Customer Reviews

Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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 scientific papers have mistakes. Nearly all papers (it claimed) turn out eventually to be wrong. In other words, progress in science entails a lot of back-and-forth, and the field as a whole progresses even as individual scientists change their minds one way or another. If this is true, then finding mistakes in Einstein's papers is no big deal; indeed, maybe the real point is that, since the topics addressed by the papers were significant, what can now be seen as errors are now seen to be significant as well.

Some readers (maybe most readers) will find Ohanian's writing style occasionally jarring: he sometimes uses informal language in a way that calls attention to itself and distracts from the story. Other reviews have pointed this out as well.

OK, so what was good about the book?

- The detailed explanation of the arguments was very revealing, even though I don't agree that they were all as "mistaken" as Ohanian condemns. He still provides an explanation of the context: What was the essential question being addressed, how does the argument work, where would we fault it today? This is very interesting, and provides the bread & butter of the book.

- Ohanian details some specific problems, and evaluations by current professional relativists, concerning the equivalence principle. He points out several ways in which it is quantitatively wrong. I guess the point is that it was a heuristic argument that helped Einstein in the right way at the right time, but doesn't have much bearing once you have the actual equations of general relativity. I now understand better some of the zen-like cryptic remarks made by a professor on this topic: Student: "I'm having some trouble actually understanding how the equivalence principle applies in this case ...". Professor: "Your lack of understanding is actually an indication of understanding the equivalence principle."

- Ohanian discusses the many attempts required to actually arrive at the correct equations for GR. Apparently, there is no cogent way to arrive at these equations from the general considerations from which Einstein was starting, although Ohanian describes a path starting from the spin-2 version of quantum field theory that eventually gets you there. So, unlike the case with special relativity, the creation of general relativity really was a leap in the dark.

- Contrary to most reviewers, I was fascinated by the "dirt" Ohanian was dishing on Einstein's financial and romantic affairs. I was totally unaware that he got around so much. In retrospect, this reminds me a bit of Richard Feynman.

- It was also interesting to hear that he was a bit full of himself, nearly fatally, when a young man. This really hurt his career, initially.

- It was very interesting to read that Einstein depended so much on assistants to do his calculations carefully and thoroughly. It seems odd; but it does clarify the point that there is a big difference between mathematics and theoretical physics. Most of the mathematicians I knew simply cannot really "get" physics; so now we know of a theoretical physics of genius who was just not very good at math. Obviously his revolutionary ideas and concepts were not really mathematical in origin or nature, even though some of them required high-powered mathematics to implement. Fascinating!

- Finally, it was very interesting to read Ohanian's deconstruction of the process by which Einstein became the most famous scientist of the 20th century. I had never questioned it; although I have always evaluated Niels Bohr as the most important scientist of the 20th century, for leading and supporting the development of quantum theory through his work with an international "college" of geniuses.

In short: I do recommend this book highly, even though I disagree with the somewhat cantankerous approach taken towards Einstein's "mistakes". It truly does prove James Joyce's point, quoted in the book: "A man of genius makes no mistakes; his errors are volitional and are the portals of discovery." I believe this applies more to Einstein than to Joyce!

Neal J. King

The text presents a mix of light biography, theory explanation, and analysis of errors in a blend appropriate to support the major thesis--that Einstein made mistakes. The text is well written, generally balanced in structure, and enjoyable. Early chapters develop Einstein's career in the greater field of physics, first presenting the advances of Galileo, Newton, Lorentz, and others. Einstein is then presented as a young man working as a patent clerk and desiring a university posting--a posting beyond his grasp due to mediocre grades, poor personal hygiene, and challenged interpersonal skills. The book then follows his entire career. The included biography however is spotty and highlights anecdotes, but does not attempt to explain the man in notable detail--though the text is not intended as a comprehensive biography. Throughout, Einstein is presented as self-promoting, prone to foibles, a lousy mathematician, excessively proud, human--and also intelligent in the arena of physics. The author clearly does not hold Einstein in the same fabled light favored by conventional wisdom, for example presenting Einstein's initial forays into general relatively as "a performance worthy of Elmer Fudd" (p. 196) and suggesting that many of Einstein's theoretical advances were either proposed earlier by others, co-discovered but not co-attributed, or were invalid in detail while only accidentally correct in the general case. These various issues form the bulk of what the text terms Einstein's mistakes, noting "Einstein made so many mistakes in his scientific work that it is hard to keep track of them" (p. 327). The text does not claim to discover any mistakes--they are all attributed to other sources in the two-dozen pages of endnotes. The text argues that Einstein's reputation remains untarnished not for lack of faults but because of professional courtesy: "...he did not label Einstein's mistake as such. This restraint has also been observed by later writers..." (p. 96).

The text presents most material in a roughly chronological order, considering theories and papers in the order they were published. It is apparent from the material included that Einstein's interests were wide and that he had a fundamental grasp on the significant questions of physics during his lifetime. However, Einstein is presented as, at best, a bumbling mathematician. Most of the chronicled mistakes are mathematical errors. Much of science typically works in a stepwise fashion, with theories being offered and then either modified or withdrawn. Einstein was no exception to this and many of his published theories were later modified, either by himself or others. These early theoretical excursions, when not substantively correct on the first presentation, are considered serious mistakes. When Einstein did not know of significant contemporaneous developments, his ignorance is also termed a mistake. Some of Einstein's personal foibles and some of his career moves are considered mistakes.

In all, Einstein's collected papers are said to comprise "about 180 original items. Of these, about 50 contain mistakes...It's a bad scorecard" (p. 327). While the close examination of Einstein's productivity makes fascinating reading, the text's unfortunate tone borders on gloating and is not consistently objective; Einstein's mistakes "were perfectly mundane, careless, and sometimes stupid lapses in logic and mathematics" (p. 332). And in fact, the tone of the title itself captures entirely the tone of the text. The text's greatest disappointment, however, lies in the conclusion "[w]hat lessons can we extract from Einstein's mistakes? Not many" (p. 332). Surely this is wrong--studying the failings of genius, after all, helps us understand our own average failings in an entirely different light. And even if the conclusion is after all correct, that nothing can be learned by examining Einstein's mistakes, then why write the book in the first place?

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

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

There a comment in the book's advertising blurbs that states that the biggest mistake in the book lies in the title, and I completely agree. Book titles are generally chosen by the author, or more generally by the publisher, to help sell the book, but for me the reverse was true. When I first saw the hardback version of this book I did not even bother to look at its contents as I thought that it was just one of many books by Einstein-haters. The fact that the author's scientific credentials were not mentioned only added to my suspicion that the author was a crank. A check on the internet revealed that the author, far from being a crank, is physics professor at a first rate university (RPI, although I now believe that he is with the University of Vermont), and when I looked at the paperback version in some detail I realized that my first impression was ill considered and I purchased it. The book contains endnotes, some photographs (of very poor quality because they are printed on the same coarse paper as the text), and an index. This is a scientific biography of Einstein, in the same vain as "Subtle is the Lord", by Abraham Pais, but it is written for a much more general audience, with much less detailed physics, but with clear explanations of Einstein's work. I recommend this book, but only to those with a good background in the subject of Einstein's life and physics.

To some degree I feel that explaining Einstein's many contribution in terms of his mistakes is in itself a mistake. Some of these "mistakes" surely are mistakes, such as the one in his PhD thesis that led to a significant underestimate of Avogadro's number. However, this is a well-known mistake, one that Einstein himself had a student hunt down and correct. However, I would not call many of the other "mistakes" actually mistakes. For instance, the author makes a big point about the fact that Einstein introduced the consistency of the speed of light as a postulate instead of being the result of experiments. While Einstein's 1905 paper does make this ascertain, Einstein also provides several general, sketchy, reasons for this. Most subsequent treatments of Relativity Theory take pains to discuss these experimental results in some detail. So, is this an mistake on Einstein's part? Personally I do not think so - I look at it more as more of a problem of presentation, rather than substance. (The author would vehemently disagree.) Next, the author makes a lot about the fact that Einstein's derivation of E=mc^2 is not general, but only applies in a specific case. Furthermore, he contends that this is also the case for the other six of Einstein's derivations of this equation. Again, Einstein was clear about the assumptions that he uses and I do not consider it an error if these assumptions limit the applicability of the derivation. (Like most of the errors that are discussed, these problems are well known and are the reason why Einstein derived the equation in so many different ways, and why others developed more general derivations.) Another example of a "mistake" concerns the correctness of Einstein's idea of the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. Even elementary treatments of General Relativity (such as that in Wolfson's "Simply Einstein") show that tidal effects make Einstein's equivalence concept only approximate and restrict it to the situation where the local of applicability is very small, making these tidal effects negligible. Again, I do not see this as an error, so much as a limitation on the applicability of the idea. On the plus side, I liked the discussion of how this idea helped Einstein to formulate General Relativity, even if it is not strictly correct. While it can be discarded as not only being incorrect, but also as being unnecessary for the theory, it does however, serve as a useful guide to tackling problems, even if it is not actually used for their solution. Lastly, Einstein's numerous failures to develop a grand unified "theory of everything" are called mistakes, rather than a failure to do something that has still eluded physicists for more than 60 years.

I liked this book enough to give it five stars in spite of the "mistakes" that are discussed - why? While I found some of the discussion of the "mistakes" to be a bit annoying, they were generally quite illuminating. I have read many treatments of Einstein's physics, including first level textbooks, such as Taylor and Wheeler's "Space-time Physics", so I have some familiarity with it, and I feel that this book helped to clarify a lot for me. I particularly liked the discussion of distinction between the Einstein approach to Special Relativity and that of Lorentz and Poincaré. Most books just dismiss these latter approaches as wrong and leave it at that; whereas in this book they are discussed and contrasted to Einstein's approach and it is explained why they were preferred because they provided a rational for relativity that Einstein's did not. The book also shows why they were incorrect as presented at the time, but that much more recent approaches using relativistic quantum mechanics give them much more credence. (Although here I suspect a bit of circular reasoning in using relativistic quantum mechanics to derive the basic equations of relativity because relativistic QM is based on these equations. I see this as an example of just the sort of `mistake" that Einstein is accused of making.) I also liked the book's treatment of Critical Opalescence, which clarified the physics of this phenomenon for me. There were also very interesting historical discussions. I particularly likes the discussion of the question of the priority of General Relativity between Einstein versus Hilbert. I found this to be one of the most complete that I have found on this subject. This section clearly shows that the author, far from being an Einstein-hater, supports him on this and many other issues.

As I said, I liked this book well enough to give it five stars, but I would not recommend it for those who have little or no background concerning Einstein and his physics. For those readers I would recommend their first reading a good general biography, such as Isaacson's "Einstein", followed by a general discussion of his physics, such as that in Wolfson's "Simply Einstein". I would thus recommend the book for only those who have read these books or the equivalent. I am afraid that much of the discussions in this book would be lost on those without a sufficient background on the subject of Einstein and his physics. This is definitely not a first book on Einstein or even one for a casual reader on this subject.

The book is well written, interesting and probably worthwhile for many readers. I am not in a position to evaluate his claims. But each pronouncement of error is given with the same level of authority. I am also troubled by the omission of a well known mistake--that is Einstein's trashing of Alexander Friedman's paper in Zeitschrift fur Physik.

The book is marred by puerile asides.

Halfway through this book, I started to have the feeling that the author held some grudge against Einstein, and that that was his ultimate reason for writing it.

Some simple details are very obvious for the non-scientist. For example, he tells us that the weightlessness experienced by a falling person was not very original, and he cites Jules Verne's novel as a precedent. He cites the episode when the spaceship travellers throw out a dead dog, and its cadaver continued to coast alongside the ship. This is the most stupid thing I have ever read for a precedent to the equivalence principle. He also mentions that centrifuges already existed, so everyone knew that acceleration created a gravitational field. Please.

Another case in point is when he misconstrues a quote by Einstein regarding the slowing of clocks within a gravitational field. Einstein says "We must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring time at places with different gravitation". Ohanian says that Einstein was right in saying that clocks run more slowly in gravitational fields, but that he was wrong in saying that this is so "because we elect to adjust the clocks in such a way as to make them run slowly" (sic).

If this book had been written by a layman, these could be put down to a poor understanding of physics. But since the author knows his subject so well, one wonders about his good faith and the accuracy of other, more technical claims that are more difficult for me to verify.

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!

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.

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.