E=MC

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.

Comments

Applications ThereOf

[Fatal0E]

I think Stephen Hawkings A Brief History Of Time 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"

Re:Applications ThereOf

[Fatal0E]

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:Applications ThereOf

[efuseekay]

When I read the Hawking's BHOT in highschool, heady with plans to start a career in physics, I wanted to believe I understood it.

But no, I don't understand a single thing : it's utterly incomprehensible.

Now, I _am_ actually doing physics in grad school, and understood the "nuts and bolts" a bit more, I still think that BHOT is one of the worse popular science books ever written about fundamental physics ever. It's terrible.

Anybody who claimed they learned a great deal, or understood clearly what Hawking meant, was either (a) BS-ting for the sake of having an ego boost OR (b) a genius.

I figured that the reason BHOT becomes a bestseller is because people are more fascinated by Hawking the Man himself than his physics (which is while of extreme high quality, is no where near as dominating as those of an Einstein or a Dirac).

So there.

Relativity Visualized...

[Bonker]

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.

How I keep my Geek License

[omarius]

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

I've read this book

[powlette]

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.

The bigger picture

[emc3]

People who haven't studied this stuff often don't realize that "E=mc^2" is deceptively simple. It's only part of the equation. The whole thing is more like "E=((mc^2)/(sqrt(1 - (v^2/c^2)))", where v is the velocity of the mass in question.

"E=mc^2" is what the equation simplifies to when the mass is at rest (v = 0). When you put an object in motion -- especially if you achieve speeds that are statistically significant percentages of c -- the rest of the equation comes into play. And the denominator of that equation is also where relativistic effects such as time dilation come into play.

And if you don't think this stuff is important, well, don't come crying to me if you get stuck near the event horizon of a black hole.

And remember, E=mc^3 at some point just before you reach c :)
--
Ernest MacDougal Campbell III / NIC Handle: EMC3

Einstein for Beginners

[Ars-Fartsica]

My favorite Einstein book is (barnes and noble link) Einstein for Beginners, from the quite excellent "Beginners" series you have probably seen in the philosophy or science racks at the bookstore.

This book makes no assumptions about your physics acumen, and the explanation of relativity is one of the best I have read - it is accessible to almost anyone with a high-school level education.

Even better

[OlympicSponsor]

Wasn't Einstein's Nobel for his work on Brownian motion?
--
MailOne

Explanation of e=mc2

[Metal Machine Music]

> 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.

That's not strictly true. E=mc2 is only accurate on a subatomic level. Thus in a reaction where Uranium decays, the energy released can be calculated from the mass of the components. The energy is considerably less than e=mc2 for the Uranium atom itself because you have to take the overall result - energy in and energy out. Thus although e=mc2 is true for Coke, the overall energy released will probably be negative, because you've got to put more energy in than you get out in order to split the atom.

Hey Taco, no high bit chars please. Use E=mc^2.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because your superscripted 2 is a Microsoft centric character that not everyone can see. Didn't you read your own article 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.

Einstein's Nobel Prize

[elvum]

Einstein won his prize "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" - see the relevant page on the Nobel website.

Re: E = mc^2 and the bomb

[DrProton]

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

You seem to imply the myth that E = mc^2 was necessary or useful in the design of the atom bomb. It was neither. The bomb was designed using basic results from nuclear physics, ingenuity, and a lot of engineering and hard work. The discoveries of Chadwick (the neutron) and Fermi (nuclear fission) were far more relevant to bomb design than Einstein's theory of special relativity. Special relativity is simply unneeded if one is engineering a nuclear weapon.

Read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes if you want to learn more. Also recommended is "The Los Alamos Primer" by Robert Serber. Einstein did play a political role in the making of the bomb (he wrote a very important letter to Roosevelt), but he did not work on the Manhattan Project.

Book too broad

[peter303]

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.

exp(i*pi) - 1 = 0

[peter303]

Is another magic equation that encapsulates
mathematics through the first half of the 19th century.
I've seen books on individual symbols,
but don't know if anyone has done all five (or seven).
I. Shah has done 1, *, =, 0, and -1, and refers
to this equation. There are dozens of history
books on pi and a couple on natural logorithms.
"Want to be a Millionaire" quaestion: what is the
historical ordering of these symbols (first printed usage)?
What is the historical ordering of the concepts
behind the symbols (different answer)?
The trick answer is that zero is one of the
latest understood, even though today it
is one of the first taught.

Not acceleration, GRAVITY.

[volpe]

>theory of special relativity where special meant
>constant velocity, no acceleration.

Wrong. "Special" does not mean no acceleration. Special Relativity is quite capable of handling acceleration, using a little calculus. The "special" means "flat spacetime", i.e. the absence of any (significant) spacetime curvature (a.k.a. "gravity") due to the presence of large nearby masses. Flat spacetime is the assumption under which the Two Postulates of Special Relativity [1. Principle of Relativity -- all inertial frames are created equal. 2. Law of Propagation of Light -- light's speed is a constant independent of the motion of its source] are made.

General Relativity is the extension of Special Relativity that handles GRAVITY (not acceleration). Don't overestimate the signifigance of the Equivalence Principle -- it applies only locally. That's why SR+calculus can handle acceleration, but gravity requires GR. SR is a special case of GR, in the low-mass limit. That's the difference.

Wrong books to read

[rezn]

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.

Re:Wrong books to read

[JWhitlock]

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.

Re:Wrong books to read

[Sara Chan]

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.

Bzzzt! Wrong!

[flatpack]

Wrong. "Special" does not mean no acceleration. Special Relativity is quite capable of handling acceleration, using a little calculus.

Sorry, but you're wrong. Special relativity applies only to inertial frames, where there is no acceleration. This is the limitation that made Einstein start towards General Relativity. He then came up with the Principle of Equivalence stating that every acceleration has an equivalent gravitational field and vice versa, hence they are the same thing. So yes, special relativity doesn't work in gravitational fields, but this also means it doesn't work for an accelerating frame of reference either.

Costantly use a conversion table?

[Reality Master 101]

Ahem, a pound = 2.2 Kg. Why would you have to constantly refer back to the conversion table after the first time? It's a little more than doubled. You can't double a number in your head?

Now, if it was Fahrenheit to Celsius conversions, I could understand... that's a little trickier.

But still, why do you even need to know the exact measurement? The book is not a reference book. All you need to know is that "5000 pounds" is a lot of weight. Why would it matter exactly how much it is?

--

Re:Slight (critical) correction

[Kyobu]

Sorry, you're wrong. There is no 2. The guy was right. This equation comes from the fact that e^(i) = cos() + isin(). Therefore, since cos() = -1 and sin() = 0, e^(i) = -1, or restated, e^(i) + 1 = 0.

God's Equation

[danny]

Another ok book on Einstein is Azel's God's Equation . (Though the equation in that is the Einsten field equation E=8piT, not E=mc^2.)

Danny.

Re:You don't know how heavy 5000 pounds is?!?!?!

[alienmole]

I saved a quote from /. the other day for just such a message as yours: "That was the most over-generalized, "This is what I have seen in my infinitesimal experience of the world, therefore it is true the universe over" statement I have ever seen." (Thanks to DaPhreaker.)

There are other English-speaking countries than the big four you mentioned. Where I grew up, I remember going to the store for pints of milk when I was about 6. But it all switched to SI shortly after that, milk switched to liters, pounds to kilograms, etc. The only Imperial unit I retained any kind of intuitive appreciation of was the pint. (Comes in handy in bars!)

I live in the US now and have had to absorb a knowledge of pounds, etc. but when I first came over, I found the units meaningless. Multiplying by a factor in your head is a poor substitute for an intuitive understanding of what a number representing a weight means. I know exactly what Michael JasonSmith means, and would find it similarly annoying to read a book about topics like physics which wasn't in SI units.

which is that fluency in English includes a basic familiarity with the peculiar units of measurement used in everyday life in the largest English-speaking countries

I find this a truly astonishing position to take. You might as well say that fluency in English requires a familiarity with the structure of the British aristocracy. Or a familiarity with the vocabulary of Chaucer. WTF???

Are you sure your position isn't just one of "I had to learn these dumb units so everyone else should do the same"?

Re:"niggles" is a RACIST slur!

[alienmole]

There was a much publicized flap over the use of the word "niggardly" not that long ago. It was a similar situation - a perfectly innocent word that happened to sound similar to "nigger". (We're all grownups, we can say it.)

The interesting upshot of all this, though, is that when you get right down to it, to be politically correct one has to avoid not just racism, but the appearance of racism. Which means avoiding words like niggle and niggardly, at least in the U.S., is probably a good idea.

It's a form of social oppression, but that's one of the less onerous consequences of ones ancestors having enslaved people.

Re:"niggles" is a RACIST slur!

[alienmole]

In general it is unwise for us to consider the course of treating all African Americans as if they were uneducated buffoons incapable of any more than a third grade vocabulary as a remedy to the prior sins of Indo-European conquest and more specifically the slavery and racism perpetuated in America.

[...]

Perpetuating ignoprance helps no one.

I agree, in general. However, I think one can reasonably make the argument that the negative connotations associated with the word "nigger" are such that similar words should be avoided, not only in the interests of humoring the less well-educated, but also to avoid any appearance of having deliberately chosen a word that evokes another, more insulting word.

I'm not a big fan of "political correctness", but I do recognize that it serves a purpose as a kind of mindless set of rules for people who may not be intimately familiar with all the issues in a given situation and able to decide on their own what is and isn't politically appropriate in that situation. I did say that "to be politically correct one has to avoid not just racism, but the appearance of racism", and I think that's true. If one is ignoring political correctness, though, in favor of following one's own conscience, then the logic you've laid out applies.