Talk:Mileva Marić/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Departure From Berlin And The Start Of First World War

No reference is found to relate departure of Mileva and boys from Berlin, to the start of World War with Germany and Serbia as enemies. So I only state facts on the page with reference. She left Germany the day after war started.

Also no reference is found to relate the timing of Einstein's list of demands, coming about two weeks after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. So I have not mentioned it on the page, not even as a statement of facts with reference.

It seems that something is missing from this episode of history, after thousands of commentaries, but it finds no place on the page.

Astrojed (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Mileva Marić's school record

Re the sentence, second paragraph under Biography: “Her grades in mathematics and physics were the highest awarded” [at the Royal Classical High School in Zagreb]:

The two sources on which this statement is based are Mileva Marić’s biographers Dord Krstić (1991, 2004) and Desanka Trbuhović-Gjurić (1988). Although this is stated in Krstić (1991), p. 88 (and restated by other authors), in Krstić (2004), p. 30, the same author writes as follows: “Her [sic] best grades were in mathematics and physics”. Trbuhović-Gjurić’s statement is as follows (1988, p. 26): “Sie hatte im September 1894 die Schlussprüfung siebten Klasse mit den besten Noten im Mathematik und Physik bestanden” (“In September 1894 she had passed the final exam of the seventh class with the best grades in mathematics and physics”).

However, records obtained from the State Archive in Zagreb show that in September 1894 the semester grades achieved by Marić in mathematics and physics were the second highest grade, not the highest (“very good”, one grade below “excellent”), i.e., equivalent to grade B on a scale A-E. (Esterson and Cassidy 2019, pp. 10, 269).

I suggest the sentence in question be amended as follows: Her highest grades were in mathematics and physics, equivalent to grade B on a scale A-E. (ref. to be cited: Esterson and Cassidy, 2019, pp. 10, 269)

Addition to bibliography: Esterson, A, and Cassidy, D. C. (2019). Einstein’s Wife: The Real Story of Mileva Einstein-Marić. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Esterson (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Debate Over Collaboration with Einstein

“Debate Over Collaboration with Einstein” section

Currently we have the following:

>That Abram Fedorovich Joffe, a member of the Soviet academy of Sciences and an assistant to Röntgen from 1902 until 1906, saw the original manuscript of the relativity paper, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper, and that this manuscript was signed “Einstein-Marity." And “Marity” is a Hungarian variant of the Serbian “Marić,” Mileva's maiden name. So, the claim goes, Mileva Marić Einstein's name was on the original manuscript, but was then left out of the published article, where Albert Einstein's name appears alone. That on March 27, 1901 Einstein wrote a letter to Marić that included the clause “… bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion." Note the “our,” which implies that the work was done in collaboration.

>In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles – an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name)

>This is indeed what Einstein wrote in a letter to Marić. Let’s look at the context. "Right now Michele [Besso] is staying in Trieste at his parents with his wife and child and only returns here [Milan] in about 10 days. You need have no fear that I will say a word to him or anyone else about you. You are and will remain a holy shrine to me into which no one may enter; I also know that of all people you love me most deeply and understand me best. I also assure you that no one here either dares to or wants to say anything bad about you. How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion! When I look at other people, then I truly realize what you are!" (27 March 1901, Vol. 1, p. 282).<

Comment: I think some tidying up (and clarification) is required here:

First paragraph: The claims about what Joffe wrote have already been alluded to before in the article, so I suggest that anything else on the subject should be in that context – and should include the fact that Joffe did not state he saw the original manuscript of the relativity paper, nor that this manuscript was signed “Einstein-Marity”.

Quote: Third paragraph: “This is indeed what Einstein wrote to in a letter to Marić…” This sentence alludes to the quote at the end of the first paragraph above, and should follow this. (The second paragraph is a translation of what Joffe actually wrote, and would be better quoted in the context of the first mention of Joffe in the article).Esterson (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Item in Collaboration with Einstein section

Comment in relation to the sentence: >…That on March 27, 1901 Einstein wrote a letter to Marić that included the clause “… bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion." Note the “our,” which implies that the work was done in collaboration.”<

I propose to add directly after this:

On the other hand, against this one unspecific instance Einstein wrote several letters that indicate that it was he who was the one undertaking the research on relative motion in their student days, e.g.: “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…” (17 December 1901); “I spent all afternoon at [Professor] Kleiner’s in Zurich telling him my ideas about the electrodynamics of moving bodies… He advised me to publish my ideas…” (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).

Any comments welcome. Esterson (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I don't know why the "Death in Serbia" citation crops up here, nor why the reference (2) has shifted from my previous contribution to this one! Esterson (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Your first reference 1899 refers to a different use of the phrase 'relative motion' - you should have realized that. The significance of the March 1901 discovery with relative motion is clearly explained in the opening paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper. It was the realization that the laws of electrodynamics depend only of relative motion and not absolute motion as was previously thought (cf Herz's 1880 two versions of Maxwell's equations, one for bodies at rest and one for bodies in motion relative to the aether). The other two references you give are for later in Dec 1901 when it is known that Marić had given up all work in science with the tragedy of her first child. Einstein on the other hand, had gone ahead with their idea making a detailed study of Lorentz.s work on Maxwell's equations aiming to modify Herz's equations.JFB80 (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, my point was that if all the reader knows (as is generally the case) is the “our work on relative motion” quote, he/she is gaining a misleading impression, such as the frequently expressed view that it demonstrates that Mileva was Einstein’s collaborator on the special relativity theory. But to put the issue into a fuller perspective, let’s look at Einstein’s reports to Mileva before 1901. On 10 August 1899: “I’m convinced more and more that the electrodynamics of moving bodies as it is presented today doesn’t correspond to reality, and that it will be possible to present it in a simpler way. The introduction of the term ‘ether’ into theories of electricity has led to a conception of a medium whose motion can be described, I believe, being able to ascribe physical meaning to it...” and so on for the rest of a lengthy paragraph. Had Mileva written to Einstein giving her ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies it is inconceivable that he would not have eagerly have responded to them – but in her next letter Mileva makes no mention of them. Then on 10 September 1899 he writes: “In Aarau I had a good idea for investigating the way in which a body’s relative motion with respect to the luminiferous ether affects the velocity of the propagation of light in transparent bodies. I even came up with a theory about it that seems quite plausible to me.” He then goes on to say: “But enough of this! Your little head already full of other people’s hobby horses that you’ve had to ride”, surely indicating that this was his personal hobby horse, but not necessarily of great interest to her. Again, on 28 September 1899: “I also wrote to Professor Wien in Aachen about my paper on the relative motion of the luminiferous ether against ponderable matter…” So all the specific information we have prior to 1901 indicates that it was Einstein who was providing the preliminary ideas. Against this we have a single context-free reference to “our work on relative motion” in a paragraph otherwise devoted to his reassuring her of his continuing love and at a time when he still envisaged a future involving their working together on science – but evidence of any specific input from Mileva is non-existent.Esterson (talk) 07:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

But those references you give are about the luminiferous ether, not about relativity. The March 1901 letter is about relativity. That is what we are talking about isn't it?, Not ether theory. JFB80 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean when you say the that the March 1901 sentence (not letter) is about relativity. What do you mean by “relativity” here? In fact the sentence in question alludes unspecifically to “relative motion”.

I’ve just registered that previously you wrote (above): “The significance of the March 1901 discovery with relative motion is clearly explained in the opening paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper.” On what basis do you conclude that the context-free March 1901 sentence relates to any “discovery”, rather than to his earlier thoughts on motion relative to the ether?Esterson (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Just counting letters and matching up phrases like-"relative motion" is not enough. You need to look at the chronological sequence of the letters plus have some knowledge of the history plus use common sense. The letters you quote fall into two groups - those before 1900 and those near the end of 1901 which are almost a year apart. In the letters before 1900 Einstein was ill at ease with the electromagnetic theory as it was at that time which was the 1880 Herz theory based on the ether. This had two forms for electromagnetic theory, one for systems at rest in the ether and the other for systems moving relative to the ether. Now if you look at the other group of letters written towards the end of 1901 you will find Einstein confident that he is on the way to solving the difficulty. The intermediate letter of March 1901 talks with confidence of "our work with relative motion". This must have been Maric's idea because if it was Einstein's he would just have gone ahead by himself wouldn't he?. So my conclusion is that it was the March letter which showed the right way to go and that it marks the initial form of the theory of relativity. This can actually be identified from Einstein's 1905 paper because the introductory section is quite different to the rest of the paper and talks of the unsatisfactory Herz theory the need for relative motions the non-existence of the ether and the assumption the the stationary form of the laws of electromagnetism hold in any frame of reference for which the laws of mechanics hold. This looks very much like an initial form of the theory of relativity (which also takes its name in that section) JFB80 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You write: >The intermediate letter of March 1901 talks with confidence of "our work with relative motion". This must have been Maric's idea because if it was Einstein's he would just have gone ahead by himself wouldn't he?.<

As I’ve already noted, the phrase in question is in a context-free sentence embedded in a paragraph devoted to his reassuring Mileva that his love for her remains strong. The fact that no “idea” is mentioned alone refutes your saying it must have been Mileva’s “idea” – there *is* no “idea” there. In any case, the only evidence of ideas on relative motion prior to this time comes in three letters by Einstein. And of course Einstein did “go ahead by himself” on developing his ideas on the electrodynamics of moving bodies, as his letters of 17 December, 19 December, and 28 December 1901 demonstrate.

You write: >So my conclusion is that it was the March letter which showed the right way to go...<

Since this conclusion is based on an evidence-free assertion (see above), it is suspect from the start. Moreover, given there is absolutely nothing specific in the context-free single sentence in the March letter, how could it have shown “the right way to go”?

As for the rest, the content and structure of the special relativity paper written four years later provides no support for the *specific* assertions I have challenged above.

I can see there’s no further point in continuing these exchanges, as you have previously failed to address the *specific* challenges I raised in regard to assertions you made in regard to the March 1901 sentence.Esterson (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Move to Berlin and separation

Note 31 in relation to the financial commitment made by Einstein for the post-separation period 1914-1919 has the addtion "But apparently this money was not sent". However there is no citation for this statement, and there is evidence to refute it. For example, see Fölsing (1997, pp. 420-421), Isaacson (2007, pp. 234-235), Highfield and Carter (1993, p. 186), and some letters from Einstein to Mileva in the relevant period (CPAE, vol. 18). I have therefore deleted "But apparently this money was not sent".Esterson (talk) 11:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Curiosity

In 2019, the physicist and writer Gabriella Greison officially applies for a posthumous degree to be awarded to Mileva Marić; after four months of discussions, the ETH denies the award of the posthumous degree. In 2022, Greison repeats the same question, thanks to the change at the top of the rectorate of ETH, with the addition of a posthumous degree attribution to the other few women before Mileva who have not been given a degree.

References

Protection requested

Due to vandalism, I've made this protection request. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected for one week. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)