General Relativity Priority Dispute

Albert Einstein presented the theories of special relativity and general relativity in publications that either contained no formal references to previous literature, or referred only to a small number of his predecessors for fundamental results on which he based his theories, most notably to the work of Henri Poincaré and Hendrik Lorentz for special relativity, and to the work of David Hilbert, Carl F. Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, and Ernst Mach for general relativity. Subsequently, claims have been put forward about both theories, asserting that they were formulated, either wholly or in part, by others before Einstein. At issue is the extent to which Einstein and various other individuals should be credited for the formulation of these theories, based on priority considerations.

In general relativity, there is a controversy about how much credit should go to Einstein, Marcel Grossmann, and David Hilbert. Many others (such as Gauss, Riemann, William Kingdon Clifford, Ricci, Gunnar Nordström and Levi-Civita) contributed to the development of the mathematical tools and geometrical ideas underlying the theory of gravity. Also polemics exist about alleged contributions of others such as Paul Gerber.

It was noted by Sir Edmund Whittaker in his 1954 book that David Hilbert had derived the theory of general relativity from an elegant variational principle ''almost simultaneously'' with Einstein's discovery of the theory. Hilbert's derivation of the theory predated that of Einstein by five days.

Undisputed facts

The following facts are well established and referable:

* The proposal to describe gravity by means of a pseudo-Riemannian metric was first made by Einstein and Grossmann in the so-called ''Entwurf'' theory published 1913. Grossmann identified the contracted Riemann tensor as the key for the solution of the problem posed by Einstein. This was followed by several attempts of Einstein to find valid field equations for this theory of gravity.
* David Hilbert invited Einstein to the University of Göttingen for a week to give six two-hour lectures on general relativity, which he did in June–July 1915. Einstein stayed at Hilbert's house during this visit. Hilbert started working on a combined theory of gravity and electromagnetism, and Einstein and Hilbert exchanged correspondence until November 1915. Einstein gave four lectures on his theory on 4, 11, 18 and 25 November in Berlin, published as in15a in15b in15c in15d
* 4 November: Einstein published non-covariant field equations and on 11 November returned to the field equations of the "Entwurf" papers, which he now made covariant by the assumption that the trace of the energy-momentum tensor was zero, as it was for electromagnetism.
* Einstein sent Hilbert proofs of his papers of 4 and 11 November. (Sauer 99, notes 63, 66)
* 15 November: Invitation issued for the 20 November meeting at the Academy in Göttingen. "Hilbert legt vor in die Nachrichten: Grundgleichungen der Physik". (Sauer 99, note 73)
* 16 November: Hilbert spoke at the Göttingen Mathematical Society "Grundgleichungen der Physik" (Sauer 99, note 68). Talk not published.
* 16 or 17 November: Hilbert sent Einstein some information about his talk of 16 November (letter lost).
* 18 November: Einstein replied to Hilbert's letter (received by Hilbert on 19 November), saying as far as he (Einstein) could tell, Hilbert's system was equivalent to the one he (Einstein) had found in the preceding weeks. (Sauer 99, note 72). Einstein also told Hilbert in this letter that he (Einstein) had "considered the only possible generally covariant field equations three years earlier", adding that "The difficulty was not to find generally covariant equations for the $g^$;this is easy with the help of the Riemann tensor. What was difficult instead was to recognize that these equations form a generalization, and that is, a simple and natural generalization of Newton's law" (A. Einstein to D. Hilbert, 18 November, Einstein Archives Call No. 13-093). Einstein also told Hilbert in that letter that he (Einstein) had calculated the correct perihelion advance for Mercury, using covariant field equations based on the assumption that the trace of the energy momentum tensor vanished as it did for electromagnetism.
* 18 November: Einstein presented the calculation of the perihelion advance to Prussian Academy.
* 20 November: Hilbert lectured at the Göttingen Academy. The proofs of his paper show that Hilbert proposed a non-covariant set of equations as the fundamental equations of physics. Thus he wrote "in order to keep the deterministic characteristic of the fundamental equations of physics ..four further non-covariant equations ... reunavoidable." (proofs, pages 3 and 4. quoted by Corry et al.). Hilbert then derives these four extra equations and continues "these four differential equations ..supplement the gravitational equations ..to yield a system of 14 equations for the 14 potentials $g^$: $q_s$ the system of fundamental equations of physics". (proofs, page 7, quoted by Corry et al.). Hilbert's published paper of 20 November presented the correct field equations.
* 25 November: In his last lecture, Einstein submitted the correct field equations. The published paper (Einstein 1915d) appeared on 2 December and did not mention Hilbert.
* Hilbert's paper took considerably longer to appear. He had galley proofs that were marked "December 6" by the printer in December 1915. Most of the galley proofs have been preserved, but about a quarter of a page is missin

The extant part of the proofs contains Einstein–Hilbert action, Hilbert's action from which the field equations can be obtained by taking a variational derivative, and using the contracted Bianchi identity derived in theorem III of Hilbert's paper, though this was not done in the extant proofs.
* Hilbert rewrote his paper for publication (in March 1916), changing the treatment of the energy theorem, dropping a non-covariant gauge condition on the coordinates to produce a covariant theory, and adding a new credit to Einstein for introducing the gravitational potentials $g_$ into the theory of gravity. In the final paper, he said his differential equations seemed to agree with the "magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers"
* In a 25 November letter to Zangger, Einstein accused Hilbert (without mentioning his name) of attempts to appropriate ('nostrify') his theory. On 4 December, Hilbert nominated Einstein for election as a corresponding member of the Göttingen Mathematical Society. In a 20 December letter to Hilbert, Einstein proposed to settle the dispute.
* The 1916 paper was rewritten and republished in 1924 il24 where Hilbert wrote: ''Einstein ..kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück.'' (''Einstein ..in his most recent publications, returns directly to the equations of my theory.'')

Disputed claims

The following things seem to be unclear, unknown or disputed:

* Before 1997, "the commonly accepted view was that David Hilbert completed the general theory of relativity at least 5 days before Albert Einstein submitted his conclusive paper on this theory on 25 November 1915. Hilbert's article, bearing the date of submission 20 November 1915 but published only on 31 March 1916, presents a generally covariant theory of gravitation, including field equations essentially equivalent to those in Einstein's paper" (Corry, Renn and Stachel, 1997). Since the discovery of printer's proofs of Hilbert's paper of 20 November, dated 6 December 1915, which show a number of differences from the finally published paper, this 'commonly accepted view' has been challenged.
* Whether Einstein got the correct mathematical formulation for general relativity from Hilbert, or formulated it independently. Points at issue:
** The content of Hilbert's 16 November letter/postcard to Einstein is not known. It is however, clear from Einstein's response that it was an account of Hilbert's work.
** It is not known what was on the missing part of Hilbert's printer's proofs. The missing portion is large enough to have contained the field equations in an explicit form. There are several competing speculations about the content of the missing piece.
** Based on the above, it is not known whether Hilbert had formulated the field equations in an explicit form before 6 December (the date of the printer's proofs) or not.
** It is known from the proofs that Hilbert introduced four non-covariant equations in order to specify the gravitational potentials $g^$ and that this approach was dropped from his revised paper.
* Whether Hilbert ever tried to claim priority for the field equations - it seems clear that he regarded general relativity as Einstein's theory.
* What Hilbert thought he was referring to when he used the term "equations of my theory" about Einstein's research. Hilbert made a similar remark in a letter to Karl Schwarzschild.

There are a large number of opinions related to these involving questions of "who should get the credit" - these are not enumerated here.

Did Hilbert claim priority for parts of general relativity?

Kip Thorne concludes, in remarks based on Hilbert's 1924 paper, that Hilbert regarded the general theory of relativity as Einstein's: "Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps...". However, Kip Thorne also stated, "Remarkably, Einstein was not the first to discover the correct form of the law of warpage . . .Recognition for the first discovery must go to Hilbert."

Arguments have been made that Hilbert claimed priority for the field equations themselves; the sources cited for this are:

Hilbert's article (dated 20 November 1915), when it appeared in 1916, contained the text "Die so zu Stande kommenden Differentialgleichungen der Gravitation sind, wie mir scheint, mit der von Einstein in seinen späteren Abhandlungen aufgestellten großzügigen Theorie der allgemeinen Relativität in gutem Einklang." In translation, "The differential equations of gravity arrived at in this way are, I think, in good agreement with those of Einstein in his later papers in which he presented his comprehensive theory of general relativity." Hilbert refers here to the "later papers" of Einstein, obviously to distinguish them from the Entwurf theory of 1913 and the preliminary papers prior to the end of November 1915, when Einstein published the equations of general relativity in their final form.

Wuensch points out that Hilbert refers to the field equations of gravity as "meine Theorie" ("my theory") in his 6 February 1916 letter to Schwarzschild. This, however, is not at issue, since no one disputes that Hilbert had his own "theory", which Einstein criticized as naive and overly ambitious. Hilbert's theory was based on the work of Mie combined with Einstein's principle of general covariance, but applied to matter and electromagnetism as well as gravity.

Mehra and Bjerknes point out that Hilbert's 1924 version of the article contained the sentence "... und andererseits auch Einstein, obwohl wiederholt von abweichenden und unter sich verschiedenen Ansätzen ausgehend, kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradenwegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück" - "Einstein ..in his last publications ultimately returns directly to the equations of my theory.". These statements of course do not have any particular bearing on the matter at issue. No one disputes that Hilbert had "his" theory, which was a very ambitious attempt to combine gravity with a theory of matter and electromagnetism along the lines of Mie's theory, and that his equations for gravitation agreed with those that Einstein presented beginning in Einstein's 25 November paper (which Hilbert refers to as Einstein's later papers to distinguish them from previous theories of Einstein). None of this bears on the precise origin of the trace term in the Einstein field equations (a feature of the equations that, while theoretically significant, does not have any effect on the vacuum equations, from which all the empirical tests proposed by Einstein were derived).

Sauer says "the independence of Einstein's discovery was never a point of dispute between Einstein and Hilbert ... Hilbert claimed priority for the introduction of the Riemann scalar into the action principle and the derivation of the field equations from it," (Sauer mentions a letter and a draft letter where Hilbert defends his priority for the action functional) "and Einstein admitted publicly that Hilbert (and Lorentz) had succeeded in giving the equations of general relativity a particularly lucid form by deriving them from a single variational principle". Sauer also stated, "And in a draft of a letter to Weyl, dated 22 April 1918, written after he had read the proofs of the first edition of Weyl's 'Raum-Zeit-Materie' Hilbert also objected to being slighted in Weyl's exposition. In this letter again 'in particular the use of the Riemannian curvature calarin the Hamiltonian integral' ('insbesondere die Verwendung der Riemannschen Krümmung unter dem Hamiltonschen Integral') was claimed as one of his original contributions. SUB Cod. Ms. Hilbert 457/17."

Einstein wrote to Hilbert on 20 December 1915 that there was an "ill-feeling between us" and it has been suspected that this ill feeling was the result of Einstein's bitterness over Hilbert's "nostrification" of his (Einstein's) theory. Others have suggested that Hilbert might have felt that Einstein had derived some benefit or hints from his letters, and that those had helped him to arrive at the trace term of the field equations, and if so, that Einstein should have acknowledged this in his paper. But this is pure speculation, aside from Einstein's comment that he believed others (presumably Hilbert) had tried to "nostrify" his theory.

So far, there seems to be no consensus that these statements form a clear claim by Hilbert to have published the field equations first.

Did Einstein develop the field equations independently?

For a long time, it was believed that Einstein and Hilbert found the field equations of gravity independently. While Hilbert's paper was submitted somewhat earlier than Einstein's, it only appeared in 1916, after Einstein's field equations paper had appeared in print. For this reason, there was no good reason to suspect plagiarism on either side. In 1978, an 18 November 1915 letter from Einstein to Hilbert resurfaced, in which Einstein thanked Hilbert for sending an explanation of Hilbert's work. This was not unexpected to most scholars, who were well aware of the correspondence between Hilbert and Einstein that November, and who continued to hold the view expressed by Albrecht Fölsing in his Einstein biography:

In November, when Einstein was totally absorbed in his theory of gravitation, he essentially only corresponded with Hilbert, sending Hilbert his publications and, on November 18, thanking him for a draft of his article. Einstein must have received that article immediately before writing this letter. Could Einstein, casting his eye over Hilbert's paper, have discovered the term which was still lacking in his own equations, and thus ' nostrified' Hilbert?

In the very next sentence, after asking the rhetorical question, Folsing answers it with "This is not really probable...", and then goes on to explain in detail why

instein'seventual derivation of the equations was a logical development of his earlier arguments—in which, despite all the mathematics, physical principles invariably predominated. His approach was thus quite different from Hilbert's, and Einstein's achievements can, therefore, surely be regarded as authentic.

In their 1997 ''Science'' paper, Corry, Renn and Stachel quote the above passage and comment that "the arguments by which Einstein is exculpated are rather weak, turning on his slowness in fully grasping Hilbert's mathematics", and so they attempted to find more definitive evidence of the relationship between the work of Hilbert and Einstein, basing their work largely on a recently discovered pre-print of Hilbert's paper. A discussion of the controversy around this paper is given below.

Those who contend that Einstein's paper was motivated by the information obtained from Hilbert have referred to the following sources:
* The correspondence between Hilbert and Einstein mentioned above. More recently, it became known that Einstein was also given notes of Hilbert's 16 November talk about his theory.
* Einstein's 18 November paper on the perihelion motion of Mercury, which still refers to the incomplete field equations of 4 and 11 November. (The perihelion motion depends only on the vacuum equations, which are unaffected by the trace term that was added to complete the field equations.) Reference to the final form of the equations appears only in a footnote added to the paper, indicating that Einstein had not known the final form of the equations on 18 November. This is not controversial, and is consistent with the well-known fact that Einstein did not complete the field equations (with the trace term) until 25 November.
* Letters of Hilbert, Einstein, and other scientists may be used in attempts to make guesses about the content of Hilbert's letter to Einstein, which is not preserved, or of Hilbert's lecture in Göttingen on 16 November.

Those who contend that Einstein's work takes priority over Hilbert's, or that both authors worked independently have used the following arguments:
* Hilbert modified his paper in December 1915, and the 18 November version sent to Einstein did not contain the final form of the field equations. The extant part of the printer proofs does not have the explicit field equations. This is the point of view defended by Corry, Renn, Stachel, and Sauer.
* Sauer (1999) and Todorov (2005) agree with Corry, Renn and Satchel that Hilbert's proofs show that Hilbert had originally presented a non-covariant theory, which was dropped from the revised paper. Corry ''et al.'' quote from the proofs: "Since our mathematical theorem ... can provide only ten essentially independent equations for the 14 potentials ..and further, maintaining general covariance makes quite impossible more than ten essential independent equations ..then, in order to keep the deterministic characteristic of the fundamental equations of physics ..four further non-covariant equations ... reunavoidable." (proofs, pages 3 and 4. Corry ''et al.'') Hilbert derives these four extra equations and continues "these four differential equations ..supplement the gravitational equations ..to yield a system of 14 equations for the 14 potentials $g^$, $q_s$: the system of fundamental equations of physics". (proofs, page 7. Corry ''et al.''). Hilbert's first theory (16 November lecture, 20 November lecture, 6 December proofs) was titled "The fundamental equations of Physics". In proposing non-covariant fundamental equations, based on the Ricci tensor but restricted in this way, Hilbert was following the causality requirement that Einstein and Grossmann had introduced in the Entwurf papers of 1913.
* One may attempt to reconstruct the way in which Einstein arrived at the field equations independently. This is, for instance, done in the paper of Logunov, Mestvirishvili and Petrov quoted below. Renn and Sauer investigate the notebook used by Einstein in 1912 and claim he was close to the correct theory at that time.

Scholars

This section cites notable publications where people have expressed a view on the issues outlined above.

Albrecht Fölsing on the Hilbert-Einstein interaction (1993)

From Fölsing's 1993 (English translation 1998) Einstein biography " Hilbert, like all his other colleagues, acknowledged Einstein as the sole creator of relativity theory."

Cory/Renn/Stachel and Friedwardt Winterberg (1997/2003)

In 1997, Cory, Renn and Stachel published a three-page article in ''Science'' entitled "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute

concluding that Hilbert had not anticipated Einstein's equations.

Friedwardt Winterberg, a professor of physics at the University of Nevada, Reno, dispute

these conclusions, observing that the galley proofs of Hilbert's articles had been tampered with - part of one page had been cut off. He goes on to argue that the removed part of the article contained the equations that Einstein later published, and he wrote that "the cut off part of the proofs suggests a crude attempt by someone to falsify the historical record". ''Science'' declined to publish this; it was printed in revised form in ''Zeitschrift für Naturforschung'', with a dateline of 5 June 2003. Winterberg criticized Corry, Renn and Statchel for having omitted the fact that part of Hilbert's proofs was cut off. Winterberg wrote that the correct field equations are still present on the existing pages of the proofs in various equivalent forms. In this paper, Winterberg asserted that Einstein ''sought the help of'' Hilbert and Klein to help him find the ''correct field equation'', without mentioning the research of Fölsing (1997) and Sauer (1999), according to which Hilbert ''invited'' Einstein to Göttingen to give a week of lectures on general relativity in June 1915, which however does not necessarily contradict Winterberg. Hilbert at the time was looking for physics problems to solve.

A short reply to Winterberg's article can be found a

the original long reply can be accessed via the Internet Archive a

In this reply, Winterberg's hypothesis is called " Conspiracy theory, paranoid" and "speculative". Cory et al. offer the following alternative speculation: "it is possible that Hilbert himself cropped off the top of p. 7 to include it with the three sheets he sent Klein, in order that they not end in mid-sentence."

As of September 2006, the Max Planck Institute of Berlin has replaced the short reply with a not

saying that the Max Planck Society "distances itself from statements published on this website ..concerning Prof. Friedwart Winterberg" and stating that "the Max Planck Society will not take a position in hisscientific dispute".

Ivan Todorov, in a paper published on ArXiv, says of the debate:
:Their RS'sattempt to support on this ground Einstein's accusation of "nostrification" goes much too far. A calm, non-confrontational reaction was soon provided by a thorough study of Hilbert's route to the "Foundations of Physics" (see also the relatively even handed survey (Viz 01)).

In the paper recommended by Todorov as calm and non-confrontational, Tilman Sauer concludes that the printer's proofs show conclusively that Einstein did not plagiarize Hilbert, stating
:any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step toward his field equations from Hilbert's note ov 20, 1915is now definitely precluded.

Max Born's letters to David Hilbert, quoted in Wuensch, are quoted by Todorov as evidence that Einstein's thinking towards general covariance was influenced by the competition with Hilbert.

Todorov ends his paper by stating:
:Einstein and Hilbert had the moral strength and wisdom - after a month of intense competition, from which, in a final account, everybody (including science itself) profited - to avoid a lifelong priority dispute (something in which Leibniz and Newton failed). It would be a shame to subsequent generations of scientists and historians of science to try to undo their achievement.

Anatoly Alexeevich Logunov on general relativity (2004)

Anatoly Logunov (a former vice president of the Soviet Academy of SciencesAlt URL
/ref> and currently the scientific advisor of the Institute for High Energy Physics
/ref>), is author of
book about Poincaré's relativity theory
and coauthor, with Mestvirishvili and Petrov, of an article rejecting the conclusions of the Corry/Renn/Stachel paper. They discuss both Einstein's and Hilbert's papers, claiming that Einstein and Hilbert arrived at the correct field equations independently. Specifically, they conclude that:

:''Their pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result. Nobody "nostrified" the other. So no "belated decision in the Einstein–Hilbert priority dispute", about which orry, Renn, and Stachelwrote, can be taken. Moreover, the very Einstein–Hilbert dispute never took place.''
:''All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the gravitational field equations. But general relativity is Einstein's theory.''

Wuensch and Sommer (2005)

Daniela Wuensch, a historian of science and a Hilbert and Kaluza expert, responded to Bjerknes, Winterberg and Logunov's criticisms of the Corry/Renn/Stachel paper in
book which appeared in 2005
where in she defends the view that the cut to Hilbert's printer proofs was made in recent times. Moreover, she presents a theory about what might have been on the missing part of the proofs, based upon her knowledge of Hilbert's papers and lectures.

She defends the view that knowledge of Hilbert's 16 November 1915 letter was crucial to Einstein's development of the field equations: Einstein arrived at the correct field equations only with Hilbert's help ("nach großer Anstrengung mit Hilfe Hilberts"), but nevertheless calls Einstein's reaction (his negative comments on Hilbert in the 26 November letter to Zangger) "understandable" ("Einsteins Reaktion ist verständlich") because Einstein had worked on the problem for a long time.

According to her publisher, Klaus Sommer, Wuensch concludes though that:

:This comprehensive study concludes with a historical interpretation. It shows that while it is true that Hilbert must be seen as the one who first discovered the field equations, the general theory of relativity is indeed Einstein's achievement, whereas Hilbert developed a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism


In 2006, Wuensch was invited to give a talk at the annual meeting of the German Physics Society (Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft) about her views about the priority issue for the field equation


Wuensch's publisher, Klaus Sommer, in an article in ''Physik in unserer Zeit'', supported Wuensch's view that Einstein obtained some results not independently but from the information obtained from Hilbert's 16 November letter and from the notes of Hilbert's talk. While he does not call Einstein a plagiarist, Sommer speculates that Einstein's conciliatory 20 December letter was motivated by the fear that Hilbert might comment on Einstein's behaviour in the final version of his paper. Sommer claimed that a scandal caused by Hilbert could have done more damage to Einstein than any scandal before ("Ein Skandal Hilberts hätte ihm mehr geschadet als jeder andere zuvor").

David E. Rowe (2006)

The contentions of Wuensch and Sommer have been strongly contested by the historian of mathematics and natural sciences David E. Rowe in a detailed review of Wuensch's book published in ''Historia Mathematica'' in 2006. Rowe argues that Wuensch's book offers nothing but tendentious, unsubstantiated, and in many cases highly implausible, speculations.

See also

* History of Lorentz transformations
* History of general relativity
* Criticism of relativity theory#Accusations of plagiarism and priority discussions
* List of scientific priority disputes
* Multiple discovery

Notes

Citations

:
Author's site
/ref>
Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn, John Stachel: "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute", SCIENCE, Vol. 278, 14 November 1997

/ref>
Corry, Renn Stachel
Short response
to in02- note: the original response was later replaced with a shorter one, and on 14 September 2006, this was replaced with a statement stating that the Max Planck Institute distances itself from Corry et al.'s statements about Winterberg. The original two versions are no longer available at this URL or at the Wayback Machine.
Fölsing, Albrecht: ''Einstein - a biography''; Penguin (Non-Classics); New Ed edition (1 June 1998). .
Logunov, A. A (2004): "Henri Poincaré and Relativity Theory" - ''Phys. Usp.'' 47 (2004) 607-621; Usp. Fiz. Nauk 174 (2004) 663-678 - PraXis 2004
A.A. Logunov, M.A.Mestvirishvili, V.A. Petrov (2004): How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered? Phys. Usp. 47 (2004) 607-621; ''Usp.Fiz.Nauk'' 174 (2004) 663-678,
Mehra, J. (1974) "Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation" Reidel, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Jürgen Renn und Tilman Sauer (1996), "Einsteins Züricher Notizbuch: Die Entdeckung der Feldgleichungen der Gravitation im Jahre 1912", preprint 28 from Max Planck Institute
Web link
Publication date implied from web directory.
Jürgen Renn and John Stachel, ''Hilbert's Foundation of Physics: From a Theory of Everything to a Constituent of General Relativity'' - can be downloaded from link 118 in the preprint list a
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science


Sommer, Klaus: "Wer entdeckte die Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie? Prioritätsstreit zwischen Hilbert und Einstein", Physik in unserer Zeit Volume 36, Issue 5, pp. 230–235. Published Online: 29 August 2005. Available online fro
Wiley InterScience
(expect some problems; paid access to text only)
Kip Thorne (1994): ''Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy'', W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition (January 1995).
Todorov, Ivan T., ''Einstein and Hilbert: The Creation of General Relativity'', Institut fuer Theoretische Physik Universitaet Goettingen, , 25 April 2005.
Whittaker, E. T (1953) ''A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity: Vol 2 The Modern Theories 1900-1926. Chapter II: The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz'', Nelson, London.
Friedwart Winterberg
a critique
of or97as printed in "Z.f. Naturforschung 59a
59a
, 715-719 (2004).
Daniela Wuensch, ''"zwei wirkliche Kerle", Neues zur Entdeckung der Gravitationsgleichungen der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie durch Einstein und Hilbert.'' Termessos, 2005,

References

;Works of physics (primary sources)
* in05c: Albert Einstein: ''Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper'', Annalen der Physik 17(1905), 891–921. Received 30 June, published 26 September 1905. Reprinted with comments in ta89 pp. 276-30
English translation, with footnotes not present in the 1905 paper, available on the net
* in05d: Albert Einstein: ''Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energiegehalt abhängig?'', Annalen der Physik 18(1905), 639–641, Reprinted with comments in ta89 Document 2
English translation available on the net
*in06: Albert Einstein: ''Das Prinzip von der Erhaltung der Schwerpunktsbewegung und die Trägheit der Energie'' Annalen der Physik 20(1906):627-633, Reprinted with comments in ta89 Document 35
* in15a Einstein, A. (1915) "Die Feldgleichungun der Gravitation". ''Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin'', 844–847.
* in15b Einstein, A. (1915) "Zur allgemeinen Relativatstheorie", ''Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin'', 778-786
* in15c Einstein, A. (1915) "Erklarung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Relatvitatstheorie", ''Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin'', 799-801
* in15d Einstein, A. (1915) "Zur allgemeinen Relativatstheorie", ''Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin'', 831-839
* in16 Einstein, A. (1916) "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie", ''Annalen der Physik'', 49
* il24 Hilbert, D., ''Die Grundlagen der Physik'' - ''Mathematische Annalen'', 92, 1924 - "meiner theorie" quote on page 2 - online a
Uni Göttingen
-


* an05Langevin, P. (1905) "Sur l'origine des radiations et l'inertie électromagnétique", ''Journal de Physique Théorique et Appliquée'', 4, pp. 165–183.
* an14Langevin, P. (1914) "Le Physicien" in ''Henri Poincaré Librairie'' (Felix Alcan 1914) pp. 115–202.
* or99Lorentz, H. A. (1899) " Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems", ''Proc. Acad. Science Amsterdam'', I, 427–43.
* or04 Lorentz, H. A. (1904) " Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less Than That of Light", ''Proc. Acad. Science Amsterdam'', IV, 669–78.
* or11Lorentz, H. A. (1911) ''Amsterdam Versl.'' XX, 87
* or14.
* la07Planck, M. (1907) ''Berlin Sitz.'', 542
* la08Planck, M. (1908) ''Verh. d. Deutsch. Phys. Ges.'' X, p218, and ''Phys. ZS'', IX, 828
* oi89Poincaré, H. (1889) ''Théorie mathématique de la lumière'', Carré & C. Naud, Paris. Partly reprinted in oi02 Ch. 12.
* oi97Poincaré, H. (1897
"The Relativity of Space"
article in English translation
* oi00: . See also th
English translation
* oi02:
* oi04: English translation as The Principles of Mathematical Physics, in "The value of science" (1905a), Ch. 7–9.
* oi05:
* oi06:
* oi08:
* oi13:
* in20 Albert Einstein: " Ether and the Theory of Relativity", An Address delivered on May 5, 1920, in the University of Leyden.
* ta89: John Stachel (Ed.), ''The collected papers of Albert Einstein'', volume 2, Princeton University Press, 1989

Further reading

* Nándor Balázs (1972) "The acceptability of physical theories: Poincaré versus Einstein", pages 21–34 in ''General Relativity: Papers in Honour of J.L. Synge'', L. O'Raifeartaigh editor, Clarendon Press.
*
*
*
*
*

{{Relativity

Albert Einstein
Theory of relativity
Discovery and invention controversies