What do you think?
Rate this book
Einstein 1905: The Standard of Greatness
For Einstein, 1905 was a remarkable year. It was also a miraculous year for the history and future of science. In six short months, he published five papers that would transform our understanding of nature. This unparalleled period is the subject of Rigden's book, which deftly explains what distinguishes 1905 from all other years in the annals of science, and elevates Einstein above all other scientists of the twentieth century.
192 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2005
13 people are currently reading
102 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
August 28, 2022
Revisions/additions made August 27 2022; for addition, see below.
In 1905, Einstein (age 26) wrote five papers on physics that have fundamentally shaped how physicists today see the cosmos. In looking at what this reality might be, Einstein was old school. Rigden says that Einstein sought to decode God's created universe (As Rigden quotes Einstein: "'I want to know how God created this world...I want to know His thought, the rest are details'"). Overall, Rigden provides an excellent introduction to Einstein.
In March 1905, Einstein laid out his theory about the particle nature of light, the emission of which is energy creation from mass and the absorption of which by a receiving body is the conversion of energy back to mass. In June, Einstein wrote his theory of special relativity. In this theory, only the speed of light is absolute. Conceptions of space and time, once commonly thought as absolute, are always relative to a (moving) frame of reference. As a logical extension of this new conception, Einstein presented his theory that space (length) contracts and time shortens as velocity moves closer to the speed of light. In September, in a three page paper, Einstein established the identity of energy and mass (locked up energy). The mass of a body is a measure of its energy. As a mass radiates energy, it loses mass and energy content. Radiation transports mass between the emitting body and the absorbing body.
Rigden notes the central role of entropy in Einstein's thought where the natural cosmos process moves from low entropy states (order, where everything is in place, has a place) to high entropy states (disorder). Understood this way, a pre-big bang scenario suggests that the tightest, most compact state possible is pulled together by gravitational force. Rigden also says that Einstein's particle theory of light provides enough force to kick out an electron of a receiving body. This produces a light quantum, something the previously prevailing wave theory (continuous, as opposed to discontinuous particle, energy) could not do because of insufficient energy.
Rigden says that both energy and mass are hard concepts to define. That reassures the reader somewhat, but is also frustrating. Rigden says that the speed of light brings energy and mass together (nature, he says, or Einstein says, does not distinguish between mass and energy). In pre-big bang scenario, is ultimate reality energy, with mass (via cooling) coming subsequently? Rigden repeats what others have stated that Einstein's general theory of relativity reveals that space and time are curved by gravity, adding that the general theory "has replaced the gravitational force...with warped space time." This is not clear. As stated, it suggests that a large, pulling gravitational force has been replaced by "warped space time" as if it is the latter that is the new cosmic force. It is easier to understand this by making a massive gravitational body the independent variable, and space time the dependent variable. Also, if a massive gravitational body is the independent variable, how did it form in the first place? Rigden does touch on this point.
August 27, 2022 Addition:
Rigden refers to “the oneness of mass-energy…as masses vanish into energy and masses reappear from energy.” (1) If mass-energy is one, and if mass is the degree of concentrated energy, which is matter in its various configurations, and if energy is that which is liberated from matter, then energy seems to be the primary cosmic component that comes in the concentrated or free/liberated form. (2)
If mass-energy are one, then the different “mass” characterizations – inertial, gravitational, rest, massless - are confusing unless these are understood in terms of what mass (degrees of energetic content) is or does. Thus, inertial mass is movement in place or straight-line movement across spacetime. The straight-line movement in turn encounters depressions in spacetime from a large gravitational presence that creates lines of movement that inertial mass follows (gravitational masses’ accelerating effect). Is rest mass that “rest” component when a body is free of accelerating influences? Photons (light) are said to be massless, but that’s the rest mass of an object, which is not light because it moves at c. But light is said to have inertial mass as well consisting of kinetic energy and its straight-line movement that resists acceleration as long as it’s understood that light’s movement can be and is accelerated by gravity. Light then, carries mass with it as liberated (from matter) energy.
If mass-energy contains two components (degrees of concentrated energy, and energy itself, respectively), how best to conceive of oneness? Is the single cosmic component energy that consists of (a) matter (congealed energy, concentrated mass) and (b) radiation (light, the energy liberated from matter, yet retaining inertial mass, kinetic energy of motion)? Alternatively, is it that Total Energy consists of (a) rest mass (bound energy in matter, amount/degree of energy) and (b) kinetic energy (liberated energy from matter that with speed increases an object’s inertial mass)? Or, is the oneness mass-energy consisting of (a) matter, and mass as substance, or (b) energy without matter but mass, as motion? (3)
(1) He quotes Einstein’s ‘“Mass is energy in reserve.’” Then Rigden writes that “radiation transmits inertia (mass) between emitting and absorbing bodies.” And, while energy is intangible and mass is tangible, Einstein’s E=MC squared “joins them as one” (“The equation E=mc sq. connects intangibility and tangibility and, by making them equivalent, joins them as one. Energy and mass are different and it is the speed of light that brings them together.”) It seems that ‘Rigden is saying something along the line of the following: Energy is that which moves (in a rest state or in straight-line motion), and mass is different only in the amount of energy a body contains. Rigden follows his statement above with a discussion of anti-matter that also unites matter and energy in the following way: “[W]hen a particle meets its anti-particle, they annihilate each other and the two masses become energy,” so that “Creation – energy to mass – and annihilation – mass to energy – go back and forth indiscriminately.”
(2) “Ask any physicist to identify the most important concept of physics and the answer is likely to be ‘energy’…Perhaps this is why physicists choose to write Einstein’s September equation as E=mc squared, where the energy, E, is the subject of the equation.” Yet, Rigden goes on to say, “Einstein did not write his equation this way; rather, he made mass the subject of the equation: m=E/c squared.” Thus, applying Einstein’s formulation on mass-energy equivalence, mass is the central concept, which suggests that all cosmic properties have varying amounts of energy? (I don’t know why E is capitalized and m is not, and if this is significant).
(3) And is this type of breakdown consistent with all matter being both a particle (tangible, material, substantive) and wave (intangible, immaterial, not substantive) duality?
In 1905, Einstein (age 26) wrote five papers on physics that have fundamentally shaped how physicists today see the cosmos. In looking at what this reality might be, Einstein was old school. Rigden says that Einstein sought to decode God's created universe (As Rigden quotes Einstein: "'I want to know how God created this world...I want to know His thought, the rest are details'"). Overall, Rigden provides an excellent introduction to Einstein.
In March 1905, Einstein laid out his theory about the particle nature of light, the emission of which is energy creation from mass and the absorption of which by a receiving body is the conversion of energy back to mass. In June, Einstein wrote his theory of special relativity. In this theory, only the speed of light is absolute. Conceptions of space and time, once commonly thought as absolute, are always relative to a (moving) frame of reference. As a logical extension of this new conception, Einstein presented his theory that space (length) contracts and time shortens as velocity moves closer to the speed of light. In September, in a three page paper, Einstein established the identity of energy and mass (locked up energy). The mass of a body is a measure of its energy. As a mass radiates energy, it loses mass and energy content. Radiation transports mass between the emitting body and the absorbing body.
Rigden notes the central role of entropy in Einstein's thought where the natural cosmos process moves from low entropy states (order, where everything is in place, has a place) to high entropy states (disorder). Understood this way, a pre-big bang scenario suggests that the tightest, most compact state possible is pulled together by gravitational force. Rigden also says that Einstein's particle theory of light provides enough force to kick out an electron of a receiving body. This produces a light quantum, something the previously prevailing wave theory (continuous, as opposed to discontinuous particle, energy) could not do because of insufficient energy.
Rigden says that both energy and mass are hard concepts to define. That reassures the reader somewhat, but is also frustrating. Rigden says that the speed of light brings energy and mass together (nature, he says, or Einstein says, does not distinguish between mass and energy). In pre-big bang scenario, is ultimate reality energy, with mass (via cooling) coming subsequently? Rigden repeats what others have stated that Einstein's general theory of relativity reveals that space and time are curved by gravity, adding that the general theory "has replaced the gravitational force...with warped space time." This is not clear. As stated, it suggests that a large, pulling gravitational force has been replaced by "warped space time" as if it is the latter that is the new cosmic force. It is easier to understand this by making a massive gravitational body the independent variable, and space time the dependent variable. Also, if a massive gravitational body is the independent variable, how did it form in the first place? Rigden does touch on this point.
August 27, 2022 Addition:
Rigden refers to “the oneness of mass-energy…as masses vanish into energy and masses reappear from energy.” (1) If mass-energy is one, and if mass is the degree of concentrated energy, which is matter in its various configurations, and if energy is that which is liberated from matter, then energy seems to be the primary cosmic component that comes in the concentrated or free/liberated form. (2)
If mass-energy are one, then the different “mass” characterizations – inertial, gravitational, rest, massless - are confusing unless these are understood in terms of what mass (degrees of energetic content) is or does. Thus, inertial mass is movement in place or straight-line movement across spacetime. The straight-line movement in turn encounters depressions in spacetime from a large gravitational presence that creates lines of movement that inertial mass follows (gravitational masses’ accelerating effect). Is rest mass that “rest” component when a body is free of accelerating influences? Photons (light) are said to be massless, but that’s the rest mass of an object, which is not light because it moves at c. But light is said to have inertial mass as well consisting of kinetic energy and its straight-line movement that resists acceleration as long as it’s understood that light’s movement can be and is accelerated by gravity. Light then, carries mass with it as liberated (from matter) energy.
If mass-energy contains two components (degrees of concentrated energy, and energy itself, respectively), how best to conceive of oneness? Is the single cosmic component energy that consists of (a) matter (congealed energy, concentrated mass) and (b) radiation (light, the energy liberated from matter, yet retaining inertial mass, kinetic energy of motion)? Alternatively, is it that Total Energy consists of (a) rest mass (bound energy in matter, amount/degree of energy) and (b) kinetic energy (liberated energy from matter that with speed increases an object’s inertial mass)? Or, is the oneness mass-energy consisting of (a) matter, and mass as substance, or (b) energy without matter but mass, as motion? (3)
(1) He quotes Einstein’s ‘“Mass is energy in reserve.’” Then Rigden writes that “radiation transmits inertia (mass) between emitting and absorbing bodies.” And, while energy is intangible and mass is tangible, Einstein’s E=MC squared “joins them as one” (“The equation E=mc sq. connects intangibility and tangibility and, by making them equivalent, joins them as one. Energy and mass are different and it is the speed of light that brings them together.”) It seems that ‘Rigden is saying something along the line of the following: Energy is that which moves (in a rest state or in straight-line motion), and mass is different only in the amount of energy a body contains. Rigden follows his statement above with a discussion of anti-matter that also unites matter and energy in the following way: “[W]hen a particle meets its anti-particle, they annihilate each other and the two masses become energy,” so that “Creation – energy to mass – and annihilation – mass to energy – go back and forth indiscriminately.”
(2) “Ask any physicist to identify the most important concept of physics and the answer is likely to be ‘energy’…Perhaps this is why physicists choose to write Einstein’s September equation as E=mc squared, where the energy, E, is the subject of the equation.” Yet, Rigden goes on to say, “Einstein did not write his equation this way; rather, he made mass the subject of the equation: m=E/c squared.” Thus, applying Einstein’s formulation on mass-energy equivalence, mass is the central concept, which suggests that all cosmic properties have varying amounts of energy? (I don’t know why E is capitalized and m is not, and if this is significant).
(3) And is this type of breakdown consistent with all matter being both a particle (tangible, material, substantive) and wave (intangible, immaterial, not substantive) duality?
Read
June 16, 2025You don't need to have much of a math and physics background to read this short book, and your scientific knowledge will sadly not improve by much either. However, it is a good humanistic introduction to quantum and relativity physics, especially the motivations that led to their development, and may stimulate you to search out more detailed texts if you find the subject appealing.
Some of the historical insights presented here may be surprising. 3 of the 5 papers that Einstein published in his annus mirabilis were apparently guided by his desire to prove to his skeptical peers that matter was indeed made up of atoms. I would have thought this was pretty much common understanding since the time of the first Greek philosophers (even if the form and the total number of distinct atoms evolved over time). Did scientists as late as 1905 really believe that matter was continuous all the way down?
Some of the historical insights presented here may be surprising. 3 of the 5 papers that Einstein published in his annus mirabilis were apparently guided by his desire to prove to his skeptical peers that matter was indeed made up of atoms. I would have thought this was pretty much common understanding since the time of the first Greek philosophers (even if the form and the total number of distinct atoms evolved over time). Did scientists as late as 1905 really believe that matter was continuous all the way down?
June 20, 2019
I bought this sometime and then promptly forgot about it. On vacation found it way back in my Kindle library. So I gave it a shot. I've always struggled to understand Einstein's theories and how he came up with them. For example, the photoelectric effect. A simple experiment that was not understood has lead to so much about the classical school of physics. But I've found any good explanation on how this happened. This book does an amazing job explaining the history of all the experiments that were going on at the turn of the century and how Einstein pulled all the strands together. It's called 1905 because he wrote 5 or 6 papers that year that became seminal to classical physics (and Quantum mechanics) in a few short months. It's also a sad story how most physicists moved onto Quantum mechanics he refused. He remained a celebrity but did only a few new groundbreaking works.
It's a great science history book, technical explainer in fairly layman's terms, and deep biography all in one. Can sometimes seem repetitive but all in all very enjoyable.
It's a great science history book, technical explainer in fairly layman's terms, and deep biography all in one. Can sometimes seem repetitive but all in all very enjoyable.
April 4, 2025
Albert Einstein shook the scientific world to its core between April and September 1905 with 5 published papers, and that work still underlies today’s physics. Ever heard of photons? Or E=Mc2? Perhaps Special Relativity? Yes, all three plus 2 more in about 6 months. This book describes the man and his impact in very readable form, without requiring knowledge of Math or Physics!
The book starts with a compact description of Einstein’s situation at the time, and of what qualities set him off from other brilliant men and women. It then describes each paper in turn, setting the stage nicely for each, explaining what his approach was, and what was the community reaction.
The end of the book has a short description of his important later work, followed by nice footnotes section and an index.
The book starts with a compact description of Einstein’s situation at the time, and of what qualities set him off from other brilliant men and women. It then describes each paper in turn, setting the stage nicely for each, explaining what his approach was, and what was the community reaction.
The end of the book has a short description of his important later work, followed by nice footnotes section and an index.
August 20, 2023
Einstein identified two criteria that a physical theory must meet.
1. The theory must not contradict empirical facts (the external confirmation)
2. It concerns the naturalness or logical simplicity of the premises of the theory (inner perfection)
I was interested in reading this book to learn about how Einstein’s brain worked. Einstein was driven to simplify and unify. I saw contradictions in the way things worked and strove to simplify and unify them as best as he could. 1905 was a crazy year for him.
Page. 133 of the Epilogue sums it all up.
In his March 1905 paper, Einstein brought radiation and matter together by making radiation, like matter, particle in nature. At the same time, Einstein recognized that the facts, interference and diffraction, fit beautifully with the wave theory of light. So, driven by his need to bring disparate vies together, Einstein called for “a kind of fusion” of the wave and particle theories of light.
The June paper exudes simplicity. The entire special theory of relativity is derived from two simple principles, the concepts of space and time, which are unified and brought out of their Newtonian isolation. A world with absolute space existing apart from and independent of absolute time was turned into a world where space and time are joined. Energy and mass, never before regarded by any physicist as having anything to do with each other,k were made one as a result of Einstein’s September paper.
1. The theory must not contradict empirical facts (the external confirmation)
2. It concerns the naturalness or logical simplicity of the premises of the theory (inner perfection)
I was interested in reading this book to learn about how Einstein’s brain worked. Einstein was driven to simplify and unify. I saw contradictions in the way things worked and strove to simplify and unify them as best as he could. 1905 was a crazy year for him.
Page. 133 of the Epilogue sums it all up.
In his March 1905 paper, Einstein brought radiation and matter together by making radiation, like matter, particle in nature. At the same time, Einstein recognized that the facts, interference and diffraction, fit beautifully with the wave theory of light. So, driven by his need to bring disparate vies together, Einstein called for “a kind of fusion” of the wave and particle theories of light.
The June paper exudes simplicity. The entire special theory of relativity is derived from two simple principles, the concepts of space and time, which are unified and brought out of their Newtonian isolation. A world with absolute space existing apart from and independent of absolute time was turned into a world where space and time are joined. Energy and mass, never before regarded by any physicist as having anything to do with each other,k were made one as a result of Einstein’s September paper.
May 4, 2019
This is a good overview for the interested non-expert, but only of biographical interest to a physicist, who will want more beef.
Read
February 28, 2022This nonfiction book is about Albert Einstein in 1905. My opinion about this book is it is a nice book. Trough the book, you learn the history of what Albert Einstein does. It is interesting to read how the theory of special relativity is coming to be. I also like this book not just only by how 1905 is going on with Einstein but how the conflicts are in there. The conflicts is man vs man for good example Einstein vs some other scientist on special relativity. I like this book a ton and recommend reading it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 26, 2015
Hagiographical and light on details, even for an introductory book. Formulaic and sadly uninspired, while this book is stuffed with praise for its deserving subject it gives the reader no space to find wonder in his scientific discoveries. Any better books out there for familiarizing oneself with modern physics?
March 8, 2007
yes, i'm a nerd, but will someone read this please?! i'm talking to the walls about it. i need to talk to someone who talks back.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews