What do you think?
Rate this book
The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta
Originally published in 1938 by Cambridge University Press, The Evolution of Physics traces the development of ideas in physics, in a manner suitable for any reader. Written by famed physicist Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, this latest edition includes a new introduction from modern Einstein biographer, Walter Isaacson.
Using this work to push his realist approach to physics in defiance of much of quantum mechanics, Einstein's The Evolution of Physics was published to great popularity and was featured in a Time magazine cover story. A classic work for any student of physics or lover of Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics can be enjoyed by any and should be celebrated by all.
Using this work to push his realist approach to physics in defiance of much of quantum mechanics, Einstein's The Evolution of Physics was published to great popularity and was featured in a Time magazine cover story. A classic work for any student of physics or lover of Albert Einstein, The Evolution of Physics can be enjoyed by any and should be celebrated by all.
330 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
About the author
Albert Einstein
838 books9,349 followersSpecial and general theories of relativity of German-born American theoretical physicist Albert Einstein revolutionized modern thought on the nature of space and time and formed a base for the exploitation of atomic energy; he won a Nobel Prize of 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect.
His paper of 1905 formed the basis of electronics. His first paper, also published in 1905, changed the world.
He completed his Philosophiae Doctor at the University of Zurich before 1909.
Einstein, a pacifist during World War I, stayed a firm proponent of social justice and responsibility.
Einstein thought that Newtonion mechanics no longer enough reconciled the laws of classical mechanics with those of the electromagnetic field. This thought led to the development. He recognized, however, that he ably also extended the principle to gravitational fields and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916 published a paper. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light, which laid the foundation of the photon.
Best known for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, dubbed "the world's most famous equation," he received "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory.
He visited the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and went not back to Germany. On the eve of World War II, he endorsed a letter, alerting Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president, to the potential development of "extremely powerful bombs of a new type" and recommending that the United States begin similar research. This recommendation eventually led to the Manhattan project. Einstein supported defending the Allied forces but largely denounced the idea of using the newly discovered nuclear fission as a weapon. Later, with Bertrand Russell–Einstein manifesto highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons.
After the rise of the Nazi party, Einstein made Princeton his permanent home as a citizen of United States in 1940. He chaired the emergency committee of atomic scientists, which organized to alert the public to the dangers of warfare.
At a symposium, he advised:
("Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941).
In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, dated 3 January 1954, Einstein stated:
(The Guardian, "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear," by James Randerson, May 13, 2008)
Great intellectual achievements and originality made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius.
The institute for advanced study in Princeton, New Jersey, affiliated Einstein until his death in 1955.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_E...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe
His paper of 1905 formed the basis of electronics. His first paper, also published in 1905, changed the world.
He completed his Philosophiae Doctor at the University of Zurich before 1909.
Einstein, a pacifist during World War I, stayed a firm proponent of social justice and responsibility.
Einstein thought that Newtonion mechanics no longer enough reconciled the laws of classical mechanics with those of the electromagnetic field. This thought led to the development. He recognized, however, that he ably also extended the principle to gravitational fields and with his subsequent theory of gravitation in 1916 published a paper. He continued to deal with problems of statistical mechanics and quantum theory, which led to his explanations of particle theory and the motion of molecules. He also investigated the thermal properties of light, which laid the foundation of the photon.
Best known for his mass–energy equivalence formula E = mc2, dubbed "the world's most famous equation," he received "for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The latter was pivotal in establishing quantum theory.
He visited the United States when Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933 and went not back to Germany. On the eve of World War II, he endorsed a letter, alerting Franklin Delano Roosevelt, president, to the potential development of "extremely powerful bombs of a new type" and recommending that the United States begin similar research. This recommendation eventually led to the Manhattan project. Einstein supported defending the Allied forces but largely denounced the idea of using the newly discovered nuclear fission as a weapon. Later, with Bertrand Russell–Einstein manifesto highlighted the danger of nuclear weapons.
After the rise of the Nazi party, Einstein made Princeton his permanent home as a citizen of United States in 1940. He chaired the emergency committee of atomic scientists, which organized to alert the public to the dangers of warfare.
At a symposium, he advised:
"In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... "
("Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium," published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941).
In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, dated 3 January 1954, Einstein stated:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
(The Guardian, "Childish superstition: Einstein's letter makes view of religion relatively clear," by James Randerson, May 13, 2008)
Great intellectual achievements and originality made the word "Einstein" synonymous with genius.
The institute for advanced study in Princeton, New Jersey, affiliated Einstein until his death in 1955.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_E...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobe
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews
September 8, 2009
I really enjoyed the explanations given in this book. The author is Einstien but the writing is Infeld. He worked very closely with Einstien.
They begin with basic mechanics and work their way through field physics, special and general relativity and then finally to quantum mechanics. All of this is done without mathematic equations. It is all explained through analogies, theories and explanation or real world experiments.
It is a very interesting read if for no other reason than to see the development of the theories and how their minds made each transition.
I have a personal interest in these areas but no actual education. I really like a book like this that makes it much more understandable to the average Joe.
Unfortunately it is dated at this point. There has been many further advancements in both quantum physics and in planetary. They do an excellent job of laying a foundation for further study. This is probably a good book to read before reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."
They begin with basic mechanics and work their way through field physics, special and general relativity and then finally to quantum mechanics. All of this is done without mathematic equations. It is all explained through analogies, theories and explanation or real world experiments.
It is a very interesting read if for no other reason than to see the development of the theories and how their minds made each transition.
I have a personal interest in these areas but no actual education. I really like a book like this that makes it much more understandable to the average Joe.
Unfortunately it is dated at this point. There has been many further advancements in both quantum physics and in planetary. They do an excellent job of laying a foundation for further study. This is probably a good book to read before reading Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time."
February 16, 2009
This book is so polite! Written in 1938, apparently more by Infeld than by Einstein, it is exceedingly proper and therefore delightful, as well as thorough. It is a beautiful book, very clear and precise, and should be read by all armchair physicists with a serious hankering to understand relativity theory, as well as the importance of the quantum theory.
February 15, 2013
Absolutely awesome! In my mind, this book is more about psychology or cognition rather than physics. I love books whose plots are connected by logic rather than irrelevant story telling.
More precisely, this book is about how human "create" knowledge and the nature of reality. There is in fact no force, no field, no charge. All we have is motion, along with, at best, the tendency of motion. The "scientific" concepts are artificially created to, and only to, classify unrelated events that only make sense to your corner case reference system. It is not knowledge itself but only the form of evolution of knowledge can give us a hit of reality. well..that's just my interpretation..maybe I'm wrong but this is definitely the book you have to read if you're desperate to understand physics or mind..or are they different? :P
More precisely, this book is about how human "create" knowledge and the nature of reality. There is in fact no force, no field, no charge. All we have is motion, along with, at best, the tendency of motion. The "scientific" concepts are artificially created to, and only to, classify unrelated events that only make sense to your corner case reference system. It is not knowledge itself but only the form of evolution of knowledge can give us a hit of reality. well..that's just my interpretation..maybe I'm wrong but this is definitely the book you have to read if you're desperate to understand physics or mind..or are they different? :P
January 5, 2013
كنز من التجارب الذهنية
تدرج الأفكار ومتى نقرر أن نظرية ما، أصبحت غير صالحة
تجربة تحول الفيزياء الى درراسة بنية الحقل
الفيزياء والمراجع العطالية وعلاقة كليهما بالهندسة
الهيولة، الأثير، الحراة، درجة الحرارة، الطاقة، المادة، الكتلة،العالة، الثقالة، السرعة، المسافة و الزمن
كتاب قمة
تدرج الأفكار ومتى نقرر أن نظرية ما، أصبحت غير صالحة
تجربة تحول الفيزياء الى درراسة بنية الحقل
الفيزياء والمراجع العطالية وعلاقة كليهما بالهندسة
الهيولة، الأثير، الحراة، درجة الحرارة، الطاقة، المادة، الكتلة،العالة، الثقالة، السرعة، المسافة و الزمن
كتاب قمة
July 31, 2016
Einstein has a reputation not only as a physicist, but as a humanitarian. The clarity and style of this book reinforces the reputation.
Slowly, carefully and with great concern that the reader not be left behind, Einstein and his co-author tell what could be a bewildering tale by demonstrating how the science of the physical relationship of things evolved.
It did so for the reason that all science evolves: questions, in being answered, pose further questions. The pursuit of the unknown, with the necessary condition that it be followed regardless of the danger it poses to accepted thought, takes the mind onward, but at the expense of the familiar.
This is THE reason for conflict between science and religion. The former says - I want to know the truth, regardless of the effect on what I believe to be true. The latter says - I know what I believe, it is the truth and I don't need to know more. Science is impatiently looking forward, religion is at rest and content. Science finds mystery intolerable, religion treasures it.
Without a single mathematical equation, Einstein presents the established thought about the relationship between things from the time of Galileo up to quantum mechanics at the time the book was written in 1938. He demonstrates why each view of the world was so convincing.
It made so much sense early on to think that the world was made up of particles that simply interacted with each other by force. Newton showed that some object would remain motionless unless it was acted on by another, moving object. The apple and the moon worked under the same assumption.
All was well but light presented a problem. We know that sound passes by way of pressure through a medium, air, from the source to our ear. Take away air and there is no sound. So how can we see? What is the medium through which light passes to reach our eyes? It was assumed that all of space was filled with "ether" through which light, like sound in air, passed.
Science, while loving to find a mystery, hates it's persistence, so the presence of ether was something that demanded experiments to prove. In following the pursuit of ether, Einstein is at his best explaining the concept and exactly why it was thought necessary, referring back to sound and even further back to objects subject to forces acting on them.
Throughout the book, the theory of relativity is never far from view. The whole body of science up to the introduction of relatively assumed a fixed reference for all of creation. A straight line could be continued in one direction forever. You and I could always agree on the speed of an object, like a train, even if I were watching the train and you were traveling on it. Every point on earth and every planet could be imagined in three dimensions at a specific time. The universe was an elaborate mechanism that ran like a clockwork.
What Einstein discovered is that there is only one thing fixed, the speed of light. This became the standard to which all other references must bend. Time could almost stop, the length of a piece of pipe could lengthen or shorten, an object could change its mass, all of these relative to the speed of light, constant everywhere and for all observers.
Relativity, standing firm under all tests designed to disprove it, has upended our confidence in our senses. Though relativity doesn't forbid, in fact, confirms the world of our daily experience, it resolutely rejects the application of daily experience to the larger reality. Mass and energy are interchangeable, the force of gravity and the force of acceleration are identical, light is both a particle of energy, the photon, and an electromagnetic field.
From being the center of the universe, man has been successively diminished, first in our place among the stars and now in our confidence that what we know from sensation is absolute. Only in the abstract world of mathematics can we continue the pursuit of truth, but in that lies the rescue of our worth. Only we can know the truth, all else stands dumb in an uncomprehending universe. Small potatoes, yes, but small potatoes that think!
Einstein had the determination to push beyond the accepted, yet even he was challenged by quantum weirdness. Others have taken up where he left off. This book will pull you along to an understanding not just of relativity, but of the reason science holds such allure.
After you've read this book, I highly recommend to you Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe", which I have also reviewed. Tegmark takes Einstein's relativity and runs with its implications beyond the known universe known to astronomy.
Slowly, carefully and with great concern that the reader not be left behind, Einstein and his co-author tell what could be a bewildering tale by demonstrating how the science of the physical relationship of things evolved.
It did so for the reason that all science evolves: questions, in being answered, pose further questions. The pursuit of the unknown, with the necessary condition that it be followed regardless of the danger it poses to accepted thought, takes the mind onward, but at the expense of the familiar.
This is THE reason for conflict between science and religion. The former says - I want to know the truth, regardless of the effect on what I believe to be true. The latter says - I know what I believe, it is the truth and I don't need to know more. Science is impatiently looking forward, religion is at rest and content. Science finds mystery intolerable, religion treasures it.
Without a single mathematical equation, Einstein presents the established thought about the relationship between things from the time of Galileo up to quantum mechanics at the time the book was written in 1938. He demonstrates why each view of the world was so convincing.
It made so much sense early on to think that the world was made up of particles that simply interacted with each other by force. Newton showed that some object would remain motionless unless it was acted on by another, moving object. The apple and the moon worked under the same assumption.
All was well but light presented a problem. We know that sound passes by way of pressure through a medium, air, from the source to our ear. Take away air and there is no sound. So how can we see? What is the medium through which light passes to reach our eyes? It was assumed that all of space was filled with "ether" through which light, like sound in air, passed.
Science, while loving to find a mystery, hates it's persistence, so the presence of ether was something that demanded experiments to prove. In following the pursuit of ether, Einstein is at his best explaining the concept and exactly why it was thought necessary, referring back to sound and even further back to objects subject to forces acting on them.
Throughout the book, the theory of relativity is never far from view. The whole body of science up to the introduction of relatively assumed a fixed reference for all of creation. A straight line could be continued in one direction forever. You and I could always agree on the speed of an object, like a train, even if I were watching the train and you were traveling on it. Every point on earth and every planet could be imagined in three dimensions at a specific time. The universe was an elaborate mechanism that ran like a clockwork.
What Einstein discovered is that there is only one thing fixed, the speed of light. This became the standard to which all other references must bend. Time could almost stop, the length of a piece of pipe could lengthen or shorten, an object could change its mass, all of these relative to the speed of light, constant everywhere and for all observers.
Relativity, standing firm under all tests designed to disprove it, has upended our confidence in our senses. Though relativity doesn't forbid, in fact, confirms the world of our daily experience, it resolutely rejects the application of daily experience to the larger reality. Mass and energy are interchangeable, the force of gravity and the force of acceleration are identical, light is both a particle of energy, the photon, and an electromagnetic field.
From being the center of the universe, man has been successively diminished, first in our place among the stars and now in our confidence that what we know from sensation is absolute. Only in the abstract world of mathematics can we continue the pursuit of truth, but in that lies the rescue of our worth. Only we can know the truth, all else stands dumb in an uncomprehending universe. Small potatoes, yes, but small potatoes that think!
Einstein had the determination to push beyond the accepted, yet even he was challenged by quantum weirdness. Others have taken up where he left off. This book will pull you along to an understanding not just of relativity, but of the reason science holds such allure.
After you've read this book, I highly recommend to you Max Tegmark's "Our Mathematical Universe", which I have also reviewed. Tegmark takes Einstein's relativity and runs with its implications beyond the known universe known to astronomy.
May 23, 2020
Einstein-Infeld (an Einstein associate) trace the transition, forced by findings in the late 19th and early 20th century, between classical physics and modern physics that challenged the Newtonian explanation of the world. Newton, the authors state, was not so much replaced as he was incorporated into a higher-level, more encompassing paradigm.
In a way, the transition was fueled by Hegelian-like contradictions along several lines. The wave nature of particles (photons, electrons) was at odds with an atomic (hard, substantive, point-like particles) view of matter. Rather than seamless movement, energy was seen (with Planck, then Einstein) to come in discrete chunks of energy, energy packets (quanta), that moved in jump-like fashion from one level to another. Then, with Einstein (1905), matter and energy came to be seen as interconvertible entities. Matter contained energy and energy had a particle (quantum, albeit massless) nature. With the quantum world coming of age, Newton’s easy-to-grasp notions of causality (atoms in motion, hitting each other with straight-line effects) had to be replaced at the quantum level with probabilistic causality. Predictions no longer pertained to individual particles but only held true for some gross collection of particles.
From these emergent findings, Einstein and others concluded that the Newtonian model that separated matter and energy (1) had to be replaced with a quantum model that united them. Matter was concentrated energy; energy was extremely diluted matter (to the point of masslessness at the speed of light) per Einstein’s E=MC2 formulation that used the square of the speed of light (pure energy) as the conversion factor (equivalence for matter). (2) At the sub-atomic level, particles convert to energy and vice versa, which explains energy’s dual (particle-wave nature) via quantum jumps, and that all of this took place in a field (a cloud) of interactions rather than in a one-to-one cause-and-effect way. Quantum physics, the authors say, formulates laws of crowds, not individuals. Behavior is not that of bodies but rather it is something that exists between them - “the field.”
How this description - this addition to and incorporation of the Newtonian paradigm - relates to Einstein’s relativity theory is not clear to me. It has something to do with the nature (and speed) of light, which is energy void of mass and that lies on the non-mass pole of the energy continuum, and the deductions from this that lead Einstein to conclude that time as well as space cannot have an absolute, fixed standing. And it has something to do with the nature of gravitational mass that attracts lesser bodies. Such masses are also resisted by inertial mass, and the more massive a body is, the more resistance it provides. These countervailing forces are not just mass. That mass is really energy (“add more energy, more mass; more attraction, and more resistance”). It is as if the authors are saying that the relationship between two masses occurs, similar to what happens at the atomic and sub-atomic level, as a (gravitational) field. As at the microlevel where a field operates locally at the speed of light, the exchange between two mass bodies at the macrolevel is mediated by energy operating at the speed of light. (3) And, interestingly, the relative masses plus the square of the distance that affects attraction-resistance seems to almost operate by quantum jumps.
Einstein and Infeld’s attempt to unite relativity with the quantum world is focused on the field concept (matter operating as energy). Here, their central idea is rich:
“Can we think of matter and field as two distinct and different realities?...Before we learned about the relativity theory we could have tried to answer this question in the following way: matter has mass whereas field has not. Field represents energy, matter represents mass. But we already know that such an answer is insufficient in view of the further knowledge gained. From the relativity theory we know that matter represents vast stores of energy and that energy represents matter.”
“From the relativity theory we know that matter represents vast stores of energy and that energy represents matter. We cannot, in this way, distinguish qualitatively between matter and field, since the distinction between mass and energy is not a qualitative one. By far the greatest part of energy is concentrated in matter; but the field surrounding the particle also represents energy, though in an incomparably smaller quantity. We could therefore say: Matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small. But if this is the case, then the difference between matter and field is a quantitative rather than a qualitative one.”
“We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone. But the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created.”
If the authors are proposing a “pure field physics,” does their last quote suggest that in one fundamental sense Einstein’s famous energy-mass equivalence formulation is misleading: There are not two basic cosmic substances but one, energy, which comes in many different forms of matter that jump into and out of concentrated form.
There are a couple of other large questions that leap out of this book. First, Newton’s laws of motion state that a body moves in a straight line (or remains at rest) unless acted upon (accelerated) by an external force. At the macro level, Einstein has large cosmic masses depressing space-time. Though the discussion of Einstein’s theory often states that he didn’t see gravity as a force (4), this depression of space-time does create movement of matter and masses across the cosmos. Why does a body move in a straight line until it is acted upon, which always seems to be the case with gravitational effects? Answers to this question seem either non-existent or implied. At the subatomic and atomic level, energy radiates outward as light (electro-magentic spectrum). But what about large concentrations of energy, as mass-matter moving through space? Why do they, in theory and before gravitational effects, move in a straight (or, per Newton, “right”) line?
Second, Einstein-Leopold’s discussion of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass was particularly interesting. Gravity is one of the four forces, but it is touted as an attractive force only (two bodies attract each other) and it is distinctly not a repelling force as is with electro-magnetism. While gravity does not repel, it does via inertial mass, “resist” and, thereby, the notion that all energy-matter interactions involve some form of both attraction and resistance is retained. (5) This in turn leads to the balancing of energy differentials and equilibrium (until upset by external forces, whether self-propelled or other-directed), and equilibrium is, of sorts, “zero.” (6) Zero might be the basic cosmic concept - it is nothing yet it is everything. Or, it might be some sort of idle philosophical speculation: It may be something, or nothing. (7)
(1) “Classical physics introduced two substances: matter and energy. The first had weight, but the second was weightless. In classical physics we had two conservation laws: one for matter, the other for energy. We have already asked whether modern physics still holds this view of two substances and the two conservation laws. The answer is: ‘No.’ According to the theory of relativity, there is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass and mass represents energy. Instead of two conservation laws we have only one, that of mass-energy.” Interestingly, the authors write, “In its own Newton’s time the concept of energy did not exist.” Newton thought of light as weightless corpuscles and each “color preserved its own substance character. Later, when the concept of energy was created and it was recognized that light carries energy, no one thought of applying these concepts to the corpuscular theory of light. Newton’s theory was dead and, until our own century, its revival was not taken seriously.”
(2) In discussing the problem in asserting that mass and energy were equivalent, Einstein and Infeld refer to “the very small rate of exchange between matter and energy. Compared to mass, energy is like a depreciated currency compared to one of high value….Energy was regarded as weightless for so long simply because the mass which it represents is so small.” This statement does, however, raise a question about the masslessness of energy - if energy has weight, however diluted, would it have mass, however diluted?
(3) “Maxwell’s equations” pertaining to the electro-magnetic field, Einstein and Infeld write, “connect events which happen here and now with events which will happen a little later in the immediate vicinity. They are the laws describing the changes of the electromagnetic field. Our new gravitational equations are also structure laws describing the changes of the gravitational field.” “The theoretical discovery of an electromagnetic wave spreading with the speed of light,” the authors add, “is one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.” Add the speed of light to field interactions, and the gravitational effects across vast spaces and time can be understood.
(4) Einstein-Infeld do say that large bodies show that a “force is directed toward the sun; this means the force is an attraction.”
(5) “Gravitational and inertial mass are equal,” the authors state (adding that “this identity of inertial and gravitational mass was fundamental for the formulation of the theory of relativity”). And, “all energy resists changes in motion.” Add more energy, and there is more resistance. But unlike classical physics that saw inertial resistance in terms of mass only, Einstein’s relativity theory has velocity adding to the resistance effect. Velocity adds (kinetic) energy so that a moving body has both mass and kinetic energy and it resists change of velocity more strongly than the resting body, and “the resistance becomes infinitely great as velocity approaches that of light.” The definitional difference between “repel” (drive away, almost like a counter-attack) and “resist” (withstand, or defend), is interesting. Regarding the equivalence between gravitational and accelerating effects, the authors seem to not only describe that there is space contraction and the slowing of time that happens as an object approaches the speed of light but also, unlike other writers, explain physically why this is so: The faster an object moves (accelerates), there is a compression-contraction of an object in the direction of the movement that shortens length and (the “rhythm of a clock keeping) time.
(6) Is “Zero” related to the law of conservation? “In a closed system, one isolated from external influences,” energy is conserved. And, “If we regard the whole universe as a closed system we can proudly announce with the physicists of the nineteenth century that the energy of the universe is invariant, that no part of it can ever be created or destroyed.” Cosmic rhythms move energy around (and manifested in different forms), but if the overall amount of energy is the same, there is neither more nor less, which is zero.
(7) My favorite quote from this book: “Philosophical generalizations,” the authors write, “must be founded on scientific results.”
In a way, the transition was fueled by Hegelian-like contradictions along several lines. The wave nature of particles (photons, electrons) was at odds with an atomic (hard, substantive, point-like particles) view of matter. Rather than seamless movement, energy was seen (with Planck, then Einstein) to come in discrete chunks of energy, energy packets (quanta), that moved in jump-like fashion from one level to another. Then, with Einstein (1905), matter and energy came to be seen as interconvertible entities. Matter contained energy and energy had a particle (quantum, albeit massless) nature. With the quantum world coming of age, Newton’s easy-to-grasp notions of causality (atoms in motion, hitting each other with straight-line effects) had to be replaced at the quantum level with probabilistic causality. Predictions no longer pertained to individual particles but only held true for some gross collection of particles.
From these emergent findings, Einstein and others concluded that the Newtonian model that separated matter and energy (1) had to be replaced with a quantum model that united them. Matter was concentrated energy; energy was extremely diluted matter (to the point of masslessness at the speed of light) per Einstein’s E=MC2 formulation that used the square of the speed of light (pure energy) as the conversion factor (equivalence for matter). (2) At the sub-atomic level, particles convert to energy and vice versa, which explains energy’s dual (particle-wave nature) via quantum jumps, and that all of this took place in a field (a cloud) of interactions rather than in a one-to-one cause-and-effect way. Quantum physics, the authors say, formulates laws of crowds, not individuals. Behavior is not that of bodies but rather it is something that exists between them - “the field.”
How this description - this addition to and incorporation of the Newtonian paradigm - relates to Einstein’s relativity theory is not clear to me. It has something to do with the nature (and speed) of light, which is energy void of mass and that lies on the non-mass pole of the energy continuum, and the deductions from this that lead Einstein to conclude that time as well as space cannot have an absolute, fixed standing. And it has something to do with the nature of gravitational mass that attracts lesser bodies. Such masses are also resisted by inertial mass, and the more massive a body is, the more resistance it provides. These countervailing forces are not just mass. That mass is really energy (“add more energy, more mass; more attraction, and more resistance”). It is as if the authors are saying that the relationship between two masses occurs, similar to what happens at the atomic and sub-atomic level, as a (gravitational) field. As at the microlevel where a field operates locally at the speed of light, the exchange between two mass bodies at the macrolevel is mediated by energy operating at the speed of light. (3) And, interestingly, the relative masses plus the square of the distance that affects attraction-resistance seems to almost operate by quantum jumps.
Einstein and Infeld’s attempt to unite relativity with the quantum world is focused on the field concept (matter operating as energy). Here, their central idea is rich:
“Can we think of matter and field as two distinct and different realities?...Before we learned about the relativity theory we could have tried to answer this question in the following way: matter has mass whereas field has not. Field represents energy, matter represents mass. But we already know that such an answer is insufficient in view of the further knowledge gained. From the relativity theory we know that matter represents vast stores of energy and that energy represents matter.”
“From the relativity theory we know that matter represents vast stores of energy and that energy represents matter. We cannot, in this way, distinguish qualitatively between matter and field, since the distinction between mass and energy is not a qualitative one. By far the greatest part of energy is concentrated in matter; but the field surrounding the particle also represents energy, though in an incomparably smaller quantity. We could therefore say: Matter is where the concentration of energy is great, field where the concentration of energy is small. But if this is the case, then the difference between matter and field is a quantitative rather than a qualitative one.”
“We cannot build physics on the basis of the matter-concept alone. But the division into matter and field is, after the recognition of the equivalence of mass and energy, something artificial and not clearly defined. Could we not reject the concept of matter and build a pure field physics? What impresses our senses as matter is really a great concentration of energy into a comparatively small space. We could regard matter as the regions in space where the field is extremely strong. In this way a new philosophical background could be created.”
If the authors are proposing a “pure field physics,” does their last quote suggest that in one fundamental sense Einstein’s famous energy-mass equivalence formulation is misleading: There are not two basic cosmic substances but one, energy, which comes in many different forms of matter that jump into and out of concentrated form.
There are a couple of other large questions that leap out of this book. First, Newton’s laws of motion state that a body moves in a straight line (or remains at rest) unless acted upon (accelerated) by an external force. At the macro level, Einstein has large cosmic masses depressing space-time. Though the discussion of Einstein’s theory often states that he didn’t see gravity as a force (4), this depression of space-time does create movement of matter and masses across the cosmos. Why does a body move in a straight line until it is acted upon, which always seems to be the case with gravitational effects? Answers to this question seem either non-existent or implied. At the subatomic and atomic level, energy radiates outward as light (electro-magentic spectrum). But what about large concentrations of energy, as mass-matter moving through space? Why do they, in theory and before gravitational effects, move in a straight (or, per Newton, “right”) line?
Second, Einstein-Leopold’s discussion of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass was particularly interesting. Gravity is one of the four forces, but it is touted as an attractive force only (two bodies attract each other) and it is distinctly not a repelling force as is with electro-magnetism. While gravity does not repel, it does via inertial mass, “resist” and, thereby, the notion that all energy-matter interactions involve some form of both attraction and resistance is retained. (5) This in turn leads to the balancing of energy differentials and equilibrium (until upset by external forces, whether self-propelled or other-directed), and equilibrium is, of sorts, “zero.” (6) Zero might be the basic cosmic concept - it is nothing yet it is everything. Or, it might be some sort of idle philosophical speculation: It may be something, or nothing. (7)
(1) “Classical physics introduced two substances: matter and energy. The first had weight, but the second was weightless. In classical physics we had two conservation laws: one for matter, the other for energy. We have already asked whether modern physics still holds this view of two substances and the two conservation laws. The answer is: ‘No.’ According to the theory of relativity, there is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass and mass represents energy. Instead of two conservation laws we have only one, that of mass-energy.” Interestingly, the authors write, “In its own Newton’s time the concept of energy did not exist.” Newton thought of light as weightless corpuscles and each “color preserved its own substance character. Later, when the concept of energy was created and it was recognized that light carries energy, no one thought of applying these concepts to the corpuscular theory of light. Newton’s theory was dead and, until our own century, its revival was not taken seriously.”
(2) In discussing the problem in asserting that mass and energy were equivalent, Einstein and Infeld refer to “the very small rate of exchange between matter and energy. Compared to mass, energy is like a depreciated currency compared to one of high value….Energy was regarded as weightless for so long simply because the mass which it represents is so small.” This statement does, however, raise a question about the masslessness of energy - if energy has weight, however diluted, would it have mass, however diluted?
(3) “Maxwell’s equations” pertaining to the electro-magnetic field, Einstein and Infeld write, “connect events which happen here and now with events which will happen a little later in the immediate vicinity. They are the laws describing the changes of the electromagnetic field. Our new gravitational equations are also structure laws describing the changes of the gravitational field.” “The theoretical discovery of an electromagnetic wave spreading with the speed of light,” the authors add, “is one of the greatest achievements in the history of science.” Add the speed of light to field interactions, and the gravitational effects across vast spaces and time can be understood.
(4) Einstein-Infeld do say that large bodies show that a “force is directed toward the sun; this means the force is an attraction.”
(5) “Gravitational and inertial mass are equal,” the authors state (adding that “this identity of inertial and gravitational mass was fundamental for the formulation of the theory of relativity”). And, “all energy resists changes in motion.” Add more energy, and there is more resistance. But unlike classical physics that saw inertial resistance in terms of mass only, Einstein’s relativity theory has velocity adding to the resistance effect. Velocity adds (kinetic) energy so that a moving body has both mass and kinetic energy and it resists change of velocity more strongly than the resting body, and “the resistance becomes infinitely great as velocity approaches that of light.” The definitional difference between “repel” (drive away, almost like a counter-attack) and “resist” (withstand, or defend), is interesting. Regarding the equivalence between gravitational and accelerating effects, the authors seem to not only describe that there is space contraction and the slowing of time that happens as an object approaches the speed of light but also, unlike other writers, explain physically why this is so: The faster an object moves (accelerates), there is a compression-contraction of an object in the direction of the movement that shortens length and (the “rhythm of a clock keeping) time.
(6) Is “Zero” related to the law of conservation? “In a closed system, one isolated from external influences,” energy is conserved. And, “If we regard the whole universe as a closed system we can proudly announce with the physicists of the nineteenth century that the energy of the universe is invariant, that no part of it can ever be created or destroyed.” Cosmic rhythms move energy around (and manifested in different forms), but if the overall amount of energy is the same, there is neither more nor less, which is zero.
(7) My favorite quote from this book: “Philosophical generalizations,” the authors write, “must be founded on scientific results.”
August 16, 2013
Interesting book. Most of it was written by Leopold Infeld who was a colleague of Einstein and a fellow refugee from Europe. Infeld could not get a permanent appointment at Princeton due to a bitter rivalry within the Physics department so he came up with the idea of writing a popular, non mathematical monograph explaining the history of physics. Einstein readily agreed and this allowed Infeld to obtain a secure source of funding. Einstein's name appears first only because his was the better known of the two.
Infeld tried to compare the evolution of physics to a detective novel where one follows "clews" to arrive at the hidden truths. The first half of the book deals with the rise and fall of classical mechanistic physics starting and the last half with relativistic and quantum physics. Since the book was written in the 30s it does not contain any of the newer theories on such things as string theory, multiverses etc. I do not miss these as they are not supporeted by "clews" at the present time and while they are attempts to build on and unify Einsteins fundamental explanations of the construction and working of the universe they are not verifiable at this time by any experimental techniques and remain solely in the realm of mathematical hypothesis.
Infeld tried to compare the evolution of physics to a detective novel where one follows "clews" to arrive at the hidden truths. The first half of the book deals with the rise and fall of classical mechanistic physics starting and the last half with relativistic and quantum physics. Since the book was written in the 30s it does not contain any of the newer theories on such things as string theory, multiverses etc. I do not miss these as they are not supporeted by "clews" at the present time and while they are attempts to build on and unify Einsteins fundamental explanations of the construction and working of the universe they are not verifiable at this time by any experimental techniques and remain solely in the realm of mathematical hypothesis.
December 1, 2012
تاریخ علم فیزیک از زبان اینشتین شنیدن دارد. این کتاب به ما میآموزد که مفاهیم علمی به چه شکلی در مواجههی ما با طبیعت و برای فهم بهتر آن تولید میشوند و رشد میکنند. ضمنا نظریات فیزیکی در همین دویست سیصد سال اخیر چقدر عوض شدهاند و در یک روند رشدی چقدر از مفاهیم و نظریات به کناری ریخته شدهاند.
این کتاب برای آشنایی مفهومی و فارغ از ریاضی با نظریات فیزیکی از زمان نیوتن تا زمان خود اینشتین هم خوب است.
نکتهی جالب این که حتی یک نام هم از اینشتین در این تاریخ نویسی نیامده در صورتی که میدانیم اینشتین در همهی فیزیک جدید حضور دارد.
این کتاب برای آشنایی مفهومی و فارغ از ریاضی با نظریات فیزیکی از زمان نیوتن تا زمان خود اینشتین هم خوب است.
نکتهی جالب این که حتی یک نام هم از اینشتین در این تاریخ نویسی نیامده در صورتی که میدانیم اینشتین در همهی فیزیک جدید حضور دارد.
July 29, 2018
كتاب فيزيائي جميل ومفيد للغاية. اعجبني التسلسل الزمني للاكتشافات الفيزيائية وكيف ان كل نظرية جديدة تحل مشكلة ولكن تقدم مشاكل جديدة. فعمل الفيزيائي هو كعمل محقق من حيث وظع نظريات ودراسة الادلة ولهذا يبدو الكتاب كانه رواية بوليسية. الترجمة للغة غير لغة الكتابة الاصلية جعل بعض المصطلحات مبهمة وبالتالي جعل الكتاب الى حد ما عسير الفهم. شخصيا لم استفد كثيرا من القراءة عن النسبية وميكانيكا الكم كونها مرت علي هذا الافكار وبشكل اوضح من قبل، ولكن اعجبني مراجعة الافكار الفيزيائية الكلاسيكية كالحرارة والطاقة وكيف وجدت قديما نظريات الاثير والسيال الحراري.
October 21, 2015
نحن لا نستطيع أن نبنى علما دون أن نعتقد بإمكانية إدراك الحقيقة من خلال منشآتنا النظرية ودون أن نوقن بوجود تناغم داخلى في العالم الذي نرصده. إن هذا الإيمان كان وسيظل الباعث الرئيسى لكل إبداع علمي. فمن خلال كل ��جهوداتنا، نلمح الطموح إلى الفهم والايمان الراسخ بتناغم عناصر الوجود ، ذلك الايمان الصامد أمام كل العقبات التى تحول دون إدراك الحقيقة.
March 10, 2016
هذا الكتاب رغم قدمه ولكني استمتعت كثيرا بقراءته واستفدت أكثر ، أنا لا أعلم مدى مشاركة تلميذ أينشتاين في الكتابة ولكني أستطيع ان أرى أسلوب أينشتاين في الشرح وإيصال الفكرة بكل موضوعية ، فقد بدأ بشرح تطور علوم الطبيعة منذ جاليليو وحتى ميكانيكا الكم وبداياتها على عهده ، وقد فعل ذلك بكل حياد وموضوعية دون أن يحتقر أو يتجاهل قوانين نيوتن والمياكنيكا الكلاسيكية بشكل عام ، بل أكد على أهميتها وعلى أن النسبية سواء العامة أو الخاصة ماهي إلا تعميم للميكانيكا الكلاسيكية ورؤية أفضل لعلوم الطبيعة ، وأسلوبه في إيصال المعنى والفكرة جميل جدا وبسيط دون تعقيد وهو ما يقال عليه السهل الممتنع ، أنصح بقراءته لكل من يريد أن يعرف كيف ظهرت النسبية ولماذا ومدى تغير نظرتنا لقوانين الحركة والجاذبية وغيرها من قوانين ونظريات علوم الطبيعة بعد النسبية وميكانيكا الكم ، ولكن لا شيء مثالي للأسف ، النسخة التي قرأت الكتاب منها وهي نسخة المركز القومي للترجمة ، ذات ترجمة سيئة إلى حد ما وجعلت فهم الكتاب صعبا وهذا ما جعلني أتاخر في إنهاء قراءته ، وكذلك طباعة الكتاب سيئة جدا ، ليتني أجد نسخة أخرى لهذا الكتاب الرائع لألبرت أينشتاين وتلميذه ليوبولد .
February 6, 2018
Bu kitabı 1995 civarında arkadaşım İnanç'tan almıştım ve o zamandan beri Ankara'da annemlerdeki kütüphanede bekledi. İlk okuduğum popüler bilim kitabı Carl Sagan'ın Kozmos'unu da ondan almıştım ama bu kitabı bir biçimde okumaktan korktum. Bu yılbaşında gözüme ilişince sahibine geri vermek üzere aldım ve okudum. Birçok yerinde FL'de öğrendiğim konuları anımsamak ve o zamanlar anlamadığım bazı şeyleri anlamak güzel olduysa da, hâlâ ilişkinlik/görelilik/relativite kuramını anlamış değilim. Parçaçcık/kuantum fiziği konusunu da geçiştirmişler gibime geldi. Ama bu iki büyük bilim adamının oturup bizlere böyle açıklayıcı bir kitap yazma işine girşimiş olmaları takdire şâyân. Çeviri de çok güzeldi. Sonunda verilen bazı kavramların Türkçe ve Osmanlıcasını veren sözlüğün fotolarını çektim. İstatistiğe sayılama deniyormuş. Biraz daha bilimsel kitap okumaya karar verdim.
January 24, 2019
The book presents very good explanation of how our understanding of physics changed since the 18th century; although, unlike what you expect from a book discussing the evolution of a certain topic, this one doesn't actually pay that much attention to names and debates, instead, it goes about experiments in an abstract manner, to a point where you can't be sure if one particular experiments was actually attempted or if the whole thing was purely hypothetical.
This is one of those books that almost contain zero equations, and it succeeds, like many of these books, in communicating most of the ideas, but not all of the ideas. Things I knew in advance were notably easier to understand than those that I didn't. Lorentz transformation in particular were very hazy, despite understanding the facts, there was no way I would understand the actual theory solely from this book, the following youtube link is a good (and in fact a great video) example of a better way to explain the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0pY...
Another downside to reading this book (and generally any book written by one of the great revolutionary scientists) is the fact that it is outdated. As far as I know, the base of physics from that time still holds today, but the way we look at it changed, new evidence was presented, huge scale experiments were performed. Reading a book written by Einstein is undoubtedly cool, but there is no reason to read a book published 100 years ago when you have rocket scientists writing books including everything this one contains and more.
But this is a very small book after all, and for its size (and age) it certainly is good, I would recommend respecting it and putting somewhere visible on your shelf while you read a modern and more comprehensive book about physics.
This is one of those books that almost contain zero equations, and it succeeds, like many of these books, in communicating most of the ideas, but not all of the ideas. Things I knew in advance were notably easier to understand than those that I didn't. Lorentz transformation in particular were very hazy, despite understanding the facts, there was no way I would understand the actual theory solely from this book, the following youtube link is a good (and in fact a great video) example of a better way to explain the matter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rh0pY...
Another downside to reading this book (and generally any book written by one of the great revolutionary scientists) is the fact that it is outdated. As far as I know, the base of physics from that time still holds today, but the way we look at it changed, new evidence was presented, huge scale experiments were performed. Reading a book written by Einstein is undoubtedly cool, but there is no reason to read a book published 100 years ago when you have rocket scientists writing books including everything this one contains and more.
But this is a very small book after all, and for its size (and age) it certainly is good, I would recommend respecting it and putting somewhere visible on your shelf while you read a modern and more comprehensive book about physics.
August 25, 2012
This book offers two things:
1. A summary of physics, from classical mechanics, to field theory, general relativity and quantum theory (as it was understood in 1938 when the book was first published). The presentation is oriented towards laymen and avoids using any mathematical formulas. The explanations of the basic ideas of physics are marvelously clear and straightforward. However, the self-imposed strict avoidance of math, although probably appealing to the wide audience, sometimes resulted in vagueness that left me unsatisfied.
2. A pioneering glimpse into a new epistemology that was later expanded by Thomas Kuhn into his famous theory of scientific revolutions via paradigm shift. Indeed the basic ideas of that theory are clearly presented here by Einstein and Infeld almost a quarter-century before Kuhn's seminal "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was published.
1. A summary of physics, from classical mechanics, to field theory, general relativity and quantum theory (as it was understood in 1938 when the book was first published). The presentation is oriented towards laymen and avoids using any mathematical formulas. The explanations of the basic ideas of physics are marvelously clear and straightforward. However, the self-imposed strict avoidance of math, although probably appealing to the wide audience, sometimes resulted in vagueness that left me unsatisfied.
2. A pioneering glimpse into a new epistemology that was later expanded by Thomas Kuhn into his famous theory of scientific revolutions via paradigm shift. Indeed the basic ideas of that theory are clearly presented here by Einstein and Infeld almost a quarter-century before Kuhn's seminal "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was published.
July 23, 2014
This book is a pretty good explanation of the history of physics, from Galileo to quantum theory. It is set out in a fairly comprehensible manner, and there are a lot of analogies used. This isn't going to help you much with exams but it's a great way to get your head round the overall structure of physics.
April 29, 2018
The book is briefly and clearly explains the transition of the physical phenomenas from classical to modern area and why we should think so in order to improve our way of vision..
April 10, 2021
Fizik alanında dünyaca ünlü iki bilim insanı tarafından yazılmış bu kitap mekanikçi görüşün doğumundan kuantuma teorisine kadar fizik biliminin geçirdiği evreleri anlatıyor. Yazarlar, Galilei'yi fiziğin gerçek başlangıcı kabul ederek kuvvet ve hareket konusundan girip vektörlerle devam ediyor ve sonrasında anlaşılır bir dil ve tablolarla; ısı, maddenin kinetik teorisi, ışığın dalga teorisi, alan ve ilişkinlik, zaman ve uzaklık, ışık kuantumları, olasılık dalgaları vs. gibi konularda bizi bilgi sahibi yapıyor.
İlk defa 1938 yılında yayımlanan kitaba Leopold İnfeld 1960 yılında küçük bir önsöz yazarak birkaç tane düzeltme eklemiş. Fizik bilimi konusunda bilgisiz olan benim gibi kişiler için metin bir hazine. Fizik biliminin mantığı gelişim evreleriyle beraber harika bir şekilde açıklanıyor. Her şeyi tam anlamıyla kavradığımı iddia edemem, fakat önsözde belirtildiği gibi kitap en azından fiziksel görüngüleri yöneten yasaları anlama konusunda bir nosyon kazandırıyor.
Alanında bu kadar yetkin iki bilim insanının kullandığı anlatım dili ise hayranlık verici. Kitabın amacına hizmet eden duru, akıcı, sıkmayan bir ton tutturabilmişler. Çevirmen Öner Ünalan dipnotlarla, çeşitli kelimeleri İngilizce bırakarak, kimi kelimelerin parantez içinde İngilizce karşılıklarını da vererek ve sona koyduğu ufak terimler dizini ile çok başarılı bir çeviriye imza atmış.
Fizik bilimi konusunda temeliniz benim gibi sağlam değilse okunması faydalı bir kitap olabileceğini düşünüyorum.
İlk defa 1938 yılında yayımlanan kitaba Leopold İnfeld 1960 yılında küçük bir önsöz yazarak birkaç tane düzeltme eklemiş. Fizik bilimi konusunda bilgisiz olan benim gibi kişiler için metin bir hazine. Fizik biliminin mantığı gelişim evreleriyle beraber harika bir şekilde açıklanıyor. Her şeyi tam anlamıyla kavradığımı iddia edemem, fakat önsözde belirtildiği gibi kitap en azından fiziksel görüngüleri yöneten yasaları anlama konusunda bir nosyon kazandırıyor.
Alanında bu kadar yetkin iki bilim insanının kullandığı anlatım dili ise hayranlık verici. Kitabın amacına hizmet eden duru, akıcı, sıkmayan bir ton tutturabilmişler. Çevirmen Öner Ünalan dipnotlarla, çeşitli kelimeleri İngilizce bırakarak, kimi kelimelerin parantez içinde İngilizce karşılıklarını da vererek ve sona koyduğu ufak terimler dizini ile çok başarılı bir çeviriye imza atmış.
Fizik bilimi konusunda temeliniz benim gibi sağlam değilse okunması faydalı bir kitap olabileceğini düşünüyorum.
Read
May 13, 2020این کتاب نشانمان میدهد من، و همینطور بشر، از بدو تولد و آغاز آگاهی خود، دنیا را چگونه شناختیم و برای خود توصیف کردیم و بزرگ شدیم.
چیزی از این بهتر هم هست که بزرگترین مغز بشری کنارت بنشیند و با صبر و حوصله مفاهیم ساده، اما بنیادی را که هر روز از کنارشان رد میشوی برایت تشریح کند؟
چیزی از این بهتر هم هست که بزرگترین مغز بشری کنارت بنشیند و با صبر و حوصله مفاهیم ساده، اما بنیادی را که هر روز از کنارشان رد میشوی برایت تشریح کند؟
April 11, 2014
I first picked this book up thinking that it would provide a broad overview of the entire history of Physics. I really wanted Einstein's take on Aristotle, Lucretius and maybe even the pre-Socratics in a sweeping history of scientific thought. On this account, I was sorely disappointed. Einstein summarily dismisses all physics prior to Galileo, and I almost summarily dismissed the book as a result. It sat on my shelf for about two years until I recently picked it up thinking I needed a new way of seeing the world after having immersed myself in historical and cultural studies over the last few months. I am glad I picked it up again. This is a really good book. It is not only good because Einstein is a master at explaining complicated physics in a way that a layman like I am can understand; the book is also good because Einstein gives a compelling portrayal of the creativity, thought experiments and testing involved in a scientific approach to reasoning. It is this latter part that I greatly enjoyed. Essentially, as Einstein explains it, modern Physics is a way of looking at problems, testing them and resolving them through scientific theory. However, each time scientific theory solves a problem, it creates a new set of problems that furthers scientific inquiry. As a result, mechanical physics gives way to field theory which gives way to relativity which leads us to quantum mechanics. In each step of this intellectual journey, some ideas are discarded by the new theory, but others are more fully explained and understood. It is an exciting process, and in the book's portrayal I really came to appreciate the perspective and the discipline of scientific reasoning. This is a great book for anyone whose interest in pop culture science has lead them to pick up Greene's Elegant Universe and similar popular explanations of physics and science.
May 1, 2016
An accessible, straightforward journey through the rise and fall of various theories at the heart of physics, from Newton's time to the early 20th century era of Einstein and Infeld. Although "rise and fall" is not quite accurate; the authors stress that new theories tend to broaden the scope of the old theories rather than upending them entirely. Thus, for example, today we freely make use of Newtonian mechanics when dealing with non-relativistic speeds, or use Maxwell's equations when the electromagnetic field in question is large enough to obscure small-scale quantum effects.
This is a popular science book, and an extremely good one. The authors make heavy use of analogy and thought experiment, ideally chosen for both easy understanding and the way they accurately crystallize difficult concepts. Even if the reader has a firm grasp of the history of physics, this quick read also offers itself up to would-be science educators as the epitome of good pedagogy.
This is a popular science book, and an extremely good one. The authors make heavy use of analogy and thought experiment, ideally chosen for both easy understanding and the way they accurately crystallize difficult concepts. Even if the reader has a firm grasp of the history of physics, this quick read also offers itself up to would-be science educators as the epitome of good pedagogy.
December 8, 2007
Einstein's first wife may have had even a better concept of the evolution of physics than Einstein himself.
She played a MAJOR part in relativity.
She played a MAJOR part in relativity.
September 2, 2018
One of the best books to understand the nature of physics! No need of previous scientific background.
May 4, 2019
الترجمة رائعة و سلسة لأفكار العلم الكبرى التي أشرت لتحولات الباراديم العلمي. بين ثنايا الكتاب يقدم الكاتبان أيضا تصوراتهما لتقدم العلم و فلسفته.
June 2, 2021
For someone who knows good physics, that could be a good book, but I was really confused.
April 1, 2022
Overview:
This book traverses the history of physics from the rise and fall of the mechanical view, to relativity, and the beginnings of quantum mechanics. Einstein favored realism in science, which made Einstein antagonistic to quantum mechanics because it appeared incomplete, as it did not provide strict causal and deterministic descriptions but those of uncertainties and chance. Throughout the book, are references on what beliefs about what physics and science should be and are. Science depends on inquiring on problems, with the solutions being a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. Science evolves by being challenged from different perspectives, and solutions are often temporary, awaiting further research that finds its problems. New theories arise with serious and deep contradictions of previous views that could not be overcome. New theories overcome as many possible problems of previous views, while trying to explain the ideas as simply as possible.
Caveats?
The book is meant for a general audience, but it does not fulfill its purpose. The ideas start simple, and progressively become more and more complicated. For someone who does not have a background in many of the ideas, it can become too complicated too quickly.
This book traverses the history of physics from the rise and fall of the mechanical view, to relativity, and the beginnings of quantum mechanics. Einstein favored realism in science, which made Einstein antagonistic to quantum mechanics because it appeared incomplete, as it did not provide strict causal and deterministic descriptions but those of uncertainties and chance. Throughout the book, are references on what beliefs about what physics and science should be and are. Science depends on inquiring on problems, with the solutions being a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. Science evolves by being challenged from different perspectives, and solutions are often temporary, awaiting further research that finds its problems. New theories arise with serious and deep contradictions of previous views that could not be overcome. New theories overcome as many possible problems of previous views, while trying to explain the ideas as simply as possible.
Caveats?
The book is meant for a general audience, but it does not fulfill its purpose. The ideas start simple, and progressively become more and more complicated. For someone who does not have a background in many of the ideas, it can become too complicated too quickly.
August 16, 2020
The book started with the classic mechanics view and progresses to newer physics and why they are needed to explain newer phenomena the classic view fails to explain satisfactorily.
You can tell Einstein had something to do with the book as the discussion on both special and general relativity are a master of clarity and insight. Unfortunately, the book falls short in two respects. The first is that it’s very verbose in a lot of places. Blame it on Infield — it’s not Einstein’s style. The second is a common issue for science popularization books, they seem to be always targeting too general of an audience. There is never a single equation as if that will immediately turn people off. And they stop at the point when things just start to get *really* interesting: there is a brilliant and concise piece of argument that to satisfy special relativity, we can not be living in a Euclidean geometry. But the is no follow up on what geometry we are in. I know it’s supposed to be hard to explain to laymen, but shouldn’t it be at least attempted?
You can tell Einstein had something to do with the book as the discussion on both special and general relativity are a master of clarity and insight. Unfortunately, the book falls short in two respects. The first is that it’s very verbose in a lot of places. Blame it on Infield — it’s not Einstein’s style. The second is a common issue for science popularization books, they seem to be always targeting too general of an audience. There is never a single equation as if that will immediately turn people off. And they stop at the point when things just start to get *really* interesting: there is a brilliant and concise piece of argument that to satisfy special relativity, we can not be living in a Euclidean geometry. But the is no follow up on what geometry we are in. I know it’s supposed to be hard to explain to laymen, but shouldn’t it be at least attempted?
April 22, 2023
I give this book 3.5-4 stars. Overall, I really enjoyed it. But the first two sections(“The Rise in the Mechanical View” and “The Decline in the Mechanical View”), which constitutes a little less than half the book, we’re somewhat hard to get through. They were interesting, but were not explained quite as well as the other parts and, honestly, I didn’t much care for learning about the old views and why they are not valid today. Though that’s merely subjective. However, the other two sections(“Field, Relativity” and “Quanta”) were incredible. They were both explain very simply yet effectively. I felt I understood, nearly, everything they said perfectly. Particularly Quanta. I loved how, whenever they introduced a new topic, they would give an analogy before introducing the actual topic, making it much more understandable than if they’d done it the other way around. Again, overall it was a great book, and I recommend it to anyone who’s interested in Physics
November 20, 2021
Einstein chứng minh sự tương đồng giữa công việc của một nhà vật lý với tư duy của một nhà thám tử, mà trong đó vai trò của nhóm người đầu tiên lại gặp nhiều rắc rối và phải cần nhiều nỗ lực trong việc chứng minh một bí ẩn hơn. Theo mình, là một sự so sánh lý thú. Mình đồng tình với tư tưởng về việc học giữa mối liên hệ với xã hội của Einstein, quyển sách này chính là một nỗ lực liên kết với những độc giả lý tưởng mà hai nhà khoa học này đã tỉ mẩn thực hiện sao cho những rắc rối quá chuyên sâu không còn chen ngang như một rào cản khiến độc giả phải chán ghét. Brilliant!!!!!
May 3, 2021
Este livro é perfeito para quem tem interesse de conhecer mais sobre a história da física de um ponto de vista lógico. As noções fundamentais da física são introduzidas aos poucos, de uma forma intuitiva. Totalmente expositivo, boa leitura.
June 8, 2017
"Các bộ sách về vật lý luôn đầy ắp các công thức toán học phức tạp. Nhưng khởi nguồn của mỗi lý thuyết vật lý đều đến từ sự suy tư, từ các ý tưởng chứ không phải từ những công thức. Sau đó, các ý tưởng này phải được diễn đạt dưới hình thức toán học của một lý thuyết có tính định lượng để có thể được so sánh với thực nghiệm." - Albert Einstein & Leopold Infeld, trích "Sự tiến hóa của vật lý".
Đây là một quyển sách tuyệt vời, vẽ nên một bức tranh toàn cảnh về quá trình tiến hóa của Vật lý. Từ những ý tưởng cơ bản, xây dựng nền móng như tư duy cơ học, trải qua quá trình đấu tranh và thống nhất giữa các mặt đối lập, quá trình kế thừa và giải quyết các cuộc khủng hoảng phát sinh từ những bất cập trong lý thuyết cũ, những lý thuyết mới dần được sinh ra và phát triển dần tới ngành Vật lý lượng tử như ngày nay. Đây chính là những nỗ lực không ngừng nghỉ của trí tuệ con người nhằm mô tả hiện thực chúng ta mà tri giác được ngày càng giống với bản chất của tự nhiên. Quyển sách cũng cho thấy mối liên kết logic giữa các lĩnh vực cơ, nhiệt, điện, quang trong Vật lý cổ điển với thuyết tương đối (rộng và hẹp), Vật lý nguyên tử và hạt nhân, cơ học lượng tử trong Vật lý hiện đại. Tác giả cũng chỉ ra những điểm tương đồng và tương phản giữa chúng tạo nên một cái nhìn tổng thể về vật lý học.
Điều đặc biệt biến một quyển sách bàn về bộ môn khoa học từng là nỗi ám ảnh của nhiều người trở nên dễ hiểu, mạch lạc, chính là sự giản lược tối đa các công thức toán học trong vật lý. Bằng lập luận chặt chẽ, mô tả cụ thể, sử dụng các thí nghiệm tưởng tượng trên nền tảng logic, các hình ảnh minh họa trực quan, nhiều ví dụ và ẩn dụ sinh động, tác giả đã thành công trong việc dẫn dắt người đọc chứng kiến từng bước khởi đầu và phát triển của ngành Vật lý học. Cuối mỗi chương đều có phần tóm tắt những kiến thức trọng tâm để làm nền tảng cho chương tiếp theo. Muốn xâu chuỗi toàn bộ nội dung cuốn sách, bạn chỉ cần đọc các phần tóm tắt này, rất tiện lợi cho những ai khó có thể đọc sách liên lục mỗi ngày mà vẫn nắm được mình đang đọc gì. Đây cũng là phần mình thích nhát trong bố cục trình bày của quyển sách.
"Sự tiến hóa của Vật lý" sẽ là một lựa chọn tuyệt vời cho những ai bắt đầu học vật lý để làm quen và tự định hướng tiến trình nghiên cứu Vật lý. Đó cũng là một lựa chọn không hề thừa thãi cho nhũng ai sắp tốt nghiệp chuyên ngành Vật lý để liên kết và sắp sếp lại hệ thống kiến thức đã học. Tôi đã ước mình đọc nó sớm hơn, song, không có gì là muộn khi ta muốn tự học những điều mới, tự phát triển chuyên môn của mình mỗi ngày cả. Vì chuyện học là chuyện cả đời và Vật lý thì chẳng có điểm kết thúc bao giờ cả.
Đây là một quyển sách tuyệt vời, vẽ nên một bức tranh toàn cảnh về quá trình tiến hóa của Vật lý. Từ những ý tưởng cơ bản, xây dựng nền móng như tư duy cơ học, trải qua quá trình đấu tranh và thống nhất giữa các mặt đối lập, quá trình kế thừa và giải quyết các cuộc khủng hoảng phát sinh từ những bất cập trong lý thuyết cũ, những lý thuyết mới dần được sinh ra và phát triển dần tới ngành Vật lý lượng tử như ngày nay. Đây chính là những nỗ lực không ngừng nghỉ của trí tuệ con người nhằm mô tả hiện thực chúng ta mà tri giác được ngày càng giống với bản chất của tự nhiên. Quyển sách cũng cho thấy mối liên kết logic giữa các lĩnh vực cơ, nhiệt, điện, quang trong Vật lý cổ điển với thuyết tương đối (rộng và hẹp), Vật lý nguyên tử và hạt nhân, cơ học lượng tử trong Vật lý hiện đại. Tác giả cũng chỉ ra những điểm tương đồng và tương phản giữa chúng tạo nên một cái nhìn tổng thể về vật lý học.
Điều đặc biệt biến một quyển sách bàn về bộ môn khoa học từng là nỗi ám ảnh của nhiều người trở nên dễ hiểu, mạch lạc, chính là sự giản lược tối đa các công thức toán học trong vật lý. Bằng lập luận chặt chẽ, mô tả cụ thể, sử dụng các thí nghiệm tưởng tượng trên nền tảng logic, các hình ảnh minh họa trực quan, nhiều ví dụ và ẩn dụ sinh động, tác giả đã thành công trong việc dẫn dắt người đọc chứng kiến từng bước khởi đầu và phát triển của ngành Vật lý học. Cuối mỗi chương đều có phần tóm tắt những kiến thức trọng tâm để làm nền tảng cho chương tiếp theo. Muốn xâu chuỗi toàn bộ nội dung cuốn sách, bạn chỉ cần đọc các phần tóm tắt này, rất tiện lợi cho những ai khó có thể đọc sách liên lục mỗi ngày mà vẫn nắm được mình đang đọc gì. Đây cũng là phần mình thích nhát trong bố cục trình bày của quyển sách.
"Sự tiến hóa của Vật lý" sẽ là một lựa chọn tuyệt vời cho những ai bắt đầu học vật lý để làm quen và tự định hướng tiến trình nghiên cứu Vật lý. Đó cũng là một lựa chọn không hề thừa thãi cho nhũng ai sắp tốt nghiệp chuyên ngành Vật lý để liên kết và sắp sếp lại hệ thống kiến thức đã học. Tôi đã ước mình đọc nó sớm hơn, song, không có gì là muộn khi ta muốn tự học những điều mới, tự phát triển chuyên môn của mình mỗi ngày cả. Vì chuyện học là chuyện cả đời và Vật lý thì chẳng có điểm kết thúc bao giờ cả.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 125 reviews