杏吧原创

IN , a deliberately provocative semi-biographical study of Einstein鈥檚 scientific errors, there are, indeed, plenty of mistakes 鈥� and not all of them are Einstein鈥檚. According to Hans Ohanian, Einstein was awarded the Nobel prize in 1919, 1921 and 1922. Ohanian knows Einstein only received one Nobel, but three different dates appear in the book. In fact, Einstein was awarded the 1921 prize in 1922.

So what? Every author makes little slips. But if you are going to scrutinise the 鈥渉uman failings鈥� of the greatest physicist after Newton, you had better be extra careful about accuracy. Yet Ohanian鈥檚 book has more than its fair share of errors of historical fact. We read that Newton was brought up by his mother (actually she abandoned him at the age of 3); that Hooke preceded Newton as president of the Royal Society (Hooke was never president); and that Einstein predicted the phenomenon of in 1922 at the age of 43 (it was 1925, aged 46).

When Ohanian discusses Einstein鈥檚 character, iconoclasm is the name of the game. 鈥淭he young Einstein was an incorrigible and tactless loudmouth and know-it-all,鈥� Ohanian writes, a celebrity who 鈥渕ade it a point to be seen in the company of the rich and famous鈥�, a hypocrite who spoke 鈥渨ith a forked tongue鈥� about his pacifism despite having helped to design a gyrocompass for German U-boats in the 1920s 鈥� and much more to Einstein鈥檚 discredit. As the author confesses, he would like to have said to Einstein, 鈥淎lbert, now that is really stupid!鈥�

Happily, any carelessness or coarseness about Einstein鈥檚 life do not infect the discussion of his physics. Ohanian is no historian, but he is an assured physicist 鈥� and not to be confused with the cranks who send letters to physics journals claiming to have disproven Einstein. Ignore his irritating style and you will find a well-informed and thought-provoking critique of Einstein鈥檚 tantalising combination of brilliance and blunder, bolstered by Ohanian鈥檚 own translations from the original German. Even Einstein scholars may learn something.

Specialists are already aware of the many mistakes Einstein made, even if the news has yet to reach the average physics student, let alone the lay admirer. In 2005, Physics Today featured , a frank but highly respectful article by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, which generated a large and approving response from physicists, including a letter from Ohanian. In it, Ohanian chides, 鈥淸Einstein] should have recognized that the constancy of the speed of light had to be established by experiment, not by stipulation.鈥�

Einstein鈥檚 most prominent mistake was his 鈥� an extra term that he added to the field equations of general relativity in 1917 in order to uphold his assumption that the universe is static. Einstein himself declared this his 鈥渂iggest blunder鈥� and publicly rejected it in 1931 after observing the astronomical evidence for the universe鈥檚 expansion 鈥� though much more recent evidence suggests that it may not have been a mistake after all. Also well known are his mistaken post-1926 opposition to quantum theory, and his final decades of fruitless searching for a unified theory.

Less familiar are Einstein鈥檚 mistakes in formulating both special and general relativity, such as: a mistake in the clock synchronisation procedure on which he based special relativity; repeated mistakes in his various proofs of E = mc²; mistakes in the principle of equivalence of gravitation and acceleration; a mistake in his first calculation of the bending of light; and several mistakes in his attempts at theories of general relativity. Some of these mistakes were highly productive, Ohanian says. The first 鈥渓ed him to introduce the postulate about the constant speed of light, which gave him a shortcut to the Lorentz transformation, the length contraction, the time dilation, and a wealth of other new results鈥�.

鈥淓instein made mistakes in his proofs of E = mc²鈥�

Sadly, Ohanian concludes, neither Einstein鈥檚 fruitful mistakes nor his unfruitful ones have much to teach today鈥檚 physicists. The fruitful ones were unique to Einstein鈥檚 genius. The others merely offer the rest of us the consolation that we are in good company.