I am grateful (as authors say in responses to reviews of their books containing critical comments!) to Stephen (28 November) for raising points for discussion. I'll do my best in this posting to cover as much ground as possible, but the couple of v. lengthy pdf files he found will have to be dealt with in a second posting.
Seriously, I was hoping TIPSters would raise specific queries about items on the "Einstein's Wife" website. I just didn't anticipate so much in one go! Stephen writes in relation to the Einstein/Maric correspondence: > 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. This, of course, is classic Conspiracy Theory 101: Absence of documents supporting one's position is evidence in favour of it. This is, of course, a circular argument, and I won't spend any more time on non-evidence. As Stephen writes "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 saw the name Einstein-Marity on some unpublished manuscripts 100 years 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. Further points on this. Joffe, the Russian scientist in question did not say he saw the original manuscript of the 1905 Special Relativity paper and did not say he thought Maric was a co-author. On the contrary, he wrote that the author "was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern". (As far as I know, no one has yet claimed that Mileva took a temporary post at the Patent Office, but in a fantasy world in which the most tenuous of speculations is cited as fact, perhaps someone has by now.) Again, according to Roger Highfield, Joffe worked under Roentgen (discover of X-rays) at the time, and there is not the least reason to suppose that Roentgen would have had the opportunity to see the original manuscript (Highfield and Carter, p. 112). As Martinez wrote, this is a "shred of non-evidence". http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1 On the "missing" manuscripts,Einstein was not the kind of person who would have bothered about preserving such documents, at least in his early days. After all, they were safely published in Annalen der Physik, and he was soon absorbed in fresh ideas. > 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] Let's get straight my position first. It is that I have seen no evidence that Mileva contributed substantively to the content of any of Einstein's 1905 papers. She was a mediocre student (fifth out of six in the second year exams, comfortably last out of five in the final exams), and her maths results were her weakest. She failed to respond in kind (and typically not at all) to Einstein's enthusiastic accounts of the topics he was working on in their correspondence. Regardless of any supposedly *significant* "missing" letters a surmise for which there is not one iota of evidence this regular *ignoring* of Einstein's frequent reports of his ongoing work speaks volumes. But if evidence is adduced that Mileva did indeed contribute to the work that Einstein undertook for his extraordinary 1905 papers, I will, of course, modify my view. I have seen no such evidence. It's a fallacy, of course, to suppose that the "middle ground" is necessarily closer to the truth than the main thesis either side. (In making that point I'm not suggesting Stephen would not agree in general but he seems to imply something close to that position on this issue.) Is there a "middle-ground" between creationism and Darwinist theory? (Scientist proponents of ID would no doubt argue this is the case.) Is there a "middle ground" between the Cioffi-Esterson account of the seduction theory episode and Masson's version. No there isn't! Masson's arguments are replete with errors, misconceptions and misrepresentations. See, e.g.: http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/addendum.html Is the Wikipedia entry for Mileva Maric balanced (that is, *excluding* the addition by yours truly after Stephen drew my attention to it, and which wasn't present when he read and cited it in his first posting on this issue)? There are several citations supposedly in favour of the collaboration thesis, and only one (John Stachel, co-editor of the Einstein papers) against. Let's look at the *quality* of the citations in favour. "Acording to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva." Here are some items from "Evan Harris Walker looks at Albert Einstein & Mileva Marić" http://users.rcn.com/wcri/wcri/Einstein.htm >Abraham Joffe tells us that he saw the original relativity manuscript "and the name on this paper was Einstein-Marity.< This is false. For Joffe's actual (translated) words see: http://physicsweb.org/articless/world/17/4/2/1 >The Special Theory of Relativity began as a thesis Mileva wrote and submitted to Professor Weber, her major professor at the ETH [Zurich Institute of Technology] in Switzerland. Weber rejected the paper.< I don't know what paper this refers to, but it cannot have been written later than 1901. Einstein published several papers prior to 1905, but it was not until 1905 that he came up with the crucial breakthrough in his thought that led to the Relavity paper. Thousands of people (physicists, students) would have been in possession of the kind of ideas likely to have been in the thesis Mileva submitted, but only Einstein, a few years later, came up with the crucial epoch-making originality that makes the paper exceptional. Leaving aside other points, if there had truly been crucial ideas in Mileva's thesis, how come Einstein wasn't able to make his original contribution until 1905? Note also that Walker's other claims (see below) are without merit, and that Gerald Holton, who would have certainly been familiar with all the relevant papers, writes that Mileva "left no evidence of originality as a future major scientist" (1996, p. 189). > The Photoelectric Effect paper began with Mileva Marić when she was a > student of Professor Lenard at Heidleberg. In 1905 Professor Lenard received > the Nobel Prize in physics for his experimental work on the photoelectric > effect, the same year the theory of the photoelectric effect appeared under > the name Einstein. In 1922, Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize in > physics for the theory of the photoelectric effectand in accordance with the > terms of their divorce decree, he turned over every krona, every pfennig of > the Nobel Prize money to Mileva Marić.< This is just ridiculous. In 1899 Mileva attended the classes of Lenard at Heidelberg. Around that time Lenard obtained experimental results relating to the photoelectric effect which were inexplicable in terms of wave theory. The notion that anything Mileva reported back could have had any influence on Einstein's epoch-making theoretical explanation derived in 1905 is just silly. By that kind of argument, any one of the students who attended Lenard's classes in that period could have come up with Einstein's work. In any case, Lenard could only have talked to his classes about very general stuff (if anything) on the photoelectric effect as he didn't publish the crucial paper containing the experimental results until 1902. And, of course, Einstein, long an avid reader of "Annalen der Physik", would have seen it as soon as it was published. In 1899 Einstein wrote to Mileva in May 1901 (some two years later than her attendance at Lenard's classes): "I have just read a wonderful paper by Lenard on the generation of cathode rays by ultraviolet light. Under the influence of this beautiful piece, I am filled with such happiness and joy that I must absolutely share it with you." *This* is what Lenard had been working on in 1899. Moreover, Walker's assertion that Lenard received the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect (not published until 1902) is false. He obtained it for his work on the properties of cathode rays: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9047736 Note, incidentally, that Walker adds without a pause that Einstein gave Mileva the Nobel Prize money, with the evidence-free implication (in its context) that he did so because of her supposed collaboration on his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect. > The Brownian Motion work came out of the mind of Albert and from his > consuming interest in thermodynamics. Mileva contributed to the mathematics > describing molecular random walk. This mathematics was critical to the > experimental work of the French scientist Jean-Baptiste Perrin confirming the > kinetic theory and showing the existence of atoms.< What evidence Walker has for the assertion that Mileva contributed to the mathematics for Einstein's 1901 Brownian Motion paper I have no idea. This is something I've never seen elsewhere, and, judging by the accuracy of his other contentions, is probably nothing more than surmise. Einstein was strong in mathematics. Mileva was comfortably weaker in maths than any of the other subjects she took at the Technical Institute. Why would Einstein have needed help with the maths in the Brownian Motion paper? So much for the citing of Evan Harris Walker on Wikipedia. What's the next name? Senta Troemel-Ploetz, who claims that "the ideas may have been Albert's, but Mileva did the mathematics". I think we can safely set aside the views of this "German linguist". And one more name: "Biographer Abram Joffe claims to have seen an original manuscript for the theory of relativity that was signed 'Einstein-Maric'." We have already seen that from the quoted words of Joffe that this assertion is false; he made no claim to have seen the original manuscript, nor suggested she was a co-author. So what do we have in this "balanced" entry on Wikepedia (prior to the addition by one Allen Esterson last week)? On one side three items claiming support for the collaboration theses which on examination turn out to be worthless. On the other side John Stachel, Director of the Center for Einstein Studies at Boston University, who says that Mileva was little more than a sounding board. (See Stachel's views at http://www.2ubh.com/features/Einstein.html ) If "balanced" is meant to imply roughly equal worth, then it doesn't apply to the citation in the Mileva Maric entry on Wikipedia. One thing the Wikipedia entry does get right: "The case for Mileva as co-genius mostly rests on letters in which Albert referred to 'our' theory and 'our' work and on a divorce agreement in which Albert promised her his Nobel Prize money." Yes, and that case is feeble. (I've already provided several quotes from people with considerable knowledge of the physics and of the letters which explain the quoted words in question, the claims about which are completely at variance with the plain evidence of the correspondence itself. I'll go into that in another posting if anyone wants a reminder.) Stephen writes: > 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. This is, of course, an entirely different issue to the "corroboration" thesis, and I'll be happy to deal with it. But this posting is already long enough and there's a lot more to come! Stephen cites: > 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. The "Physics World" article in question is accessible only by subscription, but has been copied at http://www.2ubh.com/features/Einstein.html Here is what Chapman writes: "But did she collaborate on those vital papers of 1905 or even, as some critics claim, do the bulk of the work? Even the 2003 documentary admitted that the evidence was slim. The key piece of evidence waved by Mileva's advocates comes via the Soviet physicist Abram Joffe who, it is claimed, wrote in a 1955 obituary of seeing an original manuscript signed by 'Einstein-Marity' (a Hungarianised form of Maric), implying that the two originally shared credit. However, Joffe makes no claim about having seen the original papers, but believed that such a hyphenated surname was the Swiss custom. " 'The fact there was nothing by Maric in her own name or co-signed with Einstein, either before she met him, while they were living together, or in the 30 years after they separated, I take as strong evidence that she never played a major creative role in his thinking,' says John Stachel, director of the Center of Einstein Studies at Boston University, and editor of the 'Collected Papers'. " 'Mileva did act as Einstein's amanuensis, checking his calculations and looking up data, but while he continued to discuss his work in his letters to her, Mileva often did not reply in kind. 'We have one of his most important letters about the electrodynamics of moving bodies, and her response where she discusses everything else in his letter but that,' Stachel adds. 'There's no evidence she acted as anything more than a sounding board for his ideas'." I don't know the evidence Chapman has in mind for Maric's "checking his calculations", but I suspect it is an allusion to an interview with Einstein's eldest son, Hans, as reported in 1962 (Highfield and Carter, p. 114). As Hans was a baby at the time, I don't think this can be taken as serious evidence. (As far as I'm aware, no commentator on the letters has mentioned this mathematical "checking", and in any case, such evidence could only apply to his pre-1905 work.) Stephen cites: > 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 As Stephen observes, the title "says it all". Suffice it to say that Bjerknes argues that Einstein plagiarised Mileva, and that Mileva herself plagiarised other people! (What was that Tom Lehrer song: "Plagiarise, plagiarise? http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/lobachev.htm ) Suffice it to say that Bjerknes argues (in response to Albert Martinez): "Since the Einsteins are known to have engaged in a working partnership since they, themselves, discussed their partnership, and since we have an eyewitness account that the 1905 papers were authored by 'Einstein-Marity', the burden of proving that Mileva played no substantive role in the production of the works lies with Dr. Martinez." http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm We've seen that Bjerkness's claim of an "eyewitness account" (he's referring to Joffe) is false, leaving only the "working partnership" contention (based on the letters), on which tenuous (to put it mildly) grounds Bjerkness argues that the burden of proof lies with Martinez to prove a negative! (That Einstein in those 1899-1901 pre-marriage letters had the fond image of such a "working partnership" with his beloved in his mind is undoubtedly true. But there's absolutely no serious evidence beyond this.) Here is John Stachel's review of Bjerknes book cited by Stephen: http://physicsweb.org/articles/review/16/4/2/1 I think we can probably put Bjerknes in the same category as the late Harvard Professor of Psychiatry John Mack, whose last works concentrated on his belief that alien abductions were genuine events outside the psyches of the individuals concerned Stephen cites: > 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 A quote from one of those reviews: "But too often [Highfield and Carter] speculate on Einstein's emotional frame of mind or recreate conversations or events based upon second-hand accounts from dubious sources." This is a book I've long been familiar with. I recall that when it was first published one reviewer wrote that the authors "leave no speculation unturned". Rereading passages again in the last few days I was struck (and constantly irritated) by the authors evident determination to interpret just about every event or activity of Einstein's in relation to Mileva, right from the start of their relationship, in terms that reflect badly on him. Their evidence for Einstein's extra-marital activity (and please note, I've never claimed he behaved well towards either wife and neither did he), is often little more than hearsay tittle-tattle (e.g., pp. 205-210). That being the case, it is interesting that Stephen writes that it is this book that "seems to be a primary source of dirt on Einstein, and to be much cited". But on the key issue (as far as *this* posting is concerned) they are clear. They cite the claims for the "corroboration" thesis and dismiss them one by one. They conclude that there are "grounds for believing that she did play a role in the birth of relativity not as a senior partner, or even as an important creative force, but as a loyal helper and supporter to whom Einstein was genuinely in debt." They later add: "Even during the years of their courtship, we have no evidence of Mileva challenging Einstein's ideas as Besso did." And to typify Mileva's responses to Einstein in relation to his ongoing work they write that in reply to "Einstein's first known discussion of relativistic themes in the summer of 1899, Mileva's answer combined loving banter with observations on the weather and a request for advice on her impending examinations." (pp. 108-116) Stephen cites: > 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 I had already ordered this book and it should arrive anytime from tomorrow onward. Finally (!)... Stephen cites: > 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 > [ ] I haven't had time to look through this 18 page article, but Stephen quotes: > "Mileva Einstein, whose contribution to the theory of relativity is now well > accepted as equal partner of his husband,..." (p. 4). 'Nuff said. But I'll report back on it in another posting. And > 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 one is 28 pages, and again I haven't had time to look at it. So you'll be pleased to hear there's more to come. -:) But my conclusion from all the other citations by Stephen is unchanged. I've yet to see any evidence that Mileva collaborated in a substantive sense in any of Einstein's great 1905 papers. I would just add (though it's a theme that requires more space) that, judging by most of the writings by supporters of the "corroboration" thesis, it is not widely understood just what it takes to achieve the extraordinary (in two of the papers, monumental) breakthroughs that Einstein brought about in 1905. There's seems to be a sense that as Mileva was in a position to study the same current work in physics as Einstein (though there's no evidence she checked out the newly published papers as Einstein did, or even had any especial interest in such material), she somehow was just as likely as Einstein to produce ideas that influenced his 1905 results. This is absurd on one level; if knowledge of the current work in physics sufficed to enable one to achieve the same results as Einstein, why didn't any of the physicists working in the same areas, or any of their students, come up with the goods? In addition and, astonishingly, this is almost never (if at all) mentioned in any of the articles supporting the collaboration thesis Mileva was a mediocre student whose results fell well below those of her fellow students and who failed the diploma exam twice. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57 http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58 http://www.srmhp.org/0202/review-01.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
