A What Are the Must-Read Einstein Papers on General Relativity and Beyond?

[AndreasC]

I'm wondering what are in people's opinions the "must read" papers of Einstein. I concentrate more on general relativity but also other stuff. Reviews by Einstein and maybe other important contemporary papers would also be welcome, as well as maybe modern commentary on them.

 

[Orodruin]

This depends on what your aim is. If your aim is to see the historical aspect of the theory development, you could read the seminal papers from 1905 as well as the original GR paper. If your aim is to learn the actual theory, then you’ll be better off with a modern textbook. We are talking over 100 years of people spending time and effort to understand the implications and improving the didactics.

 

[phinds]

it's important to keep in mind that he wrote over 100 years ago and there have been many new discoveries since then plus he wasn't right about everything, AND there have been improvements in how best to approach subjects.

I think that most serious physicists read Einstein because ... well ... Einstein, BUT, it's usually more for historical value and the context of his discoveries and discussions with other major figures of his day than the best way to learn physics.

I do not at all mean that his papers are irrelevant, just that you could learn physics without ever reading them (but it would be weird to do so).

EDIT: I see @Orodruin beat me to it except that he said the same thing more concisely.

 

[AndreasC]

I've read modern textbooks, I want to read original and contemporary stuff to get context and insights. There are some things I never really understood until I read original sources (because modern expositions had left out a lot of context).

 

[Vanadium 50]

While learning from Einstein is easier than learning from Maxwell or Newton, his intended audience was not the student of 2023. it was the peer of 1905.

 

[AndreasC]

While perhaps someone may find all these opinions interesting, I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

 

[Orodruin]

Winstein

This is the best typo I have seen in some time

 

[Orodruin]

While perhaps someone may find all these opinions interesting, I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

I did answer the question. If your aim is to learn the physics, then my answer is ”none”. This is my opinion, which is what you asked for.

what are in people's opinions the "must read" papers of Einstein

 

[phinds]

While perhaps someone may find all these opinions interesting, I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

Changing the question you think you've asked after you've been given answers to the question you actually asked is considered bad form. Always try to figure out in advance what you really want to know when asking questions here. It will save us all a lot of time.

 

[PeterDonis]

I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

"None" is a perfectly acceptable answer to "which of Einstein's papers are must reads", which is the question you asked. If you don't like that answer, perhaps you need to ask a different question.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

I'm wondering what are in people's opinions the "must read" papers of Einstein.

There are none, in my opinion. If you're interested in the history then I would start with the three seminal 1905 papers. They are his introduction to the community of the physicists of 1905, when Einstein essentially began contributing his genius to the body of knowledge.

Putting the papers in their proper historical significance will require reading additional accounts of those papers by his contemporaries and by those who followed up and contributed to his work.

 

[AndreasC]

"None" is a perfectly acceptable answer to "which of Einstein's papers are must reads", which is the question you asked. If you don't like that answer, perhaps you need to ask a different question.

What question would you ask if you wanted a reasonable answer?

 

[PeterDonis]

What question would you ask if you wanted a reasonable answer?

You are implying that "None" is not a reasonable answer, or at least not an answer you want. Why not? Why are you actually asking about Einstein's papers? What do you actually want to know about them?

 

[AndreasC]

If you're interested in the history then I would start with the three seminal 1905 papers. They are his introduction to the community of the physicists of 1905, when Einstein essentially began contributing his genius to the body of knowledge.

See, that's an answer. I appreciate this answer and I'm looking forward to seeing other people's answers.

 

[PeterDonis]

that's an answer.

So if that's an answer, why isn't this?

If your aim is to see the historical aspect of the theory development, you could read the seminal papers from 1905 as well as the original GR paper.

That's what @Orodruin posted in post #2, which you complained about.

 

[AndreasC]

You are implying that "None" is not a reasonable answer, or at least not an answer you want. Why not? Why are you actually asking about Einstein's papers? What do you actually want to know about them?

You are right, I don't think "none" is a reasonable answer, and I believe it's pretty clear from my question and follow up comments that I am interested in reading some old original papers mainly in relativity and particularly by Einstein. I don't see why there has to be pedantry even about something as simple as that, and I also don't particularly appreciate people commenting just to tell me that I don't actually want to do what I want to do. I find it somewhat patronizing honestly. Maybe I'm overreacting but it's frustrating how much this happens online.

Maybe everyone is just getting tripped up because I said "must read", even though it clearly was never meant to be literal, as the quotes indicate. So now that that's clear hopefully we can leave all that behind and get some actual discussion at last. Maybe you can suggest how you think I can change the original question to your preference.

 

[AndreasC]

So if that's an answer, why isn't this?That's what @Orodruin posted in post #2, which you complained about.

That's also an answer. It's not what I complained about, I find nothing wrong with that part of @Orodruin 's post.

 

[Orodruin]

You are right, I don't think "none" is a reasonable answer, and I believe it's pretty clear from my question and follow up comments that I am interested in reading some old original papers mainly in relativity and particularly by Einstein.

It most certainly is not clear from your OP. Your question was literally “which papers are must-reads in your opinion”. None of them are if you want to learn the physics - which is what I said in addition to mentioning the other papers if that is not why you want to read.

To not ask what you actually want to know and then become angry at people because you communicated something else is disingenuous.

That's not what I complained about.

It was though. At the point you started complaining there was literally three replies from others in the thread - you implied that you were unhappy with the replies you had obtained.

While perhaps someone may find all these opinions interesting, I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

“All these” would seem to imply all three of the replies. If this was not your intention, then you again communicated it badly.

 

[AndreasC]

To not ask what you actually want to know and then become angry at people because you communicated something else is disingenuous.

The title of my post was "greatest of Einstein's papers" and I put "must read" in quotes on purpose. But ok, I wasn't actually annoyed by your post specifically, since it did at least make an attempt to answer, though if I'm honest I don't like that it focused so much on why modern texts are better, what's wrong with original papers etc. I've heard that a million times before, and frankly I just get tired of having to defend questions instead of just discussing their essence. You are right though that I should have made clearer that "none" is not the kind of answer I'm looking for, but I honestly did think it was kind of obvious. Thank you though for actually giving an answer.

 

[Dale]

For the physics I would read a physics textbook. For the history I would read a history textbook.

However, for personal enjoyment or just to be able to talk to people online, after you are already solidly grounded in the theory, only then I would read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and "Relativity the Special and General Theory".

I don't think that much else is commonly cited in online discussions, and reading the old notation quickly becomes tedious. But those two do give some insights into the way he thought about things in those early days. They are both counter-productive for someone who does not already have a good grasp on relativity.

 

[AndreasC]

"Relativity the Special and General Theory".

That's more of a popular book though, right?

 

[Orodruin]

what's wrong with original papers etc.

This was covered by my post as well as others. The original papers are written for concurrent peers, not to teach the subject matter. They typically contains ideas that peers will continue to develop, some will turn out wrong or far from the best way to communicate the subject. In fact, this is why people write textbooks.

I've heard that a million times before

Because it is the generally prevailing viewpoint.

and frankly I just get tired of having to defend questions instead of just discussing their essence

The problem here is your question formulation. You may think you phrases it in a particular way, but the responses you are getting from several independent sources are clear indications that you did not. Instead of reformulating yourself, you started complaining about the replies you obtained - alienating half the readers of the thread. When pointed out that you had obtained answers appropriate to your question you started complaining about people interpreting it wrong and trying to push onto people how your question actually only could be interpreted in the way you saw it in your head - again against direct evidence that this was not the case. This probably alienated the other half of the readers. So now you are stuck with a thread that is unlikely to go in the direction you want because you were not accurate in your original question and reacted the way you did when not getting the answers you wanted, but answers to the actual question you asked. Please keep in mind that subtextual meaning and nuance does not translate very well on the internet. People will read what you write, not what you think you write.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There is a reason why Socratic dialogs dd not go like this:

Socrates: What in your opinion should I read?"
Alcibiades: Opinions.....opinions...opinions...
Socrates: Well, that;s just wrong!

I think it's likely not to advance you towards your goals, and will be a waste of time. But it's your time. Go ahead and read the 1905 paper and the 1915 paper. They are by Einstein, and they are the first.

They are also not terribly clear, but you seem not to want to hear that.

 

[Dale]

That's more of a popular book though, right?

Does that matter? You didn’t specify that in the question. It is one of his papers, and lots of people have read it and will mention things from it online. And it is relatively easy to read

 

[martinbn]

Isnt it easier and faster to just try to read some of his papers, instead of argueing on forums.

 

[Orodruin]

They are also not terribly clear

Just as an example: The seminal paper on special relativity Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper is horribly convoluted. A lot of the insights that are buried inside are hidden in bulky notation and non-standard (in current terminology) naming conventions. For example, iirc, the Maxwell equations are written on component form one by one. To see through all of this you really need to be well familiarized with the subject matter already. It is also in German if you want the actual original.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This is why I mentioned "audience". Einstein is writing for people who got their degrees around 1870 or 1880. Even E&M was not completely worked out back then. (Maxwell's Equations as we know them today were developed by Oliver Heaviside, ~15 years post-Maxwell)

 

[PeterDonis]

iirc, the Maxwell equations are written on component form one by one

Yes, and not even with the modern convention for components, of writing, for example, $E_x$, $E_y$, and $E_z$ for the components of the electric field. Einstein picks different capital letters for each component. It makes things very difficult to follow because of the overhead of trying to keep track of which letter means what.

 

[gmax137]

Didnt read all the replies. If you want to read the original papers, just close your PF windiw and start reading them.

 

[AndreasC]

Didnt read all the replies. If you want to read the original papers, just close your PF windiw and start reading them.

I mean, I am, but you know, there's kind of a lot of them. A few hundreds actually. But this thread has turned into a debate for no reason at all so there's not much hope of something useful coming out of it.

 

[gmax137]

OK, I went back and read the replies.

However, for personal enjoyment or just to be able to talk to people online, after you are already solidly grounded in the theory, only then I would read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and "Relativity the Special and General Theory".

I think this is the best advice you're going to get. And judging from the other responses by the PF luminaries, I think many of them have read these two papers themselves. Sounds like a good start, at least.

I have a book I bought (cheep!) at a booksale, though I have not got round to really reading it. You might look for this, or similar. It translates the manuscript from german handwriting to english. Note the ruler; this is a large format book.

 

[PeterDonis]

I have a book I bought (cheep!) at a booksale

Note that that is from 1912, i.e., three years before Einstein found the correct field equation for GR that bears his name. The 1912 version was just one phase in the work in progress, and contains things that Einstein himself realized were wrong three years later.

 

[gmax137]

It is neither of the two papers mentioned above: "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and "Relativity the Special and General Theory". Those are available online in various places.

I think this bit of advice from @Dale is important:

after you are already solidly grounded in the theory, only then I would read

 

[AndreasC]

OK, I went back and read the replies.I think this is the best advice you're going to get. And judging from the other responses by the PF luminaries, I think many of them have read these two papers themselves. Sounds like a good start, at least.

I have a book I bought (cheep!) at a booksale, though I have not got round to really reading it. You might look for this, or similar. It translates the manuscript from german handwriting to english. Note the ruler; this is a large format book.

View attachment 337276

View attachment 337277

I actually found two books, one of which is about relativity specifically and also contains stuff by Lorentz, Minkowski etc, and one by Abraham Pais which is something like a scientific biography of Einstein, and outlines the most important papers. So it does essentially offer something like a list of the best ones, as well as modern commentary.

 

[bhobba]

While perhaps someone may find all these opinions interesting, I would prefer if someone answered the actual question rather than attacking its premises...

In my opinion, the greatest of his papers is his PhD thesis, A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions.

http://www.zhenzhubay.com/zzw/upload/up/2/378598b.pdf

It is the least known of his 1905 miracle papers. Yet, it is the most cited in professional literature. Why? For the first time, it put the atomic hypothesis to the ultimate test of any theory - experiment. Also, it had surprising applications.

For an overview of why I consider it so great, see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504201

It must be remembered that his papers on Relativity and the Photoelectric effect, while revolutionary, were different from the atomic hypothesis, which had been around for some time. They took time to be accepted; initially, many still doubted them. His PhD paper put the nail in the coffin of the doubters on the existence of atoms.

Interestingly, it was at first rejected as too short. He added a sentence, and it was accepted. Throughout Einstein's early career, we see he was only 'appreciated' by some of the most outstanding scientists of his time, like Plank, who quickly became his friend. Even the great Poincare had 'issues' with Einstein. He had discovered much of SR but could not put it on the firm foundation Einstein did. When Minkowski gave it his geometrical foundation, Poincare should have seen it immediately. I do not know what Poincare made of Minkowski's work, or even if he knew of it, but there is no doubt he would have grasped the math immediately.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Histspec]

I'm wondering what are in people's opinions the "must read" papers of Einstein. I concentrate more on general relativity but also other stuff. Reviews by Einstein and maybe other important contemporary papers would also be welcome, as well as maybe modern commentary on them.

You may be interested in the “Annus mirabilis papers” from 1905 on quantum theory, Brownian motion, special relativity. You find them freely accessible in the Vol. 2 of Einstein's collected papers (Documents 14,15,16,23):
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/

His writings on general relativity can be found in Vol. 6:
German:https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/
and Vol. 7:
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/

In particular his overview on general relativity from 1916:
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/311 ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/158

All papers include modern commentary, and many have extensive historical introductions as well.

 

[robphy]

Although probably not as detailed as the work of John Stachel et al above,
here are two other possibly useful resources. I haven't look at them in detail.

• Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics
  Albert Einstein
  (Edited by John Stachel, Foreword by Roger Penrose)
  https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691122281/einsteins-miraculous-year
  introduction by Stachel: https://www.bu.edu/cphs/files/2015/04/2005_Intro_to_E_s_M_Year.pdf
• A Student's Guide to Einstein's Major Papers (1st Edition)
  by Robert E Kennedy
  https://www.amazon.com/Students-Guide-Einsteins-Major-Papers/dp/0199694036/?tag=pfamazon01-20
  
  "A Student's Guide to Einstein's Major Papers focuses on Einstein's contributions, setting his major works into their historical context, and then takes the reader through the details of each paper, including the mathematics.
  
  This book helps the reader appreciate the simplicity and insightfulness of Einstein's ideas and how revolutionary his work was, and locate it in the evolution of scientific thought begun by the ancient Greek natural philosophers."

 

[Bosko]

...
For an overview of why I consider it so great, see:
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0504201
...

I agree. Reading now. Great.

 

[vanhees71]

I haven't followed the discussion closely, but I think it's very bad advice to tell students, not to read the original papers, because they are old and may not be the didactically "best way" to express their content. First of all what's the didactically best way to be taught about a subject is very subjective. In my opinion Einstein's papers are among the best written ones in the history of physics.

The question, which is the "greatest" is harder to answer and for sure also depends on the taste of the reader too. My favorite is the longer paper on general relativity:

A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. 49, 218 (1916)
https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.2005517S151

An English translation can be found here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity

As stressed by others, I'd not recommend to learn GR for the first time from the original sources, but to read the paper after having a good grasp of the theory from a modern textbook, always helps to understand the theory better.

 

[Orodruin]

A. Einstein, Die Grundlage der Allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Ann. Phys. 49, 218 (1916)
https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.2005517S151

... interesting placement of the ' for the primed quantities

As stressed by others, I'd not recommend to learn GR for the first time from the original sources, but to read the paper after having a good grasp of the theory from a modern textbook, always helps to understand the theory better.

Although, as I mentioned above, many of these also require at least a passable level of German - unless you can find a translated version.

 

[vanhees71]

... interesting placement of the ' for the primed quantities

What do you mean by that? If you mean the placement of the primes on the index, I admit it's a very bad practice, which can easily lead to confusion. Nevertheless it's perpetuated even in some modern textbooks.

Although, as I mentioned above, many of these also require at least a passable level of German - unless you can find a translated version.

I gave a link to an English translation. I've not checked, how well it does in comparison to the original German paper, but usually translations of scientific papers are pretty good:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Foundation_of_the_Generalised_Theory_of_Relativity

 

[Orodruin]

What do you mean by that? If you mean the placement of the primes on the index, I admit it's a very bad practice, which can easily lead to confusion. Nevertheless it's perpetuated even in some modern textbooks.

I disagree and I think it is the natural place where the primes should go. I believe we already had this discussion several times before. It is only prone to confusion if you are in the bad habit of naming your indices the same in different coordinate systems. However, using primed numbers in general for primed indices (0’, 1’, etc) removes this risk. Furthermore, typical coordinates that we tend to use use special letters rather than numbers to denote indices (eg, $r\theta\phi$ for spherical coordinates). The problem with priming the symbol representing the tensor is the implication that the tensor itself is coordinate dependent when it is a coordinate independent object.

But this is not even what is going on here. Albert is treating the entire object $A_{\mu\nu}$ as what is being primed. That he is not priming the indices is clear from expressions like ${A_{\mu\nu}}’$.

 

[AndreasC]

As stressed by others, I'd not recommend to learn GR for the first time from the original sources, but to read the paper after having a good grasp of the theory from a modern textbook, always helps to understand the theory better.

Right, I already know basic GR. I had a course in undergrad and I've read a little bit extra fron Wald, Hawking-Ellis, and Dirac's book. But original papers sometimes really help to give some context and insights, and they often get to the interesting part faster than some textbooks. It's happened to me a couple times to not understand at all something until I read an original source. For instance I was very confused by natural transformations as presented in various math textbooks until I read the 1945 paper by Eilenberg and MacLane. The original stuff on path integrals, Wilson's renormalization group and Shannon's entropy are really good. Schwarz's stuff on distributions is also helpful, someone should really translate it to English eventually. Thanks for the suggestions!

Also, don't worry, I read German.

 

[zepkid5678]

I recently read some of his papers. I started with some works around 1905. It was interesting to see the development (and simplification) of his ideas from when he first introduced special relativity and explained the ultraviolet catastrophe (photons as discrete wave packets / energy quanta) to when he was giving symposia and clarifying explanations. Also, in his General Relativity papers, you can see his first attempts and modification including the Ricci scalar.

I can’t speak to the whether reading them is “the best way to learn” but I found it to be interesting and rewarding.

I’m sorry my answer doesn’t provide specific papers, but my suggestion would be to browse around starting in 1905 and look for the papers where he made significant findings (I believe you can Wikipedia “miracle year” and find the names). Mostly I want to encourage you by sharing that I found it rewarding.

Also FloatHeadPhysics on YouTube has a video that gives a very good summary of his discovery of “E = mc2” to go along with the paper.

 

[zepkid5678]

SciClicEnglish on YouTube has a great intro series on General Relativity mathematics, and EigenChris has a relativity playlist that goes deeper into the mathematics for a full explanation. I took a grad course on Differential Geometry and came away with a better understanding of the Christoffel Symbols from those two YouTube series than from my course :)

 

[sbrothy]

You may be interested in the “Annus mirabilis papers” from 1905 on quantum theory, Brownian motion, special relativity. You find them freely accessible in the Vol. 2 of Einstein's collected papers (Documents 14,15,16,23):
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/

His writings on general relativity can be found in Vol. 6:
German:https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/
and Vol. 7:
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-doc/ ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/

In particular his overview on general relativity from 1916:
German: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-doc/311 ; English: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/158

All papers include modern commentary, and many have extensive historical introductions as well.

Inbthe spirit of the OP's question I was about to mention the Annus Mirabilis papers too. Especially the one about the photoelectric effect. Wasn't this more orless the one that earned him the Nobel?

 

[Orodruin]

Wasn't this more orless the one that earned him the Nobel?

A matter of interpretation:

"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"

The motivation indicates his works in general, but particularly highlights the photoelectric effect.