Talk:Mileva Marić/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The March 27th 1901 letter of Einstein on “our work on relative motion”

The principal evidence we have about whether Mileva Marić contributed to the theory of relativity (or more particularly to the 1905 paper of Einstein) is the letter to her from Einstein dated March 27th 1901 which is now available online at http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol1-doc/350. Strangely this letter has not been mentioned so far in the present talk page and little importance is given to it in the article. So I have opened a new section to give it importance and to start a discussion on it. The letter translated says “How happy and proud I will be when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end”; adding a remark: “When other people ask I will tell them what is yours and what is mine”. It seems to me that the main story stands out quite clearly from this letter when taken together with a few other facts available to us, although it is obscured by the article which separates Marić’s life history from her possible contribution to relativity. The two are interrelated. As recorded in the letter, in the spring of 1901 Einstein and Marić were working together on this inspirational idea on the importance of relative motions in physics. As a result their relationship became closer and they went on holiday together in Italy. Marić became pregnant and not long after failed her final exam for the second time, gave up her thesis project and went back to southern Serbia no doubt quite distressed. Einstein however continued to think about the idea and, as recorded in his letter of November that year was working on a 'capital paper'. Marić, further distressed after the birth of her disabled daughter, eventually gave up any idea of continuing with scientific work, (as said by her son later). But Einstein, with the company of a group of friends he called the 'Olympia Academy', studied Maxwell's equations, the work of Poincare, Lorentz and also philosophical works (according to Stachel in Einstein's Coll. Wks) So the 1905 paper was written almost wholly by Einstein. That is the story as I see it. As to Marić's contribution a clue is given in the 1905 paper. The paper starts with proposing that the laws of electromagnetism in physics depend only on relative motions and that the ether does not exist. The paper continues however on a different line of thought and there are similarities with the work of Lorentz. Nowhere else in the paper (or indeed in any of Einstein's further work) is there any mention of relative motion (which is strange for a theory called relativity!). So my guess is that the opening section represents Marić's initial idea. Possibly the word ‘relativity’ originated with her also.JFB80 (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You write: "Nowhere else in the paper (or indeed in any of Einstein's further work) is there any mention of relative motion (which is strange for a theory called relativity!)."

A new approach to relative motion based on a radical reassessment of simultaneity is a central element in the 1905 paper! (The traditional Galilean principle of relativity that Einstein upgraded is precisely about the relative motion of one body with respect to another!)

Here is why the sentence quoted above does have the significance you have given it:

"How happy and proud I will be when the two of us will have victoriously concluded our work about relative motion."

Against this one unspecific allusion to "our" work in relation to the electrodynamics of moving bodies there are half dozen other letters in the period from August 1899 through December 1901 in which Einstein writes of his ideas on the subject, providing specific details of what he is working on. For example:

"I also wrote to Professor Wien in Aachen about my paper on the relative motion of the luminiferous ether against ponderable matter…" (28 September 1899)

"I'm busily at work on an electrodynamics of moving bodies, which promises to be quite a capital piece of work." (17 December 1901)

"I spent all afternoon at [Professor] Kleiner's telling him my ideas about the electrodynamics of moving bodies…" (19 December 1901)

"I want to get down to business now and read what Lorentz and Drude have written about the electrodynamics of moving bodies." (28 December 1901)

And to Marcel Grossman:

"A considerably simpler method of investigating the relative motion of matter relative to luminiferous ether that is based on ordinary interference experiments has just sprung to my mind…" (6? September 1901: Collected Papers, vol. 1, doc. 122)

As John Stachel writes:

In summary, the letters to Marić show Einstein referring to his studies, his ideas, his work on the electrodynamics of moving bodies over a dozen times (and we may add a couple more if we include his letter to Grossmann), as compared to one reference to our work on the problem of relative motion. In the one case where we have a letter of Marić in direct response to one of Einstein's, where it would have been most natural for her to respond to his ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, we find the same response to ideas in physics that we find in all her letters: silence. (Stachel 2002, p. 36)

It is important to appreciate both the background and the context in which the relevant sentence occurs. The couple were now separated with little prospect of their being together in the immediate future. Roger Highfield and Paul Carter quote the whole paragraph, in which Einstein is seeking to reassure Marić of his continuing love, observing: "By italicizing the key sentence, one shows how it sat marooned, not in one of Einstein's many passages of close scientific argument, but amid an outpouring of reassurance that his love for Mileva remained absolute despite their separation" (1993, p. 72). And equally important, the sentence should be seen in the light of Einstein's frequent attempts to interest Marić in his extra-curricular work, his expressed long term hope being that they would have a joint future devoted to science. In any case, this letter was written some four years before Einstein alighted on the key idea that led to his writing the 1905 special relativity theory. Moreover, there is not a single piece of evidence of Marić's having expressed any ideas on the subject.

In the context of claims relating to the scientific contents of the letters during the years 1897-1902, what is notable is the absence of any discussion of physics in those written by Marić, other than a brief rather jocular account of a lecture on elementary kinetic theory of gases that she attended during the 1897-98 winter semester she spent as an auditor at Heidelberg University. Unlike Einstein's, which frequently contain a report of his latest ideas on extra-curricular physics, Marić's letters are almost completely confined to personal matters, with occasional references to her studies relating to work for Zurich Polytechnic examinations. In two instances there are surviving letters from Marić responding to letters from Einstein in which he discusses in some detail ideas on physics topics on which he is working. In neither of her replies does she even allude to these ideas (Renn and Schulmann 1992, letters 8, 9; 29, 31). Nor is it feasible that the several letters of Marić's not kept by Einstein might have contained substantive responses to his ideas on extra-curricular physics: had such been the case it is almost inconceivable that there would not be indications of this in Einstein's letters, given his enthusiasm to discuss the ideas expressed in those letters.

Note also that Maric never gives the slightest hint that she has assisted Einstein with his papers when she mentions them in her numerous letters to her closest friend Helene Kaufler Savic. (Milan Popovic, In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, 2003.)

See also John Stachel's discussion of this issue contained in this published article: [1]

I hope you will look closely at the above information with an open mind, as it is never mentioned in claims about the sentence in question. (Please note that the mass of detail comes from a draft article already written that has come out of my many years researching this subject: [2]) Esterson (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

P.S. JFB80: I have just spotted that you wrote:

'The letter translated says “How happy and proud I will be when we two together have victoriously led our work on relative motion to an end”; adding a remark: “When other people ask I will tell them what is yours and what is mine”.'

There is no such "remark" added after the sentence in question, nor indeed in the whole of Einstein's letter of 27 March 1901 (Renn and Schulmann, 1992, letter 26). Where you got that from I cannot imagine. Perhaps you could inform us.

I'm very familiar with all Einstein's letters to Mileva in this early period of their lives, and I don't recall any such sentence, and most certainly he did not write it in relation to his own work. Esterson (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the extensive comments. Sorry if you may not be able to reply to me but I shall answer nevertheless.

(1) You say: "A new approach to relative motion based on a radical reassessment of simultaneity is a central element in the 1905 paper! (The traditional Galilean principle of relativity that Einstein upgraded is precisely about the relative motion of one body with respect to another!)" I do not understand you at all. The Galilean principle of relativity applied to mechanical motion. Einstein upgraded it to cover light propagation. Where is the connexion with the definition of relative motion? I keep to my assertion that Einstein never discussed relative motion after his brief mention in the introduction of the 1905 paper. If you think otherwise please provide an exact reference. In any case the general definition of relative motion of one body relative to another cannot be given in the traditional form of relativity that Einstein gave as it leads to the Mocanu paradox (1992).

(2) You quote letters to Wien 1899 and Grossman September 1901 where Einstein still talks about the ether, showing he had not abandoned the concept as superfluous earlier in 1901 as I thought he might have done with the letter to Maric. So I seem to be wrong about my interpretation. I would be interested to know when he did abandon the ether. Do you know? I see referred to the ether as moving which is a curious idea as the ether was supposed to be fixed and other things moved relative to it. The 3 letters to Maric of Dec 1901 refer to the standard view of electrodynamics at that time.

(3) You say: this letter was written some four years before Einstein alighted on the key idea that led to his writing the 1905 special relativity theory. What key idea? The letter was written in 1901 four years later is already 1905.

(4) You say: you do not accept my adding a remark: “When other people ask I will tell them what is yours and what is mine”.' I actually quoted incorrectly as I did so from memory. It should have been “When I see other people it will be right for me to say what is yours.” The original is “Wenn ich so andre Leute sehe, da kommt mirs so recht, was an Dir ist” (Die Liebesbriefe 1897-1903 (Piper Verlag) Dok 94 27.3.1901) JFB80 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)JFB80 (talk) 21:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous response. Your point (4) does not require the time needed to respond adequately to the other points, so I'll deal with this separately. The original German sentence is indeed as you cite, but the translation is not remotely like the sentence you quoted from memory, nor is the last part of the sentence anything like what you have given in your translation immediately above. Here is how it is translated in the Einstein Collected Papers, vol. 1, doc 94: "When I see other people then it really strikes me how much there is to you." (A similar independent translation can be found in Renn and Schulmann, 1992, p. 39). This is a follow-up to the earlier part of the paragraph. As I cited above, Highfield and Carter (1993) write: "By italicizing the key sentence, one shows how it sat marooned, not in one of Einstein's many passages of close scientific argument, but amid an outpouring of reassurance that his love for Mileva remained absolute despite their separation." (The sentences immediately before read: "You are and will remain a shrine for me to which no one has access; I also know of all people, you love me the most, and understand me the best. I assure you that no one here would dare, or even want, to say anything bad about you.") If one looks at the sentence you have quoted, "When I see other people I can really appreciate how special you are!" (Renn and Schulmann, 1992, translation), you can see it is a continuation of what Highfield and Carter describe as an "outpouring of reassurance" earlier in the paragraph, and has nothing to do with the "our work on relative motion" sentence.Esterson (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuation, Point (1): I was not attempting other than the most elementary description of the 1905 Special Relativity paper, citing the most famous part of it for laypeople, namely Einstein's demonstrating the relativity of simultaneity and his use of the principle of the constancy of the speed of light relative to any observer to deduce the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations for relative motion between two bodies. But equally important, he then broadened his arguments to extend them to the motion of electric charges within a magnetic field, hence the title "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies".

Incidentally, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations are precisely about relative motion between two bodies, and the transformations that occur that are only measurable at relative speeds approaching that of light. Einstein deals with this, and further consequences relating to other aspects of physics, over more than 20 pages in the 1905 paper in the Collected Papers, vol. 2, doc 23, pp. 141-167 (English language vol.). There would be no reason for him to specifically use the words "relative motion" (if indeed he didn't) in later writings as his Special Relativity theory was a more all-encompassing theory.

I really don't want to spend time on further exchanges on this point as I don't see how they relate to the central issue (about Maric), unless it is related to this point you made originally:

"As to Marić's contribution a clue is given in the 1905 paper", followed by "As recorded in the letter, in the spring of 1901 Einstein and Marić were working together on this inspirational idea on the importance of relative motions in physics. As a result their relationship became closer and they went on holiday together in Italy."

I have argued that the single mention of "our work on relative motion" does not have the significance that has been given it on the basis of massive confirmation bias, with authors ignoring the mass of evidence that all the ideas leading to relativity theory came from Einstein. None of these authors provide a single example of any ideas on the subject that come from Maric, even by hearsay. Please examine the article by John Stachel giving detailed examples of ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies poured out in Einstein's letters, with not a sniff of any like response from Marić, not even responding to what Einstein has written (starting about half a dozen paragraphs down in this link: [3])

On the basis of my close knowledge of the early Einstein-Maric correspondence I have not seen a single piece of evidence that their relationship became stronger as a result researches on ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies (especially as, as I have said, there is no evidence of any contribution by Maric to Einstein's researches on this subject). The only reason it might have become stronger on Maric's part around that time is that about a month later on the few days snatched in Italy during a long period in which they were apart their relationship was consummated, resulting in her becoming pregnant.

As for your writing above:

"in the spring of 1901 Einstein and Marić were working together on this inspirational idea on the importance of relative motions in physics"

the letters of Einstein's in which he poured out his ideas on this topic were spread over a couple of years from 1899 to the end of 1901. There is good reason to suppose there would not have been work on it on the part of Maric in the spring of 1901 as at that time she had enough on her plate preparing to retake the Zurich Polytechnic final diploma exams and (especially) because she was working diligently on her Polytechnic dissertation which she hoped to develop into a PhD thesis (abandoned in the autumn that year after her second failure). Incidentally, they were not together in the spring of 1901. Einstein had returned to Zurich in the latter part of 1900 to make use of the Polytechnic physics laboratory to work on his first attempt at a PhD, and left in late March 1901 to spend time with his family who lived in Italy. After that he obtained a temporary teaching post in Switzerland starting in May 1901, and did not return to Zurich.

I'll try and deal with your interesting points (2) and (3) over the next couple of days. Esterson (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is my take on points (2) and (3);

Point (2): As early as August 1899 (letter to Maric) Einstein had expressed reservations about the current notions of the term "ether", but as you say he still worked with the concept up to at least late 1901. There is much historical debate about precisely when he rejected it. There is no written record, but we know he avidly discussed his ideas with his friend Michele Besso and the knowledgeable Josef Sauter, both colleagues at the Bern Patent Office. He himself later wrote that it was not a sudden realisation, but arrived at through wide reading of contemporary writings on the subject, of which he became increasingly sceptical insofar as the authors maintained the ether as inherent to their respective theories. See John Stachel on the subject "How did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?", in which he suggests that Einstein dropped the ether hypothesis by 1903 or 1904 at the latest: [4] In an historically based account notable for its clarity even for the non-expert who skips across the occasional mathematical formula, Robert Rynasiewicz finds that Einstein had rejected the ether concept certainly before 1905. He also quotes Einstein writing some time later that he had rejected the concept before the formulation of the special theory in 1905:

R. Rynasiewicz, "The Construction of Special Relativity", in Einstein: The Formative Years, 1879-1909, eds. D. Howard and J. Stachel, 1998, pp. 159-201.

Point (3): The key idea was the relativity of time (with the consequence that simultaneity is not an absolute concept). Einstein later wrote about the famous episode in May 1905 when a conversation with his friend Besso led to his arriving at the "solution" the following morning. After thanking Besso for his part in the exchanges he told him: "I've completely solved the problem", and goes on to explain that "An analysis of the concept of time was my solution. Time cannot be absolutely defined, and there is an inseparable relation between time and signal velocity." (Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, 1997, p. 155).Esterson (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are some further comments on your comments. What you say is in italics followed by my comment.

Point (1): Yes my view does depend very much on relative motion- this is what we are discussing. You talk about his use of the principle of the constancy of the speed of light relative to any observer to deduce the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations for relative motion between two bodies. Where did you find that? There were no such equations! (Fitzgerald didn't use equations anyway, only words!) If you just look at the 1905 paper you will read "Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space". Einstein proved equations previously discussed by Lorentz are unchanged under a revised Lorentz transformation. No mention at all of relative motion or two bodies. But he did apply the equations to the motion of a single electron in an electromagnetic field. the letters of Einstein's in which he poured out his ideas on this topic (i.e. relative motion) were spread over a couple of years from 1899 to the end of 1901 I begin to think it is possible that the March 27th letter referred mainly to ideas they had exchanged over previous years maybe verbally. Do you know if there is a reply by Maric to every letter of Einstein even if on other things? If not, perhaps some are missing or even censored. After that he obtained a temporary teaching post in Switzerland starting in May 1901, and did not return to Zurich. How do you know he did not return? It seems unlikely as he was teaching in Schaffhausen only about 30 km from Zurich; probably about 40 minutes train journey. Didn’t he continue with his Ph.D in Zurich?

Point (2): As early as August 1899 (letter to Maric) Einstein had expressed reservations about the current notions of the term "ether". I find this interesting. Do you have the letter? (The non-existence of the ether) was arrived at through wide reading of contemporary writings on the subject. Poincaré for example? He wrote “does the either really exist”? I read with interest Stachel's attempted reconstruction of what led to the 1905 paper and liked especially how he related it to Einstein's other work. One point he mentioned that struck me was that the example given in the opening section of the 1905 paper about Faraday's law had been mentioned in the textbook of Föppl (first published in 1894) which seems to have been a standard textbook probably familiar to both Einstein and Maric from their diploma course. Stachel omitted to mention that Poincaré was developing his own approach to relativity in the same period 1900-1905 and his writings were no doubt familiar to Einstein and friends and influenced them. In 1901 Poincaré had said electrical phenomena may depend only on relative motion.

Point (3): the famous episode in May 1905. It surprises me that Einstein came to this realization only a short time before the 1905 paper. I had never heard this story before. The relativity of time was certainly the most amazing consequence of the theory and one which even now is difficult to take in.. Local time had been introduced by Lorentz previously (1895) which Einstein had read. Poincare later had commented on its reality.

Point (4). Yes my translation looks incorrect although the sentence does seem very colloquial and open to interpretation. Following on from the statement about research on relative motion you would imagine there should be some continuity in the ideas. If the sentence is translated “you are so special” it should mean “so special in science”. JFB80 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this in stages:

Point 3: When I wrote "famous" it was in the context of an individual having done a certain amount of reading of the history of special relativity, including in biographies of Einstein. I have checked and found the episode recounted in the major biographies by Brain, Fölsing, Neffe, Isaacson, and the more popular biography by Overbye. At a more academic level, it is also in the Rynasiewicz chapter "The Construction of the Special Theory" cited above, in Abraham Pais's Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein, and is given a passing mention in the article by John Stachel "How Did Einstein Discover Relativity?" to which I linked above.[5] It is also in the popular book Einstein's Cosmos by Michio Kaku, and no doubt in other books I do not have on my shelves.Esterson (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Point 2: You will find the paragraph in question in the article extract by Stachel that I linked to above: [6] Scroll down a little to the paragraph from a letter of 10 August 1899, starting "I am more and more convinced…"

You are mistaken on two counts about the book by Föppl. First, Einstein's major complaint about the physics course at the Polytechnic was that it was old-fashioned in that it did not explore works on the then borders of advanced physics. This is why, in the last two years of the course, he neglected his Polytechnic studies (even skipping classes) to study works by Boltzmann, Drude, Helmholtz, Hertz, Ostwald, Planck, Kirchhoff and Wien. Einstein reported reading specific works by these authors in letters to Maric from 1899-1902, occasionally prior to 1900 suggesting individual works he wanted to read together with her. The work by Foppl to which you refer was outside the range of topics in the Polytechnic physics course, and is not mentioned in Einstein's letters, so there is no reason to suppose that Maric would have read it. There isn't even direct evidence that Einstein read it. In his chapter on the "Origins of the Special Theory of Relativity" in his book Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (1973) the physics historian Gerald Holton brings up Föppl's name in a "final assault on the problem of the possible antecedents of Einstein's work". He writes that he came across a clue while working with documents in the Einstein Archives, where he came across the name. Holton spends five pages explaining why he thinks Föppl may have been an influence, though all he can conclude tentatively is that there is "some poignancy in the discovery that Föppl may have reached across to Einstein – the book of an 'outsider' who did not have students to whom to teach its contents in lectures, falling into the hands of a student who, regarded as an 'outsider', was looking to this book for the material and the stimulation that he could not get in their lectures." Esterson (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Points 1 and 4: There's a lot to deal with here! You wrote:

You talk about his use of the principle of the constancy of the speed of light relative to any observer to deduce the Lorentz-Fitzgerald equations for relative motion between two bodies. Where did you find that? There were no such equations!

You are quite right, a slip on my part. The Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is a single one of the full Lorentz transformations. (See books by Pais, Holton and the article by Rynasiewicz cited above.)

Einstein's derivation of the Lorentz transformations from his unique starting point is in Section I (Kinematic Part) of his 1905 paper. It's a very long time since I looked closely at this material, but if you really want to follow this up I strongly recommend Robert E. Kennedy, A Student's Guide to Einstein's Major Papers (2012), in which he states the Lorentz transformations (p. 112), with an account of how Einstein derived them using slightly different notation (pp. 118-122).

You wrote:

I begin to think it is possible that the March 27th letter referred mainly to ideas they had exchanged over previous years maybe verbally.

and

Following on from the statement about research on relative motion you would imagine there should be some continuity in the ideas. If the sentence is translated “you are so special” it should mean “so special in science”.

Frankly, your first sentence here is getting into the world of speculation without a single piece of actual evidence. In his letter of 10 September 1899, after Einstein has reported he has come up with an idea for investigating the motion of a body relative to the ether, "and even came up with a theory about it that seems quite plausible to me", he adds "But enough of this! Your poor little head is already crammed full of other people's hobby horses that you've had to ride, I won't bother you with mine as well". In other words, the exploration of ideas about the ether and relative motion is Einstein's hobby horse, and there is no evidence that Maric had her own particular interest in the subject.

On a couple of occasions in the early letters Einstein had made clear that he had hopes of a life of scientific research on which Maric, with whom he had fallen in love, would accompany him. This is what he was expressing in the sentence in question in the letter of 27 March 1901, slipped in as part of his reassurance of his continuing love that constitutes the rest of the paragraph. (Why would he suddenly go from passionate reassurance to an independent statement about work on relative motion, followed by the same kind of reassurance of how much she means to him?) You write "If the sentence is translated 'you are so special' it should mean 'so special in science'." You have omitted the first part of the sentence "When I see other people…", in other words he is writing about Maric as a person, there is nothing about other people's prowess in science here.

You wrote:

Do you know if there is a reply by Maric to every letter of Einstein even if on other things? If not, perhaps some are missing or even censored.

The majority of Maric's early letters were not kept by Einstein, which is not surprising given his haphazard lifestyle in this period. (On 17 December 1901 he wrote Maric: "You know what a state my worldly possessions are in.") There are, however, two instances of replies by Maric to letters of Einstein's in which he enthusiastically reports his latest extra-curricular ideas. One (10 August 1899) is mentioned above, where he writes about his reading of Hertz and Helmholtz on electric forces and electrodynamics respectively, and then about his doubts about the ether concept, expanding on his ideas on the latter in a lengthy paragraph. Maric's reply touches on several personal matters, but makes no allusion to the ideas Einstein has expressed. In the second (30 April 1901) Einstein reports he is studying Boltzmann's gas theory again, with a critical comment, followed by a paragraph discussing his latest idea on the transformation of kinetic energy into light and connections with molecular forces. Again Maric's reply contains only personal matters, with no allusion to the ideas Einstein has expressed. Of course we cannot begin to guess what was in the letters Einstein did not keep in this period, but we can be pretty sure that, given his enthusiasm for his extra-curricular researches, had Maric expressed her own ideas on these he would have taken them up in his next letter. There is no such indication in any of Einstein's letters.

If not, perhaps some are missing or even censored.

There is no possibility of the kind of censorship you suggest, as it is evident that Maric must have saved this early correspondence after they were married. After her death it passed on to their oldest son Hans Albert, and were discovered in 1986 in the hands of the latter's family. The letters were immediately photocopied for publication in the first volume of the Einstein Collected Papers (1987), the publication of which was delayed to include them.

How do you know he did not return? It seems unlikely as he was teaching in Schaffhausen only about 30 km from Zurich; probably about 40 minutes train journey.

Checking Fölsing's biography, and letters in the relevant period, I see I was mistaken in saying he did not return to Zurich in 1901. I short-circuited the full details from memory above, and have now checked the details. The post at Schaffhausen that you allude to was his second temporary post, and did not start until mid-September 1901. Meanwhile Maric had retaken her exams in July 1901 and shortly afterwards went back to her parents' place in Serbia, where in January the following year she gave birth to her out-of-wedlock baby girl. On leaving Zurich in March 1901 Einstein spent time with his family in Milan, in mid-May went to Winterthur, Switzerland, for a two month temporary teaching position, then from mid-July spent time with his mother and sister, mostly holidaying in Mettmenstetten, Switzerland. In August Einstein returned to Winterthur where he had retained a room to work on his doctoral thesis, before taking up the Schaffhausen post in September. While at Winterthur from mid-May to mid-July 1901 Einstein did make some Sunday visits to Zurich, during which time Maric would have been preparing for her repeat final diploma examinations.

Didn’t he continue with his Ph.D in Zurich?

He decided not to continue with Polytechnic professor Heinrich Weber as his thesis supervisor some time after mid-1901 due to conflicting personalities, and submitted his thesis to Professor Kleiner at Zurich University in November 1901. There was no reason for him to be in Zurich while working on the thesis as he had completed the necessary laboratory research at the Polytechnic by mid-March 1901.Esterson (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

A few more comments:

Einstein referred to “our work on relative motion”. If you believe what he said there is the question: which work was he talking about? Either it was something they were currently doing or something they had been doing in the past, or both. I just speculated it was probably something they had been doing in the past. What would you speculate?

Re Föppl: Your logic is unclear. First you say that Einstein disliked the course content and read outside it and then you say he wouldn’t have read Föppl because it was outside his course. That book and its revisions became a standard textbook on electromagnetic theory so I think it is rather likely that Einstein would have looked at it. There is a very good reason for thinking that he did so because his 1905 paper discussed the motion of an electron using ideas (longitudinal and lateral masses) first described in the revision of that book (Abraham-Föppl 1904). So Holton had a point and I understand his poignancy comment which makes a lot of sense – Föppl and Einstein were interested in research ideas, others were not.

Generally I think you give too much importance to having documentary evidence. To say there is no documentary evidence of an event does not logically imply that the event did not take place. You have to look also for other reasons based on an understanding of the circumstances.

The Tesla foundation website lists references to joint work of Einstein and Maric. You may like to check these out. They may refer to student projects but they should at least show that Einstein and Maric had worked together.

I doubt if I will find time in the coming days to continue this exchange of views. Thank you for the detailed replies and good health.

JFB80 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

JFB80: You wrote:

Re Föppl: ."…then you say he wouldn’t have read Föppl because it was outside his course."

Nowhere did I say that Einstein wouldn't have read Föppl – only that there has been an informed suggestion by Holton, but no direct evidence. Please read that section again.

Einstein referred to “our work on relative motion”. If you believe what he said there is the question: which work was he talking about? Either it was something they were currently doing or something they had been doing in the past, or both. I just speculated it was probably something they had been doing in the past. What would you speculate?

Given the lack of evidence for any significant contribution from Maric, and Einstein's expressed wish that the couple would eventually work together on science in their future life, such indications that we have are that he is referring to the ideas on relative motion and the ether that he has expressed in half-a dozen letters to her, and no doubt in conversations when they got together for joint study in Zurich in the years from 1898 to early 1900. Having fallen in love with her, at that time he saw his adventures into advanced physics as a joint venture and occasionally used inclusive terms although there is no evidence that any significant ideas came from Maric. As he wrote on 10 April 1901: "Today I'm going to give you a detailed report of what I'm up to, because I see you enjoy it," followed by a lengthy paragraph recounting his reading of Ostwald on electrochemistry, and his reading on the electron theory of metals, then saying he can explain why he is unhappy about Planck's ideas on the nature of radiation, then on to Drude's electron theory, and finally "I've retreated again from my idea on the nature of latent heat in solids..." This typifies their relationship in regard to advanced physics, as indicated by Einstein's comment to Maric on 19 December 1901 when foreseeing the time they would be able to get together again: "Soon you'll be my 'student' again, like in Zurich."

Generally I think you give too much importance to having documentary evidence. To say there is no documentary evidence of an event does not logically imply that the event did not take place.

Of course that is the case, but I prefer to base my view on historical events on solid evidence rather than on speculation, or on erroneous assertions that most writings on this subject are replete with.

You have to look also for other reasons based on an understanding of the circumstances.

That is precisely what I have done by a meticulous and time-consuming examination over many years of (i) all the relevant letters (including numerous letters of Maric's to her close friend Helene Kaufler Savić in which she always ascribed Einstein's papers solely to him with not a hint she had made any contribution) (ii) the sources of all the claims of authors who make statements about Maric's alleged contributions to Einstein's early papers, mostly uncritically recycled from other authors.

The Tesla foundation website lists references to joint work of Einstein and Maric. You may like to check these out. They may refer to student projects but they should at least show that Einstein and Maric had worked together.

If you are referring to this website of the Tesla Society Memorial Society of New York [7], I am completely familiar with the article, and with all the links to articles on Maric. This is a website of Serbian-Americans, and is not remotely objective, as can be seen by their assertion: "Mileva Maric Einstein is one of the greatest woman in history." Here are a few of the erroneous assertions on that webpage:

According to Evan Harris Walker, a physicist, the basic ideas for relativity came from Mileva…

Walker provides not a scrap of evidence for this. Scroll down to the Addendum to this critique: [8]

…Biographer Abram Joffe claims to have seen an original manuscript for the theory of relativity which was signed, "Einstein-Maric".

Joffe made no such claim. This is based on a false statement made in the book by the Serbian author Trbuhović-Gjurić and has been meticulously refuted by Stachel: [9]

During her early years at university, she became an acquaintance of Nikola Tesla as a mathematics student.

Complete nonsense!

In 1896 she entered the Swiss Federal Polytechnic as the only woman student.

In that year she was the only woman student out of six in the first year of the course for the mathematics and physics teaching diploma. However, for the whole section for a science teaching diploma in 1896-97 there were 9 female students, and quite possibly more in other departments of the Polytechnic. (Statistics tabulated in Stachel 2002, p. 30)

The winter semester of 1897 to 1898 Mileva Maric spent in Heidelberg, she was fascinated with a lecture about the relationship between the velocity of a molecule and the distance traversed by it between collisions, and she wrote to Einstein about that in this letter above. This was a topic relevant in Einstein's studies of Brownian motion and discussed in one of his famous three papers published n 1905.

The passage in question comprises two sentences of rather jocular description of an item in the elementary kinetic theory of gases that a first year physics major undergraduate would be familiar with. In any case, Einstein's letter in reply includes a list of topics that Maric had missed while at Heidelberg, which included the kinetic theory, so Einstein had studied the same topic at the Polytechnic in this period!

This Tesla Foundation article is, I fear, only too typical in being replete with erroneous and misleading assertions that are widely circulated on the internet, and in chapters on Maric in several books. Esterson (talk) 13:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some cleaning needed

Hi,

As in the subject line, it seems that the entire article is about pushing POV and unfounded theories which do not obey to WP guidelines about biographical articles. Historical accounts which are well into the academic consensus indicate that Ms Maric was by far less competent mathematician than Einstein was and her grade sheet from the ETH reveal that she severely and repeatedly failed in few advanced mathematics courses (While Einstein never failed a course and always scored higher grades). The whole theory that she helped Einstein with his works more than hearing his ideas is based on love letters an the fact that they lived together. Also, while Einstein made grand scale historical contributions to physics and very notable ones to mathematics as well long after his divorce from Maric and after he had no contact with her what so ever, Maric made no single public contribution nor was noted ever as exceptionally capable scientist by any one with basic skills to make such judgement. No smoking gun at all, on the contrary. But most important, when it come to WP-article must follow the academic consensus -and the last when leave the fringe theory about her "major contribution" to Einstein's work well outside of it. Please edit the article accordingly and remove the POV that is currently taking the largest part of it.--89.138.76.143 (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-forgotten-life-of-einsteins-first-wife/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 11:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mileva Marić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811141225/https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fredriks.de/HVV/kaufkraft.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207162646/http://www.fraumuenstergesellschaft.ch/media/upload/aktivitaten/frauenehrung/frauenehrungen.pdf to http://www.fraumuenstergesellschaft.ch/media/upload/aktivitaten/frauenehrung/frauenehrungen.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811141225/https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf to https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Maric_files/EvidenceMaric.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Material moved from main page

I have moved this material from the main page because it reads like WP:SNYTH: It sounds like the article is coming to a conclusion that scholars are still debating which violates WP:NPOV-Classicfilms (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Scholars are not debating the subject; the clear consensus of historians and scientists is that Mileva made no scientific contributions, and claims supporting her are riddled with errors. Thus, claiming that controversy exists when it doesn't would be counter to Wikipedia standards, by pushing a POV unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the section you deleted was not opinion; it consisted of claims that can be confirmed or denied. Absent evidence that they are incorrect, deletion is unmerited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.138.172 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Einstein remained an extremely fruitful scientist well into the 1920s, producing work of the greatest importance long after separating from Marić in 1914. She, on the other hand, never published anything. Marić was never mentioned as having been involved with his work by the friends and colleagues of Einstein, who engaged in countless discussions of his ideas with him. Marić herself never claimed that she had ever played any role in Einstein's scientific work, nor hinted at such a role in personal letters to her closest friend, Helene Savić.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mileva Marić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717134958/http://pdf.zeit.de/1990/47/Keine-Mutter-der-Relativitaetstheorie.pdf to http://pdf.zeit.de/1990/47/Keine-Mutter-der-Relativitaetstheorie.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426011034/http://rli.at/Seiten/kooperat/maric1.htm to http://rli.at/Seiten/kooperat/maric1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927172921/http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Walker_Stachel.pdf to http://philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Walker_Stachel.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Joffe again

Hi, I just read the article with great interest. Now I have a question: could it be that Abram Joffe saw (or heard of) the original papers being signed "Einstein-Marity" and thought it was one person, although the papers were signed with two names? Could it be that it was Mileva herself who wrote the papers, signing with her name and the name of her husband? I see the point concerning Joffe, but I think it is a rather weak argument to say he explicitly referred to Einstein as the author. Maybe he just didn't understand what "Einstein-Marity" really meant because he thought it was Swiss custom? Sorry for bad English, I hope you understand what I mean.--79.239.227.179 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! I’ve only just seen this.

There is no evidence that Joffe ever saw the original manuscripts (or would have heard information about them). The story that he did comes entirely from Trbuhovic-Gjuric’s biography of Maric, and she does not provide a single piece of evidence for her account of Joffe’s seeing them. In any case, in addition to the complete lack of evidence, there is strong evidence that he did not see them.

Trbuhovic-Gjuric bases her claim on the fact that Joffe was an assistant to Wilhelm Röntgen, and Röntgen was on the board of Annalen der Physik at the time. But, as Stachel points out, Röntgen was an experimentalist, and the two editors Drude and Planck were theoretical physicists, so it is highly unlikely they would ask Röntgen to look at theoretical papers outside his subject area, such as the special relativity paper. More specifically, in his book “Meetings with Scientists” Joffe writes that when he was assistant to Röntgen the latter advised him, in preparation for defending his Ph.D. thesis in 1905 (prior to the publication of Einstein’s relativity paper), to study what we would now call the prehistory of Special Relativity theory. Had Röntgen refereed Einstein’s original manuscript a few months later, as Trbuhović-Gjurić asserts, Joffe could hardly have failed to have mentioned such an historic event. But he makes no mention of any such occurrence, and we may conclude that the whole basis of Trbuhović-Gjurić’s claims about Joffe is without foundation. (A. F. Joffe, Begegnungen Mit Physikern, 1967, pp. 23-24)

I disagree that the fact that the paragraph in question in which Joffe writes “Einstein-Marity” is entirely about Einstein is a weak argument. If there were joint authors of the three 1905 papers in question, why would only Einstein be celebrated in the paragraph? And if the paper had the name Einstein-Marity on it, that is a single name, so even if that were the case (and Joffe does not say that the papers were signed Einstein-Marity as is so often reported) it would mean that either Einstein or Maric was the author, not joint authorship. But, as I say, there is no evidence that Joffe saw the original manuscripts, nor that they had the name Einstein-Marity on them. The whole story is a myth. 86.167.249.198 (talk) 08:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to log on for the above comment.

Additional comment, on the question “Could it be that it was Mileva herself who wrote the papers, signing with her name and the name of her husband?”

That this notion can even be suggested shows how widespread is the erroneous information about Mileva Maric. From the time that she was required to take the Zurich Polytechnic mathematics entrance examination in 1896 (in which she achieved a moderate grade average of 4.25 on a scale 1-6), through her intermediate teaching diploma exam result (fifth out of six candidates) and her 1900 final diploma exam which she failed (grade average 4.0), Maric’s higher education achievements were moderate or worse. Her grade in the mathematics component (theory of functions) in the final examinations was a very poor 2.5 on scale 1-6 (no other candidate in their small group scored less than 5.5). She failed the final diploma exam again in 1901 (this time under the adverse circumstance of being some three months pregnant), without improving her overall grade average (4.0). This might not be significant if there was any evidence that she had done any work in physics beyond the teaching diploma level, but there is none. There is not a single piece of writing (including in her letters to Einstein during their student days) in which she expresses any ideas on physics, nor is there even any hearsay evidence of any specific ideas on postgraduate physics that she expressed. In her letters to her closest friend Helene Kaufler Savic she always ascribed the published papers solely to Einstein, and never so much as hinted she played any role in them. Yet such is the propagation of mythical stories about Maric’s academic prowess that we are supposed to take seriously that she was partly (or, as suggested above, wholly) responsible for the epoch-making 1905 special relativity paper!

V. Alexander Stefan, a Serbian physicist who has closely examined the main claims, has written: "There is no point, whatsoever, in all of this. Just take this controversial hoax as an annoying intellectual exercise, and as an assault on the intelligence of every decent human being." [[10]]Esterson (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esterson, after more than a year, having read your comment again, I feel obliged to thank you for answering my question as well as putting so much effort into discussing the extent of Maric's contributions (or rather non-contributions) to Einstein's work in general. It is very informative to read what you say. Best regards--91.17.192.194 (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would like to ask this question then. What do you have to say about this quote? (The author unfortunately "prefers to be anonymous") It is interesting that Joffe would remember the name as "Einstein-Marity" since "Marity" was the Hungarianized version of Maric. Mileva Maric rarely wrote her name as "Marity" except on important formal documents, such as her wedding certificate. That Joffe would remember the name specifically as "Marity" lends credence to his having seen the original Special Relativity manuscript. It is extremely unlikely that Joffe could have made a mistake. What do you make of this?

Thanks for your comment and question. I am familiar with the article by the anonymous author from which this quotation comes. [11] The author credits "for the information and ideas contained in this article" Evan Harris Walker, whose words on the above topic are as follows:

If Joffe remembered that form of her name, it would have had to be because he had seen something that Mileva had signed herself, something that she signed "Einstein-Marity"… This, taken with all the rest, is compelling evidence that Joffe did see the original 1905 papers, and that the name there was "Einstein-Marity"!

This argument is erroneous. Joffe could well have seen the form "Marity" in Carl Seelig's biography Albert Einstein: Eine dokumentarische Biographie, p. 29, published in 1954, i.e., prior to Joffe's 1955 memorial article to Einstein. (See English translation: Carl Seelig, Albert Einstein, 1956, p. 24.) Incidentally, in his book Begegnungen mit Physikern ("Meetings with Physicists"), pp. 88-89, Joffe mentions becoming acquainted with Mileva Marić on a visit he made to the Einstein residence in Zurich in 1909 when Einstein happened to be absent, so it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that he gained the information directly from Marić herself.

The anonymous author writes that "Abram Joffe, a summa cum laude Russian physics graduate of the ETH is quoted as having seen the original 1905 manuscript and said it was signed, 'Einstein-Marity'." But an examination of the original article shows that Joffe did not say he saw the original article, nor that it was signed "Einstein-Marity". This is one of numerous erroneous statements this author has recycled from Walker's deeply flawed article, a transcript of his talk at a session of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1990 – see "Role in Physics (2)" below for just a few of his blunders.

For a full repudiation of the claims about Joffe, see John Stachel, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers that Changed the Face of Physics, 1905 edition, pp. liv-lxxii, scanned here: [12]

Incidentally, in a passage in his book Begegnungen mit Physikern Joffe describes his experience as a graduate student with Wilhelm Röntgen, and reports that the latter suggested to him that when he defended his doctoral dissertation in May 1905 he should discuss what one could describe as the prehistory of the theory of special relativity (Joffe 1967, p. 23). Significantly, there is no mention of Röntgen showing him Einstein's 1905 relativity paper shortly afterwards. Had he had the opportunity to see Einstein's original manuscript at this time it is inconceivable that he would not have mentioned such a momentous experience in this context. Esterson (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Since you seem to be more of an expert than me, who's only an amateur in comparison, I'll have to take your word for it. And in the end, it doesn't matter whether Mileva was cheated out of a co-credit for Albert's scientific papers or not, because she would become treated badly by him either way. And whether she gave up her own scientific ambitions completely, or if she simply got obscured by male scientists (both scenarios were common for female scientists back then), hers is really a sad story. When you think about the prejudices against female scientists in that era, you have to wonder how far even Marie Curie could have gone, if she hadn't had the support of her fellow scientist husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just one point on what you have written: "When you think about the prejudices against female scientists..."

The Einstein/Maric correspondence during the period when they were students and just after shows that Einstein strongly encouraged Maric in her studies and envisaged a life together jointly working on science. But she (twice) failed the Zurich Polytechnic final teaching diploma examinations, and there is no authenticated post-Polytechnic work by her, so it is a misnomer to describe her as a scientist (or mathematician). It wasn't Einstein's fault that Maric's academic failures led to her having to give up her scientific ambitions. It is also worth pointing out that the senior professor of physics, Heinrich Weber, offered an assistantship to Maric prior to her first final diploma exam failure in 1900, so the opportunity would have been there had she passed the exam. Incidentally, she told her close friend Helene Kaufler that she did not wish to accept it, as she would rather apply for a position as librarian at the Polytechnic. (Milan Popović [ed.] In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein's First Wife, 2003, pp. 60-61.) Esterson (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I should have replied almost two months ago, but I'll do it now instead. Fine, Mileva failed her exams. But so did a majority of the the female students at the Polytechnic back then. Do you really think that was a coincidence? As a matter of fact, Mileva didn't give up as quickly as many others did. And until she entered the Polytechnic, she had always been described as brilliant, and she only was the fifth woman to be accepted to ETH. And even if it wasn't Albert's fault, that she didn't pass her exams, it was his fault that the last (at least) thirtyfive years of her life was a nightmare. Would you want to be financially dependent on an ex-husband, who had treated you like crap, left you for another woman, called you "uncommonly ugly" and "a zero, who should keep your mouth shut" and never cared about your schizophrenic son? I wonder if the woman had a happy day in her life after she left Albert in 1914, while he would marry another woman (whom he also treated like crap) and rise into superstardom. Mileva Maric deserves so much better than this "she was a nobody/failure" treatment. Even if she doesn't deserve co-credit for the theory of relativity, her story deserves to be told. And I would like you Einsteinists to acknowledge that his worst side wasn't some cute little quirks, but that he actually was a terrible husband and father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I lost my children, my Nobel prize money and a half of my monthly salary in divorce, I would also be mad as hell. And she was ugly. There is some imperiousness and condescence in her face on every one of her photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.52.23.13 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's take your points one by one. You write that the majority of female students at the Zurich Polytechnic failed their exams at that time. What evidence do you have for that statement? John Stachel has examined the ETH (formerly Zurich Polytechnic) records and found that there were several women who graduated at the Polytechnic in the last part of the nineteenth century. But regardless of this, the case of Mileva Maric should be examined on its merits. You write

And until she entered the Polytechnic, she had always been described as brilliant…

In fact we don't have any record of her school exam results immediately prior to her entering the Polytechnic, as both her records at the Zurich Girls' High School (1895-96) and her grades in the Matura (which she passed) are no longer available. Her last known (very good) results in physics and mathematics were at the Royal High School in Zagreb in 1894, two years before she entered the Polytechnic. For some reason, despite having passed the Matura she was required to take the Polytechnic mathematics entrance examinations, and her results were very moderate, averaging 4.25 on a scale 1-6. This is the only exam result we have immediately preceding her entry to the Polytechnic, and is consistent with her moderate coursework grades in mathematics throughout her Polytechnic course (in contrast to her generally good grades in physics topics). We also know from letters she wrote to Einstein (e.g., August/September 1899) that the mathematics topic for which she received the poorest grades both in her coursework and exams was one which she described as her "biggest headache" and "the material the hardest to master", so the insinuation that she was marked down because she was a woman is without evidential support. (The same professor gave her higher grades in another mathematical topic, so, given her own comments above, prejudice against Maric is unsubstantiated, especially as her physics grades were good, and the senior physics professor was willing to take her on as an assistant had she obtained her diploma.)

…and she only was the fifth woman to be accepted to ETH.

This is one of numerous supposed facts one finds repeated in various sources that are erroneous. In the science and mathematics section for intending teachers in 1895/96 alone (the year before Maric and Einstein enrolled) there were 8 female students out of a total of 32 (Stachel, 2002, p. 30). As Stachel reports on the Polytechnic as a whole, "during the last quarter of the nineteenth century many women attended at the Poly precisely because a number of other technical schools and universities were still closed to them".

I'll try to deal briefly with your last section, though it is not relevant to the central issue here. First I am not an "Einsteinist", I only want to treat historical claims on their merits in the light of documented evidence, not hearsay.

I certainly would not for one moment want to defend Einstein's treatment of Maric on several counts, but your description is too one-sided. (Incidentally, you write as if Einstein called Maric "uncommonly ugly" to her face, but the unkind comment was made in a letter to a friend towards the end of his life.) Though Einstein certainly neglected his younger son Eduard in his adulthood, it is simply not true that he "never" cared about him. On the basis of Einstein's letters, Highfield and Carter write that even in the year of his most intensive and exhausting work on General Relativity "It remains remarkable how diligently Einstein strove to keep contact with his sons during 1915…" I am not denying Einstein's later callousness towards Eduard, only asking for a more balanced appraisal, including the fact that after their separation Einstein provided for Maric financially, and for Eduard's institutionalization when he broke down. More generally, with release of the (then) latest volume of the Einstein Collected Papers in 2006, came fresh information about Einstein's attitude towards his ex-wife and sons:

The new batch of letters for the first time included replies from Einstein's family, said Hanoch Gutfreund, chairman of the Albert Einstein Worldwide Exhibition at Hebrew University. This, he told reporters, helped shatter myths that the Nobel Prize-winning scientist was always cold toward his family. "In these letters he acts with much greater friendship and understanding to Mileva and his sons," Gutfreund said.

Marriages unfortunately often break down (and it was close to the rocks before Einstein started corresponding with his cousin Elsa in 1912), sometimes in acrimony, but as long as there is financial support as required by the divorce settlement, the ex-husband should hardly be blamed for everything that happens to the ex-wife from then on. No one is saying "Maric was a nobody/failure", or that her story doesn't deserve to be told. (Please document anyone who has made either of these statements.) And if you had read the writings of numerous Einstein specialists over the last twenty years you would know that most, if not all, of them have readily acknowledged Einstein's serious failings as a husband and a father. Esterson (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Just in case it's not already on the refs, this strikes me as relevant, but obscure:

   Regarding, Inter Alia, Albert Einstein and Mileva Marich Einstein (Stefan, V. Alexander) strikes me as an essential but obscure witness (tho hopefully old news to the old-hands in this discussion).  :)
--Jerzy•t 16:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting and relevant JFB80 (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Discrepancy with the Albert Einstein page

The fate of Lieserl is unknown as per several Wikipedia pages covering the Einstein family and various sources cited. This page states she was given up for adoption. The only source surmising she was adopted says she was adopted by Mileva's best friend. There's nothing about a public adoption orocess or Lieserl entering a system. Please check and amend. 2602:306:8B2C:B220:B8D8:326D:C7DD:23E3 (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

In the Preview part of the article it was stated that Lieserl died in 1903, which is speculative and contradicting what was written below in the Biography part. It tried to correct this. In the Biography part I added that Lieserl suffered from scarlet fever (of which she probably died). The relevant source for this is Einstein's letter in which he writes about that.Steissbein (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mileva Marić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203005611/http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Stachel1966.pdf to http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Stachel1966.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)