albert einstein biography and contribution

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Albert Einstein

By: History.com Editors

Updated: May 16, 2019 | Original: October 27, 2009

The German-born physicist Albert Einstein developed the first of his groundbreaking theories while working as a clerk in the Swiss patent office in Bern. After making his name with four scientific articles published in 1905, he went on to win worldwide fame for his general theory of relativity and a Nobel Prize in 1921 for his explanation of the phenomenon known as the photoelectric effect. An outspoken pacifist who was publicly identified with the Zionist movement, Einstein emigrated from Germany to the United States when the Nazis took power before World War II. He lived and worked in Princeton, New Jersey, for the remainder of his life.

Einstein’s Early Life (1879-1904)

Born on March 14, 1879, in the southern German city of Ulm, Albert Einstein grew up in a middle-class Jewish family in Munich. As a child, Einstein became fascinated by music (he played the violin), mathematics and science. He dropped out of school in 1894 and moved to Switzerland, where he resumed his schooling and later gained admission to the Swiss Federal Polytechnic Institute in Zurich. In 1896, he renounced his German citizenship, and remained officially stateless before becoming a Swiss citizen in 1901.

Did you know? Almost immediately after Albert Einstein learned of the atomic bomb's use in Japan, he became an advocate for nuclear disarmament. He formed the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists and backed Manhattan Project scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer in his opposition to the hydrogen bomb.

While at Zurich Polytechnic, Einstein fell in love with his fellow student Mileva Maric, but his parents opposed the match and he lacked the money to marry. The couple had an illegitimate daughter, Lieserl, born in early 1902, of whom little is known. After finding a position as a clerk at the Swiss patent office in Bern, Einstein married Maric in 1903; they would have two more children, Hans Albert (born 1904) and Eduard (born 1910).

Einstein’s Miracle Year (1905)

While working at the patent office, Einstein did some of the most creative work of his life, producing no fewer than four groundbreaking articles in 1905 alone. In the first paper, he applied the quantum theory (developed by German physicist Max Planck) to light in order to explain the phenomenon known as the photoelectric effect, by which a material will emit electrically charged particles when hit by light. The second article contained Einstein’s experimental proof of the existence of atoms, which he got by analyzing the phenomenon of Brownian motion, in which tiny particles were suspended in water.

In the third and most famous article, titled “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” Einstein confronted the apparent contradiction between two principal theories of physics: Isaac Newton’s concepts of absolute space and time and James Clerk Maxwell’s idea that the speed of light was a constant. To do this, Einstein introduced his special theory of relativity, which held that the laws of physics are the same even for objects moving in different inertial frames (i.e. at constant speeds relative to each other), and that the speed of light is a constant in all inertial frames. A fourth paper concerned the fundamental relationship between mass and energy, concepts viewed previously as completely separate. Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 (where “c” was the constant speed of light) expressed this relationship.

From Zurich to Berlin (1906-1932)

Einstein continued working at the patent office until 1909, when he finally found a full-time academic post at the University of Zurich. In 1913, he arrived at the University of Berlin, where he was made director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics. The move coincided with the beginning of Einstein’s romantic relationship with a cousin of his, Elsa Lowenthal, whom he would eventually marry after divorcing Mileva. In 1915, Einstein published the general theory of relativity, which he considered his masterwork. This theory found that gravity, as well as motion, can affect time and space. According to Einstein’s equivalence principle–which held that gravity’s pull in one direction is equivalent to an acceleration of speed in the opposite direction–if light is bent by acceleration, it must also be bent by gravity. In 1919, two expeditions sent to perform experiments during a solar eclipse found that light rays from distant stars were deflected or bent by the gravity of the sun in just the way Einstein had predicted.

The general theory of relativity was the first major theory of gravity since Newton’s, more than 250 years before, and the results made a tremendous splash worldwide, with the London Times proclaiming a “Revolution in Science” and a “New Theory of the Universe.” Einstein began touring the world, speaking in front of crowds of thousands in the United States, Britain, France and Japan. In 1921, he won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect, as his work on relativity remained controversial at the time. Einstein soon began building on his theories to form a new science of cosmology, which held that the universe was dynamic instead of static, and was capable of expanding and contracting.

Einstein Moves to the United States (1933-39)

A longtime pacifist and a Jew, Einstein became the target of hostility in Weimar Germany, where many citizens were suffering plummeting economic fortunes in the aftermath of defeat in the Great War. In December 1932, a month before Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, Einstein made the decision to emigrate to the United States, where he took a position at the newly founded Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey . He would never again enter the country of his birth.

By the time Einstein’s wife Elsa died in 1936, he had been involved for more than a decade with his efforts to find a unified field theory, which would incorporate all the laws of the universe, and those of physics, into a single framework. In the process, Einstein became increasingly isolated from many of his colleagues, who were focused mainly on the quantum theory and its implications, rather than on relativity.

Einstein’s Later Life (1939-1955)

In the late 1930s, Einstein’s theories, including his equation E=mc2, helped form the basis of the development of the atomic bomb. In 1939, at the urging of the Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard, Einstein wrote to President Franklin D. Roosevelt advising him to approve funding for the development of uranium before Germany could gain the upper hand. Einstein, who became a U.S. citizen in 1940 but retained his Swiss citizenship, was never asked to participate in the resulting Manhattan Project , as the U.S. government suspected his socialist and pacifist views. In 1952, Einstein declined an offer extended by David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s premier, to become president of Israel .

Throughout the last years of his life, Einstein continued his quest for a unified field theory. Though he published an article on the theory in Scientific American in 1950, it remained unfinished when he died, of an aortic aneurysm, five years later. In the decades following his death, Einstein’s reputation and stature in the world of physics only grew, as physicists began to unravel the mystery of the so-called “strong force” (the missing piece of his unified field theory) and space satellites further verified the principles of his cosmology.

HISTORY Vault: Secrets of Einstein's Brain

Originally stolen by the doctor trusted to perform his autopsy, scientists over the decades have examined the brain of Albert Einstein to try and determine what made this seemingly normal man tick.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Biography Online

Albert Einstein Biography

Einstein is also well known as an original free-thinker, speaking on a range of humanitarian and global issues. After contributing to the theoretical development of nuclear physics and encouraging F.D. Roosevelt to start the Manhattan Project, he later spoke out against the use of nuclear weapons.

Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Einstein settled in Switzerland and then, after Hitler’s rise to power, the United States. Einstein was a truly global man and one of the undisputed genius’ of the Twentieth Century.

Early life Albert Einstein

Einstein was born 14 March 1879, in Ulm the German Empire. His parents were working-class (salesman/engineer) and non-observant Jews. Aged 15, the family moved to Milan, Italy, where his father hoped Albert would become a mechanical engineer. However, despite Einstein’s intellect and thirst for knowledge, his early academic reports suggested anything but a glittering career in academia. His teachers found him dim and slow to learn. Part of the problem was that Albert expressed no interest in learning languages and the learning by rote that was popular at the time.

“School failed me, and I failed the school. It bored me. The teachers behaved like Feldwebel (sergeants). I wanted to learn what I wanted to know, but they wanted me to learn for the exam.” Einstein and the Poet (1983)

At the age of 12, Einstein picked up a book on geometry and read it cover to cover. – He would later refer to it as his ‘holy booklet’. He became fascinated by maths and taught himself – becoming acquainted with the great scientific discoveries of the age.

Albert Einstein with wife Elsa

Despite Albert’s independent learning, he languished at school. Eventually, he was asked to leave by the authorities because his indifference was setting a bad example to other students.

He applied for admission to the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. His first attempt was a failure because he failed exams in botany, zoology and languages. However, he passed the next year and in 1900 became a Swiss citizen.

At college, he met a fellow student Mileva Maric, and after a long friendship, they married in 1903; they had two sons before divorcing several years later.

In 1896 Einstein renounced his German citizenship to avoid military conscription. For five years he was stateless, before successfully applying for Swiss citizenship in 1901. After graduating from Zurich college, he attempted to gain a teaching post but none was forthcoming; instead, he gained a job in the Swiss Patent Office.

While working at the Patent Office, Einstein continued his own scientific discoveries and began radical experiments to consider the nature of light and space.

Einstein in 1921

He published his first scientific paper in 1900, and by 1905 had completed his PhD entitled “ A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions . In addition to working on his PhD, Einstein also worked feverishly on other papers. In 1905, he published four pivotal scientific works, which would revolutionise modern physics. 1905 would later be referred to as his ‘ annus mirabilis .’

Einstein’s work started to gain recognition, and he was given a post at the University of Zurich (1909) and, in 1911, was offered the post of full-professor at the Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague (which was then part of Austria-Hungary Empire). He took Austrian-Hungary citizenship to accept the job. In 1914, he returned to Germany and was appointed a director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics. (1914–1932)

Albert Einstein’s Scientific Contributions

Quantum Theory

Einstein suggested that light doesn’t just travel as waves but as electric currents. This photoelectric effect could force metals to release a tiny stream of particles known as ‘quanta’. From this Quantum Theory, other inventors were able to develop devices such as television and movies. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

Special Theory of Relativity

This theory was written in a simple style with no footnotes or academic references. The core of his theory of relativity is that:

“Movement can only be detected and measured as relative movement; the change of position of one body in respect to another.”

Thus there is no fixed absolute standard of comparison for judging the motion of the earth or plants. It was revolutionary because previously people had thought time and distance are absolutes. But, Einstein proved this not to be true.

He also said that if electrons travelled at close to the speed of light, their weight would increase.

This lead to Einstein’s famous equation:

Where E = energy m = mass and c = speed of light.

General Theory of Relativity 1916

Working from a basis of special relativity. Einstein sought to express all physical laws using equations based on mathematical equations.

He devoted the last period of his life trying to formulate a final unified field theory which included a rational explanation for electromagnetism. However, he was to be frustrated in searching for this final breakthrough theory.

Solar eclipse of 1919

In 1911, Einstein predicted the sun’s gravity would bend the light of another star. He based this on his new general theory of relativity. On 29 May 1919, during a solar eclipse, British astronomer and physicist Sir Arthur Eddington was able to confirm Einstein’s prediction. The news was published in newspapers around the world, and it made Einstein internationally known as a leading physicist. It was also symbolic of international co-operation between British and German scientists after the horrors of the First World War.

In the 1920s, Einstein travelled around the world – including the UK, US, Japan, Palestine and other countries. Einstein gave lectures to packed audiences and became an internationally recognised figure for his work on physics, but also his wider observations on world affairs.

Bohr-Einstein debates

During the 1920s, other scientists started developing the work of Einstein and coming to different conclusions on Quantum Physics. In 1925 and 1926, Einstein took part in debates with Max Born about the nature of relativity and quantum physics. Although the two disagreed on physics, they shared a mutual admiration.

As a German Jew, Einstein was threatened by the rise of the Nazi party. In 1933, when the Nazi’s seized power, they confiscated Einstein’s property, and later started burning his books. Einstein, then in England, took an offer to go to Princeton University in the US. He later wrote that he never had strong opinions about race and nationality but saw himself as a citizen of the world.

“I do not believe in race as such. Race is a fraud. All modern people are the conglomeration of so many ethnic mixtures that no pure race remains.”

Once in the US, Einstein dedicated himself to a strict discipline of academic study. He would spend no time on maintaining his dress and image. He considered these things ‘inessential’ and meant less time for his research. Einstein was notoriously absent-minded. In his youth, he once left his suitcase at a friends house. His friend’s parents told Einstein’s parents: “ That young man will never amount to anything, because he can’t remember anything.”

Although a bit of a loner, and happy in his own company, he had a good sense of humour. On January 3, 1943, Einstein received a letter from a girl who was having difficulties with mathematics in her studies. Einstein consoled her when he wrote in reply to her letter

“Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics. I can assure you that mine are still greater.”

Einstein professed belief in a God “Who reveals himself in the harmony of all being”. But, he followed no established religion. His view of God sought to establish a harmony between science and religion.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

– Einstein, Science and Religion (1941)

Politics of Einstein

Einstein described himself as a Zionist Socialist. He did support the state of Israel but became concerned about the narrow nationalism of the new state. In 1952, he was offered the position as President of Israel, but he declined saying he had:

“neither the natural ability nor the experience to deal with human beings.” … “I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it.”

Einstein receiving US citizenship.

Albert Einstein was involved in many civil rights movements such as the American campaign to end lynching. He joined the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and  considered racism, America’s worst disease. But he also spoke highly of the meritocracy in American society and the value of being able to speak freely.

On the outbreak of war in 1939, Einstein wrote to President Roosevelt about the prospect of Germany developing an atomic bomb. He warned Roosevelt that the Germans were working on a bomb with a devastating potential. Roosevelt headed his advice and started the Manhattan project to develop the US atom bomb. But, after the war ended, Einstein reverted to his pacifist views. Einstein said after the war.

“Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I would not have lifted a finger.” (Newsweek, 10 March 1947)

In the post-war McCarthyite era, Einstein was scrutinised closely for potential Communist links. He wrote an article in favour of socialism, “Why Socialism” (1949) He criticised Capitalism and suggested a democratic socialist alternative. He was also a strong critic of the arms race. Einstein remarked:

“I do not know how the third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth—rocks!”

Rabindranath Tagore and Einstein

Einstein was feted as a scientist, but he was a polymath with interests in many fields. In particular, he loved music. He wrote that if he had not been a scientist, he would have been a musician. Einstein played the violin to a high standard.

“I often think in music. I live my daydreams in music. I see my life in terms of music… I get most joy in life out of music.”

Einstein died in 1955, at his request his brain and vital organs were removed for scientific study.

Citation: Pettinger, Tejvan . “ Biography of Albert Einstein ”, Oxford, www.biographyonline.net 23 Feb. 2008. Updated 2nd March 2017.

Albert Einstein – His Life and Universe

Albert Einstein – His Life at Amazon

Related pages

53 Interesting and unusual facts about Albert Einstein.

19 Comments

Albert E is awesome! Thanks for this website!!

• January 11, 2019 3:00 PM

Albert Einstein is the best scientist ever! He shall live forever!

• January 10, 2019 4:11 PM

very inspiring

• December 23, 2018 8:06 PM

Wow it is good

• December 08, 2018 10:14 AM

Thank u Albert for discovering all this and all the wonderful things u did!!!!

• November 15, 2018 7:03 PM
• By Madalyn Silva

Thank you so much, This biography really motivates me a lot. and I Have started to copy of Sir Albert Einstein’s habit.

• November 02, 2018 3:37 PM
• By Ankit Gupta

Sooo inspiring thanks Albert E. You helped me in my report in school I love you Albert E. 🙂 <3

• October 17, 2018 4:39 PM
• By brooklynn

By this inspired has been I !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• October 12, 2018 4:25 PM
• By Richard Clarlk

Albert Einstein: Biography, facts and impact on science

A brief biography of Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955), the scientist whose theories changed the way we think about the universe.

• Einstein's birthday and education

Einstein's wives and children

How einstein changed physics.

• Later years and death

Gravitational waves and relativity

Additional resources.

Albert Einstein was a German-American physicist and probably the most well-known scientist of the 20th century. He is famous for his theory of relativity , a pillar of modern physics that describes the dynamics of light and extremely massive entities, as well as his work in quantum mechanics , which focuses on the subatomic realm. 

Albert Einstein's birthday and education

Einstein was born in Ulm, in the German state of Württemberg, on March 14, 1879, according to a biography from the Nobel Prize organization . His family moved to Munich six weeks later, and in 1885, when he was 6 years old, he began attending Petersschule, a Catholic elementary school.

Contrary to popular belief, Einstein was a good student. "Yesterday Albert received his grades, he was again number one, and his report card was brilliant," his mother once wrote to her sister, according to a German website dedicated to Einstein's legacy. But when he later switched to the Luitpold grammar school, young Einstein chafed under the school's authoritarian attitude, and his teacher once said of him, "never will he get anywhere."

In 1896, at age 17, Einstein entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich to be trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. A few years later, he gained his diploma and acquired Swiss citizenship but was unable to find a teaching post. So he accepted a position as a technical assistant in the Swiss patent office. 

Related: 10 discoveries that prove Einstein was right about the universe — and 1 that proves him wrong

Einstein married Mileva Maric, his longtime love and former student, in 1903. A year prior, they had a child out of wedlock, who was discovered by scholars only in the 1980s, when private letters revealed her existence. The daughter, called Lieserl in the letters, may have been mentally challenged and either died young or was adopted when she was a year old. Einstein had two other children with Maric, Hans Albert and Eduard, born in 1904 and 1910, respectively.

Einstein divorced Maric in 1919 and soon married his cousin Elsa Löwenthal, with whom he had been in a relationship since 1912.

Einstein obtained his doctorate in physics in 1905 — a year that's often known as his annus mirabilis ("year of miracles" in Latin), according to the Library of Congress . That year, he published four groundbreaking papers of significant importance in physics.

The first incorporated the idea that light could come in discrete particles called photons. This theory describes the photoelectric effect , the concept that underpins modern solar power. The second explained Brownian motion, or the random motion of particles or molecules. Einstein looked at the case of a dust mote moving randomly on the surface of water and suggested that water is made up of tiny, vibrating molecules that kick the dust back and forth. 

The final two papers outlined his theory of special relativity, which showed how observers moving at different speeds would agree about the speed of light, which was a constant. These papers also introduced the equation E = mc^2, showing the equivalence between mass and energy. That finding is perhaps the most widely known aspect of Einstein's work. (In this infamous equation, E stands for energy, m represents mass and c is the constant speed of light).

In 1915, Einstein published four papers outlining his theory of general relativity, which updated Isaac Newton's laws of gravity by explaining that the force of gravity arose because massive objects warp the fabric of space-time. The theory was validated in 1919, when British astronomer Arthur Eddington observed stars at the edge of the sun during a solar eclipse and was able to show that their light was bent by the sun's gravitational well, causing shifts in their perceived positions.

Related: 8 Ways you can see Einstein's theory of relativity in real life

In 1921, he won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on the photoelectric effect, though the committee members also mentioned his "services to Theoretical Physics" when presenting their award. The decision to give Einstein the award was controversial because the brilliant physicist was a Jew and a pacifist. Anti-Semitism was on the rise and relativity was not yet seen as a proven theory, according to an article from The Guardian .

Einstein was a professor at the University of Berlin for a time but fled Germany with Löwenthal in 1933, during the rise of Adolf Hitler. He renounced his German citizenship and moved to the United States to become a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton, becoming a U.S. citizen in 1940.

During this era, other researchers were creating a revolution by reformulating the rules of the smallest known entities in existence. The laws of quantum mechanics had been worked out by a group led by the Danish physicist Niels Bohr , and Einstein was intimately involved with their efforts.

Bohr and Einstein famously clashed over quantum mechanics. Bohr and his cohorts proposed that quantum particles behaved according to probabilistic laws, which Einstein found unacceptable, quipping that " God does not play dice with the universe ." Bohr's views eventually came to dominate much of contemporary thinking about quantum mechanics.

Einstein's later years and death

After he retired in 1945, Einstein spent most of his later years trying to unify gravity with electromagnetism in what's known as a unified field theory . Einstein died of a burst blood vessel near his heart on April 18, 1955, never unifying these forces.

Einstein's body was cremated and his ashes were spread in an undisclosed location, according to the American Museum of Natural History . But a doctor performed an unauthorized craniotomy before this and removed and saved Einstein's brain. 

The brain has been the subject of many tests over the decades, which suggested that it had extra folding in the gray matter, the site of conscious thinking. In particular, there were more folds in the frontal lobes, which have been tied to abstract thought and planning. However, drawing any conclusions about intelligence based on a single specimen is problematic. 

Related: Where is Einstein's brain?

In addition to his incredible legacy regarding relativity and quantum mechanics, Einstein conducted lesser-known research into a refrigeration method that required no motors, moving parts or coolant. He was also a tireless anti-war advocate, helping found the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , an organization dedicated to warning the public about the dangers of nuclear weapons . 

Einstein's theories concerning relativity have so far held up spectacularly as a predictive models. Astronomers have found that, as the legendary physicist anticipated, the light of distant objects is lensed by massive, closer entities, a phenomenon known as gravitational lensing, which has helped our understanding of the universe's evolution. The James Webb Space Telescope , launched in Dec. 2021, has utilized gravitational lensing on numerous occasions to detect light emitted near the dawn of time , dating to just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.

In 2016, the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory also announced the first-ever direct detection of gravitational waves , created when massive neutron stars and black holes merge and generate ripples in the fabric of space-time. Further research published in 2023 found that the entire universe may be rippling with a faint "gravitational wave background," emitted by ancient, colliding black holes.

Find answers to frequently asked questions about Albert Einstein on the Nobel Prize website. Flip through digitized versions of Einstein's published and unpublished manuscripts at Einstein Archives Online. Learn about The Einstein Memorial at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C. 

This article was last updated on March 11, 2024 by Live Science editor Brandon Specktor to include new information about how Einstein's theories have been validated by modern experiments.

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Adam Mann is a freelance journalist with over a decade of experience, specializing in astronomy and physics stories. He has a bachelor's degree in astrophysics from UC Berkeley. His work has appeared in the New Yorker, New York Times, National Geographic, Wall Street Journal, Wired, Nature, Science, and many other places. He lives in Oakland, California, where he enjoys riding his bike. 

Tweak to Schrödinger's cat equation could unite Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, study hints

Scientists are one step closer to knowing the mass of ghostly neutrinos — possibly paving the way to new physics

Villa near Mount Vesuvius may be where Augustus, Rome's 1st emperor, died

• Problematic Thinker His brain was eclpsed by other body parts concerning women. His wife worked to support him through school, forfeiting her own education until later, then he repaid her by having an affair with his much younger cousin and divorcing the wife. Quite an honorable little guy. Reply

Problematic Thinker said: His brain was eclpsed by other body parts concerning women. His wife worked to support him through school, forfeiting her own education until later, then he repaid her by having an affair with his much younger cousin and divorcing the wife. Quite an honorable little guy.

admin said: So much more than funny hair. Albert Einstein: The Life of a Brilliant Physicist : Read more

• William Madden Albert Einstein was never, ever a "professor of physics" at Princeton University. At the time, Princeton, like most Ivy League universities, was highly anti-Semitic and either forbad the hiring of Jewish faculty or enforced a quota on their number. Einstein accepted a position at the newly established Institute For Advanced Study, headquartered in the the town of Princeton but legally and operationally distinct from the university. At the time, this was not known to be a particularly elite appointment, the Institute having no track record whatsoever. Its ability to attract many of the finest minds in their fields quickly changed that perception. (Nevertheless, Richard Feynman, years later, was highly critical of its cloistered atmosphere and, in science at least, its disconnection with the experimental side of the constituent disciplines. ) The Institute is a purely postdoctoral entity, granting no degrees and offering no classes (apart from ad hoc seminars). In the ensuing years, some faculty at the Institute have established collaborative relationships with faculty and postdoctoral fellows at Princeton University, including Einstein with Nathan Rosen (who later moved from the university to the Institute). However, the Institute remains to this day entirely independent of Princeton University. Reply

William Madden said: Albert Einstein was never, ever a "professor of physics" at Princeton University. At the time, Princeton, like most Ivy League universities, was highly anti-Semitic and either forbad the hiring of Jewish faculty or enforced a quota on their number. Einstein accepted a position at the newly established Institute For Advanced Study, headquartered in the the town of Princeton but legally and operationally distinct from the university. At the time, this was not known to be a particularly elite appointment, the Institute having no track record whatsoever. Its ability to attract many of the finest minds in their fields quickly changed that perception. (Nevertheless, Richard Feynman, years later, was highly critical of its cloistered atmosphere and, in science at least, its disconnection with the experimental side of the constituent disciplines. ) The Institute is a purely postdoctoral entity, granting no degrees and offering no classes (apart from ad hoc seminars). In the ensuing years, some faculty at the Institute have established collaborative relationships with faculty and postdoctoral fellows at Princeton University, including Einstein with Nathan Rosen (who later moved from the university to the Institute). However, the Institute remains to this day entirely independent of Princeton University.

• James DeMeo Einstein's theory of relativity was negated by the positive ether-drift experiments that both preceded and followed his earliest works. Michelson-Morely got a 5 to 7.5 kps ether-drift, Dayton Miller got 11.2 kps, and in more recent years Munera got an 18 kps ether wind detection. Each progressively higher value was at higher altitudes, indicating an altitude-velocity dependency, which affirmed a material, entrainable and dynamic ether. Einstein knew these experimental detections would destroy both his general and special relativity theories, and wrote in June 1921, to Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards" In July 1925, Einstein wrote to Edwin Slosson: "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex." Miller's ether-drift work was carried out over many years, using a far more sensitive apparatus than M-M, including high atop Mount Wilson. The Mt.Wilson experiments ran over four seasonal epochs, detecting variations in net ether-wind velocity, and overall proving that space is not empty, and light-speed is variable according to direction, and in accordance with the velocity of the emitter and receiver. Experimentum summus judex? In spite of a slap-jack amateurish effort to "prove" Miller's work was due to thermal artifacts -- an unethical effort supported by Einstein in the year before he died -- Miller's findings, and those of other ether-drift experimenters (there are many) who got positive results stand unchallenged. By ignoring such empirical results, the discipline of astrophysics has run itself into a metaphysical cul-de-sac, and today uses brute force firings of professors, dismissals of students and censorship to maintain its assertions of an increasingly complicated and bizarre universe. A prime example is how Halton Arp's findings challenging redshifts as distance indicators was systematically ignored, censored, and he then being forbidden additional telescope time. He was forced to move to Germany to sustain an academic post. There are other examples, many, who didn't have Arp's good reputation prior to making his heresy, and who suffered far worse. Einstein's "space time gravity warps", the "big bang", "black holes", and other bizarre metaphysical fantasies of modern astrophysics will eventually go the way of the Ptolemaic astrologer's epicycles. A good introduction to these facts of science history is found in the book "The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science". https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716 Reply

James DeMeo said: Einstein's theory of relativity was negated by the positive ether-drift experiments that both preceded and followed his earliest works. Michelson-Morely got a 5 to 7.5 kps ether-drift, Dayton Miller got 11.2 kps, and in more recent years Munera got an 18 kps ether wind detection. Each progressively higher value was at higher altitudes, indicating an altitude-velocity dependency, which affirmed a material, entrainable and dynamic ether. Einstein knew these experimental detections would destroy both his general and special relativity theories, and wrote in June 1921, to Robert Millikan: "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards" In July 1925, Einstein wrote to Edwin Slosson: "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex." Miller's ether-drift work was carried out over many years, using a far more sensitive apparatus than M-M, including high atop Mount Wilson. The Mt.Wilson experiments ran over four seasonal epochs, detecting variations in net ether-wind velocity, and overall proving that space is not empty, and light-speed is variable according to direction, and in accordance with the velocity of the emitter and receiver. Experimentum summus judex? In spite of a slap-jack amateurish effort to "prove" Miller's work was due to thermal artifacts -- an unethical effort supported by Einstein in the year before he died -- Miller's findings, and those of other ether-drift experimenters (there are many) who got positive results stand unchallenged. By ignoring such empirical results, the discipline of astrophysics has run itself into a metaphysical cul-de-sac, and today uses brute force firings of professors, dismissals of students and censorship to maintain its assertions of an increasingly complicated and bizarre universe. A prime example is how Halton Arp's findings challenging redshifts as distance indicators was systematically ignored, censored, and he then being forbidden additional telescope time. He was forced to move to Germany to sustain an academic post. There are other examples, many, who didn't have Arp's good reputation prior to making his heresy, and who suffered far worse. Einstein's "space time gravity warps", the "big bang", "black holes", and other bizarre metaphysical fantasies of modern astrophysics will eventually go the way of the Ptolemaic astrologer's epicycles. A good introduction to these facts of science history is found in the book "The Dynamic Ether of Cosmic Space: Correcting a Major Error in Modern Science". https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Ether-Cosmic-Space-Correcting/dp/0997405716

Mario Sanchez said: Thanks, for these irrelevant informations that are nothing important to understand the matter.

Pifou said: Feminist zealots in despair fellows. They think that there is always someone smarter that is being exploited while the other one steals all the glory. Do not worry about them here they are just dumb as bricks. They have been trying to push this story about Einstein for the last 40 years while themselves cant even make a good sandwich

• Mario Sanchez Who is really this participant adopting these names? (Shwinger_Feinmann) Reply
• View All 16 Comments

Most Popular

• 2 James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe
• 3 Scientists discover once-in-a-billion-year event — 2 lifeforms merging to create a new cell part
• 4 Quantum computing breakthrough could happen with just hundreds, not millions, of qubits using new error-correction system
• 5 DNA analysis spanning 9 generations of people reveals marriage practices of mysterious warrior culture
• 2 Tweak to Schrödinger's cat equation could unite Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics, study hints
• 3 Plato's burial place finally revealed after AI deciphers ancient scroll carbonized in Mount Vesuvius eruption
• 4 Earth from space: Lava bleeds down iguana-infested volcano as it spits out toxic gas
• 5 Hundreds of black 'spiders' spotted in mysterious 'Inca City' on Mars in new satellite photos

Understanding the Code of Conduct in Medieval Times

• Discovering the Richness of Japanese Culture
• A Brief History of Major Battles in World War I
• Discover the Richness of Chinese Culture
• Knights and Chivalry
• Code of Conduct
• Armor and Weapons
• Medieval Life
• Health and Medicine
• Holidays and Celebrations
• Serfs and Peasants
• Kings and Lords
• City-States
• Gods and Goddesses
• Julius Caesar
• Industrial Revolution
• Impact on Society
• World War II
• Allied Powers
• Atomic Bomb
• World War I
• Treaty of Versailles
• Major Battles
• Leaders and Rulers
• Alexander the Great
• Queen Elizabeth I
• Napoleon Bonaparte
• Activists and Reformers
• Nelson Mandela
• Susan B. Anthony
• Mahatma Gandhi
• Scientists and Inventors
• Thomas Edison
• Marie Curie
• Albert Einstein
• Fall of the Berlin Wall
• Cuban Missile Crisis
• Civil Rights Movement
• Martin Luther King Jr.
• Segregation
• Climate Change
• Renewable Energy
• Greenhouse Effect
• Impact on Environment
• African Cultures
• Egyptian Culture
• Nigerian Culture
• Asian Cultures
• Japanese Culture
• Indian Culture
• Chinese Culture
• Latin American Cultures
• Aztec Civilization
• Mayan Civilization
• Inca Civilization
• Natural Disasters
• Tsunami in Japan
• Hurricane Katrina
• Pompeii Eruption
• Important Events
• Signing of the Declaration of Independence
• Discovery of Penicillin
• Moon Landing
• Cultural Achievements
• Renaissance Art
• Ancient Chinese Inventions
• Assessment Tools
• Projects and Presentations
• Writing Assignments
• Quizzes and Tests
• Teaching Methods
• Interactive Learning
• Primary Sources
• Role-playing
• Educational Resources
• Online Databases
• Educational Games
• Museums and Exhibits
• Photographs and Artifacts
• Government Documents
• Diaries and Letters
• Online Sources
• Websites and Blogs
• Digital Archives
• Books and Literature
• Historical Fiction
• Biographies
• A Brief Overview of Albert Einstein's Life and Contributions
• Historical Figures

Albert Einstein is a name that needs no introduction. Known as one of the greatest scientists and thinkers of all time, Einstein's contributions have shaped the way we understand the world today. From his groundbreaking theories to his humanitarian efforts, Einstein's legacy continues to inspire and influence generations. In this article, we will take a closer look at the life and achievements of this remarkable historical figure, and gain a deeper understanding of his impact on science and society. Albert Einstein is a name that is known worldwide.

He was not only a brilliant scientist, but also a cultural icon whose contributions have shaped our understanding of the universe. In this article, we will take a closer look at his life, his achievements, and his lasting impact on the world. First, let's delve into Einstein's early life and education. Born in Ulm, Germany in 1879, he showed an early interest in mathematics and physics. His parents, who were both Jewish, encouraged his curiosity and provided him with a supportive environment to explore his interests. Einstein's education was unconventional, as he struggled with the strict discipline of traditional schools.

However, he excelled in subjects like mathematics and physics, and eventually went on to study at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. It was during this time that he developed his groundbreaking theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. Einstein's theories revolutionized the field of physics and challenged traditional beliefs about space and time. His theory of general relativity, published in 1915, explained the force of gravity in terms of the curvature of space-time. This theory has been confirmed through various experiments and has had a significant impact on our understanding of the universe. In addition to his work in physics, Einstein also made contributions in other areas such as political activism and philosophy.

He was a vocal advocate for peace and social justice, using his platform as a respected scientist to speak out against war and discrimination. However, Einstein's influence extended beyond just his scientific and political endeavors. His role in the development of nuclear weapons during World War II has sparked ethical debates that continue to this day. He also had a significant impact on popular culture, with his iconic image and famous equation E=mc² becoming synonymous with genius. Today, Einstein's legacy lives on through his contributions to science and society. For those interested in learning more about this remarkable historical figure, there are many educational resources available.

Early Life and Education

However, his parents' marriage began to deteriorate and they eventually separated. As a result, Einstein's mother moved to Switzerland with him and his younger sister, Maja. It was in Switzerland where Einstein received most of his formal education. Einstein attended the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, where he studied physics and mathematics. He graduated in 1900 with a teaching diploma in physics and mathematics.

After graduation, he struggled to find a job as a teacher and eventually took on various odd jobs while continuing his scientific research. In conclusion, Albert Einstein's impact on world history cannot be overstated. His work in science and philosophy has shaped our understanding of the universe and has influenced countless individuals across generations. Through this article, we hope to have provided a glimpse into the life and legacy of this extraordinary scientist.

New Articles

• Diaries and Letters: Exploring Primary Sources of World History

An in-depth look at diaries and letters as primary sources for understanding world history and cultures. Learn about famous figures, important events, and educational resources to deepen your knowledge.

• Understanding the Impact of the Atomic Bomb

Exploring the History and Consequences of the Atomic Bomb in the Context of World War II

• Understanding Indian Culture: A Journey Through Time

Explore the Diversity and Significance of Indian Culture Through the Ages

• Exploring the World of Manors

Understanding Feudalism and Medieval Times through Manors

Top Articles

• Exploring the Fascinating Mayan Civilization: A Journey Through Time

• Podcasts for Exploring World History

• Understanding the Causes of World War I

• Alexander the Great: The Legendary Leader Who Conquered the World
• Understanding the Allied Powers in World War II
• The Discovery of Penicillin: Uncovering the Life-Saving Antibiotic
• Exploring Nigerian Culture
• Marie Curie: A Pioneer in Science and History
• The Fall of the Berlin Wall: A Defining Moment in World History
• Inventions Throughout History: A Journey Through the Modern Era and Industrial Revolution
• Discover the Impact of Susan B. Anthony on World History
• Discovering the Genius of Thomas Edison
• The Devastating Pompeii Eruption: A Comprehensive Look into One of the World's Most Notorious Natural Disasters
• Uncovering the Mysteries of Mummies
• Exploring Ancient Chinese Inventions
• The Marvelous Pyramids of Ancient Egypt: An Introduction to One of the World's Greatest Wonders
• Museums and Exhibits: Unlocking the Secrets of World History
• Exploring the World Through Educational Games
• The Impact and Significance of the Treaty of Versailles in World History
• The Devastation of Hurricane Katrina: A Look Back at One of the Deadliest Natural Disasters in World History
• Textbooks: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding World History

A Journey to the Moon: Exploring the History of the Moon Landing

• The Fascinating World of the Inca Civilization: A Journey Through Latin American Cultures
• Exploring Primary Sources in World History
• Discovering Egyptian Culture
• Exploring the Life and Reign of Queen Elizabeth I
• Discovering Daily Life in Medieval Times
• Health and Medicine in Medieval Times: Exploring the Connection between Body and Mind
• Understanding Historical Fiction: A Comprehensive Overview
• The Power of Role-Playing: Exploring World History Through Immersive Education
• An Overview of Mythology in Ancient Greece
• Exploring the Rich History of the Aztec Civilization
• A Journey Through History: Exploring Digital Archives
• Understanding Tsunami in Japan
• Exploring the Fascinating World of Armor and Weapons
• A Fascinating Look into the World of Pharaohs
• Understanding the Greenhouse Effect: An Overview of Global Climate Change
• Nelson Mandela: A Leader in the Fight for Equality
• A Brief History of Kings and Lords: Exploring Medieval Times and Feudalism
• Understanding the Crusades: A Journey Through Medieval Times
• Exploring Projects and Presentations in World History
• Understanding Segregation: A Comprehensive Look at Global Events and the Civil Rights Movement
• Exploring World History Through Interactive Learning
• Understanding Quizzes and Tests in World History
• Napoleon Bonaparte: The Rise and Fall of a Revolutionary Leader
• Julius Caesar: The Life and Legacy of a Roman Emperor
• Websites and Blogs: A Comprehensive Overview of World History Resources
• The Impact on the Environment: Understanding the Effects of Climate Change
• Exploring the World of Gods and Goddesses
• A Brief History of Factories in the Modern Era
• Impact on Society During the Industrial Revolution
• The Signing of the Declaration of Independence: A Pivotal Moment in World History
• The Cold War's Impact on the Space Race: A Comprehensive Overview
• The Power of Online Databases: Unlocking the Secrets of World History
• Exploring the World of Renewable Energy
• Photographs and Artifacts: Exploring the Past Through Primary Sources
• Rosa Parks: The Mother of the Civil Rights Movement
• The Life and Legacy of Mahatma Gandhi
• A Brief Overview of the Fascinating Inca Civilization
• A Journey Through the City-States of Ancient Greece
• The Fascinating World of Renaissance Art
• Exploring World History Through Government Documents
• The Fascinating World of Biographies: A Comprehensive Look into Historical Figures and Events
• Understanding Serfs and Peasants in Medieval Times
• Holidays and Celebrations: Exploring World History Through Medieval Times
• The Rise and Fall of Gladiators in Ancient Rome
• Martin Luther King Jr.: A Champion for Civil Rights

Exploring the Rise and Fall of the Empire: A Journey Through Ancient Rome

• Writing Assignments: A Comprehensive Guide to World History Education
• The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Defining Moment in World History

Which cookies do you want to accept?

Albert Einstein: His life, theories and impact on science

Where would science be without Albert Einstein?

• Early years

Career highlights

Einstein's remarkable brain, einstein's scientific legacy.

• Astronomical legacy

Additional resources

Albert Einstein is often cited as one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century. His work continues to help astronomers study everything from gravitational waves to Mercury 's orbit. 

The scientist's equation that helped explain special relativity – E = mc^2 – is famous even among those who don't understand its underlying physics. Einstein is also known for his theory of general relativity (an explanation of gravity ), and the photoelectric effect (which explains the behavior of electrons under certain circumstances); his work on the latter earned him a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

Einstein also tried in vain to unify all the forces of the universe in a single theory, or a theory of everything, which he was still working on at the time of his death.

Related: What is the Theory of Everything?

Einstein's early years

Einstein was born on March 14, 1879, in Ulm, Germany, a town that today has a population of just more than 120,000. There is a small commemorative plaque where his house used to stand (it was destroyed during World War II). The family moved to Munich shortly after his birth, according to the Nobel Prize website , and later to Italy when his father faced problems with running his own business. Einstein's father, Hermann, ran an electrochemical factory and his mother Pauline took care of Albert and his younger sister, Maria.

— What is wormhole theory?

— Was Einstein wrong? Why some astrophysicists are questioning the theory of space-time

— Albert Einstein: Before and after relativity

Einstein would write in his memoirs that  two "wonders"  deeply affected his early years, according to Hans-Josef Küpper, an Albert Einstein scholar. Young Einstein encountered his first wonder — a compass — at age 5: He was mystified that invisible forces could deflect the needle. This would lead to a lifelong fascination with unseen forces. The second wonder came at age 12 when he discovered a book of geometry, which he worshipped, calling it his "holy geometry book."

Contrary to popular belief, young Albert was a good student, according to an online archive . He  excelled in physics and mathematics , but was a more "moderate" pupil in other subjects, Küpper wrote on his website. However, Einstein rebelled against the authoritarian attitude of some of his teachers and dropped out of school at 16. He later took an entrance exam for the Swiss Federal Polytechnic School in Zurich, and while his performances in physics and math were excellent, his marks in other areas were subpar, and he did not pass the exam. The aspiring physicist took additional courses to close the gap in his knowledge and was admitted to the Swiss Polytechnic in 1896. In 1901 he received his diploma to teach physics and mathematics. 

However, Einstein could not find a teaching position, and began work in a Bern patent office in 1901, according to his Nobel Prize biography . It was while there that, in between analyzing patent applications, he developed his work in special relativity and other areas of physics that later made him famous.

Einstein married Mileva Maric, a longtime love of his from Zurich, in 1903. Their children, Hans Albert and Eduard, were born in 1904 and 1910. (The fate of a child born to them in 1902 before their marriage, Lieserl, is unknown.) Einstein divorced Maric in 1919 and soon after married Elsa Löwenthal. Löwenthal died in 1933.

Einstein's career sent him to multiple countries. He earned his doctorate from the University of Zurich in 1905 and subsequently took on professor positions in Zurich (1909), Prague (1911) and Zurich again (1912). Next, he moved to Berlin to become director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Physical Institute and a professor at the University of Berlin (1914). He also became a German citizen. 

A major validation of Einstein's work came in 1919, when Sir Arthur Eddington, secretary of the Royal Astronomical Society, led an expedition to Africa that measured the position of stars during a total solar eclipse . The group found that the position of stars was shifted due to the bending of light around the sun . (In 2008, a BBC/HBO production dramatized the story in " Einstein and Eddington .") 

Einstein remained in Germany until 1933 when dictator Adolf Hitler rose to power. The physicist then renounced his German citizenship and moved to the United States to become a professor of theoretical physics at Princeton. He became a U.S. citizen in 1940 and retired in 1945.

Einstein remained active in the physics community throughout his later years. In 1939, he famously penned a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warning that uranium could be used for an atomic bomb. 

Late in Einstein's life, he engaged in a series of private debates with physicist  Niels Bohr  about the validity of quantum theory . Bohr's theories held the day, and Einstein later incorporated quantum theory into his own calculations. 

Einstein's death

Einstein died of an aortic aneurysm on April 18, 1955. A blood vessel burst near his heart, according to the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) . When asked if he wanted to have surgery, Einstein refused. "I want to go when I want to go," he said. "It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share; it is time to go. I will do it elegantly."

Einstein's body — most of it, anyway — was cremated; his ashes were spread in an undisclosed location, according to the AMNH. However, a doctor at Princeton Hospital, Thomas Harvey, had controversially performed an autopsy, and removed Einstein's brain and eyeballs, according to the BBC .

Harvey sliced hundreds of thin sections of brain tissue to place on microscope slides and  snapped 14 photos  of the brain from several angles. He took the brain tissue, slides and images with him when he moved to Wichita, Kansas, where he was a medical supervisor in a biological testing lab.

Over the next 30 years, Harvey sent a few slides to other researchers who requested them, but kept the rest of the brain in two glass jars, sometimes in a cider box under a beer cooler. The story of Einstein's brain was largely forgotten until 1985, when Harvey and his colleagues published their study results in the journal Experimental Neurology .

Harvey failed a competency exam in 1988, and his medical license was revoked, Blitz wrote. Harvey eventually donated the brain to Princeton Hospital, where the brain's journey had begun. Harvey died in 2007. Pieces of Einstein's brain are now at the Mütter Museum in Philadelphia, Live Science reported .

Harvey's 1985 study authors reported that Einstein's brain had a higher number of glial cells (those that support and insulate the nervous system) per neurons (nerve cells) than other brains they examined. They concluded that it might indicate the neurons had a higher metabolic need — in other words, Einstein's brain cells needed and used more energy, which could have been why he had such advanced thinking abilities and conceptual skills.

However, other researchers have pointed out a few problems with that study, according to Eric H. Chudler , a neuroscientist at the University of Washington. First, for example, the other brains used in the study were all younger than Einstein's brain. Second, the "experimental group" had only one subject — Einstein. Additional studies are needed to see if these anatomical differences are found in other people. And third, only a small part of Einstein's brain was studied.

Another study, published in 1996 in the journal Neuroscience Letters , found that Einstein's brain weighed only 1,230 grams, which is less than the average adult male brain (about 1,400 g). Also, the scientist's cerebral cortex was thinner than that of five control brains, but the density of neurons was higher.

A study published in 2012 in the journal Brain revealed that Einstein's brain had extra folding in the gray matter , the site of conscious thinking. In particular, the frontal lobes, regions tied to abstract thought and planning, had unusually elaborate folding.

Einstein's legacy in physics is significant. Here are some of the key scientific principles that he pioneered:

Theory of special relativity : Einstein showed that physical laws are identical for all observers, as long as they are not under acceleration. However, the speed of light in a vacuum is always the same, no matter at what speed the observer is traveling. This work led to his realization that space and time are linked to what we now call space-time . So, an event seen by one observer may also be seen at a different time by another observer. 

Theory of general relativity : This was a reformulation of the law of gravity. In the 1600s, Newton formulated three laws of motion, among them, outlining how gravity works between two bodies. The force between them depends on how massive each object is, and how far apart the objects are. Einstein determined that when thinking about space-time, a massive object causes a distortion in space-time (like putting a heavy ball on a trampoline). Gravity is exerted when other objects fall into the "well" created by the distortion in space-time, like a marble rolling towards a large ball. General relativity passed a major test in 2019 in an experiment involving a supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way .

Photoelectric effect : Einstein's work in 1905 proposed that light should be thought of as a stream of particles (photons) instead of just a single wave, as was commonly thought at the time. His work helped decipher curious results scientists were previously unable to explain. 

Unified field theory : Einstein spent much of his later years trying to merge the fields of electromagnetism and gravity. He was unsuccessful but may have been ahead of his time. Other physicists are still working on this problem.

Einstein's astronomical legacy

There are many applications of Einstein's work, but here are some of the most notable ones in astronomy :

Gravitational waves : In 2016, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) detected space-time ripples — otherwise known as gravitational waves— that occurred after black holes collided about 1.4 billion light-years from Earth . LIGO also made an initial detection of gravitational waves in 2015, a century after Einstein predicted these ripples existed. The waves are a facet of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

Mercury's orbit : Mercury is a small planet orbiting close to a very massive object relative to its size — the sun. Its orbit could not be understood until general relativity showed that the curvature of space-time is affecting Mercury's motions and changing its orbit. There is a small chance that over billions of years, Mercury could be ejected from our solar system due to these changes (with an even smaller chance that it could collide with Earth).

Gravitational lensing : This is a phenomenon by which a massive object (like a galaxy cluster or a black hole) bends light around it. Astronomers looking at that region through a telescope can then see objects directly behind the massive object, due to the light being bent. A famous example of this is Einstein's Cross, a quasar in the constellation Pegasus : A galaxy roughly 400 million light-years away bends the light of the quasar so that it appears four times around the galaxy.

Black holes : In April 2019, the Event Horizon telescope showed the first-ever images of a black hole . The photos again confirmed several facets of general relativity, including not only that black holes exist, but also that they have a circular event horizon — a point at which nothing can escape, not even light.

To find the answers to frequently asked questions about Albert Einstein , visit The Nobel Prize website. Additionally, you can learn about The Einstein Memorial at the National Academy of Sciences building in Washington, D.C.  

Bibliography

"Einstein: The Life and Times". American Journal of Physics (1973). https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1119/1

"On the brain of a scientist: Albert Einstein". Experimental Neurology (1985). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3979509/

"The fascinating life and theory of Albert Einstein". Mih, W. C. Nova Publishers (2000).   https://books.google.co.uk/books

"Alterations in cortical thickness and neuronal density in the frontal cortex of Albert Einstein". Neuroscience Letters (1996). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8805120/

"The cerebral cortex of Albert Einstein: a description and preliminary analysis of unpublished photographs". Brain, Volume 136, Issue 4 (2012). https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/136/4/1304/356614?login=true

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Elizabeth Howell (she/her), Ph.D., is a staff writer in the spaceflight channel since 2022 covering diversity, education and gaming as well. She was contributing writer for Space.com for 10 years before joining full-time. Elizabeth's reporting includes multiple exclusives with the White House and Office of the Vice-President of the United States, an exclusive conversation with aspiring space tourist (and NSYNC bassist) Lance Bass, speaking several times with the International Space Station, witnessing five human spaceflight launches on two continents, flying parabolic, working inside a spacesuit, and participating in a simulated Mars mission. Her latest book, " Why Am I Taller ?", is co-written with astronaut Dave Williams. Elizabeth holds a Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Space Studies from the University of North Dakota, a Bachelor of Journalism from Canada's Carleton University and a Bachelor of History from Canada's Athabasca University. Elizabeth is also a post-secondary instructor in communications and science at several institutions since 2015; her experience includes developing and teaching an astronomy course at Canada's Algonquin College (with Indigenous content as well) to more than 1,000 students since 2020. Elizabeth first got interested in space after watching the movie Apollo 13 in 1996, and still wants to be an astronaut someday. Mastodon: https://qoto.org/@howellspace

Satellites watch as 4th global coral bleaching event unfolds (image)

Happy Earth Day 2024! NASA picks 6 new airborne missions to study our changing planet

Boeing Starliner astronauts conduct dress rehearsal ahead of May 6 launch (photos, video)

Most Popular

• 2 'Tiger stripes' on Saturn's moon Enceladus could reveal if its oceans are habitable
• 3 Astronomers finally know why stars born from the same cloud aren't identical twins
• 4 Private moon lander will carry Nokia's 4G cell network to the lunar surface this year
• 5 Hubble Space Telescope pauses science due to gyroscope issue

Biography of Albert Einstein, Theoretical Physicist

Lucien Aigner / Stringer / Getty Images

• People & Events
• Fads & Fashions
• Early 20th Century
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• Women's History
• B.A., History, University of California at Davis

Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879–April 18, 1955), a German-born theoretical physicist who lived during the 20th century, revolutionized scientific thought. Having developed the Theory of Relativity, Einstein opened the door for the development of atomic power and the creation of the atomic bomb.

Einstein is best known for his 1905 general theory of relativity, E=mc 2 , which posits that energy (E) equals mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared. But his influence went far beyond that theory. Einstein's theories also changed thinking about how the planets revolve around the sun. For his scientific contributions, Einstein also won the 1921 Nobel Prize in physics.

Einstein also was forced to flee Nazi Germany after the rise of Adolf Hitler . It's no exaggeration to say that his theories indirectly helped lead the Allies to victory over the Axis powers in World War II, particularly the defeat of Japan.

Fast Facts: Albert Einstein

• Known For : The General Theory of Relativity, E=mc 2 , which led to the development of the atomic bomb and atomic power.
• Born : March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Kingdom of Württemberg, German Empire
• Parents : Hermann Einstein and Pauline Koch
• Died : April 18, 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey
• Education : Swiss Federal Polytechnic (1896–1900, B.A., 1900; University of Zurich, Ph.D., 1905)
• Published Works : On a Heuristic Point of View Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, Does an Object’s Inertia Depend on Its Energy Content?
• Awards and Honors : Barnard Medal (1920), Nobel Prize in Physics (1921), Matteucci Medal (1921), Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1926), Max Planck Medal (1929), Time Person of the Century (1999)
• Spouses : Mileva Marić (m. 1903–1919), Elsa Löwenthal (m. 1919–1936)
• Children : Lieserl, Hans Albert Einstein, Eduard
• Notable Quote : "Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable."

Early Life and Education

Albert Einstein was born on March 14, 1879, in Ulm, Germany to Jewish parents, Hermann and Pauline Einstein. A year later, Hermann Einstein's business failed and he moved his family to Munich to start a new electric business with his brother Jakob. In Munich, Albert's sister Maja was born in 1881. Only two years apart in age, Albert adored his sister and they had a close relationship with each other their whole lives.

Although Einstein is now considered the epitome of genius, in the first two decades of his life, many people thought Einstein was the exact opposite. Right after Einstein was born, relatives were concerned with Einstein's pointy head. Then, when Einstein didn't talk until he was 3 years old, his parents worried something was wrong with him.

Einstein also failed to impress his teachers. From elementary school through college, his teachers and professors thought he was lazy, sloppy, and insubordinate. Many of his teachers thought he would never amount to anything.

When Einstein was 15 years old, his father's new business had failed and the Einstein family moved to Italy. At first, Albert remained behind in Germany to finish high school, but he was soon unhappy with that arrangement and left school to rejoin his family.

Rather than finish high school, Einstein decided to apply directly to the prestigious Polytechnic Institute in Zurich, Switzerland. Although he failed the entrance exam on the first try, he spent a year studying at a local high school and retook the entrance exam in October 1896 and passed.

Once at the Polytechnic, Einstein again did not like school. Believing that his professors only taught old science, Einstein would often skip class, preferring to stay home and read about the newest in scientific theory. When he did attend class, Einstein would often make it obvious that he found the class dull.

Some last-minute studying allowed Einstein to graduate in 1900. However, once out of school, Einstein was unable to find a job because none of his teachers liked him enough to write him a recommendation letter.

For nearly two years, Einstein worked at short-term jobs until a friend was able to help him get a job as a patent clerk at the Swiss Patent Office in Bern. Finally, with a job and some stability, Einstein was able to marry his college sweetheart, Mileva Maric, whom his parents strongly disapproved.

The couple went on to have two sons: Hans Albert (born 1904) and Eduard (born 1910).

Einstein the Patent Clerk

For seven years, Einstein worked six days a week as a patent clerk. He was responsible for examining the blueprints of other people's inventions and then determining whether they were feasible. If they were, Einstein had to ensure that no one else had already been given a patent for the same idea.

Somehow, between his very busy work and family life, Einstein not only found time to earn a doctorate from the University of Zurich (awarded 1905) but found time to think. It was while working at the patent office that Einstein made his most influential discoveries.

Influential Theories

In 1905, while working at the patent office, Einstein wrote five scientific papers, which were all published in the Annalen der Physik ( Annals of Physics , a major physics journal). Three of these were published together in September 1905.

In one paper, Einstein theorized that light must not just travel in waves but existed as particles, which explained the photoelectric effect. Einstein himself described this particular theory as "revolutionary." This was also the theory for which Einstein won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

In another paper, Einstein tackled the mystery of why pollen never settled to the bottom of a glass of water but rather, kept moving (Brownian motion). By declaring that the pollen was being moved by water molecules, Einstein solved a longstanding, scientific mystery and proved the existence of molecules.

His third paper described Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity," in which Einstein revealed that space and time are not absolutes. The only thing that is constant, Einstein stated, is the speed of light; the rest of space and time are all based on the position of the observer.

Not only are space and time not absolutes, Einstein discovered that energy and mass, once thought completely distinct items, were actually interchangeable. In his E=mc 2  equation (E=energy, m=mass, and c=speed of light), Einstein created a simple formula to describe the relationship between energy and mass. This formula reveals that a very small amount of mass can be converted into a huge amount of energy, leading to the later invention of the atomic bomb.

Einstein was only 26 years old when these articles were published and already he had done more for science than any individual since Sir Isaac Newton.

Scientists Take Notice

In 1909, four years after his theories were first published, Einstein was finally offered a teaching position. Einstein enjoyed being a teacher at the University of Zurich. He had found traditional schooling as he grew up extremely limiting and thus he wanted to be a different kind of teacher. Arriving at school unkempt, with hair uncombed and his clothes too baggy, Einstein soon became known as much for his appearance as his teaching style.

As Einstein's fame within the scientific community grew, offers for new, better positions began to pour in. Within only a few years, Einstein worked at the University of Zurich ( Switzerland ), then the German University in Prague (Czech Republic), and then went back to Zurich for the Polytechnic Institute.

The frequent moves, the numerous conferences that Einstein attended, and preoccupation of Einstein with science left Mileva (Einstein's wife) feeling both neglected and lonely. When Einstein was offered a professorship at the University of Berlin in 1913, she didn't want to go. Einstein accepted the position anyway.

Not long after arriving in Berlin, Mileva and Albert separated. Realizing the marriage could not be salvaged, Mileva took the kids back to Zurich. They officially divorced in 1919.

Achieves Worldwide Fame

During  World War I , Einstein stayed in Berlin and worked diligently on new theories. He worked like a man obsessed. With Mileva gone, he often forgot to eat and sleep.

In 1917, the stress eventually took its toll and he collapsed. Diagnosed with gallstones, Einstein was told to rest. During his recuperation, Einstein's cousin Elsa helped nurse him back to health. The two became very close and when Albert's divorce was finalized, Albert and Elsa married.

It was during this time that Einstein revealed his General Theory of Relativity, which considered the effects of acceleration and gravity on time and space. If Einstein's theory was correct, then the gravity of the sun would bend light from stars.

In 1919, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity could be tested during a solar eclipse. In May 1919, two British astronomers (Arthur Eddington and Sir Frances Dyson) were able to put together an expedition that observed the  solar eclipse  and documented the bent light. In November 1919, their findings were announced publicly.

After having suffered monumental bloodshed during World War I, people around the world were craving news that went beyond their country's borders. Einstein became a worldwide celebrity overnight.

It wasn't just his revolutionary theories; it was Einstein's general persona that appealed to the masses. Einstein's disheveled hair, poorly fitting clothes, doe-like eyes, and witty charm endeared him to the average person. He was a genius, but he was an approachable one.

Instantly famous, Einstein was hounded by reporters and photographers wherever he went. He was given honorary degrees and asked to visit countries around the world. Albert and Elsa took trips to the United States, Japan, Palestine (now Israel), South America, and throughout Europe.

Becomes an Enemy of the State

Although Einstein spent the 1920s traveling and making special appearances, these took away from the time he could work on his scientific theories. By the early 1930s, finding time for science wasn't his only problem.

The political climate in Germany was changing drastically. When Adolf Hitler took power in 1933, Einstein was luckily visiting the United States (he never returned to Germany). The Nazis promptly declared Einstein an enemy of the state, ransacked his house, and burned his books.

As death threats began, Einstein finalized his plans to take a position at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey. He arrived at Princeton on Oct. 17, 1933.

Einstein suffered a personal loss when Elsa died on Dec. 20, 1936. Three years later, Einstein's sister Maja fled from  Mussolini's Italy and came to live with Einstein in Princeton. She stayed until her death in 1951.

Until the Nazis took power in Germany, Einstein had been a devoted pacifist for his entire life. However, with the harrowing tales coming out of Nazi-occupied Europe, Einstein reevaluated his pacifist ideals. In the case of the Nazis, Einstein realized they needed to be stopped, even if that meant using military might to do so.

The Atomic Bomb

In July 1939, scientists Leo Szilard and Eugene Wigner visited Einstein to discuss the possibility that Germany was working on building an atomic bomb.

The ramifications of Germany building such a destructive weapon prompted Einstein to write a letter to  President Franklin D. Roosevelt  to warn him about this potentially massive weapon. In response, Roosevelt established the  Manhattan Project , a collection of U.S. scientists urged to beat Germany to the construction of a working atomic bomb.

Even though Einstein's letter prompted the Manhattan Project, Einstein himself never worked on constructing the atomic bomb.

Later Years and Death

From 1922 until the end of his life, Einstein worked on finding a "unified field theory." Believing that "God does not play dice," Einstein searched for a single, unified theory that could combine all the fundamental forces of physics between elementary particles. Einstein never found it.

In the years after World War II , Einstein advocated for a world government and for civil rights. In 1952, after the death of Israel's first President Chaim Weizmann , Einstein was offered the presidency of Israel. Realizing that he was not good at politics and too aged to start something new, Einstein declined the offer.

On April 12, 1955, Einstein collapsed at his home. Just six days later, on April 18, 1955, Einstein died when the aneurysm he had been living with for several years finally burst. He was 76 years old.

Resources and Further Reading

• “ The Year Of Albert Einstein. ”  Smithsonian.com , Smithsonian Institution, 1 June 2005.
• “ Albert Einstein. ”  Biography.com , A&E Networks Television, 14 Feb. 2019.
• Kuepper, Hans-Josef. “ The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. ”  Albert Einstein - Honours, Prizes and Awards.
• Albert Einstein Printables
• The Life and Work of Albert Einstein
• Ancestry of Albert Einstein
• Biography: Albert Einstein
• 10 Things You Don't Know About Albert Einstein
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity
• Leo Szilard, Creator of Manhattan Project, Opposed Use of Atomic Bomb
• Erwin Schrödinger and the Schrödinger's Cat Thought Experiment
• Most Influential Scientists of the 20th Century
• Max Planck Formulates Quantum Theory
• Edward Teller and the Hydrogen Bomb
• 14 Notable European Scientists Throughout History
• James Clerk Maxwell, Master of Electromagnetism
• Introduction to the Major Laws of Physics
• Heinrich Hertz, Scientist Who Proved Existence of Electromagnetic Waves
• Georges-Henri Lemaitre and the Birth of the Universe

 MacTutor

Albert einstein.

If I were to have the good fortune to pass my examinations, I would go to Zürich. I would stay there for four years in order to study mathematics and physics. I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical ability.

I have given up the ambition to get to a university ...

To my great joy, I completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein .

Revolution in science - New theory of the Universe - Newtonian ideas overthrown.

... a German national with or without swastika instead of a Jew with liberal international convictions...

I never realised that so many Americans were interested in tensor analysis.

... said hardly anything beyond presenting a very simple objection to the probability interpretation .... Then he fell back into silence ...

I have locked myself into quite hopeless scientific problems - the more so since, as an elderly man, I have remained estranged from the society here...

References ( show )

• N L Balazs, M J Klein, Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography ( New York 1970 - 1990) . See THIS LINK .
• Biography in Encyclopaedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-Einstein
• P C Aichelburg and Roman U Sexl ( ed. ) , Albert Einstein: his influence on physics, philosophy and politics ( Braunschweig, 1979) .
• L Barnett, The Universe and Dr Einstein (1974) .
• M Beller, J Renn and R S Cohen ( eds. ) , Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) .
• J Bernstein, Einstein (1973) .
• D Brian, Einstein - a life ( New York, 1996) .
• E Broda, The intellectual quadrangle : Mach - Boltzmann - Planck - Einstein ( Geneva, 1981) .
• W Buchheim, Albert Einstein als Wegbereiter nachklassischer Physik ( Berlin, 1981) .
• U Charpa, Albert Einstein ( Frankfurt, 1993) .
• E M Chudinov ( ed. ) , Einstein and philosophical problems of physics of the twentieth century ( Russian ) 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1979) .
• R W Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (1979) .
• H Dukas and B Hoffmann ( eds. ) , Albert Einstein : the human side. New glimpses from his archives ( Princeton, N.J., 1979) .
• J Earman, M Janssen and J D Norton ( eds. ) , The attraction of gravitation : new studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, 1993) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 1 : The early years, 1879 - 1902 ( Princeton, NJ, 1987) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 2 : The Swiss years: writings, 1900 - 1909 ( Princeton, NJ, 1989) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 3 : The Swiss years: writings, 1909 - 1911 ( German ) ( Princeton, NJ, 1993) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 3 : The Swiss years: writings, 1909 - 1911 ( Princeton, NJ, 1993) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4 . The Swiss years: writings, 1912 - 1914 ( German ) ( Princeton, NJ, 1995) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 4 : The Swiss years: writings, 1912 - 1914 ( Princeton, NJ, 1996) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 5 : The Swiss years : correspondence, 1902 - 1914 ( German ) ( Princeton, NJ, 1993) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 5 : The Swiss years: correspondence, 1902 - 1914 ( Princeton, NJ, 1995) .
• A Einstein, The collected papers of Albert Einstein. Vol. 6 : The Berlin years: writings, 1914 - 1917 ( German ) ( Princeton, NJ, 1996) .
• A Forsee, Albert Einstein : theoretical physicist ( New York, 1963) .
• P Frank, Einstein : His Life and Times (1972) .
• P Frank, Einstein : Sein Leben und seine Zeit ( Braunschweig, 1979) .
• A P French ( ed. ) , Einstein. A centenary volume ( Cambridge, Mass., 1979) .
• V Ya Frenkel and B E Yavelov, Einstein the inventor ( Russian ) 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1981) .
• V Ya Frenkel and B E Yavelov, Einstein : inventions and experiment ( Russian ) 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1990) .
• H Freudenthal, Inleiding tot het denken van Einstein ( Assen, 1952) .
• D P Gribanov, Albert Einstein's philosophical views and the theory of relativity 'Progress' ( Moscow, 1987) .
• D P Gribanov, The philosophical views of A Einstein and the development of the theory of relativity ( Russian ) 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1987) .
• W Heisenberg, Encounters with Einstein. And other essays on people, places, and particles ( Princeton, NJ, 1989) .
• F Herneck, Albert Einstein. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage ( Leipzig, 1975) .
• T Hey and P Walters, Einstein's mirror ( Cambridge, 1997) .
• G Holton and Y Elkana ( eds. ) , Albert Einstein : Historical and cultural perspectives ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) .
• G Holton, Einstein, history, and other passions ( Woodbury, NY, 1995) .
• D Howard and J Stachel ( eds. ) , Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) .
• C Jungnickel and R McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery of Nature 2 Vols ( Chicago, 1986) .
• B Khofman, Albert Einstein : creator and rebel ( Russian ) 'Progress' ( Moscow, 1983) .
• C Kirsten and H-J Treder ( eds. ) , Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913 - 1933 . Teil I. Darstellung und Dokumente ( Berlin, 1979) .
• C Kirsten and H-J Treder ( eds. ) , Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913 - 1933 . Teil II. Spezialinventar ( Berlin, 1979) .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein ( French ) ( Moscow, 1989) .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein. Life, death, immortality ( Rusian ) 'Nauka', ( Moscow, 1979) .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein: Leben -Tod - Unsterblichkeit ( German ) ( Berlin, 1979) .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein ( Moscow, 1965) .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein : Vida. Muerte. Inmortalidad ( Moscow, 1990) .
• C Lánczos, The Einstein decade (1905 - 1915) ( New York-London, 1974) .
• H Melcher, Albert Einstein wider Vorurteile und Denkgewohnheiten ( Berlin, 1979) .
• A I Miller, Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity : Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905 - 1911) ( Reading, Mass., 1981) .
• L Navarro Veguillas, Einstein, profeta y hereje ( Barcelona, 1990) .
• A Pais , 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the life of Albert Einstein ( Oxford, 1982) .
• A Pais, The science and life of Albert Einstein ( Russian ) 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1989) .
• A Pais, Raffiniert ist der Herrgott ... : Albert Einstein-eine wissenschaftliche Biographie ( Braunschweig, 1986) .
• M Pantaleo and F de Finis ( ed. ) , Relativity, quanta, and cosmology in the development of the scientific thought of Albert Einstein. Vol. I, II. ( New York, 1979) .
• W Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band I: 1919 - 1929 ( New York-Berlin, 1979) .
• W Pauli, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u.a. Band II ( Berlin-New York, 1985) .
• I Rosenthal-Schneider, Begegnungen mit Einstein, von Laue und Planck ( Braunschweig, 1988) .
• P A Schilipp ( ed. ) , Albert Einstein : Philosopher- Scientist (2 Vols ) (1969) .
• P A Schilpp ( ed. ) , Albert Einstein als Philosoph und Naturforscher ( Braunschweig, 1979) .
• P A Schilpp ( ed. ) , Albert Einstein : Philosopher-Scientist ( Evanston, Ill., 1949) .
• C Seelig, Albert Einstein : A Documentary Biography ( London, 1956) .
• H-J Treder ( ed. ) , Einstein-Centenarium 1979 ( German ) ( Berlin, 1979) .
• A Whitaker, Einstein, Bohr and the quantum dilemma ( Cambridge, 1996) .
• M White, Albert Einstein : a life in science ( London, 1993) .
• J Wickert, Albert Einstein ( German ) ( Reinbek, 1983) .
• J Wickert, Albert Einstein in Selbstzeugnissen und Bilddokumenten ( Reinbek bei Hamburg, 1972) .
• G Wolters, Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie ( Berlin-New York, 1987) .
• A I Akhiezer, Einstein and modern physics ( Russian ) , in The scientific picture of the world 'Naukova Dumka' ( Kiev, 1983) , 175 - 194 .
• R A Aronov, B M Bolotovskii and N V Mickevic, Elements of materialism and dialectics in shaping A Einstein's philosophical views ( Russian ) , Voprosy Filos. (11) (1979) , 56 - 66 ; 187 .
• R A Aronov and B Ya Pakhomov, Philosophy and physics in the discussions of N Bohr and A Einstein ( Russian ) , Voprosy Filos. (10) (1985) , 59 - 73 ; 172 - 173 .
• A Avramesco, The Einstein-Bohr debate. I. The background, in Microphysical reality and quantum formalism ( Dordrecht, 1988) , 299 - 308 .
• A Bach, Eine Fehlinterpretation mit Folgen : Albert Einstein und der Welle-Teilchen Dualismus, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 40 (2) (1989) , 173 - 206 .
• N L Balazs, The acceptability of physical theories : Poincaré versus Einstein, in General relativity : papers in honour of J. L Synge ( Oxford, 1972) , 21 - 34 .
• A Baracca and R Rechtman, Einstein's statistical mechanics, Rev. Mexicana Fis. 31 (4) (1985) , 695 - 722 .
• J B Barbour, Einstein and Mach's principle, in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 125 - 153 , 460 .
• M Beller, Einstein and Bohr's rhetoric of complementarity, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 241 - 255 .
• D W Belousek, Einstein's 1927 unpublished hidden-variable theory : its background, context and significance, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B Stud. Hist. Philos. Modern Phys. 27 (4) (1996) , 437 - 461 .
• Y Ben-Menahem, Struggling with causality : Einstein's case, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 291 - 310 .
• G Berg, On the origin of the concept of an Einstein space, in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 336 - 343 ; 460 .
• S Bergia and L Navarro, Recurrences and continuity in Einstein's research on radiation between 1905 and 1916 , Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 38 (1) (1988) , 79 - 99 .
• S Bergia, Who discovered the Bose-Einstein statistics?, in Symmetries in physics (1600 - 1980) ( Barcelona, 1987) , 221 - 250 .
• P Bernardini, Einstein's statistics and second quantization : what continuity? ( Italian ) , Physis-Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 23 (3) (1981) , 337 - 374 .
• J Bicák, Einstein's Prague articles on gravitation, in Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity ( Teaneck, NJ, 1989) , 1325 - 1333 .
• M Biezunski, Inside the coconut : the Einstein-Cartan discussion on distant parallelism, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 315 - 324 .
• J Blackmore, Mach competes with Planck for Einstein's favor, Historia Sci. No. 35 (1988) , 45 - 89 .
• M Born, Erinnerungen an Albert Einstein, Math. Naturwiss. Unterricht 9 (1956 / 57) , 97 - 105 .
• M Born, Recollections of Einstein ( Bulgarian ) , Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 22(55) (3) (1979) , 204 - 216 .
• M Born, Albert Einstein und das Lichtquantum, Naturwissenschaften 42 (1955) , 425 - 431 .
• J Bosquet, Théophile De Donder et la gravifique einsteinienne, Acad. Roy. Belg. Bull. Cl. Sci. (5) 73 (5) (1987) , 209 - 253 .
• E Broda, The intellectual quadrangle Mach-Boltzmann-Planck-Einstein ( Bulgarian ) , Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 25(58) (3) (1983) , 195 - 211 .
• P H Byrne, Statistical and causal concepts in Einstein's early thought, Ann. of Sci. 37 (2) (1980) , 215 - 228 .
• P H Byrne, The origins of Einstein's use of formal asymmetries, Ann. of Sci. 38 (2) (1981) , 191 - 206 .
• P H Byrne, The significance of Einstein's use of the history of science, Dialectica 34 (4) (1980) , 263 - 276 .
• B Carazza, Historical considerations on the conceptual experiment by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, in The nature of quantum paradoxes ( Dordrecht, 1988) , 355 - 369 .
• D C Cassidy, Biographies of Einstein ( Polish ) , Kwart. Hist. Nauk. Tech. 24 (4) (1979) , 813 - 822 .
• D C Cassidy, Biographies of Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 490 - 500 .
• C Cattani and M De Maria, Einstein's path toward the generally covariant formulation of gravitational field equations : the contribution of Tullio Levi-Civita, in Proceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity ( Amsterdam-New York, 1986) , 1805 - 1826 .
• C Cattani and M De Maria, Gravitational waves and conservation laws in general relativity : A Einstein and T Levi-Civita, 1917 correspondence, in Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity ( Teaneck, NJ, 1989) , 1335 - 1342 .
• C Cattani and M De Maria, Max Abraham and the reception of relativity in Italy : his 1912 and 1914 controversies with Einstein, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 160 - 174 .
• C Cattani and M De Maria, The 1915 epistolary controversy between Einstein and Tullio Levi-Civita, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 175 - 200 .
• S Chandrasekhar, Einstein and general relativity : historical perspectives, Amer. J. Phys. 47 (3) (1979) , 212 - 217 .
• S D Chatterji, Two documents on Albert Einstein, in Yearbook : surveys of mathematics 1980 ( Mannheim, 1980) , 143 - 154 .
• B Cimbleris, Einstein's works on thermodynamics (1902 - 1904) and the statistical mechanics of Gibbs ( Portuguese ) , in The XIXth century : the birth of modern science ( Campinas, 1992) , 405 - 412 .
• D M Clark, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox : a mathematically complete exposition, Bol. Soc. Parana. Mat. (2) 15 (1 - 2) (1995) , 67 - 81 .
• L F Cook, Einstein and DtDE, Amer. J. Phys. 48 (2) (1980) , 142 - 145 .
• Correspondence of A Einstein and M Besso, 1903 - 1955 ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1977 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1980) , 5 - 72 ; 327 .
• O Costa de Beauregard, The 1927 Einstein and 1935 EPR paradox, Physis-Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 22 (2) (1980) , 211 - 242 .
• C Curry, The naturalness of the cosmological constant in the general theory of relativity, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992) , 657 - 664 .
• S D'Agostino and L Orlando, The correspondence principle and the origin of Einstein's theory of gravity ( Italian ) , Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 2 (1) (1994) , 51 - 74 .
• S D'Agostino, The problem of the empirical bases of Einstein's general theory of relativity : some recent historico-critical research ( Italian ) , Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 3 (2) (1995) , 191 - 207 .
• B d'Espagnat, Einstein et la causalité, in Einstein : 1879 - 1955 ( Paris, 1980) , 31 - 44 .
• B K Datta, Development of Einstein's general theory of relativity (1907 - 1916) , Bull. Satyendranath Bose Inst. Phys. Sci. 5 (2) (1980) , 3 - 20 .
• M De Maria, The first reactions to general relativity in Italy : the polemics between Max Abraham and Albert Einstein ( Italian ) , in Italian mathematics between the two world wars ( Bologna, 1987) , 143 - 159 .
• L de Broglie, Notice nécrologique sur Albert Einstein, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 240 (1955) , 1741 - 1745 .
• B de Finetti, Einstein : originality and intuition, Scientia ( Milano ) 113 (1 - 4) (1978) , 115 - 128 .
• R Debever, Publication de la correspondance Cartan-Einstein, Acad. Roy. Belg. Bull. Cl. Sci. (5) (3) 64 (1978) , 61 - 63 .
• L Debnath, Albert Einstein-scientific epistemology, in Selected studies : physics-astrophysics, mathematics, history of science ( Amsterdam-New York, 1982) , 315 - 327 .
• L Debnath, and N C Debnath, Albert Einstein-the man-scientist duality, Internat. J. Math. Ed. Sci. Tech. 10 (4) (1979) , 475 - 491 .
• R Deltete and R Guy, Einstein and EPR, Philos. Sci. 58 (3) (1991) , 377 - 397 .
• P A M Dirac, The perfection of Einstein's theory of gravitation ( Bulgarian ) , Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 22(55) (3) (1979) , 216 - 218 .
• R Disalle, Gereon Wolters' 'Mach I, Mach II, Einstein, und die Relativitätstheorie', Philos. Sci. 57 (4) (1990) , 712 - 723 .
• R Dugas, Einstein et Gibbs devant la thermodynamique statistique, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 241 (1955) , 1685 - 1687 .
• J Earman and C Glymour, Einstein and Hilbert : two months in the history of general relativity, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 19 (3) (1978 / 79) , 291 - 308 .
• Einstein and quantum theory : Excerpts from the correspondence of A Einstein with M Besso ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 30 - 37 ; 101 .
• A Einstein, Le memorie fondamentali di Albert Einstein ( Italian ) , in Cinquant'anni di Relatività, 1905 - 1955 ( Firenze, 1955) , 477 - 611 .
• J Eisenstaedt, Toward a history of Einstein's theory of gravitation, in Fifth Brazilian School of Cosmology and Gravitation ( Teaneck, NJ, 1987) , 552 - 565 .
• M A Elyashevich, Einstein's part in the development of quantum concepts, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979) , 555 - 575 .
• M A Elyashevich, Einstein's part in the development of quantum concepts ( Russian ) , Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979) , 503 - 536 .
• H Ezawa, Einstein's contribution to statistical mechanics, classical and quantum, Japan. Stud. Hist. Sci. No. 18 (1979) , 27 - 72 .
• Y Ezrahi, Einstein and the light of reason, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 253 - 278 .
• W L Fadner, Did Einstein really discover E=mc€?, Amer. J. Phys. 56 (2) (1988) , 114 - 122 .
• E L Feinberg, The relation between science and art in Einstein's world view ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1977 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1980) , 187 - 213 ; 327 .
• M Ferraris, M Francaviglia and C Reina, Variational formulation of general relativity from 1915 to 1925 : 'Palatini's method' discovered by Einstein in 1925 , Gen. Relativity Gravitation 14 (3) (1982) , 243 - 254 .
• P K Feyerabend, Mach's theory of research and its relation to Einstein, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 15 (1) (1984) , 1 - 22 .
• P K Feyerabend, Machs Theorie der Forschung und ihre Beziehung zu Einstein, in Ernst Mach-Werk und Wirkung ( Vienna, 1988) , 435 - 462 .
• A Fine, Einstein's interpretations of the quantum theory, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 257 - 273 .
• A Fine, What is Einstein's statistical interpretation, or, is it Einstein for whom Bell's theorem tolls?, Topoi 3 (1) (1984) , 23 - 36 .
• B Finzi, Commemorazione di Alberto Einstein, Ist. Lombardo Sci. Lett. Rend. Parte Gen. Atti Ufficiali (3) 19 (88) (1955) , 106 - 120 .
• A D Fokker, Albert Einstein, inventor of chronogeometry, Synthese 9 (1954) , 442 - 444 .
• A D Fokker, Albert Einstein : 14 March 1878 - 18 April 1955 ( Dutch ) , Nederl. Tijdschr. Natuurk. 21 (1955) , 125 - 129 .
• M Francaviglia, History of a work of Albert Einstein ( Italian ) , Atti Accad. Sci. Torino Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. 112 (1 - 2) (1978) , 43 - 48 .
• I M Frank, Einstein und die Probleme der Optik, Astronom. Nachr. 301 (6) (1980) , 261 - 275 .
• P G Frank, Einstein, Synthese 9 (1954) , 435 - 437 .
• A Franke and F Franke, Paul Langevin und Albert Einstein-eine Freundschaft zwischen Relativitätstheorie und politischer Realität, Ber. Wiss.-Gesch. 20 (2 - 3) (1997) , 199 - 215 .
• V Ya Frenkel, Einstein and the Soviet physicists ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 25 - 30 ; 101 .
• V Ya Frenkel, A Einstein's doctoral dissertation ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (2) (1983) , 136 - 141 .
• H Freudenthal, Einstein und das wissenschaftliche Weltbild des 20 . Jahrhunderts, Janus 46 (1957) , 63 - 76 .
• D Galletto, The ideas of Einstein in the works of Guido Fubini and Francesco Severi ( Italian ) , Atti Accad. Sci. Torino Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. 115 ( Suppl. ) (1981) , 205 - 216 .
• M Garcia Doncel, The genesis of special relativity and Einstein's epistemology ( Spanish ) , Three lectures about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4) (1981) , 7 - 35 .
• C Gearhart, A Einstein before 1905 : the early papers on statistical mechanics, Amer. J. Phys. 58 (5) (1990) , 468 - 480 .
• Gh Gheorghiev, Albert Einstein and the development of differential geometry ( Romanian ) , An. Stiint. Univ. 'Al. I. Cuza' Iasi Sect. I a Mat. ( N.S. ) 25 (2) (1979) , 435 - 438 .
• O Godart, and M Heller, Einstein-Lemaitre: rencontre d'idées, Rev. Questions Sci. 150 (1) (1979) , 23 - 43 .
• H Goenner, The reaction to relativity theory. I. The anti-Einstein campaign in Germany in 1920 , in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 107 - 133 .
• H Goenner and G Castagnetti, Albert Einstein as pacifist and Democrat during World War I, Sci. Context 9 (4) (1996) , 325 - 386 .
• I Gottlieb, Albert Einstein-a pathfinder in physics, An. Stiint. Univ. 'Al. I. Cuza' Iasi Sect. I b Fiz. ( N.S. ) 25 (1979) , i-v.
• L R Graham, The reception of Einstein's ideas : two examples from contrasting political cultures, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 107 - 136 .
• J J Gray, Poincaré, Einstein, and the theory of special relativity, Math. Intelligencer 17 (1) (1995) , 65 - 67 ; 75 .
• D P Gribanov, The relationship between the empirical and the rational in Einstein's scientific creation ( Russian ) , Voprosy Filos. (9) (1980) , 40 - 50 ; 185 - 186 .
• D Gribanov, The philosophy of Albert Einstein, in Science and technology: humanism and progress I ( Moscow, 1981) , 158 - 180 .
• A T Grigorian, On the centenary of Einstein's birth ( Polish ) , Kwart. Hist. Nauk. Tech. 24 (4) (1979) , 805 - 811 .
• A T Grigorjan, Albert Einstein as a historian of natural science ( Russian ) , Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR (4) (1979) , 99 - 104 .
• A T Grigoryan, Albert Einstein as a historian of natural science ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1990) , 85 - 89 .
• F Gürsey, Obituary : Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) , Rev. Fac. Sci. Univ. Istanbul. Sér. A. 20 (1955) , 101 - 104 .
• A Harder, The Copernican character of Einstein's cosmology, Ann. of Sci. 29 (1972) , 339 - 347 .
• K Hentschel, Die Korrespondenz Einstein - Schlick : zum Verhältnis der Physik zur Philosophie, Ann. of Sci. 43 (5) (1986) , 475 - 488 .
• K Hentschel, Einstein's attitude towards experiments : testing relativity theory 1907 - 1927 , Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992) , 593 - 624 .
• K Hentschel, Erwin Finlay Freundlich and testing Einstein's theory of relativity, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 47 (2) (1994) , 143 - 201 .
• A Hermann, Einstein und Deutschland, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 537 - 550 .
• F Herneck, Die Einstein-Dokumente im Archiv der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, NTM Schr. Geschichte Naturwiss. Tech. Medizin 10 (2) (1973) , 32 - 38 .
• F R Hickman, Electrodynamical origins of Einstein's theory of general relativity, Internat. J. Theoret. Phys. 23 (6) (1984) , 535 - 566 .
• C Hoefer, Einstein's struggle for a Machian gravitation theory, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 25 (3) (1994) , 287 - 335 .
• C Hoenselaers, Correspondence: Einstein - Kaluza, in Unified field theories of more than 4 dimensions ( Singapore, 1983) , 447 - 457 .
• B Hoffmann, Einstein and Zionism, in General relativity and gravitation , in Proc. Seventh Internat. Conf. ( GR 7) Ramat-Aviv, 1974 ( New York, 1975) , 233 - 242 .
• B Hoffmann, Some Einstein anomalies, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 91 - 105 .
• S H Hollingdale, Albert Einstein, born March 14 th, 1879 , Bull. Inst. Math. Appl. 15 (2 - 3) (1979) , 34 - 50 .
• G Holton, Introduction : Einstein and the shaping of our imagination, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , vii-xxxii.
• G Holton, Spengler, Einstein and the controversy over the end of science, Physis Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. ( N.S. ) 28 (2) (1991) , 543 - 556 .
• G Hon, Disturbing, but not surprising : did Gödel surprise Einstein with a rotating universe and time travel?, Found. Phys. 26 (4) (1996) , 501 - 521 .
• C A Hooker, Projection, physical intelligibility, objectivity and completeness : the divergent ideals of Bohr and Einstein, British J. Philos. Sci. 42 (4) (1991) , 491 - 511 .
• H Hora, Einstein's photon distribution for blackbodies and the discovery of the laser, in General relativity and gravitation 1 ( New York-London, 1980) , 17 - 21 .
• D Howard, Einstein and Eindeutigkeit : a neglected theme in the philosophical background to general relativity, in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 154 - 243 ; 462 .
• D Howard, Einstein on locality and separability, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 16 (3) (1985) , 171 - 201 .
• D Howard, Realism and conventionalism in Einstein's philosophy of science : the Einstein - Schlick correspondence, Philos. Natur. 21 (2 - 4) (1984) , 616 - 629 .
• D Howard, Was Einstein really a realist?, Perspect. Sci. 1 (2) (1993) , 204 - 251 .
• T P Hughes, Einstein, inventors, and invention, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 25 - 42 .
• J Illy, Albert Einstein and Prague ( Czech ) , DVT-Dejiny Ved Tech. 12 (2) (1979) , 65 - 79 .
• J Illy, Albert Einstein in Prague, Isis 70 (251) (1979) , 76 - 84 .
• J Illy, Einstein teaches Lorentz, Lorentz teaches Einstein : Their collaboration in general relativity, 1913 - 1920 , Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 39 (3) (1989) , 247 - 289 .
• J Illy, Einstein und der Eotvos-Versuch : Ein Brief Albert Einsteins an Willy Wien, Ann. of Sci. 46 (4) (1989) , 17 - 422 .
• J Illy, The correspondence of Albert Einstein and Gustav Mie, 1917 - 1918 , in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 244 - 259 ; 462 .
• In commemoration of the centenary of the birth of Einstein ( Chinese ) , J. Huazhong Inst. Tech. 7 (1) (1979) , 1 - 6 .
• J Ishiwara, Jun Ishiwaras Text über Albert Einsteins Gastvortrag an der Universität zu Kyoto am 14 . Dezember 1922 , Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 36 (3) (1986) , 271 - 279 .
• T Isnardi, Albert Einstein ( Spanish ) , An. Soc. Ci. Argentina 159 (1955) , 3 - 8 .
• D D Ivanenko, The timeliness of Einstein's works ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 13 - 16 ; 101 .
• M Jammer, Albert Einstein und das Quantenproblem, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 146 - 167 .
• M Jammer, Einstein and quantum physics, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 59 - 76 .
• D Jedinák, Statements of Albert Einstein ( Slovak ) , Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom. 20 (6) (1975) , 315 - 319 .
• J L Jiménez and G del Valle, The Einstein and Hopf work revisited, Rev. Mexicana Fis. 29 (2) (1983) , 259 - 266 .
• R Jost, Boltzmann und Planck : die Krise des Atomismus um die Jahrhundertwende und ihre überwindung durch Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 128 - 145 .
• N Kalicin, Albert Einstein ( on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of his birth ) ( Bulgarian ) , Fiz.-Mat. Spis. Bulgar. Akad. Nauk. 12 (45) (1969) , 169 - 171 .
• N V Karlov and A M Prokhorov, Quantum electronics and Einstein's theory of radiation, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979) , 576 - 579 .
• N V Karlov and A M Prokhorov, Quantum electronics and Einstein's theory of radiation ( Russian ) , Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979) , 537 - 543 .
• A S Karmin, Scientific thought and intuition: Einstein's formulation of the problem ( Russian ) , in The scientific picture of the world 'Naukova Dumka' ( Kiev, 1983) , 240 - 259 .
• A Kastler, Albert Einstein, à propos du centenaire de sa naissance, Acad. Roy. Belg. Cl. Sci. Mém. Collect. (2) 44 (1) (1981) , 13 - 27 .
• M Katsumori, Einstein's philosophical turn and the theory of relativity, in Grenzfragen zwischen Philosophie und Naturwissenschaft ( Vienna, 1989) , 98 - 101 .
• M Katsumori, The theories of relativity and Einstein's philosophical turn, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 23 (4) (1992) , 557 - 592 .
• P Kerszberg, The Einstein-de Sitter controversy of 1916 - 1917 and the rise of relativistic cosmology, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 325 - 366 .
• B Khofman, V Bargman, P Bergman and E Shtraus, Working with Einstein ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1982 - 1983 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1986) , 170 - 195 .
• B Khofman, V Bargman, P Bergman and E Shtraus, Working with Einstein, in Some strangeness in the proportion ( Reading, Mass., 1980) , 475 - 489 .
• D Khofman, Albert Einstein as a patent referee ( a new Einstein document ) ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1984 - 1985 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1988) , 143 - 147 .
• M J Klein, Fluctuations and statistical physics in Einstein's early work, in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 39 - 58 .
• M J Klein and A Needell, Some unnoticed publications by Einstein, Isis 68 (244) (1977) , 601 - 604 .
• A Kleinert, Nationalistische und antisemitische Ressentiments von Wissenschaftlern gegen Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 501 - 516 .
• L Kostro, An outline of the history of Einstein's relativistic ether concept, in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 260 - 280 ; 463 .
• L Kostro, Einstein's relativistic ether, its history, physical meaning and updated applications, Organon No. 24 (1988) , 219 - 235 .
• A J Kox, Einstein and Lorentz: more than just good colleagues, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 43 - 56 .
• A J Kox, Einstein, Lorentz, Leiden and general relativity, Classical Quantum Gravity 10 ( Suppl. ) (1993) S 187 -S 191 .
• A J Kox, Einstein, specific heats, and residual rays : the history of a retracted paper, in No truth except in the details ( Dordrecht, 1995) , 245 - 257 .
• A B Kozhevnikov, Einstein's formula for fluctuations and particle-wave dualism ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1986 - 1990 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1990) , 102 - 124 .
• F Krull, Albert Einstein in seinen erkenntnistheoretischen Auss erungen, Sudhoffs Arch. 78 (2) (1994) , 154 - 170 .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein and classical science ( Russian ) , Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR (4) (1979) , 91 - 98 .
• B G Kuznetsov, Einstein and de Broglie : Historico-scientific and historico-philosophical notes ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1981) , 47 - 57 .
• B G Kuznetsov, From Einstein's correspondence with de Broglie ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (1) (1981) , 58 - 59 .
• B G Kuznetsov, The Einstein - Bohr dispute, the Einstein - Bergson dispute and the science of the second half of the twentieth century ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1980 - 1981 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1985) , 49 - 85 , 334 .
• C Lanczos, Albert Einstein and the theory of relativity, Nuovo Cimento (10) 2 ( Suppl. ) (1955) 1193 - 1220 .
• C Lanczos, Einstein's path from special to general relativity, in General relativity : papers in honour of J L Synge ( Oxford, 1972) , 5 - 19 .
• P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. I. Relativistic thermodynamics, European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981) , 203 - 207 .
• P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. II. Oscillator quantisation, European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981) , 208 - 212 .
• P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics. III. The diffusion-mobility relation in semiconductors, European J. Phys. 2 (4) (1981) , 213 - 219 .
• P T Landsberg, Einstein and statistical thermodynamics, in Proceedings of the Einstein Centennial Symposium on Fundamental Physics ( Bogotá, 1981) , 73 - 117 .
• F Laudisa, Physical reality and the principle of separability in the Einstein-Bohr debate ( Italian ) , Riv. Stor. Sci. (2) 3 (2) (1995) , 47 - 76 .
• K V Laurikainen, Albert Einstein, 14 . 3 . 1879 ( Finnish ) , Arkhimedes 31 (2) (1979) , 61 - 67 .
• N B Lavrova, The works by Einstein and the Russian-language papers about him published in the USSR ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 38 - 42 ; 101 .
• F Le Lionnais, Descartes et Einstein, Rev. Hist. Sci. Appl. 5 (1952) , 139 - 154 .
• G Lemaitre, L'oeuvre scientifique d'Albert Einstein, Rev. Questions Sci. (5) 16 (1955) , 475 - 487 .
• T Levi-Chivita, Analytic expression for the gravitation tensor in Einstein's theory ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1980 - 1981 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1985) , 191 - 203 , 335 .
• N A Licis and V A Markov, Lobacevskii and Einstein. Sources of the general theory of relativity ( Russian ) , Latvijas PSR Zinatn. Akad. Vestis (12)(389) (1979) , 18 - 32 .
• C Liu, Einstein and relativistic thermodynamics in 1952 : a historical and critical study of a strange episode in the history of modern physics, British J. Hist. Sci. 25 (85)(2) (1992) , 185 - 206 .
• G A Lorentz, On Einstein's theory of gravitation ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1980 - 1981 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1985) , 169 - 190 ; 335 .
• A S Luchins and E H Luchins, The Einstein-Wertheimer correspondence on geometric proofs and mathematical puzzles, Math. Intelligencer 12 (2) (1990) , 35 - 43 .
• V S Lukyanets, The problem of the justification of physics in the works of Einstein ( Russian ) , in The scientific picture of the world 'Naukova Dumka' ( Kiev, 1983) , 195 - 211 .
• G Maltese, The rejection of the Ricci tensor in Einstein's first tensorial theory of gravitation, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 41 (4) (1991) , 363 - 381 .
• G Mannoury, The cultural phenomenon Albert Einstein, Synthese 9 (1954) , 438 - 441 .
• N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. I. How to solve the problem of induction, British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (1) (1993) , 61 - 79 .
• N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. II. Aim-oriented empiricism and scientific essentialism, British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (1) (1993) , 81 - 101 .
• N Maxwell, Induction and scientific realism : Einstein versus van Fraassen. III. Einstein, aim-oriented empiricism and the discovery of special and general relativity, British J. Philos. Sci. 44 (2) (1993) , 275 - 305 .
• W H McCrea and R W Lawson, Obituary : Albert Einstein, Nature 175 (1955) , 925 - 927 .
• H A Medicus, A comment on the relations between Einstein and Hilbert, Amer. J. Phys. 52 (3) (1984) , 206 - 208 .
• J Mehra, Niels Bohr's discussions with Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger : the origins of the principles of uncertainty and complementarity, Found. Phys. 17 (5) (1987) , 461 - 506 .
• J Mehra, Niels Bohr's discussions with Albert Einstein, Werner Heisenberg, and Erwin Schrödinger: the origins of the principles of uncertainty and complementarity, in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics 1987 ( Teaneck, NJ, 1987) , 19 - 64 .
• H Melcher, Some supplements to Einstein-documents, in Proceedings of the ninth international conference on general relativity and gravitation ( Cambridge, 1983) , 271 - 284 .
• H Melcher, Atherdrift und Relativität : Michelson, Einstein, Fizeau und Hoek, NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 19 (1) (1982) , 46 - 67 .
• D Michelson Livingston, Einstein and Michelson-artists in science, Astronom. Nachr. 303 (1) (1982) , 15 - 16 .
• A I Miller, Albert Einstein's 1907 Jahrbuch paper : the first step from SRT to GRT, in Studies in the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1992) , 319 - 335 ; 464 .
• A I Miller, Symmetry and imagery in the physics of Bohr, Einstein and Heisenberg, in Symmetries in physics (1600 - 1980) ( Barcelona, 1987) , 299 - 327 .
• A I Miller, The special relativity theory : Einstein's response to the physics of 1905 , in Albert Einstein, Jerusalem, 1979 ( Princeton, NJ, 1982) , 3 - 26 .
• V V Narlikar, Einstein and the unity of nature, in Gravitation, quanta and the universe ( New York, 1980) , 1 - 12 .
• L Navarro, On Einstein's statistical-mechanical approach to the early quantum theory (1904 - 1916) , Historia Sci. (2) 1 (1) (1991) , 39 - 58 .
• Z Nikol, Einstein and Langevin ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 37 - 38 ; 101 .
• D J F Nonnenmacher, T F Nonnenmacher and P F Zweifel, Kepler, Einstein, and Ulm, Math. Intelligencer 15 (2) (1993) , 50 - 51 .
• D Norton, Einstein's battle for general covariance ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1982 - 1983 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1986) , 57 - 84 .
• J Norton, Erratum: 'What was Einstein's principle of equivalence?', Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 17 (1) (1986) , 131 .
• J Norton, Coordinates and covariance : Einstein's view of space-time and the modern view, Found. Phys. 19 (10) (1989) , 1215 - 1263 .
• J D Norton, Did Einstein stumble? The debate over general covariance. Reflections on spacetime : foundations, philosophy, history, Erkenntnis 42 (2) (1995) , 223 - 245 .
• J D Norton, Einstein, Nordstrom and the early demise of scalar, Lorentz-covariant theories of gravitation, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 45 (1) (1992) , 17 - 94 .
• J Norton, John Einstein's discovery of the field equations of general relativity : some milestones, in Proceedings of the fourth Marcel Grossmann meeting on general relativity ( Amsterdam-New York, 1986) , 1837 - 1848 .
• J Norton, How Einstein found his field equations, 1912 - 1915 , in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 101 - 159 .
• J Norton, What was Einstein's principle of equivalence?, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 16 (3) (1985) , 203 - 246 .
• J Norton, What was Einstein's principle of equivalence?, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 5 - 47 .
• R M Nugayev, The history of quantum mechanics as a decisive argument favoring Einstein over Lorentz, Philos. Sci. 52 (1) (1985) , 44 - 63 .
• Obituary : Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) ( Russian ) , Z. Eksper. Teoret. Fiz. 28 (1955) , 637 - 638 .
• T Ogawa, Japanese evidence for Einstein's knowledge of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Japan. Stud. Hist. Sci. No. 18 (1979) , 73 - 81 .
• M E Omeljanovskii, Einstein, the foundations of modern physics and dialectics ( Russian ) , Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR (4) (1979) , 74 - 90 .
• Y A Ono, Einstein's speech at Kyoto University, December 14 , 1922 , NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 20 (1) (1983) , 25 - 28 .
• N F Ovcinnikov, On the problem of the formation of Einstein's creative personality ( Russian ) , Voprosy Filos. (9) (1979) , 70 - 84 ; 186 .
• A Pais, Einstein and the quantum theory, Rev. Modern Phys. 51 (4) (1979) , 863 - 914 .
• A Pais, How Einstein got the Nobel prize ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1982 - 1983 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1986) , 85 - 105 .
• A Pais, How Einstein got the Nobel Prize, Amer. Sci. 70 (4) (1982) , 358 - 365 .
• P Pascual, Einstein and the development of cosmology ( Spanish ) , Three lectures about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4) (1981) , 53 - 72 .
• M Paty, Einstein et la complémentarité au sens de Bohr: du retrait dans le tumulte aux arguments d'incomplétude, Bohr et la complémentarité, Rev. Histoire Sci. 38 (3 - 4) (1985) , 325 - 351 .
• M Paty, Physical geometry and special relativity. Einstein et Poincaré, 1830 - 1930 : a century of geometry ( Berlin, 1992) , 127 - 149 .
• M Paty, The nature of Einstein's objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Found. Phys. 25 (1) (1995) , 183 - 204 .
• G Petiau, Albert Einstein, 1879 - 1955 , Rev. Gén. Sci. Pures Appl. 62 (1955) , 227 - 236 .
• A Polikarov, Über den Charakter von Einsteins philosophischem Realismus, Philos. Natur. 26 (1) (1989) , 135 - 158 .
• A Popovici, Albert Einstein ( Romanian ) , Gaz. Mat. Fiz. Ser. A 9 (62) (1957) , 207 - 213 .
• W Purkert, Die Bedeutung von A Einsteins Arbeit über Brownsche Bewegung für die Entwicklung der modernen Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie, Mitt. Math. Ges. DDR No. 3 (1983) , 41 - 49 .
• L Pyenson, Einstein's education : mathematics and the laws of nature, Isis 71 (258) (1980) , 399 - 425 .
• C Ray, The cosmological constant : Einstein's greatest mistake?, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 21 (4) (1990) , 589 - 604 .
• T Regge, Albert Einstein in the centenary of his birth ( Italian ) , Rend. Accad. Naz. Sci. XL Mem. Sci. Fis. Natur. 4 (1979 / 80) , 41 - 47 .
• J Renn, Einstein as a disciple of Galileo : a comparative study of concept development in physics, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 311 - 341 .
• J Renn, Von der klassischen Trägheit zur dynamischen Raumzeit : Albert Einstein und Ernst Mach, Ber. Wiss.-Gesch. 20 (2 - 3) (1997) , 189 - 198 .
• J Renn, T Sauer, and J Stachel, The origin of gravitational lensing. A postscript to Einstein's 1936 Science paper: 'Lens-like action of a star by the deviation of light in the gravitational field', Science 275 (5297) (1997) , 184 - 186 .
• A Rossi, Mach and Einstein : Influence of Mach's 'Mechanics' on Einstein's thought ( Italian ) , Physis-Riv. Internaz. Storia Sci. 22 (2) (1980) , 279 - 292 .
• M Sachs, Einstein and the evolution of twentieth-century physics, Phys. Essays 3 (1) (1990) , 80 - 85 .
• M Sachs, On Einstein's later view of the twin paradox, Found. Phys. 15 (9) (1985) , 977 - 980 .
• A Salam, Einstein's last project : the unification of the basic interactions and properties of space-time ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1980 - 1981 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1985) , 102 - 110 ; 334 .
• H E Salzer, Two letters from Einstein concerning his distant parallelism field theory, Arch. History Exact Sci. 12 (1974) , 89 - 96 .
• R A Sardaryan, The first translations of A Einstein's work into Armenian ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1986 - 1990 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1990) , 98 - 101 .
• W Schlicker, Albert Einstein and the political reaction in imperialist Germany after the First World War ( Czech ) , Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom. 24 (3) (1979) , 153 - 160 .
• W Schlicker, Genesis and duration of quarrels about Albert Einstein in Germany from 1920 to 1922 / 23 ( Polish ) , Kwart. Hist. Nauk. Tech. 24 (4) (1979) , 789 - 804 .
• H-G Schöpf, Albert Einstein und die ersten Anfänge der Quantentheorie, Wiss. Z. Tech. Univ. Dresden 28 (1) (1979) , 79 - 83 .
• H-G Schöpf, Zum 100 . Geburtstag von A Einstein : Albert Einsteins annus mirabilis 1905 , NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 15 (2) (1978) , 1 - 17 .
• W Schroder, Albert Einstein in seinen Beziehungen zu Mitgliedern der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 39 (2) (1988) , 157 - 171 .
• W Schröder and H-J Treder, Zu Einsteins letzter Vorlesung-Beobachtbarkeit, Realität und Vollständigkeit in Quanten- und Relativitätstheorie, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 48 (2) (1994) , 149 - 154 .
• R Schulmann, Einstein at the Patent Office : exile, salvation, or tactical retreat?, in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 17 - 24 .
• R Schulmann, From periphery to center : Einstein's path from Bern to Berlin (1902 - 1914) , in No truth except in the details ( Dordrecht, 1995) , 259 - 271 .
• K K Sen, Life of Einstein, Math. Medley 7 (1) (1979) , 8 - 12 .
• F Severi, An effort to clarify Einstein's doctrine, recalling the man ( Italian ) , Archimede 31 (4) (1979) , 238 - 244 .
• J Shelton, The role of observation and simplicity in Einstein's epistemology, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 19 (1) (1988) , 103 - 118 .
• J Soucek and V Soucek, 'Einstein's model A' deduced by de Sitter is not that of Einstein, Astrophys. Space Sci. 159 (2) (1989) , 317 - 331 .
• J Stachel, Einstein and Michelson : the context of discovery and the context of justification, Astronom. Nachr. 303 (1) (1982) , 47 - 53 .
• J Stachel, How Einstein discovered general relativity : a historical tale with some contemporary morals, in General relativity and gravitation ( Cambridge-New York, 1987) , 200 - 208 .
• J Stachel, 'A man of my type'-editing the Einstein papers, British J. Hist. Sci. 20 (64)(1) (1987) , 57 - 66 .
• J Stachel, Einstein and quantum mechanics, in Conceptual problems of quantum gravity ( Boston, MA, 1991) , 13 - 42 .
• J Stachel, Einstein and the quantum : fifty years of struggle, in From quarks to quasars ( Pittsburgh, PA, 1986) , 349 - 385 .
• J Stachel, Einstein's search for general covariance, 1912 - 1915 , in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 63 - 100 .
• J Stachel, Lanczos's early contributions to relativity and his relationship with Einstein, in Proceedings of the Cornelius Lanczos International Centenary Conference, Raleigh 1993 ( Philadelphia, PA, 1994) , 201 - 221 .
• J Stachel, The other Einstein : Einstein contra field theory., in Einstein in context ( Cambridge, 1993) , 275 - 290 .
• J Stachel and R Torretti, Einstein's first derivation of mass-energy equivalence, Amer. J. Phys. 50 (8) (1982) , 760 - 763 .
• E Stipanich, Boskovic and Einstein ( Russian ) , in Investigations in the history of mechanics 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1983) , 219 - 245 .
• P Straneo, Genesi ed evoluzione della concezione relativistica di Albert Einstein, in Cinquant'anni di Relatività, 1905 - 1955 ( Firenze, 1955) , 29 - 134 .
• J Strnad, Einstein and Planck's law ( Slovenian ) , Obzornik Mat. Fiz. 26 (3) (1979) , 74 - 85 .
• J Strnad, Einstein and quanta ( Slovenian ) , Obzornik Mat. Fiz. 42 (3) (1995) , 80 - 87 .
• S G Suvorov, Einstein : the creation of the theory of relativity and some gnosiological lessons, Soviet Phys. Uspekhi 22 (7) (1979) , 528 - 554 .
• S G Suvorov, Einstein : the creation of the theory of relativity and some gnosiological lessons ( Russian ) , Uspekhi Fiz. Nauk 128 (3) (1979) , 459 - 501 .
• Y Tanaka, Einstein and Whitehead : The principle of relativity reconsidered, Historia Sci. No. 32 (1987) , 43 - 61 .
• G Temple, Obituary : Albert Einstein, J. London Math. Soc. 31 (1956) , 501 - 507 .
• J Thiele, Briefe Albert Einsteins an Joseph Petzoldt, NTM Schr. Geschichte Naturwiss. Tech. Medizin 8 (1) (1971) , 70 - 74 .
• V Tonini, Continuity and discontinuity : the Einstein-Bohr conflict of ideas and the Bohr-Fock discussion, in The nature of quantum paradoxes ( Dordrecht, 1988) , 371 - 384 .
• M-A Tonnelat, Einstein : les influences philosophiques, in Einstein : 1879 - 1955 ( Paris, 1980) , 11 - 30 .
• M-A Tonnelat, Science et philosophie : Einstein et Spinoza, Bull. Soc. Math. Belg. Sér. A 33 (2) (1981) , 183 - 205 .
• M-A Tonnelat, Einstein, mythe et réalité, Scientia ( Milano ) 114 (5 - 8) (1979) , 297 - 369 .
• I Toth, Spekulationen über die Möglichkeit eines nicht euklidischen Raumes vor Einstein, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 46 - 83 .
• H-J Treder, Antimatter and the particle problem in Einstein's cosmology and field theory of elementary particles : an historical essay on Einstein's work at the Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Astronom. Nachr. 296 (4) (1975) , 149 - 161 .
• Tres conferencias sobre Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4) (1981) , 1 - 72 .
• I Z Tsekhmistro, The Einstein - Podolsky - Rosen paradox and the concept of integrity ( Russian ) , Voprosy Filos. (4) (1985) , 84 - 94 .
• J M Vidal Llenas, Einstein and his nonrelativistic contributions to physics ( Spanish ) , Three lectures about Albert Einstein, Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Artes Barcelona 45 (4) (1981) , 37 - 51 .
• E Vigner, Thirty years of knowing Einstein ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1982 - 1983 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1986) , 149 - 169 .
• E Vigner, Thirty years of knowing Einstein, Some strangeness in the proportion ( Reading, Mass., 1980)) , 461 - 472
• V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, Weyl : Genesis des Programms der einheitlichen geometrischen Feldtheorien, NTM Schr. Geschichte Natur. Tech. Medizin 21 (2) (1984) , 23 - 33 .
• V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, Weyl: the genesis of the program of unified geometrized field theories ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1980 - 1981 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1985) , 86 - 101 ; 334 .
• V P Vizgin, Correspondence between Einstein and de Broglie in the early fifties ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tekhn. (3) (1982) 169 - 170 .
• V P Vizgin, Eötvös and Einstein ( Russian ) , in History of science 'Metsniereba' ( Tbilisi, 1984) , 86 - 89 .
• V P Vizgin, On the history of the discovery of equations of gravitation ( Einstein and Hilbert ) ( Russian ) , Istor.-Mat. Issled. No. 25 (1980) , 261 - 265 ; 379 .
• V P Vizgin, One of the aspects of Einstein's methodology ( Russian ) , Voprosy Istor. Estestvoznan. i Tehn. (3)(52) (1975) , 16 - 24 ; 101 .
• V P Vizgin, Einstein, Hilbert, and Weyl : the genesis of the geometrical unified field theory program, in Einstein and the history of general relativity ( Boston, MA, 1989) , 300 - 314 .
• M von Laue, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie, Naturwissenschaften 43 (1956) , 1 - 8 .
• K von Meyenn, Einsteins Dialog mit den Kollegen, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 464 - 489 .
• E T Whittaker, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Philos. Mag. (7) 34 (1943) , 266 - 280 .
• E T Whittaker, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh A 61 (1942) , 231 - 246 .
• J Wickert, Zum produktiven Denken bei Einstein. Ein Beitrag zur Erkenntnispsychologie, in Einstein Symposion, Berlin 1979 ( Berlin-New York, 1979) , 443 - 463 .
• C M Will, General relativity at 75 : how right was Einstein?, in The Sixth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, Kyoto 1991 ( River Edge, NJ, 1992) , 769 - 786 .
• A M Yaglom, Einstein's 1914 paper on the theory of randomly fluctuating series of observations ( Russian ) , Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 21 (4) (1985) , 101 - 107 .
• C N Yang, Einstein and the physics of the second half of the twentieth century, in Selected studies : physics-astrophysics, mathematics, history of science ( Amsterdam-New York, 1982) , 139 - 146 .
• C N Yang, Einstein's impact on theoretical physics, Phys. Today 33 (6) (1980) , 42 - 44 ; 48 - 49 .
• L V Yatsenko, The problem of scientific work and A Einstein ( Russian ) , in The scientific picture of the world 'Naukova Dumka' ( Kiev, 1983) , 211 - 240 .
• B E Yavelov, Einstein and the problem of superconductivity ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1977 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1980) , 158 - 186 ; 327 .
• B E Yavelov, Einstein's Zurich colloquium ( Russian ) , in Einstein collection, 1982 - 1983 'Nauka' ( Moscow, 1986) , 106 - 148 .
• E Zahar, Einstein, Meyerson and the role of mathematics in physical discovery, British J. Philos. Sci. 31 (1) (1980) , 1 - 43 .
• R Zajac, Albert Einstein and twentieth century physics ( Czech ) , Pokroky Mat. Fyz. Astronom. 24 (2) (1979) , 61 - 77 .
• A Zeilinger, Physik und Wirklichkeit-neuere Entwicklungen zum Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradoxon, in Naturwissenschaft und Weltbild ( Vienna, 1992) , 99 - 121 .
• Ja B Zeldovic, A Einstein and modern science ( Russian ) , Vestnik Akad. Nauk SSSR (7) (1980) , 40 - 46 .
• R E Zimmermann, Albert Einstein-Versuch einer totalisierenden Würdigung, Philos. Natur. 21 (1) (1984) , 126 - 138 .
• P F Zweifel, The scientific work of Albert Einstein, Ann. Nuclear Energy 7 (4 - 5) (1980) , 279 - 287 .

Additional Resources ( show )

Other pages about Albert Einstein:

• A meeting with Einstein
• Ether and Relativity
• Geometry and Experience
• Einstein; the Nazis and the German Academies
• Max Herzberger on Albert Einstein
• Times obituary
• Multiple entries in The Mathematical Gazetteer of the British Isles ,
• Astronomy: The Infinite Universe
• Astronomy: The Reaches of the Milky Way
• Einstein's 1929 New York Times article
• Carlos Graef argues with Albert Einstein
• D D Kosambi on Einstein
• Miller's postage stamps

Other websites about Albert Einstein:

• Dictionary of Scientific Biography
• Encyclopaedia Britannica
• History of Computing Project
• Princeton University Press
• American Institute of Physics
• Albert Einstein Online
• Plus Magazine ( Einstein and relativity )
• Kevin Brown ( Reflections on Relativity )
• Mathematics Today
• Nobel prizes site ( A biography of Einstein and his Nobel prize presentation speech )
• Mathematical Genealogy Project
• MathSciNet Author profile
• zbMATH entry

Honours ( show )

Honours awarded to Albert Einstein

• Nobel Prize 1921
• Fellow of the Royal Society 1921
• LMS Honorary Member 1924
• Royal Society Copley Medal 1925
• Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 1927
• AMS Gibbs Lecturer 1934
• Lunar features Crater Einstein
• Popular biographies list Number 13

Cross-references ( show )

• History Topics: A brief history of cosmology
• History Topics: A history of Quantum Mechanics
• History Topics: A history of time: 20 th century time
• History Topics: A visit to James Clerk Maxwell's house
• History Topics: General relativity
• History Topics: Greek astronomy
• History Topics: Light through the ages: Relativity and quantum era
• History Topics: Newton's bucket
• History Topics: Orbits and gravitation
• History Topics: Special relativity
• History Topics: The development of the 'black hole' concept
• History Topics: Wave versus matrix mechanics
• Societies: Brazilian Academy of Sciences
• Societies: Canadian Mathematical Society
• Societies: Irish Royal Academy
• Societies: Israel Academy of Sciences
• Societies: Kaiser Wilhelm Society
• Societies: Max Planck Society for Advancement of Science
• Societies: Pontifical Academy of Sciences
• Societies: Zurich Scientific Research Society
• Student Projects: James Clerk Maxwell - The Great Unknown: Chapter 1
• Student Projects: James Clerk Maxwell - The Great Unknown: Chapter 7
• Student Projects: James Clerk Maxwell - The Great Unknown: Chapter 8
• Other: 14th September
• Other: 1932 ICM - Zurich
• Other: 2009 Most popular biographies
• Other: 25th November
• Other: 29th May
• Other: 4th June
• Other: 4th May
• Other: 5th April
• Other: 5th December
• Other: 9th June
• Other: Cambridge Individuals
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (B)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (E)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (G)
• Other: Earliest Known Uses of Some of the Words of Mathematics (T)
• Other: Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
• Other: Jeff Miller's postage stamps
• Other: London Learned Societies
• Other: London Museums
• Other: London individuals H-M
• Other: Most popular biographies – 2024
• Other: Oxford Institutions and Colleges
• Other: Oxford individuals
• Other: Popular biographies 2018
• Other: The Infinite Universe
• Other: The Reaches of the Milky Way

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Einstein’s Philosophy of Science

Albert Einstein (1879–1955) is well known as the most prominent physicist of the twentieth century. His contributions to twentieth-century philosophy of science, though of comparable importance, are less well known. Einstein’s own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism. Of special note is the manner in which Einstein’s philosophical thinking was driven by and contributed to the solution of problems first encountered in his work in physics. Equally significant are Einstein’s relations with and influence on other prominent twentieth-century philosophers of science, including Moritz Schlick, Hans Reichenbach, Ernst Cassirer, Philipp Frank, Henri Bergson, Émile Meyerson.

1. Introduction: Was Einstein an Epistemological “Opportunist”?

2. theoretical holism: the nature and role of conventions in science, 3. simplicity and theory choice, 4. univocalness in the theoretical representation of nature, 5. realism and separability, 6. the principle theories—constructive theories distinction, 7. conclusion: albert einstein: philosopher-physicist, einstein’s work, related literature, other internet resources, related entries.

Late in 1944, Albert Einstein received a letter from Robert Thornton, a young African-American philosopher of science who had just finished his Ph.D. under Herbert Feigl at Minnesota and was beginning a new job teaching physics at the University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. He had written to solicit from Einstein a few supportive words on behalf of his efforts to introduce “as much of the philosophy of science as possible” into the modern physics course that he was to teach the following spring (Thornton to Einstein, 28 November 1944, EA 61–573). Here is what Einstein offered in reply:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth. (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61–574)

That Einstein meant what he said about the relevance of philosophy to physics is evidenced by the fact that he had been saying more or less the same thing for decades. Thus, in a 1916 memorial note for Ernst Mach, a physicist and philosopher to whom Einstein owed a special debt, he wrote:

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there no more valuable work in his specialty? I hear many of my colleagues saying, and I sense it from many more, that they feel this way. I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching, that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not merely their quick-wittedness, I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through their tenacity in defending their views, that the subject seemed important to them. Indeed, one should not be surprised at this. (Einstein 1916, 101)

How, exactly, does the philosophical habit of mind provide the physicist with such “independence of judgment”? Einstein goes on to explain:

Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such an authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they come to be stamped as “necessities of thought,” “a priori givens,” etc. The path of scientific advance is often made impassable for a long time through such errors. For that reason, it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analyzing the long commonplace concepts and exhibiting those circumstances upon which their justification and usefulness depend, how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. By this means, their all-too-great authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, replaced by others if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason. (Einstein 1916, 102)

One is not surprised at Einstein’s then citing Mach’s critical analysis of the Newtonian conception of absolute space as a paradigm of what Mach, himself, termed the “historical-critical” method of philosophical analysis (Einstein 1916, 101, citing Ch. 2, §§ 6–7 of Mach’s Mechanik , most likely the third edition, Mach 1897).

The place of philosophy in physics was a theme to which Einstein returned time and again, it being clearly an issue of deep importance to him. Sometimes he adopts a modest pose, as in this oft-quoted remark from his 1933 Spencer Lecture:

If you wish to learn from the theoretical physicist anything about the methods which he uses, I would give you the following piece of advice: Don’t listen to his words, examine his achievements. For to the discoverer in that field, the constructions of his imagination appear so necessary and so natural that he is apt to treat them not as the creations of his thoughts but as given realities. (Einstein 1933, 5–6)

More typical, however, is the confident pose he struck three years later in “Physics and Reality”:

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing at a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental concepts and fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can not reach them; but it can not be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations; for, he himself knows best, and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for a new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities. (Einstein 1936, 349)

What kind of philosophy might we expect from the philosopher-physicist? One thing that we should not expect from a physicist who takes the philosophical turn in order to help solve fundamental physical problems is a systematic philosophy:

The reciprocal relationship of epistemology and science is of noteworthy kind. They are dependent upon each other. Epistemology without contact with science becomes an empty scheme. Science without epistemology is—insofar as it is thinkable at all—primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through to such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject whatever does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far. He accepts gratefully the epistemological conceptual analysis; but the external conditions, which are set for him by the facts of experience, do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted in the construction of his conceptual world by the adherence to an epistemological system. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as a type of unscrupulous opportunist: he appears as realist insofar as he seeks to describe a world independent of the acts of perception; as idealist insofar as he looks upon the concepts and theories as free inventions of the human spirit (not logically derivable from what is empirically given); as positivist insofar as he considers his concepts and theories justified only to the extent to which they furnish a logical representation of relations among sensory experiences. He may even appear as Platonist or Pythagorean insofar as he considers the viewpoint of logical simplicity as an indispensable and effective tool of his research. (Einstein 1949, 683–684)

But what strikes the “systematic epistemologist” as mere opportunism might appear otherwise when viewed from the perspective of a physicist engaged, as Einstein himself put it, in “the critical contemplation of the theoretical foundations.” The overarching goal of that critical contemplation was, for Einstein, the creation of a unified foundation for physics after the model of a field theory like general relativity (see Sauer 2014 for non-technical overview on Einstein’s approach to the unified field theory program). Einstein failed in his quest, but there was a consistency and constancy in the striving that informed as well the philosophy of science developing hand in hand with the scientific project.

Indeed, from early to late a few key ideas played the central, leading role in Einstein’s philosophy of science, ideas about which Einstein evinced surprisingly little doubt even while achieving an ever deeper understanding of their implications. For the purposes of the following comparatively brief overview, we can confine our attention to just five topics:

• Theoretical holism.
• Simplicity and theory choice.
• Univocalness in the theoretical representation of nature.
• Realism and separability.
• The principle theories-constructive theories distinction.

The emphasis on the continuity and coherence in the development of Einstein’s philosophy of science contrasts with an account such as Gerald Holton’s (1968), which claims to find a major philosophical break in the mid-1910s, in the form of a turn away from a sympathy for an anti-metaphysical positivism and toward a robust scientific realism. Holton sees this turn being driven by Einstein’s alleged realization that general relativity, by contrast with special relativity, requires a realistic ontology. However, Einstein was probably never an ardent “Machian” positivist, [ 1 ] and he was never a scientific realist, at least not in the sense acquired by the term “scientific realist” in later twentieth century philosophical discourse (see Howard 1993). Einstein expected scientific theories to have the proper empirical credentials, but he was no positivist; and he expected scientific theories to give an account of physical reality, but he was no scientific realist. Moreover, in both respects his views remained more or less the same from the beginning to the end of his career.

Why Einstein did not think himself a realist (he said so explicitly) is discussed below. Why he is not to be understood as a positivist deserves a word or two of further discussion here, if only because the belief that he was sympathetic to positivism, at least early in his life, is so widespread (for a fuller discussion, see Howard 1993).

That Einstein later repudiated positivism is beyond doubt. Many remarks from at least the early 1920s through the end of his life make this clear. In 1946 he explained what he took to be Mach’s basic error:

He did not place in the correct light the essentially constructive and speculative nature of all thinking and more especially of scientific thinking; in consequence, he condemned theory precisely at those points where its constructive-speculative character comes to light unmistakably, such as in the kinetic theory of atoms. (Einstein 1946, 21)

Is Einstein here also criticizing his own youthful philosophical indiscretions? The very example that Einstein gives here makes any such interpretation highly implausible, because one of Einstein’s main goals in his early work on Brownian motion (Einstein 1905b) was precisely to prove the reality of atoms, this in the face of the then famous skepticism of thinkers like Mach and Wilhelm Ostwald:

My principal aim in this was to find facts that would guarantee as much as possible the existence of atoms of definite size.… The agreement of these considerations with experience together with Planck’s determination of the true molecular size from the law of radiation (for high temperatures) convinced the skeptics, who were quite numerous at that time (Ostwald, Mach), of the reality of atoms. (Einstein 1946, 45, 47)

Why, then, is the belief in Einstein’s early sympathy for positivism so well entrenched?

The one piece of evidence standardly cited for a youthful flirtation with positivism is Einstein’s critique of the notion of absolute distant simultaneity in his 1905 paper on special relativity (Einstein 1905c). Einstein speaks there of “observers,” but in an epistemologically neutral way that can be replaced by talk of an inertial frame of reference. What really bothers Einstein about distant simultaneity is not that it is observationally inaccessible but that it involves a two-fold arbitrariness, one in the choice of an inertial frame of reference and one in the stipulation within a given frame of a convention regarding the ratio of the times required for a light signal to go from one stationary observer to another and back again. Likewise, Einstein faults classical Maxwellian electrodynamics for an asymmetry in the way it explains electromagnetic induction depending on whether it is the coil or the magnet that is assumed to be at rest. If the effect is the same—a current in the coil—why, asks Einstein, should there be two different explanations: an electrical field created in the vicinity of a moving magnet or an electromotive force induced in a conductor moving through a stationary magnetic field? To be sure, whether it is the coil or the magnet that is taken to be at rest makes no observable difference, but the problem, from Einstein’s point of view, is the asymmetry in the two explanations. Even the young Einstein was no positivist.

First generation logical empiricists sought to legitimate their movement in part by claiming Einstein as a friend. They may be forgiven their putting a forced interpretation on arguments taken out of context. We can do better.

Einstein’s philosophy of science is an original synthesis drawing upon many philosophical resources, from neo-Kantianism to Machian empiricism and Duhemian conventionalism. Other thinkers and movements, most notably the logical empiricists, drew upon the same resources. But Einstein put the pieces together in a manner importantly different from Moritz Schlick, Hans Reichenbach, and Rudolf Carnap, and he argued with them for decades about who was right (however much they obscured these differences in representing Einstein publicly as a friend of logical empiricism and scientific philosophy). Starting from the mid-1920s till the end of the decade Einstein show some interest in the rationalistic realism of Émile Meyerson (Einstein, 1928; cf. Giovanelli 2018; on the contemporary debate between Einstein and Bergson, see Canales 2015). Understanding how Einstein puts those pieces together therefore sheds light not only on the philosophical aspect of his own achievements in physics but also upon the larger history of the development of the philosophy of science in the twentieth century.

Any philosophy of science must include an account of the relation between theory and evidence. Einstein learned about the historicity of scientific concepts from Mach. But his preferred way of modeling the logical relationship between theory and evidence was inspired mainly by his reading of Pierre Duhem’s La Théorie physique: son objet et sa structure (Duhem 1906). Einstein probably first read Duhem, or at least learned the essentials of Duhem’s philosophy of science around the fall of 1909, when, upon returning to Zurich from the patent office in Bern to take up his first academic appointment at the University of Zurich, he became the upstairs neighbor of his old friend and fellow Zurich physics student, Friedrich Adler. Just a few months before, Adler had published the German translation of La Théorie physique (Duhem 1908), and the philosophy of science became a frequent topic of conversation between the new neighbors, Adler and Einstein (see Howard 1990a).

Theoretical holism and the underdetermination of theory choice by empirical evidence are the central theses in Duhem’s philosophy of science. His argument, in brief, is that at least in sciences like physics, where experiment is dense with sophisticated instrumentation whose employment itself requires theoretical interpretation, hypotheses are not tested in isolation but only as part of whole bodies of theory. It follows that when there is a conflict between theory and evidence, the fit can be restored in a multiplicity of different ways. No statement is immune to revision because of a presumed status as a definition or thanks to some other a priori warrant, and most any statement can be retained on pain of suitable adjustments elsewhere in the total body of theory. Hence, theory choice is underdetermined by evidence.

That Einstein’s exposure to Duhem’s philosophy of science soon left its mark is evident from lecture notes that Einstein prepared for a course on electricity and magnetism at the University of Zurich in the winter semester of 1910/11. Einstein asks how one can assign a definite electrical charge everywhere within a material body, if the interior of the body is not accessible to test particles. A “Machian” positivist would deem such direct empirical access necessary for meaningful talk of a charge distribution in the interior of a sold. Einstein argues otherwise:

We have seen how experience led to the introd. of the concept of the quantity of electricity. it was defined by means of the forces that small electrified bodies exert on each other. But now we extend the application of the concept to cases in which this definition cannot be applied directly as soon as we conceive the el. forces as forces exerted on electricity rather than on material particles. We set up a conceptual system the individual parts of which do not correspond directly to empirical facts. Only a certain totality of theoretical material corresponds again to a certain totality of experimental facts. We find that such an el. continuum is always applicable only for the representation of el. states of affairs in the interior of ponderable bodies. Here too we define the vector of el. field strength as the vector of the mech. force exerted on the unit of pos. electr. quantity inside a body. But the force so defined is no longer directly accessible to exp. It is one part of a theoretical construction that can be correct or false, i.e., consistent or not consistent with experience, only as a whole . ( Collected Papers of Albert Einstein , hereafter CPAE, Vol. 3, Doc. 11 [pp. 12–13])

One can hardly ask for a better summary of Duhem’s point of view in application to a specific physical theory. Explicit citations of Duhem by Einstein are rare (for details, see Howard 1990a). But explicit invocations of a holist picture of the structure and empirical interpretation of theories started to prevail at the turn of the 1920s.

During the decade 1905–1915, Einstein had more or less explicitly assumed that in a good theory there are certain individual parts that can be directly coordinated with the behavior of physically-existent objects used as probes. A theory can be said to be ‘true or false’ if such objects respectively behave or do not behave as predicted. In special relativity, as in classical mechanics, the fundamental geometrical/kinematical variables, the space and time coordinates, are measured with rods and clocks separately from the other non-geometrical variables, say, charge electric field strengths, which were supposed to be defined by measuring the force on a charge test particle. In general relativity, coordinates are no longer directly measurable independently from the gravitational field. Still, the line element \(ds\) (distance between nearby spacetime points) was supposed to have a ‘natural’ distance that can be measured with rods and clocks. In the late 1910s, pressed by the epistemological objections raised by different interlocutors—in particular Hermann Weyl (Ryckman 2005) and the young Wolfgang Pauli (Stachel, 2005)—Einstein was forced to recognize that this epistemological model was at most a provisional compromise. In principle rod- and clock-like structures should emerge as solutions of a future relativistic theory of matter, possibly a field theory encompassing gravitation and electromagnetism. In this context, the sharp distinction between rods and clocks that serve to define the geometrical/kinematical structure of the theory and other material systems would become questionable. Einstein regarded such distinction as provisionally necessary, give the current state of physics. However, he recognized that in principle a physical theory should construct rods and clocks as solutions to its equations (see Ryckman 2017, ch. VII for an overview on Einstein view on the relation between geometry and experience).

Einstein addressed this issue in several popular writings during the 1920s, in particular, the famous lecture Geometrie und Erfahrung (Einstein 1921, see also Einstein, 1923, Einstein, 1924, Einstein 1926; Einstein 1926; see Giovanelli 2014 for an overview). Sub specie temporis , he argued, it was useful to compare the geometrical/kinematical structures of the theory with experience separately from the rest of physics. Sub specie aeterni , however, only geometry and physics taken together can be said to be ‘true or false.’ This epistemological model became more appropriate, while Einstein was moving beyond general relativity in the direction of theory unifying the gravitational and the electromagnetic field. Einstein had to rely on progressively more abstract geometrical structures which could not be defined in terms of the behavior of some physical probes. Thus, the use of such structures was justified because of their role in the theory as a whole. In the second half of the 1920s, in correspondence with Reichenbach (Giovanelli 2017) and Meyerson (Giovanelli 2018), Einstein even denied that the very distinction between geometrical and non-geometrical is meaningful (Lehmkuhl 2014).

A different, but especially interesting example of Einstein’s reliance on a form of theoretical holism is found in a review that Einstein wrote in 1924 of Alfred Elsbach’s Kant und Einstein (1924), one of the flood of books and articles then trying to reconcile the Kant’s philosophy. Having asserted that relativity theory is incompatible with Kant’s doctrine of the a priori, Einstein explains why, more generally, he is not sympathetic with Kant:

This does not, at first, preclude one’s holding at least to the Kantian problematic , as, e.g., Cassirer has done. I am even of the opinion that this standpoint can be rigorously refuted by no development of natural science. For one will always be able to say that critical philosophers have until now erred in the establishment of the a priori elements, and one will always be able to establish a system of a priori elements that does not contradict a given physical system. Let me briefly indicate why I do not find this standpoint natural. A physical theory consists of the parts (elements) A, B, C, D, that together constitute a logical whole which correctly connects the pertinent experiments (sense experiences). Then it tends to be the case that the aggregate of fewer than all four elements, e.g., A, B, D, without C, no longer says anything about these experiences, and just as well A, B, C without D. One is then free to regard the aggregate of three of these elements, e.g., A, B, C as a priori, and only D as empirically conditioned. But what remains unsatisfactory in this is always the arbitrariness in the choice of those elements that one designates as a priori, entirely apart from the fact that the theory could one day be replaced by another that replaces certain of these elements (or all four) by others. (Einstein 1924, 1688–1689)

Einstein’s point seems to be that while one can always choose to designate selected elements as a priori and, hence, non-empirical, no principle determines which elements can be so designated, and our ability thus to designate them derives from the fact that it is only the totality of the elements that possesses empirical content.

Much the same point could be made, and was made by Duhem himself (see Duhem 1906, part 2, ch. 6, sects. 8 and 9), against those who would insulate certain statements against empirical refutation by claiming for them the status of conventional definitions. Edouard Le Roy (1901) had argued thus about the law of free fall. It could not be refuted by experiment because it functioned as a definition of “free fall.” And Henri Poincaré (1901) said much the same about the principles of mechanics more generally. As Einstein answered the neo-Kantians, so Duhem answered this species of conventionalist: Yes, experiment cannot refute, say, the law of free fall by itself, but only because it is part of a larger theoretical whole that has empirical content only as a whole, and various other elements of that whole could as well be said to be, alone, immune to refutation.

That Einstein should deploy against the neo-Kantians in the early 1920s the argument that Duhem used against the conventionalism of Poincaré and Le Roy is interesting from the point of view of Einstein’s relationships with those who were leading the development of logical empiricism and scientific philosophy in the 1920s, especially Schlick and Reichenbach. Einstein shared with Schlick and Reichenbach the goal of crafting a new form of empiricism that would be adequate to the task of defending general relativity against neo-Kantian critiques (see Schlick 1917 and 1921, and Reichenbach 1920, 1924, and 1928; for more detail, see Howard 1994a). But while they all agreed that what Kant regarded as the a priori element in scientific cognition was better understood as a conventional moment in science, they were growing to disagree dramatically over the nature and place of conventions in science. The classic logical empiricist view that the moment of convention was restricted to conventional coordinating definitions that endow individual primitive terms, worked well, but did not comport well with the holism about theories

It was this argument over the nature and place of conventions in science that underlies Einstein’s gradual philosophical estrangement from Schlick and Reichenbach in the 1920s. Serious in its own right, the argument over conventions was entangled with two other issues as well, namely, realism and Einstein’s famous view of theories as the “free creations of the human spirit” (see, for example, Einstein 1921). In both instances what troubled Einstein was that a verificationist semantics made the link between theory and experience too strong, leaving too small a role for theory, itself, and the creative theorizing that produces it.

If theory choice is empirically determinate, especially if theoretical concepts are explicitly constructed from empirical primitives, as in Carnap’s program in the Aufbau (Carnap 1928), then it is hard to see how theory gives us a story about anything other than experience. As noted, Einstein was not what we would today call a scientific realist, but he still believed that there was content in theory beyond mere empirical content (on the relations between Einstein’s realism and constructism see Ryckman 2017, ch. 8 and 9). He believed that theoretical science gave us a window on nature itself, even if, in principle, there will be no one uniquely correct story at the level of deep ontology (see below, section 5). And if the only choice in theory choice is one among conventional coordinating definitions, then that is no choice at all, a point stressed by Reichenbach, especially, as an important positive implication of his position. Reichenbach argued that if empirical content is the only content, then empirically equivalent theories have the same content, the difference resulting from their different choices of coordinating definitions being like in kind to the difference between “es regnet” and “il pleut,” or the difference between expressing the result of a measurement in English or metric units, just two different ways of saying the same thing. But then, Einstein would ask, where is there any role for the creative intelligence of the theoretical physicist if there is no room for genuine choice in science, if experience somehow dictates theory construction?

The argument over the nature and role of conventions in science continued to the very end of Einstein’s life, reaching its highest level of sophistication in the exchange between Reichenbach and Einstein the Library of Living Philosopher’s volume, Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Physicist (Schilpp 1949). The question is, again, whether the choice of a geometry is empirical, conventional, or a priori. In his contribution, Reichenbach reasserted his old view that once an appropriate coordinating definition is established, equating some “practically rigid rod” with the geometer’s “rigid body,” then the geometry of physical space is wholly determined by empirical evidence:

The choice of a geometry is arbitrary only so long as no definition of congruence is specified. Once this definition is set up, it becomes an empirical question which geometry holds for physical space.… The conventionalist overlooks the fact that only the incomplete statement of a geometry, in which a reference to the definition of congruence is omitted, is arbitrary. (Reichenbach 1949, 297)

Einstein’s clever reply includes a dialogue between two characters, “Reichenbach” and “Poincaré,” in which “Reichenbach” concedes to “Poincaré” that there are no perfectly rigid bodies in nature and that physics must be used to correct for such things as thermal deformations, from which it follows that what we actually test is geometry plus physics, not geometry alone. Here an “anonymous non-positivist” takes “Poincaré’s” place, out of respect, says Einstein, “for Poincaré’s superiority as thinker and author” (Einstein 1949, 677), but also, perhaps, because he realized that the point of view that follows was more Duhem than Poincaré. The “non-positivist” then argues that one’s granting that geometry and physics are tested together contravenes the positivist identification of meaning with verifiability:

Non-Positivist: If, under the stated circumstances, you hold distance to be a legitimate concept, how then is it with your basic principle (meaning = verifiability)? Must you not come to the point where you deny the meaning of geometrical statements and concede meaning only to the completely developed theory of relativity (which still does not exist at all as a finished product)? Must you not grant that no “meaning” whatsoever, in your sense, belongs to the individual concepts and statements of a physical theory, such meaning belonging instead to the whole system insofar as it makes “intelligible” what is given in experience? Why do the individual concepts that occur in a theory require any separate justification after all, if they are indispensable only within the framework of the logical structure of the theory, and if it is the theory as a whole that stands the test? (Einstein 1949, 678).

Two years before the Quine’s publication of “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951), Einstein here makes explicit the semantic implications of a thoroughgoing holism.

If theory choice is empirically underdetermined, then an obvious question is why we are so little aware of the underdetermination in the day-to-day conduct of science. In a 1918 address celebrating Max Planck’s sixtieth birthday, Einstein approached this question via a distinction between practice and principle:

The supreme task of the physicist is … the search for those most general, elementary laws from which the world picture is to be obtained through pure deduction. No logical path leads to these elementary laws; it is instead just the intuition that rests on an empathic understanding of experience. In this state of methodological uncertainty one can think that arbitrarily many, in themselves equally justified systems of theoretical principles were possible; and this opinion is, in principle , certainly correct. But the development of physics has shown that of all the conceivable theoretical constructions a single one has, at any given time, proved itself unconditionally superior to all others. No one who has really gone deeply into the subject will deny that, in practice, the world of perceptions determines the theoretical system unambiguously, even though no logical path leads from the perceptions to the basic principles of the theory. (Einstein 1918, 31; Howard’s translation)

But why is theory choice, in practice, seemingly empirically determined? Einstein hinted at an answer the year before in a letter to Schlick, where he commended Schlick’s argument that the deep elements of a theoretical ontology have as much claim to the status of the real as do Mach’s elements of sensation (Schlick 1917), but suggested that we are nonetheless speaking of two different kinds of reality. How do they differ?

It appears to me that the word “real” is taken in different senses, according to whether impressions or events, that is to say, states of affairs in the physical sense, are spoken of. If two different peoples pursue physics independently of one another, they will create systems that certainly agree as regards the impressions (“elements” in Mach’s sense). The mental constructions that the two devise for connecting these “elements” can be vastly different. And the two constructions need not agree as regards the “events”; for these surely belong to the conceptual constructions. Certainly on the “elements,” but not the “events,” are real in the sense of being “given unavoidably in experience.” But if we designate as “real” that which we arrange in the space-time-schema, as you have done in the theory of knowledge, then without doubt the “events,” above all, are real.… I would like to recommend a clean conceptual distinction here . (Einstein to Schlick, 21 May 1917, CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 343)

Why, in practice, are physicists unaware of underdetermination? It is because ours is not the situation of “two different peoples pursu[ing] physics independently of one another.” Though Einstein does not say it explicitly, the implication seems to be that apparent determination in theory choice is mainly a consequence of our all being similarly socialized as we become members of a common scientific community. Part of what it means to be a member of a such a community is that we have been taught to make our theoretical choices in accord with criteria or values that we hold in common.

For Einstein, as for many others, simplicity is the criterion that mainly steers theory choice in domains where experiment and observation no longer provide an unambiguous guide. This, too, is a theme sounded early and late in Einstein’s philosophical reflections (for more detail, see Howard 1998, Norton 2000, van Dongen 2002, 2010, Giovanelli 2018). For example, the just-quoted remark from 1918 about the apparent determination of theory choice in practice, contrasted with in-principle underdetermination continues:

Furthermore this conceptual system that is univocally coordinated with the world of experience is reducible to a few basic laws from which the whole system can be developed logically. With every new important advance the researcher here sees his expectations surpassed, in that those basic laws are more and more simplified under the press of experience. With astonishment he sees apparent chaos resolved into a sublime order that is to be attributed not to the rule of the individual mind, but to the constitution of the world of experience; this is what Leibniz so happily characterized as “pre-established harmony.” Physicists strenuously reproach many epistemologists for their insufficient appreciation of this circumstance. Herein, it seems to me, lie the roots of the controversy carried on some years ago between Mach and Planck. (Einstein 1918, p. 31)

There is more than a little autobiography here, for as Einstein stressed repeatedly in later years, he understood the success of his own quest for a general theory of relativity as a result of his seeking the simplest set of field equations satisfying a given set of constraints.

Einstein’s celebration of simplicity as a guide to theory choice comes clearly to the fore in the early 1930s, when he was immersed his project of a unified field theory (see, van Dongen 2010 for a reconstruction of the philosophical underpinning of Einstein’s search of a unified field theory). Witness what he wrote in his 1933 Herbert Spencer lecture:

If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way? To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed. (Einstein 1933, p. 183; Howard’s translation)

Einstein’s conviction that the theoretical physicist must trust simplicity is that his work was moving steadily into domains ever further removed from direct contact with observation and experiment. Einstein started to routinely claim that this was the lesson he had drawn from the way in which he had found general relativity (Norton 2000). There are, however, good reasons to think that Einstein’s selective recollections (Jannsen and Renn 2007) were instrumental to his defense of relying on a purely mathematical strategy in the search for a unified field theory (van Dongen 2010):

The theory of relativity is a beautiful example of the basic character of the modern development of theory. That is to say, the hypotheses from which one starts become ever more abstract and more remote from experience. But in return one comes closer to the preeminent goal of science, that of encompassing a maximum of empirical contents through logical deduction with a minimum of hypotheses or axioms. The intellectual path from the axioms to the empirical contents or to the testable consequences becomes, thereby, ever longer and more subtle. The theoretician is forced, ever more, to allow himself to be directed by purely mathematical, formal points of view in the search for theories, because the physical experience of the experimenter is not capable of leading us up to the regions of the highest abstraction. Tentative deduction takes the place of the predominantly inductive methods appropriate to the youthful state of science. Such a theoretical structure must be quite thoroughly elaborated in order for it to lead to consequences that can be compared with experience. It is certainly the case that here, as well, the empirical fact is the all-powerful judge. But its judgment can be handed down only on the basis of great and difficult intellectual effort that first bridges the wide space between the axioms and the testable consequences. The theorist must accomplish this Herculean task with the clear understanding that this effort may only be destined to prepare the way for a death sentence for his theory. One should not reproach the theorist who undertakes such a task by calling him a fantast; instead, one must allow him his fantasizing, since for him there is no other way to his goal whatsoever. Indeed, it is no planless fantasizing, but rather a search for the logically simplest possibilities and their consequences. (Einstein 1954, 238–239; Howard’s translation)

What warrant is there for thus trusting in simplicity? At best one can do a kind of meta-induction. That “the totality of all sensory experience can be ‘comprehended’ on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity” will be derided by skeptics as a “miracle creed,” but, Einstein adds, “it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science” (Einstein 1950, p. 342). The success of previous physical theories justifies our trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable

But for all that Einstein’s faith in simplicity was strong, he despaired of giving a precise, formal characterization of how we assess the simplicity of a theory. In 1946 he wrote about the perspective of simplicity (here termed the “inner perfection” of a theory):

This point of view, whose exact formulation meets with great difficulties, has played an important role in the selection and evaluation of theories from time immemorial. The problem here is not simply one of a kind of enumeration of the logically independent premises (if anything like this were at all possible without ambiguity), but one of a kind of reciprocal weighing of incommensurable qualities.… I shall not attempt to excuse the lack of precision of [these] assertions … on the grounds of insufficient space at my disposal; I must confess herewith that I cannot at this point, and perhaps not at all, replace these hints by more precise definitions. I believe, however, that a sharper formulation would be possible. In any case it turns out that among the “oracles” there usually is agreement in judging the “inner perfection” of the theories and even more so concerning the degree of “external confirmation.” (Einstein 1946, pp. 21, 23).

As in 1918, so in 1946 and beyond, Einstein continues to be impressed that the “oracles,” presumably the leaders of the relevant scientific community, tend to agree in their judgments of simplicity. That is why, in practice, simplicity seems to determine theory choice univocally.

In the physics and philosophy of science literature of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the principle according to which scientific theorizing should strive for a univocal representation of nature was widely and well known under the name that it was given in the title of a widely-cited essay by Joseph Petzoldt, “The Law of Univocalness” [“Das Gesetz der Eindeutigkeit”] (Petzoldt 1895). An indication that the map of philosophical positions was drawn then in a manner very different from today is to found in the fact that this principle found favor among both anti-metaphysical logical empiricists, such as Carnap, and neo-Kantians, such as Cassirer. It played a major role in debates over the ontology of general relativity and was an important part of the background to the development of the modern concept of categoricity in formal semantics (for more on the history, influence, and demise of the principle of univocalness, see Howard 1992 and 1996). One can find no more ardent and consistent champion of the principle than Einstein.

The principle of univocalness should not be mistaken for a denial of the underdetermination thesis. The latter asserts that a multiplicity of theories can equally well account for a given body of empirical evidence, perhaps even the infinity of all possible evidence in the extreme, Quinean version of the thesis. The principle of univocalness asserts (in a somewhat anachronistic formulation) that any one theory, even any one among a set of empirically equivalent theories, should provide a univocal representation of nature by determining for itself an isomorphic set of models. The unambiguous determination of theory choice by evidence is not the same thing as the univocal determination of a class of models by a theory.

The principle of univocalness played a central role in Einstein’s struggles to formulate the general theory of relativity. When, in 1913, Einstein wrongly rejected a fully generally covariant theory of gravitation, he did so in part because he thought, wrongly, that generally covariant field equations failed the test of univocalness. More specifically, he reasoned wrongly that for a region of spacetime devoid of matter and energy—a “hole”—generally covariant field equations permit the construction of two different solutions, different in the sense that, in general, for spacetime points inside the hole, they assign different values of the metric tensor to one and the same point (for more on the history of this episode, see Stachel 1980 and Norton 1984). But Einstein’s “hole argument” is wrong, and his own diagnosis of the error in 1915 rests again, ironically, on a deployment of the principle of univocalness. What Einstein realized in 1915 was that, in 1913, he was wrongly assuming that a coordinate chart sufficed to fix the identity of spacetime manifold points. The application of a coordinate chart cannot suffice to individuate manifold points precisely because a coordinate chart is not an invariant labeling scheme, whereas univocalness in the representation of nature requires such invariance (see Howard and Norton 1993 and Howard 1999 for further discussion).

Here is how Einstein explained his change of perspective in a letter to Paul Ehrenfest of 26 December 1915, just a few weeks after the publication of the final, generally covariant formulation of the general theory of relativity:

In §12 of my work of last year, everything is correct (in the first three paragraphs) up to that which is printed with emphasis at the end of the third paragraph. From the fact that the two systems \(G(x)\) and \(G'(x)\), referred to the same reference system, satisfy the conditions of the grav. field, no contradiction follows with the univocalness of events. That which was apparently compelling in these reflections founders immediately, if one considers that the reference system signifies nothing real that the (simultaneous) realization of two different \(g\)-systems (or better, two different grav. fields) in the same region of the continuum is impossible according to the nature of the theory. In place of §12, the following reflections must appear. The physically real in the universe of events (in contrast to that which is dependent upon the choice of a reference system) consists in spatiotemporal coincidences .* [Footnote *: and in nothing else!] Real are, e.g., the intersections of two different world lines, or the statement that they do not intersect. Those statements that refer to the physically real therefore do not founder on any univocal coordinate transformation. If two systems of the \(g_{\mu v}\) (or in general the variables employed in the description of the world) are so created that one can obtain the second from the first through mere spacetime transformation, then they are completely equivalent. For they have all spatiotemporal point coincidences in common, i.e., everything that is observable. These reflections show at the same time how natural the demand for general covariance is. (CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 173)

Einstein’s new point of view, according to which the physically real consists exclusively in that which can be constructed on the basis of spacetime coincidences, spacetime points, for example, being regarded as intersections of world lines, is now known as the “point-coincidence argument.” Einstein might have been inspired by a paper by the young mathematician Erich Kretschmann (Howard and Norton 1993; cf. Giovanelli 2013) or possibly by a conversation with Schlick (Engler and Renn, 2017). Spacetime coincidences play this privileged ontic role because they are invariant and, thus, univocally determined. Spacetime coordinates lack such invariance, a circumstance that Einstein thereafter repeatedly formulated as the claim that space and time “thereby lose the last vestige of physical reality” (see, for example, Einstein to Ehrenfest, 5 January 1916, CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 180).

One telling measure of the philosophical importance of Einstein’s new perspective on the ontology of spacetime is the fact that Schlick devoted his first book, Raum und Zeit in den gegenwärtigen Physik (1917), a book for which Einstein had high praise (see Howard 1984 and 1999). But what most interested Einstein was Schlick’s discussion of the reality concept. Schlick argued that Mach was wrong to regard only the elements of sensation as real. Spacetime events, individuated invariantly as spacetime coincidences, have as much or more right to be taken as real, precisely because of the univocal manner of their determination. Einstein wholeheartedly agreed, though he ventured the above-quoted suggestion that one should distinguish the two kinds of reality—that of the elements and that of the spacetime events—on the ground that if “two different peoples” pursued physics independently of one another they were fated to agree about the elements but would almost surely produce different theoretical constructions at the level of the spacetime event ontology. Note, again, that underdetermination is not a failure of univocalness. Different though they will be, each people’s theoretical construction of an event ontology would be expected to be univocal.

Schlick, of course, went on to become the founder of the Vienna Circle, a leading figure in the development of logical empiricism, a champion of verificationism. That being so, an important question arises about Schlick’s interpretation of Einstein on the univocal determination of spacetime events as spacetime coincidences. The question is this: Do such univocal coincidences play such a privileged role because of their reality or because of their observability. Clearly the former—the reality of that which is univocally determined—is important. But are univocal spacetime coincidences real because, thanks to their invariance, they are observable? Or is their observability consequent upon their invariant reality? Einstein, himself, repeatedly stressed the observable character of spacetime coincidences, as in the 26 December 1915 letter to Ehrenfest quoted above (for additional references and a fuller discussion, see Howard 1999). [ 2 ]

Schlick, still a self-described realist in 1917, was clear about the relationship between observability and reality. He distinguished macroscopic coincidences in the field of our sense experience, to which he does accord a privileged and foundational epistemic status, from the microscopic point coincidences that define an ontology of spacetime manifold points. Mapping the former onto the latter is, for Schlick, an important part of the business of confirmation, but the reality of the spacetime manifold points is in no way consequent upon their observability. Indeed, how, strictly speaking, can one even talk of the observation of infinitesimal spacetime coincidences of the kind encountered in the intersection of two world lines? In fact, the order of implication goes the other way: Spacetime events individuated as spacetime coincidences are real because they are invariant, and such observability as they might possess is consequent upon their status as invariant bits of physical reality. For Einstein, and for Schlick in 1917, understanding the latter—physical reality—is the goal of physical theory.

As we have seen, Schlick’s Raum und Zeit in den gegenwärtigen Physik promoted a realistic interpretation of the ontology of general relativity. After reading the manuscript early in 1917, Einstein wrote to Schlick on 21 May that “the last section ‘Relations to Philosophy’ seems to me excellent” (CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 343), just the sort of praise one would expect from a fellow realist. Three years earlier, the Bonn mathematician, Eduard Study, had written another well-known, indeed very well-known defense of realism, Die realistische Weltansicht und die Lehre vom Raume (1914). Einstein read it in September of 1918. Much of it he liked, especially the droll style, as he said to Study in a letter of 17 September (CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 618). Pressed by Study to say more about the points where he disagreed, Einstein replied on 25 September in a rather surprising way:

I am supposed to explain to you my doubts? By laying stress on these it will appear that I want to pick holes in you everywhere. But things are not so bad, because I do not feel comfortable and at home in any of the “isms.” It always seems to me as though such an ism were strong only so long as it nourishes itself on the weakness of it counter-ism; but if the latter is struck dead, and it is alone on an open field, then it also turns out to be unsteady on its feet. So, away we go ! “The physical world is real.” That is supposed to be the fundamental hypothesis. What does “hypothesis” mean here? For me, a hypothesis is a statement, whose truth must be assumed for the moment, but whose meaning must be raised above all ambiguity . The above statement appears to me, however, to be, in itself, meaningless, as if one said: “The physical world is cock-a-doodle-doo.” It appears to me that the “real” is an intrinsically empty, meaningless category (pigeon hole), whose monstrous importance lies only in the fact that I can do certain things in it and not certain others. This division is, to be sure, not an arbitrary one, but instead …. I concede that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but I am still not a realist. (CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 624)

Lest there be any doubt that Einstein has little sympathy for the other side, he adds:

The positivist or pragmatist is strong as long as he battles against the opinion that there [are] concepts that are anchored in the “A priori.” When, in his enthusiasm, [he] forgets that all knowledge consists [in] concepts and judgments, then that is a weakness that lies not in the nature of things but in his personal disposition just as with the senseless battle against hypotheses, cf. the clear book by Duhem. In any case, the railing against atoms rests upon this weakness. Oh, how hard things are for man in this world; the path to originality leads through unreason (in the sciences), through ugliness (in the arts)-at least the path that many find passable. (CPAE, Vol. 8, Doc. 624)

What could Einstein mean by saying that he concedes that the natural sciences concern the “real,” but that he is “still not a realist” and that the “real” in the statement, “the physical world is real,” is an “intrinsically empty, meaningless category”?

The answer might be that realism, for Einstein, is not a philosophical doctrine about the interpretation of scientific theories or the semantics of theoretical terms. [ 3 ] For Einstein, realism is a physical postulate, one of a most interesting kind, as he explained on 18 March 1948 in a long note at the end of the manuscript of Max Born’s Waynflete Lectures, Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance (1949), which Born had sent to Einstein for commentary:

I just want to explain what I mean when I say that we should try to hold on to physical reality. We are, to be sure, all of us aware of the situation regarding what will turn out to be the basic foundational concepts in physics: the point-mass or the particle is surely not among them; the field, in the Faraday - Maxwell sense, might be, but not with certainty. But that which we conceive as existing (’actual’) should somehow be localized in time and space. That is, the real in one part of space, A, should (in theory) somehow ‘exist’ independently of that which is thought of as real in another part of space, B. If a physical system stretches over the parts of space A and B, then what is present in B should somehow have an existence independent of what is present in A. What is actually present in B should thus not depend upon the type of measurement carried out in the part of space, A; it should also be independent of whether or not, after all, a measurement is made in A. If one adheres to this program, then one can hardly view the quantum-theoretical description as a complete representation of the physically real. If one attempts, nevertheless, so to view it, then one must assume that the physically real in B undergoes a sudden change because of a measurement in A. My physical instincts bristle at that suggestion. However, if one renounces the assumption that what is present in different parts of space has an independent, real existence, then I do not at all see what physics is supposed to describe. For what is thought to by a ‘system’ is, after all, just conventional, and I do not see how one is supposed to divide up the world objectively so that one can make statements about the parts. (Born 1969, 223–224; Howard’s translation)

Realism is thus the thesis of spatial separability, the claim that spatial separation is a sufficient condition for the individuation of physical systems, and its assumption is here made into almost a necessary condition for the possibility of an intelligible science of physics.

The postulate of spatial separability as that which undergirds the ontic independence and, hence, individual identities of the systems that physics describes was an important part of Einstein’s thinking about the foundations of physics since at least the time of his very first paper on the quantum hypothesis in 1905 (Einstein 1905a; for more detail on the early history of this idea in Einstein’s thinking, see Howard 1990b). But the true significance of the separability principle emerged most clearly in 1935, when (as hinted in the just-quoted remark) Einstein made it one of the central premises of his argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics (see Howard 1985 and 1989). It is not so clearly deployed in the published version of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper (1935), but Einstein did not write that paper and did not like the way the argument appeared there. Separability is, however, an explicit premise in all of Einstein’s later presentations of the argument for the incompleteness of quantum mechanics, both in correspondence and in print (see Howard 1985 for a detailed list of references).

In brief, the argument is this. Separability implies that spacelike separated systems have associated with them independent real states of affairs. A second postulate, locality, implies that the events in one region of spacetime cannot physically influence physical reality in a region of spacetime separated from the first by a spacelike interval. Consider now an experiment in which two systems, A and B, interact and separate, subsequent measurements on each corresponding to spacelike separated events. Separability implies that A and B have separate real physical states, and locality implies that the measurement performed on A cannot influence B’s real physical state. But quantum mechanics ascribes different theoretical states, different wave functions, to B depending upon that parameter that is measured on A. Therefore, quantum mechanics ascribes different theoretical states to B, when B possesses, in fact, one real physical state. Hence quantum mechanics is incomplete.

One wants to ask many questions. First, what notion of completeness is being invoked here? It is not deductive completeness. It is closer in kind to what is termed “categoricity” in formal semantics, a categorical theory being one whose models are all isomorphic to one another. It is closer still to the principle discussed above—and cited as a precursor of the concept of categoricity—namely, the principle of univocalness, which we found doing such important work in Einstein’s quest for a general theory of relativity, where it was the premise forcing the adoption of an invariant and thus univocal scheme for the individuation of spacetime manifold points.

The next question is why separability is viewed by Einstein as virtually an a priori necessary condition for the possibility of a science of physics. One reason is because a field theory like general relativity, which was Einstein’s model for a future unified foundation for physics, is an extreme embodiment of the principle of separability: “Field theory has carried out this principle to the extreme, in that it localizes within infinitely small (four-dimensional) space-elements the elementary things existing independently of the one another that it takes as basic, as well as the elementary laws it postulates for them” (Einstein 1948, 321–322). And a field theory like general relativity can do this because the infinitesimal metric interval—the careful way to think about separation in general relativistic spacetime—is invariant (hence univocally determined) under all continuous coordinate transformations.

Another reason why Einstein would be inclined to view separability as an a priori necessity is that, in thus invoking separability to ground individuation, Einstein places himself in a tradition of so viewing spatial separability with very strong Kantian roots (and, before Kant, Newtonian roots), a tradition in which spatial separability was known by the name that Arthur Schopenhauer famously gave to it, the principium individuationis (for a fuller discussion of this historical context, see Howard 1997).

A final question one wants to ask is: “What does any of this have to do with realism?” One might grant Einstein’s point that a real ontology requires a principle of individuation without agreeing that separability provides the only conceivable such principle. Separability together with the invariance of the infinitesimal metric interval implies that, in a general relativistic spacetime, there are joints everywhere, meaning that we can carve up the universe in any way we choose and still have ontically independent parts. But quantum entanglement can be read as implying that this libertarian scheme of individuation does not work. Can quantum mechanics not be given a realistic interpretation? Many would say, “yes.” Einstein said, “no.”

There is much that is original in Einstein’s philosophy of science as described thus far. At the very least, he rearranged the bits and pieces of doctrine that he learned from others—Kant, Mach, Duhem, Poincaré, Schlick, and others—in a strikingly novel way. But Einstein’s most original contribution to twentieth-century philosophy of science lies elsewhere, in his distinction between what he termed “principle theories” and “constructive theories.”

This idea first found its way into print in a brief 1919 article in the Times of London (Einstein 1919). A constructive theory, as the name implies, provides a constructive model for the phenomena of interest. An example would be kinetic theory. A principle theory consists of a set of individually well-confirmed, high-level empirical generalizations, “which permit of precise formulation” (Einstein 1914, 749). Examples include the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Ultimate understanding requires a constructive theory, but often, says Einstein, progress in theory is impeded by premature attempts at developing constructive theories in the absence of sufficient constraints by means of which to narrow the range of possible constructive theories. It is the function of principle theories to provide such constraint, and progress is often best achieved by focusing first on the establishment of such principles. According to Einstein, that is how he achieved his breakthrough with the theory of relativity, which, he says, is a principle theory, its two principles being the relativity principle and the light principle.

While the principle theories-constructive theories distinction first made its way into print in 1919, there is considerable evidence that it played an explicit role in Einstein’s thinking much earlier (Einstein 1907, Einstein to Sommerfeld 14 January 1908, CPAE, vol. 5, Doc. 73, Einstein 1914). Nor was it only the relativity and light principles that served Einstein as constraints in his theorizing. Thus, he explicitly mentions also the Boltzmann principle, \(S = k \log W\), as another such:

This equation connects thermodynamics with the molecular theory. It yields, as well, the statistical probabilities of the states of systems for which we are not in a position to construct a molecular-theoretical model. To that extent, Boltzmann’s magnificent idea is of significance for theoretical physics … because it provides a heuristic principle whose range extends beyond the domain of validity of molecular mechanics. (Einstein 1915, p. 262).

Einstein is here alluding the famous entropic analogy whereby, in his 1905 photon hypothesis paper, he reasoned from the fact that black body radiation in the Wien regime satisfied the Boltzmann principle to the conclusion that, in that regime, radiation behaved as if it consisted of mutually independent, corpuscle-like quanta of electromagnetic energy. The quantum hypothesis is a constructive model of radiation; the Boltzmann principle is the constraint that first suggested that model.

There are anticipations of the principle theories-constructive theories distinction in the nineteenth-century electrodynamics literature, James Clerk Maxwell, in particular, being a source from which Einstein might well have drawn (see Harman 1998). At the turn of the century, the “physics of principles” was a subject under wide discussion. At the turn of 1900, Hendrik A. Lorentz (Lorentz 1900, 1905; see Frisch 2005) and Henri Poincaré (for example, Poincaré 1904; see, Giedymin 1982, Darrigol 1995) presented the opposition between the “physics of principles“ and the “physics of models“ as commonplace. In a similar vein, Arnold Sommerfeld opposed a “physics of problems“, a style of doing physics based on concrete puzzle solving, to the “practice of principles“ defended by Max Planck (Seth 2010). Philipp Frank (1908, relying on Rey 1909) defined relativity theory as a “ conceptual theory“ based on abstract, but empirically well confirmed principles rather than on intuitive models. Probably many other examples could be find. . But however extensive his borrowings (no explicit debt was ever acknowledged), in Einstein’s hands the distinction becomes a methodological tool of impressive scope and fertility. What is puzzling, and even a bit sad, is that this most original methodological insight of Einstein’s had comparatively little impact on later philosophy of science or practice in physics. Only in recent decades, Einstein constructive-principle distinction has attracted interest in the philosophical literature, originating a still living philosophical debate on the foundation of spacetime theories (Brown 2005, Janssen 2009, Lange 2014). [ 4 ]

Einstein’s influence on twentieth-century philosophy of science is comparable to his influence on twentieth-century physics (Howard 2014). What made that possible? One explanation looks to the institutional and disciplinary history of theoretical physics and the philosophy of science. Each was, in its own domain, a new mode of thought in the latter nineteenth century, and each finally began to secure for itself a solid institutional basis in the early twentieth century. In a curious way, the two movements helped one another. Philosophers of science helped to legitimate theoretical physics by locating the significant cognitive content of science in its theories. Theoretical physicists helped to legitimate the philosophy of science by providing for analysis a subject matter that was radically reshaping our understanding of nature and the place of humankind within it. In some cases the help was even more direct, as with the work of Einstein and Max Planck in the mid-1920s to create in the physics department at the University of Berlin a chair in the philosophy of science for Reichenbach (see Hecht and Hartmann 1982). And we should remember the example of the physicists Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann who were the first two occupants of the new chair for the philosophy of science at the University of Vienna at the turn of the century.

Another explanation looks to the education of young physicists in Einstein’s day. Not only was Einstein’s own youthful reading heavily focused on philosophy, more generally, and the philosophy of science, in particular (for an overview, see Einstein 1989, xxiv–xxv; see also Howard 1994b), in which respect he was not unlike other physicists of his generation, but also his university physics curriculum included a required course on “The Theory of Scientific Thought” (see Einstein 1987, Doc. 28). An obvious question is whether or not the early cultivation of a philosophical habit of mind made a difference in the way Einstein and his contemporaries approached physics. As indicated by his November 1944 letter to Robert Thorton quoted at the beginning of this article, Einstein thought that it did.

Einstein’s letters and manuscripts, if unpublished, are cited by their numbers in the Einstein Archive (EA) control index and, if published, by volume, document number, and, if necessary, page number in:

Works by year

• Born, Max, 1949. Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Brown, Harvey R., 2005. Physical Relativity. Space-time Structure from a Dynamical Perspective , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• ––– (ed.), 1969. Albert Einstein-Hedwig und Max Born: Friefwechsel, 1916–1955 , Munich: Nymphenburger.
• Canales, Jimena, 2015. Einstein, Bergson and the Debate That Changed Our Understanding of Time , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Carnap, Rudolf, 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt , Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis-Verlag; English translation: The Logical Structure of the World & Psuedoproblems in Philosophy , Rolf A. George (trans.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969.
• Darrigol, Olivier, 1995. “Henri Poincaré’s Criticism of fin de siécle Electrodynamics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics), 26 (1): 1–44.
• Duhem, Pierre, 1906. La Théorie physique: son objet et sa structure , Paris: Chevalier & Rivière. English translation of the 2nd. ed. (1914): The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory , P. P. Wiener (trans.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954; reprinted, New York: Athaneum, 1962.
• –––, 1908. Ziel und Struktur der physikalischen Theorien , Friedrich Adler (trans.), foreword by Ernst Mach, Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.
• Elsbach, Alfred, 1924. Kant und Einstein. Untersuchungen über das Verhältnis der modernen Erkenntnistheorie zur Relativitätstheorie , Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter.
• Engler, Fynn Ole and Jürgen Renn, 2013. “Hume, Einstein und Schlick über die Objektivität der Wissenschaft”, in Moritz Schlick–Die Rostocker Jahre und ihr Einfluss auf die Wiener Zeit , Fynn Ole Engler and Mathias Iven (eds.), Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 123–156.
• Fine, Arthur, 1986. “Einstein’s Realism”, in The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism, and the Quantum Theory , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 86–111.
• Frank, Philipp, 1909. “Die Stellung Des Relativitätsprinzips Im System Der Mechanik Und Der Elektrodynamik” Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften 118 (IIa), 373–446.
• Friedman, Michael, 1983. Foundations of Space-Time Theories: Relativistic Physics and Philosophy of Science , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Frisch, Mathias, 2005. “Mechanisms, Principles, and Lorentz’s Cautious Realism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics), 36: 659–679.
• Giedymin, Jerzy, 1982. “The Physics of the Principles and Its Philosophy: Hamilton, Poincaré and Ramsey”, in Science and Convention: Essays on Henri Poincaré’s Philosophy of Science and the Conventionalist Tradition , Oxford: Pergamon, 42–89.
• Giovanelli, Marco, 2013. “Erich Kretschmann as a Proto-Logical-Empiricist. Adventures and Misadventures of the Point-Coincidence Argument”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 44 (2), 115–134.
• –––, 2013. “Talking at Cross-Purposes. How Einstein and the Logical Empiricists never Agreed on what they were Disagreeing About”, Synthese 190 (17): 3819–3863.
• –––, 2014. “‘But One Must Not Legalize the Mentioned Sin’. Phenomenological vs. Dynamical Treatments of Rods and Clocks in Einstein’s Thought”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics), 48: 20–44.
• –––, 2016. “‘…But I StillCan’t Get Rid of a Sense of Artificiality’: The Einstein-Reichenbach Debate on the Geometrization of the Electromagnetic Field”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 54, 35–51.
• –––, 2018. “Physics Is a Kind of Metaphysics”, Émile Meyerson and Einstein’s late Rationalistic Realism”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science , 8: 783–829
• Harman, P. M., 1998. The Natural Philosophy of James Clerk Maxwell , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Hecht, Hartmut and Hoffmann, Dieter, 1982. “Die Berufung Hans Reichenbachs an die Berliner Universität”, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 30: 651–662.
• Holton, Gerald, 1968. “Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality”, Daedalus 97: 636–673. Reprinted in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973, 219–259.
• Howard, Don, 1984. “Realism and Conventionalism in Einstein’s Philosophy of Science: The Einstein-Schlick Correspondence”, Philosophia Naturalis 21: 618–629.
• –––, 1985. “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 171–201.
• –––, 1989. “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem , James T. Cushing and Ernan McMullin (eds.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 224–253.
• –––, 1990a. “Einstein and Duhem”, Synthese 83: 363–384.
• –––, 1990b. “’Nicht sein kann was nicht sein darf,’ or the Prehistory of EPR, 1909–1935: Einstein’s Early Worries about the Quantum Mechanics of Composite Systems”, in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical, and Physical Inquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics , Proceedings of the 1989 Conference, “Ettore Majorana” Centre for Scientific Culture, International School of History of Science, Erice, Italy, 5–14 August. Arthur Miller, ed. New York: Plenum, 61–111.
• –––, 1992. “Einstein and Eindeutigkeit: A Neglected Theme in the Philosophical Background to General Relativity”, in Jean Eisenstaedt and A. J. Kox (eds.), Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies: Volume 3), Boston: Birkhäuser, 154–243.
• –––, 1993. “Was Einstein Really a Realist?” Perspectives on Science: Historical, Philosophical, Social 1: 204–251.
• –––, 1994a. “Einstein, Kant, and the Origins of Logical Empiricism”, in Language, Logic, and the Structure of Scientific Theories (Proceedings of the Carnap-Reichenbach Centennial, University of Konstanz, 21–24 May 1991), Wesley Salmon and Gereon Wolters (eds.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 45–105.
• –––, 1994b. “’A kind of vessel in which the struggle for eternal truth is played out’-Albert Einstein and the Role of Personality in Science”, in The Natural History of Paradigms: Science and the Process of Intellectual Evolution , John H. Langdon and Mary E. McGann (eds.), Indianapolis: University of Indianapolis Press, 1994, 111–138.
• –––, 1996. “Relativity, Eindeutigkeit, and Monomorphism: Rudolf Carnap and the Development of the Categoricity Concept in Formal Semantics”, in Origins of Logical Empiricism (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 16), Ronald N. Giere and Alan Richardson (eds.), Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 115–164.
• –––, 1997. “A Peek behind the Veil of Maya: Einstein, Schopenhauer, and the Historical Background of the Conception of Space as a Ground for the Individuation of Physical Systems”, in The Cosmos of Science: Essays of Exploration (Pittsburgh-Konstanz Series in the Philosophy and History of Science, Volume 6), John Earman and John D. Norton, (eds.), Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; Konstanz: Universitätsverlag, 87–150.
• –––, 1998. “Astride the Divided Line: Platonism, Empiricism, and Einstein’s Epistemological Opportunism”, in Idealization in Contemporary Physics (Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities: Volume 63), Niall Shanks (ed.), Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 143–163.
• –––, 1999. “Point Coincidences and Pointer Coincidences: Einstein on Invariant Structure in Spacetime Theories”, in History of General Relativity IV: The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity (Based upon the Fourth International Conference, Berlin, Germany 31 July-3 August 1995), Hubert Goenner, Jürgen Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer (eds.), Boston: Birkhäuser, 463–500.
• –––, 2014. “Einstein and the Development of Twentieth-century Philosophy of Science”, in The Cambridge Companion to Einstein , Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 354–376.
• Howard, Don and Norton, John, 1993. “Out of the Labyrinth? Einstein, Hertz, and the Göttingen Answer to the Hole Argument”, in The Attraction of Gravitation. New Studies in the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies: Volume 5), John Earman, Michel Jannsen, and John Norton (eds.),Boston: Birkhäuser, 30–62.
• Howard, Don and Stachel, John (eds.), 1989. Einstein and the History of General Relativity (Einstein Studies: Volume 1), Boston: Birkhäuser.
• Janssen, Michel, 2009. “Drawing the Line between Kinematics and Dynamics in Special Relativity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics , 40 (1), 26–52.
• Janssen, Michel and Jürgen Renn, 2007. “Untying the Knot. How Einstein Found His Way Back to Field Equations Discarded in the Zurich Notebook”, in: The Genesis of General Relativity Jürgen Renn et al. (eds.), 4 volumes, Dordrecht: Springer 839–925.
• Lange, Marc, 2014. “Did Einstein Really Believe That Principle Theories Are Explanatorily Powerless?”, Perspectives on Science 22 (4), 449–63.
• Lehmkuhl, Dennis, 2014. “Why Einstein Did Not Believe That General Relativity Geometrizes Gravity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics ,, 46: 316–326.
• Le Roy, Édouard, 1901. “Un positivisme nouveau”, Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 9: 138–153.
• Lorentz, Hendrik Antoon, 1900. “Electromagnetische theorieën van natuurkundige verschijnselen” Jaarboek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden , Bijlagen; repr. in Leiden: Brill 1900; German translation in Physikalische Zeitschrift , 1 (1900): 498–501, 514–519.
• –––, 1905. “La thermodynamique et les théories cinétiques.“ Bulletin des séances de la Société française de physique , 35–63.
• Mach, Ernst, 1886. Beiträge zur Analyse der Empfindungen , Jena: Gustav Fischer.
• –––, 1897. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung historisch-kritisch dargestellt , 3rd impr. and enl. ed. Leipzig: Brockhaus.
• –––, 1900. Die Analyse der Empfindungen und das Verhältniss des Physischen zum Psychischen , 2nd edition of Mach 1886, Jena: Gustav Fischer; English translation of the 5th edition of 1906, The Analysis of Sensations and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical , Cora May Williams and Sydney Waterlow, trans. Chicago and London: Open Court, 1914. Reprint: New York: Dover, 1959.
• –––, 1906. Erkenntnis und Irrtum. Skizzen zur Psychologie der Forschung , 2nd ed. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth; English translation, Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry , Thomas J. McCormack and Paul Foulkes, (trans.), Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel, 1976.
• Meyerson, Émile, Meyerson, 1925. La déduction relativiste , Paris: Payot; Eng. tr. Meyerson 1985.
• –––, 1985. The Relativistic Deduction.Epistemological Implications of the Theory of Relativity , Eng. tr. by David A. and Mary-Alice Sipfle, Dordrecht: Reidel.
• Norton, John, 1984. “How Einstein Found His Field Equations”, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 14: 253–316. Reprinted in Howard and Stachel 1989, 101–159.
• –––, 2000. “’Nature is the Realisation of the Simplest Conceivable Mathematical Ideas’: Einstein and the Canon of Mathematical Simplicity”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 31B: 135–170.
• Petzoldt, Joseph, 1895. “Das Gesetz der Eindeutigkeit”, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie 19: 146–203.
• Poincaré, Henri, 1901. “Sur les Principes de la Mecanique”, Bibliotheque du Congrès Internationale de Philosophie , Sec. 3, Logique et Histoire des Sciences , Paris: A. Colin. Reprinted as: “La Mécanique classique”, in La Science et l’Hypothese , Paris: Flammarion, 1902, 110–134; English translation: “The Classical Mechanics”, n Science and Hypothesis , W. J. Greenstreet (trans.), London and New York: Walter Scott, 1905, 89–110. Reprint: New York: Dover, 1952.
• –––, 1904. “The Principles of Mathematical Physics”, in Congress of Arts and Science, Universal Exposition, St. Louis, 1904 ( Philosophy and Mathematics : Volume 1), Howard J. Rogers, (ed.), Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905, 604–622.
• Quine, Willard van Orman, 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review , 60: 20–43; reprinted in From a Logical Point of View , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, 20–46.
• Reichenbach, Hans, 1920. Relativitätstheorie und Erkenntnis Apriori , Berlin: Julius Springer; English translation: The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge , Maria Reichenbach (trans. and ed.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1965.
• –––, 1924. Axiomatik der relativistischen Raum-Zeit-Lehre ( Die Wissenschaft : Volume 72), Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn; English translation: Axiomatization of the Theory of Relativity , Maria Reichenbach (trans.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969.
• –––, 1928. Philosophie der Raum-Zeit-Lehre , Berlin: Julius Springer; English translation, The Philosophy of Space & Time , Maria Reichenbach and John Freund (trans.), New York: Dover, 1957.
• –––, 1949. “The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity”, in Schilpp 1949, 289–311.
• Rey, Abel, 1907. La théorie de la physique chez les physiciens contemporains , Paris: Alcan.
• –––, 1908. Die Theorie der Physik bei den modernen Physikern , Ger. tr. of Rey 1907, by Rudolf Eisler. Leipzig: Klinkhardt.
• Ryckman, Thomas, 2005. The Reign of Relativity. Philosophy in Physics 1915–1925 , Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2017. Einstein , New York: Routledge.
• Sauer,Tilman, 2014. “Einstein’s Unified field Theory Program” in The Cambridge Companion to Einstein , Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014 281;–305.
• Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.), 1949. Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist (The Library of Living Philosophers: Volume 7), Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers.
• Schlick, Moritz, 1910. “Das Wesen der Wahrheit nach der modernen Logik”, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie 34: 386–477; English translation, “The Nature of Truth in Modern Logic”, in Schlick 1979, vol. 1, 41–103.
• –––, 1915. “Die philosophische Bedeutung des Relativitätsprinzips”, Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik 159: 129–175. English translation: “The Philosophical Significance of the Principle of Relativity”, in Schlick 1979, vol. 1, 153–189.
• –––, 1917. Raum und Zeit in den gegenwärtigen Physik. Zur Einführung in das Verständnis der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie , Berlin: Julius Springer; English translation of the 3rd edition, Space and Time in Contemporary Physics: An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity and Gravitation , Henry L. Brose (trans.), London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1920; reprinted in Schlick 1979, vol. 1, 207–269.
• –––, 1921. “Kritizistische oder empiristische Deutung der neuen Physik”, Kant-Studien 26: 96–111. English translation: “Critical or Empiricist Interpretation of Modern Physics”, in Schlick 1979, vol. 1, 322–334.
• –––, 1979. Philosophical Papers , 2 volumes, Henk L. Mulder and Barbara F. B. van de Velde-Schlick (eds.), Peter Heath (trans.), Dordrecht and Boston: D. Reidel.
• Seth, Suman, 2010. Crafting the Quantum , Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Stachel, John, 1980. “Einstein’s Search for General Covariance, 1912–1915” (paper delivered at the Ninth International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, Jena, Germany (DDR), 17 July 1980), in Howard and Stachel 1989, 63–100.
• Study, Eduard, 1914. Die realistische Weltansicht und die Lehre vom Raume. Geometrie, Anschauung und Erfahrung ( Die Wissenschaft : Volume 54), Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg & Sohn.
• van Dongen, Jeroen, 2002. Einstein’s Unification: General Relativity and the Quest for Mathematical Naturalness , Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
• –––, 2010. Einstein’s Unification , Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Einstein Papers Project , maintained by the California Institute of Technology.

Cassirer, Ernst | equivalence of mass and energy | general relativity: early philosophical interpretations of | geometry: in the 19th century | Natorp, Paul | physics: holism and nonseparability | quantum mechanics: Copenhagen interpretation of | quantum theory: philosophical issues in | quantum theory: the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen argument in | space and time: absolute and relational space and motion, post-Newtonian theories | space and time: conventionality of simultaneity | space and time: inertial frames | space and time: the hole argument | Uncertainty Principle

Copyright © 2019 by Don A. Howard Marco Giovanelli < marco . giovanelli @ unito . it >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Albert Einstein’s Role in the Atomic Bomb Was the “One Great Mistake in My Life”

Einstein and his colleague Leo Szilard played a crucial role in encouraging the United States to create an atomic bomb.

We may earn commission from links on this page, but we only recommend products we back.

Although acquainted with physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer , Einstein never worked on the Manhattan Project that led to the development of nuclear weapons, nor was he aware of plans to drop the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But Einstein and his colleague Leo Szilard played a crucial role in encouraging President Franklin D. Roosevelt to pursue the bomb in the first place.

A Startling Visit from a Friend

It all started with a visit by Szilard, a Hungarian-German physicist who previously studied with Einstein in the 1920s. Their research led to the creation of a refrigerator pump that required no moving parts, resulting in what is most commonly called the Einstein refrigerator, according to Genius in the Shadows , a Szilard biography by William Lanouette.

After their collaboration, Szilard conceived the idea of a nuclear “chain reaction” while working in London in 1933. The next year, he convinced the British government to make his chain reaction patent a military secret, according to Lanouette, successfully forestalling a nuclear arms race with Adolf Hitler , who by then was the Chancellor of Germany.

However, after scientists in Germany experimentally split the uranium atom in 1938, Szilard became deeply concerned about idea of Hitler obtaining an atomic bomb first and began raising alarm bells among his personal connections. In Lanouette’s words, he “worked frantically to start the very arms race he had feared.”

In 1939, Szilard visited his old friend Einstein, stunning the fellow physicist by describing the nuclear chain reaction concept. “I haven’t thought of that at all,” Einstein admitted, according to Lanouette. Einstein immediately agreed to warn his friends in the Belgian Royal Family that Nazi Germany might have eyes on the Belgian Congo, which contained the world’s largest uranium supply.

But after that initial meeting, Szilard became convinced that U.S. officials should be warned about Germany’s intentions as well. Szilard and Einstein met for a second time three weeks later, discussing how to get word to President Roosevelt and starting work on one of the most impactful and historic letters in the 20 th century.

The Einstein-Szilard Letter

Through friends, Szilard met with Alexander Sachs, a Wall Street banker with access to the White House. Sachs said he had already spoken with Roosevelt about uranium but that the government decided not to pursue uranium research because Columbia University physicists had told them the prospects of an atomic bomb were minimal, according to The New World 1939/1946: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission .

Sachs felt Roosevelt might be persuaded by someone of Einstein’s reputation, according to the book. Einstein—who was also encouraged by Hungarian physicists, including refugees Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller— sent a letter dated August 2, 1939, urging Roosevelt about the possibility that Nazi Germany could develop an atomic bomb.

“In the course of the last four months it has been made probable… that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated,” the letter read . “Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in the immediate future.”

Warning that this phenomenon could also lead to the construction of particularly devastating bombs, Einstein encouraged Roosevelt to consider a similar program in the United States and urged him to make contact with physicists working on chain reactions in the United States, according to the letter.

Preoccupied with events in Europe, Roosevelt didn’t respond for nearly two months, making the physicists fear he wasn’t taking the threat of nuclear warfare seriously, according to the U.S. Department of Energy . On the contrary, however, Roosevelt felt Hitler achieving unilateral possession of such powerful bombs would pose a grave risk to the nation.

The Letter Spurs Action

Roosevelt wrote back to Einstein on October 19, 1939, informing him about the establishment of a committee of civilian and military representatives to study uranium, according to the Energy Department. Although this was only the first of many such steps and decisions along the way, this committee was ultimately the catalyst for the Manhattan Project.

In 1940, Einstein sent Roosevelt two more letters on March 7 and April 25, recommending additional work on nuclear research, according to An Einstein Encyclopedia by Alice Calaprice and others. He wrote again on March 25, 1945, expressing his growing fears about the possible misuse of uranium, but it wasn’t delivered before Roosevelt’s death a little more than two weeks later.

The more famous 1939 letter, however, came to be known as the Einstein-Szilard letter and is widely considered to be the key stimulus for the United States developing the atomic bomb, according to Lanouette.

Einstein never worked on the Manhattan Project and had no prior knowledge of plans to use the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. A pacifist who despised war, Einstein came to deeply regret his role in the development of the bomb, later saying : “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.”

Einstein harbored these regrets for this rest of his life. In 1954, one year before his death, Einstein discussed the matter in a letter to his friend, chemist Linus Pauling. Although he cited the fear of Germany developing a bomb as a partial justification, he nevertheless described his letter to Roosevelt as the “one great mistake in my life.”

Einstein Appears in the 2023 Oppenheimer Movie

Oppenheimer , now available for rent or purchase on Prime Video and Apple TV+ , is directed and written by Christopher Nolan . Cillian Murphy stars as J. Robert Oppenheimer , and Tom Conti portrays Albert Einstein . Other cast members include Emily Blunt , Matt Damon , Robert Downey Jr. , Florence Pugh , Rami Malek , Josh Hartnett, Casey Affleck, and Kenneth Branagh.

Colin McEvoy joined the Biography.com staff in 2023, and before that had spent 16 years as a journalist, writer, and communications professional. He is the author of two true crime books: Love Me or Else and Fatal Jealousy . He is also an avid film buff, reader, and lover of great stories.

Famous Scientists

Jane Goodall

Marie Curie

Howard Carter, King Tut's Tomb, and a Deadly Curse

Benjamin Banneker

Neil deGrasse Tyson

Daniel Hale Williams

Patricia Bath

Mae Jemison

George Washington Carver

Jean Tatlock: The Woman Oppenheimer Loved

J. Robert Oppenheimer

A New Form of Balance: Work and Family Harmony

The scientific side of edgar allan poe, openmind books, scientific anniversaries, the impact of our diet on the carbon footprint, featured author, latest book, the legacy of albert einstein (1879-1955).

 A special collaboration by  J.Adolfo de Azcárraga

President of the Spanish Royal Physics Society. Emeritus professor at Valencia University and member of the IFIC (CSIC-UV)

Newton, Darwin and Einstein   are very likely the greatest scientists in history.   James Watson and Francis Crick  also deserve a special mention for deciphering the structure of DNA in 1953 –whose fundamental importance for copying the genetic material “did not escape their notice”, as they took special care to point out. And in a very different and not strictly scientific sphere there is physicist  Timothy Berners-Lee,  who in 1989 created the  world wide web  at CERN. The www has triggered a sweeping social transformation of our world much larger than that produced by Gutenberg in the 15th century. All Englishmen, by the way, but for the American Watson (who nevertheless worked in Cambridge, England), and Einstein, who was German by birth but who renounced his citizenship. Einstein was out of Germany when Hitler seized power in 1933, and he never returned to his homeland. Two years earlier the book  A hundred authors against Einstein  had been published in Leipzig, of which he said: “If I were wrong, one professor would have been enough”. And in May 1933, torchbearers in public book burnings put his books to the flames, along with those of many other authors, particularly Jews.

There is a tendency to believe that Einstein’s discoveries were only theoretical in nature; he is, unquestionably,  the supreme theoretical physicist . However, his discoveries have also generated  numerous practical applications , as every conceptual revolution is always followed by major technological advances –a point worth noting by all those who insist that research should be essentially ‘practical’. The “very revolutionary” work on  the photoelectric effect  in 1905, Einstein’s great contribution to the nascent field of  quantum physics  and the reason for his Nobel prize, has been the basis for uncountable applications. But, in the popular imagination, Einstein has always been linked to relativity. In  1905  (his  Annus Mirabilis ) he developed his  Special Relativity , which becomes essential when very large speeds (comparable to the speed of light) are involved, for which Newtonian mechanics is no longer adequate. Its consequences (setting aside  E=mc² ) are far-reaching, as  relativity modifies the absolute and separate character of Newtonian space and time  and merges them into a single spacetime . As noted in 1908 by  Hermann Minkowski , Einstein’s former teacher at the Zurich Polytechnic, “only a kind of union of the two will maintain an independent reality”. Also important, the very idea of ‘force’, essential in Newton’s mechanics– would yield in favour of that of ‘field’. The term ‘relativity’, however, is rather unfortunate: the theory highlights what is invariable under certain conditions –the physical laws, which therefore (and fortunately), are not ‘relative’.  The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset  –who accompanied Einstein during his visit to Spain in 1923– immediately noticed this aspect. Einstein himself occasionally used  Invariantentheorie , but it was already too late to change the name ‘relativity’, as it was already established.

Nevertheless, the towering work of Einstein -the centenary of which we are celebrating- is his  General Relativity   (GR) of 1915. Conceptually, the GR equations are simple:  geometry = matter . In other words, the distribution of matter determines the curvature of spacetime:   it may be said that gravity is the dynamics of space-time . As a theory of the gravitational field, GR is  the basis of any cosmological or astronomical consideration ; for example, it accounts for Mercury’s  anomalous  perihelion, which cannot be explained by Newtonian mechanics. But it also has unexpected consequences, ranging from philosophy, as it invalidates the Kantian apriorism about the supposed Euclidean nature of space (and in passing calls into question any other  a priori  knowledge), to other more mundane areas:  the precision of the GPS  would be impossible without GR. In fact, if our devices were to indicate the name of the scientist whose discoveries permit their operation, Einstein’s name would be everywhere.

All the great advances in  modern physics  – relativity, quantum theory, cosmology – were made in the first third of the 20th century. In all, Einstein’s contributions to these fields were greater than those of any other scientist. He also made mistakes, of course, even judging as wrong things that were not. His initial opposition to an expanding universe prompted him to introduce in 1917 the famous cosmological constant  on the geometric (left hand) side of his GR equations to describe a static universe. This was the prevailing belief at that time, until Hubble’s law of 1929 -predicted by Georges Lemaître- demonstrated that the universe was expanding. Later, Einstein confessed to George Gamow that this constant was “the greatest error of his life”. But Einstein’s real error was not the fact that he had added it, but that he did not realize that his static solution was not valid for his purpose because it was unstable. Today the cosmological constant has re-emerged, on the right hand side of the GR equations (matter), as  the ‘dark energy’ that forms 70% of the universe  and which is responsible for the acceleration of its expansion, observed in 1998. However, a real understanding of the nature and the value of the cosmological constant remains a challenge. Einstein also erred in his  manifest hostility to black holes  (today somewhat less black due to Hawking’s radiation, a result of considering quantum aspects), maybe because they already indicated that his theory of GR was not definitive. Aside from some Newtonian anticipations, and important GR-based work by Karl Schwarzschild, Lemaître, Chandrasekhar and others, the study of the physics of black holes (whose name, dating from 1968, was coined by John A. Wheeler) began in 1939 with a paper on stellar collapse by  Robert Oppenheimer  (future scientific director of the Manhattan Project) and Hartland Snyder . Today there is evidence of numerous black holes; for example, there is a supermassive one in the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way), Sagittarius A*, with a mass of about four million solar masses .

Finally, although Einstein observed that his GR equations give rise to  gravitational waves  (as Maxwell’s do allow for electromagnetic ones), he questioned their existence: in 1974, however, they were indirectly observed when studying the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16. Today, the goal is to detect directly the primordial gravitational waves produced after the  Big Bang . This would permit studying essential aspects of gravity and the expansion of the universe in its origins, going back beyond the microwave background radiation coming from 380,000 years after the  Big Bang , when the universe became transparent; it is, therefore, the oldest light in the cosmos. But, earlier, the universe was already transparent for gravitational waves; these will allow us to “see” it in its beginnings, prior to the images provided by optical and radio astronomy.

As is only natural, Einstein was a man of his time: the physics of elementary particles, essential to many advances, had yet to be developed. His failed attempts towards the unification of gravity and electromagnetism , possibly conditioned by his dislike of ‘orthodox’ quantum mechanics, would today have followed other pathways. This rejection was due to the fact that in spite of its deterministic equations,  quantum mechanics has probabilistic aspects : the wave function –the evolution of which is deterministic– cannot be observed directly. For this reason, and in contrast to Bohr and Heisenberg, the fathers of the ‘orthodox’ Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, Einstein believed that it failed to provide a complete description of physical reality: “God does not play dice”, he said. This deeply-held conviction, which he maintained to the end, contributed to his progressive scientific isolation. Today, however, the measurement problem in quantum mechanics continues to be a challenge. Einstein’s independent judgment –from which he had benefited so much- prompted him to continue his path alone. In fact,  Einstein was a solitary both personally and scientifically ; this is why he left no school as other very creative physicists such as Paul Dirac or Richard Feynman, also Nobel prizewinners. “Maybe I have earned the right to make my own mistakes” Einstein once observed ironically. But neither all of them were mistakes, nor did they diminish in any way his scientific standing: no one, not even himself, could always be right in front of the profound problems that occupied his penetrating mind.

Einstein was extraordinarily popular, particularly after the confirmation in 1919 of the bending of starlight by the Sun as predicted by his GR. Besieged by journalists and photographers alike, he even said that his profession was that of “male model”.  As is he were a modern oracle, he willingly answered wide-ranging questions to the delight of the press. In his family life, however, the European Einstein did not reach very high standards; not even his dedication to science can provide an excuse for some aspects of his behaviour. In social terms, Einstein lined towards  social democracy , and showed great concern and integrity; according to C.P. Snow, he was “ unbudgeable ”. He also had to confront some extreme situations: on 2 August 1939 he abandoned his public anti-war stance to write a letter to President Roosevelt which contributed to the beginning of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb but, after the war, he returned to his pacifist convictions. In 1959, days before his death and at the height of the Cold War,  he signed a manifesto with Bertrand Russell  which would be the basis of the  Pugwash Conferences . His conscience guided his public conduct:  he censured Stalin’s regime, racial segregation in USA  as a “disease of white people, not of black people” and criticized  McCarthyism , to which he opposed civil resistance.  In 1952 Einstein turned down the presidency of Israel : “I know something about Nature, but practically nothing about men”, he declared. Taken literally, this statement could explain his well-intentioned but utopian belief in the  need for a universal government ; it would have been interesting to know his opinion of Orwell’s 1984, if he ever read it, with its much darker view of supergovernments. The evolutionary basis of human nature -so little inclined to the Rousseau ideal of the noble savage- or the theory of evolution in general did not interest Einstein much, in contrast with the great physicist Ludwig Boltzmann, 35 years Einstein’s senior and much revered by him.

Einstein’s achievements produce the same admiration that Feynman expressed in front of Maxwell’s equations: “the American Civil War will pale into provincial insignificance in comparison with this important scientific event of the same decade” (the 1860s). In the one hundred years since the GR,  physics has taken great steps forward  on the path to the unification of its laws and towards the geometrization of Nature that Einstein himself outlined.  The fundamental problems that he was unable to solve still determine the frontiers of our knowledge.  Many physicists consider that  the structure of quantum mechanics , which never satisfied him, is still not definitive; Einstein would today follow the development of the second quantum revolution with great interest (and a smile).  Quantum gravity , the necessary union of two still immiscible theories, awaits the arrival of a new Einstein; meanwhile, its traces are searched for at  the origins of the universe  from observatories in the South Pole and the Planck satellite. These new measurements of the cosmic microwave background are testing inflation models (the enormous, but extremely brief exponential expansion of the very early universe) and its connection to particle physics, quantum gravity and, perhaps, even to string theory. All this may allow us to go beyond Einstein’s GR which, as it does not embrace any quantum aspects, must be considered as an approximation to a more complete theory. For all these reasons, and in view of the scale of the challenges faced and the frequent trivialization of knowledge and culture, it is worth concluding by recalling what Einstein stated in 1952 and that applies to the great scientist himself:  “There are only a few enlightened people with a lucid mind and good style in each century. Their legacy is one of the most precious possessions of mankind…  There is no better response to the modernist arrogance of today”.

J. Adolfo de Azcárraga

Related publications.

• Einstein: from Mercury to Black Holes
• Einstein’s Miracle Year
• 10 Things You Probably Did Not Know About Einstein

More about Science

Environment, leading figures, mathematics, scientific insights, more publications about openmind, comments on this publication.

Morbi facilisis elit non mi lacinia lacinia. Nunc eleifend aliquet ipsum, nec blandit augue tincidunt nec. Donec scelerisque feugiat lectus nec congue. Quisque tristique tortor vitae turpis euismod, vitae aliquam dolor pretium. Donec luctus posuere ex sit amet scelerisque. Etiam sed neque magna. Mauris non scelerisque lectus. Ut rutrum ex porta, tristique mi vitae, volutpat urna.

Sed in semper tellus, eu efficitur ante. Quisque felis orci, fermentum quis arcu nec, elementum malesuada magna. Nulla vitae finibus ipsum. Aenean vel sapien a magna faucibus tristique ac et ligula. Sed auctor orci metus, vitae egestas libero lacinia quis. Nulla lacus sapien, efficitur mollis nisi tempor, gravida tincidunt sapien. In massa dui, varius vitae iaculis a, dignissim non felis. Ut sagittis pulvinar nisi, at tincidunt metus venenatis a. Ut aliquam scelerisque interdum. Mauris iaculis purus in nulla consequat, sed fermentum sapien condimentum. Aliquam rutrum erat lectus, nec placerat nisl mollis id. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.

Nam nisl nisi, efficitur et sem in, molestie vulputate libero. Quisque quis mattis lorem. Nunc quis convallis diam, id tincidunt risus. Donec nisl odio, convallis vel porttitor sit amet, lobortis a ante. Cras dapibus porta nulla, at laoreet quam euismod vitae. Fusce sollicitudin massa magna, eu dignissim magna cursus id. Quisque vel nisl tempus, lobortis nisl a, ornare lacus. Donec ac interdum massa. Curabitur id diam luctus, mollis augue vel, interdum risus. Nam vitae tortor erat. Proin quis tincidunt lorem.

Great Images of Science (II)

Do you want to stay up to date with our new publications.

Receive the OpenMind newsletter with all the latest contents published on our website

OpenMind Books

• The Search for Alternatives to Fossil Fuels
• View all books

About OpenMind

Connect with us.

• Keep up to date with our newsletter

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics “for his services to theoretical physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect” but is best known for his development of the theories of special and general relativity. He was a founding co-chair of the Bulletin ’s Board of Sponsors.

1950: What the scientists are saying about the H-bomb

By albert einstein , edward teller | nuclear weapons.