Re: Mileva Maric yet again

[Don Allen]

While I can't comment with sophistication on the physics mentioned in this thread I have to ask a simple question from a human nature perspective. Having gone through a divorce (and having seen many others do the same) it seems impossible to imagine a scenario in which the "injured" party accepts quietly the success of their Ex when they contributed to that success. In other words, can anyone imagine that if Mileva did contribute substantially to any of Einstein's work that she would never say to anyone something like, "Oh yes, he gets all the credit and the fame, but it was really I who gave him the idea!"  Every Ex-spouse that I have ever met (even in the most "amicable" divorces) has always found at least one occasion to point out the weaknesses of the other party. If there is no record of Mileva ever making a claim that it was really "her" work then this must surely be a first in the annals of human nature. -Don. Allen Esterson wrote: On 28 November Stephen Black wrote: 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. As Stephen writes, Lukacs has carefully examined the letters between Einstein and Mileva Maric for their physics content. (I am awaiting the volumes containing the complete Einstein/Maric letters by post, not yet received.) Yet for all that there are some strange anomalies in his essay that I'll come to later. Lukacs comments on the letters in sections, each relating to a specific topic associated with Einstein's 1905 papers. Repeatedly he writes of Einstein's contributions, and of no response in the replies from Mileva. On the subject matter relating to the background to the 1905 Special Relativity paper, he comments: "The lack of *any* answers in letters suggests that the problem of the electrodynamics of moving bodies simply did not interest M[aric]…" Other comments in this section about Maric's letters in response to Einstein's writing about physics topics include: "...but the answer lacks almost any physics, except a mention of heat theory." "...but nothing about physics." "But about ether and moving bodies Einstein times to times [sic] tries to tell her something; and there is no reaction." On thermodynamics: Lukacs writes that for both Einstein and Mileva the subject of their Diploma thesis was thermodynamics. (Einstein's grade for his thesis was the lowest of all his final exam marks, and Mileva's was slightly lower. [Highfield and Carter, 1993, p. 50; Brian, 1996, p. 23]) The very few letters to which Lukacs alludes on this topic mainly contain comments from Einstein to Mileva. In one Einstein refers to his idea about a topic in relation to Mileva's, and writes in terms of a future joint investigation, and adds: "If only we can start tomorrow." Lukacs writes that the Love Letters "definitely indicate common work" on the subject of thermodynamics – which topic both chose for their Diploma theses. He continues citing Einstein's comments to Mileva, with no mention of any response to them. Then he quotes Einstein: "The results on capillarity [a topic apparently not mentioned previously] I recently obtained in Zurich seem to be entirely new despite their simplicity. When we're back in Zurich we'll try to get some empirical data on this subject from Kleiner. If this yields a law of nature, we'll send the results to Wideman's Annalen [der Physik]." Lukacs writes that this is "explicit enough. A common paper is being written." I don't think this necessarily follows. He cites nothing from Mileva's side of the correspondence that mentions this topic. Given Einstein's desire to draw Mileva into his work (usually resulting in desultory responses in the letters), it could equally well show only that he was encouraging her to co-operate on the paper. I see nothing here to justify his unequivocal assertion that "a common paper" is being written. In his later conclusions he writes that Einstein's 1901 paper on capillarity is "a common product of Einstein and Marity [Maric]". Given that he cites no mention of any ideas expressed by Mileva on the subject, and that there was a gap of at least a year between the quoted words of Einstein and the writing of the published paper, I fail to see how he can justify such a conclusion. Moreover in a letter to a friend (20 December 1900) Mileva wrote: "Albert wrote a paper in physics that will probably soon be published in Annalen der Physik. You can imagine how proud I am of my darling.... We also sent a copy to Boltzmann, and we would like to know what he thinks of it..." (Popovic, 2003, p. 70). Note that Mileva makes not the least claim that she collaborated on the paper (let alone that it was a "common product"), though in a letter to a close friend one would expect she would have added that she did just a little bit of work on it to assist Albert if that had been the case. Note further her use of "we" when obviously it was Einstein who had actually sent the paper to Boltzmann. So as well as virtually refuting Lukacs contention about Einstein's first published paper, this letter is further support for the belief of those physicists most familiar with the Einstein papers that the use of "we" in relation to Einstein's ongoing work in the Einstein/Mirac letters should not be taken literally, but (on Einstein's side) as evidence of his intense desire that their love relationship should also embrace cooperation on physics projects. Lukacs next cites Einstein's mentioning fresh ideas about thermodynamics, including about a topic on which Planck was to publish an epoch-making paper in 1900, on the basis of which Einstein was to make a revolutionary breakthrough in his 1905 photoelectric effect paper. There is no indication of responses from Mileva, only of her writing about personal matters. Lukacs now goes into physics involving the work of Wien and Planck on blackbody radiation, the subject that led to Planck's (tentative) introduction of the notion of light quanta on which he published in 1900. He then writes: "Clearly one attacking this problem must be strong in both Thermodynamics and Electrodynamics; and the Love Letters mention both. Maybe Marity [Maric] was stronger in Thermodynamics (surely she was more interested) and probably Einstein was stronger in Electrodynamics; but together they were a balanced and effective team in times when team work was not yet usual. And look, in April 1901 [letter 27] Einstein already reports the written form of Planck's Dec. 14, 1900 lecture." There is something puzzling about this paragraph. He writes that someone tackling the problems around black body radiation must be strong in both thermodynamics and electrodynamics, and that the Love Letters mention both. But the comments about these topics come almost entirely from Einstein. He speculates that "maybe" Mileva was stronger in thermodynamics, but gives no reason why one might suppose so. (Recall that both chose thermodynamics for their theses, and that while Einstein didn't do particularly well, Mileva's grade was slightly worse.) His comment that "together they were an effective team" exists in a kind of vacuum, given that there is nothing to show they collaborated on this topic beyond possibly the subject matter of their theses. Lukacs then dissects Einstein's 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect, indicating the subject matter of each section, and comments: "Now is this an Einstein work or is it a joint Einstein-Marity work one? (We can be sure it is not Marity alone.) I really do not know for sure." There is another puzzle here, beyond the fact that he hasn't even established that they collaborated on material constituting the groundwork for the 1905 photoelectric paper. There is a gap of some four years between the correspondence and Einstein producing his historic breakthrough in 1905. Given this, Lukacs hasn't made any sort of case for Mileva's collaborating on the 1905 photoelectric paper itself. He writes "I really do not know for sure", when the logic of all that has gone before (together with his failure to mention the four-year gap and Mileva's poor showing in her Diploma thesis on thermodynamics) is that he has not provided evidence sufficient to even seriously entertain the contention at issue. Later Lukacs writes: "There are Einstein articles from 1902; thermodynamics, and one is connected with the thermodynamics of metals. I do not believe that they would have been coauthored..." But if he thinks this about articles involving thermodynamics published in 1902, why does he even tentatively suggest (even if he leaves it open) that the situation would be different in relation to a revolutionary paper published in 1905? And, I would add, how does he square this rejection of collaboration on minor papers while immediately afterwards making startlingly strong claims (see immediately below) about several of the extraordinary 1905 papers? More puzzling still are his conclusions, which seem to be incongruent with what is contained in the earlier parts of the essay. He writes: "I would conclude that 1. The paper (26 [1901 paper on capiliarity] is a common product of Einstein and Marity." 2. In 3 of the 4 famous 1905 Annalen der Physik papers Mileva's substantial role is probable, but in the "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" [Special Relativity] paper any *substantial* role of Marity is improbable and unfounded." The conclusion 2 is inexplicable in terms of anything he has written in the previous pages! The only one he had given credence to in terms of Mileva's writings is the 1905 photoelectric paper, and in regard to that he had written of a possible collaboration, "I really do not know for sure." And even this tentative acceptance of the possibility, I have argued, is not justified by the evidence he adduces, especially if one also takes into account two major considerations he omitted in his discussion. [See above.] So how he suddenly conjures up a conclusion that in *three* of the four papers a substantial [sic] role by Mileva is probable is a mystery. Having made what by any standards is a strong statement in his enumerated "conclusions", he immediately backtracks! "But I would not *over*emphasize Marity's role either. Nothing which I know does contradict a simple scheme in which the vast majority of ideas originated from Einstein, while Marity was better in mathematics and thermodynamics." Nothing shows up the weakness of what, on the surface is a thorough investigation, than the latter part of the last sentence. He states as if it were a fact that Mileva was better in mathematics, when the reverse was emphatically the case. He also asserts that she was better in thermodynamics, for which contention he provides no evidence. This leads to the an even greater puzzle. Nowhere in Lukacs's essay is there any mention of the fact that Mileva was a mediocre student at the Technical Institute, and that her exam results in mathematics were particularly poor. At one point he writes that "several colleagues [fellow researchers] noted Marity's 'excellence in mathematics'." He later refers to "her claimed 'mathematical excellence'," and as we have seen, presumes it in his final comments. He also seems unaware that Mileva made a poor showing in a thesis on the very subject that he asserts she was the stronger of the two (though previously he had written only that "maybe" this was the case!) My detailed conclusion is that in spite of the apparent thoroughness with which Lukacs tackles the issue: 1. His conclusions (from which he then backtracks!) are almost entirely incongruent with his previous discussion. 2. There are two serious lacunas that seriously mar the essay and undermine even his tentative conclusions, the first of which is Mileva's poor record as a student at the Technical Institute. Far from explicitly noting this, he doesn't question what he calls colleagues' noting [sic] Mileva's "excellence in mathematics", and erroneously asserts she was better at mathematics than Einstein (who in fact had exceptional talent in maths, while Mileva's results in maths were especially poor). He also asserts (without justifying it) that she was better at thermodynamics, though in fact she scored fewer marks in her thesis involving thermodynamics than Einstein. Secondly, he fails to take into account the several years gap between the documentary record he is examining (which itself shows little or no evidence of Mileva's collaboration with Einstein's ongoing work even at that time) and the publication of the great 1905 papers. My broader conclusion is that Lukacs has not provided evidence that Mileva made a substantive contribution to any of Einstein's great papers of 1905. This is also the conclusion of at least three physicists who have been directly involved with the relevant documents, John Stachel and Alberto Martinez, at the Center for Einstein Studies, and Gerald Holton, professor of physics and of the history of science at Harvard. And it is worth noting that at no time did Mileva make even the most limited of the claims now being pressed on her behalf. Addendum: The one item Lukacs is unequivocal about is that there was joint collaboration on Einstein's 1901 paper on capillarity (a contention outside the remit of this debate, namely the contentions that Mileva collaborated on Einstein's great 1905 papers). I have already expressed my view above that the meagre evidence that Lukacs adduces from the correspondence does not at all demonstrate that this was a joint paper, and that a letter from Mileva is further evidence against Lukac's conclusion. I would add that, given that Lukacs is almost certainly proven wrong on his most unequivocal conclusion, there is no reason to regard his less strongly supported conclusions about collaboration as evidence in favour of the contentions in question. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Langara College --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]