What do you think?
Rate this book
The Universe and Dr. Einstein
THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH
This is a brilliant, readable and clear report, by a gifted journalist, of the significance of Einstein’s theories and their far reaching effect upon the modern world. Written for laymen, it penetrates the realms of space, explains the facts available on the nature of atoms, and merges for purposes of clarity, the relation between philosophy and modern science.
Utilizing the theories of Newton, Planck, Gamow, Lemaitre and Jeans, Barnett explains the Einstein concept of the universe. Relating these scientific theories to the philosophical systems existing at the time, he shows how all forms of human activity are influenced by the discoveries of science, and how Einstein’s theories are a step in this long history of research.
“Everybody who has a mind, or who imagines he is a thinker, should understand this much of Relativity as a minimum.”—Philip Wylie
“The Universe and Dr. Einstein sets a new standard in science writing and is, I think, the first American book that can be compared in maturity, clarity, and grace with the distinguished and influential works of Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington.”—Gerald Wendt, N. Y. Herald Tribune Book Review
“I do not see how Lincoln Barnett could have done a more skillful job in his attempt to get a reasonably popular yet valid sketch of the philosophical concepts which physical experiments of this century have forced on science.”—Karl T. Compton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
This is a brilliant, readable and clear report, by a gifted journalist, of the significance of Einstein’s theories and their far reaching effect upon the modern world. Written for laymen, it penetrates the realms of space, explains the facts available on the nature of atoms, and merges for purposes of clarity, the relation between philosophy and modern science.
Utilizing the theories of Newton, Planck, Gamow, Lemaitre and Jeans, Barnett explains the Einstein concept of the universe. Relating these scientific theories to the philosophical systems existing at the time, he shows how all forms of human activity are influenced by the discoveries of science, and how Einstein’s theories are a step in this long history of research.
“Everybody who has a mind, or who imagines he is a thinker, should understand this much of Relativity as a minimum.”—Philip Wylie
“The Universe and Dr. Einstein sets a new standard in science writing and is, I think, the first American book that can be compared in maturity, clarity, and grace with the distinguished and influential works of Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington.”—Gerald Wendt, N. Y. Herald Tribune Book Review
“I do not see how Lincoln Barnett could have done a more skillful job in his attempt to get a reasonably popular yet valid sketch of the philosophical concepts which physical experiments of this century have forced on science.”—Karl T. Compton, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
99 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1948
38 people are currently reading
812 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 - 30 of 73 reviews
December 12, 2022
Considering that this book was first published in 1948, that it was written by a non-scientist, and that Einstein himself wrote the introduction to it, the reader might be excused from thinking that it is hopelessly out of date. That would be a mistake, because it is still a useful introduction to the concepts of Relativity. While some of the specific examples are no longer current, such as the age of the universe, the theory behind them is still as valid as ever, and Lincoln Barnett explains them in clear, simple language. For those without a clue to the basic principles of modern physics, this is a great place to start.
Some things are harder to wrap your mind around than others. So, electricity and magnetism are two sides to the same thing? That’s not so hard to understand. It is the same with matter and energy? Okay, that needs a bit more effort on our part but we can accept it. Space and time are the same thing? Whoa, that requires some thought. Einstein made his breakthroughs using thought experiments, and we can use them as well. Imagine yourself tossing a ball; it takes one second to go up and then come back down. Simple, right? Now imagine that you are doing it in a car going 60 miles an hour, which is 88 feet per second. To you the ball just goes up and down again, same as ever, but to an observer outside it describes a shallow arc 88 feet long. Now imagine that you are in a spaceship traveling at 95% of the speed of light. Once again, to you the ball goes up and comes down, but to an external observer it will travel about 277,000 kilometers in what is one second to you. Something has to give, and what that something is is time. To that outside observer the ball would seem to move about one third the speed that you in the spaceship would experience. As you got closer to the speed of light time would seem to slow down at a faster and faster rate.
You can never get to the speed of light, much less go past it, because as you move faster your apparent mass increases at exactly the same rate as time seems to slow down. A one pound weight to a stationary person would be ten pounds to someone moving at 99.5% of the speed of light, and would rapidly increase from there. The greater the mass, the more energy required to move it, and at the speed of light itself the mass would theoretically be infinite, as would the energy requirement.
These are ideas that make you shake your head in wonder, and Lincoln Barnett does an excellent job explaining them. I would also recommend that the reader go onto the internet and look for videos explaining certain of these concepts, which can be quite helpful
This book won’t make you an expert in Relativity, but it will help you grasp its key principles. They say that a genius is someone who looks at the same things that everyone else does, but sees something different. This is clearly shown in the thought experiments Einstein developed that led him to his breakthroughs. Theoretically any physicist of his day could have come up with the same ideas, but it was Einstein who possessed the ability to let his mind wander through infinity and come to an understanding of some of the key principles of the universe.
Some things are harder to wrap your mind around than others. So, electricity and magnetism are two sides to the same thing? That’s not so hard to understand. It is the same with matter and energy? Okay, that needs a bit more effort on our part but we can accept it. Space and time are the same thing? Whoa, that requires some thought. Einstein made his breakthroughs using thought experiments, and we can use them as well. Imagine yourself tossing a ball; it takes one second to go up and then come back down. Simple, right? Now imagine that you are doing it in a car going 60 miles an hour, which is 88 feet per second. To you the ball just goes up and down again, same as ever, but to an observer outside it describes a shallow arc 88 feet long. Now imagine that you are in a spaceship traveling at 95% of the speed of light. Once again, to you the ball goes up and comes down, but to an external observer it will travel about 277,000 kilometers in what is one second to you. Something has to give, and what that something is is time. To that outside observer the ball would seem to move about one third the speed that you in the spaceship would experience. As you got closer to the speed of light time would seem to slow down at a faster and faster rate.
You can never get to the speed of light, much less go past it, because as you move faster your apparent mass increases at exactly the same rate as time seems to slow down. A one pound weight to a stationary person would be ten pounds to someone moving at 99.5% of the speed of light, and would rapidly increase from there. The greater the mass, the more energy required to move it, and at the speed of light itself the mass would theoretically be infinite, as would the energy requirement.
These are ideas that make you shake your head in wonder, and Lincoln Barnett does an excellent job explaining them. I would also recommend that the reader go onto the internet and look for videos explaining certain of these concepts, which can be quite helpful
This book won’t make you an expert in Relativity, but it will help you grasp its key principles. They say that a genius is someone who looks at the same things that everyone else does, but sees something different. This is clearly shown in the thought experiments Einstein developed that led him to his breakthroughs. Theoretically any physicist of his day could have come up with the same ideas, but it was Einstein who possessed the ability to let his mind wander through infinity and come to an understanding of some of the key principles of the universe.
September 5, 2022
For the lay reader, this is an excellent summary of Einstein's (Einstein wrote the forward) key theories (See below for an an addition to this review, August 27, 2022):
1. The dual nature of light - particles and waves; the beginnings of quantum theory.
2. Everything is in motion; there's no absolute, fixed point in space from which to measure motion; motion is relative, of one body to another ("Motion can be detected only as a change of position with respect to another body.").
3. The velocity of light is constant, unaffected the source of the motion or the receiver.
4. Time and space are not absolute; they contract with increased velocity; time stops at the speed of light (and there's no space?); space is an "order of material objects"; time is an "order of events"; "an hour is actually a measurement in space."; time (to cover space/distance) and space (a difference in space inherently involves time) are integral to each other (e.g., as a way to locate coordinates -- latitude, longitude, altitude, time - of moving objects in space).
5. Mass is concentrated energy a la E=MC squared; mass is resistance to a change in motion; "heaviness" is resistance to changes in motion; mass is relative to velocity - the faster the motion, the more energy that is involved and more energy means more mass.
6. Bodies move uniformly in a straight line and resist opposing forces that would deviate us from such movement.
7. Gravity is not a force (attraction) but involves paths that follow the geometric structure of space (created by "the mass of a gravitating body and the structure of the field around it...."
8. Light has mass a la E=MC squared (energy and mass are equivalent, with mass being degrees of energetic content) but light has kinetic (not rest) mass, the energy of motion.
OR, something like the above....
The book closes with a description of Einstein's long quest to develop a Unified Field Theory and thereby identify "a profound simplicity" to "supplant the surface complexity of nature." He distilled and united universal essences down to energy and matter, space and time, and gravity. The relationship of these to quantum theory at the micro level remained his challenge up to his death. Barnett recasts that quest into Platonic terms - the search for "the ultimate immutable essence that undergirds the mutable illusory world." Then Barnett notes the risks involved, as Einstein acknowledged, with tossing aside the senses so that one is left only with the highest theory devoid of content, as illustrated by a Hegal quote, "'Pure Being and Nothing are the same.'" But isn't it the Big Bang, the ultimate contraction into a singularity, that gives birth to All?
August 27, 2022 Addition to this review:
Barnett’s 1948 book (with a foreword by Einstein) filled a niche. As the book’s editors write of the author, he “read everything he could find on Einstein and relativity, and he read with a growing sense of discouragement. The popular works skirted the periphery of Einstein’s theories without ever coming to grips with them. The books and articles that really tried to explain the substance of Einstein’s work were too technical for him to understand.”
A few points to highlight:
Einstein’s science was about measurement of things at the macro level (and attempts to measure position and direction of particles at the micro scale). It was about position in space and time and movement across them. As Barnett writes, “The world is a space-time continuum; all reality exists both in space and in time, and the two are indivisible. All measurements of time are really measurements in space, and conversely measurement in space depend on measurements of time.”
The fundamental units of the universe are radiation (light) and matter, and the fundamental causes of their motion are electromagnetism and gravitation. Einstein’s life-long quest was to unite gravitation and electromagnetic forces. (1)
Where Newton had mass as a fixed quantity, Einstein sees “the relativity of mass” as it increases with velocity: matter’s concentrated mass-energy state becomes converted to a liberated mass-energy state, void of matter, i.e. light’s mass (energy content) is expressed as movement only.
As a moving body has more mass, and as the faster it is the more mass it has, at c that body has infinite mass and the principle of inertia kicks in full time: Infinite mass means there’s infinite resistance to increases in speed. In effect, the respective infinities cancel each other out, and it is this that sets a finite limit to the speed of light (“no material body can travel with the speed of light”).
Regarding a scientific-philosophical picture of big physics, the most intriguing part of this book is something that does not get discussed much these days: “the great closed cosmic curve.” (2) In elaborating, Barnett writes that in the Einstein universe there are no straight lines. There are only great circles” so that “a sunbeam setting out through space at the rate of 186,000 miles a second would, in this universe, describe a great cosmic circle and return to its source after a little more than 200 billion terrestrial years.”
Extending that observation, and given the arguments these days about the Big Bang formation of this universe, is there not an explosion outward from a center point that thereby provides an overall curved cosmic structure. Matter and energy move outward in their straight-line (inertial) motion that is curved by space-time, dissipating more (progressively becoming less dense) as they move further from the cosmic center. While the gravitational centers of attraction is lessened (expansion increases the distance, per the inverse square law) and space becomes flatter (less curved) because there is an escape from gravitational effects. This is another way that mass-energy becomes liberated from matter, but light and its mass-energy continues its straight-line motion that follows geodesic, curved paths back to the beginning point – the geometric center. If the cosmic structure is a “globe,” all light paths lead back to the center – in this case, the big bang’s original point, becoming denser per the inverse square law as the paths of motion converge. In other words, regarding the fate of this particular cosmos, there is no contraction back to the beginning point but, rather, there’s a continuation of mass-energy around the curved cosmic structure back to its beginning point. (3)
Does this way of looking at the cosmic structure have implications for the notion of entropy as well? The big bang that begins as a low entropy state (concentrated energy), dissipation across space and time into high entropy states. Yet, because the cosmic structure is curved, mass-energy continues as radiation around that curved structure, to become, per the increase square law, more concentrated, a low entropy state again?
(1) Barnett writes that in the “vast cosmic picture, when fully revealed, the abyss between macrocosmos and microcosmos – the very big and the very little – will surely be bridged, and the whole complex of the universe will resolve into a homogenous fabric in which matter and energy are indistinguishable….” Toward the end of the book, Barnett adds: “in the same way that Relativity reduced gravitational force to a geometrical property of the space-time continuum, a Unified Field Theory will reduce electromagnetic force – the other great universal force – to equivalent status. ‘The idea that there are two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic,’ Einstein once observed, ‘is intolerable to the theoretical spirit.’ And, then Barnett comments that “What his Unified Field Theory undertakes is to show that gravitational and electromagnetic force are not independent of each other – that they are in a very real physical sense inseparable. More specifically, it attempts to describe gravitational and electromagnetic force in terms of a deeper reality that undergirds both – a basic universal field within which gravitational and electromagnetic fields are merely particular ephemeral forms or conditions of state.” Later, Barnett adds: “The distinctions between gravitational force and electromagnetic force, matter and energy, electric charge and field, space and time, all fade in the light of their revealed relationships and resolve into configurations of the four-dimensional continuum which Einstein revealed the universe to be. Thus all man’s perceptions of the world and all his abstract intuitions of reality would merge finally into one, and the deep underlying unity of the universe would be laid bare.” Whatever else this means, Barnett seems to be saying that collected masses at the macro level were formed by electromagnetic forces at the micro level.
(2) “Einstein concluded that the universe is neither infinite nor Euclidean, as most scientists supposed, but something hitherto unimagined. It has already been shown that Euclidean geometry does not hold true in a gravitational field. Light rays do not travel in straight lines when passing through a gravitational field, for the geometry of the field is such that within it there are no straight lines; the shortest course that the light can describe is a curve or a great circle which is rigorously determined by the geometrical structure of the field. Since the structure of a gravitational field is shaped by the mass and velocity of the gravitating body – star, moon, or planet – it follows that the geometrical structure of the universe as a whole must be shaped by the sum of its material content. For each concentration of matter in the universe there is a corresponding distortion of the space-time continuum. Each celestial body, each galaxy creates local irregularities in space-time, like eddies around islands in the sea. The greater the concentration of matter, the greater the resulting curvature of space-time. And the total effect is an overall-curvature of the whole space-time continuum: the combined distortions produced by all the incomputable masses of matter in the universe cause the continuum to bend back on itself in a great closed cosmic curve.”
(3) Of those who operate within the classical paradigm, Einstein and Infeld write that “A journey along a straight line never leads them back to the starting point” but in Einstein’s world “They will…find that starting on a journey straight ahead, they ultimately return to their point of departure. ‘Straight ahead’ means along the great circle of the sphere.” From the big bang and inflation, three typical scenarios are proposed - contraction, heat death and infinite expansion – regarding descriptions of the fate of the cosmos. These are cast more or less implicitly in terms of Newton’s flat space diagrams, i.e., not curved as a globe is curved (it is hard to draw such). It’s interesting that magnetic lines flow in such a circular fashion as well.
1. The dual nature of light - particles and waves; the beginnings of quantum theory.
2. Everything is in motion; there's no absolute, fixed point in space from which to measure motion; motion is relative, of one body to another ("Motion can be detected only as a change of position with respect to another body.").
3. The velocity of light is constant, unaffected the source of the motion or the receiver.
4. Time and space are not absolute; they contract with increased velocity; time stops at the speed of light (and there's no space?); space is an "order of material objects"; time is an "order of events"; "an hour is actually a measurement in space."; time (to cover space/distance) and space (a difference in space inherently involves time) are integral to each other (e.g., as a way to locate coordinates -- latitude, longitude, altitude, time - of moving objects in space).
5. Mass is concentrated energy a la E=MC squared; mass is resistance to a change in motion; "heaviness" is resistance to changes in motion; mass is relative to velocity - the faster the motion, the more energy that is involved and more energy means more mass.
6. Bodies move uniformly in a straight line and resist opposing forces that would deviate us from such movement.
7. Gravity is not a force (attraction) but involves paths that follow the geometric structure of space (created by "the mass of a gravitating body and the structure of the field around it...."
8. Light has mass a la E=MC squared (energy and mass are equivalent, with mass being degrees of energetic content) but light has kinetic (not rest) mass, the energy of motion.
OR, something like the above....
The book closes with a description of Einstein's long quest to develop a Unified Field Theory and thereby identify "a profound simplicity" to "supplant the surface complexity of nature." He distilled and united universal essences down to energy and matter, space and time, and gravity. The relationship of these to quantum theory at the micro level remained his challenge up to his death. Barnett recasts that quest into Platonic terms - the search for "the ultimate immutable essence that undergirds the mutable illusory world." Then Barnett notes the risks involved, as Einstein acknowledged, with tossing aside the senses so that one is left only with the highest theory devoid of content, as illustrated by a Hegal quote, "'Pure Being and Nothing are the same.'" But isn't it the Big Bang, the ultimate contraction into a singularity, that gives birth to All?
August 27, 2022 Addition to this review:
Barnett’s 1948 book (with a foreword by Einstein) filled a niche. As the book’s editors write of the author, he “read everything he could find on Einstein and relativity, and he read with a growing sense of discouragement. The popular works skirted the periphery of Einstein’s theories without ever coming to grips with them. The books and articles that really tried to explain the substance of Einstein’s work were too technical for him to understand.”
A few points to highlight:
Einstein’s science was about measurement of things at the macro level (and attempts to measure position and direction of particles at the micro scale). It was about position in space and time and movement across them. As Barnett writes, “The world is a space-time continuum; all reality exists both in space and in time, and the two are indivisible. All measurements of time are really measurements in space, and conversely measurement in space depend on measurements of time.”
The fundamental units of the universe are radiation (light) and matter, and the fundamental causes of their motion are electromagnetism and gravitation. Einstein’s life-long quest was to unite gravitation and electromagnetic forces. (1)
Where Newton had mass as a fixed quantity, Einstein sees “the relativity of mass” as it increases with velocity: matter’s concentrated mass-energy state becomes converted to a liberated mass-energy state, void of matter, i.e. light’s mass (energy content) is expressed as movement only.
As a moving body has more mass, and as the faster it is the more mass it has, at c that body has infinite mass and the principle of inertia kicks in full time: Infinite mass means there’s infinite resistance to increases in speed. In effect, the respective infinities cancel each other out, and it is this that sets a finite limit to the speed of light (“no material body can travel with the speed of light”).
Regarding a scientific-philosophical picture of big physics, the most intriguing part of this book is something that does not get discussed much these days: “the great closed cosmic curve.” (2) In elaborating, Barnett writes that in the Einstein universe there are no straight lines. There are only great circles” so that “a sunbeam setting out through space at the rate of 186,000 miles a second would, in this universe, describe a great cosmic circle and return to its source after a little more than 200 billion terrestrial years.”
Extending that observation, and given the arguments these days about the Big Bang formation of this universe, is there not an explosion outward from a center point that thereby provides an overall curved cosmic structure. Matter and energy move outward in their straight-line (inertial) motion that is curved by space-time, dissipating more (progressively becoming less dense) as they move further from the cosmic center. While the gravitational centers of attraction is lessened (expansion increases the distance, per the inverse square law) and space becomes flatter (less curved) because there is an escape from gravitational effects. This is another way that mass-energy becomes liberated from matter, but light and its mass-energy continues its straight-line motion that follows geodesic, curved paths back to the beginning point – the geometric center. If the cosmic structure is a “globe,” all light paths lead back to the center – in this case, the big bang’s original point, becoming denser per the inverse square law as the paths of motion converge. In other words, regarding the fate of this particular cosmos, there is no contraction back to the beginning point but, rather, there’s a continuation of mass-energy around the curved cosmic structure back to its beginning point. (3)
Does this way of looking at the cosmic structure have implications for the notion of entropy as well? The big bang that begins as a low entropy state (concentrated energy), dissipation across space and time into high entropy states. Yet, because the cosmic structure is curved, mass-energy continues as radiation around that curved structure, to become, per the increase square law, more concentrated, a low entropy state again?
(1) Barnett writes that in the “vast cosmic picture, when fully revealed, the abyss between macrocosmos and microcosmos – the very big and the very little – will surely be bridged, and the whole complex of the universe will resolve into a homogenous fabric in which matter and energy are indistinguishable….” Toward the end of the book, Barnett adds: “in the same way that Relativity reduced gravitational force to a geometrical property of the space-time continuum, a Unified Field Theory will reduce electromagnetic force – the other great universal force – to equivalent status. ‘The idea that there are two structures of space independent of each other, the metric-gravitational and the electromagnetic,’ Einstein once observed, ‘is intolerable to the theoretical spirit.’ And, then Barnett comments that “What his Unified Field Theory undertakes is to show that gravitational and electromagnetic force are not independent of each other – that they are in a very real physical sense inseparable. More specifically, it attempts to describe gravitational and electromagnetic force in terms of a deeper reality that undergirds both – a basic universal field within which gravitational and electromagnetic fields are merely particular ephemeral forms or conditions of state.” Later, Barnett adds: “The distinctions between gravitational force and electromagnetic force, matter and energy, electric charge and field, space and time, all fade in the light of their revealed relationships and resolve into configurations of the four-dimensional continuum which Einstein revealed the universe to be. Thus all man’s perceptions of the world and all his abstract intuitions of reality would merge finally into one, and the deep underlying unity of the universe would be laid bare.” Whatever else this means, Barnett seems to be saying that collected masses at the macro level were formed by electromagnetic forces at the micro level.
(2) “Einstein concluded that the universe is neither infinite nor Euclidean, as most scientists supposed, but something hitherto unimagined. It has already been shown that Euclidean geometry does not hold true in a gravitational field. Light rays do not travel in straight lines when passing through a gravitational field, for the geometry of the field is such that within it there are no straight lines; the shortest course that the light can describe is a curve or a great circle which is rigorously determined by the geometrical structure of the field. Since the structure of a gravitational field is shaped by the mass and velocity of the gravitating body – star, moon, or planet – it follows that the geometrical structure of the universe as a whole must be shaped by the sum of its material content. For each concentration of matter in the universe there is a corresponding distortion of the space-time continuum. Each celestial body, each galaxy creates local irregularities in space-time, like eddies around islands in the sea. The greater the concentration of matter, the greater the resulting curvature of space-time. And the total effect is an overall-curvature of the whole space-time continuum: the combined distortions produced by all the incomputable masses of matter in the universe cause the continuum to bend back on itself in a great closed cosmic curve.”
(3) Of those who operate within the classical paradigm, Einstein and Infeld write that “A journey along a straight line never leads them back to the starting point” but in Einstein’s world “They will…find that starting on a journey straight ahead, they ultimately return to their point of departure. ‘Straight ahead’ means along the great circle of the sphere.” From the big bang and inflation, three typical scenarios are proposed - contraction, heat death and infinite expansion – regarding descriptions of the fate of the cosmos. These are cast more or less implicitly in terms of Newton’s flat space diagrams, i.e., not curved as a globe is curved (it is hard to draw such). It’s interesting that magnetic lines flow in such a circular fashion as well.
June 19, 2010
While the ostensible purpose of this book is to explain some of Albert Einstein's theories in layman's terms, in the process the late Life magazine editor Lincoln Barnett crafted some of the most marvelous sentences in English that I have ever read, particularly as he tackles the scope and grandeur of Einstein's Unified Theory - an enormously ambitious (and as yet failed) attempt to combine the very small (Quantum Mechanics) with the very large (Relativity) to meld a common framework from which matter, energy, space, time, and gravity all spring forth.
In essence, this theory, and by extension this book, is one of the most profound articulations of monotheism that I have ever come across, and it seems fitting that he close with a verse from St Paul. Had he been writing today he could very well have ended with some Mosh Ben-Ari lyrics ( e.g. "Jah is One").
The very supposition that the Universe is round and finite - 200 billion light years to circumnavigate to be precise - is alone worth the price of admission for this gem.
NOTE- This book was published in 1957, so some of the theories are out of date - for example, that the Universe is 5 bln, and not 13.5 Bln years old -as is now theorized by cosmologists.
In essence, this theory, and by extension this book, is one of the most profound articulations of monotheism that I have ever come across, and it seems fitting that he close with a verse from St Paul. Had he been writing today he could very well have ended with some Mosh Ben-Ari lyrics ( e.g. "Jah is One").
The very supposition that the Universe is round and finite - 200 billion light years to circumnavigate to be precise - is alone worth the price of admission for this gem.
NOTE- This book was published in 1957, so some of the theories are out of date - for example, that the Universe is 5 bln, and not 13.5 Bln years old -as is now theorized by cosmologists.
November 13, 2018
অসাধারণ একটা বই।
বিজ্ঞানের সবচেয়ে কঠিন একটা তত্ত্বের যে এত সুন্দর আর সরল ব্যাখ্যা হতে পারে, এই বইখানি তার প্রকৃষ্ট উদাহরণ।
আর সেই ষাটের দশকের অনুবাদকের তারিফ করতেই হয়। এতো ভালো অনুবাদ এখন দেখা যায়না।
পড়তে পড়তে যে কেউ বিজ্ঞানের প্রেমে পরতে বাধ্য।
বিজ্ঞানের সবচেয়ে কঠিন একটা তত্ত্বের যে এত সুন্দর আর সরল ব্যাখ্যা হতে পারে, এই বইখানি তার প্রকৃষ্ট উদাহরণ।
আর সেই ষাটের দশকের অনুবাদকের তারিফ করতেই হয়। এতো ভালো অনুবাদ এখন দেখা যায়না।
পড়তে পড়তে যে কেউ বিজ্ঞানের প্রেমে পরতে বাধ্য।
August 10, 2007
I found this book in a pile of my father's old books. I carried it around for quite some time before reading it, but when I did I was very pleased with it.
This book is a very clear and understandable explanation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I definitely think that my mathematical background helped with understanding it, but I think that people with out a deep mathematical background could understand it.
I usually think that popular science books are not very good, but I think this book is a definite exception.
This book is a very clear and understandable explanation of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I definitely think that my mathematical background helped with understanding it, but I think that people with out a deep mathematical background could understand it.
I usually think that popular science books are not very good, but I think this book is a definite exception.
Read
July 27, 2019Unfortunately, despite how much interest and time I put into it, I'm sort of a sieve when it comes to science information, and I've already forgotten most of the contents of this book. But I do remember its beautiful written, clear language. Perhaps it's in there because of the time it was written, but there's also an interesting juxtaposition expressed between the sense of the Sublime and the existential dread that comes when one contemplates our place and feeble comprehension of the cosmos.
I read the bulk of this while I walking my old dog in May when I was watching him for a week for my parents, and just finished the last pages now, a week after he has died.
I read the bulk of this while I walking my old dog in May when I was watching him for a week for my parents, and just finished the last pages now, a week after he has died.
December 25, 2024
Sometimes you need to give yourself an existential crisis on purpose
October 21, 2014
This book contains a forward written by Albert Einstein from 1948. It's subject however is on Einstein and much of the change of thought since Einstein's publications including his work of Relativity. Interesting developments taken from a time when Einstein was still working on his unified theory, still searching atoms and space for answers, and he was the highest promising physicist with the most credits and awards for his work. A true book of a huge proportion to help understanding much of the logic of those times, of space and time, and a little coverage to help stem interest in concepts taken from the work of Einstein's including encouraging readers with an interest in either time-travel of practical usage or it's application in solving problems. There isn't any math or algebra in this but to upset it's readers, it's mainly of a discussion on types of changes since Relativities proposal has changed the ways of solving problems using physics and possibly to help to an understanding the man Albert Einstein as a thinker on its problems of a universe into mathematical terms. (I wasn't satisfied with the section covered over this time travel thing whereas I liked the rest of the book).
November 30, 2011
A lovely book I plucked off my physicist father's shelf. In plain English, it explains space-time relativity, gravity-acceleration equivalence, and others of Einstein's key discoveries. Barnett explains the powerful thought experiments that led Einstein to his findings: What does the universe look like riding on a wave of light? Can I tell if I am on a falling elevator or the gravitational field of a planet? The book also has a very personal side, showing Einstein still trying to unify gravity and electromagnetism on his deathbed. Unfortunately, Barnett then veers into theological speculation. Barnett evidently believes the failure to find a grand unification theory creates room for God in an otherwise deterministic universe. He never really explains why. Spinoza thought that the best evidence of a designer was the very regularity of the universe. As best I know, Einstein thought similarly. Barnett is free to disagree, but I wish he had done so more clearly and not implicated Einstein--or just stuck to explaining physics, where he is always lucid.
February 21, 2018
Explaining the view of the universe that was enunciated by Albert Einstein to a non-scientific audience is difficult, few people can do it well. The theories of relativity were so revolutionary when first stated that it has been said that when Arthur Stanley Eddington was told in 1919 that he was one of only three people in the world that understood the theory of general relativity his response was, “Who’s the third?”
Even complex theories tend to become part of general knowledge over time and Barnett does a good job in explaining Einstein’s ideas to the general audience. In the modern world, the presence of any equation is considered to lead to a reduction in sales, yet Barnett does not shirk from using an equation when it is warranted.
Although it was originally published in 1948, this is a science book that has worn well in the last seventy years. The theory of relativity has not significantly changed in that time and this explanation is solid and widely understandable.
Even complex theories tend to become part of general knowledge over time and Barnett does a good job in explaining Einstein’s ideas to the general audience. In the modern world, the presence of any equation is considered to lead to a reduction in sales, yet Barnett does not shirk from using an equation when it is warranted.
Although it was originally published in 1948, this is a science book that has worn well in the last seventy years. The theory of relativity has not significantly changed in that time and this explanation is solid and widely understandable.
September 18, 2007
This is really the first book in the sub-genre of "layman's physics." I first tried to read it when I was ten or eleven. I still have it & love it. I just like to hold it. It is a very comforting book to me -- it reminds me of a place in time, or should I say space/time?
Ours was a book club edition. Remember when intellectual pursuits were encouraged?
Anyway, this was a wildly successful book -- it's still in print. And it explains relativity in such a way that the layman could understand it in the 1950s.
Ours was a book club edition. Remember when intellectual pursuits were encouraged?
Anyway, this was a wildly successful book -- it's still in print. And it explains relativity in such a way that the layman could understand it in the 1950s.
October 14, 2008
This is an excellent little book. It presents basic scientific principles in an easy-to-read format. Barnett uses simple analogies to illustrate otherwise complex principles related to Einstein's work on the theory of relativity and his search for a unified field theory. Don't know what any of this really means? This book is for you! Only 100 pages, with illustrations!
If this book intrigues you, take a step up to The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.
If this book intrigues you, take a step up to The Elegant Universe, by Brian Greene.
September 25, 2018
For the scientists this is probably not worth the time. For the interested but always been intimidated by physics, this is a great read. It's incredible to see the impact one person can have on our understanding of everything around us. Short read, quick read nd probably the best at explaining in simple terms and analogies very complex concepts. I will have to follow it with Hawking's "Brief History of Time" immediately if not very shortly. I am excited about physics again!
April 5, 2008
This book is a good overview of the science of relativity at the time it was written - and is still a very good one for those unfamiliar with the concept of relativity. For anyone who is already at least somewhat versed in what Einstein's theories of relativity are all about, though, this book leaves you wanting more depth (maybe not more math - but more depth!).
April 12, 2011
I recommend reading with Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," and Russel's "ABC's of Relativity." Trust me... its a dynamic trio which adds layer after layer in explaining the universe.
August 25, 2012
Outstandingly clear book on special and general relativity. I buy every used copy I see so as to share with students.
June 20, 2016
This was actually a really fun read.
July 6, 2025
It was great till chapter 6 then the honeymoon was over! Mercury (or Gabriel for Christians) doesn't rotate on its axis, but on the Sun's axis as it's gravitationally locked. But, to be fair, maybe this wasn't known in '48. But then after some nonsense about the Lorentz transformation at the end of chapter 6 it goes off the deep end in chapter 7. There are some serious self-imposed errors i.e. saying that clocks "slow" and that measuring rods "shrink"! Everyone who knows relativity (all one dozen) knows that time dilates and rods contract when moving at high speed relative to a stationary observer. Clocks don't slow unless they're running down, malfunctioning etc. and rods don't shrink unless they're made of green wood and are seasoning etc. For the latter think of a tape measure, does it shrink when it goes from e.g. 2 meters to its fully retracted length? Of course not, it simply retracts/contracts. Clocks don't slow either, but time stretches like an elastic. Think of a "slow motion" replay of a sporting program do the players go back to the court/field/rink and replay the play at a slower speed? Of course not, it is simply relayed using more time e.g. 2x, 3x, 10x etc. Relativity really is relative to the observer there are no absolutes, except c, which is this MMORPG's refresh rate, not the "speed of light"! 🤣
NB: Proof for the above: a clock that is moved will be behind a stationary synchronised clock, but not slower. This is proven by a simple transposition of the clocks and they will resynchronise and since there is no universal time the new synchronicity is absolute, not slower nor faster than before. QED
And it gets worse. Velocity increases mass? Wrong? velocity increases energy, not mass. This is pretty basis stuff! Then the author goes on with bogus spacetime rubbish. No, time is not a dimension! Time is process. Spacetime is obsolete Minkowskian nonsense.
Much worse... But to list everything would be a book in itself.
A final criticism: Barnett's use of the word evolved (7 times) as synonym for developed e.g. C. 12: "At the time Einstein evolved his cosmology," This is egregious, as evolved in the sense preceding is a neologism of the adherents to the discredited (via genetics) theory of Darwinism viz. creative evolution. The original meaning of evolve was simply a circular movement of e.g. ships or troops.
NB: Proof for the above: a clock that is moved will be behind a stationary synchronised clock, but not slower. This is proven by a simple transposition of the clocks and they will resynchronise and since there is no universal time the new synchronicity is absolute, not slower nor faster than before. QED
And it gets worse. Velocity increases mass? Wrong? velocity increases energy, not mass. This is pretty basis stuff! Then the author goes on with bogus spacetime rubbish. No, time is not a dimension! Time is process. Spacetime is obsolete Minkowskian nonsense.
Much worse... But to list everything would be a book in itself.
A final criticism: Barnett's use of the word evolved (7 times) as synonym for developed e.g. C. 12: "At the time Einstein evolved his cosmology," This is egregious, as evolved in the sense preceding is a neologism of the adherents to the discredited (via genetics) theory of Darwinism viz. creative evolution. The original meaning of evolve was simply a circular movement of e.g. ships or troops.
July 31, 2025
To start, this book has a tendency to thoroughly explain a theory in one chapter and then immediately list a discrepancy in the next. One chapter will ridicule and demean theories based on the interpretation using our relatively limited range of perception and that these interpretations are subject to bias and human error but in the next chapter will base the entire General Theory of Relativity on his own human perception. If you would like to judge an earthworm for perceiving the world as flat are you not also subject to judgment believing that humankinds feeble understanding of the Universe can be explained by a method created by the same feeble mind? Does the experiment "proving" General Relativity not also limit itself to the perception of the human eye? The idea that light is subject to gravity as all matter is seems valid enough but the idea that this can be proven by picturing a planet that is an undetermined distance from the observer and measuring the changes in its light seems flawed at best. Is this test not also affected by the relative speed at which the Earth travels per second as well as the speed at which the planet the light is being cast upon? All of these opinions formulated are from reading this book with no prior knowledge of physics or mathematics taken into account. After all, this book was written to be a clear explanation right? Well it's not very clear. None of this is to reflect on Einstein obviously but to reflect on the author given I attempted no alternative research on Einsteins explanations of his theories and only formulated my thoughts based upon what I read, which to put it gracefully was an absolute mess. EOC.
September 23, 2024
So, fun fact about me... Physics is a bit of a hobby of mine. I love learning about how the universe works. But, being honest, I'm not smart enough to comprehend the math, but I love the philosophical side... so call me a hobbyist of theoretical physics? Whatever, This book was on my list for a while, and honestly, I wish I read it 20 years ago. It's been around since just after WW2, and Mr. Barnett has that unique ability to explain something in layman's terms and it makes sense. So, if you're interested in a nice overview of Dr. Einstein's contributions to physics, this is a great place to start. You may actually be able to regurgitate what the theory of relativity is all about after this.
I've always been drawn to the idea that the Macrocosm mirrors the Microcosm, and vice versa. Mr. Barnett agrees and clearly states that man is trapped in the middle. Our tiny slice of understanding of the enormity of space and the complexity of the microscopic... will never be enough for us to answer the big questions in life. We will like just be able to stare into the void and contemplate the what if. But, what an amazing what if...
I've always been drawn to the idea that the Macrocosm mirrors the Microcosm, and vice versa. Mr. Barnett agrees and clearly states that man is trapped in the middle. Our tiny slice of understanding of the enormity of space and the complexity of the microscopic... will never be enough for us to answer the big questions in life. We will like just be able to stare into the void and contemplate the what if. But, what an amazing what if...
November 25, 2024
First, I intend to get less stingy about awarding 5 stars, and here is the first one I've changed.
I don't know how or where I picked up this paperback, the revised version of 1957, but I'm glad I found it on my shelves. If I had remembered all the physics I took, and understood it all, I would have known most of what's in this book. that, though significant explanations have been replaced as the decades wore on.
This book truly explains the phenomena in which Einstein found relativity equations, often using metaphors which Einstein himself used . These phenomena include the nature and behavior of light, the true nature of the atom, and at the other end of the spectrum, the behavior of the galaxies on the cosmos and the effect of one heavenly body interacting with another. It was a great review for me.
Einstein's findings (and those of others who contributed to this science) about the universe were leading to questions about how and when the universe started its formation. The term Big Bang theory was not used until 1966, but this author mentions some ideas that were trending that way.
I'm really glad I read it, so it gets 5 stars.
I don't know how or where I picked up this paperback, the revised version of 1957, but I'm glad I found it on my shelves. If I had remembered all the physics I took, and understood it all, I would have known most of what's in this book. that, though significant explanations have been replaced as the decades wore on.
This book truly explains the phenomena in which Einstein found relativity equations, often using metaphors which Einstein himself used . These phenomena include the nature and behavior of light, the true nature of the atom, and at the other end of the spectrum, the behavior of the galaxies on the cosmos and the effect of one heavenly body interacting with another. It was a great review for me.
Einstein's findings (and those of others who contributed to this science) about the universe were leading to questions about how and when the universe started its formation. The term Big Bang theory was not used until 1966, but this author mentions some ideas that were trending that way.
I'm really glad I read it, so it gets 5 stars.
September 4, 2023
Having spent a career as a high school Physics teacher, the topics is this book were explained in plain English as well as they can be explained in words. Barnett has a knack of constructing sentences on hard topics which are easier to understand. Explaining to the common public that the electron which is in every atom of our body is both a wave and a particle. That is enough to blow your mind.
This book does an excellent job of explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
The author also followed the first rule of science book writing and that is to use as few equations and numbers as possible. The Lorentz equations are in the appendix; good job
The Unified Field Theory is still not complete. However, progress has been made since this book was published in 1948. What a mystery, the ultimate mystery, UFT is to the field of Physics.....
A terrific book.
This book does an excellent job of explaining Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.
The author also followed the first rule of science book writing and that is to use as few equations and numbers as possible. The Lorentz equations are in the appendix; good job
The Unified Field Theory is still not complete. However, progress has been made since this book was published in 1948. What a mystery, the ultimate mystery, UFT is to the field of Physics.....
A terrific book.
October 21, 2019
Loved this book. The author breaks Einstein's theories down so that a normal person can understand them. Several theories are explored, and details are given about how Einstein came up with his ideas, and how he developed other great scientific leaders' theories. There isn't much else to say about this book. I would recommend the book for beginning Physics students, people interested in science, those interested in an easy day reader, philosophers, and others who are curious about the origins of Dr. Einstein.
April 15, 2024
Read this some time ago and wanted to write a review. This book encouraged my earliest interest in relativity theory, and is an incredible introduction to Einstein’s work. Endorsed by the man himself, this book is simple and understandable. I remember I had a version with superb cover art (not the cover seen here on goodreads- I had an earlier edition whose cover art should never have been replaced).
The best science book I have ever read. I don’t know if it’s still in print, but it would be the first book I’d recommend on relativity and einstein’s entire body of work.
The best science book I have ever read. I don’t know if it’s still in print, but it would be the first book I’d recommend on relativity and einstein’s entire body of work.
January 20, 2023
Like Winnie-the-Pooh, I am a bear of very little brain when it comes to physics, but even I found this short, concise book fascinating, and - occasionally - easy to follow.
It was written in 1948, so it is best to keep that in mind when you read it. For instance, most scientists today believe the universe is 13.5 billion years old, not 5 billion as this book states. But most of the science still stands up - so the other reviews tell me, anyway.
It was written in 1948, so it is best to keep that in mind when you read it. For instance, most scientists today believe the universe is 13.5 billion years old, not 5 billion as this book states. But most of the science still stands up - so the other reviews tell me, anyway.
June 7, 2025
I wish I read it sooner! I took a course in modern physics and I read this about 2 years later and it really helped me understand the concepts.
This is a beautiful book, the concepts are clearly connected and Barnett builds upon each chapter very logically.
A great read for those with no science background to have a good understanding of relativity, excellent for those with a physics background to deepen their understanding.
This is a beautiful book, the concepts are clearly connected and Barnett builds upon each chapter very logically.
A great read for those with no science background to have a good understanding of relativity, excellent for those with a physics background to deepen their understanding.
October 5, 2017
What an amazing work! Wish I could give it more than 5 stars.
When I started off with the book, I found it a little boring, with all the already known stuff getting repeated, but the moment the genius of Einstein was revealed, I was spellbound.
Special and General Theory of Relativity beautifully explained in layman's words.
When I started off with the book, I found it a little boring, with all the already known stuff getting repeated, but the moment the genius of Einstein was revealed, I was spellbound.
Special and General Theory of Relativity beautifully explained in layman's words.
June 13, 2020
As someone with a degree in physics, I enjoyed the way Relativity is described in the book and loved the philosophy of science portions. I'm not sure that this would be as helpful to the layman as some of the descriptions felt like they needed some basic prior understanding of physical concepts to fully see how Barnett arrived at the conclusions (ie. There is a little bit of hand waving).
November 23, 2025
Un libro un po' complicato per chi non mastica la fisica e lo studio degl'astri, ma appassionante in modo crescente.
È incredibile vedere come le conoscenze della fisica moderna presero forma sotto Einstein e i colleghi di tutto il mondo, e affascinante riconoscere i limiti della conoscenza negli anni 50.
In alcuni passaggi è quasi possibile immaginare e toccare l'universo con mano
È incredibile vedere come le conoscenze della fisica moderna presero forma sotto Einstein e i colleghi di tutto il mondo, e affascinante riconoscere i limiti della conoscenza negli anni 50.
In alcuni passaggi è quasi possibile immaginare e toccare l'universo con mano
March 5, 2020
Gave very good idea about the problems which puzzled einstein to think that the newtonian physics is wrong in some aspects. Good to read if you are interested in what lead the physics in its current state now.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 73 reviews