This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site you agree to our use of cookies. To find out more, see our Privacy and Cookies policy.
Skip to the content

Share this

Free weekly newswire

Sign up to receive all our latest news direct to your inbox.

Physics on film

100 Second Science Your scientific questions answered simply by specialists in less than 100 seconds.

Watch now

Bright Recruits

At all stages of your career – whether you're an undergraduate, graduate, researcher or industry professional – can help find the job for you.

Find your perfect job

Physics connect

Are you looking for a supplier? Physics Connect lists thousands of scientific companies, businesses, non-profit organizations, institutions and experts worldwide.

Start your search today


Einstein’s mistakes


“Many of [Einstein’s] ground-breaking discoveries were blighted by mistakes, ranging from serious misconceptions in physics to blatant errors in mathematics”.

So says a promotional blurb for Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of a Genius, a new book from the American physicist and author Hans C Ohanian that will be published in September by W W Norton.

Ohanian has posted an eight-page taster of his work on the arXiv preprint server, in which he presents a “critical examination” of how Einstein went about proving his most famous equation E = MC2. All of these proofs, claims Ohanian, “suffer from mistakes”.

This is not the first time that Einstein’s proofs have come under scrutiny, with various detractors and supporters arguing since at least 1908 — three years after the equation was first derived.

Elsewhere in the world of Einstein biography, a letter on religion written in 1954 by the physicist to the German philosopher Eric Gutkind has come up for auction in London. “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness…”, wrote Einstein who died the next year — and has presumably discovered whether or not this letter was a mistake.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
View all posts by this author  | View this author's profile


  1. Yoron

    (Wrote this for another place but it seems to fit just right in here:)
    Hans C. Ohanian, as well as Peter Brown, seems to share the same view here. As Hans was the first one to share his misgivings about Einstein’s theory’s I will assume that Peter’s pdf build on what Hans wrote. The general conclusion of Ohanian seems to be that he was wrong in most of his views, and that it was more blind luck than any genius that he got it as right as he did :)
    A rather smug and unpleasant attitude to the physics he introduced it seems to me?
    So what have those introduced in form of new thinking themselves? As for the theory of equivalence and if its proofs was wrong? Really need to read more about it before saying where, and if, Einstein made a mistake in viewing it the way he did. For arguments sake, let’s assume that he did, then gravity and acceleration can’t be the same? Or is the authors view that he was right, but only from their proofs? Talk about taking up the fallen mantle.
    It also seems as if Hans C. Ohanian believe the idea of lights invariant speed to be wrong? Or? No, not wrong, he’s just insulted that Einstein defined it as a constant in SR :) without, as he sees it, giving an absolute proof of how to synchronize those clocks for different frames. :) Well, let me give you some news Hans, it was a theory, and still is. We’ve tested his premises since that, and he was, as far as I know, right, and there was actual proofs before that too pointing to light being an ‘constant’, from Maxwell’s equations and Michelson-Morley’s results..
    I don’t know? Seems like much ado over nothing?
    And even if the Equivalence principle would be proved totally up the walls it won’t invalidate GR, not as I understands it?. That he didn’t take up the ‘tidal forces’, as we call it today, I believe to be his way of presenting an idealized concept. What you could argue is that he made conceptual jumps in his reasoning, not validating all of his conclusions in painstaking detail. But he validated them good enough for his contemporary physicists to accept them.
    Sh* that’s part of why he was a genius, his ability to make those ‘jumps’ and still get it right.. And that’s why I ain’t impressed with those guys either. Let them present a better theory, something new and ‘unprecedented’ like Einstein’s ideas was felt to be then. That we in hindsight find others having reached proofs for his conceptions doesn’t invalidate his genius. Turn it around, if all those other guys had it right before him, why didn’t they present the ‘theory of relativity’? and don’t tell me they did, because then it would have been them we would have argued about :)

  2. nakayama

    Light speed is not Constant (to observer) !!

    All that we receive with our eyes are the facts of the past (unchangeable). Wavelength of incident light is coming from the past. On incident light, a formula c = λ f stands up. And λ is unchangeable (by our motion). Terms f and c change.

    Sorry, I can’t receive E-mail. I don’t have PC.


  • Comments should be relevant to the article and not be used to promote your own work, products or services.
  • Please keep your comments brief (we recommend a maximum of 250 words).
  • We reserve the right to remove excessively long, inappropriate or offensive entries.

Show/hide formatting guidelines

Tag Description Example Output
<a> Hyperlink <a href="">google</a> google
<abbr> Abbreviation <abbr title="World Health Organisation" >WHO</abbr> WHO
<acronym> Acronym <acronym title="as soon as possible">ASAP</acronym> ASAP
<b> Bold <b>Some text</b> Some text
<blockquote> Quoted from another source <blockquote cite="">IOP</blockquote>
<cite> Cite <cite>Diagram 1</cite> Diagram 1
<del> Deleted text From this line<del datetime="2012-12-17"> this text was deleted</del> From this line this text was deleted
<em> Emphasized text In this line<em> this text was emphasised</em> In this line this text was emphasised
<i> Italic <i>Some text</i> Some text
<q> Quotation WWF goal is to build a future <q cite="">
where people live in harmony with nature and animals</q>
WWF goal is to build a future
where people live in harmony with nature and animals
<strike> Strike text <strike>Some text</strike> Some text
<strong> Stronger emphasis of text <strong>Some text</strong> Some text