Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Albert Einstein’s brain’

Einstein and General Theory of Relativity

Larry H. Bernstein, MD, FCAP, Curator

LPBI

 

 

General Relativity And The ‘Lone Genius’ Model Of Science

Chad Orzel

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/11/24/general-relativity-and-the-lone-genius-model-of-science/

 

(Credit: AP)

 

One hundred years ago this Wednesday, Albert Einstein gave the last of a series of presentations to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, which marks the official completion of his General Theory of Relativity. This anniversary is generating a good deal of press and various celebratory events, such as the premiere of a new documentary special. If you prefer your physics explanations in the plainest language possible, there’s even an “Up Goer Five” version (personally, I don’t find these all that illuminating, but lots of people seem to love it).

Einstein is, of course, the most iconic scientist in history, and much of the attention to this week’s centennial will center on the idea of his singular genius. Honestly, general relativity is esoteric enough that were it not for Einstein’s personal fame, there probably wouldn’t be all that much attention paid to this outside of the specialist science audience.

But, of course, while the notion of Einstein as a lone, unrecognized genius is a big part of his myth, he didn’t create relativity entirely on his own, asthis article in Nature News makes clear. The genesis of relativity is a single simple idea, but even in the early stages, when he developed Special Relativity while working as a patent clerk, he honed his ideas through frequent discussions with friends and colleagues. Most notable among these was probably Michele Besso, who Einstein later referred to as “the best sounding board in Europe.”

And most of the work on General Relativity came not when Einstein was toiling in obscurity, but after he had begun to climb the academic ladder in Europe. In the ten years between the Special and General theories, he went through a series of faculty jobs of increasing prestige. He also laboriously learned a great deal of mathematics in order to reach the final form of the theory, largely with the assistance of his friend Marcel Grossmann. The path to General Relativity was neither simple nor solitary, and the Nature piece documents both the mis-steps along the way and the various people who helped out.

While Einstein wasn’t working alone, though, the Nature piece also makes an indirect case for his status as a genius worth celebrating. Not because of the way he solved the problem, but through the choice of problem to solve. Einstein pursued a theory that would incorporate gravitation into relativity with dogged determination through those years, but he was one of a very few people working on it. There were a couple of other theories kicking around, particularly Gunnar Nordström’s, but these didn’t generate all that much attention. The mathematician David Hilbert nearly scooped Einstein with the final form of the field equations in November of 1915 (some say he did get there first), but Hilbert was a latecomer who only got interested in the problem of gravitation after hearing about it from Einstein, and his success was a matter of greater familiarity with the necessary math. One of the books I used when I taught a relativity class last year quoted Hilbert as saying that “every child in the streets of Göttingen knows more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein,” but that Einstein’s physical insight got him to the theory before superior mathematicians.

 

History: Einstein was no lone genius

Michel Janssen & Jürgen Renn   

16 November 2015 Corrected:   17 November 2015    Nature Nov 2015; 527(7578)

Lesser-known and junior colleagues helped the great physicist to piece together his general theory of relativity, explain Michel Janssen and Jürgen Renn.

http://www.nature.com/news/history-einstein-was-no-lone-genius-1.18793

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31357.1447429421!/image/Comment2.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/Comment2.jpg

Marcel Grossmann (left) and Michele Besso (right), university friends of Albert Einstein (centre), both made important contributions to general relativity.

 

A century ago, in November 1915, Albert Einstein published his general theory of relativity in four short papers in the proceedings of the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin1. The landmark theory is often presented as the work of a lone genius. In fact, the physicist received a great deal of help from friends and colleagues, most of whom never rose to prominence and have been forgotten2, 3, 4, 5. (For full reference details of all Einstein texts mentioned in this piece, seeSupplementary Information.)

Here we tell the story of how their insights were woven into the final version of the theory. Two friends from Einstein’s student days — Marcel Grossmann and Michele Besso — were particularly important. Grossmann was a gifted mathematician and organized student who helped the more visionary and fanciful Einstein at crucial moments. Besso was an engineer, imaginative and somewhat disorganized, and a caring and lifelong friend to Einstein. A cast of others contributed too.

Einstein met Grossmann and Besso at the Swiss Federal Polytechnical School in Zurich6 — later renamed the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule; ETH) — where, between 1896 and 1900, he studied to become a school teacher in physics and mathematics. Einstein also met his future wife at the ETH, classmate Mileva Marić. Legend has it that Einstein often skipped class and relied on Grossmann’s notes to pass exams.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31485.1447758022!/image/entanglement.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/entanglement.jpg

 

Grossmann’s father helped Einstein to secure a position at the patent office in Berne in 1902, where Besso joined him two years later. Discussions between Besso and Einstein earned the former the sole acknowledgment in the most famous of Einstein’s 1905 papers, the one introducing the special theory of relativity. As well as publishing the papers that made 1905 his annus mirabilis, Einstein completed his dissertation that year to earn a PhD in physics from the University of Zurich.

In 1907, while still at the patent office, he started to think about extending the principle of relativity from uniform to arbitrary motion through a new theory of gravity. Presciently, Einstein wrote to his friend Conrad Habicht — whom he knew from a reading group in Berne mockingly called the Olympia Academy by its three members — saying that he hoped that this new theory would account for a discrepancy of about 43˝ (seconds of arc) per century between Newtonian predictions and observations of the motion of Mercury’s perihelion, the point of its orbit closest to the Sun.

Einstein started to work in earnest on this new theory only after he left the patent office in 1909, to take up professorships first at the University of Zurich and two years later at the Charles University in Prague. He realized that gravity must be incorporated into the structure of space-time, such that a particle subject to no other force would follow the straightest possible trajectory through a curved space-time.

In 1912, Einstein returned to Zurich and was reunited with Grossmann at the ETH. The pair joined forces to generate a fully fledged theory. The relevant mathematics was Gauss’s theory of curved surfaces, which Einstein probably learned from Grossmann’s notes. As we know from recollected conversations, Einstein told Grossmann7: “You must help me, or else I’ll go crazy.”

Their collaboration, recorded in Einstein’s ‘Zurich notebook‘, resulted in a joint paper published in June 1913, known as the Entwurf (‘outline’) paper. The main advance between this 1913 Entwurf theory and the general relativity theory of November 1915 are the field equations, which determine how matter curves space-time. The final field equations are ‘generally covariant’: they retain their form no matter what system of coordinates is chosen to express them. The covariance of the Entwurf field equations, by contrast, was severely limited.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31488.1447759403!/image/einstein_lost.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/einstein_lost.jpg

Einstein’s lost theory uncovered

 

Two Theories

In May 1913, as he and Grossmann put the finishing touches to their Entwurf paper, Einstein was asked to lecture at the annual meeting of the Society of German Natural Scientists and Physicians to be held that September in Vienna, an invitation that reflects the high esteem in which the 34-year-old was held by his peers.

In July 1913, Max Planck and Walther Nernst, two leading physicists from Berlin, came to Zurich to offer Einstein a well-paid and teaching-free position at the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, which he swiftly accepted and took up in March 1914. Gravity was not a pressing problem for Planck and Nernst; they were mainly interested in what Einstein could do for quantum physics.  (It was Walther Nernst who advised that Germany could not engage in WWI and win unless it was a short war).

Several new theories had been proposed in which gravity, like electromagnetism, was represented by a field in the flat space-time of special relativity. A particularly promising one came from the young Finnish physicist Gunnar Nordström. In his Vienna lecture, Einstein compared his own Entwurf theory to Nordström’s theory. Einstein worked on both theories between May and late August 1913, when he submitted the text of his lecture for publication in the proceedings of the 1913 Vienna meeting.

In the summer of 1913, Nordström visited Einstein in Zurich. Einstein convinced him that the source of the gravitational field in both their theories should be constructed out of the ‘energy–momentum tensor’: in pre-relativistic theories, the density and the flow of energy and momentum were represented by separate quantities; in relativity theory, they are combined into one quantity with ten different components.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31358.1447420168!/image/Comment4.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/Comment4.jpg

ETH-Bibliothek Zürich, Bildarchiv

ETH Zurich, where Einstein met friends with whom he worked on general relativity.

 

This energy–momentum tensor made its first appearance in 1907–8 in the special-relativistic reformulation of the theory of electrodynamics of James Clerk Maxwell and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz by Hermann Minkowski. It soon became clear that an energy–momentum tensor could be defined for physical systems other than electromagnetic fields. The tensor took centre stage in the new relativistic mechanics presented in the first textbook on special relativity, Das Relativitätsprinzip, written by Max Laue in 1911. In 1912, a young Viennese physicist, Friedrich Kottler, generalized Laue’s formalism from flat to curved space-time. Einstein and Grossmann relied on this generalization in their formulation of the Entwurf theory. During his Vienna lecture, Einstein called for Kottler to stand up and be recognized for this work8.

Einstein also worked with Besso that summer to investigate whether the Entwurf theory could account for the missing 43˝ per century for Mercury’s perihelion. Unfortunately, they found that it could only explain 18˝. Nordström’s theory, Besso checked later, gave 7˝ in the wrong direction. These calculations are preserved in the ‘Einstein–Besso manuscript‘ of 1913.

Besso contributed significantly to the calculations and raised interesting questions. He wondered, for instance, whether the Entwurf field equations have an unambiguous solution that uniquely determines the gravitational field of the Sun. Historical analysis of extant manuscripts suggests that this query gave Einstein the idea for an argument that reconciled him with the restricted covariance of the Entwurf equations. This ‘hole argument’ seemed to show that generally covariant field equations cannot uniquely determine the gravitational field and are therefore inadmissible9.

Einstein and Besso also checked whether the Entwurf equations hold in a rotating coordinate system. In that case the inertial forces of rotation, such as the centrifugal force we experience on a merry-go-round, can be interpreted as gravitational forces. The theory seemed to pass this test. In August 1913, however, Besso warned him that it did not. Einstein did not heed the warning, which would come back to haunt him.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31486.1447758069!/image/integrity.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/integrity.jpg

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

 

In his lecture in Vienna in September 1913, Einstein concluded his comparison of the two theories with a call for experiment to decide. The Entwurf theory predicts that gravity bends light, whereas Nordström’s does not. It would take another five years to find out. Erwin Finlay Freundlich, a junior astronomer in Berlin with whom Einstein had been in touch since his days in Prague, travelled to Crimea for the solar eclipse of August 1914 to determine whether gravity bends light but was interned by the Russians just as the First World War broke out. Finally, in 1919, English astronomer Arthur Eddington confirmed Einstein’s prediction of light bending by observing the deflection of distant stars seen close to the Sun’s edge during another eclipse, making Einstein a household name10.

Back in Zurich, after the Vienna lecture, Einstein teamed up with another young physicist, Adriaan Fokker, a student of Lorentz, to reformulate the Nordström theory using the same kind of mathematics that he and Grossmann had used to formulate the Entwurf theory. Einstein and Fokker showed that in both theories the gravitational field can be incorporated into the structure of a curved space-time. This work also gave Einstein a clearer picture of the structure of the Entwurf theory, which helped him and Grossmann in a second joint paper on the theory. By the time it was published in May 1914, Einstein had left for Berlin.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31489.1447761264!/image/Einstein_frontal_small.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/Einstein_frontal_small.jpg

Snapshots explore Einstein’s unusual brain

 

The Breakup

Turmoil erupted soon after the move. Einstein’s marriage fell apart and Mileva moved back to Zurich with their two young sons. Albert renewed the affair he had started and broken off two years before with his cousin Elsa Löwenthal (née Einstein). The First World War began. Berlin’s scientific elite showed no interest in the Entwurf theory, although renowned colleagues elsewhere did, such as Lorentz and Paul Ehrenfest in Leiden, the Netherlands. Einstein soldiered on.

By the end of 1914, his confidence had grown enough to write a long exposition of the theory. But in the summer of 1915, after a series of his lectures in Göttingen had piqued the interest of the great mathematician David Hilbert, Einstein started to have serious doubts. He discovered to his dismay that the Entwurf theory does not make rotational motion relative. Besso was right. Einstein wrote to Freundlich for help: his “mind was in a deep rut”, so he hoped that the young astronomer as “a fellow human being with unspoiled brain matter” could tell him what he was doing wrong. Freundlich could not help him.

“Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein rushed new equations into print.”

The problem, Einstein soon realized, lay with the Entwurf field equations. Worried that Hilbert might beat him to the punch, Einstein rushed new equations into print in early November 1915, modifying them the following week and again two weeks later in subsequent papers submitted to the Prussian Academy. The field equations were generally covariant at last.

In the first November paper, Einstein wrote that the theory was “a real triumph” of the mathematics of Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernhard Riemann. He recalled in this paper that he and Grossmann had considered the same equations before, and suggested that if only they had allowed themselves to be guided by pure mathematics rather than physics, they would never have accepted equations of limited covariance in the first place.

Other passages in the first November paper, however, as well as his other papers and correspondence in 1913–15, tell a different story. It was thanks to the elaboration of the Entwurf theory, with the help of Grossmann, Besso, Nordström and Fokker, that Einstein saw how to solve the problems with the physical interpretation of these equations that had previously defeated him.

In setting out the generally covariant field equations in the second and fourth papers, he made no mention of the hole argument. Only when Besso and Ehrenfest pressed him a few weeks after the final paper, dated 25 November, did Einstein find a way out of this bind — by realizing that only coincident events and not coordinates have physical meaning. Besso had suggested a similar escape two years earlier, which Einstein had brusquely rejected2.

In his third November paper, Einstein returned to the perihelion motion of Mercury. Inserting the astronomical data supplied by Freundlich into the formula he derived using his new theory, Einstein arrived at the result of 43″ per century and could thus fully account for the difference between Newtonian theory and observation. “Congratulations on conquering the perihelion motion,” Hilbert wrote to him on 19 November. “If I could calculate as fast as you can,” he quipped, “the hydrogen atom would have to bring a note from home to be excused for not radiating.”

Einstein kept quiet on why he had been able to do the calculations so fast. They were minor variations on the ones he had done with Besso in 1913. He probably enjoyed giving Hilbert a taste of his own medicine: in a letter to Ehrenfest written in May 1916, Einstein characterized Hilbert’s style as “creating the impression of being superhuman by obfuscating one’s methods”.

Einstein emphasized that his general theory of relativity built on the work of Gauss and Riemann, giants of the mathematical world. But it also built on the work of towering figures in physics, such as Maxwell and Lorentz, and on the work of researchers of lesser stature, notably Grossmann, Besso, Freundlich, Kottler, Nordström and Fokker. As with many other major breakthroughs in the history of science, Einstein was standing on the shoulders of many scientists, not just the proverbial giants4.

 

http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.31375.1447420557!/image/cartoon.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/cartoon.jpg

Berlin’s physics elite (Fritz Haber, Walther Nernst, Heinrich Rubens, Max Planck) and Einstein’s old and new family (Mileva Einstein-Marić and heir sons Eduard and Hans Albert; Elsa Einstein-Löwenthal and her daughters Ilse and Margot) are watching as Einstein is pursuing his new theory of gravity and his idée fixeof generalizing the relativity principle while carried by giants of both physics and mathematics (Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann) and scientists of lesser stature (Marcel Grossmann, Gunnar Nordström, Erwin Finlay Freundlich, Michele Besso).

Nature 527, 298–300 (19 Nov 2015)       http://dx.doi.org:/10.1038/527298a

 

 

Read Full Post »

Reporter and Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Oldest picture

http://th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de/~jr/physpiceinstein.html

my favorite picture of Albert Eistein

http://www.google.com/search?q=albert+einstein+pictures&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=sXKyUI6RJ4j-0gG7m4DIDA&sqi=2&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=779&bih=776

http://www.albert-einstein.org/

A new study on the neuroanatomy of Albert Einstein was

Released: 11/15/2012 10:00 AM EST
Embargo expired: 11/15/2012 7:00 PM EST
Source: Florida State University

Portions of Albert Einstein’s brain have been found to be unlike those of most people and could be related to his extraordinary cognitive abilities, according to a new study led by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk.

Brain

Uncommon Features of Einstein’s Brain Might Explain His Remarkable Cognitive Abilities

Released: 11/15/2012 10:00 AM EST
Embargo expired: 11/15/2012 7:00 PM EST
Source: Florida State University

Newswise — TALLAHASSEE, Fla. ⎯ Portions of Albert Einstein’s brain have been found to be unlike those of most people and could be related to his extraordinary cognitive abilities, according to a new study led by Florida State University evolutionary anthropologist Dean Falk.

Falk, along with colleagues Frederick E. Lepore of the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Adrianne Noe, director of the National Museum of Health and Medicine, describe for the first time the entire cerebral cortex of Einstein’s brain from an examination of 14 recently discovered photographs. The researchers compared Einstein’s brain to 85 “normal” human brains and, in light of current functional imaging studies, interpreted its unusual features.

“Although the overall size and asymmetrical shape of Einstein’s brain were normal, the prefrontal, somatosensory, primary motor, parietal, temporal and occipital cortices were extraordinary,” said Falk, the Hale G. Smith Professor of Anthropology at Florida State. “These may have provided the neurological underpinnings for some of his visuospatial and mathematical abilities, for instance.”

The study, “The Cerebral Cortex of Albert Einstein: A Description and Preliminary Analysis of Unpublished Photographs,” will be published Nov. 16 in the journal Brain.

Upon Einstein’s death in 1955, his brain was removed and photographed from multiple angles with the permission of his family. Furthermore, it was sectioned into 240 blocks from which histological slides were prepared. Unfortunately, a great majority of the photographs, blocks and slides were lost from public sight for more than 55 years. The 14 photographs used by the researchers now are held by the National Museum of Health and Medicine.

The paper also publishes the “roadmap” to Einstein’s brain prepared in 1955 by Dr. Thomas Harvey to illustrate the locations within Einstein’s previously whole brain of 240 dissected blocks of tissue, which provides a key to locating the origins within the brain of the newly emerged histological slides.

SOURCE:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/uncommon-features-of-einstein-s-brain-might-explain-his-remarkable-cognitive-abilities

Albert Einstein died 50 years ago Monday. While that day marked the end of his life, it was only the beginning of a long, strange journey for his brain.

Thomas Harvey, a doctor at the hospital where Einstein died, removed the famous scientist’s brain and kept it with him over the next four decades. Harvey wanted to know what made Einstein a genius.

As Brian Burrell writes in his new book Postcards from the Brain Museum, Harvey wasn’t alone.

Scientists have long sought to understand the nature of genius and before computers and imaging technology, they had few options other than studying the actual brain.

Burrell discusses the long, strange journey of Einstein’s brain.

The Long, Strange Journey of Einstein’s Brain

April 18, 2005

Albert Einstein’s Brain May Provide Clues To His Genius, Study Says

By  Posted: 11/17/2012 12:08 am EST Updated: 11/19/2012 6:26 pm EST

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/17/albert-einstein-brain-study-genius_n_2144865.html

ORIGINAL PAPER  in BRAIN, A JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, OCCASIONAL PAPER – November 16, 2012

The cerebral cortex of Albert Einstein: a description and preliminary analysis of unpublished

photographs

http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/brainj/press_releases/prpaper.pdf

Paper Authors’ Affiliations:

Dean Falk,1,2 Frederick E. Lepore3,4 and Adrianne Noe5

1 Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-7772, USA

2 School for Advanced Research, Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA

3 Department of Neurology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA

4 Department of Ophthalmology, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA

5 National Museum of Health and Medicine, Silver Spring, MD 20910, USA

Correspondence to:

Dean Falk,

School for Advanced Research,

660 Garcia Street,

Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA

E-mail: dfalk@fsu.edu or falk@sarsf.org

Summary and conclusions

Quote from Brain, 2012, November 16, 2012, green color added

Einstein’s brain is of unexceptional size and its combination of a relatively wide and forward-projecting right frontal lobe with a relatively wide and posteriorly protruding left occipital lobe is the most prevalent pattern seen in right-handed adult males.

We have identified the sulci that delimit expansions of cortex (gyri or convolutions) on the external surfaces of all of the lobes of the brain and on the medial surfaces of both hemispheres. The morphology 25 in some parts of Einstein’s cerebral cortex is highly unusual compared with 25 (Ono et al., 1990) and 60 (Connolly, 1950) human brains for which sulcal patterns have been thoroughly described. To the extent possible, the blocks of brain from particularly interesting areas are identified on the ‘roadmap’ that was prepared when Einstein’s brain was sectioned, as a guide for researchers who may wish to explore the histological correlates of Einstein’s gross cortical morphology.

Contrary to earlier reports, newly available photographs reveal that Einstein’s brain is not spherical in shape. The surface area of Einstein’s inferior parietal lobule is larger on the left than the right side, whereas that of his superior parietal lobule appears markedly larger in the right hemisphere. The photographs also suggest that the primary somatosensory and motor cortices representing the face and tongue are differentially expanded in the left hemisphere, that the posterior ascending limb of the Sylvian fissure is separate from (rather than confluent with) the postcentral inferior sulcus,and that parietal opercula are present. Nevertheless, our findings are concordant with the earlier suggestion that unusual morphology in Einstein’s parietal lobes may have provided neurological substrates for his visuospatial and mathematical abilities (Witelson  et al., 1999a, b).

Our results also suggest that Einstein had relatively expanded prefrontal cortices, which may have provided underpinnings for some of his extraordinary cognitive abilities, including his productive use of thought experiments. From an evolutionary perspective, the specific parts of Einstein’s prefrontal cortex that appear to be differentially expanded are of interest because recent findings indicate that these same areas increased differentially in size and became neurologically reorganized at microanatomical levels during hominin evolution in association with the emergence of higher cognitive abilities (Semendeferi et al., 2011).

It would be interesting therefore to investigate the histological correlates of these (as well as parietal) regions of Einstein’s brain from the newly available slides. We hope that future research on comparative primate neuroanatomy, paleoneurology and functional neuroanatomy will provide insight about some of the unusually convoluted parts of Einstein’s brain that we have described with little, if any, interpretation (e.g. the external neuroanatomy of the occipital lobes, posterolateral temporal cortex, and inferior temporal gyri). 

Figure 12 The remainder of the original ‘road map’ to the 240 blocks sectioned from Einstein’s brain. A–D correspond with Fig. 8.

The figure is reproduced with permission from the National Museum of Health and Medicine.

| Brain 2012: Page 22 of 24 D. Falk et al.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the estate of Thomas S. Harvey, MD, for

donating the materials that form the basis for this article to the

National Museum of Health and Medicine, Elizabeth Lockett and

5 Emily Wilson for help in accessing materials, and Jessica Calzada

for preparation of figures. Kurt Rockenstein is thanked for extensive

technical support. We also received help from Eric Boyle, Tim

Clarke, Jr., Laura Cutter, Elizabeth Eubanks, Albert Galaburda, Lois

Hawkes, Sam Huckaba and Micah Vandegrift. The National

Museum of Health and Medicine is acknowledged for permission

to reproduce the 12 images that appear in this article. The views

expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official

policy or position of the Department of Defense or the United

States Government.

Individuals who are interested in studying the newly emerged

Harvey Collection should contact medicalmuseum@amedd

.army.mil.

Funding

Publication costs were provided by the College of Arts and

20 Sciences at Florida State University, and travel support for DF

was provided by the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe,

New Mexico.

REFERENCES

Abraham C. Possessing genius. New York: St. Martin’s Press; 2002.

25 Allen JS, Bruss J, Damasio H. Looking for the lunate sulcus: a magnetic

resonance imaging study in modern humans. Anat Rec A Discov Mol

Cell Evol Biol 2006; 288: 867–76.

Allman JM, Tetreault NA, Hakeem AY, Manaye KF, Semendeferi K,

Erwin JM, et al. The von Economo neurons in frontoinsular and an-

 terior cingulate cortex in great apes and humans. Brain Struct Funct

2010; 214: 495–517.

Amunts K, Schleicher A, Burgel U, Mohlberg H, Uylings HB, Zilles K.

Broca’s region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject variability.

J Comp Neurol 1999; 412: 319–41.

Amunts K, Schleicher A, Ditterich A, Zilles K. Broca’s region: cytoarchitectonic

asymmetry and developmental changes. J Comp Neurol 2003;

465: 72–89.

Anderson B, Harvey T. Alterations in cortical thickness and neuronal

density in the frontal cortex of Albert Einstein. Neurosci Lett 1996;

210: 161–4.

Bailey P, Von Bonin G. The isocortex of man. Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press; 1951.

Bangert M, Schlaug G. Specialization of the specialized in features of

external human brain morphology. Eur J Neurosci 2006; 24: 1832–4.

Broca P. Remarques sur le sie´ ge de la faculte´ du langage articule´ , suivies

d’une observation d’aphe´ mie (Perte de la Parole). Bulletin de la Socie´ te´

Anatomique de Paris 1861; 6: 330–57.

Clark GM, Mackay CE, Davidson ME, Iversen SD, Collinson SL,

James AC, et al. Paracingulate sulcus asymmetry; sex difference, cor-

relation with semantic fluency and change over time in adolescent

onset psychosis. Psychiatry Res 2010; 184: 10–15.

Cole MW, Yeung N, Freiwald WA, Botvinick M. Conflict over cingulate

cortex: between-species differences in cingulate may support

enhanced cognitive flexibility in humans. Brain Behav Evol 2010; 75:

239–40.

Colombo JA, Reisin HD, Miguel-Hidalgo JJ, Rajkowska G. Cerebral cortex

astroglia and the brain of a genius: a propos of A. Einstein’s. Brain Res

Rev 2006; 52: 257–63.

Connolly JC. External morphology of the primate brain. Springfield, IL: C.

C. Thomas; 1950. 60

Courchesne E, Chisum HJ, Townsend J, Cowles A, Covington J, Egaas B,

et al. Normal brain development and aging: quantitative analysis at

in vivo MR imaging in healthy volunteers. Radiology 2000; 216:

672–82.

Dehaene S. Reading in the Brain. New York: Viking; 2009. 65

Diamond MC, Scheibel AB, Murphy GM Jr, Harvey T. On the brain of a

scientist: Albert Einstein. Exp Neurol 1985; 88: 198–204.

Duvernoy HM, Bourqouin P, Cabanis EA, Cattin F, Maeder P. The

human brain: surface, blood supply, and three-dimensional sectional

anatomy. 2nd edn. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1999. 70

Falk D. New information about Albert Einstein’s brain. Front Evol

Neurosci 2009; 1: 3.

Falk D. Hominin paleoneurology: where are we now? In: Hofman MA,

Falk D, editors Evolution of the primate brain: from neuron to behav-

ior. London: Elsevier; 2012. p. 255–72. 75

Filosa A, Paixao S, Honsek SD, Carmona MA, Becker L, Feddersen B,

et al. Neuron-glia communication via EphA4/ephrin-A3 modulates

LTP through glial glutamate transport. Nat Neurosci 2009; 12:

1285–92.

Finlay BL, Darlington RB. Linked regularities in the development and 80

evolution of mammalian brains. Science 1995; 268: 1578–84.

Galaburda AM. [Broca’s region: anatomic remarks made a century

after the death of its discoverer]. Rev Neurol (Paris) 1980; 136:

609–16.

Galaburda AM. Albert Einstein’s brain. Lancet 1999; 354: 1821. 85

Galaburda AM, Geschwind N. Anatomical asymmetries in the adult and

developing brain and their implications for function. Adv Pediatr 1981;

28: 271–92.

Galaburda AM, Kosslyn SM, Christen Y. The Languages of the brain.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2002. 90

Galaburda AM, LeMay M, Kemper TL, Geschwind N. Right-left asymmetrics

in the brain. Science 1978; 199: 852–6.

Geschwind N, Levitsky W. Human brain: left-right asymmetries in temporal

speech region. Science 1968; 161: 186–7.

Gilbert DT, Wilson TD. Prospection: experiencing the future. Science 95

2007; 317: 1351–4.

Hadamard J. The psychology of invention in the mathematical field.

Princeton, NJ: Dover Publications; 1945.

Hines T. Further on Einstein’s brain. Exp Neurol 1998; 150: 343–4.

Hofman MA. Design principles of the human brain: an evolutionary 100

perspective. In: Hofman MA, Falk D, editors. Evolution of the primate

brain: from neuron to behavior. London: Elsevier; 2012.

p. 373–90.

Iaria G, Petrides M. Occipital sulci of the human brain: variability and

probability maps. J Comp Neurol 2007; 501: 243–59. 105

Isaacson W. Einstein, his life and universe. New York: Simon and

Schuster; 2007.

Jerison HJ. Evolution of the brain and intelligence. New York: Academic

Press; 1973.

Keller SS, Crow T, Foundas A, Amunts K, Roberts N. Broca’s area: no- 110

menclature, anatomy, typology and asymmetry. Brain Lang 2009; 109:

29–48.

Keller SS, Highley JR, Garcia-Finana M, Sluming V, Rezaie R, Roberts N.

Sulcal variability, stereological measurement and asymmetry of Broca’s

area on MR images. J Anat 2007; 211: 534–55. 115

Kigar DL, Witelson SF, Glezer II, Harvey T. Estimates of cell number in

temporal neocortex in the brain of Albert Einstein. Soc Neurosci Abst

1997; 23: 89.9.

Knops A, Thirion B, Hubbard EM, Michel V, Dehaene S. Recruitment of

an area involved in eye movements during mental arithmetic. Science 120

2009; 324: 1583–5.

Kosslyn SM, Ganis G, Thompson WL. Neural foundations of imagery.

Nat Rev Neurosci 2001; 2: 635–42.

The brain of Albert Einstein Brain 2012: Page 23 of 24 | 23

Kosslyn SM, Thompson WL, Kim IJ, Alpert NM. Topographical representations

of mental images in primary visual cortex. Nature 1995; 378:

496–8.

LeMay M. Morphological cerebral asymmetries of modern man,

5 fossil man, and nonhuman primate. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1976; 280:

349–66.

LeMay M. Asymmetries of the skull and handedness. Phrenology revisited.

J Neurol Sci 1977; 32: 243–53.

LeMay M. Left-right dissymmetry, handedness. Am J Neuroradiol 1992;

10 13: 493–504.

Lepore FE. Dissecting genius—Einstein’s brain and the search for the

neural basis of intellect. Vol. 3. Cerebrum: The Dana Forum on

Brain Science; 2001. p. 11–26.

Magnotta VA, Andreasen NC, Schultz SK, Harris G, Cizadlo T, Heckel D,

15 et al. Quantitative in vivo measurement of gyrification in the

human brain: changes associated with aging. Cereb Cortex 1999; 9:

151–60.

Ono M, Kubik S, Abernathy CD. Atlas of the Cerebral Sulci. New York:

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.; 1990.

20 Penfield W, Rasmussen T. The cerebral cortex of man: a clinical study of

localization of function. New York: Hafner Publishing Company; 1968.

Posner MI, Rothbart MK, Sheese BE, Tang Y. The anterior cingulate

gyrus and the mechanism of self-regulation. Cogn Affect Behav

Neurosci 2007; 7: 391–5.

25 Sack AT, Sperling JM, Prvulovic D, Formisano E, Goebel R, Di Salle F,

et al. Tracking the mind’s image in the brain II: transcranial magnetic

stimulation reveals parietal asymmetry in visuospatial imagery. Neuron

2002; 35: 195–204.

Schenker NM, Buxhoeveden DP, Blackmon WL, Amunts K, Zilles K,

30 Semendeferi K. A comparative quantitative analysis of cytoarchitecture

and minicolumnar organization in Broca’s area in humans and great

apes. J Comp Neurol 2008; 510: 117–28.

Semendeferi K, Teffer K, Buxhoeveden DP, Park MS, Bludau S,

Amunts K, et al. Spatial organization of neurons in the frontal pole

35 sets humans apart from great apes. Cereb Cortex 2011; 21: 1485–97.

Smith GE. The fossil anthropoid ape from Taungs. Nature 1925; 115:

235.

Smith GE. The morphology of the occipital region of the cerebral hemisphere

in man and the apes. Anatomisher Anzeiger 1904; 24: 436–51.

Teffer K, Semendeferi K. Human prefrontal cortex: evolution, develop- 40

ment, and pathology. In: Hofman MA, Falk D, editors. Evolution of

the primate brain: from neuron to behavior. London: Elsevier; 2012.

p. 191–218.

Toga AW, Narr KL, Thompson PM, Luders E. Brain asymmetry: evolu-

tion. Encyclopedia Neurosci 2009; 2: 303–11. 45

Tu¨ re U, Yasargil DC, Al-Mefty O, Yasargil MG. Topographic anatomy of

the insular region. J Neurosurg 1999; 90: 720–33.

Van Essen DC. A tension-based theory of morphogenesis and

compact wiring in the central nervous system. Nature 1997; 385:

313–18. 50

Van Essen DC. Cerebral cortical folding patterns in primates: why they

vary and what they signify. In: Kass JH, Preuss TM, editors. Evolution

of nervous systems. Vol. 4. London: Elsevier; 2007. p. 267–89.

Vein AA, Maat-Schieman ML. Famous Russian brains: historical attempts

to understand intelligence. Brain 2008; 131: 583–90. 55

Watkins KE, Paus T, Lerch JP, Zijdenbos A, Collins DL, Neelin P, et al.

Structural asymmetries in the human brain: a voxel-based statistical

analysis of 142 MRI scans. Cereb Cortex 2001; 11: 868–77.

Witelson SF, Kigar DL, Harvey T. Authors’ reply. Lancet 1999a; 354:

1822. 60

Witelson SF, Kigar DL, Harvey T. The exceptional brain of Albert

Einstein. Lancet 1999b; 353: 2149–53.

Yu¨ cel M, Stuart GW, Maruff P, Velakoulis D, Crowe SF, Savage G, et al.

Hemispheric and gender-related differences in the gross morphology

of the anterior cingulate/paracingulate cortex in normal volunteers: an 65

MRI morphometric study. Cereb Cortex 2001; 11: 17–25.

Zilles K, Dabringhaus A, Geyer S, Amunts K, Qu M, Schleicher A, et al.

Structural asymmetries in the human forebrain and the forebrain of

non-human primates and rats. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1996; 20:

593–605. 70

Read Full Post »