Salesmen of science: A textual analysis of technological advancement and quantum physics in Oppenheimer (2023)

Abstract

The film Oppenheimer (2023) portrayed the Manhattan Project, which led to the first atomic bombs, and its aftermath. Shown through the eyes of Director J. Robert Oppenheimer, the film takes us through the scientific, political, and personal struggles of a wide array of characters during a time period that profoundly changed the landscape of the world. Through the film, the viewer learns not only about the Manhattan Project, but also about the quantum science underlying the atomic bomb, as well as the personal and political tensions that were intertwined with its development. Thus, the following article conducted a textual analysis to identify the ways in which the film portrays developments in quantum technologies. Three themes arose regarding the portrayals of development and key concepts in quantum physics. Broad implications are drawn for developments in quantum theory/mechanics and public development and understanding of science in general.

Keywords

quantum physics science and popular culture science education textual analysis

Introduction

Released on July 21, 2023, the film Oppenheimer, directed by Christopher Nolan, portrayed the development of the atomic bomb and the Manhattan Project through the eyes of its Director, J. Robert Oppenheimer (IMDb, 2023). Grossing over US$950 million at the box office and grabbing seven Oscars, Oppenheimer received rave reviews across the board for its powerful leading performances, stunning technical composition, and its adept capture of the nuances of ethical, political, and technological complications of a defining moment in human history (Dargis, 2024; Lammers, 2024; Willmore, 2024).

Less acknowledged by popular critics was the underlying theme of the portrayal of the theoretical development of quantum physics. The film, which traverses the earliest days of the 1900s and to the mid-1960s, puts the viewer directly in the thick of what popular presses named the “first quantum revolution” (Dowling and Milburn, 2003). During this time period, quantum theory went from theoretically viable to mechanically possible in the form of the atomic bomb, transistors, atomic clocks, lasers, and MRIs (Peacock, 2007). From German classrooms to labs at the University of California—Berkely to the New Mexico desert, the subplot of the film dramatized the early days of the theoretical development of quantum physics, ending with the culmination of its application in warfare, that is, the atomic bomb. Throughout the film, there is a substantial amount of screen time that provides viewers with audiovisual dramatization regarding the development and underpinnings of quantum theory.

Not only does Oppenheimer (2023) transport viewers to a pivotal juncture in the history of quantum physics and mechanics, but the film is also released at yet another purportedly crucial period in human history. At present, the public is—though largely unbeknownst to most—in the midst of what the popular presses are referring to as the “second quantum revolution” (Jaeger, 2018). While the first quantum revolution moved from theory to mechanical uses, the second quantum revolution promises to move from mechanics to practical computational applications (Kaku, 2023). While there exist a number of quantum computers already produced—Google’s Sycamore, IBM’s Big Blue, and Intel’s Tunnel Falls to name a few—they are still in the early stages of their development. Even so, most experts, though still split on whether quantum computers will achieve “supremacy” over classical computers, admit that quantum computers will have a significant impact on the computing market by as early as 2035 (Charbonneau and Eggleston, 2024; Swayne, 2024). However, public awareness of quantum computing is exceptionally low and understanding is practically non-existent (Keller, 2023).

Because highly complex and difficult-to-understand concepts of physics and other sciences are often confined to academic journals in their own hyper-specific area, the public has limited direct exposure to such concepts. One way in which the public becomes aware of such concepts is through film, non-fiction, or otherwise (Barnett et al., 2006). Film has long been understood as a tool that can aid the public in initiating awareness and understanding of ideas (Arrowsmith, 1969; Postman, 1985). While film portrayals are not necessarily designed for educational purposes—nor does this article claim them to have educational merit—and can be of differing accuracy and usefulness, it has nonetheless been demonstrated that films can promote a particular awareness and understanding of the concepts they portray (Barnett et al., 2006; Blumer, 2010).

Therefore, the present article sought to analyze the film, Oppenheimer (2023), to identify how the film serves as a subtext offering an image of quantum mechanics to a laypersons audience. Specifically, the article to follow investigated, via textual analysis, what the messages in Oppenheimer (2023) tell the audience about the nature of science in quantum mechanics. To accomplish this task, the article will first review the particular “quantum moment” in which audiences reside, as well as scholarly conceptualizations of the history of science. Following that contextual consideration, the existing relevant literature on scientific development and film will be reviewed. Afterwards, textual analysis will be employed to investigate the messages Oppenheimer (2023) disseminates to audiences regarding the quantum world.

The first quantum revolution and the Manhattan Project

The first half of the twentieth century was a time of unprecedented technological change. Most are familiar with many of these feats, which included the airplane, automobile, radio, television, microwave, and many more (Peacock, 2007). These highly visible and publicly indispensable inventions shaped the lives of everyday individuals. However, at a much higher level removed from public attention and even expert comprehension, there was a scientific discovery underway that would alter our understanding of the physical world: quantum physics.

At its core, quantum physics represents a fundamentally new version of physical reality. Classical Newtonian physics posited a discrete and deterministic view of the physical world (Caltech Science Exchange, 2025). Newton’s three laws of physics were well known and established as universal truths of the physical world (Sutter, 2020). Quantum physics served as a direct affront to Newtonian physics. Through a series of gedankenexperiments (thought experiments) and experiments presented and published in scholarly journals, the laws of the physical world no longer appeared to be so cut and dry (Barad, 2007).

However, it is important to note that the development of and belief in quantum physics was slow and fraught with opposition. Between 1900 and 1940, a series of scholarly papers would begin to argue for the existence of quantum theory. In 1900, Max Planck, a German Physicist, presented to the German Physical Society the idea of “energy quanta” to explain blackbody radiation (Klein, 1961). Successive papers from future Nobel prize winners such as Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, Neils Bohr, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, Paul Dirac, and many others would investigate new definitions and relations between atoms at the microscopic, subatomic level (Hawking, 2011). It was through these presentations and papers that the first quantum revolution was declared and quantum theory began to gain traction, though the underlying physical properties and relationships were often vehemently argued among leading physicists (Fine, 2017). Although each scientist’s thinking would change over time—with some modifying or altogether reversing their positions on the quantum question—scientific discourse would (and continues to today) debate the correct interpretation of early and current findings in quantum physics and mechanics (Collins, 2007; Sigfried, 2013).

Still, for the bulk of society, quantum physics would remain largely unacknowledged by most, besides those physicists and engineers at the frontiers of their field. While the first quantum revolution, spurred by the above theoretical and experimental work, produced inventions such as atomic clocks (GPS), transistors (leading to computers), MRIs, and lasers, the culminating point in which quantum physics became visible to the public was in 1945 with the dropping of the atomic bomb (Carson, 2024). Although the other inventions would prove to make a massive impact on society, the atomic bomb still remains the figurehead for quantum theory to this day.

But, the atomic bomb was, naturally, developed in secret (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2025a). After German scientists figured out how to split uranium atoms in 1938, both the Allied and Axis powers rushed to weaponize the discovery (Atomic Heritage Science, 2014). The first atomic bomb was developed by a joint venture between the United States, Canada, and Great Britain. The venture, named the Manhattan Project, began in June 1941 when President Roosevelt created the Office of Scientific Research and Development to undertake atomic research. The project was spread across sites in New York City (the namesake of the project), Washington, Tennessee, and, most famously, New Mexico (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2025b). During its years of operations (officially disbanded in August 1947), more than 500,000 workers, scientists, engineers, and political leaders contributed to the efforts of the top-secret project (National Park Service, 2025). Thus, the Manhattan Project, as enshrined in the film, Oppenheimer (2023), might be considered the crowing event of four decades of theoretical and practical work in the scientific field of physics.

However, it is important here to note that the above contextual background relied primarily on popular press accounts and popular science texts which have long been criticized for privileging compelling narrative construction via ill-advised and unempirical sociological method (Kuhn, 1962; Shapin, 1982). Lessl (2005) built upon this notion by noting how scientism—the act of viewing the world through scientific method and principle—import folkloristic and spiritual stories of transcendence in service of advancing naturalistic worldviews. In practice, narratives—such as those outlined in the preceding paragraphs—may serve to obfuscate not only the history of science, but also the scientific endeavor itself in favor of compelling narratives. Nonetheless, Lewenstein (1992) argued that “popular science can be understood as a part of a continuum of science communication. Yet, historically . . . has been considered a process in which science is translated into a new, ‘simpler,’ idiom” (p. 45). Thus, in situating the context of the analysis to follow in terms of public accounts of the history of science, it is important for readers to not universalize the contentions of popular science nor dismiss them wholesale, but instead be vigilant while identifying the historiographical and perceptual gaps of each account—as will be discussed in the analysis to follow.

Still, popular presses and public scholarship, despite historiographical concerns, have declared that the second quantum revolution is well underway (Jaeger, 2018). In the absence of substantial scholarly inquiries into the history of quantum science, popular accounts have presented the primary contributions of the second quantum revolution to be computing power that once again transforms nearly every industry, just as the first quantum revolution did (Calzati and de Kerckhove, 2024; Kaku, 2023). Interestingly, the atomic bombs developed by the Manhattan Project marked a culmination of the first quantum revolution and the release of Oppenheimer (2023) is placed on the precipice of the second. Through the film, viewers are offered a glimpse into not only the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project, but also the theoretical and practical development of technologies that continue to promise transformation in the everyday lives of individuals and society.

Science, communication, and film

For the purposes of the present study, it is integral to identify both how scientific endeavors in general, and the scientists themselves have been communicated to the public. Scientists communicating science to peers, as they do in journals or trade publications, is often indecipherable, even inaccessible, to any non-scientists which leads to layperson audiences primarily being exposed to scientific concepts via media artifacts such as news coverage, books, films, and so on (Angelone, 2022). In the process of creating palatable packaging for the masses, the descriptions and portrayals of scientific concepts and events take on different shapes to fit different purposes education, entertainment, advocacy, and more (Kirby, 2003). Gieryn (1998) noted how the cultural boundaries between science and the public representations are blurred insofar as the public understanding of science is concerned. Whether or not such depictions of science to the public are “successful”—or even what their goals might be—is difficult to both ascertain and measure (Lewenstein, 2003). Often, popular science films become as much about visually stunning graphics and linguistically compelling storylines as they do about the scientific concepts themselves (Williamson, 2019). Still, Kirby and Ockert (2021) have noted that “science and movies have been intertwined since the beginning of cinema” (p. 77). In short, film has the ability to enter the public discussion and imagination regarding actual scientific concepts and scientists themselves (Barnet et al., 2006).

Far from benign entertainment sources, the characterization of scientific endeavors in films has the ability to propagate specific agendas and future orientations toward and actions for science (Kirby, 2013). As stated by Guoyon (2016):

If, then, film-making is a technology for science-making in public, it turns the production of knowledge into a distributed process whereby scientists, film-makers and audience take part in a complex process whereby producer, text, and receiver cooperate in a collective enterprise of meaning construction. (p. 18)

Thus, science and film—fictional, actual, and dramatic elements—come together to provide an image of science to viewers (Kirby, 2013). Examples of this enterprise are readily available in an expansive number of films centered on historical endeavors of science. For instance, films such as Hidden Figures (2016), which followed the real lives of three black female mathematicians at NASA who were integral to the first spaceflight, have been the subject of analyses that explore how power and politics are inextricable from scientific endeavors (Hughes and Schrader, 2023; Thompson, 2022). Specifically, McCardy and Matusitz (2021) argued that discursive power in relations between parties, as evidenced by the narratives in Hidden Figures, can be found in word connotations that allude to personal feelings, bias, and political positions. In sum, portrayals of science in films have the ability to demonstrate the unique and complex machinations of scientific undertakings.

In addition to the portrayals of scientific endeavors, films also have the ability to inform viewers’ perceptions of the scientists themselves. Many characterizations of scientists in film have often portrayed them as “mad scientists” that sometimes cross borders of morality and human nature in the name of scientific discovery and development (Frayling, 2005; Weingart, 2003). In addition, Weitekamp (2015) noted that, historically, “scientists appeared as the absent-minded professor, a socially isolated man (almost always a man) who was completely absorbed in his work” (p. 78). Despite the prevalence and endurance of the mad scientist stereotype, other films have served to capture the nuances of the intertwined nature of personal and professional life. Haynes (2014) argued that the mad scientist stereotype has been radically reversed in twenty-first century films to portray scientists in a sympathetic light. One example of such reversal might include The Imitation Game (2014), which highlighted the personal life of Alan Turing, the father of artificial intelligence, as he worked on a codebreaking endeavor that was integral to allied success in World War II. Although there are several discrepancies between the historical record and the depictions in the film, there are still several books and articles that point to the intertwined nature of the person and their science projects (Hodges, 2014). The Imitation Game has also been used to build empathy and inspiration in students by engaging with the dueling themes of personal persecution and personal success (DeHart and Sausville, 2014). As such, portrayals of scientists in films may highlight and intertwine elements of their personal lives and professional scientific lives.

Scholarship specifically pertaining to Oppenheimer (2023) is no exception from the above contentions. As is the case with many historical fiction artifacts, much popular press and scholarly work sought to illuminate the discrepancies between the film and real life (Monk, 2024; Murphy, 2023; Perkowitz, 2024). Similar to The Imitation Game and Hidden Figures, there was a great deal of scholarly and non-fiction work published on the actual events prior to the release of Oppenheimer (2023) (Kelly, 2020; Taylor, 1992). Oppenheimer was a highly public figure not only for his involvement in the Manhattan Project, but for his pacifistic activism following the dropping of the first two atomic bombs. His personal life was also of interest to the public for his alleged communist ties, his adulterous lifestyle, and his somewhat cocky attitude (Perfas, 2023). On the whole, Oppenheimer the man was of interest well before Oppenheimer (2023) the film was released.

While non-fiction writing and critique of fictional representations are integral to understanding the merits of a film, particularly in the cases in which the film is severely inaccurate, other scholarship aided in the understanding of the ideas portrayed in the film. For instance, Faux (2024) argued that Oppenheimer (2023) was a key media artifact for examining representations of nuclear weapons and the hidden logics behind them which, in this case, illuminated how the symbolism of the desert as the context and environment—both political and physical—encases our understanding of the phenomenon. Stevenson (2023) isolated the tragic framing of J. Robert Oppenheimer in the film arguing that the film ultimately “explores how vexing challenges to cherished orthodoxies can be, especially when it is qualified scientists who are undertaking them” (p. 158). In sum, the limited scholarship on the film has been focused on the discrepancies between the film and real life, Oppenheimer the man, and use, effects, and representations of nuclear weapons.

In sum, film portrayals of scientific missions and scientists themselves have taken on a nuanced character that highlights the tensions between personal and professional elements of science in the twenty-first century. In connecting Oppenheimer (2023) to the existing body of literature on film and science, there still remains a large dearth of research addressing the underlying science that made J. Robert Oppenheimer infamous. Therefore, the remainder of this article sought to analyze how scientists and science are portrayed in Oppenheimer (2023), with particular attention paid to descriptions of quantum physics and mechanics.

Method: Textual analysis

Methodological background

To analyze the messages about quantum physics and scientific development in Oppenheimer, the present article employed textual analysis. With origins in literature and English studies, textual analysis has been applied in a number of different manners that have defied disciplinary boundaries (Phillipov, 2013). Regardless of the different subsects and methodological camps of textual analysis and interpretation, it is largely accepted that media texts, such as films, represent an important cultural moment that calls for scholarly analysis (Fursich, 2009). At its core, textual analysis is a method of identifying texts (films, songs, books, public addresses, etc.), analyzing their components (dialogue, audio, visuals, context, etc.), and inferring how society and individuals may make meaning of and through them by employing close reading of the artifacts (Barthes, 1975). Naturally, the method of textual analysis has received criticisms for its inclination toward subjectivity, perceived limited theoretical and methodological rigor, and blurring (or disregard) of disciplinary boundaries (Stein, 2022). However, the goal of such a textual analysis is not to make universal claims on messages and/or their effects, but to provide a likely interpretation of the meanings and uses of a text (McKee, 2003). Put another way, Belsey (2005) stated that “textual analysis as a research method involves a close encounter with the work itself, an examination of the details without bring to them more presuppositions that we can help” (p. 160). As such, textual analysis is employed as an interpretive and explorative lens by which previously unexplored phenomena, such as portrayals of quantum mechanics, can be probed for insight that may inform future qualitative and quantitative inquiry.

Data collection and analytic procedures

Guided by the above premises and principles of textual analysis, the film, Oppenheimer (2023) was the primary text from which data were extracted. For the purposes of this study, data included the dialogue of the film and the audiovisual elements accompanying that dialogue. Notably, Hall (1975) argued that it is integral for the researcher to undergo extensive and repeated critical attention—sometimes called the “long preliminary soak”—which involves numerous viewings and reflection prior to structured analysis. Thus, the film was viewed five times over the course of 1 year with detailed field notes recorded during each viewing and compiled for final analysis. Due to the nature of the film—spanning 3+ hours and approaching a litany of topics pertaining to the dramatized event—the field notes were compiled for sections that either (a) explicitly mentioned quantum concepts and (b) were deemed relevant or alluded to the topic of quantum mechanics as determined by the researchers’ previous knowledge of and expertise in the principles of quantum physics.

The procedures for analyzing the film, Oppenheimer (2023), involved qualitatively analyzing and interpreting the data collected via the five viewings. Notably, each viewing, and accompanying field notes, endeavored to pay attention to different elements present in the film. For instance, the first viewing was, as is for many film scholars, one of enjoyment, done in theaters long before the idea of a research article appeared. This first viewing provided general impressions and non-scholarly insights that aid in contributing to a more holistic view of the text. The second viewing, done with a research endeavor now firmly in mind, was completed with the express purpose of compiling field notes on important passages, quotes, and themes. In practice, the second viewing loosely mirrored the transcribing phase of qualitative inquiry in which key passages (Saldana, 2016), all compiled notes, were timestamped for revisitation. The third viewing was completed with special attention paid to the acoustic and visual elements that accompanied the previously recorded linguistic elements—these were compiled in a separate notebook. As mentioned above, the film was critically acclaimed for its striking audiovisual effects and as such these are integral to interpreting the tone of dialogue transcribed in the previous viewing. The fourth viewing was focused instead on marking overlaps between existing academic literature and the film. By revisiting the dialogue and the accompanying audiovisual elements with an eye toward previous scholarly endeavors, the film was better situated and interpreted in the broader scholarly conversation. The fifth, and final viewing, involved a compilation of linguistic notes, acoustic/visual notes, and notes on scholarly literature to identify any discrepancies and/or developments in the connections between viewings and coding notes. In other words, the fifth viewing served to tie together all preceding notes into a clear and cogent interpretation of the textual artifact at hand. Ultimately, analysis of the text, Oppenheimer (2023), was accomplished through iterative and recursive analysis conducted over several critical and self-reflexive viewings.

Analysis

From the above textual analysis, three primary themes were revealed. The first theme deals with the presentation of and consequent perception (as portrayed in the film) of the general field of quantum physics. The second theme that arose dealt with the attention paid to specific concepts and their descriptions in the film. The third theme looked at how both the presentation of the field of quantum physics and the description of quantum principles are intertwined with socio-political factors.

Theme 1: The new physics

The first third (roughly 55 minutes) of the movie follows Oppenheimer through his earliest days at university, where he is still a student of other physicists, up until his recruitment and early days on the Manhattan Project. In charting the development of J. Robert Oppenheimer’s education, the audience is also implicitly offered an insider’s view, albeit dramatized and fictional, into one of the most influential periods in time in the physical sciences: the first quantum revolution.

Importantly, the development of quantum physics is discussed as “new physics” in the film. New physics was the term ascribed to the early developments that were the foundation for emerging quantum theory (Kragh, 1999). In addition, this term indicated the reticence of the established scientific paradigm to embrace quantum physics as a replacement for current understandings, and instead positioning it as “new” or a supplement to the existing paradigm of thought. The mention of the term new physics appears in the film 3 minutes and 7 seconds in all, which sets the scene for our understanding of quantum physics.

Interestingly, the term “new” attached to physics does more than simply point to an unexplored frontier. Importantly, we see the “new physics” exoticized and associated with Europeans. In an early scene that portrayed the security hearings that Oppenheimer underwent in the 1950s, a prosecutor asked, “Why did you leave the United States?” to which Oppenheimer responded “I wanted to study the New Physics” (Nolan, 2023). This early commentary indicated that the “new physics” (i.e. quantum physics) was not something that one was able to study in the United States. At the onset, quantum physics is set as something that is new, which it was at the time, and something that was not an American endeavor.

Furthering this idea of quantum physics as a non-American activity, is the linkages established between the new physics and European countries, namely, Germany. While portraying Oppenheimer’s studies at Cambridge in England, the viewer is shown a conversation between Patrick Blackett, Neils Bohr, and Oppenheimer. In this scene, Bohr is shown to be impressed with Oppenheimer, while Blackett noted Oppenheimer’s poor performance in laboratory work. Bohr urges Oppenheimer to “Get to Germany—learn the ways of theory” (Nolan, 2023). Essentially, what the viewer is shown is the top minds in physics advising a young Oppenheimer that he must go to Germany—either Göttingen or Bohn—in order to pursue his interests. Even as Blackett continues to note Oppenheimer’s deficiencies, this time focusing on his mathematics, Bohr tells Oppenheimer that “Algebra is like sheet music—the important thing isn’t can you read music? Its can you hear it?” (Nolan, 2023). Thus, the idea of new physics is instilled not just as a European or German activity, but the viewer is also introduced to the idea of new physics as something that is art-like which furthers the exoticism attached to the field.

The film portrays Germany not just as a preferrable place to study the new physics, but in fact the only place to do so. Once in Germany, Oppenheimer is in attendance for a talk given by renowned physicist, Werner Heisenberg. When Oppenheimer says he must get back to America, Heisenberg retorts “Why? There’s no one taking quantum mechanics seriously” (Nolan, 2023). This short interjection in the conversation illuminates the German lack of confidence in Americans’ ability to tackle quantum physics. Perhaps an even more illuminating quote comes from Isador Rabi, who while sitting down to attend a talk given by Oppenheimer in Holland turns to the man next him and says, “A yank lecturing on quantum physics? This I have to hear” (Nolan, 2023). This snippet showed that not only did Germans discount Americans’ ability to contribute to quantum physics, but even Americans themselves did not see a role for Americans in its development.

The above scenes from the film all take place within the first 25 minutes and set the scene for how viewers are to imagine the pursuit of quantum physics. On the whole, quantum physics, called “the new physics,” is positioned as something exotic, European, and outside of the purview and aptitude of Americans. This will be a point that will become central now only to the viewer’s general impression of quantum physics, but also the viewer’s general impression of J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Theme 2: “All I have is theory”

While the first theme highlighted how the viewer is introduced to quantum physics in general, the second theme focuses on the specific concepts within quantum physics and how they are portrayed or communicated to the audience. It is important to note that while quantum physics is not the main focus of the film, the development of quantum physics undergirds the entire development of the Manhattan Project and, as a consequence, the film itself. As such, the scenes discussed in the section to follow mined the potential communicative aspects and value of descriptions of specific concepts within and tangentially related to quantum physics and its importance in the broader socio-political and historical moment.

The earliest bits of information imparted regarding quantum physics are relayed to Oppenheimer as he is still a student at the various institutions he attended. Perhaps the most profound bits of information came from lectures given by Neils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. In one of Bohr’s lectures he stated:

Quantum physics is not a step forward, it is a new way to understand reality . . . Einsteins [sic] opened the door, now we are peering through seeing a world inside of a world. A world of energy and paradox that not everyone can accept. (Nolan, 2023)

This quote points the viewer to two important points. First, that quantum physics does not represent an incremental development in the centuries-long study of physics. Instead, Bohr’s monolog presents quantum physics as a break in established knowledge, or in his words in the film, “a new way to understand reality” (Nolan, 2023). What this functions to do is to promote quantum physics as revolutionary, as opposed to incremental progress that is often associated with scientific development. Second, Bohr hints at the difficulty of accepting quantum physics. The paradox Bohr references in the film shows that quantum physics, like any other science, is not beyond criticism. In fact, it highlights quite the opposite. His implication that not all will accept quantum physics shows how vehemently debated scientific developments are, despite the fact that most of the public accepts scientific developments as immutable truths. Taken together, Bohr’s talk not only primes viewers to the complexity of quantum physics, it also highlights the degree to which all scientific discoveries can be difficult to comprehend, even among the foremost experts in their respective fields.

Another important preamble to the audience’s potential impression of quantum physics is given by Werner Heisenberg in Holland, at another lecture attended by Oppenheimer. In this lecture Heisenberg stated that:

One might be led to the presumption that behind the quantum world, there still hides a real world in which causality holds, but such speculations seem to us, to say it explicitly, fruitless. (Nolan, 2023)

Here, Heisenberg begins to hint at the complexity of quantum physics, indicating one of the fundamental concepts that quantum physics has the potential to change: causality. In addition, in the primary clause, the invocation of the term “real” sets quantum physics as something apart from the worlds which humans are generally thought to inhabit. In this sense, quantum physics is presented as something that is not a part of the real world and, as a result, may add to the perceived strangeness of quantum physics from the onset of the film.

In the previous two scenes, Oppenheimer is still a student. However, as the film progresses, viewers are shown Oppenheimer the teacher. In his first lesson taught at the University of California—Berkeley, his course is attended by only one student, underscoring the unpopularity and/or perceived lack of utility of studying quantum physics. After urging the student to stay, Oppenheimer launches into his lecture via a series of questions. The dialog between him and that singular student (Lomanitz) went as follows:

OP:

“What do you know about quantum mechanics?”

LM:

“I have a grasp on the basics.”

OP:

“Then you’re doing it wrong . . . Is light made up of particles or waves? Quantum mechanics says its both. How could it be both?

LM:

“It can’t.”

OP:

“It can’t! But it is, its paradoxical, but it works.”

This is the first scene in which the viewer is shown Oppenheimer as a master of the subject, no longer a student. Again, we see the difficult nature of quantum mechanics relayed to the student. But, here we see Oppenheimer resolved to show how quantum mechanics does indeed “work” as he puts it. While the monologs of Bohr and Heisenberg simply note the complexities, the viewer is now shown Oppenheimer who appears to have gained some understanding of quantum theory. In the scene immediately following, Oppenheimer’s course is shown with the maximum attendance. One might attribute the spike in attendance either to Oppenheimer’s compelling speaking or to students’ change of heart in the perceived utility of the subject.

Here, we may take a pause from the primary text (i.e. the film) to refer to texts spawned from the film. As discussed by McKee (2003), textual analysis is particularly useful when texts outside the primary text are considered. One such text is the memes that surfaced using the quote “It’s paradoxical, but it works” from the film. In contexts varying from personal therapy to drinking and driving, the quote was employed mimetically to couple two seemingly impossible or improbable actions or ideas. As argued by Milner (2015), memes are no longer just silly pictures, but instead represent the lingua franca of our time. Thus, the existence of Oppenheimer memes is both unsurprising and important for the fact that it injected an explanation for quantum physics into the public record, whether consciously or unconsciously. In pointing to the paradoxical logic of quantum physics, the quote from the film becomes a justification for other seemingly incompatible actions and ideas. At its core, the quote from the film not only helps us understand quantum physics, but its entry into popular culture as a meme also provided an introduction, albeit primarily subliminal, to quantum logic in everyday life.

While the Oppenheimer meme introduced quantum logic to viewers, Oppenheimer in the film was often tasked with explaining quantum physics to numerous curious laypersons. While at a dinner party Oppenheimer is asked, “Can you explain quantum physics to me? It seems baffling” to which he responds, “Yes. It is.” (Nolan, 2023). Oppenheimer goes on to provide an example stating that:

Well this glass, this drink, this countertop, uh, our bodies, all of it, its mostly empty space, groupings of tiny energy waves bound together . . . forces of attraction strong enough to convince us that matter is solid, stop my body from passing through yours. (Nolan, 2023)

In the above quote, the film is introducing viewers implicitly to the idea of energy quanta, which was pioneered by Max Planck and frequently considered to be one of the findings that broke open the first quantum revolution. In explaining one of the primary concepts of quantum physics to a layperson, Oppenheimer appears to be sharing what he earlier in the film called “troubled visions of a hidden universe” (Nolan, 2023). This scene provides viewers with a peek at one of the foundational concepts in quantum physics while explaining it through a semi-understandable example.

From the introduction of general ideas surrounding the logics of the quantum world, there are also a number of instances focused on more specific quantum concepts peppered throughout. From Oppenheimer audiences hear dialog about stars, black holes, fission, and more. Similar to the example listed above, scarcely does the film spend elongated periods on the specific concepts themselves. However, the viewer is shown the method by which the scientists of the Manhattan Project proceeded without knowing exactly where they were going. In addressing the paradoxes raised, Oppenheimer insisted that the other scientists “see where the math takes us. I guarantee its somewhere nobody’s been before” (Nolan, 2023). Here the audience is presented with the notion that undergirding all physics is math—that math is the language of the physical world.

Importantly, and as suggested by the moniker of this theme, Oppenheimer and the other scientists are primarily working with theoretical possibilities, which it is noted have their drawbacks. Throughout the film there is a line drawn between the “experimentalists” and the “theorists.” Ernest Lawrence, a member of the former and the creator of the first atom accelerator, chided Oppenheimer multiple times throughout the film stating that “theory will only get you so far” (Nolan, 2023). In addition, when the news comes that Germans have found a way to split the atom, Oppenheimer says that they have not and heads to his chalkboard to work the math out and comes to the conclusion that it cannot be done. In response, Lawrence said “There’s just one problem . . . next door [in the experimental lab] . . . Alvarez did it” (Nolan, 2023). In the above scenes the viewer is offered—both implicitly and explicitly—a hierarchy of theoretical and practical knowledge in science. Theory is certainly minimized in this instance, especially considering the practical, material goals of the Manhattan Project.

However, it is important here to note that the above portrayal does not necessarily coincide with the actual occurrence of events. As is the case with films, actors and directors are free to take artistic liberties in their portrayals. Despite the fact that the film portrays the experimentalists and the theorists as in some sort of conflict or hierarchy of importance, historical accounts have documented how these two groups—portrayed as mildly antagonistic toward each other—were actually working together cooperatively in lockstep to achieve the goal at hand (Norris, 2002). In consequence, the film, and Nolan’s artistic vision, may somewhat distort the actual relationship between different groups of scientists and their areas of expertise.

In sum, the second theme was concerned with more specific concepts in quantum physics and the methods of “doing” quantum physics. Through the film audiences are exposed to more information about some of the specific concepts in quantum physics and are provided examples of quantum concepts in everyday life. Importantly, the viewer is also provided a hierarchy of importance for scientists that places application over theoretical knowledge. Overall, the film fairly substantially provides the viewer with an idea of what quantum physics is and how one “does” quantum physics.

Theme 3: Compartmentalization and credit

While the first two themes are inspired heavily by the early portions of the film, the remainder and bulk of the film is a portrayal of the interlocked social, political, personal, and militaristic elements the Manhattan Project. Specific and general scientific conversations recede into the background to be overshadowed by the star-studded cast and the various machinations going on within and around the Manhattan Project. This final theme focused on the intertwined nature of the scientist, science, and society as portrayed in the film.

Colonel Leslie Groves (played by Matt Damon), the American military member responsible for organizing the Manhattan Project, repeatedly stressed the need for “compartmentalization” of the scientists and their activities for the purposes of secrecy and security against enemy infiltration. The idea behind compartmentalization was that no one single person or group would know what other persons or group was working on. By spreading out knowledge and action and keeping workers compartmentalized it was thought that they could ensure that useful information would not get into the wrong hands. However, viewers are shown through the bulk of the film that compartmentalization is not preferred by the scientists, nor is it possible in many other endeavors.

For those working on the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer agrees to the policy of compartmentalization, but does not necessarily follow the practice to the expectations of Groves. On several occasions, Oppenheimer makes trips that were not cleared to discuss developments at other sites, such as Chicago. Other scientists, such as Lawrence, explicitly share information that they have been directed not to. In each of these instances, the viewer is shown the importance of collaboration within the scientific community. Even the creation of Los Alamos itself, wherein all the scientists are in the same room as others, is a testament to the importance of collaboration. While justifying the creation of Los Alamos, Oppenheimer stated, “All minds have to see the whole task to contribute efficiently. Poor security may cost us the race; inefficiency will” (Nolan, 2023). In essence, the viewer is shown that collaboration is essential to efficiency in scientific programs.

Importantly, compartmentalization is not only not preferred by scientists, but Groves calling for compartmentalization turned out to be quite hypocritical. The film itself jumps back and forth between the war years and the Cold War years. By shifting through time periods, viewers are shown the same actions that were accepted and celebrated, now considered suspicious and grounds for revoking Oppenheimer’s security clearance. In dealing with Oppenheimer’s personal and political ties—namely, his adultery and communist associations—the viewer is shown a distinct lack of compartmentalization in assessing Oppenheimer’s security clearance years after the Manhattan Project. Ultimately, the viewer is shown that there is no such thing as compartmentalization when it comes to assessing people, yet the policy was still repeatedly advocated for by Groves during the development of the chief operating years of the Manhattan Project.

Of course, there is one instance in the film where we see that the process of compartmentalization works very well. This is the compartmentalization of the scientist and the politicians. Following the first test, the two atomic bombs are loaded onto trucks and taken out of the facility. While Oppenheimer is asking Groves about whether he should go to Washington with Groves, or how he will be updated, Groves responded to Oppenheimer saying “With respect, Dr. Oppenheimer, we’ll take it from here” (Nolan, 2023). As the trucks pull away, the viewer is shown an Oppenheimer devoid of power, which is emphasized by the fact that he hears about the deployment of the bomb on the radio with the rest of the nation. This scene underscored the distinct compartments in which scientists are relegated. The sentiment is echoed by Oppenheimer himself when earlier in the film he stated, “The fact that we built this bomb does not give us any more right or responsibility to decide how its used than anyone else” (Nolan, 2023). Ultimately, the viewer sees the scientist separated from their work upon completion.

In addition, not only are the scientists removed from political action, they are minimized when credit—both positive and negative—is given. Upon meeting with President Truman, Oppenheimer said that he “felt he had blood on his hands” to which Truman mockingly responds to him, “No one gives a shit who built the bomb, they only care who dropped it” (Nolan, 2023). This scene minimizes the scientists and marks scientific development irrelevant until action is taken, at which point the development, and its progenitors, are removed from the equation.

This removal is foreshadowed and extenuated by Einstein’s role in the film. Einstein, who is visited on occasion by Oppenheimer, is often pictured out wandering about as though he is not a part of the proceedings—which he indeed was not. In one of those talks, Einstein tells Oppenheimer that:

When they’ve punished you enough, they’ll serve you a salmon and potato salad, make speeches, give you a medal, and pat you in the back telling all is forgiven. Just remember, it won’t be for you. It will be for them. (Nolan, 2023)

For speaking out on his view that a nuclear arms race should be avoided, Oppenheimer is systematically dragged through hearings and his credibility is reduced, as well as his security clearance revoked only to be instilled many years later with the type of medals Einstein discussed. It shows that while human nature fights against compartmentalization, politicians expect scientists to stay in the lab. Attempts to do otherwise, as shown through the eyes of Oppenheimer, result in harsh treatment with severe material consequences.

However, it is again important to note that the above scenes, particularly in this third theme, do not necessarily reflect the exact historical events and instead represent the needs of the film to present conflict in a dramatized manner. For instance, Oppenheimer, along with other scientists (Fermi, Compton, and Lawrence) were on the Scientific Panel set up by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, with the explicit purpose of deciding whether or not to drop the bomb and where (Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 2025). In addition, Norris (2002) noted how the Interim Committee existed for the express purpose of assuring the populace that the decision was not solely in the hands of soldiers, but that scientists had a say as well. Finally, and perhaps most emblematic of the gap between film and reality, was the fact that even though the film equates Oppenheimer’s speaking out against the bomb with his security clearance being revoked, those were two separate matters (National Archives Catalog, 1945). Taken together the three inaccuracies demonstrate how dramatic portrayals of scientific endeavors may differ from non-fiction accounts.

In sum, the third theme evident in this analysis of the film depicted the collaborative nature of scientific development, the impossibility of compartmentalization when assessing people, and erasure of scientists from managing the uses of their inventions. However, this theme also illuminated—more than any other theme—the discrepancies between film portrayals of science and the actual processes of science. In the case of the atomic bomb, the third and final point is of the utmost importance.

Discussion and limitations

Through the themes sketched above, Oppenheimer (2023) provided viewers with a media portrayal of quantum physics that highlighted the confusing nature of the concepts, the perceived lack of usefulness of theoretical contributions, and the collaborative and messy nature of large-scale scientific endeavors. Each have important implications for the public’s understanding of the portrayal of quantum physics, and other scientific principles, in film and other media artifacts.

First, the purported confusing nature of quantum physics aligns with concepts in quantum physics. Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman, who actually appears very briefly in the film as a youngster on the project, famously remarked, “I think I can safely say that nobody really understands quantum mechanics” (Carol, 2019). The remark highlighted the degree to which even the brightest minds have difficulty understanding quantum machinations. The film captures this complexity. However, in highlighting one’s inability to understand quantum physics the film may incidentally be portraying to audiences that quantum physics is something outside of the possibility of understanding for a layperson. Paradoxically, viewers are introduced to the quantum world, yet not permitted or encouraged to access it.

Second, audiences are shown and told the deficiencies of theory in quantum physics. To be clear, a trial-and-error approach is a staple of experimental sciences. In some sense, the denigration of theory present in the film urges practitioners to test their experiments. In another sense, theoretical cautioning is discredited for only being theoretical—even in the case of the film where there is considered a small chance the entire world would be ignited and destroyed via an endless chain reaction. When theory is no reason to pause, technological advancements may develop unchecked.

Third, and finally, the collaborative and messy nature of the Manhattan Project did well to illuminate the degree to which scientific invention is not always the result of one person’s genius. Despite being titled after one man, the film goes on to show the different contributions and contradictions offered by the brightest minds. We are also shown a scientist (Oppenheimer) as a very human individual, as opposed to some sort of demi-god with unmatched intelligence.

Overall, this textual analysis did not focus on reception of quantum concepts, so there can be no claim of effects and/or understanding of information presented. Moreover, the main point of the film was not to teach quantum physics. Finally, there have been several creative liberties taken by the director Nolan—upon which themes two and three are built—that may obfuscate the actual historical happenings of the events and scientific endeavors in general. Nevertheless, Oppenheimer (2023) stands as a wildly popular, if incidental, introductory portrayal of quantum physics for a large international viewership.

Conclusion

The atomic bombs developed by the Manhattan Project marked a culmination of the first quantum revolution and the release of Oppenheimer (2023) is placed on precipice of the second quantum revolution. Through the film, viewers are offered a glimpse of what quantum theory is and are shown the culmination of the first quantum revolution in the form of the atomic bomb. Moreover, viewers are also shown a dramatization of the process of scientific development, including the aspects unrelated to the science itself. Oppenheimer (2023) does not just portray the Manhattan Project to audiences, it also portrays various underlying notions about science, scientists, and their roles within society to audiences. At the conclusion of the film, audiences are exposed to dramatizations of how the scientists of the Manhattan Project, particularly J. Robert Oppenheimer, were not welcome in the public sphere and deliberations of how to use the inventions they created. Ultimately, Oppenheimer (2023) provides a compelling picture of a defining moment in human history, while providing viewers with several ideas about quantum physics and the process of scientific discovery via dramatized cinematic displays. Future research should continue to pay close attention to media artifacts documenting and interpreting the historical development of technology.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Erik Gustafson

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Erik Gustafson (PhD, North Dakota State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Texas at Tyler. His primary scholarly pursuits exist at the intersection of media, culture, and politics, and explore how rapidly evolving media environments transform human experiences. Previous research has been published and/or presented at international, national, and regional venues.

References

Angelone

(2022) Don’t look up: Science communication revisited. Science Communication 44(3): 375–382.

Arrowsmith

(1969) Film as educator. Journal of Aesthetic Education 3(3): 75–83.

Atomic Heritage Science (2014) Early atomic science. Available at: https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/early-atomic-science/

Barad

(2007) Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Barnett

Wagner

Gatling

Anderson

(2006) The impact of science fiction film on student understanding of science. Journal of Education and Technology 15(2): 179–191.

Barthes

(1975) The Pleasure of the Text. Hill and Wang.

Belsey

(2005) Textual analysis as research. In: Griffin

(ed.) Research Methods for English Studies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 160–178.

Blumer

MLC

(2010) And action! Teaching and learning through film. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum 22(3): 225–235.

Caltech Science Exchange (2025) What is quantum physics? Available at: https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/quantum-physics

10.

Calzati

de Kerckhove

(2024) Quantum Ecology: Why and How Information Technologies Reshape Societies. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

11.

Carol

(2019) Even physicists don’t understand quantum mechanics. The New York Times, 7 September. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/07/opinion/sunday/quantum-physics.html#:~:text=Carroll%20is%20a%20physicist.,as%20far%20as%20it%20goes

12.

Carson

(2024) The next quantum revolution. Spectrum MIT, 26 September. Available at: https://betterworld.mit.edu/spectrum/issues/2024-spring/the-next-quantum-revolution/

13.

Charbonneau

Eggleston

(2024) Quantum computing is coming. Here’s what needs to happen first. Forbes, 12 August. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nokia-industry-40/2024/08/12/quantum-computing-is-coming-heres-what-needs-to-happen-first/

14.

Collins

(2007) The many interpretations of quantum mechanics. Scientific American, 19 November. Available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-many-interpretations-of-quantum-mechanics/

15.

Dargis

(2024) Oppenheimer review: A man for our time. The New York Times, 8 January. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/

16.

DeHart

Sausville

(2014) Building empathy and inspiration with the imitation game. In: Roberts

Elfer

(eds) Hollywood or History? An Inquiry-Based Strategy for Using Film to Teach World History. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 185–194.

17.

Dowling

Milburn

(2003) Quantum technology: The second quantum revolution. The Royal Society 361(1809): 1665–1674.

18.

Encyclopedia Britannica (2025a) Newton’s laws of motion. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/summary/Newtons-Laws

19.

Encyclopedia Britannica (2025b) Manhattan project. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/Manhattan-Project

20.

Faux

(2024) Deserted myths and nuclear realities: Revisiting the symbolism of nuclear weapons in contemporary popular culture through. Oppenheimer Media, War, and Conflict 17(3): 354–372.

21.

Fine

(2017) The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument in quantum theory. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 31 October. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/

22.

Frayling

(2005) Mad, Bad, and Dangerous? The Scientist and the Cinema. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

23.

Fursich

(2009) In defense of textual analysis: Restoring a challenged method for journalism and media studies. Journalism Studies 10(2): 238–252.

24.

Gieryn

(1998) Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Guoyon

(2016) Science and film-making. Public Understanding of Science 25(1): 17–30.

26.

Hall

(1975) Introduction to Paper Voices: The Popular Press and Social Change 1935-1965. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

27.

Hawking

(2011) The Dreams That Stuff Is Made of: The Most Astounding Papers of Quantum Physics and How They Shook the Scientific World. Pennsylvania, PA: Running Adult Press.

28.

Haynes

(2014) Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science 25(1): 31–44.

29.

Hodges

(2014) Alan Turing: The Enigma. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

30.

Hughes

Schrader

(2023) Hidden figures to role model figures: Feminism, intersectional oppression, and public memory in the film hidden figures. Carolinas Communication Annual XXXIX: 3142.

31.

IMDb (2023) Oppenheimer. Available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15398776/

32.

Jaeger

(2018) The Second Quantum Revolution: From Entanglement to Quantum Computing and Other Super-Technologies. London: Springer.

33.

Kaku

(2023) Quantum Supremacy: How the Quantum Computer Revolution Will Change Everything. New York, NY: Doubleday.

34.

Keller

(2023) U.S. quantum leadership may hinge on public perceptions. Brookings, 5 December. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/u-s-quantum-leadership-may-hinge-on-public-perceptions/

35.

Kelly

(2020) The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians. New York, NY: Black Dog & Levanthal.

36.

Kirby

(2003) Scientists on set: Science consultants and the communication of science in visual fiction. Public Understanding of Science 12(3): 261–278.

37.

Kirby

(2013) Lab Coats in Hollywood: Science, Scientists, and Cinema. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

38.

Kirby

Ockert

(2021) Science and technology in film. In: Bucchi

Trench

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Public Communication and Science and Technology. London: Routledge, pp. 77–97.

39.

Klein

(1961) Max Planck and the beginning of quantum theory. Archive for History of the Exact Sciences 1: 459–479.

40.

Kragh

(1999) Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

41.

Kuhn

(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

42.

Lammers

(2024) Academy awards 2024: How many Oscars did Oppenheimer win? Forbes, 10 March. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timlammers/2024/03/10/academy-awards-2024-how-many-oscars-did-oppenheimer-win/

43.

Lessl

(2005) The mythological conditioning of scientific naturalism. Journal of Communication and Religion 28(1): 23–46.

44.

Lewenstein

(1992) The meaning of “public understanding of science” in the United States after World War II. Public Understanding of Science 1(1): 45–68.

45.

Lewenstein

(2003) Models of Public Communication of Science and Technology (Cornell eCommons). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.

46.

McCardy

Matusitz

(2021) Power in hidden figures: A critical discourse analysis. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics 17(1): 3–17.

47.

McKee

(2003) Textual Analysis: A Beginner’s Guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

48.

Milner

(2015) The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

49.

Monk

(2024) Oppenheimer the man versus Oppenheimer the movie. Raritan 43(4): 86–95.

50.

Murphy

(2023) The people the Oppenheimer film erased. Arms Control Today 53(7): 26–27.

51.

National Archives Catalog (1945) Notes of the interim committee meeting. Available at: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/333234936

52.

National Park Service (2025) People of the Manhattan project. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/mapr/learn/historyculture/people.htm

53.

Nolan

(Director) (2023) Oppenheimer (Syncopy Inc, Atlas Entertainment, Gadget Films). Universal City, CA: Universal Pictures.

54.

Norris

(2002) Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man. Lebanon, NH: Steerfourth Press.

55.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OTSI) (2025) The Manhattan Project. Available at: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/debate.html

56.

Peacock

(2007) The Quantum Revolution: A Historical Perspective. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

57.

Perfas

(2023) Closer look at “father of atomic bomb.” The Harvard Gazette, 19 July. Available at: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/07/closer-look-at-father-of-atomic-bomb/

58.

Perkowitz

(2024) Oppenheimer: Icon of the nuclear age. Physics World 37(1): 24.

59.

Phillipov

(2013) In defense of textual analysis: Resisting methodological hegemony in media and cultural studies. Critical Studies in Media Communication 30(3): 209–223.

60.

Postman

(1985) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

61.

Saldana

(2016) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

62.

Shapin

(1982) History of science and its sociological reconstructions. History of Science 20(3): 157–211.

63.

Sigfried

(2013) Poll of quantum physicists shows agreement, disagreement, and something in between. Science News, 20 February. Available at: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/poll-quantum-physicists-shows-agreement-disagreement-and-something-between

64.

Stein

(2022) A look back at Leff and McGee: Close textual analysis and the link between theory and rhetorical artifact. Utah Journal of Communication 1(1): 4–10.

65.

Stevenson

(2023) Oppenheimer: The man, the movie and nuclear dread. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 65(5): 153–160.

66.

Sutter

(2020). The basics of Newton’s laws. Forbes, 16 April. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulmsutter/2020/04/16/the-basics-of-newtons-laws/

67.

Swayne

(2024) 2025 expert quantum predictions—quantum computing. The Quantum Insider, 31 December. Available at: https://thequantuminsider.com/2024/12/31/2025-expert-quantum-predictions-quantum-computing/

68.

Taylor

(1992) The politics of the nuclear text: Reading Robert Oppenheimer’s letters and recollections. Quarterly Journal of Speech 78(4): 429–449.

69.

Thompson

(2022) See what she becomes: Black women’s resistance in hidden figures. Feminist Media Studies 22: 866–882.

70.

Weingart

(2003) Of power maniacs and unethical geniuses: Science and scientists in film. Public Understanding of Science 12: 279–287.

71.

Weitekamp

(2015) ‘We’re physicists’: Gender, genre, and image of scientists in the big bang theory. Journal of Popular Television 3(1): 75–92.

72.

Williamson

(2019) Atomic bomb blues: myth and melancholy in American science fiction film of the 1950s. Doctoral Thesis, Goldsmiths, University of London, London.

73.

Willmore

(2024) Oppenheimer is a tragedy of operatic grandeur. Vulture, 10 March. Available at: https://www.vulture.com/article/oppenheimer-review-a-tragedy-of-operatic-grandeur.html