"How happy and proud I will be, when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end!"-- Albert Einstein

. . .In 1905, several articles bearing the name of Albert Einstein appeared in a German physics journal, Annalen der Physik. The most fateful among these, was a paper entitled Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper; von A. Einstein, Einstein's supposedly breakthrough paper on the "principle of relativity". Though it was perhaps submitted as coauthored by Mileva Einstein-Marity and Albert Einstein, or solely by Mileva Einstein-Marity, Albert's name appeared in the journal as the exclusive author of their work²⁸⁵ . . . .

Abram Fedorovich Joffe (Ioffe) recounts that the paper was signed "Einstein-Marity". "Marity" is a variant of the Serbian "Maric", Mileva's maiden name. Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

"For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation--that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)."²⁸⁶. . .

. . . Joffe's statements appeared fifty years after he had read the 1905 papers. It stuck with him all those many years that the papers were indelibly signed "Einstein-Marity". How could Joffe have known that Mileva Maric went by the name of Einstein-Marity, if the name had not appeared on the 1905 papers? Joffe could not have known that Albert went by the name of "Einstein-Marity", because Albert Einstein never did. . .

. . . There is no Swiss custom by which the husband automatically adds his wife's maiden name to his, and even if there were, neither Albert nor Mileva were Swiss. Albert Einstein never signed his name "Einstein-Marity". Swiss law permits the male, the female, or both, to use a double last name, but this must be declared before the marriage, and it was Mileva, not Albert, who opted for the last name "Einstein-Marity". A married person may use the hyphenated "Allianzname" in everyday use, but it was Mileva who went by "Einstein-Marity", not Albert. Albert signed his marriage records simply "Einstein". Mileva's death notice reads "Einstein-Marity".

Evan Harris Walker, who argued that Mileva was co-author, or sole author, of the 1905 papers, quoted some of Albert's words, as found in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, and bear in mind that the vast majority of Mileva's letters to Albert were destroyed, with there being no more likely reasons for their destruction, than to hide her contribution and the fact that the works were unoriginal,

"I find statements in 13 of [Albert's] 43 letters to [Mileva] that refer to her research or to an ongoing collaborative effort -- for example, in document 74, 'another method which has similarities with yours.'

In document 75, Albert writes: 'I am also looking forward very much to our new work. You must now continue with your investigation.' In document 79, he says, 'we will send it to Wiedermann's Annalen.' In document 96, he refers to 'our investigations'; in document 101, to 'our theory of molecular forces.' In document 107, he tells her: 'Prof. Weber is very nice to me. . . I gave him our paper.'"²⁹⁸

. . .Why did the Nobel commitee not award Einstein the Nobel Prize for his work on relativity theory? Could it have been that all who were familiar with the facts, knew that Einstein did not originate the major concepts behind relativity theory?

. . .Mileva and Albert had coauthored papers before²⁹⁹ and Albert had assumed credit for that which Mileva had accomplished.³⁰⁰ Senta Troemel-Ploetz presented a thorough account of Albert's shameless appropriation of Mileva's work and of Mileva's acquiescence.³⁰¹

. . .Why didn't Mileva come forward with the fact that she was the one who had written the work, if in fact she had? Did Albert buy Mileva's silence? Even if he had, was there more to hold Mileva back from exposing Albert, than the desperate need for monies?

. . . Serbian women had little chance at fame in those days, other than as ornaments attached to their husbands' arms. Tesla, a Serb born in Croatia, was unfairly treated in the West. What chance did Mileva stand? Albert was cruel to Mileva. Her self-confidence may have been destroyed. Albert once demanded in writing that Mileva obey his cruel and degrading orders, in a letter which can only be described as shocking and revolting.³²⁷ If Mileva had hoped that Albert would someday acknowledge her, she was mistaken.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes, the author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, responds to Alberto A. Martinez' article "Arguing about Einstein's Wife":

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

John Stachel's colleague at the Center for Einstein Studies, Boston University, Alberto A. Martinez, has published an article in the April, 2004, issue of Physics World, on page 14, in which he argues that Mileva Maric did not contribute to the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the special theory of relativity. In his article, Martinez published a translation from Abram Joffe's "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein". It was almost word for word the same as my wife's and my English translation found in my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist, which also reprints the original Russian text. I read Martinez' article and wrote to him about the translation and noted that he had evidently gleaned many facts from my book. I asked him why he did not cite my work.

Martinez wrote back and stated that the long quotation published in his article and that which was earlier published in my book are "virtually identical". From my book of 2002:

"Joffe, who had seen the original 1905 manuscript, is on record as stating,

'For Physics, and especially for the Physics of my generation--that of Einstein's contemporaries, Einstein's entrance into the arena of science is unforgettable. In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th Century Physics. Those were the theory of Brownian movement, the theory of the photoelectric effect and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles--an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity--the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name).'[1]

'Для физиков же, и в особенности для физиков моего поколения--современников Эйнштейна, незабываемо появление Эйнштейна на арене науки. В 1905 г. в «Анналах физики» появилось три статьи, положившие начало трём наиболее актуальным направлениям физики ХХ века. Это были: теория броуновского движения, фотонная теория света и теория относительности. Автор их--неизвестный до тех пор чиновник патентного бюро в Берне Эйнштейн-Марити (Марити--фамилия его жены, которая по швейцарскому обычаю прибавляется к фамилии мужа).'"[1]

Martinez stated that he read this translation in my book before writing his article. Martinez states that after reading the translation in my book, which also contains the original Russian, he then retranslated the original Russian from the Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk with a pocket English-Russian/Russian-English dictionary to create a literal translation, which he then published in Physics World without an attribution to anyone, believing it to be unique.

In my book, I also transcribed in Russian and translated to English a passage from D. S. Danin's book Neizbezhnost strannogo mira, in which Danin stated that the Einsteins' papers published in the Annalen der Physik in 1905 were signed "Einstein-Marity" or "Einstein-Maric", which quote I initially found in the German writings of the scholar Margarete Maurer, Director of the Rosa Luxemburg Institute in Austria.

Danin wrote,

"The unsuccessful teacher, who, in search of a reasonable income, had become a third class engineering expert in the Swiss Patent Office, this yet completely unknown theoretician in 1905 published three articles in the same volume of the famous 'Annalen der Physik' signed 'Einstein-Marity' (or Maric--which was his first wife's family name)."[2]

"Невезучий школьный учитель, в поисках сносного заработка ставший инженером-экспертом третьего класса в Швейцарском бюро патентов, еще никому не ведомый теоретик опубликовал в 1905 году в одном и том же томе знаменитых «Анналов физики» три статьи за подписью Эйнштейн-Марити (или Марич--это была фамилия его первой жены)."[2]

Martinez learned of this quote and the name of its author in my book. Martinez also learned of Joffe's attempt to visit Albert Einstein in Zurich, which resulted in Joffe's meeting Mileva Einstein-Marity, from my book. In my book, I not only quote Joffe's story from his book Vstrechi s fizikami; moi vospominaniia o zarubezhnykh fizikakh, I posit the notion that this was the event where Joffe learned that Mileva Maric went by the hyphenated last name of "Einstein-Marity", a thought echoed in Dr. Martinez' article.

I am sincerely delighted that my book was so helpful to Dr. Martinez in forming the majority of his arguments and I am trying to maintain my sense of humor in all of this. It is really quite funny that John Stachel's critique of my book is directly contradicted by the fact that a research fellow under his directorship at the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University learned so much from my book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist.

While gleaning facts from my book, Martinez evidently elected to not mention Joffe's statement that Mileva had said that Albert, "according to his own words", was just a patent clerk and had no serious thoughts about science or experiments. Abram Joffe did not title his obituary "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein-Marity", but rather "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein" and Martinez cannot so easily dismiss Joffe's extraordinary pronouncement that the author of the 1905 papers was "Einstein-Marity", which Allianzname Joffe does not use in other contexts, and which Albert Einstein is not known to have used, though it is well established that Mileva Maric went by this name.

Martinez claims that Albert's 27 March 1901 letter to Mileva Maric, which makes reference to their collaborative work on relative motion, could not have related to work leading to the publication of the theory of relativity. I disagree. This letter from Albert to Mileva came between two relevant others; one circa 10 August 1899, in which Albert discusses the electrodynamics of moving bodies in "empty space"; and another dated 28 December 1901, in which Albert pleads with Mileva to agree to a collaboration in marriage on their scientific work. Albert's plea of 1901 is made in the express context of Lorentz' and Drude's writings on the "electrodynamics of moving bodies"--which is the very title of the Einsteins' 1905 paper on the theory of relativity.

After the publication of the 1905 article, Albert Einstein repeatedly stated that he had taken the light postulate of special relativity from Lorentz' theory, and professed that the Lorentz transformation is the "real basis" of the special theory of relativity. Lorentz had published the Lorentz transformation in near modern form in 1899. Drude featured Lorentz' theories in Drude's famous book of 1900, Lehrbuch der Optik (The Theory of Optics). The path to the special theory of relativity was paved by Voigt, FitzGerald, Larmor and Lorentz, among others, and Poincare published the modern form of the theory before the Einsteins and Minkowski. Prof. Anatoly Alexeivich Logunov, former Vice President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics, has proven the priority and the superiority of Poincare's formulation of the special theory of relativity over the Einsteins' later and less sophisticated work.[3] Poincare pioneered the concept of synchronizing clocks with light signals in his articles and lectures La Mesure du Temps (1898), La Theorie de Lorentz at le Principe de Reaction (1900) and The Principles of Mathematical Physics (1904). The Einsteins copied this method without giving Poincare credit for the innovation. Poincare stated the principle of relativity in 1895, and in 1905 stated the group properties of the Lorentz Transformation. It was Poincare, not the Einsteins, who introduced four-dimensional space-time into the theory of relativity. At first, Albert Einstein did not approve of the idea. The Einsteins learned the formula E = mc^2 from Poincare's 1900 paper. Martinez' fiction of an abrupt formulation of the special theory of relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905 does not agree with the historic record.

Martinez mentions "early biographies of Einstein." One such biographical sketch is that by Alexander Moszkowski, who stated in his book of 1921, Einstein, the Searcher: His Work Explained from Dialogues with Einstein,

"[Einstein] found consolation in the fact that he preserved a certain independence, which meant the more to him as his instinct for freedom led him to discover the essential things in himself. Thus, earlier, too, during his studies at Zuerich he had carried on his work in theoretical physics at home, almost entirely apart from the lectures at the Polytechnic plunging himself into the writings of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, Boltzmann, and Drude. Disregarding chronological order, we must here mention that he found a partner in these studies who was working in a similar direction, a Southern Slavonic student, whom he married in the year 1903. This union was dissolved after a number of years. Later he found the ideal of domestic happiness at the side of a woman whose grace is matched by her intelligence, Else Einstein, his cousin, whom he married in Berlin."

In fact, Albert Einstein relied upon collaborators and often failed to give them adequate credit for their work. On 3 April 1921, The New York Times quoted Chaim Weizmann,

"When [Einstein] was called 'a poet in science' the definition was a good one. He seems more an intuitive physicist, however. He is not an experimental physicist, and although he is able to detect fallacies in the conceptions of physical science, he must turn his general outlines of theory over to some one else to work out."

Little is left of Martinez' argument to refute, other than his false proclamation that there is no evidence that Mileva contributed substantively to the papers published under Albert's name. Since the Einsteins are known to have engaged in a working partnership--since they, themselves, discussed their partnership, and since we have an eyewitness account that the 1905 papers were authored by "Einstein-Marity", the burden of proving that Mileva played no substantive role in the production of the works lies with Dr. Martinez. He has failed to meet that burden. Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Dord Krstic, Senta Troemel-Ploetz, Evan Harris Walker, Margarete Maurer and I, among others, have accumulated abundant evidence; and Dr. Martinez is free to pretend otherwise, but he will not convince anyone knowledgeable of the facts.

____________

NOTES:

1. A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe), "In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187. А. Ф. Иоффе, Памяти Алъберта Эйнштейна, Успехи физических наук, срт. 57, 2, (1955), стр. 187. Special thanks to my wife, Kristina, for her assistance in the translation. I initially found this reference in Pais' work of 1994, and he credited Robert Schulmann with it, but did not give a date. I later discovered that Evan Harris Walker had cited it in "Mileva Maric's Relativistic Role", Physics Today, Volume 44, Number 2, (1991), pp. 122-124, at 123.

2. D. S. Danin, Neizbezhnost Strannogo Mira, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow, (1962), p. 57. Д. Данин, Неизбежность странного мира, Молодая Гвардия, Москва, (1962), стр. 57. I became aware of this quotation through the work of Margarete Maurer. Her papers include: "Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf. . . 'DIE ELTERN' ODER 'DER VATER' DER RELATIVITÄTSTHEORIE? Zum Streit über den Anteil von Mileva Maric an der Entstehung der Relativitätstheorie", PCnews, Number 48 (Nummer 48), Volume 11 (Jahrgang 11), Part 3 (Heft 3), Vienna, (June, 1996), pp. 20-27; reprinted from Dokumentation des 18. Bundesweiten Kongresses von Frauen in Naturwissenschaft und Technik vom 28.-31, Birgit Kanngießer, Bremen, (May, 1992), pp. 276-295; an earlier version appeared, co-authored by P. Seibert, Wechselwirkung, Volume 14, Number 54, Aachen, (April, 1992), pp. 50-52 (Part 1); Volume 14, Number 55, (June, 1992), pp. 51-53 (Part 2).

3. A. A. Logunov, Henri Poincare i TEORIA OTNOSITELNOSTI, Nauka, Moscow, (2004); А. А. Логунов, Анри Пуанкаре и ТЕОРИЯ ОТНОСИТЕЛЬНОСТИ, Наука, Москва, (2004). An English translation of this book will soon appear as: Henri Poincare and the Theory of Relativity. A preprint of the English translation is available online.

Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Copyright 2002, 2003, 2004. All Rights Reserved.

Internet Resources for Mileva Einstein-Marity:

Documentary: Einstein's Wife

Einstein's Wife on amazon.com

M. Maurer, "Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf... 'DIE ELTERN' ODER 'DER VATER' DER RELATIVITÄTSTHEORIE?", PCnews, Nummer 48, Jahrgang 11, Heft 3, Wien, (Juni, 1996), S. 20-27

"In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife" by Milan Popovic

"Im Schatten Albert Einsteins" by Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric

"Einstein's Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women" by Andrea Gabor

Was Einstein's Wife Mileva His Silent Collaborator?

Mileva Maric

Mileva Maric on Wikipedia

Alex Johnson, "The culture of Einstein", MSNBC, April 18, 2005

"Einstein: un genio del plagio" La Voz de Galicia (Spain), March 15, 2005

"Plagiat d'Einstein: le dossier" Polémia (France), February 26, 2005

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?" The Register (UK), November 15, 2004

"Albert Einstein accused of stealing his theory of relativity!" Hindustan Times (India), December 1, 2004

"E=M thief squared" The Sun (UK), December 1, 2004

"Einstein da an cap y tuong?" Nguoi lao dong (Vietnam), November 17, 2004

"Lorentz, Poincaré et Einstein" L'Express (France), November 8, 2004

"News: Einstein -- Genius or Plagiarist?" EnergyGrid Magazine (USA), December 5, 2004

"Einstein plagiaire?" Le Nouvel Observateur (France), August 5, 2004

"Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century" Nexus Magazine (Australia), December-January 2004

"Beyond the History of Time" The Hindu (India), September 18, 2003

"A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist" The Canberra Times (Australia), September 19, 2002

"Einstein's E=mc² 'was Italian's idea'" The Guardian (UK), November 11, 1999

Special Theory of Relativity, Jules Henri Poincare, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein:

Henri Poincare and Relativity Theory by A. A. Logunov, Former Vice-President of the Russian [Soviet] Academy of Sciences, and currently Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics

A. A. Logunov, "Sur la dynamique de l'électron"

LA RELATIVITÉ Poincaré et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire véridique de la Théorie de la Relativité by Jules Leveugle

Jules Leveugle's book on Amazon France

Albert Einstein: UN EXTRAORDINAIRE PARADOXE by 1988 Economics Nobel Prize laureate Maurice Allais

Relativistic Theory of Gravity (Horizons in World Physics) by A.A. Logunov

Einstein et Poincaré by Jean-Paul Auffray on Amazon France.

Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité restreinte de Poincaré by Jean Hladik on Amazon France.

"Henri Poincaré : A decisive contribution to Special Relativity. The short story" by Jacques Fric

Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Louis Galison

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: Word.doc

"Henri Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal: HTML

General Theory of Relativity, Paul Gerber, David Hilbert, Albert Einstein:

F. Winterberg, The Einstein Myth and the Crisis in Modern Physics.

I. McCausland, "Anomalies in the History of Relativity", Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 13, Number 2, (1999), pp. 271-290.

The following journal articles discredit Leo Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel's baseless and radical historical revisionism:

Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism: "On 'Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute', published by L. Corry, J. Renn, and J. Stachel", Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a, Number 10, (October, 2004), pp. 715-719.

Abstract for Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and Stachel's revisionism.

Table of Contents for Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a.

A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An English translation of A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk, Volume 174, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 663-678.

An alternative English translation was published in the Physics-Uspekhi: A. A. Logunov, M. A. Mestvirishvili and V. A. Petrov, "How Were the Hilbert-Einstein Equations Discovered?" Physics-Uspekhi, Volume 47, Number 6, (June, 2004), pp. 607-621.

T. Sauer, "The Relativity of Discovery: Hilbert's First Note on the Foundations of Physics", Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Volume 53, Number 6, (1999), pp. 529-575.

Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn and John Stachel's 1997 article in Science, which does not mention the mutilation of Hilbert's proofs:

"Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute", Science, Volume 278, (14 November 1997), pp. 1270-1273.

Other Important Links:

The homepage of Prof. Umberto Bartocci

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century"

Richard Moody "Albert Einstein--Plagiator" (Polish)

"Was Einstein a Plagiarist?"

"E=mc² before Einstein" by Paul Marmet

Plagiarism

http://www.members.shaw.ca/andreasohrt/179.02.13.03.html

Kazakhstani scientist Karim Khaidarov

Kazakhstani scientist Nikolai Noskov

Dr. Caroline Thompson