that letter.

Well, it's complicated: as long as there was a real threat, the Nazis would have this weapon...

Einstein–Szilard letter - Wikipedia

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

A very interesting personality in that field:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szilard

There is also an impressive video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgT-Gw6Pjz4

Leo Szilard - Wikipedia

@WolfgangFeist @Sheril A better use of resources would have been to sabotage the Nazi atomic bomb effort. But that would not have satisfied the desire of the War Dept to have a new weapon. I agree it's complicated.

My feeling today is that scientists should regret ever developing nuclear technology, ever mining uranium salts, ever causing hundreds of millions of tons of nuclear waste which we don't have a good plan to safely store, etc. etc. And the genie is out of the bottle. We should not have allowed scientists to rub that bottle.

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

Its much more complicated:

-Szilard had the impression, that building such a bomb wasn't that much an effort
-during the Manhattan project it turned out, that it actually was: Not building the bomb, but producing the U235 and the Pu (costs: $24billion in 2021value)

After German defeat in Europe it was clear that there was no "Nazi bomb". That was the time, there responsibly thinking scientists spoke out against the use of the bomb against Japan (Szilard among them).

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

It's a very interesting discussion: Finding that there was such a phenomenon as 'nuclear fission' - that was NOT possible to avoid (unless you see science as a dangerous thing in any case).

It wouldn't have been necessary to spend $24bio to construct a bomb out of this knowledge. That at the end was not a decision of the scientists; but they had an important role in it.

@WolfgangFeist @Sheril

Of course the question of ethically refusing to work on a technology so dangerous and waste-producing as this is a moot one as to those scientists in the past. They may or may not have had total freedom to act.

But as to scientists and technologists and companies and government agencies developing or re-developing nuclear technologies and weapons today, the question isn't moot. We should demand better reasoning and ethics and spending than what have heretofore applied, and everyone possible should refuse to participate, and where necessary sabotage others' participation in this technology, until and unless all nuclear waste and danger is ethically and technically solved.

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

The "thinking" behind that is, that the scientists just decide very much on their own what they are going to research.

Partially that was true: Galilei or a Volta could pretty much decide. Later on, that became rare. It became more and more a question of money - and those, who decided about the money. Often governments, nowadays big money companies.

Potential solutions: We would need something like the "oath of hippocrates" for all scientists. And: democratic control

@aka_quant_noir @Sheril

... democratic control over this money!

The strategy of the most powerful rich was to make everyone (including the scientists) dependent on THEIR money. This would give them ultimate power - and it was believed that this was best for civilization. Because "all these other losers just won't make it" to keep "the complex industrial world" running and thriving.

@Sheril I always refer to Meitner electrons rather than Auger...

@Sheril

image description: Otto Hahn (left) and Lise Meitner (right) in 1912.

Both are wearing white lab coats and are standing by a bench in a laboratory. Otto looks down at something on the bench, Lise looks towards the camera.

To the left hand side are several pieces of lab equipment. Behind the scientists is a wall cabinet with shelves containing several labelled glass bottles.

#Alt4You

#social
# deepl

Die brillante #Physikerin #LiseMeitner entdeckte die #Kernspaltung. Doch ihr langjähriger #Mitarbeiter #OttoHahn erhielt 1944 den #Nobelpreis für #Chemie ohne sie, obwohl sie die erste theoretische Erklärung geliefert hatte.

#AlbertEinstein nannte #Meitner "unsere #MarieCurie". Sie weigerte sich auch beharrlich, während des Zweiten #Weltkrieg s an der #Atombombe zu arbeiten.

@Sheril More #WomensOpportunities needed — and need to be recognized. Now!