Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity
D. Trbuhovic-Gjuric, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, Das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Maric, Paul Haupt, Bern, (1983).
D. Krstic, "Mileva Einstein-Maric", in E. R. Einstein, Hans Albert Einstein: Reminiscences of His Life and Our Life Together, Appendix A, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, (1991), pp. 85-99, 111-112.
D. Krstic, Matica Srpska (Novi Sad), Collected Papers. Natural Sciences, Volume 40, (1971), p. 190, note 2.
D. Krstic, "The Wishes of Dr. Einstein", Dnevnik (Novi Sad), Volume 28, Number 9963, (1974), p. 9.
D. Krstic, "The Education of Mileva Maric-Einstein, the First Woman Theoretical Physicist, at the Royal Classical High School in Zagreb at the End of the 19th Century", Collected Papers on History of Education (Zagreb), Volume 9, (1975), p. 111.
D. Krstic, "The First Woman Theoretical Physicist", Dnevnik (Novi Sad), Volume 30, VIII/21, (1976).
D. Krstic, Mileva and Albert Einstein: Love and Joint Scientific Work, Diodakta, (1976).
T. Pappas, Mathematical Scandals, Wide World Publishing/Tetra, San Carlos, California, (1997), pp. 121-129.
M. Maurer, "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), not dated, 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).
E. H. Walker, "Did Einstein Espouse his Spouses Ideas?", Physics Today, Volume 42, Number 2, (February, 1989), pp. 9, 11.
E. H. Walker, "Mileva Maric's Relativistic Role", Physics Today, Volume 44, Number 2, (February, 1991), pp. 122-124.
E. H. Walker, "Ms. Einstein", AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] Annual Meeting Abstracts for 1990, (February 15-20, 1990), p. 141.
E. H. Walker, "Ms. Einstein", The Baltimore Sun, (30 March 1990), p. 11A.
S. Troemel-Ploetz, "Mileva Einstein-Maric: The Woman Who did Einstein's Mathematics", Women's Studies International Forum, Volume 13, Number 5, (1990), pp. 415-432.
S. Troemel-Ploetz, Index on Censorship, Volume 19, Number 9, (October, 1990), pp. 33-36.
A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford University Press, New York, (1982), p. 47.
A. Pais, Einstein Lived Here, Oxford University Press, New York, (1994), pp. 14-16.
W. Sullivan, "Einstein Letters Tell of Anguished Love Affair", The New York Times, (3 May 1987), pp. 1, 38.
"Did Einstein's Wife Contribute to His Theories?", The New York Times, (27 March 1990), Section C, p. 5.
S. L. Garfinkel, "First Wife's Role in Einstein's Work Debated", The Christian Science Monitor, (27 February 1990), p. 13.
"Was the First Mrs Einstein a Genius, too?", New Scientist, Number 1706, (3 March 1990), p. 25.
D. Overbye, "Einstein in Love", Time, Volume 135, Number 18, (30 April 1990), p. 108.
D. Overbye, Einstein in Love : A Scientific Romance, Viking, New York, (2000).
A. Gabor, Einstein's Wife: Work and Marriage in the Lives of Five Great Twentieth-Century Women, Viking, New York, (1995).
M. Zackheim, Einstein's Daughter: The Search for Lieserl, Riverhead Books, Penguin Putnam, New York, (1999).
J. Haag, "Einstein-Maric, Mileva", Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Yorkin Publications, (2000), pp. 77-81.
Television Documentary, Einstein's Wife: The Life of Mileva Maric-Einstein
Press Release for Einstein's Wife: The Life of Mileva Maric
J. Stachel, "Albert Einstein and Mileva Maric: A Collaboration that Failed to Develop", Creative Couples in the Sciences, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, (1996), pp. 207-219; reprinted in: Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', Birkhaeuser, Boston, Basel, Berlin, (2002), pp. 39-55.
J. Stachel, Physics Today, Volume 42, Number 2, (February, 1989), pp. 11, 13.
A. Fölsing, "Keine 'Mutter der Relativitätstheorie'", Die Zeit, Number 47, (16 November 1990), p. 94.
Some of the correspondence between Mileva Maric and Albert Einstein is reproduced in: J. Stachel, Editor, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, (1987); English translations by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, (1987).
Some of the correspondence between Mileva Maric and Albert Einstein is reproduced in: J. Renn and R. Schulmann, Editors, Albert Einstein/Mileva Maric The Love Letters, Princeton University Press, (1992).
M. Popovic, In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife, The Johns Hopkins University Press, (2003).
Copyright © 2003, 2004.
All Rights Reserved.
As Well As a Response to
* * *Alberto A. Martinez* * *
- The Priority Myth
- "Space-Time", or is it "Time-Space"?
- "Theory of Relativity" or "Pseudorelativism"?
- Hero Worship
- E = mc2
- Einstein's Modus Operandi
- Mileva Einstein-Marity
- Politics and Anecdotes
Excerpts from Chapter Eight
"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
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.
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).'
же, и в
В 1905 г. в
до тех пор
бюро в Берне
к фамилии мужа).'"
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.
"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
еще никому не
в 1905 году в
одном и том
же томе знаменитых
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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,
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
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
"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.
1. A. F. Joffe (also: Ioffe),
"In Remembrance of Albert Einstein", Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk,
Volume 57, Number 2, (1955), p. 187. А. Ф.
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,
Москва, (1962), стр. 57.
I became aware of this quotation through the work of
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
3. A. A. Logunov, Henri Poincare i
TEORIA OTNOSITELNOSTI, Nauka, Moscow, (2004); А. А.
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'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
Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's
First Wife" by Milan Popovic
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
Wife Mileva His Silent Collaborator?
Mileva Maric on
Einstein's Plagiarism in the News:
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
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'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.
Einstein et Poincaré by Jean-Paul
Auffray on Amazon France.
le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la Relativité
restreinte de Poincaré by Jean Hladik on Amazon France.
: A decisive contribution to Special Relativity. The short story" by
Clocks, Poincare's Maps: Empires of Time by Peter Louis
Poincaré: a decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian
"Henri Poincaré: a
decisive contribution to Relativity" by Christian Marchal:
General Theory of Relativity, Paul Gerber, David Hilbert,
Winterberg, The Einstein Myth and the Crisis in Modern
McCausland, "Anomalies in the History of Relativity", Journal of
Scientific Exploration, Volume 13, Number 2, (1999), pp.
The following journal articles discredit Leo
Corry, Juergen Renn and John Stachel's baseless and radical
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.
Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg's paper discrediting Corry, Renn and
Table of Contents for
Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung A, Volume 59a.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century"
"Albert Einstein--Plagiator" (Polish)
before Einstein" by Paul Marmet
Kazakhstani scientist Karim
scientist Nikolai Noskov