1 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Considerable disappointment, July 25, 2011
Bertrand Russell
ABC of Relativity
Routledge Classics, Paperback, 2009.
8vo. xvii, 150 pp. Preface by Felix Pirani, 2002 [vi]. Introduction by Peter Clark, 1997 [vii-xvii]. Edited by Felix Pirani, 1985.
First published, 1925.
First published in Routledge Classics, 2009.
Contents
Introduction
1. Touch and Sight: The Earth and the Heavens
2. What Happens and What is Observed
3. The Velocity of Light
4. Clocks and Foot-rules
5. Space-Time
6. The Special Theory of Relativity
7. Intervals in Space-Time
8. Einstein's Law of Gravitation
9. Proofs of Einstein's Law of Gravitation
10. Mass, Momentum, Energy, and Action
11. The Expanding Universe
12. Conventions and Natural Laws
13. The Abolition of 'Force'
14. What is Matter?
15. Philosophical Consequences
==========================================
The main stimulus to read that book was Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" (2003) which I have recently finished. When dealing with the Theory of Relativity, Mr Bryson mentions Lord Russell's book as one of the most successful attempts for popular explanation of this traditionally difficult for the general public subject, but he casually adds the devastating remark "commercially at least". Having recently been rather hooked on Bertrand Russell, and having been more amused than fascinated by Mr Bryson's book, my curiosity about "ABC of Relativity" (1925) quickly reached the pick-up-from-shelf threshold.
Now, let's get one thing straight from the beginning: I have no intention to compare both writers. After all, to compare Bill Bryson with Bertrand Russell is like to compare bicycle with Harley Davidson. A singularly ludicrous business indeed. When Lord Russell was interested in a subject - be it relativity, morals, mind, matter, education, knowledge, society or whatever else you may think of - he wrote a book dedicated solely on the subject, not careless and flippant histories of nearly everything. All 60 or so books which Bertrand Russell produced during his almost century long lifetime will probably not give you as many facts and figures as Bill Bryson does in 500 pages, but a single essay by Lord Russell may well give you what Mr Bryson is quite incapable of: thoughtful, stimulating and penetrating reflections with quite a bit to ponder upon. Even in terms of literary styles - by far Mr Bryson's most valuable asset - Bertrand Russell's witty and perceptive writing is embarrassingly superior to the easygoing and superficial stuff Mr Bryson offers you.
So, after I have done what I have promised not to do, let's get to the point.
The point is that the theory of relativity is an immensely abstruse subject. Which is of course no excuse. If the theory is one of greatest achievements in the history of mankind - as is constantly claimed to be - there must be some way to be explained to the general reader in such a way as to grasp its great significance. Moreover, this significance must have some practical outcome for the people at large, for otherwise its greatness is greatly limited indeed. A scientific theory may explain a lot and make quite a revolution in some highly specialised circles, but if it is confined to them and have no real value for the ordinary man, such theory has to my mind nothing to do with greatness, except a purely scientific one which is of no real value for mankind as a whole.
Such is the case with Einstein's theory and me. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent fellow with a reasonably solid scientific background, though by means in the field of physics or astronomy, yet the theory of relativity - be it special or general - is still perfectly beyond me. Pity, because relativity in general plays an extremely, an inordinately huge part in my professional life. Everybody who has ever had the (mis)fortune to work in some of the numerous fields of molecular biology cannot have failed to appreciate the tremendous part relativity plays in the whole thing. Everything is relative here. What you measure matters not: you always compare it to a control, sometimes to more than one. It's a common joke around that some people believe in God, others have to show controls.
Notwithstanding the greatest admiration I have for the author, "The ABC of Relativity" has been my first disappointment with Bertrand Russell; perhaps not a major one, but a disappointment nonetheless. Despite that his style is as lucid as ever and every sentence makes a perfect sense, the overall effect I did find quite unsatisfactory indeed. It is still quite a mystery to me what is so great about the theory of relativity; perhaps its greatness is relative. Lord Russell's book is almost entirely devoid of mathematical horrors and was of course written especially for the lay reader, it is quite readable and does have several interesting points which might just convince me that the theory of relativity is not totally useless for me, but on the whole I remain a sceptic about its ultimate value outside the very restricted world of astrophysics. Sometimes, indeed, Lord Russell comes tantalisingly close to make some real sense of terms like space-time or their kinky intervals, but he never really ventures into the realm of the comprehensible. The matter remains thoroughly transcendental as far as I am concerned.
Interestingly, the book contains a very short preface by one Felix Pirani who apparently revised it no fewer than three times to include new scientific developments.The first two of these revisions were carried out with the approval of Bertrand Russell, the fourth happened 15 years after his death and was a sole responsibility of Mr Pirani. He also mentions that most revisions occupied the chapter about the expanding of the universe, whereas the purely philosophical content of the last two chapters was the reason why he didn't touch them at all. At any rate, Mr Pirani's revisions seems to have been minor and he can hardly be held responsible for any problems one might have with the book; indeed, most of his revisions are either too minor or too subtle to be noticed at all. Nor do I think that the pecuniary motives of Bertrand Russell to write the book, let alone any incompetence on his side, has anything to do with his failure to convince in the value of his subject.
For all his shortcomings, Lord Russell's prose is infinitely superior to the remarkable mess that Peter Clark has written by way of preface and, taken in proportion of its volume, way more rewarding than that of Bill Bryson. I am willing to believe that the legendary theory of relativity is either not so great when stripped of the purely scientific terminology or it is simply much too abstruse a subject to be put in any form for the general public - which is the same actually. Or perhaps I am (being) too obtuse. It might be that the theory requires a very special kind of mind which mine is not.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
