This year is the centennial of Einstein's "Miracle Year," and this month is the fiftieth anniversary of his death. I am currently compiling a list of new books that have come out on Einstein and physics, but my Science Shelf book review archive already has a substantial number of reviews, including this one.
On the anniversary of Einstein's death, I'll be posting my review of 
Driving Mr. Albert: A Trip Across America With Einstein's Brain by Michael Paterniti here.
For now, here's a look at what David Bodanis properly calls "The World's Most Famous Equation."
Young Einstein, beneath his wild hair,
Hatched a theory beyond all compare.
Its foremost equation
For every occasion
Is E equals m times c-square.
Albert Einstein's most famous equation wasn't an "Aha!" moment. It was not even in the 29-year-old patent clerk's first publication of the theory of relativity. E=mc2, an equation that would transform the world, appeared to little notice in a brief addendum published a short time later.
To a friend, Einstein admitted, "The idea is amusing and enticing, but whether the Lord is laughing at it and has played a trick on me — that I cannot know." Looking back on the century since that equation was born, many people would rephrase Einstein's bemusement. Is the discovery of this five-symbol fruit of the Tree of Knowledge a divine gift or a devilish prank?
Mr. Bodanis' superbly researched "biography" of the equation leaves room for both interpretations. Physicists may quibble about the author's explanations of the famous theory and his neglect of Einstein's Nobel Prize-winning work on the photoelectric effect, but they will agree that he got the main idea right: "By the mid-1800s, scientists accepted the vision of energy and mass as being like two separate domed cities.... Each one was a wondrous, magically balanced world; each was guaranteed in some unfathomable way to keep its total quantity unchanged, even though the forms in which it appeared could vary tremendously." Then came the equation that showed that the two realms were one and the same — and interchangeable.
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
thanks Fred, fascinating topic, much appreciated
2 - HW Saxton
E= MC5 as well.
3 - Eric Berlin
Or, as the Duke tells us on his Mondo show, E = MC Hammer.
Nice job, Fred, and great sounding book.
4 - Fred Bortz
Thanks, Eric.
More reviews to come, including one I just posted called The Hole in the Universe, which you might consider a Seinfeld book. It's about nothing and everything!
5 - Stephen Yip
I'm appalled at this book. It lacks any useful explanation and what little it gives is missleading or downright wrong. One example is in mass dilation. The mass does not actually change - merely the inertia - which is similar in effect. "Wobbly" neutrons and protons "squirmingly escaping" imply to me that Mr. Bodanis does not have enough science background to paraphrase his research.
The author gets distracted by the French Revolution and digresses into unrelated history. He also confuses Heisenberg's Nationalism with Naziism. He not only misdescribes Rutheford's results, but fails to give even an elementary description of the experiment itself which is both important to know and famous.
I would not recomend this book to anyone.
6 - Fred Bortz
As I noted, this is not a physics book, but a history. I would have been much harder on the author if he was purporting to explain Rutherford's experiment rather than note its key result -- an astonishingly small nucleus containing most of the atomic mass.
Likewise, his imperfect analogies are the kinds of things a physicist would quibble about.
I liked his digressions, and I thought his presentation of Heisenberg was fair. The man's life, especially in light of dubious post-war claims about his lack of success in building an atomic bomb, was full of uncertainties. It's been a while since I read the book, but I don't think Bodanis called Heisenberg a Nazi, and history has generally been kind to Heisenberg in that regard.
Anyway, it's clear Bodanis didn't write the book for people like Stephen Yip, or even for me if I were to put on my nit-picking physicist's uniform. But as a book critic, I try to figure out who the author was trying to reach and then judge how well he did that.
I don't expect Mr. Yip to like it, and I'm pleased that he offered his disagreement here. But as my retired dentist used to say, "That's why they make chocolate and vanilla."
Fred Bortz, a butter-pecan kind of guy
7 - duane
Thanks for the review, Fred. I missed this the first time around. I'm sure there are many misconceptions about how Einstein came up with the equation. I think most people would have it that it just popped out of his head like magic. Also, I don't think most people realize that E=mc^3, for example, is obviously wrong, simply on dimensional grounds. I had the pleasure of deriving the equation years ago in school, using the wondrous (at the time) Taylor expansion, the result of which shows how mc^2 sits next to the Newtonian value of kinetic energy. Even Einstein must have been scratching his head.
8 - Fred Bortz
Thanks, Duane.
I stopped posting at Blogcritics because I found a more suitable hangout for an occasional poster like me at Science Blog. There are some great folks here, too, but I could drive myself crazy if I went from blog to blog. So a friendly wave to those who remember when I was active here.
If you want to keep up with my science book reviews, I archive them at my Science Shelf site, and you can subscribe to my newsletter there.
I'm glad you liked this review.
9 - J.S.ADHIKARI
Dear sir,
Here I would like to know to get the information about that, how E=MC2 transfer to the world.
Pl. send the details as early as possible.
Thanks
jsadhikari