Traversable ER = EPR wormholes are possible

In 2013 Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind demonstrated that the Einstein Rosen bridge between two black holes is created by EPR-like correlations between the microstates of the two black holes. They called this the ER = EPR relation, a geometry–entanglement relationship: entangled particles are connected by a Schwarzschild wormhole. In other words, the ER bridge is a special kind of EPR correlation. Maldacena and Susskind’s conjecture was that these two concepts, ER and EPR, are related by more than a common publication date 1935. If any two particles are connected by entanglement, the physicists suggested, then they are effectively joined by a wormhole. And vice versa: the connection that physicists call a wormhole is equivalent to entanglement. They are different ways of describing the same underlying reality.
Maldacena and Susskind explain that one cannot use EPR correlations to send information faster than the speed of light. Similarly, Einstein Rosen bridges do not allow us to send a signal from one asymptotic region to the other, at least when suitable positive energy conditions are obeyed. This is sometimes stated as saying that (Schwarzschild) Lorentzian wormholes are not traversable.
In 2017, however, Ping Gao, Daniel Louis Jafferis, and Aron C. Wall showed that the ER = EPR allows the Einstein-Rosen bridge to be traversable. This finding comes with implications for the black hole information paradox (of Stephen Hawking) and black hole interiors because hypothetically, an observer can enter a Schwarzschild black hole and then escape to tell about what they have seen. This suggests that black hole interiors really exist and that what goes in must come out and we can learn about the information that falls inside black holes.
Consider a light signal, traveling through the throat of the wormhole. In 1962, Robert Fuller and John Archibald Wheeler were troubled by the apparent possibility that a test particle, or a photon, could pass from one point in space to another point in space, distanced perhaps extremely far away, in a negligible interval of time. Such rapid communication of a particle or a photon, passing through an Einstein-Rosen bridge violates elementary principles of relativity and causality, according to which a light signal cannot exceed the speed of light.
Wheeler and Fuller, however, showed that relativity and causality, despite first expectations, are not violated. It is perfectly possible to write down a mathematical expression for the metric of a space-time which has simple Schwarzschild wormhole geometry. However, when we deal with the passage of light by the “long way” from one wormhole mouth to the other, both on the same space, the throat becomes dynamically unstable and the Einstein-Rosen bridge is non-traversable (see figure, middle).

What would cause an Einstein-Rosen bridge to be traversable? Recall that according to the ER = EPR, an Einstein Rosen bridge between two black holes is created by EPR-like correlations between the microstates of the two black holes. In 2017 scholars found that if one extends the ER = EPR conjecture by equating, not a Schwarzschild wormhole between two black holes and a pair of entangled particles, but a Schwarzschild wormhole and a situation which is somewhat analogous to what occurs in quantum teleportation (between the two sides of the wormhole), then the Einstein-Rosen bridge becomes traversable.
Entanglement alone cannot be used to transmit information and we need quantum teleportation because the qubit is actually transmitted through the wormhole say Gao, Jafferis and Wall: “Suppose Alice and Bob share a maximally entangled pair of qubits, A and B. Alice can then transmit [teleport] the qubit Q to Bob by sending only the classical output of a measurement on the Q-A system. Depending on which of the 4 possible results are obtained, Bob will perform a given unitary operation on the qubit B, which is guaranteed to turn it into the state Q”. But: “Of course in the limit that Alice’s measurement is essentially instantaneous and classical, the traversable window will be very small … — just enough to let the single qubit Q pass through. Therefore, we propose that the gravitational dual description of quantum teleportation understood as a dynamical process is that the qubit passes through the ER=EPR wormhole of the entangled pair, A and B, which has been rendered traversable by the required interaction”.
Next, say Alice throws qubit Q into black hole A. She then measures a particle of its Hawking radiation, a, and transmits the result of the measurement through the external universe to Bob, who can use this knowledge to operate on b, a Hawking particle coming out of black hole B. Bob’s operation reconstructs Q, which appears to pop out of B, a perfect match for the particle that fell into A. The new traversable ER = EPR wormhole allows information to be recovered from black holes. Thus, Gao, Jafferis and Wall write regarding the black hole information paradox:
“Another possible interpretation of our result is to relate it to the recovery of information … [from evaporating black holes]. Assuming that black hole evaporation is unitary, it is in principle possible to eventually recover a qubit which falls into a black hole, from a quantum computation acting on the Hawking radiation. Assuming that you have access to an auxiliary system maximally entangled with the black hole, and that the black hole is an efficient scrambler of information, it turns out that you only need a small (order unity) additional quantity of Hawking radiation to reconstruct the qubit. In our system, the qubit may be identified with the system that falls into the black hole from the left and gets scrambled, the auxiliary entangled system is … on the right, and the boundary interaction somehow triggers the appropriate quantum computation to make the qubit reappear again, after a time of order the scrambling time”. …
Thus, the Gao, Jafferis, Wall ER = EPR wormhole idea seems to extend to the so-called real world as long as two black holes are causally connected and coupled in the right way. If you allow the Hawking radiation from one of the black holes to fall into the other, the two black holes become entangled, and the quantum information that falls into one can exit the other. Thus, Gao, Jafferis and Wall conclude:
“Our example thus provides a way to operationally verify a salient feature of ER=EPR that observers from opposite sides of an entangled pair of systems may meet in the connected interior. … What we found is that if, after the observers jump into their respective black holes, a … coupling is activated, then the Einstein-Rosen [bridge] can be rendered traversable, and the meeting inside may be seen from the boundary. This seems to suggest that the ER=EPR wormhole connection was physically ‘real'”.
Finally the ER = EPR wormhole does not require energy-matter that violates the average null energy condition; the negative energy matter in the ER = EPR configuration is similar to the Casimir effect, and any infinite null geodesic which makes it through the ER = EPR wormhole must be chronal, i.e. the ER = EPR wormhole does not violate Hawking’s chronology protection conjecture. In addition, the ER = EPR wormhole does not violate the generalized second law of thermodynamics.
Therefore, the ER = EPR wormhole is not a configuration with closed time-like curves and it, therefore, does not permit one to travel faster than light over long distances through space; in other words, it cannot serve as a time machine and thus does not violate causality.


For further details:

Ping Gao, Daniel Louis Jafferis, Aron C. Wall (2017). Traversable Wormholes via a Double Trace Deformation.

Natalie Wolchover, Newfound Wormhole Allows Information to Escape Black Holes


David Rowe reviews my book and the Gutfreund Renn book in ISIS. My reply.

Prof. David E. Rowe has published a review of my third book, Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, Second edition:

Galina Weinstein. Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity. Second edition. xv + 642 pp., bibl., notes, index. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2017. £80.99 (cloth). ISBN 9781443895125.

and Hanoch Gutfreund’s and Jürgen Renn’s book, The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press under the title:

Hanoch Gutfreund; Jürgen Renn. The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures.; Galina Weinstein. Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity.

I will speak as if the book, The Formative Years of Relativity was written by an author Gutfreund to emphasize that the main author of the book is Gutfreund without forgetting about Renn’s important contributions to the book.

Rowe’s book review compares the two books, mine and Gutfreund’s. But there is nothing common between my third book, Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, Second Edition, and Gutfreund’s book, The Formative Years of Relativity. Indeed, the first thing that strikes the reader is Rowe’s choice to compare two books that have nothing to do with one another in one review simply because the titles of the two books have the word “relativity”. My book discusses the genesis of special and general relativity (1905-1918) and Gutfreund’s book encompasses the period after 1918, especially the 1920s which he calls “the formative years of relativity”. These are two completely different topics and periods of time. Gutfreund discusses the “debates and developments characterizing the early reception and spread of Einstein[‘s] ideas in the late 1910s and 1920s” (preface, Gutfreund and Renn 2017). The main theme of my book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, Second Edition is Einstein’s own intellectual path to relativity.

The second thing that catches the eye of the reader is that Rowe is mentioned in the acknowledgements section in the preface of Gutfreund’s book (preface, Gutfreund and Renn 2017):

Special thanks are due to our colleagues and friends Alexander Blum, Yemima Ben-Menachem, […], David E. Rowe, Donald Salisbury, and Robert Schulmann”.

In such circumstances, it seems that Rowe cannot write an objective review. Indeed, Rowe praises with much insincerity Gutfreund’s and Renn’s book but gives what seems like an unfair review of my third book, which should be rectified. I first comment on Rowe’s criticism in his book review of the editing process of my book and then correct his errors in reviewing my book (I am following Rowe’s order of presentation).

My intention in this piece is only to explain the reasoning behind the editing process of my book and to correct the errors in Rowe’s review.

The editing process of my book:

Firstly, Rowe writes (Isis —Volume 110, Number 1, March 2019, 203):

“While she sings the praise of the CSP stuff, the lapses in layout and copyediting begin with the table of contents. The cover design, produced by the author, shows a drawing entitled ‘Einstein is wearing the Patent Office Suit,’ which should bring to mind one of the most iconic of all photographs of the young genius. Inside one finds a great deal of rambling, barely edited prose in six chapters […].”

I drew the cover design by myself because the Einstein Archives and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem would not give me permission to use Einstein’s quotations in my first book: Between 2012 and 2014 the Einstein Archives and the Hebrew University refused to give me permission to use quotations from Einstein’s manuscripts and papers in my first book. I chased for two years the Hebrew University and only after two years, did I receive the permission. In this state of affairs, I realized that I would neither get any permission to use photos of Einstein nor would I be able to reproduce any photo of an Einstein document in my book. I thus had no other choice but to draw Einstein on the front cover. At least I am capable of drawing.


Major parts of my book were edited by Prof. John Stachel. Stachel wanted to publish the book by Springer as part of the Einstein Studies series. However, the Hebrew University put a spoke in the wheels of this plan. Stachel stepped down a few times from editing the Einstein Studies series and the Hebrew University delayed the permission, as said above, and the end result was that I missed the opportunity to publish by Springer, the Einstein Studies series. Finally, I published my first book by CSP. The third book is a second edition of the first book and this is the reason why the title of the book remained the same (it’s the publisher’s decision).

Secondly, Rowe writes in his review (Isis —Volume 110, Number 1, March 2019, 203):

“A reader might wonder what Weinstein means by ‘critical biography,’ but since she offers no explanation I will demur from giving an opinion. In fact, I am at a loss to explain why she included Chapter A in her book at all, since its contents have virtually no bearing on Einstein’s paths to special and general relativity. At any rate, what she delivers is nothing but strings of information about his life […]. In Chapter F (“The Sources”) she distinguishes between documentary and nondocumentary biographies, noting that both can be unreliable. Here she shows no hesitation to criticize earlier work, but usually just by making flippant remarks rather than cogent arguments. She also writes as if no one before her has ever reviewed the literature bearing on Einstein and relativity. Her book makes no reference to Klaus Henschel’s monumental 1990 study of the reception of relativity among philosophers (cited several times by Gutfreund and Renn). Nor does she cite my own more recent discussion of the biographical literature in ‘Einstein and Relativity: What Price Fame?’ (Science in Context, 2012, 25: 197-246). Even more glaring than these omissions is another: she never points out that several of the biographies she writes about are blatantly hagiographic”.

John Stachel who edited my book thought that the book should have a short biography of Einstein, and this would be the first chapter of the book. He edited the sources chapter: documentary and non-documentary biographies and in the third edition, I extended it. Finally, I don’t “criticize earlier work”. What seems like a criticism of earlier work is actually an attenuated version of Stachel’s review (see Stachel, John, Einstein from B to Z, Springer, 2002, 556). The purpose of the “sources” chapter is not to review the literature bearing on Einstein and relativity, rather it is meant to provide complementary information on the sources used in the book.

As to “Klaus Hentschel’s monumental 1990 study of the reception of relativity among philosophers” (Interpretationen und Fehlinterpretationen der speziellen und der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie durch Zeitgenossen Albert Einsteins). It is not so relevant for my third book which discusses the history of Einstein’s intellectual journey to special and general relativity until 1918, i.e. Einstein’s path to the special and general theory of relativity until 1918. I need not here dwell on Hentschel’s book but its theme is fully pertinent to the topics dealt with in Gutfreund’s book. Nonetheless, I do mention Klaus Hentschel in my book (see the reference list of my book):

Hentschel, Klaus (1992). “Einstein’s Attitude towards Experiments: Testing relativity theory 1907–1927.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23, 593-624.

And I also mention two of Prof. Rowe’s works in my book (see my reference list):

Rowe, David E. (2008). “Max von Laue’s Role in the Relativity Revolution.” The Mathematical Intelligencer 30, 54-60.

Rowe, David E. and Schulmann Robert (2007). Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and Public Stands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace, and the Bomb. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

The above professors, however, don’t mention my papers in their works…

The errors in Rowe’s book review:

Now I would like to correct Rowe’s embarrassingly blatant errors in his book review of my book.

Firstly, Prof. Rowe writes: “she never points out that several of the biographies she writes about are blatantly hagiographic” (Isis 2019, 203).

This is not true. I do point out that the biographies are hagiographic. I even say this on the back cover of my Book. See the back cover of my book which says: “The first chapter provides a narrative of Einstein’s early life until 1914 without resorting to hagiography”.


Back cover of my book.

Secondly, Prof Rowe writes (Isis —Volume 110, Number 1, March 2019, 203-204):

“Chapter D deals with the period preceding the formative years. Those familiar with the work of John Stachel, the doyen of modern Einstein scholarship, will likely find little new to contemplate in this survey, which forthrightly adopts Stachel’s ‘drama in three acts’. In sharp contrast with Gutfreund and Renn, who identify over fifty other actors during the formative years, Weinstein’s account puts Einstein alone in the limelight. She writes that her aim, “the simplification of the history of physics” (p. xv), was achieved with minimal reliance on mathematical formulas. Yet a cursory glance at this new chapter reveals that nearly every page contains formulas, many of them surely intelligible only to specialists, Gutfreund and Renn wrote their commentary using virtually none; they wisely left technicalities for Einstein to explain. Moreover, their lucid and compelling writing is packaged in a book that is not only readable but beautifully designed and affordable!”

I don’t forthrightly adopt Stachel’s drama in three acts! Prof. Rowe easily fell into the trap of the three-act drama because Stachel edited major parts of my book! In fact, after presenting Stachel’s three-act drama, I adopt quite the opposite point of view. I write on page 279 in my book:

“There is, however, the objection by Jürgen Renn that the genesis of general relativity did not quite unfold in the form of a classic three-act drama between 1907 and 1915. The story begins before 1907 and continues well beyond 1915. An additional problem of this portrait as a classic three-act drama is that it leaves out what is usually considered ‘a villain’ in this story, namely a theory on which Einstein worked between 1913 and 1915, in Zurich mostly but later also in Berlin, where he discarded it. It is called the preliminary or the draft, outline, in German, the Entwurf theory (Renn, 2016; Janssen, Norton, Renn, Sauer and Stachel, “Introduction to Vol. 1 and 2” in Renn et al 2007, 16)”.

And I follow this line of reasoning in my book rather than the three-act drama!
In fact, I dedicated a whole big section (pages 321-398) to the Entwurf theory and to all the intricacies of the Entwurf theory from 1913 to 1915.

Thirdly, Prof. Rowe then says that my account puts Einstein alone in the limelight. This is not quite true because I explicitly write that Chapter D of my third book complements the text of my second book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, which focuses on Einstein’s interaction with other scientists.


Indeed, in my third book, the one reviewed by Rowe, I write in the preface:

“My primary goal in writing this second edition of Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, is the following: Firstly, I have updated and made corrections and minor revisions in many places in the text. I have also simplified explanations. Secondly, I have added a chapter (Chapter D) on Einstein’s route to the General Theory of Relativity (1905 – 1918) that will complement the text in my book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, in which I focus on the work of Albert Einstein and his interaction with and response to many eminent and not-so-eminent scientists (1905 – 1945). In General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries I demonstrate that the ongoing discussions between Einstein and other scientists have all contributed to the edifice of general relativity and relativistic cosmology. In this edition of Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity, I centralize on Einstein’s own creativity, invention and inner struggles on his route to general relativity, rather than on his interactions with other scientists”.

Gutfreund even read my book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries but failed to cite it in his book, The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures. He writes on page 94 in Chapter 6 of his book The Formative Years of Relativity:

“Questions about the nature of this propagation [gravitational waves] and its velocity already naturally led to a discussion of gravitational waves. Such questions did in fact arise in connection with the Entwurf theory […] after Einstein presented it in 1913 in Vienna. In the discussion period Max Born asked [a quotation…] and Einstein responded [a quotation]” and so forth.

I wrote on pages 242-243 of my second book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, in 2015 (and I also wrote this in other pieces as well) that the first time Einstein mentioned gravitational waves was in the discussion after the Vienna lecture in 1913:

“In the discussion after Einstein’s 1913 Vienna talk, Max Born asked Einstein about the speed of propagation of gravitation, whether the speed would be that of the velocity of light. Einstein replied that it is extremely simple to write down the equations for the case in which the disturbance in the field is extremely small […] In 1916 Einstein followed these steps and studied gravitational waves.

Gutfreund does not cite my works. In the same book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, published in 2015, I write on pages 287-288:

“Einstein later explains this in his 1938 book with Infeld in the following thought experiment. Although Infeld wrote the book, it is reasonable to assume that the thought experiment came from Einstein.

Consider a great elevator at rest at the bottom of a building much higher than any real one. […] We thus have two observers, K’ and K’’ and two opposite points of view: the phenomenon is different for the two. There would be no equivalence of K and K’’ and from the behaviour of the light ray we could say that K’ is in absolute motion: whenever an observer on Earth finds a bent light ray in an accelerated elevator, he knows that the reference frame under consideration is in absolute motion. Here then we have a version of Newton’s bucket Experiment”.

And on page 35 of his 2017 book, The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Gutfreund writes the same thing but does not cite my book:

“In this sense, the uniformly accelerated frame of reference introduced by Einstein and later often described in terms of the elevator thought experiment was nothing but a simplified version of the bucket thought experiment of Newton and Mach”.

Rowe writes (Isis —Volume 110, Number 1, March 2019, 202):

“Gutfreund and Renn show, in 1921–1922 Einstein was still struggling to defend his views regarding Mach’s principle and its cosmological implications, ideas that Willem de Sitter had challenged directly (see p. 70 for de Sitter’s notes from a conversation with him in Leiden in September 1916). Yet in the years that followed Einstein seems to have fallen silent when it came to cosmological matters, even when faced with Hermann Weyl’s open heresy (to which he reacted only briefly in a letter; see p. 78). Weyl had initially defended Einstein’s arguments against de Sitter’s matter-free model of the universe, but he gradually drifted over to the other side, arguing instead for a field-theoretic ether as the primary agent accounting for inertia (as opposed to distant masses à la Mach). Weyl also cited Vesto Slipher’s early observations of redshift effects among distant nebulae as further support for de Sitter’s model. Still, as noted by the authors, serious consideration of nonstatic models of the universe came only later. In the wake of Hubble’s findings, Einstein and de Sitter could agree they had both been wrong, and in 1932 they tossed out Einstein’s cosmological constant and introduced a new model, the Einstein–de Sitter universe”.

In my second book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, 2015, on pages 242-359 (more than hundred pages) I extensively discuss the above-mentioned historical milestones: Einstein’s efforts to defend Mach’s ideas and principle, Einstein’s 1920 “Mach’s Ether”, Einstein’s discussions and correspondence with Willem de Sitter, Einstein’s interaction with Hermann Weyl. Weyl’s position first corresponded exactly to Einstein’s when he criticised de Sitter’s solution and then Weyl crossed the lines, as I extensively discuss in my book. Weyl found that spectral lines show redshift to a first-order approximation proportional to their distances in de Sitter’s world. I also present this matter in my book and say that these considerations were suggested in connection with Slipher’s observations. I perform historical analysis of Hubble’s findings, Eddington’s cosmological model, Einstein’s cosmological constant, Einstein’s steady-state model, the Einstein-de Sitter model, etc.

Rowe writes (Isis —Volume 110, Number 1, March 2019, 203): “Weinstein’s idiosyncratic book is already her third in as many years published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing”.

Having mentioned my three books published by CSP and comparing my work and Gutfreund’s, Rowe should also have mentioned that I had discussed the aforementioned topics.

Fourthly, Rowe notes that I write in my preface that I promise “minimal reliance on mathematical formulas. Yet a cursory glance at this new chapter reveals that nearly every page contains formulas, many of them surely intelligible only to specialists. Gutfreund and Renn wrote their commentary using virtually none; they wisely left the technicalities for Einstein to explain”.

However, I write in my preface (p. xv):

“Einstein also thought that a scientist should not attempt to popularize his theories. It is the duty of a scientist to remain obscure (Douglas Vibert 1956, 99-100). I thus have attempted to make Chapter D as intriguing as possible to readers with strong physics and historiography backgrounds. With this objective in mind, the explanations in Sections 3-7 of Chapter D are, understandably, less general. The mathematical background needed to read these sections corresponds to the level of a college student graduating in science”.

Surprisingly, therefore, Einstein sided with me!

Did Einstein steal his theory of relativity from his first wife?

Allen Esterson and David C. Cassidy have published a new book: Einstein’s Wife. The Real Story of Mileva Einstein-Marić.

The last part of the book considers the question: Did Einstein’s first wife coauthor his 1905 path-breaking papers. In his book, the author Allen Esterson failed to mention my work on the subject probably because in 2013 I corrected his draft on Mileva Marić and Einstein and perhaps he didn’t like my comments…

Anyway, in 2012 I wrote the following paper:

Did Mileva Marić assist Einstein in writing his 1905 path breaking papers?

Shortly afterwards, the MIT Technology Review wrote a piece about my paper:

Did Einstein’s First Wife Secretly Coauthor His 1905 Relativity Paper?

I didn’t quite like the style and I have noticed that the paper required some corrections. In 2015 and 2017 I expanded on the aforementioned topic in my book:

Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition), Chapter E.

As to Allen Esterson’s book. His chapter begins with Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Mileva Marić: Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, das tragische Leben der Mileva Einstein-Marić (In the Shadow of Albert Einstein: The Tragic Life of Mileva Marić).


Esterson writes:



Esterson tries to refute one item after the other. While refuting  Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s thesis, Esterson tells in much detail how Marić was a good student and almost graduated the Polytechnic, she travelled to her parents’ home in Novi Sad to secretly give birth to a daughter, Liesel, in early 1902. Liesel was born before the couple’s (Einstein-Marić) marriage, and so forth.

Don Howard has written that Mileva Marić was a remarkably talented and ambitious young scientist, someone who expended tremendous personal energy to create for herself opportunities that normally would have been foreclosed to women at that time. Marić’s love affair with Einstein and her pregnancy with their illegitimate daughter Lieserl simply put an end to all of these dreams that had fired her soul. She was pregnant and scared about what the future would bring and she failed her final exams at the Zurich Polytechnic. The cultural norms of the era and the unhappy accident of the pregnancy and birth of Lieserl destroyed Mileva’s intellectual dreams and ambitions. However, Mileva was a very smart sounding board for Einstein’s ideas, in much the same way that Michele Besso, was a sounding board.

In his book, Esterson repeats John Stachel’s theme that Marić did not contribute to Einstein’s relativity paper of 1905 and Stachel’s altercations with feminists authors and with Evan Harris Walker (see, for instance, Esterson’s book, page 282 where he writes:


Esterson also analyses Peter Michelmore’s biography, Einstein, Profile of the Man and writes on page 107:


Yes, Michelmore mentioned the couple Einstein and Marić, writing that “Mileva checked the [relativity] article again and again, then mailed it. ‘It’s a very beautiful piece of work’, she told her husband” (Michelmore’s book 1962, page 46).

Michelmore interviewed Hans Albert Einstein. Michelmore wrote that Einstein’s son  “answered all my questions, and waited while I wrote down the answers. He did not ask to check my notes, or edit my book. He trusted me”. Thus, if Einstein’s son did not check Michelmore’s notes and the latter did not base his book on archival material, then Michelmore’s biography is not a primary source and we can consider it as almost pure imagination. See my book, Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition) for further analysis.

While refuting Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s and Michelmore’s theses Esterson bases himself on the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein and on secondary sources, such as Albrecht Fölsing’s biography of Einstein. He thus refers to biographies to make a point about Marić’s life and influence on Einstein’s 1905 ground-breaking papers. He refers to Walter Isaacson’s 2007 biography of Einstein and says that Isaacson “examined archival material newly released in 2006” (Esterson’s book 2019, page 136). This is absolutely true. Esterson explains in an endnote:


However, Isaacson inadvertently falls into the trap of Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Mileva Marić, which according to Esterson is a dubious source:


Isaacson writes in his biography of Einstein, page 136:

“In late summer 1905 Albert, Mileva and Hans Albert visited Belgrade, Mileva’s hometown Ujvidek (now Novi Sad). Walter Isaacson described Mileva Marić’s role in Einstein’s work: Albert and Mileva took a vacation together in Serbia to see her family and friends. “While there, Marić was proud and also willing to accept part of the credit. ‘Not long ago we finished a very significant work that will make my husband world famous’, she told her father, according to stories later recorded there […] and Einstein happily praised his wife’s help. ‘I needed my wife’, he told her friends in Serbia. ‘She solves all the mathematical problems for me'”.

The source is Dennis Overbye’s historical romance, Einstein in Love, in which Overbye has written (page 140):

“‘Not long ago we finished a very significant work that will make my husband world famous’, Mileva told her father in a conversation widely repeated through the years. To the villagers and relatives who remembered her as a childhood genius in mathematics, Mileva had a heroic aura, the local girl who had gone out into the world and made good. Now she had brought back a handsome, adoring husband. Albert knew how to play the crowd. ‘I need my wife’, he is reported to have said, ‘She solves all the mathematical problems for me'”.

Overbye quotes Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Marić, which was translated to English for him

Isaacson and Overbye simply fell into the trap of Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Mileva Marić.

This one minor fly in the ointment in Isaacson’s otherwise good intentioned book would pass unnoticed by the reader. But Esterson is citing Isaacson’s biography in a book the title of which is Einstein’s Wife. The Real Story of Mileva Einstein-Marić, and he thus has to rectify this trifling inadvertency.


Time Travel into the Past: How can a wormhole be transformed into a time machine?

In 1988, Kip Thorn and his students published a technical article about traversable wormholes (see here). In their article, they conjectured that if the laws of physics were to permit traversable wormholes they would probably also permit such a wormhole to be transformed into a time machine, which violates causality. This would allow for travel into the past. More than 25 years later, Thorn was involved with the movie Interstellar from its inception and he helped the producer Christopher Nolan and others weave science into the film’s fabric. However, according to Thorn, today almost thirty years have gone by and, the preponderance of evidence still suggests that traversable wormholes are an impossibility.

Wormhole creation would be governed by the laws of quantum gravity. A seemingly plausible scenario entails quantum foam (“foamy” topologies of space-time on length-scales of the order of the Planck length 1.3 x 10-33). One can imagine an advanced civilization pulling a wormhole out of the quantum foam, enlarging it to classical size, and threading it with exotic matter to hold it open. Of course, says Thorn, we do not understand the quantum gravity laws that control the foam, the pull, and the stages of enlargement. Moreover, we do not understand exotic matter very well either.

Thorn suggests the following thought experiment. I am paraphrasing here. Suppose both California desert and Dublin are connected by a wormhole. The two mouths of the wormhole are synchronized. Since the California desert and Dublin are not moving with respect to each other, I in the California desert can synchronize my clock with that of my friend in Dublin. Hence clocks remain synchronized inside the throat and between the two mouths regardless of the outside time. While a wormhole is a single unit connected by a throat, its two mouths open onto places that are totally different from each other. The wormhole throat itself is a single reference system. According to special relativity, we can, therefore, synchronize clocks in this reference system.


Mouth in California Desert                             Mouth in Dublin

The images seen through a wormhole’s mouths. Photos by Catherine MacBride and Mark Interrante.

Both mouths look like crystal balls. When I look into my California desert mouth, I see a distorted image of a street in Dublin. That image is brought to me by light that travels through the wormhole from Dublin to California, rather like light traveling through an optical fiber. When you look into your Dublin mouth, you see a distorted image of the trees in the California desert.

In Thorn, Kip, The Science of Interstellar, W. W. Norton & Company, p. 133.

Imagine a situation where the wormhole has been created by an advanced civilization in some future year, say 3000. On January 1, 3000 the wormhole’s two mouths, A and B, are at rest with respect to each other. Subsequently, mouth A remains at rest in Dublin, while mouth B, in California desert, accelerates to near-light speed, then reverses its motion and returns to its original location. Suppose the advanced beings produce this motion by pulling on mouth B gravitationally. I, therefore, take mouth B for a round trip and travel outside the wormhole with mouth B moving at relativistic velocities. Mouth A will not have moved since nothing has been pulling on it. The two mouths A and B of the wormhole are moving with respect to each other, and the wormhole throat now has mouth A at one end and a hole B at the other end. Hence the geometry of the wormhole throat does not change during the whole trip of mouth B so that the length of the wormhole’s throat remains fixed.

Since the two mouths move with respect to each other, time dilation creates a time difference between the clocks next to each mouth. The motion of the mouth is like that of the twins in the standard special-relativistic twin paradox. Outside the wormhole, mouth B ages less than mouth A, but inside the wormhole, the clocks are still synchronized; mouth A and hole B are at rest relative to each other and therefore, both entrances of the wormhole will age equally. If I have traveled with mouth B at close to the speed of light, I might find myself ensconced for many years in the future after returning to my original location in California desert.

I finally return to California desert with mouth B and find I have aged only one day (namely, on the date January 2, 3000, as measured by my own time – my proper time). Suppose that I find myself, on returning to California desert, to have arrived on, say, January 1, 3010 (according to the standard special-relativistic twin paradox). This is the date that appears on the calendar on the wall of an abandoned creepy cabin in the desert. Stepping through mouth B in California desert on January 1, 3010 and emerging out of A in Dublin will take me back in time. I will emerge from A and find that it is January 2, 3000. This is so because it is as seen from Dublin and my clock remains synchronized with the clock in mouth A. Recall that I have aged only one day during the trip (on my subsequent return to California desert, the date was January 2, 3000, as measured by my own time).

Consequently, by traversing the wormhole from mouth B to mouth A, one can travel backward in time, namely one can traverse a closed timelike curve. The same relative aging that occurs in the twin paradox produces, here, closed timelike curves that loop through the wormhole. However, that traveler could never go further back into the past than the year 3000. No traveler can ever go further back in time than the original date of creation of the wormhole.

Fur further reading see my book: General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries: Einstein’s Polemics with Physicists.

How do science fiction writers explain traversable wormholes? In The Strange Days at Blake Holsey High science fiction television program, a group of science students (science club) at a private boarding school have discovered that their science teacher’s office floor has a traversable wormhole that connects major time periods and therefore deposits a traveler back in time to October 4, 1987, April 11, 1977, and October 4, 1879 (when Blake Holsey High and the wormhole were founded). One of the students is getting sucked into the wormhole:






Albert Einstein and the old white boys’ club

Yesterday the Hebrew University in Jerusalem asked on the official Albert Einstein Facebook wall:

“Did you know? Einstein was the first Chairman of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s Academic Council and was on the University’s first Board of Governors. Support the University that Einstein loved on July 24th, on the 1st annual Global Giving Day. Every donation counts. Help fulfill Einstein’s legacy today”.


And the university also asked the other day:


How can students answer these questions if they haven’t learned about Einstein’s legacy and theories? Over the past decade, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem has not offered any course on Albert Einstein’s legacy and theories (relativity, unified field theory, etc.).

I am an expert in Einstein studies; the Hebrew University in Jerusalem awarded me two extraordinary doctoral prizes (Bar Hillel and Edelstein) for my thesis on Albert Einstein. I could teach this topic but a decade ago the university abruptly closed my course and there were no other professors that offered the same course on Einstein’s legacy. That field was much a “unicorn”.

It was not until a decade after the university canceled my course that people realized that the program for the history and philosophy of science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem was actually dependent on Einstein’s legacy.

When history and philosophy both were living under the same roof, historians were mumbling their medieval and early history of science and philosophers were discussing quantum and statistical mechanics. I’ve told them many times that Einstein was the Hebrew University founder and therefore the university has to offer a course on Albert Einstein’s legacy, but people in the program for the history and philosophy of science wouldn’t listen. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink…

If we try to bring out the circumstances that were going on in the program for history and philosophy of science then when we look beneath the surface the program was dominated by the good ole boys club. The program was about to flourish but then came the 2018 closing or redefinition of the program (you can call it whatever you want) in terms of two or so courses in the department of philosophy at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem; and the realization that more than a decade of great legacy is falling apart. And now, unfortunately, it’s a lame duck, almost a dead duck.


The Formative Years of Relativity. Gravitational waves go in one ear and out the other

The purpose of this piece is to review Hanoch Gutfreund’s and Jürgen Renn’s new book The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press and Oxford University Press. I have found two problems in the book the first of which is Poincaré’s influence on Einstein and the second problem is related to gravitational waves. The first part of the review deals with Poincaré’s influence on Einstein. In this part I discuss the problem related to gravitational waves.

Gravitational waves have won the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics. The prize is awarded to Kip Thorne, Rainer Weiss, Barry Barish for their work on Ligo experiment. Actually, Kip Thorne’s interesting work is on wormholes: the Einstein-Rosen bridges, the Schwarzschild (non-traversable) wormholes and traversable wormeholes converted into time machines. Wormholes spark our imagination because of the possibility of travelling backwards in time and sending signals through the throat in space-time with causality violation.

However, let us concentrate on gravitational waves.

I have ordered the book from Amazon together with The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People who Treat you Like Dirt written by Robert Sutton, a Stanford University professor:


It seems that the book, The Formative Years of Relativity has mistakes and also errors in English (the book needs proofreading). I therefore ask the second writer: Are you living in a fool’s paradise?

Right at the beginning Gutfreund argues that gravitational waves is the only major topic debated during the formative years that has no trace in Einstein’s book The Meaning of Relativity. He writes: “Had we restricted our commentaries to the contents of Einstein’s book, there would be no reason to mention gravitational waves; however, it would be inconceivable to talk about the formative years without thoroughly discussing them. What is worth emphasizing in this context is how Einstein’s predominant interest in this phenomenon which developed immediately after the completion of his general theory, had faded away completely by the time he delivered the Princeton lectures” (Gutfreund’s book, page 8):


And the above conclusion is mentioned in the New York Times book review section:


Gutfreund and Renn “note, however, a conspicuous absence. There is ‘no trace’ in Einstein’s lectures of what is today considered a key topic in relativity: gravitational waves”.

In fact quite the opposite is true. Einstein’s mathematical derivations in his 1916 and 1918 two gravitational waves papers play a central role in The Meaning of Relativity of 1922. It therefore appears that Einstein’s interest in this topic had not faded away by the time he delivered the Princeton lectures.

Consider Einstein’s gravitational waves paper of 1916:


And here is the same equation in his 1921 book, The Meaning of Relativity (Gutfreund’s book, page 240):


Equation (92) represents the metric of general relativity Picture1 - Copy, which is the sum of the Minkowski flat metric Picture1 - Copy - Copy of special relativity and Picture1 - Copy (2) a very small disturbance.

And again, Einstein’s gravitational waves paper of 1916:


And his book, The Meaning of Relativity (Gutfreund’s book, page 246):

Picture3 - Copy

We write the field equations in terms of Picture1 - Copy (2). Equation (96b) below is the linearized approximation of Einstein’s field equations. Then we can solve the field equations in the same way that we solve Maxwell’s electromagnetic field equations (Gutfreund’s book, page 247):


Equations (101) above from the book The Meaning of Relativity, which are exactly like equations (9) from the gravitational waves paper of 1916, are the method of retarded potentials.

In his review paper of 1916, The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein’s field equations were valid for systems in unimodular coordinates, i.e. he chose the coordinates so that Picture1111.

However, in his gravitational waves paper of 1916, Einstein thanked de Sitter for sending him the following metric, the one below: “Herr [Willem] de Sitter sent me these values by letter”:


And in the book, The Meaning of Relativity he writes the the same metric (Gutfreund’s book, page 249):


Indeed, in the book, The Formative Years of Relativity, Gutfreund writes: “On 22 June 1916, Einstein wrote to Willem de Sitter […] ‘For I found that the gravitation equations in first-order approximation [i.e. equations (96b) the linearized approximation of Einstein’s field equations] can be solved exactly by means of retarded potentials, if the condition of Picture1111is abandoned. Your solution for the mass point is then the result upon specialization to this case'” (Gutfreund’s book, page 97):


Daniel Kennefick explains Einstein’s letter to de Sitter in his book, Traveling at the Speed of Thought: Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves (page 51):


By the way I highly recommend Kennefick’s book.

That being said, in his book The Formative Years of Relativity, Gutfreund once again fails to mention my work. He begins the chapter on gravitational waves with Max Born. Born asked Einstein how fast does the effect of gravitation propagates according to his theory? Einstein replied to him that it is simple to write down the equation for the case where the disturbances one places into the field are infinitesimal. In that case the metric Picture1 - Copy differs only infinitesimally (Picture1 - Copy (2)) from the values (Picture1 - Copy - Copy) that would be present without that disturbance; and the disturbance propagates with the velocity of light (Gutfreund’s book, page 94):


I wrote in my 2015 book General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries and in other places as well that the first time Einstein mentioned gravitational waves was in the discussion after the Vienna lecture in 1913:


However, Gutfreund does not cite my 2015 book.

In 2016 Gutfreund wrote a blog post and added Jürgen Renn and Diana Buchwald as co-authors:


They told the story of the origin of gravitational waves:


They briefly summarize the history of gravitational waves: “The first debates about the existence of gravitational waves even preceded the completion of general relativity by Einstein in November, 1915”. They only mention Max Abraham but don’t write that the first time that Einstein had mentioned gravitational waves was after the Vienna lecture in 1913, in the discussion, Max Born asked Einstein how fast does the effect of gravitation propagates according to his Entwurf theory. Finally they write: “Einstein mentioned gravitational waves for the first time in a letter of 19 February 1916 to Karl Schwarzschild..”. Hence, according to Gutfreund (and Jürgen Renn) in 2016, Einstein did not mention gravitational waves for the first time in the 1913 discussion following the Vienna lecture, he rather did it in 1916. At this stage Gutfreund (and Jürgen Renn) seemed to have been unaware that in 1913 Einstein had discussed gravitational waves with Max Born.

Finally, in the same book, General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries, published in 2015, I write:


And I read in Gutfreund’s book of 2017 and discover that he writes exactly the same thing but does not cite my book (Gutfreund’s book, page 35):



Total Eclipse of the Sun and Deflection of light Rays

According to Einstein’s prediction, that is to say the deflection (bending) of light rays in the gravitational field of the Sun: those stars closest to the limb of the Sun during the eclipse are found to be displaced slightly by amounts that are inversely proportional to the distance of the stellar image from the Sun. The light from a star close to the limb of the Sun is bent inward, toward the Sun, as it passes through the Sun’s gravitational field. The image of the star appears to observers on the Earth to be shifted outward and away from the Sun.

The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Barnett (with forward by Einstein)


In 1915 Einstein calculated the angle between the actual path of the starlight, the true position of the star, and the apparent path of the ray of light, the star seen during the eclipse. He obtained a result: 1.7” (seconds of arc).

However, in 1911 and 1913 he derived a different result, actually he had obtained half of this result: 0.84” (seconds of arc).


Einstein’s letter to George Ellery Hale which illustrates starlight being deflected by the gravity of the Sun. Oct. 14, 1913. The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens. Here

During a total eclipse of the Sun, it is possible to take pictures of the field of stars surrounding the darkened location of the Sun, because during its occultation, the light emanating from the Sun does not interfere with visibility of fainter objects.

In the eclipse expedition of 1919 Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington and Charles Rundle Davidson went to find whether they could verify Einstein’s prediction of the deflection of starlight in the gravitational field of the Sun. Eddington and his assistant went to the island of Principe off the coast of Africa while Davidson and his assistant went to Sobral in North Brazil. In presenting their observations to the Royal Society of London in November 1919, the conclusion was that they verified Einstein’s prediction of deflection at the Sun’s limb to very good accuracy.


Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington. Source (internet, unknown). If anyone knows the source please leave a comment.

The pictures taken during the solar eclipse are compared with pictures of the same region of the heavens taken at night. An astronomer compares his photographs taken during a total eclipse of the Sun with check plates, that is to say with comparison plates of the same stars (the eclipse field) when the Sun has moved away.

In 1919 Eddington examined the check field of stars that was photographed at Oxford Observatory. It was nearly the same as that of the total eclipse field of stars, which was photographed at the small island belonging to Portugal, Principe, at the same altitude as in Oxford in order to ensure that any systematic error, due to imperfections of the telescopes or other causes, might affect both sets of plates equally. There were differences in scale though between the compared photographs. Eddington determined these differences of scale between Oxford and Principe. The primary purpose of the comparison was to check the possibility of systematic errors arising from the different conditions of observation at Oxford and Principe.

After comparing the Oxford and Principe check plates, Eddington concluded that the Oxford photographs show none of the displacements which are exhibited by the photographs of the eclipse field taken under precisely similar instrument conditions. Eddington inferred that the displacements in the latter case could only be attributed to presence of the eclipsed Sun in the field and not to systematic errors.

Eddington’s four values of deflection in Principe were: 1.94, 1.44, 1.55 and 1.67 seconds of arc. He calculated the mean of these to be: 1.65” (seconds of arc). He added corrections due to experimental errors and due to the fact that the four determinations involved only two eclipse plates. The final Principe result was: 1.61±0.30 seconds of arc. Eddington calculated the final Sobral result: 1.98±0.12 seconds of arc and concluded: “They evidently agree with Einstein’s predicted value 1.75 seconds of arc.



Photos taken at the Science Museum, London. Eddington’s original negative photo.

Final confirmation of Einstein’s prediction of the deflection of light near the Sun came from William Wallace Campbell and his assistant Robert J. Trumpler at the eclipse of September 22, 1922 in Australia. Campbell and Trumpler also compared the eclipsed plates with the photographs of the same stars taken at Tahiti four months before the eclipse. The observations with the first camera led to a stellar deflection of 1.82±0.15 seconds of arc for the light deflection at the Sun’s limb. The combined observations from the two instruments used by Campbell and Trumpler gave the value of 1.75±0.9 seconds of arc for the deflection at the Sun’s limb, which is in excellent agreement with the value predicted by Einstein’s theory.


For more photos see here.

For more information on the history of eclipse expeditions and Einstein’s general theory of relativity see my books:

General Relativity Conflict and Rivalries: Einstein’s Polemics with Physicists


Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition)






My new book: Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition)


My new book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition) is coming out in August 2017.

My new book is a comprehensive monograph on Albert Einstein’s Odyssey to Special and General Relativity.

It is the second edition of my first book, Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity:


The book brings together the most recent studies regarding the discovery of Special Relativity between 1895 and 1905 and pertaining to the genesis of General Relativity between 1905 and 1918.

The book encompasses an in-depth historiographical analysis of Einstein’s theory of relativity and Einstein’s own derivations and philosophical perspectives of Einstein’s work.

The first chapter provides a narrative of Einstein’s early life until 1914 without resorting to hagiography.

The second chapter discusses Fin de siècle physics.

The third chapter deals with Einstein’s path to the Special Theory of Relativity and Henri Poincaré’s Dynamics of the Electron.

The fourth chapter focuses on the genesis of the General Theory of Relativity from 1905 until approximately 1922.

The fifth chapter centralizes on Einstein’s methodology and creativity, and on Poincaré’s philosophy.

The final chapter analyzes the sources.

The book is 660 pages long, a comprehensive study of Einstein’s discovery of special and general relativity and of Einstein’s cosmology.

I drew the cover of the book.

Einstein loved sailing and he owned a sailboat, which he called Tümmler (porpoise).


The cover of my new book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity (2nd Edition) shows Einstein, the young patent clerk wearing the patent office suit, the young man and the sea.




The Einstein Legacy Project

Happy Birthday Albert Einstein!

Einstein once wrote to his close friend: “With fame I became more and more stupid, which of course, is a very common phenomenon”.

Bingo. This exactly describes the spirit of a new project called, “The Einstein Legacy Project”.

Here is “the official Einstein Legacy Project video. It tells the story of how and WHY this project was born”.

However, the people in the official Einstein Legacy Project video use Einstein’s name in order to throw lavish parties. Entire fortunes are spent for celebrations and demonstrations of pomp and power. Einstein was not a Sun king, Louis le Grand.

The Einstein Legacy Project consists of two lavish projects and two (I hope so) less lavish projects (I will present 3 of them):

1) Dinner of the Century: (here)

“To celebrate the centennial of Einstein’s Relativity theory and to launch the publication of Genius: 100 Visions of the Future, the Einstein Legacy Project will be holding the ‘Dinner of the Century’; a star studded event that will bring together our Genius contributors, along with young Einsteins and dignitaries from around the world”.

While we celebrate and launch the grandiose 3D book, in the presence of Hollywood actors and other dignitaries from around the world, and mid all the pomp and ceremony, we receive Einstein’s response to the “Dinner of the Century” as told to his biographer Carl Seelig (see full story in my book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special theory of Relativity, 2015):

“The celebration ended with the most opulent banquet that I have ever attended in my life. So I said to a Genevan patrician who sat next to me, ‘Do you know what Calvin would have done if he were still here?’ When he said no and asked what I thought, I said: ‘He would have erected a large pyre and had us all burned because of sinful gluttony’. The man uttered not another word, and with this ends my recollection of that memorable celebration”.

In September 2017 the Einstein Legacy Project will throw an opulent banquet, a parodic dinner, a celebration of sinful gluttony.

2) 3D printed book: Genius: 100 Visions of the Future: (here)

“To celebrate the 100th anniversary of the publication of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, the Einstein Legacy Project is embarking on a publishing milestone: collecting the visions of the 100 greatest innovators, artists, scientists and visionaries of our time in the world’s first 3D-printed book – Genius: 100 Visions of the Future. It’s the creation of world renowned designer Ron Arad, formed in the likeness of Einstein himself in a 3D limited edition book for the ages”.

Here is Einstein’s response to the 3D book formed in the likeness of his head:

“Generally I find it tasteless… I have also prohibited …[this] book from appearing in the German language, but allowed the book to appear in foreign languages, I also hold the latter [author] to be quite tasteless. … [He] need[s] to earn money, which serves as an excuse for and for that […he] cannot wait until I’m dead. Is the mention of such a basic fact an accusation?”

I agree with you Einstein, I also find it tasteless.

Who are contributing to this book? For instance, Barbra Streisand, Deepak Chopra and others.

I would like to ask the contributors a question: A uniformly moving train could as well be seen at rest and the tracks, including the landscape, as uniformly moving. Will the common sense of the locomotive engineer allow this? He will object that he does not go on to heat and grease the landscape but rather the locomotive, and that consequently it must be the latter whose motion shows the effect of his labor. Why? Can you explain why? After all you are “genius contributors”…. If you can explain this, then I can pose questions about general relativity.

3) Einstein’s Archives and Visitor Center: (here)

“The first and only institution to celebrate the life, history and vision of Einstein. Built around the unique collection of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where Einstein bequeathed his entire personal archive, the Einstein Archive and Visitor Center will be a global attraction dedicated to science and humanitarian ideals”.

This is the only project that Einstein probably would have approved. However, in light of the above two projects (pomp “Dinner of the Century” and 3D book), I am very doubtful that the people who are organizing the Einstein’s Legacy Project really care about Einstein, his legacy and his writings.

Stay tuned. More to come…. … ….