Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius |  | Author: Hans C. Ohanian
Publisher: W.W. Norton & Co.
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $9.86
as of 11/22/2009 17:12 CST details
You Save: $7.09 (42%)
New (23) Used (12) from $7.25
Seller: inflamedbrain
Rating:  12 reviews
Sales Rank: 80396
Media: Paperback
Pages: 416
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 8.1 x 5.4 x 1
ISBN: 0393337685
Dewey Decimal Number: 530
EAN: 9780393337686
ASIN: 0393337685
Publication Date: November 9, 2009 (New: Last 30 Days)
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
âA thought-provoking critique of Einsteinâs tantalizing combination of brilliance and blunder.ââAndrew Robinson, New Scientist Although Einstein was the greatest genius of the twentieth century, many of his groundbreaking discoveries were blighted by mistakes, ranging from serious errors in mathematics to bad misconceptions in physics and failures to grasp the subtleties of his own creations. This forensic biography dissects Einsteinâs scientific mistakes and places them in the context of his turbulent life and times. In lively, accessible prose, Hans C. Ohanian paints a fresh, insightful portrait of the real Einstein at work, in contrast to the uncritical celebrity worship found in many biographies.
Of the approximately 180 original scientific papers that Einstein published in his lifetime, about 40 are infested with mistakes. For instance, Einsteinâs first mathematical proof of the famous formula E = mc2 was incomplete and only approximately valid; he struggled with this problem for many years, but he never found a complete proof (better mathematicians did). Einstein was often lured by irrational and mystical inspirations, but his extraordinary intuition about physics permitted him to discover profound truths despiteâand sometimes because ofâthe mistakes he made along the way. He was a sleepwalker: his intuition told him where he needed to go, and he somehow managed to get there without quite knowing how.
As this book persuasively argues, the defining hallmark of Einsteinâs genius was not any special mathematical ability but an uncanny talent to use his mistakes as stepping stones to formulate his revolutionary theories. 25 illustrations.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 12
 I don't want to repeat Einstein's mistakes... August 12, 2009
Dmitry Vostokov (Monkstown, Co. Dublin Ireland)
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
I finished reading Dirac's biography The Strangest Man 3 months ago and started to read this book. Its title intrigued me when I was browsing recent physics releases on Amazon and I bought it. It looks to me like the mix of brief biographical notes with explanation of physical theories. Here learning from mistakes undoubtedly helps to understand special and general relativity better. I also liked the short and clear explanation of EPR paradox in just one page, "revisionist" and unusual biographical notes on other scientists and their faults, like Galileo and Newton, and notes about Einstein's private life. This makes him really human (he was like an ideal scientist from Plato Universe for me before). When I was reading Not Even Wrong and the Trouble With Physics books I thought of the possible "yellow press physics" (which is not bad, and doesn't mean bad quality for me, I like to read yellow press sometimes and listen to pop music) and one day, at lunch, when reading about Newton madness and other peculiar character traits I thought about "yellow press physics" again. Was the choice of this book hardcover and jacket colors (yellow) made deliberate? Anyway, while approaching the end of the book and reading about how Einstein wasted 20-30 years on his idée fixe unified theories I immediately recalled String Theory, and indeed, the author voiced the same thoughts a few moments later when I turned a page over. I also liked the discussion on how General Relativity might have been discovered if it wasn't formulated by Einstein. The author tells us that it would have been done via a QFT route. Einstein has fallen in my eyes, and now, after reading this book, he is not quite the hero of science like I imagined before. Nevertheless, his stature from McDonald's is still on my shelves.
Thanks,
Dmitry Vostokov
Founder of Literate Scientist Blog
 Ohanian's Mistakes July 3, 2009
Joel M. Kauffman (Berwyn, PA United States)
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
Ohanian does what the title says. Einstein made mistakes in most of his early journal papers even during his most productive years of 1905-1922 or so. But his intuition and insight, rather than his math ability, overcame the errors and made him famous. Many personal details are given, including a most interesting one of arranging to give the cash payment for his single Nobel Prize (for the explanation of the photoelectric effect) to his ex-wife #1 as a divorce settlement. Then he paid only about half of that.
It would have been appropriate to have explained, even on a half page, the significance of the work on the photoelectric effect, but I did not see it.
On p xi, a quotation from Einstein appears without comment: "What is essential in the life of a man of any kind lies in what he thinks and how he thinks, not in what he does or suffers." To me, this is a typical justification for Einstein's poor treatment of a number of people. Later Ohanian notes the number of times Einstein often failed to cite prior work to his own in order to fool people into thinking he discovered more than he did (p91).
On p1 there was a cute slip in a list of the things of which Germany was the biggest producer in 1905, which included church organs and canons. I would have thought cannons were meant.
On p9 Ohanian showed typical academic contempt for universal military service in Switzerland. One must note that the tiny country was never attacked by any of its larger neigbors.
More importantly, Ohanian desribed some of the experimental work that led to Einstein's most famous findings on relativity. This was the determination of the speed of light by A. A. Michelson and Morley in 1887 said to have a null result on p18 and a dozen other places. According to John O'Malley Bockris in The New Paradigm, 2005, p108ff, MM actually found a 20 km/sec difference depending on direction. And so did Prof. Dayton Miller, Univ. PA, in measurements he made from 1905-1931. As did Sagnac in 1913, M. Allais, and more recently by Ernest Silvertooth in 1987. These should not have been ignored, but listed, and the differences of null findings in other experiments explained. Moreover, Ohanian repeatedly called the null results, even of MM, "failures". This shows a dogmatic attitude. An honest experiment cannot ever be a "failure".
One other experimental finding that Ohanian did a better job on was the bending of starlight as it passes near the sun. In the four or so expeditions of 1919, two had bad weather, and the one with the astronomer Arthur Eddington made a measurment supporting Einstein's calculation, but also one supporting the smaller deflection predicted by Newton's work. The former was arbitrarily said to be correct. Ohanian gave no reason for this choice, and seemed completely accepting (p244). But on p254: "The 1919 eclipse expedition and Eddington's somewhat slanted data analysis were lucky breaks for Einstein."
On p28, the slowing of clocks moving at relativistic speeds was accepted. Since movement is relative, either of two clocks that moves has relative movement compared with the other, so any slowing of time by one would also be cancelled by slowing of the other, according to Bockris. This was explained away, but I could not follow the reasoning.
On p120 a sugar molecule is said to be 4x as large as a water molecule. Did this mean length? If so, a water molecule is 1.5 Å long, and a sugar molecule is about 18 Å long stretched out. Not 4x.
On p126 Einstein's explanation for the blue color of cloudless sky is beyond my understanding. I thought it was due to absorption of infrared rays by ozone and water vapor that did it.
On p167 there was the inevitable comparison of the energy from explosion of a kiloton of TNT compared with a kilo of uranium. Sloppily, the uranium isotope was not indicated, and the news that only some small fraction of the isotope is converted to energy by fission was missed, as is common. On p175 it is seen again: "But nuclear fusion reactions typically release a million times as much energy as chemical reactions..." presumably per unit mass consumed. It is never mentioned that only a tiny fraction of the "critical mass" of fission bomb material is converted.
Another bias is shown on p252: "But to call a physicist an engineer is not a compliment." Not in my book, since the engineer has the safety and fortune of many people in his hands. A failure generates lawsuits, but the failure of a physicist's theory does not. That should make you think.
On p253: "...each real electron or proton has exactly the same size as every other electron or proton, and its size never changes, no matter what you do to it." This seems at odds with shrinkage at relativistic speeds, which was described earlier.
Einstein's failures, lack of originality, and stubborness about quantum theory in his later years was duly noted. And his shrewdness about money.
Ohanian's writing was excellent by writer's standards, well-edited, and appeared to be well-referenced, but with gaps as noted above. Much personal information I never saw, not only about Einstein, but also on Newton, Galileo and Oppenheimer was fascinating. But many times an explanation would have been more comprehensible with use of diagrams or high-school algebra.
Terrific book May 20, 2009
Donald E. Fulton (Stoneham, MA USA)
3 out of 4 found this review helpful
This is a terrific book. David Goodstein, professor of physics at Caltech for 35 years, says it well on the cover: "This is a wonderful book, entertaining, informative, full of interesting material."
Ohanian is author of several physics textbooks, and here demonstrates he has a sure grasp of the physics, knows the literature well so he can put Einstein's work into context, and importantly for the general technical reader he has the skill to explain his points clearly and accurately while staying within the bounds of popular science writing (no math). The technical sections of this book will probably only be appreciated by someone who knows general physics, but for those with a physics background there's lots of good stuff in this book, like the interesting discussion of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
We follow Einstein through his life with a series of interesting, in depth biographical sketches interwoven with a critical review of his physics with emphasis, of course, on his 'mistakes'. Ohanian is not just nit picking in this book. We learn that Einstein often, like in his first famous E=mc^2 paper, would make an approximate argument only to have it be fleshed out later by others in a rigorous proof. We learn that some of his famous 'thought experiments', like the equivalence of gravity and an accelerating elevator, which are always featured in introductory physics courses, are not so all inclusive as we were taught. They pointed Einstein in the right direction, "midwives" Ohanian calls them, but argues that Einstein should have later de-emphasized them as they are in some fundamental ways misleading.
My own viewpoint as an electrical engineer (only slightly tongue in cheek) is that Einstein was more the electrical engineer than physicist. He got interested in electricity hanging around his father's and uncle's electrical motor shop. His lifelong friend Michele Besso was an electrical engineer. His son was an engineering professor at Berkley. Einstein studied electrical engineering and physics at university getting higher grades in his engineering classes. He worked at an electrical engineering job for eight years after graduation (patent office). Like many engineers he was only so-so at math and often like engineers favored approximate or special case arguments. To Ohanian, a true physicist, these fall under the category of 'mistakes'. Electrical engineers specialize in the physics of electromagnetism, and two of Einstein's most famous 1905 papers were in this vein, 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' (special relativity) and an explanation of how the current in a tube is affected by the frequency and brightness of light hitting a metal plate in the tube (photoelectric effect), which won him his only Nobel Prize.
Einstein's paper ''On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies' had zero references. This sort of thing drives the physicists nuts, but to the engineer is not so surprising. Einstein in later life did considerable inventing, which physicists being physicists invariably dismiss as a waste of his time. He worked on a gyrocompass during the war and with Leo Szilard got 8 patents on an electromagnetic refrigerator pump with no moving parts. Ohanian to his credit does recognize that Einstein's work often had an engineering flavor, arguing he wrote in the style of the electrical patent applications he reviewed for eight years.
 emotions untamed May 5, 2009
octopibingo (San Diego)
2 out of 6 found this review helpful
The book seemed interesting and started off well, but for some inexplicable reason the author felt it prudent (but not non-sequitor?) to write negative comments about Christianity and Christians and interspred them throughout the text.
After reading several of those comments, the author finally succeeded at "taking me out" of the book which I closed and put aside. If the author could not tame his emotions and personal hatreds with such off-topic comments, how then could I trust his presentation of other topics?
Would that a better editor had been on the project.
An excellent writer with a silly title but a good book December 25, 2008
Elmann (Newton, New Jersey United States)
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
From Kenneth Ellman
ke@kennethellman.com
The title of this book is unfortunate as it does not reflect the value and ability of the author.
This book is not about "Einstein's Mistakes", but is actually a generalized discussion in English (very limited mathematics is used) of the writing and discoveries of Albert Einstein and other scientists. Most important is that this author has discussed Einstein with comparisons and integration of many other Physicists and Mathematicians. So this book is really an overview in a mix of somewhat plain and technical English of the areas of Physics worked on by Albert Einstein and other scientists.
The book has this uncanny ability to annoy the reader, particularly with gossipy digressions. But everytime you feel like putting it aside it then pulls you back into the exploration of these ideas by this author in a way that overcomes whatever discomfort the book otherwise contains. Basically in balance it is an excellent work and portrayal of the world of Physics as it relates to Albert Einstein and other Physicists, particularly for those who seek exposure with little mathematical expression..
I do not understand why this author thinks it is in any way important to discuss the family or romantic activities of Einstein. But he clearly does. That takes away from the value of this work and is really a silly distraction.
Yes, of course the book discusses the errors Einstein made is his papers. Certainly there were at times mathematical mistakes and failures to adequately assert and portray the proofs and expressions necessary for a rigorous explanation of the ideas Einstein conveyed. Whether the errors were simply oversights or the examples of insufficient mathematical ability or simply evidence of other concerns and priorities of Einstein is not truly known. Nor do I think it matters. I do believe what Einstein wrote is what he intended and his views and manner of approach may have been different than many others.
The book is valuable, but three main reasons for my endorsement are as follows:
1. It is a cataloging of asserted errors made by Albert Einstein. Whether you believe a particular issue is only alleged error (because Einstein intended the expression to be as is) or proven error (because the assertion is admittedly wrong or the proofs show it to be wrong) really does not matter.
In the reading, following and understanding of this books review of those particular incongruous writings of Einstein this author is also reviewing and teaching and explaining the Physics that underlies the fundamental concepts of science that should be understood. After all you cannot appreciate the assertions of error unless you at least attempt to know and learn the subject being discussed. So in a sense this book is a review of the papers and works of Einstein with an accent on his alleged and manifest errors, and done in such a way that it is accessible to any avid reader with an interest in Science. That is a valuable contribution. You do not have to agree with all the conclusions of this book but in order to participate in the argument you do have to learn and know something of the subject. I love books I can give to people who do not have much of a science background to stimulate their mind. Keep in mind that as this book points out on page 71 that the works of Isaac Newton also had errors some characterized as "nothing short of deliberate fraud".
2. It is a discussion to a limited extent on the work of other great scientists whose accomplishments interacted with those of Einstein either contemporaneously or historically and the impact of their work. This is useful. In that sense it provides a view of the history of science in this area.
3. It causes an exposure of the manner in which this particular human mind (Einstein), conceptualized his thoughts of Physics. While this has been discussed in other books, that does not mean it is not directly interrelated to the assertions of Einstein's Errors. What comes through clearly in this book is that the approach of Einstein to his subject was not the approach used by other Scientists of his day. No, he was quite different. The discussion and exposure of the "Errors" of Einstein actually adds to an understanding of how this human mind conceptualized his ideas.
That is valuable.
You do not have to agree with all the conclusions of this book in order that it be a useful and stimulating addition to discussion of ideas. It is not a Physics textbook nor simply a history book.
In its valuable parts it is a look in plain English of the concepts of Physics, the actors who tread its paths and how the human mind has strove and struggled with these concepts and ideas. I do not agree with all in this book, particularly the assessment of Einstein's work on General Relativity. But that does not take away from its value.
This book is well written. Removing the nonsense personality commentary would have made it shorter and clearer.
Kenneth Ellman ke@kennethellman.com
P.S.--To Donald B. Gennery From Kenneth Ellman
In reference to "stipulation that light travels at the same speed in opposite directions" I in part agree with you that the
making of a "stipulation" in and of itself may be a proper manner to approach this question. Certainly I do not find that the
making of the "stipulation" is in any way an improper manner to reach the conclusion. If it is improper I do not understand why.
HOWEVER you should be aware that at the web site of Physics Today, April 2006 scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_59/iss_4/10_1.shtml
it appears this question was briefly discussed by both Steven Weinberg and the author Hans Ohanian.
What would be your response to this?
Thank you very much.
Kenneth Ellman
ke@kennethellman.com
Showing reviews 1-5 of 12
|
|
|
|
