Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

E=MC

Posted by timothy on Thu Jan 18, 2001 09:30 AM
from the yessir-*squaaared*-away dept.
Michael JasonSmith (not his evil cousin Jason MichaelSmith, or the nefarious Smith MichaelJason) contributed this review of a book which treads the line between simple and complex by concentrating on that strangely simple little equation of Einstein's -- how it came to be uncovered, its history, and its ramifications.

E=mc² : A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation
author David Bodanis
pages 324
publisher MacMillan
rating 8
reviewer Michael JasonSmith
ISBN 0802713521
summary A good discussion about the origins and impact of Einstein's famous famous equation, and a fun geek read for the lazy summer holidays.

Most people know of the equation E=mc, but how many know what it means? Sure, you know that energy equals mass times the square of the speed of light. Good for you. You may also know that it allows you to calculate the destructive capacity of the glass of Coke sitting next to you. But what many do not know is how Einstein came about the equation, how other scientists set the foundations for E=mc, and what the seemingly simple equation means in the big picture. This book sets out to rectify this in a way that does not get too bogged down with atomic weights and pictures of squashed up trains.

When I was given this book for Christmas (hi, Mum) I was a bit sceptical. I already knew what E=mc meant, and I'm not a big fan of biographies. But I was pleasantly surprised by this book. It cracks along explaining the origins of E=mc, such as how Faraday came up with the modern concept of energy, and the implications of the equation, such as the use of a German battleship to make the Galileo space probe. David Bodanis uses the conflict between young and old scientists as the main method of explaining science, so the stories are interesting even if you are aware of the formula behind them. The bigger picture is not forgotten and we are constantly reminded of modern European history, as the French Revolution and two world wars played a big part in influencing the development of science.

Those who are looking for a biography of Einstein will be disappointed as he does not play a big part in the book, despite the fact that he discovered the relationship between mass and energy. Instead the book lives up to its subtitle as a biography of the equation, from the early days of Antiube-Laurent Lavoiser in the 1700s to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in the 20th Century.

I have two niggles related to this book. Firstly is the use of Imperial measurements. I don't know how heavy 5,000 pounds is, so have to stop reading, find a conversion table (or log into the net), convert the 5,000 pounds to Kilograms, find where I was up to and continue reading for a couple of lines until I get up to the next measurement. Frustrating. For some reason temperature measurements are given in Metric and Imperial, but they are the only ones. Most of the books from the UK that I have read recently have provided measurements in Metric as well as Imperial, but for some reason Bodanis and his editor of did not see fit to follow the trend.

The other problem was the notes were at the end of the book instead of at the bottom of the relevant page or the end of each chapter. If the notes were just bibliographic references I would not have minded so much, but often they were very interesting stories that I would have liked to have read in context, such as why a slow moving neutron is needed to start a chain reaction. Because the notes were at the end of the book I often forgot that they were there.

Contents
  1. Bern Patient Office, 1905
  2. E is for Energy
  3. =
  4. m is for mass
  5. c is for celeritas
  6. Einstein and the Equation
  7. Into the Atom
  8. Quiet in the Midday Snow
  9. Germany's Turn
  10. Norway
  11. America's Turn
  12. 8:16am -- Over Japan
  13. The Fires of the Sun
  14. Creating the Earth
  15. A Brahmin Lifts His Eyes Unto the Sky


You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
E=MC˛ | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 89 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) | 2
  • by Fatal0E (230910) on Thursday January 18 2001, @04:40AM (#499079)
    I think Stephen Hawkings A Brief History Of Time [amazon.com] is the best summation/applied theory of Einsteins theorys. Hawking gives Einstein mad props throughout the book and Hawkings respect for the guy shines through. After reading A Brief History I think that as a layman the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself.
    "Me Ted"
  • by Bonker (243350) on Thursday January 18 2001, @04:46AM (#499080)
    The best book I have ever read about Einstein's theories was 'Relativity Visualized' by Lewis Epstein.

    It gives a semi-complete history of the developments of relativistic science, going through the discovery of Newtonian motion and covering the dismissal of the 'Cosmic Aether' theory. It then goes in to explaining how relativity works in both simple terms that my Dad could get and then gives more explicit examples, complete with 'da math. This was the first book that made me really understand how time works in gravitational field.

    Good reading for the expert and the casual intelectual.
  • by omarius (52253) <omar@@@allwrong...com> on Thursday January 18 2001, @04:47AM (#499081) Homepage Journal
    Hawking's Brief History is the one thing I would get back, IF I had the power to receive one item out of all the tings I have ever lost to ex-girlfriends.

    -Omar

  • What about Einsteins other works? by jlovette69 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:55AM
  • by powlette (198002) on Thursday January 18 2001, @04:55AM (#499083) Homepage
    Although it was interesting, there is absolutely no focus on the science of the equation. The author would have you believe that the equation came about simply by a thought experiment in einstien's head. I got a more in-depth explaination in my freshman physics course.

    If you're interested in a history lesson of all things leading up to and including the atom bomb in WW2. This book is for you.

  • Re:What's up with the permutations? by big_groo (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:59AM
  • The bigger picture by emc3 (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:05AM
  • the "yessir, squaared away dept" by gscott (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:05AM
  • Einstein for Beginners by Ars-Fartsica (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:11AM
  • Even better by OlympicSponsor (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:13AM
  • Explanation of e=mc2 by Metal Machine Music (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:20AM
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 18 2001, @05:27AM (#499090)
    Because your superscripted 2 is a Microsoft centric character that not everyone can see. Didn't you read your own article [slashdot.org] yesterday on the dangers of the web losing its feature of browser neutrality? If you must use non-ASCII, at least use honest to God Unicode.
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by andr0meda (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:29AM
  • Re:The bigger picture by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:31AM
  • Einstein's Nobel Prize by elvum (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:32AM
  • The topic icon matches the topic.... again by Xpilot (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:34AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by DrProton (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:35AM
  • Books are better when stolen from ex's by potassium_chloride (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:39AM
  • Book too broad (Score:3)

    by peter303 (12292) on Thursday January 18 2001, @05:46AM (#499097)
    The book basically explains the origin of the
    symbol in each equation, from the oldest, the
    equals sign, to the most recent, the speed of
    light.

    I would present it differently.
    I would assume a knowledge of high school physics,
    which is basically simplified Newtonian and
    absolute reference frame, then qualitatively
    introduce special relativity.

    The best quantitative book I've seen is William
    French's "Special Relativity". It only uses
    high school algebra and physics, but is usually
    is offered as an enrichment appendix to second
    semester physics (E&M) at MIT.
  • Einstein's Nobel by VSarkiss (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:46AM
  • exp(i*pi) - 1 = 0 by peter303 (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:58AM
  • Not acceleration, GRAVITY. by volpe (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:04AM
  • by rezn (222056) on Thursday January 18 2001, @06:10AM (#499101)
    I'm a physicist and I don't have the intentions of putting anyone but. However, if you want to learn some physics, stop reading these fairy tell books and grab a real physics book. Any book you get from Hawkings pr abpit Einstein and relativity is about as informative as a two year old when it comes down to real physics. I've seen some of you talk about E=mc^2 but yet none seem to have any true grasp on what it is, how it is applied, etc.. I only see thoughts that it is, cool, and "the applications of E=MC^2 are more interesting the then the nuts 'n bolts of the theory itself" which is complete rubish. The nuts and bolts of E=mc^2 defines everything in modern physics. We would not understand nuclear reactions, nuclear binding energies, etc... without E=mc^2. Radioactive Nuclear Structure just so happens to be what I do research on. Anyway, the "nuts and bolts" of E=mc^2 is by far the most important thing. As far as quantum mechanics, your view on what quantum mechanics is will do a 180 when you take a real class in it. Reading what Stephen Hawkings has to say is a lot different than reading pure quantum mechanics and working out real problems. Hell, if you haven't at least had every calculus, differential equations, and analysis, there is no way you can even attempt to do quantum mechanics. Part of understanding a large bit of quantum mecanics is directly related to your understanding of the math behind it. Anyway, my point is for many of you guys to stop reading such books for learning physics and read some real textbooks instead.
  • Do all reviewers have daft names? by gadders (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:14AM
  • Bzzzt! Wrong! by flatpack (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:15AM
  • Re:The bigger picture by Paradise_Pete (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:15AM
  • Another good book. by _14k4 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:16AM
  • Re:What's up with the permutations? by Paradise_Pete (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:22AM
  • Another recommendation: "Was Einstein Right?" by Wham Bang (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:23AM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:27AM
  • by JWhitlock (201845) <John-Whitlock@NOSpAM.ieee.org> on Thursday January 18 2001, @06:44AM (#499109)
    I agree that you can't say you really understand what's going on until you try it out (apply E=mc&sup2 to real physics problems). But to say that we should stop reading these books, and instead read physics textbooks?

    Have you looked at a physics textbook recently? Entry level books go about half the way - it takes a born-physicist to understand what is going on with only the textbook. It almost requires a teacher to demonstrate the math, to get feedback on what the student is doing wrong.

    Plus, they are too expensive. Like most educational materials, it is overpriced, because people are buying them with government funding (schools), or are forced to buy them (college students). There appears to be little competition, or at least little competition that results in a better product.

    Then, you say to truly appreciate this stuff, you need the equvalent of 3 years of a physics major. Calculus, Diff Eq., Quantum Mechanics - you could do it in two years, but probably not if you were working at the same time. In other words, only students can appreciate it.

    I think you can transmit some of the wonder of physics in a format that the average person can understand. I believe you can even convey some of the theory to the mathematically inclined - some of the best authors have done it. But to say, don't study it unless you study the pure stuff - I can't agree with that. That leads to members of congress, who have been told they can't even comprehend particle physics, making funding decisions on the superconducting supercolider. We need the lower-level stuff to communicate the promise of science to the non-scientific public.

    That being said, it is fairly ignorant to start speculating on practical uses when you don't understand the theory. Ignorant, or good engineering, depending on the result.

    And, it's fairly unforgivable to use Imperial units to the exclusion of scientific units. I can forgive both being given, since I think in Imperial units most of the time, but doing physics in Imperial units? It gives me nightmares of thermodynamics classes.

  • I disagree.... by NTSwerver (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:53AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:53AM
  • Slight (critical) correction by chazR (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:54AM
  • Costantly use a conversion table? by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:01AM
  • Re:The bigger picture by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:02AM
  • Re:Bzzzt! YOU'RE Wrong! -- Here's the reference by volpe (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:13AM
  • by Fatal0E (230910) on Thursday January 18 2001, @07:24AM (#499116)
    Thats a bunch of shit.

    First of all, General and Special Relativity are explained. They aren't proofed, just run-down. One of the running themes of the book is that w/o at least a superficial understanding special relativity the rest of the book will be lost upon the reader.

    Words and contexts of blackholes, etc.... doesn't teach you a thing about physics. ...Besides, if a physics book isn't 60% math, it's no good.

    Then I guess we don't have any quarrel since the book is more about celestial anomolies and only touches the physics aspect superficially. I personally didn't read it to learn about physics and didn't think I would, I read because I was curious about how space and time interact.

    It really pisses me off when I see slashdot people comment over physics related subjects because everytime they do, Hawkings is always brought up. Well let me tell you, in the physics community, no one gives a shit about Hawkins and his books. It's like the National Enquirer to us.

    What you equate his popular work to aside, the fact that he's publishing something you already know in a "for dummies" format doesn't surprise me as being offensive to you. Having said that I honestly don't care what you or your so called community thinks of his work. He brought me closer to understanding to nature of the universe as it pertains to me and that can't be anything less then good thing.

    This is not a flame

    "Me Ted"
  • Re:Wrong books to read by crivens (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:25AM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:37AM
  • Re:Slight (critical) correction by Tyndareos (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:37AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by Szoup (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:39AM
  • Not to be nitpicking or anything... by Jerom (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:40AM
  • Re:Wrong books to read by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:40AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:43AM
  • Re:Not acceleration, GRAVITY. by jlovette69 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:57AM
  • Re:Costantly use a conversion table? by amorsen (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:58AM
  • You don't know how heavy 5000 pounds is?!?!?! by kiscica (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @08:37AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by Strider- (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @08:38AM
  • Re:Not to be nitpicking or anything... by Reality Master 101 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @08:41AM
  • Re:Einstein for Beginners by cob2k25 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @08:57AM
  • Re:Not acceleration, GRAVITY. by volpe (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:08AM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by efuseekay (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:15AM
  • Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb by xantho (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:16AM
  • Subsection for books? by jariv (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:25AM
  • duh by nphinit (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:31AM
  • Re:I've read this book by nido (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @10:03AM
  • Acceleration and Special Relativity... by paploo (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @10:31AM
  • Re:Acceleration and Special Relativity... by NetWurkGuy (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @10:58AM
  • Re:Wrong books to read by mjackso1 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @11:58AM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by CanSpice (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @12:36PM
  • Quantum Physics joke :) by dJOEK (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @12:49PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by Peaker (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @01:49PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by RoninM (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @02:54PM
  • Re:Slight (critical) correction by Kyobu (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @03:00PM
  • God's Equation by danny (Score:2) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:15PM
  • Re:How I keep my Geek License by rark (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:42PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:56PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @04:57PM
  • Re:Wrong books to read by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:03PM
  • Re:I've read this book by rezn (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @05:06PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by RoninM (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @06:13PM
  • Re:Constantly use a conversion table? by Ronin441 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @07:33PM
  • Re:Wrong books to read by CactusCritter (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @08:04PM
  • Autodynamics by rajafarian (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @09:07PM
  • Everyone Knows... by Grog6 (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @10:01PM
  • by Sara Chan (138144) on Thursday January 18 2001, @11:35PM (#499155)
    Not everyone agrees that you need a really high level of math. Richard Feynman, one of greatest physicists ever, had this fairly simple explanation:
    Newton's Second Law, which we have expressed by the equation

    F = d(mv)/dt,

    was stated with the tacit assumption that m is a constant, but we now kinow that this is not true, and that the mass of a body increases with velocity. In Einstein's corrected formula m has the value

    m = m0/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2),

    where the "rest mass" m0 represents the mass of a body that is not moving and c is the speed of light.... For those who want to learn just enough about it so they can solve problems, that is all there is to the theory of relativity --it just changes Newton's laws by introducing a correction factor to the mass.

    --R. P. Feynman, The Feynmann Lectures On Physics, vol. I, ch. 15 (emphasis added)

    Newton's Second Law is more commonly expressed as F = ma, where a is acceleration: a = d(v)/dt.

  • Re:Explanation of e=mc2 by PSC (Score:1) Thursday January 18 2001, @11:36PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by dubious21 (Score:1) Friday January 19 2001, @11:50AM
  • Re:E = MC Hawking by Sonicboom (Score:1) Friday January 19 2001, @12:24PM
  • Re:Hey Taco, no high bit chars please. Use E=mc^2. by phillipps (Score:1) Friday January 19 2001, @01:43PM
  • Re:You don't know how heavy 5000 pounds is?!?!?! by alienmole (Score:2) Friday January 19 2001, @09:13PM
  • Re:"niggles" is a RACIST slur! by alienmole (Score:2) Friday January 19 2001, @09:24PM
  • Re:Applications ThereOf by Ashleigh (Score:1) Saturday January 20 2001, @02:48AM
  • Lightspeed barrier? by UnknownSoldier (Score:1) Saturday January 20 2001, @05:06AM
  • Re:"niggles" is a RACIST slur! by rifter (Score:1) Saturday January 20 2001, @08:35PM
  • Re:Constantly use a conversion table? by Ronin441 (Score:1) Sunday January 21 2001, @05:29AM
  • Re:"niggles" is a RACIST slur! by alienmole (Score:2) Sunday January 21 2001, @09:45AM
  • Re:Books are better when stolen from ex's by potassium_chloride (Score:1) Monday January 22 2001, @12:58PM
(1) | 2