On 27 Nov 2005 at 15:01, Allen Esterson wrote: > But it is perhaps revealing of their relative interests that while > Einstein devotes much of his letters to his new ideas in physics, in > Mileva's reply she is totally silent on that subject, and comments only on > family matters and the like. On the whole, that asymmetry is true for most > of their preserved exchanges. In the relatively few letters of Mileva's in > the period under discussion, she never responds to Einstein's arguments > about physics, nor does she otherwise write of scientific problems except > to refer occasionally to a lecture she has heard or to a science book." > (*Einstein, History, and Other Passions*, 1996, pp. 177-178)
I hate to play Devil's advocate, but the response of those promoting Mileva over Einstein is that Mileva Maric's letters have been "censored", by which I think they mean that some are missing. They speculate (well, actually assert) that it is those missing letters which contain the evidence of Mileva's brilliant contributions. And that their disappearance is no accident. Note that their chief evidence here is an absence of evidence. Also note that their other chief evidence is that someone said he saw the name Einstein-Marity on some unpublished manuscripts 100 years ago, which no one else has seen, and which have vanished without a trace [from the wording of some of our discussion of this issue, some might think that papers with that name were actually published but this is not so]. Dogs which didn't bark might do it for Sherlock Holmes, but he's fictional too. I've been poking around on the web, and I now realize that the attack on Einstein is not limited to a single PBS production, but represents a huge industry, encompassing conferences, books, proably university courses, and, of course, the web. I should have known that if it shows up in a comic strip, then it must be ubiquitous (if not iniquitous). As the PBS poll showed, the idea that Einstein ripped off the work of others may well be unstoppable in the public mind. Here's my position. Allen's onslaught has made me more wary, but I still think there's a middle ground between the extremists who claim that Einstein was a total plagiarist and rip-off artist, and what I perceive to be Allen's view, which is that Maric made no contribution to Einstein's physics whatsoever. Once again, I find myself recommending Wikipedia, which provides a balanced treatment of the controversy [at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mileva_Mari%C4%87 Also, I continue to think that there exists evidence that Einstein did not act in a kind and honourable manner in his private dealings with Maric, although I've just noticed that one event (Einstein's selling of the house she lived in) comes from that now discredited source, the PBS programme (see http://www.pbs.org/opb/einsteinswife/milevastory/after.htm). I'm awaiting Allen's counter-blast on this issue, and I haven't made it easy for him, not citing any examples for my claim. Some sources I've dug up (not necessarily recommended) in my snooping: Chapman, T. (2005). The other side of Albert Einstein. Physics World, January, p. 52. [http://www.physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/1/13/1] A good review of the issues from a trustworthy source. ------------------------ Bjerknes, C. J. (Date?) His website at http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm, which includes an excerpt from his book "Albert Einstein: the Incorrigible Plagiarist" [says it all, doesn't it?] plus a reply to the Martinez piece on "Einstein's Wife" in Physics World http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1 --------------------------- Highfield, R., & Carter, P. (1993). Private Lives of Albert Einstein. This seems to be a primary source of dirt on Einstein., and to be much cited. However, two publisher's reviews suggests it is not all trustworthy. See Amazon at http://tinyurl.com/7dy97 ---------------------------- Popovic, M. (2003). In Albert's Shadow : The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einstein's First Wife. Sounds interesting. Endorsed by Robert Schulmann, former director of the Einstein Papers Project, published by Johns Hopkins (so probably trustworthy). Amazon reviews at http://tinyurl.com/dz4r7 --------------------------- Sequeira, M. Inviting women to physics and engineering. Date? Long feminist- oriented review, with big section on Einstein and Maric. It should keep Allen busy (or apoplectic). At http://tinyurl.com/e4op2 "Mileva Einstein, whose contribution to the theory of relativity is now well accepted as equal partner of his husband,..." (p. 4). It really gets going on p. 9. I've also seen this section posted elsewhere on the web, with the coy note "The author prefers to remain anonymous". -------------------------------------- Lukacs, B. (Date?) Some notes on Mileva Marity, later Mileva Einstein from the viewpoint of a Hungarian relativist. At http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/MARITY.htm This is one of the more intriguing things I've come across. It's the work of a Hungarian physicist apparently knowledgeable in relativity theory, and with good credentials in physics (see his web page with both impressive and strange material at http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/lukacs.html and his affiliation: Nuclear and Particle Physics Research Institute,Theoretical Physics Department, Hungarian Academy of Sciences). His essay is long and rambling, but he appears not to have an agenda, and has carefully examined the love letters between Einstein and Maric. As far as I can understand (not far) he concludes that if she made a contribution, it was most likely to thermodynamics, not relativity. He thinks their collaboration was most probable for a 1901 paper which I think may be "Conclusions Drawn from the Phenomena of Capillarity" (Lukacs reference 26), apparently not one of Einstein's more famous ones. Lukacs also suggests that she may have contributed to three of the four famous 1905 ones, but not the one on relativity ( the "Electrodynamics of moving bodies") In his abstract, he makes a restrained claim: "I contribute with some detailed to the discussions about the role of Mileva Marity-Einstein in the elaboration of results generally attributed only to A. Einstein. Note that I cannot prove joint authorship of any Einstein paper (although I seem to have good arguments for one); but my points may be useful for historians." However, in his conclusions (#7), he uses more assertive language for his claims. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
