Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius

I really enjoyed reading this book, because Ohanian covers some ground that I have not seen anywhere else, and he calls it the way he sees it. As a genuine trained relativist, he knows what he is talking about when he argues the physics. However, I believe that he is a bit unfair to Einstein in calling him out for so many "mistakes": - I do not agree that Einstein's argument for time synchronization was a "mistake": It was a REQUIREMENT following from the fact that no velocity of the Earth relative to the ether could be found. It is true that, if the Michelson-Morley result had given a positive result, Einstein's synchronization mechanism would have failed as being self-inconsistent, so in that sense it was an over-statement by Einstein to call his mechanism a "free act of will." But the argument itself is valid as an expression of what followed from the null result of M & M. - The later argument by Swann that explained the Lorentz contraction in terms of dynamical effects was also valuable, but different. The preceding work by Lorentz and Poincare are also more in this school of thought: What do you expect to happen starting from Maxwell's equations and so forth? But these two approaches are both valuable and complementary. - I do not agree that Einstein's argument for E = mc^2 is a "mistake". It is not valid as a mathematical proof, but it is an excellent heuristic argument. Given that it comes out of the blue, it is very suggestive, and convinces one that "there's gold in them thar hills." For a pioneer that is stumbling across this for the first time, it is like a miracle. The fact that more systematic and complete arguments are needed do not change that. Sometimes, to quote Feynman (on the discovery of the rules for calculating QED), "More truth can be known than can be proven." The fact that Einstein chose to stick with his early arguments (of limited validity) is not really a mistake in my view: Why shouldn't a pioneer be proud to show his original tools of discovery? The professionals following after (like Planck) can and should do that. What is missing is that modern textbooks usually don't provide a full derivation either; but that is hardly Einstein's fault. - Ohanian calls Einstein's arguments about meter-stick measurements on a rotating disk mistaken because they challenge the flatness of geometry in the non-rotating lab. However, as I read it, Einstein is just pointing out that the APPARENT geometry as measured by the physical meter sticks on a rotating disk are bound to look non-Euclidean. I do not believe there is anything wrong about what Einstein actually said here. - Also in several other cases, Ohanian choses to call "mistakes" what we can see now are incomplete/heuristic arguments, or arguments where we would now chose to emphasize other aspects. It seems to me that Ohanian does this to give himself a unifying theme on which to base his book. - Finally, I recently saw an article that pointed out that MOST scientifi

From Kenneth Ellman [email protected] 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

I was worried that I'd need to brush up on my long-forgotten college math and physics to understand this book, but the book is itself a bit of a brush-up course. And what's especially remarkable is that it's understandable, at different levels, by people with almost any scientific background, or none at all. People who understand tensor calculus (or who know what it is!) would, I'm sure, get more out of the book than I did, but with only a layman's concept of relativity, I was able to follow a good many of the points he makes about Einstein's mistakes (such as his failure to consider tidal effects in the Equivalence Principle). Except for E=mc squared (and Newton's F=ma), there's hardly an equation in sight. And a lot of the book is totally non-technical: many of Einstein's mistakes involved women, rather than math or physics, and this aspect of his life is not slighted. The book examines the "Einstein phenomenon" and how Einstein managed his well-deserved reputation as the scientist of the century. And (unless it's a hat) the author has the most marvelous haircut I've ever seen on a physicist!

When asked by his student how he'd respond to evidence against his famous theory of relativity, Einstein maintained his belief in it against all possible empirical evidence - seemingly. His sense of humor may have outsmarted him but it also reflected his singular mind and stubborn purpose - and his reliance on intuition and inspiration over all. EINSTEIN'S MISTAKES comes from a physicist who offers a biography of Einstein by way of analyzing his failures and mistakes: as such it provides an involving survey which considers the history of physics and Einstein's mistakes as well as those of other leading scientists over the decades. An involving, moving survey. Diane C. Donovan California Bookwatch