Customer Reviews

Relativity Simply Explained

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(7)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If you are looking for a comprehensive book to understand the nuances of Relativity theory, this isn't for you. However, if you are not mathematically inclined, or don't wish to dive into the math or physics just yet, this is a excellent choice.

This was the first book that I read on the subject of Einstein's theory. I found it entertaining and actually fun to read. I have not read any of Gardner's other books, but his writing style in this one makes for an easy read. It does not feel like you are reading much of a physics books at all.

Furthermore, the illustrations not only are well done, but they make it easier to understand the principles being explained.

If you are looking to know the basics of this theory, this is best book to own. Simple to read, good explanations, uncomplicated. If you are looking for more depth, than you will certainly move on to another book after this, but this is an excellent one to start with.

This is a wonderful, nonmathematical introduction to special and general relativity. Gardner is a talented popularizer, and the two-color illustrations help make this an enjoyable book to read. My only misgiving is that the book is getting out of date on many topics. Ch. 1-6 are fine, but ch. 7, Tests of Relativity, is sorely in need of updating, and ch. 10-12, on cosmology, predate the recent revolution that has made cosmology a high-precision science and revealed that the universe is even stranger than we thought. I would like to see Gardner hand off this book to another writer who can produce a new, up to date edition.

This is the 1997 Dover edition of Martin Gardner's 1976 "The Relativity Explosion", which was itself an update of the original 1962 book, published under the title "Relativity for the Million". This present edition contains a short chapter that attempts to update the 1976 version to 1997. Given that 10 years have passed since 1997 and that many new measurements of the cosmos have been made, some of the cosmology is a bit dated. This is not, however, a severe handicap as most of the book deals with Einstein's work dating back more than 80 years.

Gardner has avoided almost all mathematics, thereby producing a book that quite philosophical. It is therefore an adjunct to a physics text that contains much more of the mathematics of relativity. Given that this book aims to simply explain relativity theory, the most relevant question is how well does it do this? The answer of course depends upon the reader's background. I think that this book will be a hard slog for a person with no physics background, but if one is willing to abandon some things that they might feel are intuitively obvious then they should get quite a bit from the book. A person with some physics background should get more from the book; especially as the book clearly shows how the basic assumptions of Newtonian physics differ from those of Einstein. The discussion of Minkowski's four dimensional space-time approach is also very illuminating. (Since there is no math in the book, this and non-Euclidian geometry are only generally discussed. The implications of dealing with a four dimensional description of a universe that we can only perceive in three dimensions helped to clarify some misconceptions that I had concerning the various analogies used to explain general relativity.) The book will be an interesting adjunct for those with still more of a background, but they will probably find the lack of any math a great hindrance. They may also disagree with some of the assertions made in the book.

The last part of the book deals with the application of relativity theory to cosmology. The chapter on the "Twin Paradox" was particularly interesting as it points out that there is still quite a bit of controversy surrounding the implications of the theory of relativity.

I still struggle as a physics teacher to understand relativity. This book was recommended by a college professor who understood my struggle. I can't say I completely grasp everything relativity related, but my understanding of this concept has increased greatly as a result of reading this book (and Einstein's biography by Isaacson). I feel better prepared to answer questions from my students regarding this subject. I also think this would be an appropriate book to recommend to a high school student.

This book was the best explanation of Relativity that I could find. I have had passed experience with a college course and two other books (Relativity: The Special and the General Theory and A Briefer History of Time). I found that this book gave good mental pictures for the reader to understand the theories. The book did not just come at the topic at one angle, it would tackle the subject from different sides. If and when I would think of a contradiction of one of the theories, the book would in the next section be explaining why that exact contradiction was not a contradiction. The book does not contain any of the math evolved in the theories, but I would say that it would be a good companion book to a more advanced college text book over Relativity. I would recommend this book for beginning Physicist or one who is interested in learning the theory of Relativity and/or its consequences.

This book represents the best effort I've seen in putting Einstein's great theory into practical terms for the nontechnical reader.

Reading this book, you will often cry "But WHY? ...Why does that follow from the axioms?"
In short, this book explains WHAT relativity says, but it's very buggy in explaining the REASONING behind those statements.
Some statements simply aren't explained well.
I was disappointed.
Maybe I am too stupid though.

Again, we have an author who tries his best to avoid appealing to any sort of universal reference frame to explain the effects of special relativity, but ultimately caves in and utilizes such frame of reference to get out of the jam known as the Twin Paradox.

Despite his frequent exhortations such as "there is no actual truth of the matter" (page 36) or "There is no meaning to the concepts of absolute length and time" (page 35), Gardner, on pages 114-116, resolves the Twin Paradox by appealing to the fact that the universe itself serves as the reference frame by which to distinguish true motion. He writes: "There is one all important difference between the relative motion of the astronaut and the relative motion of the stay-at-home. The stay-at-home does not move relative to the universe" (- page 114) and "From either point of view, the stay-at-home and the cosmos do not move relative to one another" (- page 116). Yet, on page 158 he writes: "One could just as legitimately assume the earth to be fixed and the entire universe to be moving". With that meaningless comment, he apparently hopes you'll again buy into the "no truth of the matter" point of view. And just what is it that the universe is supposed to be moving in relation to?

In the course of providing examples in his book, Gardner, like most authors, also writes about distances between objects as if he is speaking in absolute distance terms, not in the terms of any particular inertial frame. He does this despite his claim that such absolute distance intervals are meaningless concepts. Nothing can be concluded from such examples, being devoid of meaningful specifics.

Such vagaries and flip-flopping annoyed me just as much upon the second reading of this book as it had when I had read it 36 years earlier. The best you can do with this book is to become alerted to many of the historical ponderings associated with relativity. But you will need to do your own thinking. Gardner shows that he is well read, but he has difficulty with concepts at crucial junctures.

Well written book. Illustrations put the theories into pictures we can all relate to.

Non-math books, such as this one, should be required reading for all physics majors in college. Too many highly educated individuals know all the math but don't understand the conceptual workings of physics. For instance, during my morning coffee break with two of my friends (one a professor who teaches college level physics, the other an electrical consulting engineer in the semi-conductor field) couldn't grasp the role that quantum entanglement played in the fact that an electrical current can't flow between the positive pole of one battery, and the negative pole of a "disconnected" second battery.

Many men and women who are too highly educated to bother reading this book, desperately need to read it.