Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive index

Oct 2001 – Feb 2004

Brownian motion

Does anyone besides me think that Einsteins observation that the brownian motion of pollen in water, considered the first real proof of the molecular theory of matter, is worth mentioning? --BlackGriffen (Prior to October 9, 2001)

What exactly did he observe? Wasn't the Brownian motion known already? --AxelBoldt (Prior to October 9, 2001)

Yes. The first well-known publications about it were by a botanist called Brown in the early 19th century. But no-one had a clue why it happened. Einstein's theory of it, backed up by actual mathematics, completely solved the mystery. It also convinced many more conservative scientists that atoms and molecules exist, something they had previously been reluctant to accept, especially in Germany. (Others below have partially answered your question, but i thought not clearly enough.) -- Geronimo Jones (Prior to 15:51, February 25, 2002 (UTC))

IIRC, it was Einstiens observation that the pollen in a glass of water underwent brownian motion that was consider the proof. I'll post more about it after I double check. --BlackGriffen (Prior to October 9, 2001)

See Brownian motion! -- User:Miguel 20:33, August 18, 2003 (UTC)

It is critically important. It was one of the most-often cited papers of Einstein's in the early part of his career. --RjLesch (Prior to October 9, 2001)

He also got the Nobel Prize for it, didn't he? User:Miguel 20:33, August 18, 2003 (UTC)

He got his Nobel for the photoelectric effect. JDR

Yes, I just checked my source today, and it says that Einstein observed the chaotic motion of pollen in water, and surmised that this was do to the chaotic motion of molecules that caused it. After lab experiments verified his observation, even the staunches detractors of the existance of molecules and atoms admitted their existance. Before then, atoms/molecules were regarded as a useful construct with no concrete evidence behind them. Einstein provided that evidence. --BlackGriffen (Prior to 14:55 October 9, 2001 (UTC))

Sorry, it was not Einstein, but was Brown that observed it. Einstein explained it using kinetic theory. This made Brownian motion in retrospect into a justification for atomic theory. What is your source? -- User:Miguel 20:33, August 18, 2003 (UTC)

D'oh! I just read RjLesch's additions to the main page. My explanation was just a few hours late. --BlackGriffen (Prior to 14:55 October 9, 2001 (UTC))

Wish I could claim credit, but that wasn't mine. --RjLesch 14:55, October 9, 2001 (UTC)

References

A few quick refs:

http://www.matse.psu.edu/matsc81/GLOSSARYold/people14.html

http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/einsteinBM.html

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~nd/surprise_95/journal/vol4/ykl/report.html

(Prior to October 9, 2001)

Quotations

Since we're adding Einstein's personal/political views, perhaps we should include this quote, "Marriage is nothing more than an attempt to make something lasting out of an incident." I don't know if those were his exact words, but it was very close to that. --BlackGriffen (Prior to October 9, 2001)

(also see The Bomb, infra) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kwantus (talk • contribs) 22:03, August 29, 2003 (UTC)

Relativity

THe first paragraph is bit dodgy. I think some Irish physicist was the first to propose Special Relativity before 1895. Possibly called Fitzgerald? Lorenz, Minkowski and others may also have been slightly before Einstein. As far as i know, Einstein was the first with a workable General Relativity, but that came later. (Prior to October 9, 2001)

Note that Einstein was involved in a priority dispute with Hilbert over the Lagrangian formulation of the theory of general relativity.

While the particular Lorenz transformations were of course known, Einstein came up with an axiomatic approach to derive them and also with several re-interpretations of fundamental concepts, such as time and size, energy=mass etc. I believe these parts of special relativity are exclusively his, and they are arguably more important than the transformation laws. --AxelBoldt (Prior to October 9, 2001)

Agreed. The Lorenz-FitzGerald contractions were really an attempt to rehabilitate the ether theory; Eistein's conceptual framework was fundamentally different, though it ended up using the same formulae. Lorenz and FitzGerald are nonetheless important figures, as was Minkowski (though the Minkowski spacetime relations were, I believe, published in 1908 as a response to Einstein). --RjLesch. (Prior to October 9, 2001)

My original text:

...the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had shown that light waves could not travel through a medium (other known waves travelled through media - such as water or air). The speed of light was thus fixed, and not relative to the movement of the observer

Heron's version:

...the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had shown that light waves did not require a medium to travel through (other known waves travelled through media - such as water or air). The speed of light was thus fixed, and not relative to the movement of the observer.

This is definitely an improvement in some respects (my prose was not beautiful :), but it's also potentially misleading, because it could be interpreted as saying "MM shows: where there is no medium, there is no light".

I've tried to improve on the original wording, while avoiding the misinterpretation, with "light waves could not be travelling through a medium".

--Pde 08:02 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)

We are getting closer. How about this: "The MM experiment discredited the theory that light was a disturbance of a hypothetical medium called the luminiferous ether, leading Einstein to conclude that light did not depend on any medium for its propagation and therefore that its speed was fixed." Heron 11:22, March 15, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps hypothetical medium should be hypothetical, intangible medium. Or something. The point which would be nice to pass along here is that, if you have studied Newtonian physics, any attempt to understand the movement of light will begin by inserting a co-ordinate system to measure it with; this is really all the aether was.

On a related note, I don't think it's enough to say its speed was fixed. In Newtonian physics, speeds are fixed, relative to any yardstick. When you move relative to the yardstick, the speed you see is different (this is intuitive). In SR, the speed is the same regardless of how you are moving. Pde

I think my confusion was partly due to a dual meaning of the word medium: (1) stuff that is required for a signal to propagate, and (2) any transparent or translucent stuff that isn't a vacuum. MM proved that (1) didn't exist, but said nothing about (2). Physicists probably assume meaning (1) when they read this, but hair-splitters like me see both meanings. How am I doing? -- Heron 11:22, March 15, 2003 (UTC)

(1) and (2) are not totally seperate concepts. Your statement of (2) is perhaps incomplete, because what I would expect, if I were a 19th Century physicist, is a medium in the sense of (2) which is the vacuum, and the conductor (1) for electricity and magnetism. This is the "universal co-ordinate system" I mentioned above. -- Pde 01:11 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

the bomb

"His theoretical work suggested the possibility of creating an atomic bomb." I think even this is too strong. Einstein's only contribution to the atomic bomb was political. (Prior to October 9, 2001)

I agree.I also think there's a problem with, "More immediately, however, the equation set people to dreaming of explosive weaponry..." E=mc2 is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that a nuclear chain reaction is possible. E=mc2 says that /every/ form of energy is equivalent to mass. This is just as true for chemical reactions as for nuclear reactions. --bcrowell —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bcrowell (talk • contribs) 23:12, December 14, 2002 (UTC)

All that E=mc² contributes to the Bomb is that if you can shave out a little binding energy, Avogadro's number×c² will give you a big return. Furthermore, it's been (re)discovered that (like Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction) priority for E=mc² is someone else's, Olinto De Pretto published it a year or two before AE. [1] copying [2]

There's a quote attributed to AE, which IMO must be included if it can be verified: ‘The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.’ [3] Kwantus 21:47, August 29, 2003 (UTC)

the unified field teory

"He spent his last 20 years in an increasingly isolated and ultimately unsuccessful attempt at constructing a theory that would unify General Relativity and quantum mechanics." Is this correct? I thought he was trying to construct a non-quantum-mechanical theory that would unify all the forces. --bcrowell {{unsigned2|23:12, December 14, 2002|Bcrowell}

Given his distaste for QM, I tend to agree, but I don't know the details. AxelBoldt 00:04 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

copyright

Isn't the photo copyrighted? As far as I've been able to find out, all the post-1922 photos of Einstein are owned by various organizations. I have a circa-1905 public-domain photo here, [4], which could replace it. --bcrowell {{unsigned2|23:12, December 14, 2002|Bcrowell}

Yes, I think it would be better to go with the earlier photo. AxelBoldt 00:04 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

politics

I made two corrections to the article. 1) It said Einstein denounced his German citizineship at age of 17. This is incorrect information. He was the director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin for almost 20 years from 1914 to 1933. 2) The article said "he signed a letter" to FDR regarding development of an atomic bomb programme. Einstein actually wrote that letter himself. It is also noteworthy that he wrote that letter to Roosevel before World War II started.    --Keyvan 03:25 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

On point 2 (signing the letter). It appears that Einstein did dictate a letter, but it wasn't sent, and he instead signed two drafts written by Szilard (which IIRC were prepared before the first visit). There is some evidence here: http://www.google.com/search?q=signed+szilard+einstein+visit+teller ; if you don't have any to the contrary, the text should be changed back. -- Pde 00:34 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

Einstein saying, "I really only acted as a mail box. They brought me a finished letter and I simply signed it" seems pretty convincing to me. I'll change it back. -- Someone else 00:49 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was "common knowledge" among those who care about such matters that the letter was the instigation of Szilard, who didn't send it himself because the first thing anyone'd ask is "Who the firetruck is Leo Lizard?"; so he got his friend/teacher with a name to sign it. On another point, one way or another the letter was long before Germany declared on the US, since Roosevelt initiated the Manhattan Project the day before Pearl Harbor. -- Kwantus 02:30, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Please do not deprive the artice from a perfectly correct and relevant information based on a "Google search". Einstein was not a moron to mindlessly sign something that others had drafted for him. Others may have helped him with the English text of the letter as Einstein's first language was German, but the contents of the letter clearly show it was his own. Furthermore, he was the ONLY signator of that letter, not one of many. This is not a negative reflection on Einstein as the article mentions that later in life he regretted having written that letter. I will put the original text back into the article.    --Keyvan 15:59 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

It seems that Einstein became a Swiss citizen in February 1901. Why would that be incompatible with being director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin from 1914 to 1933? -- Someone else 03:33 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Because unfortunately, if a lie is repeated enough for the masses, they start to believe it to be a fact. The fact is that Einstein was a citizen of Germany, and the Nazi regime revoked his citizenship in March of 1934. But by that time, Einstein was already living in USA (I believe he moved to USA in 1933). --Keyvan 03:39 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

I haven't looked it up in a reputable source, as I have none at hand. I trust you have done so. It's not hard to envision that he switched citizenships more than once, or that the Germans considered him a German citizen when he himself did not. -- Someone else 03:44 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Now looked up. According to Larousse's Biographical Dictionary, he took Swiss nationality in 1901 and was appointed examiner at the Swiss Patent Office 1902-1905, and became an American citizen in 1940. -- Someone else 03:51 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps it was possible to have dual citizenship, or as you said, maybe he switched back and forth multiple times. But he certainly did serve as director of Physics Institute at the Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Sciences from 1914 to 1933. And his citizenship was revoked in 1934, so that suggests that by 1934 he was still a citizen of Germany (at least on paper). If he had no alligiance to Germany all that time, indeed it would seem odd (perhaps even unethical) to accept such a high ranking position for nearly 20 years, and enjoy all the benefits. He certainly developed the bulk of his scientific achievements there. --Keyvan 03:58 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

I see no reason a Swiss citizen could not reside and work in Germany. If you find a reference that says he was a German citizen at the time, or a dual citizen, by all means add it. -- Someone else 04:03 Apr 5, 2003 (UTC)

Why are we writing about a dead man in the present tense?

I note a few changes since I last saw this article, leading to two questions:

• Why are we writing about a dead man in the present tense? (a problem it seems especially in the "Early Years" section
• Why are marriage, etc, taken out of chronological order, so that we have in effect two biographies instead of one? --Someone else 01:10, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've now changed present to past tense and restored chronological order. -- Someone else 04:55, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why write about history in the present tense? I'm not sure the exact reason, but one of the courses I took in college "Writing on History" (or something similar to that) instilled in me to write history in the present tense. It's commonly accepted by historians when writing on history that you write in the present tense (unless something has changed in the last decade since I left school). You probably could find out exactly if you research as to why historians do it, I forget right now. IIRC, It may be that it helps the readibility of the timeline.

Why chronological order not perfect? Musta been just a simple mistake (by me or was existing before I edited the page) ... not trying to develop a divergent history or anything ... reddi 14:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I can't find out exactly why historians do it, because they don't. And they don't mix past and present tenses within a paragraph. Get a refund on that course. And even if they did, encyclopedias don't. It certainly didn't help readability here. No problem, it's fixed now. -- Someone else 20:26, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Origins of QM

In 1922, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize, and his work on photoelectricity was mentioned by name, most physicists thought that, while the equation was correct, light quanta were impossible.

Just wondering, can someone cite a specific source for this? It's quite significant, a bit fuzzy ("most") and definitely a claim which some readers may wish to follow up further. -- Pde 09:09, September 5, 2003 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Max Plank was the one who first stated that light comes in quantized energy forms, and that was at the turn of the century. My physical electronics prof said that Arthur Holly Compton's experiments in 1926-1927 put the final nail in the coffin. So I have to believe that it had gaind major acceptance before 1922. --Raul654 14:40, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Einstein and school

The claim that he did poorly in school is completely bogus. This is a recurring urban rumor that started due to one biography (I can't remember which) and won't die. The whole thing resulted when the German school system decided to go from a 1-6 grading system with 1 as "A" to a decimal system with 100 as "A". For one particular year they reversed the 1-6, with 6 being "A", thereby confusing everyone, including the biographer who said he failed math. What's particularily annoying is that the very report card on which the 6 appears states in the comments that "Albert is very good at maths and sciences", but apparently the biographer couldn't/didn't read it.

User:Maury Markowitz 13:30, December 1, 2003 (UTC)

Einstein, Quantum Theory and EPR experiment

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox is worth to mention. Its good point to discussion of Einsteins relation to quantum theory - myth spread by some popular books on physics is something like "even Einstein did not understood quantum mechanics", and EPR is clear example he know and understand very well.

That EPR article may well be his most contemporary cited - other works lie deep in foundations, but every second work on interpretations of Quantum Theory reference to EPR/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.27.192.19 (talk • contribs) 22:30, December 10, 2003 (UTC)

Plagiarism, POV, etc

I don't see any reason to keep the section on plagiarism. The bit about Einstein being bad at math is patently false (in fact, Einstein's Ph.D. dissertation was nearly rejected because one of the examiners felt that it should have been submitted for a Ph.D. in math, not physics, as the subject was mostly differential equations.) However, I see no reason to toss out the vignette on Einstein's brain just because it was added by the same user. It seems to be verifiable and is an interesting footnote to Einstein's life. Isomorphic 20:08, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, after all the Charlie Chaplin pages mentions the grave robbery of his body. No need for the second sentence though, as it's a non-event (nothing of any significance happened on that road trip) and perhaps a plug for a book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.253.204 (talk • contribs) 00:20, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

And this: http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/EinsteinBio.htm

states: "In 1895 Einstein failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zurich. Einstein renounced German citizenship in 1896 and was to be stateless for a number of years...Following the failing of the entrance exam to the ETH, Einstein attended secondary school at Aarau planning to use this route to enter the ETH in Zurich."

What do you suppose constituted most of that examination? Mathematics, perhaps?

This document: http://www.thetech.org/exhibits/online/revolution/warnock/i_a.html

states: "Einstein failed 9th grade algebra."

This document: [link removed]

states: "The basic idea is this: Einstein was a poor student, of average ability. He even failed seventh grade math. There was nothing exceptional about his ability or accomplishments, until he got a job as a low level clerk in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland."

and this: "The claim is made that by working in the patent office, Albert Einstein had access to secret documents submitted by the leading scientists of his day. Albert Einstein essentially cut and pasted together these secret documents and published them as his own work. The scientists could hardly complain, as they had patent applications pending in his patent office."

and this: "The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich. This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school! Unable to go to the school he wanted, he got a job at the patent office in Bern."

And one more document: http://www.engology.com/arteinstein1.htm

states: "Albert Einstein was born on March 14, 1879 in Wurtemburg, Germany. In 1895, Einstein attempted to enroll at Eidgenossische Technishe Hockshule (ETH), a technical university in Zurich, to study Electrical Engineering, but failed the entrance examination."

So this man, who was mathematically inept and a self-professed dullard who lacked both imagination and practical ability, published three papers that revolutionized physics, was awarded an honorary doctorate and won the Nobel prize all in one year? hmm...

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 20:19, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

The bit about Einstein failing grade school math is already debunked on the talk page above. I'll answer the rest. The quotes listed above are full of misconceptions, misumderstanding, and urban legends repeated as fact. The exact events surrounding Einstein's departure from the Gymnasium (high school, roughtly) without graduating are murky. It's fairly clear, however, that he didn't like it there, was bored with classical studies, and was a troublemaker. He was glad to go, and the administration was glad to kick him out. It had little to do with his ability, and certainly not with his mathematical ability.

Once he left the Gymnasium, he went to live with his parents in Italy. This created a difficulty because he was too old for the schools there, but family finances required him to start preparing for a career. Thus his father had him take the examinations for the ETH, despite the fact that Albert was two years younger than most students entering ETH. Einstein failed the exam. It's commonly believed that this is because he didn't meet standards in languages, biology, and other non-mathematical topics. In his own later words, his failure was his fault as he "had made no attempt whatsoever to prepare himself." It has been suggested this was because he didn't want to follow his father's wishes and become an electrical engineer.

He studied for a year nearby at the cantonal school at Aarau. He then passed the ETH exams on his second try, spent four years at ETH.

His attendance at another school eliminated the requirement of an entrance exams. A similar practice is used in universities all over the world to this day. If your test scores are abysmal, try a year or two at a junior college. - Plautus 02:36, February 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Einstein took his examination at the ETH in the summer of 1896. He passed, returned to his parents in Italy..." direct quote Einstein: The Life and Times by Ronald Clark. This was his second try, as he had failed in 1895. Isomorphic 20:56, February 16, 2004 (UTC)

While there, he studied math and physics under professors including Hermann Minkowski. He graduated with a respectable 4.91 out of 6.00. He was not hired subsequently because his he was an cocksure, independent student, and the physics professor at ETH, Heinrich Weber didn't like him.

How convenient. I'm amazed you didn't claim he wasn't hired due to antisemitism. - Plautus 02:36, February 14, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't, because that wouldn't have been true. Isomorphic 20:56, February 16, 2004 (UTC)

All this is summarized from the respected biography by Ronald Clark, sitting in front of me, not off a website or extracted out-of-context from an encyclopedia. Since I've gone to the trouble of typing it up, I wouldn't mind if someone would incorporate relevant bits of it into the main article when it gets unprotected. Isomorphic 21:46, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and incidentally, the idea that Einstein could've plagiarized this work from papers submitted to the patent office is just silly. Scientist do not submit patent applications for work in theoretical physics. Isomorphic 22:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You're right, theoretical physicists don't patent their daydreams, but experimental physicists who actually produce something and expect compensation for it do patent their ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 22:46, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

Special relativity and quantum mechanics were without practical application when Einstein wrote his papers on them. Why would anyone have put them in a patent application? Isomorphic 22:00, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't put into patent applications necessarily, but it was published in papers by these men. I'm sorry you have problems with observable reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 22:46, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

YMMV on the patent office ... though I personally don't think he plagerized anything, I would say that being there was good for him and him developing the theories (seeing a bit o' this and a bit o' that ... but no one else had it all (only parts o' "it"); you should read some patents, they are neat) ... inventions are based on physics, see Tesla patents for an example of this [and I have my own personal conspiracy theories on 'stien and Tesla, not that there is much evidence (other than what is out there already) for 'em =-] ...

Now, as to Special relativity and quantum mechanics, that is just building on previous works [he may not of "independently" developed this, but most don't ... they work off of the work that had came before (this does not mean he plagerized anything though)] ... what I'm trying to say is that he connected the dots and told ppl (and got recognized; some who do connect things don't get recognized till years later [if ever]). I DO NOT agree that he palgerized other's work, only that he built upon what was there (ex. the Lorentz transforms) ... and this is done today (scientists don't reinvent the wheel) ... so I don't think it's a big deal (and I think that is what it says basically in the article, but i'll have to reread it) ... and this has never made me feel less of him (i've always like ol' 'stien) .... Sincerely, JDR 22:56, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Since I protected it, I won't express an opinion. I can say that the section about his brain is true. →Raul654 20:15, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Google search for "einstein plagiarism" (7380 hits) finds "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", one on amazon.com, so the book probably exists. Κσυπ Cyp   20:16, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was assuming that The Incorrigible Plagiarist exists. The question, of course, is whether it's worthwhile enough to repeat its claims in the article. I think not. Also, thanks to Plautus for figuring out how not to attribute his words to me this time. Isomorphic 20:32, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The text that Plautus satire keeps pasting in here is from this page: http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/einstein.htm It looks like it has a copyright notice on it. SheikYerBooty 20:34, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

If you'll check again you'll see it's not direct quoting, but paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is not a violation of fair use. Also quoting a single, unattributed sentence is not plagiarism as implied by fair use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 20:38, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

Plaguarism and copyright violations are not the same thing. Fair use protects againt copyright violations. At Wikipedia, we care about both. Therefore, when quoting, we cite sources. →Raul654 20:39, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

And does agreeing with a sentiment and expressing it using similar words equate to plagiarism? Am I to cite every source or merely one arbitrary source of a given "idea" before I am able to put that idea into words? Give me a break. What I did was in no way a violation of fair use nor was it plagiarism. If I thought it were appropriate to sprinkle URL's around to back up every statement I would, but that's what talk is for is it not? I'll gladly provide abundant souce material here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 20:42, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

The litmus test for plaguarism is - "are the thoughts you are expressing yours?" In this case, you took someone else's words (thoughts) without attribution. That is plaguarism. Even if it wasn't a copyright violation (something I am not convinced of either way - Jamesday would be better to ask though), we still don't want plagurized material here. →Raul654 20:47, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Instead of plagiarism I suggest you look up the word slander. I did not claim that the idea Einstein was a plagiarist came from me or my own research or, as Einstein would probably claim, from my dreams and thought experiments. If I had, then you would have a case to make against me for plagiarism. Honestly this tit-for-tat crap has got to go. I did, in fact, claim that a named author who wrote an also named book presents abundant evidence of Einstein's plagiarism and the extent to which it was known about by his contemporaries. And in describing that book I chose words that were very similar to words used by others to describe the same book. Is it plagiarism for two people to observe the same book and draw the same conclusions from it? Hardly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plautus satire (talk • contribs) 20:51, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

Let's pick that statement apart:

• I did not claim that the idea Einstein was a plagiarist came from me or my own research ... experiments.

You did. The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but Albert Einstein was, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert. Notice, no citation, which means you (supposedly) came up with this idea on your own. Also, I'd like to note that according to official Wikipedia policy, only accepted facts and theories are supposed to be here, and original research is not. This particular statement is not generally accepted.

• If I had, then you would have a case to make against me for plagiarism.

Agreed.

• Honestly this tit-for-tat crap has got to go.

Agreed.

• I did, in fact, claim that a named author who wrote an also named book presents abundant evidence of Einstein's plagiarism and the extent to which it was known about by his contemporaries.

Agreed.

• And in describing that book I chose words that were very similar to words used by others to describe the same book.

A likely story. The similiarities are almost word for word. →Raul654 21:09, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Is it plagiarism for two people to observe the same book and draw the same conclusions from it? Hardly.

I agree, if that is the case.

→Raul654 21:09, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Raul654, I'm going to give you the try-hard award for this one. Clearly you're going way out on a limb to hang this plagiarism charge on me. Careful, don't get too close to the end of the limb, oh no, don't fall! - Plautus Satire 21:15, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

Just a note ... I tried to include his info, but the "critic" refused to leave it at the end (a good place for critics of all sorts, not just 'stien). It's not suitable for the intro. But, appearantly the "critic" didn't want to "go along" (I personally tried to note the criticsm after it was posted in the article (copy edited it and put it @ the bottom)... the crticism would/should be noted (as einstien does have them today; but most are refutable) and this should placed appropriately (everyone has critics, but leave it to the last)) ... so, instead, we got a page protection =-\ ... JDR 21:18, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

---

I see. You want the observable evidence relegated to a "criticism" of the Einsteinian fables. Wonderful idea. Don't put relevant facts up front where they can be seen to conflict with the dogma. - Plautus Satire 21:21, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

You see? I don't think you do ...

"Want the observable evidence relegated to a "criticism" of the Einsteinian fables"? Ummm no ... "criticism" (everyone and everything got one) could be noted ... just placed in the appropriate space ... NOT @ the beginning (other articles have crtics, and they nearly always are @ the bottom) ... you have to explain subject before you can criticize it ...

"Wonderful idea"? So you agree? hmmm ...mabey not ...

"Don't put relevant facts up front where they can be seen to conflict with the dogma"? I am starting to think what you are saying is dogma ... NOW, it's called point-counterpoint .... state the detail / facts and, then, state the opposing facts (with addition point-counterpoints on those) ... you will find that is the general way around these part [from my experience; alot of articles have critic sections]. I have heard some of your criticism ... and could agree on some criticism [some other criticism not] ('stien has been a personal hero o' mine since I was young ... so this is not a "new" thing to me ... I may have heard o' some o' the critical points that you place in earlier IIRC ...), and I would like to include your points (if not only for the fact to refute them with others points, as there are counterpoints to the critics) ... but you have to be cooperative, not combative.Sincerely, JDR 21:54, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

If your ideas have merit, that will be enough to get them general acceptance. Once they are generally accepted, we'll see about giving them a more prominent place in the article. Right now, this comes under the catagory of "crank theory" -- which, for the record, is explictely exluded by wikipedia policy →Raul654 21:25, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

You mean like the idea of a deity? Clearly the idea of a deity is an absurd notion, but a very popular one. Last time I checked about ninety-eight percent of the human population of Earth believed in some sort of deity. Should evolutionary theory simply be an appendix of possible criticisms of biblical creationism? - Plautus Satire 21:27, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you're changing the issue (again). →Raul654 21:29, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

You started it. - Plautus Satire 21:34, February 13, 2004 (UTC)

You're trolling. If you keep it up much longer, you will inevitably be banned. →Raul654 21:49, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Citation: for those that thought Plautus just "came up with this idea," please refer to at least one book on the subject: "Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist", Christopher Jon Bjerknes, 2002, XTX Inc., isbn: 0-9719629-8-7 There are others as well, but the interested researcher can surely find them on his/her own. -Ionized 19:32, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Plautus himself cited that book. It's already been discussed on this page, unless Plautus deleted or edited the discussions. Nothing new, no reason to bring it up again. Curps 19:55, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I did not see that. All I saw where people asking for references. Next time Ill try to sift deeper into the muck to see what has been cited already. -Ionized 05:52, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Zionism

I intend to insert material into the Albert Einstein entry near the existing claim that Albert Einstein was a zionist. I intend to elaborate further, citing the volume of his writings titled About Zionism: Speeches and Lectures by Professor Albert Einstein published in 1930, which is, I believe, the source of this claim he was a zionist (which he claims in this volume). (P.S.: also correcting "first president" to "second president")- Plautus 00:41, February 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to remove the added paragraphs of Einstein's alleged Zionism. Failing that, I think a NPOV dispute disclaimer should be added until we come to an agreement. If we do keep the Zionism information then the least we can do is move it to the correct sub-level under politics. This is a hot topic recently so I'm asking here before just moving stuff around. SheikYerBooty 19:58, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)

In the first place, I didn't "add paragraphs of Einstein's alleged zionism". The claim was already in the entry that Einstein was a supporter of zionism. What I did was provide source material in Einstein's own words where he stated he was in fact a religionist, a zionist and a nationalist. Later testimony from him on the subject seems to indicate age mellowed him away from these "hardline" stances. In the second place, I stated what Einstein claimed about himself. Where is the dispute? It seems the only dispute is you disputing nearly any and everything that I post. Get over it already. Take your lumps and move on. Why is it you fail to mention I corrected a glaring factual error, namely that Einstein was offered the SECOND presidency of Israel, not the FIRST. Check the page history and see how long the WRONG information has been in there. Where were your cries of outrage and dispute then? I suspect you are simply a reactionary person who has got a hardon for me and is out to do in anything I contribute to wikipedia in any way you are able to. How many times are you going to try and get my working pages protected, reverted and my IP banned in violation of the wikipedia guidelines? Where is my persistent vandalism? Disagreeing with you and the other people who are more comfortable with fables than with truth? That's not vandalism, that's a cry in the wilderness, the frustrated shouts of the only human being on Planet of the Apes. - Plautus 03:58, February 16, 2004 (UTC)

(PS: I added material to clarify an EXISTING CLAIM, I did not "add" the claim that Einstein was a zionist as Sheikyerbooty suggests below.) Plautus satire 16:52, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Plautus, you most certainly did add "paragraphs" to the article regarding Mr. Einstein's changing support for Zionism. The word count now stands at approximately 480, before you came online is was 27 words. You've admitted yourself that his views "mellowed" as he got older yet your included quotes and statements try and picture him at his most extreme. We need to come to an agreement and compromise since I intend to start editing that page tomorrow, but I won't get involved in an edit war with you.

I've not tried to get you banned or blocked, I've only asked for your cooperation in discussing things before you start (and continue) edit wars, but you've decided to ignore those requests and continue with your hardline attitude. I do find it strange that you've been involved in numerous edit wars, been blocked at least twice and directly caused at least four pages to get locked, all that in two days. Relax sport, it's just an encyclopedia.

SheikYerBooty 06:33, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

First of all, how many of my edits are still extant? How many of the overreactions to my edits were halted by page protection? How much of my input is still in wikipedia, despite the efforts of you and others to squash my input? Here's a clue, Sheikyerbooty: I don't have to get your permission to edit pages. Every edit I have made to wikipedia was after consideration and the arrival at the conclusion that what I saw was wrong, but what I knew was right. If I make mistakes I am more than willing to admit it, because of the "good faith" nature of my edits. All good faith edits to pages should be given all due consideration, instead of immediately being reverted in a kneejerk fashion simply because evidence conflicts with the pre-existing fables. Like the fable about Einstein being offered the first presidency of Israel, which he was not. I corrected that, and I corrected and added other things about Einstein, such as the very relevant fact that his brain was not cremated, but was in fact preserved by a pathologist. Perhaps encyclopedia entries aren't the place for speculative conclusions, but they most certainly are the place to put relevant facts about a subject, don't you agree? What am I saying, of course you agree. You just don't seem to be willing to practice what you preach when you take a dislike to another contributor. - Plautus satire 16:55, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Second of all, what I did was make "good faith" edits of entries. You and others started the "revision wars" without proper discussion. Apparently you and others felt the need to "protect" the masses from my presentations of factual information. Once again, how much of that factual information is still there, despite attempts by you and others to bury it all? You're right, it is strange that so many people would oppose such obviously good and valid edits. It's almost as if there is some sort of troll mafia out there determined to preserve crippled knowlege. Why is it that you and others are unwilling to take any responsibility for an "edit war"? It takes two people to have a fight, didn't your mother ever teach you that, or were you an only child? Only children do tend to be spoiled and pouty. Continuous reversion in place of disucssion of facts on the table is just as culpable for an edit war as the original good faith edit which included those facts. - Plautus satire 17:02, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Einstein, a "mathematician"?

It is misleading to call Einstein a "physicicist and mathematician" . His degrees were in physics only, and while he undoubtedly had a certain mastery of mathematics, so do many people in many fields. Moreover, according to Clarke's well-respected biography, he was helped tremendously by the mathematician Hermann Minkowski from Göttingen, Germany, who described Einstein as a "lazy dog who never bothered about mathematics at all." Einstein wrote, "The people in Göttingen sometimes strike me not as if they wanted to help formulate something clearly, but as if they wanted only to show us physicists how much brighter they are than we." He also joked, "Since the mathematicians have attacked [i.e., reformulated] the relativity theory, I myself no longer understand it any more." Johnstone 23:17, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True enough. He used math to the extent that all physicists do, not the sort of abstract math that mathematicians do. 67.68.253.204 00:31, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

Another person who helped Einstein with mathematics was his friend Marcel Grossman. -- Miguel Thu Feb 19 05:55 GMT 2004

• It's "misleading" to not call Einstien a physicicist and mathematician. "He undoubtedly had a mastery of mathematics". JDR 00:36, February 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Albert Einstein - Mathematician and Physicist
  • School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St Andrews, Scotland
  • famousmathematician.com

Reddi, by your definition, which theoretical physicists would not be mathematicians? Every theoretical physicist must have a very strong mastery of math. Consider the list of branches of mathematics. Mathematicians generally specialize in one or more of those branches. 67.68.253.204 00:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The School of Mathematics and Statistics and famousmathematician.com agree that he was a mathematician. JDR 00:57, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

famousmathematician.com says "Primary Occupation: Mathematician", which is simply silly. Please understand I mean Einstein no disrespect. It's just that you'd really have to change the entries for Feynman, Hawking, etc and call them all mathematicians too. 67.68.253.204 01:02, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

School of Mathematics and Statistics is pretty authoritative on math topics. They call him one. famousmathematician probably have reasons that they cite his primary occupation as a Mathematician. If you could find a nice site to refute that he was one, that be a good start ... but, again, the university of St Andrews is pretty tough to argue with. As to the other ones, change 'em (but have a reaons (ie., citation)). JDR 01:11, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

It's not worth arguing over. If you like, Einstein is famous enough to be an "honorary" mathematician. No citation needed, my background is in physics. Although physics is more strongly grounded in math than any other science, and although theoretical physics has often pioneered new mathematical techniques which mathematicians later make more rigorous, and there is a strong cross-fertilization of ideas back and forth between theoretical physics and math, still... you are effectively claiming that every theoretical physicist should also be considered a mathematician, and that is not how most people in those fields or outside would see it. 67.68.253.204 01:24, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

Every theoretical physicist is a mathematician? Mabey ... especially if they deal with and work in mathematical techniques (not all do; experimentalism is far superior than math IMO ... and those that experiment can still be theoretical physicists)

Not how outside would see it? YMMV on that ... as many do ... and those inside the field do to [see the above reference to the school]

I think what we are discussing is a "exclusive vs inclusive" arguement ... and, as can be been seen from the above links, it's safer to err for the inclusion than the exclusion [though YMMV on it]. Sincerely, JDR 01:40, February 17, 2004 (UTC)

especially if they deal with and work in mathematical techniques (not all do; experimentalism is far superior than math IMO ... and those that experiment can still be theoretical physicists). This makes no sense. Experimentalism is not theoretical physics. There are some extreemly new directions that theoretical physics has taken that don't use math per se, but Einstein was involved in none of them, nor were they even around in his time. As far as Einstein is concerned, the term theoretical physicist implies someone who uses math. But just because you use math does not make you a mathmatition. Everyone uses math, you use it to balance your checkbook, or to figure out how long your drive to work is going to take, that doesn't make you a mathmatition. That fact is fairly obvious and I don't see that it changes simply because the math in question is harder. --Starx 15:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My quick search of several other encyclopedias revealed that none of them referred to Einstein as a "mathematician":

Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a "German-American physicist"

Encarta.msn.com, a "German-born American physicist and Nobel laureate"

Encyclopedia.com, an "American theoretical physicist"

Columbia Encyclopedia, an "American theoretical physicist"

Just because some mathematicians wish to claim one of the greatest intellects in history as one of their own doesn't mean that everyone has to play along if its not accurate. A mathematician, according to Merriam-Webster's, is "a specialist or expert in mathematics". Einstein did not specialize in math, and he was not considered an expert, as evidenced by the quotes in my original posting at the top of this section.

If he had a degree in mathematics, or had published groundbreaking research papers that dealt exclusively with math, and not problems in physics that happened to require math, then he could legitimately be called a "mathematician". Johnstone 01:23, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree (see my comments earlier).

Reddi, look at it this way. Einstein won the Nobel prize in physics. Would he have been a candidate to win the Fields medal, which is the equivalent in math? The answer is no... it wasn't his field (pun intended). 67.70.52.148 01:35, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The answer is no, but not for your incorrect reason. Edward Witten is widely considered a theoretical physicist, but he won the Fields medal. So being a physicist does not disqualify you as long as you make significant mathematical contributions. The first Fields Medal was awarded in 1936, and at that late date, Einstein would not have been young enough -- there is an age requirement. Of course, this is only a tangent and not really relevant to the main discussion. --C S 08:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

The nobel was primarily for experimentation that he did. He was a mathemtician (see citations above and see below by Isomorphic). JDR 01:51, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

While I tend to agree that Einstein was not a mathematician, it is interesting to note that according to Clark's biography, Einstein's doctoral dissertation ran into some difficulty because the initial reviewer believed that the content was more appropriate for an applied mathematics degree. So stating that he was one would not be a terrible error. Isomorphic 02:52, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have searched for the quote in Clark's biography but couldn't find it. Do you recall the page? (It doesn't change my mind, but I am curious to read it nonetheless.)

Here's another way of looking at this issue: In addition to being a physicist, Einstein was also a "pacifist", "philosopher", "sailor", "violinist", and "Zionist", among other things. Would including these in the first sentence of the article acomplish anything other than to muddle it? Johnstone 01:34, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Those are not usually include ... though the profession of physicist and mathematician are. JDR 01:51, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Mathematician" is not "usually" included in general encyclopedias (see above). Two of the examples you cite are math sites (which is equivalent to a "sailing" site listing Einstein as a famous person who sailed), or a single article in about.com. Johnstone 02:02, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Though it's generally recognized that he was a mathematician, I hope the intro as now is more suitable to you and others (It still includes the mathematician ref, while not explicitly stating he was such). The general encyclopedias, IMO, are examples that the fact was missed ... something the wikipedia can catch and correct (as is the case in some articles @ wikipedia). But, to sidestep the issue (and foster less flip-flop editing of the article), I think the intro as of now is good to include the information and not refute institutions such as School of Mathematics. Sincerely, JDR 19:11, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

The new wording looks OK to me. I've removed the parentheses because it's an easier read without them. Johnstone 00:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't have the reference with me. I'll look it up later tonight and give you the page. Anyway, I'm not really pushing to include "mathematician" in the opening. I'm certain Einstein didn't consider himself one. I was just bringing up a relevant bit of historical minutae. Isomorphic 02:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Here we go. Fifth paragraph of the section "Swiss Civil Servant" in Clark's biography quotes Alfred Kleiner saying "as the principle achievement of Einstein's work consists of the treatment of differential equations, it is thus of a mathematical nature and belongs to analytical mechanics." The work in question is the Ph.D. thesis. Isomorphic 19:24, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort of looking that up. I appreciate it. Johnstone 00:56, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Mathematician" is needed to describe Einstien's entire scientific career (Relativity being based in equations (and portions of the equations are untested)). JDR 08:17, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

There is not a single branch of physics that is not based on equations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.70.53.90 (talk • contribs) 19:28, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

Expermients are what physics is based off of (math is used for other things; see by some as primary, though it is secondary) .... and A New Kind of Science (book) I think is a recents acknowledgement that math is not what you want physics based off of. JDR 19:33, February 19, 2004 (UTC)

Reddi, you don't seem to grasp what is considered the essential distinction between physicists (or scientists in general) and mathematicians, as far as professionally -- physicists' primary intellectual goal is to understand the laws of nature, to make hypotheses about the physical world that can be tested by experiment, and to organise and conceptualise these conclusions into theories which are not infrequently expressed in terms of mathematics; mathematicians' primary intellectual goal is to understand the laws of mathematical objects, which are independent of experimental "verification", to make hypotheses about these objects and their relations, and to prove these hypotheses by rigorous deductive processes. The most important distinction is proof -- mathematicians are obsessed with the reasons why mathematical claims must be true; scientists (to generalise greatly) usually just care if the mathematics works and helps express their theories. As far as teaching, the thought processes and "indoctrination" (for lack of a better word) that math teachers do is not really the same as science teachers. So, the question is, how much original mathematical research did Einstein do? In other words, did he actually develop the mathematical theories themselves, and prove theorems about them, or did he just use them to solve his problems? I confess, I don't know the exact answer to this question. And I realise the line between mathematician and theoretical physicist is not that clear (many theoretical physicists prove lots of theorems and essentially do math, in the way I described above). I do know that Einstein used tensor calculus, differential geometry, and differential equations, but these were tools that had been around for a while (Riemann's work was a half-century old). Just because some physics professor read his ph.d. thesis, got confused, and said, "it looks like applied math" isn't enough to convince me he was really a mathematician. I believe the 4 encyclopedias quoted above are more accurate not to include this. (Your response that "it just shows they're wrong" is such circular logic I don't need to point this out.) Even if Einstein had some small mathematical output, this achievement pales in comparison to his contributions to physics itself. I would like those who believe Einstein made major accomplishments to mathematics (read carefully, as opposed to "having great mathematical facility" or "a great knowledge of math", any working physicist must have this) to give me specific evidence -- papers that are mathematical in nature, theorems he proved, etc. Quoting the name of a couple websites is lazy. I just don't understand your argument -- if I understand you correctly, it could be argued that ALL physicists are mathematicians, because they use such advanced math, which is absurd. Revolver 04:12, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Though it's generally recognized that he was a mathematician

Maybe among the people you know. Among physicists and mathematicians, this is not true. Almost everyone I know would say that Einstein was a theoretical physicist, but not a mathematician. Revolver 04:34, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have heard that Einstein was often referred to as a mathematician in the popular press in the early 20th century, but that was only because the term "theoretical physicist" was not in wide popular use in the newspapers of the time. Einstein had a good theoretical physicist's grasp of mathematics, but he used it in a theoretical physicist's way, rather than studying it as a subject in itself as a mathematician would; he collaborated with mathematicians such as Grossman to help him with mathematical details. --Matt McIrvin 17:47, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the professional literature on the history of science that I have seen, Einstein is a physicist, not a mathematician. He worked on physical problems, not mathematical ones. There are some people who did both, such as Henri Poincare. But that means that they published on both subjects. Einstein published on physics. He used a lot of math in his physics, but that doesn't make him a mathematician (it does, however, make him pretty awesome). --Fastfission 20:15, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Einstein's only contribution to mathematics, from what my many math department professors have told me, was a method of expressing sums using subscripts instead of Sigma notation for ease of readability. And that's really just a contribution to the language of mathematics, not to actual mathematical theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.120.158.84 (talk • contribs) 03:49, October 24, 2004 (UTC)

Don't believe everything you're told. He did more than that. That kind of comment is more a joke in the style mathematicians like to make rather than a serious historical remark. I challenge any of your professors that said that to say it in a public forum as a serious claim. Don't knock Einstein summation either; it's very useful. --C S 08:55, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please remember that before WW2 and atom bomb, physics and physicists weren't as well known for public as they are today. In his time, he was often entitled as mathematician by people who weren't sure what physicist meant. 30 Jan 2005 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.204.251 (talk • contribs) 13:07, January 30, 2005 (UTC)

---

Zionism again

Restarting the Zionism discussion - what is the source for the idea that Einstein's Zionism waned in his later years? The following three paragraphs are Einstein's own words, from his message declining the Israeli presidency.

"All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. For these reasons alone I should be unsuited to fulfill the duties of that high office, even if my advancing age was not making increasing inroads on my strength.

I am the more distressed over these circumstances because my relationship to the Jewish people has become my strongest human bond, ever since I became fully aware of our precarious situation among the nations of the world.

Now that we have lost the man who for so many years, against such great and tragic odds, bore the heavy responsibility of leading us towards political independence [note: I'm pretty sure he means Chaim Weizmann, first president of Israel, who had just died and whose place Einstein was being asked to take,] I hope with all my heart that a successor may be found whose experience and personality will enable him to accept the formidable and responsible task."

I will wait for response before editing, since apparently this is controversial, but I don't think the above paragraphs leave much room for dispute, nor can I find anything else in the Clark biography that suggests that Einstein ever wavered in his support for Israel. I'm not pushing a viewpoint, but I just want the article to reflect the best information available. If anyone has conflicting evidence with a good source, please present it. Isomorphic 23:34, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

I agree with most of the sentiments expressed by Isomorphic above. I would like to see more evidence that Einstein abandoned the self-professed zionism of his younger days. All I've ever been able to find are his own words stating he was zionist, religionist and nationalist, and only inferences drawn about his "waning" zionism as age supposedly mellowed him. More support or I agree, this bit about his zionism waning should be removed or conditionally phrased to reflect the lack Einstein's own statements to draw upon. - Plautus satire 00:57, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

From earlier material in this page discussion:
in January 1946 Einstein stated: "The State idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected with narrow-mindedness and economic obstacles. I believe that it is bad. I have always been against it. He went further to deride the concept of a Jewish commonwealth as an "imitation of Europe, the end of which was brought about by nationalism."

You make an excellent case using Einstein's words that he changed his mind and lied by claiming he had never supported the state of Israel, but this only tangentally addresses the issue of his zionism. A casual reader may not be aware of the minimal associations between zionism and nationalism, maybe add a brief clause about that relation to slightly soften his perceived zionism with age. Yes, no? - Plautus satire 03:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In his 1950 book, Out of My Later Years, he said: "I should much rather see a reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together than the creation of a Jewish state. Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish state with borders, an army, and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain."

The message declining the presidency required diplomacy and tact, to do otherwise would risk offense. But Einstein strongly opposed nationalism in any form and subscribed to a universalist philosophy and was not particularly pious or religious. It may be that he supported Zionism as a religious concept but had considerable difficulty when the situation turned into an armed conflict between nations. Declining the presidency of Israel was a consequence of his universalist views. Curps 02:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting that you provide no quotes here. And what do you make of his early (around 1900) claims that he was a religionist? What do you suppose he meant by "religionist"? He stated he wasn't a racial jew but a religious jew. - Plautus satire 03:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Zionism" is a very loaded word today, in the context of 50 years of bitter armed conflict between nations and peoples. It did not have the same polarizing connotations back in the 1920s as a utopian religious concept, probably many Zionists back then hoped for some kind of peaceful accomodation with Arab populations. Today it implies Israeli nationalism and Einstein strongly opposed any form of nationalism.

Maybe you should petition to have the word zionism stricken from the entry as inflammatory. It's been done before with "conspiracy theory". - Plautus satire 03:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Tangental question to satisfy my nagging curiosity: Which side is the "nation" and which side is the "people"? - Plautus satire 03:26, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The political views section should be kept short, since this is only incidental to his scientific accomplishments which take up the bulk of this article. So no more than one short paragraph each should be given to pacifism, socialism, nuclear disarmament, or Zionism. And any Zionism paragraph must present the right balance. Curps 03:14, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion if we don't have Einstein's words what we have is speculation. Any quotes from him that support speculation about his beliefs should be highlighted, speculation and deduction based on personal prejudice should be avoided entirely. - Plautus satire 03:24, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Einstein also apparently wrote a letter to the Palestinian Arab Newspaper Falastin on January 28, 1930, in which he wrote:

"One who, like myself, has cherished for many years the conviction that the humanity of the future must be built up on an intimate community of the nations, and that aggressive nationalism must be conquered, can see a future for Palestine only on the basis of peaceful cooperation between the two peoples who are at home in the country."

This was back in 1930, in his younger days. The word "Zionism" clearly meant something different to Einstein back then (Jewish settlement of Palestine with both Jews and Arabs living there) than it does to us today (state of Israel), which is why it is fairly unhelpful and potentially polarizing to even include a section on Zionism at all. Curps 03:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should go in there, but not at the expense of his earlier statements, as long as no reasonable (relevant and non-redundant) quotes are specifically omitted I can't think of any issues I have here. Of course I can not speak for everyone. As a side note, Curps, I hope you see I am not bearing you any grudge. If I criticize you it's because I feel I have a valid criticism. In this case I think you did fine research, as I for one have never seen those words of Einstein before. Well done. - Plautus satire 03:51, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reference, Curps. I don't think Einstein's Zionism was motivated by any religious feelings, or from any great respect for the Jewish religion. As you say, Einstein was not a practicing Jew, and from what I know his personal religious beliefs are more like deism or pantheism. Again in his own words, "nor is there anything in me which could be called 'Jewish faith.'" After further reading, it seems to me that his support was for Judaism as a cultural and ethnic identity, and for Israel as a focus for Jewish cultural and ethnic awareness, not for Israel as a nation-state.

Regardless of how the issue of Einstein's Zionism is eventually treated, I think there needs to be a bit more focus on his pacifism, which was at least as fundamental to his outlook. Also, I disagree that his politics are less important than his scientific work. Einstein produced very little of scientific significance after General Relativity, but he was a very visible public figure until his death. Isomorphic 04:13, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

gibberish

This is gibberish

The idea later proved invaluable for understanding how the Big Bang, which was a pure burst of energy, could lead to the precipitation of a universe filled with matter (it turns out that the energy required to create the matter is exactly offset by the negative potential energy of the universe's gravitational well).

I'm not sure this is true....

Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, his explanation was not universally accepted. In 1922, when he was awarded the Nobel Prize, and his work on photoelectricity was mentioned by name, most physicists thought that, while the equation was correct, light quanta were impossible.

Roadrunner 11:28, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the top (may be related to the recent news) .... but the bottom can be changed (and I did). IIRC, his initial equations were not acccepted. Later, they were .... [BTW, it wasn't for the equations that he got the Nobel, it was the experiment to show it ... (the PE experiment and "other contributions", more precisely)]. Sincerely, JDR 12:48, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

trip to Japan

What is the relevance of Einstein's trip to Japan? Did something significant take place? Is it especially memorable for some reason (eg, first trip by a Nobel laureate to Japan? I doubt it). Otherwise it's too trivial to include. Curps 03:14, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mar 2004 – Jan 2005

Pantheist?

Just noticed that a link to List of Pantheists was added and removed. From what I know of Einstein's religion, it's probably misleading to associate him with any organized religion or philosophy. I remember reading a quote somewhere to the effect that noone else means quite what Einstein meant when he said "God." Isomorphic 05:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I had him on a list of pantheists, but it appears that only obscure pantheist organizations call him a pantheist. If anyone knows something substantial or verifiable on the subject, that would be great, but otherwise I'll leave him out, due to obvious objections from certain parties Sam Spade 06:17, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Beyond that, normal convention is not to link to have items on lists link to the lists. There are just too many weird lists on Wikipedia to have them link back, and so the lists are usually only linked to from general articles on the subject. So Pantheism should link to List of Pantheists, but the article for a given pantheist should not.

Also, is it properly Pantheist or pantheist? Because if it's properly lowercase, then the article should be moved to List of pantheists. Snowspinner 15:01, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Languages he spoke?

Did Einstein speak in English or German or both languages ? How fluent was his English ? Jay 17:33, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Albert Einstein as a trademark

"This popularity has also lead to a widespread use of Einstein in advertisement and merchandising, eventually including the registration of Albert Einstein™ as a trademark."

Is that accurate? Could we have some more information on that? --Tothebarricades.tk 05:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Already provided. Brutannica 06:01, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that section. I'm so dumb sometimes... :P --Tothebarricades.tk 06:23, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyright status of the images in this article

The main image Image:Albert Einstein.jpg has no copyright info, Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg is under fairuse, Image:Einstein2.jpg is in the public domain and Image:Einstongue.jpg is presumably fairuse as well though detailed info is provided.

Only one of them specifies a source, this needs to be fixed. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:55, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

Here's an idea: contact CalTech and see if they will approve of using some of their Einstein images under Fair Use. Out of all places I bet they'd be the most receptive to this idea (more so than a private company). They have a ton of GREAT Einstein pictures: http://archives.caltech.edu/photoNet.html --Fastfission 02:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, Image:Einstein patentoffice.jpg is actually in the public domain. I've asked the uploader of Image:Albert Einstein.jpg to supply the source and licensing info; alternatively, this could be replaced by either Image:Karsh Einstein.jpg or the larger version of the same, Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg, which is in the public domain, too. remains the "tongue" picture. Lupo 09:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and Image:Einstein2.jpg was not PD, it was a copyrighted Magnum photo which I have just deleted for that reason (and also because we do have PD replacements for it). Lupo 12:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Time for featured-article status?

It seems an obvious choice, but apparently this article has not been nominated as a Featured article candidate. Would someone like to do the honors? - dcljr 04:58, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mmm... I dunno. I always thought it could use more on Einstein's personality and political views (although those sections might have been fleshed out by now), and some of the science stuff might be a little too complicated. Brutannica 07:52, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I nominated the article now. --ThomasK 05:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Light bent by gravity

In the section Albert Einstein#General_relativity, it says:

...when it was tested by measuring how much the sun's rays were bent by gravity during a solar eclipse, ...

That doesn't make sense. If I recall that experiment correctly, it was measured by how much the light emanating from a star "behind" the sun was bent by the sun's gravity. The experiment was made during a solar eclipse because a star behind or very close (in line-of-sight) to the sun would otherwise not be visible at all. The findings from that experiment matched the predictions made by the theory. Somebody can explain "behind" better than me, I'm sure. Lupo 10:51, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies... I can't recall my source. Brutannica 02:01, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BTW, do we have an article on this experiment somewhere? It was a milestone that certainly deserves coverage, and with a diagram, the whole thing becomes much easier to explain, too. Lupo 11:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The best I found was gravitational lens... I've corrected the article. Lupo 11:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Posted to Prague?

Am I mistaken, or was Einstein not posted to Prague at some point before Berlin? User:sca 18:37, October 5, 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Yes. Though "posted" is the wrong word. He was offered a prof-ship there.

Also the article says: "Einstein settled in Berlin as professor at the local university." There are 4 universities in Berlin so the phrasing is vague, if not inacurrate. I feel some details should be added on the Prague-Berlin period. --128.12.193.8 09:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disliking "Time mags person of the century"

(William M. Connolley 21:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I dislike the text under the photo: "Time mags person of the century"... since he is so much more important than time mag, and their judgement of scientific matters is irrelevant, it seems rather demeaning. There must be a better scientific quote to put in.

Criticism and allegations of plagiarism

I have removed the following additions:

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but some critics have claimed that he was a plagiarist, who allegedly infringed on previous theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert. One critic, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, documented what he saw as plagiarism in the work titled "Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist". Bjerknes see some of Einstein's work as not properly acknowledging his contemporaries, in addition to providing formal logical argument demonstrating that Einstein could not have drawn the conclusions he claimed to have drawn without prior knowlege of the works he referenced, but did not cite nor credit. Numerous quotations from Einstein's contemporaries are also included to support the notion that Einstein's infringements had indeed been noticed. Others disagree with Bjerknes.

Christopher J. Bjerknes (2002). Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. ISBN 0-971-96298-7

The reasons I have removed them are 1) this book is not taken seriously by ANY mainstream historians of science or physicists and in the few respectable places it has actually been reviewed it has been denounced as pure rubbish [5]; 2) from my looking at selections of it online, I think it is pure rubbish and not worthy of a paragraph on the Wikipedia article -- the author obviously has no idea about the history of Einstein's relativity nor the historiography of priority disputes, much less the differences between Einstein and Poincaré and Lorentz, which are significant, and cites criticisms from members of the Nazi Deutsche Physik movement as evidence against Einstein which is either very sloppy or horribly offensive; 3) the book in question was published by a vanity press and has not received enough mainstream attention to make it or its claims encyclopedic. The section is incredibly POV, of course ("Others disagree" and "some critics" makes it sound like this is actually a widely supported view, which it is not), but that could be changed. In trying to make it NPOV, I had the feeling that it really oughtn't even bother being part of this article in the first place. If someone wants to disagree with my decision, though, I'm open to talking about it, of course. --Fastfission 04:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I might also note that the justification that Bjerknes gives for all other mainstream scientists and historians from not realizing this sooner or agreeing with him, if I recall, is because they're all part of the big Einstein sham conspiracy (personally, I get a payoff of about $100 a month to keep my mouth shut). It is classic conspiracy theory nonsense. --Fastfission 04:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I would also like to note that the only reason I can think of to include this sort of information is if this conspiracy theory nonsense is widespread enough to be considered encyclopedic. I don't think it is, it has attracted little attention even on the internet much less in mainstream press. However if someone has a different feeling for this I'd be happy to hear it. I only know about it because one of my friends stumbled across it and sent me the link a long time back, it is not something that historians of Einstein are even generally cognisant of, much less the general public. --Fastfission 04:25, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a site dedicated to cataloguing, promoting, or debunking fringe theories. There is someone out there with a fringe theory on virtually anything, and Wikipedia's usefulness would diminish if we tried to acknowledge all of them. Isomorphic 16:20, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • I of course agree, and I would like to also say that the Salon link at the bottom recently added about the question is probably all that needs to be said on it, it is a well-done article in my assessment. --Fastfission 17:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • Concerning the Olinto de Tretto use of E=mc2 before Einstein. This is not "really" true and certainly not accepted by mainstream science. All the history about Olinto de Pretto and the equivalence mass-energy comes after an italian book written in 1999 by italian Umberto Barocci. A link to the portrait of the book is given here: [6]. The Olinto de Pretto article can be found here [7] (only italian). The article speaks about kinetic energy of luminifereous ether and says that in order to be efficient medium for light to travel ether should vibrate at speeds faster than the light speed and so particles in the ether would have energy on the order of mv^2 with v greater than c. (The paper is one of those theory of everything where the author explains the heat of the Sun the orbits of the planets and the formation of the Solar system. Mass-equivalence is only read by Bartocci) This is by no means any thing related to the energy-mass equivalence. In Italy some media have acclamed Olinto de Pretto as author of the equation but scientist seem not to agree [8]. In fact, Olinto de Pretto is advocated by "extreme right" antisemitist groups to criticize Einstein as it can be seen here [9] and its main link together with a hundred more sites. Wricardoh 21:05, December 5, 2004 (UTC)

Moved from article

I removed the following unsourced recent addition from the article:

A more recent theory is that he suffered from Asperger's syndrome, a disorder related to autism.

Unless the author can provide external sources for this "theory" and show that it is not yet another fringe theory, this has no place in the article. Lupo 08:09, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about take a look at the Asperger's syndrome page. There is certainly a reference there. I've seen it referenced in quite a few publications. AFAIK, any published theory does have a place in this article.

BBC News article

Thoric 14:27, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 34 possible wiki links and 13 possible backlinks for Albert Einstein.

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Albert_Einstein article:

• Can link popular culture: ...ame exceeded that of any other scientist in history, and in popular culture, ''Einstein'' has become synonymous with someone of very hi...
• Can link elementary school: ... was Jewish (and non-observant); Albert attended a Catholic elementary school and, at the insistence of his mother, was given [[violin]] ... (link to section)
• Can link slow learner: ...]]s and [[mechanical device]]s for fun, he was considered a slow learner, possibly due to [[dyslexia]], simple shyness, or the stron... (link to section)
• Can link liberal arts: ...f and then joined his family in Pavia.) His failure of the liberal arts portion of the ''[[Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule]]''... (link to section)
• Can link secondary school: ... sent by his family to [[Aarau]], [[Switzerland]] to finish secondary school, and received his diploma in [[1896]]. Einstein subsequent... (link to section)
• Can link modern physics: ...ear, he wrote four articles that provided the foundation of modern physics, without much [[scientific literature]] to refer to or many... (link to section)
• Can link Nobel prizes: ...hotoelectric effect]], and [[special relativity]]) deserved Nobel prizes. Only the photoelectric effect would win. This is something... (link to section)
• Can link The International: ...bilis Papers]]''" (from [[Latin]]: ''Extraordinary Year''). The International Union of Pure and Applied Physics ([[IUPAP]]) has planned t... (link to section)
• Can link empirical evidence: ...ory explanation decades after being observed—provided empirical evidence for the reality of [[atom]]s. It also lent credence to stat... (link to section)
• Can link physical systems: ...y, the assumption of [[infinite divisibility]] of energy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations fo... (link to section)
• Can link Einstein's equations: ...rgy in physical systems. Even after experiments showed that Einstein's equations for the photoelectric effect were accurate, his explanation... (link to section)
• Can link light waves: ...e the [[Michelson-Morley experiment]], which had shown that light waves could not be travelling through any [[luminiferous aether|m... (link to section)
• Can link atomic nuclei: ...uch phenomenal amounts of energy. By measuring the mass of atomic nuclei and dividing them by their atomic number, both of which are... (link to section)
• Can link atomic number: ...suring the mass of atomic nuclei and dividing them by their atomic number, both of which are easily measured, one can calculate the b... (link to section)
• Can link binding energy: ...r, both of which are easily measured, one can calculate the binding energy which is trapped in different atomic nuclei. This allows o... (link to section)
• Can link Berne, Switzerland: ...xaminer second class. In [[1908]], Einstein was licensed in Berne, Switzerland, as a teacher and lecturer (known as a ''Privatdozent''), w... (link to section)
• Can link nervous breakdown: ...nd had nursed him to health after he had suffered a partial nervous breakdown combined with a severe stomach ailment. There were no child... (link to section)
• Can link Kaiser Wilhelm Institute: ...eories. From [[1914]] to [[1933]] he served as director of Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics in Berlin, and it was during this time he recei... (link to section)
• Can link Academy of Sciences: ...Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences in which he described his theory of [[general relativity]].... (link to section)
• Can link Newton's law: ...climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity. This theory considered all observers to be equi... (link to section)
• Can link skepticism: ... with experimentation or observation, leading scientists to skepticism. But his equations enabled predictions and tests to be made... (link to section)
• Can link scientific community: ...There were, however, many who were still unconvinced in the scientific community. Their reasons varied, ranging from those who disagreed wit... (link to section)
• Can link absolute frame of reference: ...xperiments to those who simply thought that life without an absolute frame of reference was intolerable. In Einstein's view, many of them simply co... (link to section)
• Can link the real thing: ...rtainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any cl... (link to section)
• Can link refrigeration cycle: ...instein and Leó Szilárd. The patent covered a thermodynamic refrigeration cycle providing cooling with no moving parts, at a constant [[pre... (link to section)
• Can link space-time continuum: ...anics. Einstein assumed a structure of a four-dimensional space-time continuum expressed in axioms represented by five component vectors. ... (link to section)
• Can link subatomic particles: ... the energy density are particularly high. Einstein treated subatomic particles in this research as objects embedded in the unified field, ... (link to section)
• Can link unified field: ...tomic particles in this research as objects embedded in the unified field, influencing it and existing as an essential constituent of... (link to section)
• Can link variational principle: ...rched a way to delineate the equations to be derived from a variational principle.... (link to section)
• Can link forms of government: ...khoels]] and Einstein in 1943]] Einstein opposed tyrannical forms of government, and for this reason (and his Jewish background), he oppose... (link to section)
• Can link nationalism: ...o which Einstein bequeathed his papers. However he opposed nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-stat... (link to section)
• Can link nation-state: ...nationalism and expressed skepticism about whether a Jewish nation-state was the best solution. He may have originally imagined Jew... (link to section)
• Can link nuclear tests: ...Albert Schweitzer]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] fought against nuclear tests and bombs. With the [[Pugwash Conferences on Science and W... (link to section)
• Can link Australian film: ...ientist displaying a moment of humor. [[Yahoo Serious]], an Australian film maker, used the photo as an inspiration for the intentional... (link to section)

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):

• In Conscription, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... is just one more proof of its debilitating influence"'' by Albert Einstein, Sigmund Freud, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell and Thomas Man...
• In Dylan Thomas, can backlink Albert Einstein: .... He appears along with Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley and Albert Einstein all on probably the best known of all record sleeves, the B...
• In Avogadro's number, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...d to the [[equivalence of matter and energy]] discovered by Albert Einstein as part of the theory of [[special relativity]]. When an a...
• In Einstein on socialism, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm Why socialism?] - Albert Einstein, ''Monthly review, 1949-05'' ([http://www.amnh.org/exhibiti...
• In [[Jacqueline du Pr%E9#The significance of du Pré's position among cellists|Jacqueline du Pré]], can backlink Albert Einstein: ... interpretations. Let us not forget the words of the great Albert Einstein, "Great spirits have always been met with violent oppositio...
• In Diffuse sky radiation, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ficult to observe because of the glare of the sun. In 1911 Albert Einstein published an article in which he showed that the real expla...
• In National Air and Space Museum, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... and other artifacts, there is an [[IMAX]] theater and the Albert Einstein [[Planetarium]]....
• In Fotini Markopoulou-Kalamara, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ew Jersey. Previous postdoctoral positions were held at the Albert Einstein Institute, Imperial College London, and Penn State Universi...
• In List of hospitals in Pennsylvania, can backlink Albert Einstein: ... Hospital * [[Philadelphia, Pennsylvania|Philadelphia]] ** Albert Einstein Healthcare ...
• In Prolixity, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ing upon context. == Concise language == By some accounts, Albert Einstein once said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not ...
• In Raymond U. Lemieux, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...Canadian) (1990) * NSERC Gold Medal in Science ([[1991]]) * Albert Einstein World Award in Science ([[1992]])...
• In The Majestic Documents, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...ident said on the issue. Various important people's such as Albert Einstein and Ronald Regan's signatures have been found on these docu...
• In Last Son of Krypton, can backlink Albert Einstein: ...Luthor]] must join forces to retrieve a document written by Albert Einstein and stop the alien ruler. The story is considered a classic...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to — LinkBot 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Greatest Scientist of the 20th Century

I think the claim '...the greatest scientist of the 20th Century...' is hyperbole. My own view is that he can't have been this because (1) he was a theoretician and (2) how original a theoretician he was is very contentious, (see contributions from others on priority for many parts of the work claimed by him or attributed to him). All science is cumulative but for what it's worth my suggestion for a stand-out-figure on the basis of intellectual brilliance and practical achievement is Nikola Tesla. The progressive development of our material circumstances and welfare at such a marked rate in the last 100 years has its technological cause in the creation of devices which effectively generate, transmit and use energy and I'm not aware of any other single individual whose theoretical and practical achievements in this area even approach let alone exceed Tesla's. He also had some choice things to say about the work of others, including Einstein, on relativity, '...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king...., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists...', (New York Times, July 11, 1935, p23, c.8), and 'I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.', (New York Hearald Tribune, September 11, 1932) and '...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents. It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Boskovic, the great philospher, who not withstanding other and multifold obligations wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects. Boskovic dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum...', (1936 unpublished interview, quoted in Anderson, L, ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences: The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, April 6, 1897, reconstructed 1994).--Smark33021 00:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether Tesla was great or not doesn't really matter here, the line in question is "who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." Which is generally accurate -- he is widely regarded as such -- whether or not you (or I) agree with such an opinion. In the popular mind, and indeed in the mind of many scientists, he is portrayed as the exemplar figure for "scientist" even if in reality one could make several arguments to the contrary.--Fastfission 20:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Catagories

Could we please leave Einstein in the Category physicists? The fact that is is a subcategory of some other category is - to me - less important then the fact that the category of physicists will be imcomplete without him (and without the other Nobel prize winners). If someone is browsing through the physicists category, they might not think (or want) to look for and check out related categories. If we drop out all of the physicists who appear in other sub-categories, there will not be much left in the physicists category, which will make it far less useful. Michael L. Kaufman 02:12, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree. I was looking for him in the list of physicists, and I couldn't understand why there was not one of the most know physicists in the world! Nova77 06:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

he was also (as sorry as I am to say this:) not Swiss but German (native of Ulm). The categorization should be changed accordingly. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, but he did renounce his German citizenship and kept his Swiss citzenship. Is "German" supposed to mean his birth location or his "nationality"? I think such distinctions are somewhat petty anyway, though. I'm fairly sure that Einstein wouldn't have been liked to be listed as being any particular nationality, and certainly not German, but anyway, he's not here so I guess it's not up to him. --Fastfission 21:37, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If we list him under either national category, I'd list him under both. If I remember correctly, he didn't consider himself a German if he could help it. Isomorphic 18:25, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to talk about citizenship, wasn't he also granted American citizenship? I'm fairly sure. Why not put him under all three catergories? And if we're going to argue about where he would've wanted us to place him, I have no input on the subject except this quote from him: "If relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German and the Germans will call me a Jew." Clearly, he realized that many nations would claim him as their own, and that his nationality was ambiguous. Just place him under Germany, where he was born, and don't try to predict what Einstein would want. We're not mentally equipped for that. Saraneth 17:25, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tesla

Whether Tesla was great or not doesn't really matter here, the line in question is "who is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century." Which is generally accurate -- he is widely regarded as such -- whether or not you (or I) agree with such an opinion. In the popular mind, and indeed in the mind of many scientists, he is portrayed as the exemplar figure for "scientist" even if in reality one could make several arguments to the contrary.--Fastfission 20:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Which son?

Near the end of the article, I read that one of Einstein's sons was hospitalized for schizophrenia and later died in an asylum, and the other moved to California. Unfortunately, the article never specifies which son is which. Could someone please clarify? Thanks a bunch! --Saraneth 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hans Albert Einstein did not die in an asylum and was an accomplished professor of hydraulic engineering at Berkeley until his death in 1973. So maybe he is the one who goes to California (he certainly didn't die in an asylum). --Fastfission 04:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While copyediting I added some information to that effect. Thanks for the heads-up! Steven Luo 09:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FBI File

Great article. But when did they create and keep the FBI file? Needs to be more specific, and obviously the fact he got citizenship should make some reference to it. :ChrisG 22:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The file itself looks like it began taking in submissions from at least 1932 when Einstein applied for a visa to the USA. But I haven't yet found anything more specific... (boy, it's one hateful little file) --Fastfission 22:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Plagiarism"

Though it's been discussed many times before, this is a place where our anonymous friend can justify trying to add three pages of bad history to a pretty good entry. All of the people cited hold fringe opinions, no mainstream historian finds their arguments plausible, none have published in peer-reviewed publications, almost all seem to lack understanding of the ways in which Einstein's formulations differed from those who he drew on (Lorentz, Poincaré, etc.), and most of them have no sense about using historical sources (i.e. use propaganda published by the Deutsche Physik physicists as reliable sources). This is not new, and Wikipedia should not be a dump for every looney accusation, especially ones which date back to the worst extremes of German nationalism during World War II. No Einstein scholar gives this sort of stuff a moment of attention, despite the fact that it would be quite a coup to be able to prove conclusively (or even indicate suggestively) that Einstein was a plagiarist. --Fastfission 01:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent reverts on edits about Einstein's alleged plagiarism

An anonymous editor is currently trying to edit the article with very POV additions. These additions allege that Einstein was a plagiarist, ripping off both the general and special theories of relativity. First, for those that do not know about this matter, these allegations have been long debunked and shown to be groundless. As evidence, I suggest anyone doubting this just do a google search under Bjerknes and Einstein. Bjerkness is a self-published author who wrote a book alleging Einstein was a plagiarist. I easily found this review of his book, on the first page of hits: [10], which decisively takes apart the book. Cecil recently debunked this on the Straight Dope. There are many more results you can find like this.

Basically, Bjerknes is a crank and his theory and "research" is highly crankish and of no merit. There is not one respectable historian that believes any of this. I challenge the anon to produce one recognized authority supporting his/her edits.

I also suspect that the anon is really Christopher Bjerknes. Bjerknes has been very energetic in promoting his crank views on usenet, in particular sci.physics.relativity. He is not at all interested in correcting his views or learning of his mistakes (the true sign of a crank). This anon seems to have the same affliction.

I think there may be a place for the mention of theories like Bjerknes's, but only a small place, and it must mention that it is a fringe theory that has been debunked by serious scholars.

It may be that we may have to get the page protected or ban the anon. --C S 02:06, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Censorship redressed

My words have been snipped but not refuted. A. A. Logunov has cited Bjerknes's work in one of the finest physics journals in the world:

http://data.ufn.ru//ufn04/ufn04_6/Russian/r046e.pdf

http://xxx.arxiv.cornell.edu/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0405/0405075.pdf

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 02:21, January 18, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your contributions to talk pages by writing four tildes like this ~~~~.

Secondly, the citation above (Cornell Uni) Cites Bjerknes's work solely for the purpose of disproving the theory that Hilbert copied the Gravitational Field Equations from Einstein. If you read to the end of the paper that you yourself cited, you will find the conclusion: "All is absolutely clear: both authors [Einstein and Hilbert] made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the Gravitational Field Equations. But General Relativity is Einstein's theory".

I think that concludes the argument. DJ Clayworth 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bjerknes's work was cited in one of the finest physics journals in the world by A. A. Logunov, who was Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It was also cited in Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung:

http://www.physics.unr.edu/faculty/winterberg/Hilbert-Einstein.pdf

Since you do not deny those facts, you have no argument with what I wrote. If you want to trade quotes, here's one from Jurgen Renn:

"I had personally come to the conclusion that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert[.] [The] conclusion is almost unavoidable, that Einstein must have copied from Hilbert."

Renn was quoted by Curt Suplee in his newspaper article "Researchers Definitively Rule Einstein Did Not Plagiarize Relativity Theory" The Washington Post (November 14, 1997): A24. Since Logunov, Winterberg and Bjerknes have proven that Renn's revisionism is flawed, I agree with Renn that the conclusion is that Einstein was a plagiarist.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 21:24, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

We deny your "facts" and have plenty of "argument" with what you wrote. Just be aware of Wikipedia:Three revert rule. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) 21:32, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

How do I link the "Einstein" page to identify it as a disputed page which does not present a neutral point of view? What is the effect of doing so? If I so designate it, will others be able to remove the designation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 22:00, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

You can link it however you want, but others can remove the designation. Neutral does not mean "crank". You won't win on this one, sorry, Wikipedia is not a place for conspiracy theories passed off as being respected opinions. --Fastfission 22:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Numerous books by Jean Hladik, Anatoly Logunov, Jules Leveugle, Dennis Overbye, Christopher Jon Bjerknes, Andrea Gabor, etc. have in the last couple of decades discussed Einstein's plagiarism. I believe a section on Einstein's Plagiarism should be added to present a more complete history of Einstein, as is appropriate in an Encyclopedia article:

Einstein's Plagiarism

Numerous sources have directly or indirectly accused Albert Einstein of plagiarism. These charges range from Einstein's appropriation of the special theory of relativity through unattributed use of the Lorentz Transformation and Henri Poincare's "principle of relativity" in Einstein's paper 1905 Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Koerper, to broader accusations of a career long pattern of plagiarism. The latter point of view is taken by Christopher Jon Bjerknes in his books Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist [11] and Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity.[12] Bjerknes points out that the special theory of relativity first appeared in the works of Woldemar Voigt, George Francis Fitzgerald, Joseph Larmor, Hendrik Antoon Lorentz and Henri Poincare.

Einstein was often accused of plagiarism. He did not answer his critics in a responsible fashion and so missed the opportunity to justify his behavior. Other books which provide insights into Einstein's unnamed sources include: E. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity; A. A. Logunov, The Theory of Gravity and On the Articles by Henri Poincaré ON THE DYNAMICS OF THE ELECTRON; J. P. Auffray, Einstein et Poincare; J. Leveugle La Relativite, Poincare et Einstein, Planck, Hilbert: Histoire veridique de la Theorie de la Relativite; J. Hladik, Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprie la Relativite restreinte de Poincare; J. Mehra, Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation.

Jules Henri Poincare

Anatoly Alexeivich Logunov has proven the priority and the superiority of Poincare's formulation of the special theory of relativity over Einstein's later and less sophisticated work. [13] Poincare pioneered the concept of synchronizing clocks with light signals in his articles and lectures La Mesure du Temps (1898), La Theorie de Lorentz at le Principe de Reaction (1900) and The Principles of Mathematical Physics (1904). Einstein copied this method without giving Poincare credit for the innovation. Poincare stated the principle of relativity in 1895, and in 1905 stated the group properties of the Lorentz Transformation. It was Poincare, not Einstein, who introduced four-dimensional space-time into the theory of relativity. At first, Einstein did not approve of the idea. Einstein learned the formula E mc^2 from Poincare's 1900 paper.

The General Theory of Relativity

Tilman Sauer, [14] Bjerknes,[15] Logunov [16] and Friedwardt Winterberg [17] have shown that David Hilbert derived the generally covariant field equations of gravitation in the general theory of relativity before Einstein. Bjerknes and Winterberg claim that Paul Gerber published the same formula for the perihelion motion of Mercury in 1898, that Einstein published in 1915 without an attribution. Bjerknes also points out that Johann Goerg von Soldner predicted that starlight grazing the limb of the Sun would be deflected by the gravitational field of the Sun, in 1801, more than one hundred years before Einstein. D. E. Burlankov has shown that Niels Bjorn and Sophus Lie derived many of the fundamental formulas of the general theory of relativity years before Einstein. [18]

Mileva Maric

Desanka Trbuhovic-Gjuric (Im Schatten Albert Einsteins), Evan Harris Walker (Physics Today 42 9, 11 (February, 1989); Physics Today 44 122-124 (February, 1991).), Margarete Maurer [19], Senta Troemel Ploetz (Women's Studies International Forum Volume 13, Number 5, (1990), pp. 415-432; Index on Censorship 19 33-36 (October, 1990).), Christopher Jon Bjerknes [20], and others [21] believe that Einstein's first wife, Mileva Maric (aka Marity), collaborated with him on his 1905 papers, or wrote them herself. Abram Joffe (Uspekhi fizicheskikh nauk 57 187 (1955)), who had seen the original manuscripts, stated that the author of these papers was "Einstein-Marity" and Mileva Maric used this name, but Albert Einstein did not. Daniil Semenovich Danin (Neizbezhnost strannogo mira (1962), p. 57) claimed that the papers were signed "Einstein-Marity" or "Einstein-Maric". Albert wrote to Mileva and asked her to collaborate with him, in the context of Lorentz's theory, which they copied in 1905. He wrote to her about "our work on relative motion".

Einstein's "Miracle Year"

Einstein's so-called "miracle year" is not so miraculous as one would think from looking at his papers, which lacked adequate references. The special theory of relativity was first published by Lorentz and Poincare, and Poincare created the modern four-dimensional form of the theory before Einstein. The theory of the photo-electric effect draws a great deal from Newton, Planck, Wien, and others. The theory of Brownian motion was anticipated by Robert Brown, Gouy, Nernst, Smoluchowski, Sutherland and Bachelier.

I would like to discuss this issue in a civil and responsible fashion. How do I complain when others fail to act in civil manner?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 22:30, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am new to this and would like to report the fact that an NPOV link was removed while a discussion was taking place. How do I do so? I understand that Wikipedia requests that I not respond to insulting messages, so I will not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 23:17, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

I again ask if someone would be so kind as to inform me as to how I can lodge a complaint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 23:33, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You should also read the articles in Category:Wikipedia official policy, so that among other things you don't violate the three-revert rule again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curps (talk • contribs) 23:50, January 24, 2005 (UTC)

A NPOV link can be removed if it is just one anonymous person against a dozen editors. If you don't plan to actually discuss what people have written about your additions, you will get nowhere on this. I suggest you give up on Wikipedia and turn to alternative outlets for your theories. --Fastfission 23:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I should like to point out that Friedwardt Winterberg is a famous physicist who has published hundreds of articles in physics journals. He received his PhD under Nobel Prize laureate Werner Heisenberg. Professor Logunov is one of the most respected physicists in the world and was Vice President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is today Director of the Institute for High Energy Physics. Jean Hladik has published numerous books on Einstein and relativity and is also highly regarded. Dennis Overbye is a science editor at the New York Times. Whittaker's book are considered masterpieces and are among the most highly respected histories of science ever written. Bjerknes and his work have been favorably cited in the finest physics journals in the world. The documentary Einstein's Wife airs on the Public Broadcasting Network in the United States, which is highly regarded. This is not the place to defend against all the personal attacks made in this discussion, but let it suffice to show that they are false. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 17:08, January 25, 2005 (UTC)

You cite names but never demonstrate how they support your theories. For example, Dennis Overbye does NOT support them. He comes to the conclusion that Einstein's wife provided intellectual and emotional support in the form of giving him a conversational and life partner but he never concludes that Einstein took the essential ideas of relativity from her or plagiarized her or anything of that sort. He has written a book called Einstein in Love. Perhaps you should read it. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is typical of Plautus to quote seemingly impressive references by respected mainstream scientists, or links to mainstream websites, with the claim that these support his opinions. Except when you actually click on the external link or look up the reference, there's nothing there at all to support his opinions. -- Curps 03:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to pages 296 and 297 of Overbye's "Einstein in Love, A Scientific Romance" with regard to Einstein's use of Kretschmann's ideas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

And what is your assertion? I presume you have one to refute what I wrote above about Overbye. Unless these pages contain a statement that Kretschmann's work was plagiarized by Einstein, your reference is pointless. --C S 09:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I will have to watch the documentary again to ascertain for certain whether or not Overbye modified his views in it. If he did, then he would be one of those supporting my claim with regard to Mileva. If not, he would not. I have not relied on him with regard to my claims about Mileva. If you think he should be added to the list of those with a different view on this point, then we can add his name, but it would be wise to watch the documentary again. My reference to Overbye regarded Kretschmann, and Overbye shows that Einstein plagiarized Kretschmann's ideas. As you suggested to me, I suggest you read Overbye's book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 12:37, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to make a list of those that disagree with your views, because that list is exponentially longer than the list that agrees with even some of your views. That is what "mainstream" and "fringe" is all about. You have claimed there's evidence on certain pages of Einstein's plagiarism. Quote the relevant passage and explain how it shows Einstein plagiarized. --C S 13:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

"Kretschmann's paper, which appeared in the Annalen der Physik on December 21, 1915, apparently struck a chord with Einstein. By now, of course, the hole argument was an embarrassment, and he was eager for an answer. Five days later Albert wrote back to Ehrenfest, who had been pestering him about the hole problem, with an answer almost identical to Kretschmann's. Space-time points, he said, gain their identity not from coordinates but from what happens at them. The phrase he used was space-time coincidences.'40

'The physically real in the world of events (in contrast to that which is dependent upon the choice of a reference system) consists in spatiotemporal coincidences . . . and in nothing else!' he told Ehrenfest. Reality, he repeated to Besso, was nothing less than the sum of such point coincidences, where, say, the tracks of two electrons or a light ray and a photographic grain crossed.41

In his magnum opus on the new general relativity theory early in March 1916, Albert paralleled Kretschmann almost word for word: 'All our space-time verifications invariably amount to a determination of space-time coincidences. . . . Moreover, the results of our measurings are nothing but verifications of meetings of the material points of our measuring instruments with other material points, coincidences between the hands of a clock and points on the clock dial, and observed point-events happening at the same place at the same time.'42"

Quoted from Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance" (Viking, 2001): 296-297.

Note "40" Letter from A. Einstein to P. Ehrenfest of December 26, 1915, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 173 (Princeton University Press, 1998): 167.

Note "41" Letter from A. Einstein to M. Besso of January 3, 1916, from John Stachel's contribution "Einstein and the Rigidly Rotating Disk" to D. Howard and J. Stachel Editors, Einstein and the History of General Relativity, Volume 1, (Birkhauser 1989). The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 178, (Princeton University Press, 1996): 172.

Note "42" A. Einstein "Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie" Annalen der Physik 49 (1916): 769-822; as reproduced and translated to English in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6, Document 30, (Princeton University Press, 1996): 153.

Einstein, immediately after Kretschmann's work appeared, began reiterating it without mentioning Kretschmann.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 17:05, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I don't see any plagiarism here. Even Overbye is reluctant to take the final step and say Einstein plagiarized Kretschmann. In fact, Overbye continues by saying, on page 298, "Curiously, the normally generous Albert never mentioned Kretschmann's paper as the source of his inspiration about space-time coincidences." I wonder why Overbye just can't see the light. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that on page 295 (right before the pages you cite) Overbye mentions that Paul Hertz had earlier suggested basically the same idea to Einstein? Perhaps when several people arrive at the same idea, even if one published first, then nobody really cares if later that first publisher is not cited? Perhaps this would explain why the same journal that published Kretschmann's paper later published Einstein's paper which contained a portion that "paralleled Kretschmann" even without a reference to Kretschmann? --C S 19:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Where is it that Einstein cites Hertz or Kretschmann? The word "plagiarism" has no magical properties that place it above all other words. Overbye demonstrated Einstein's plagiarism. You try to excuse it by calling plagiarism, not-plagiarism, and then patronize Overbye as you have been trying to patronize me. I note that you left off the notation Overbye attached to his sentence "Curiously, the normally generous Albert never mentioned Kretschmann's paper as the source of his inspiration about space-time coincidences." Why didn't you quote the footnote on the same page referenced to this sentence with an asterisk, which is the only notation on the page? Quoting from Dennis Overbye "Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance" (Viking, 2001): 298, "The close timing of Kretschmann's paper and Albert's mention of 'space-time coincidences' to Ehrenfest led Howard and Norton to conclude that Albert had appropriated Kretschmann's idea." The note then goes on to explain why. In case you don't realize it, "appropriated" in this context means plagiarized. I once again ask you to conduct yourself in a courteous and responsible fashion and offer revisions to my proposal. If you refuse, I suggest we enter arbitration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 03:26, January 27, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, Winterberg has explicitly said his analysis cannot prove Einstein copied from Hilbert [22]: (begin quote from Register article) "My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that Einstein copied from Hilbert," he says. "It proves less, which is that it cannot be proved that Einstein could not have copied from Hilbert. But it proves that Hilbert had not copied from Einstein, as it has been insinuated following the paper by Corry, Renn and Stachel." Winterberg concludes that three people should be given credit for developing the general theory of relativity: Einstein, for recognising the shape of the problem, Grossmann for his insight that the contracted Riemann tensor was key to solving the problem, and Hilbert for completing the gravitational field theory equations. (end quote) When I have time I will investigate these other names you have dropped, but I suspect they will not come through for you as you claim. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect his views will change. Time will tell. Since Einstein had seen Hilbert's manuscript before changing his theory, Einstein must have copied Hilbert's ideas. Bjerknes proves this in many ways in his book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." We have as proof: Einstein's letter to Hilbert from November 18, 1915, stating that he had seen Hilbert's manuscript. Einstein's paper on the perihelion motion of Mercury which was submitted November 18, 1915 and which had incorrect gravitational field equations. Einstein's first footnote in that paper. The comments published on page 803 of the journal that published Einstein's paper submitted November 18, 1915. Hilbert's declarations of his priority. Einstein's acknowledgements of Hilbert's priority. The general acceptance by Hilbert's and Einstein's peers that Hilbert had derived the equations before Einstein. Jurgen Renn was right when he said, without his revisionism, the proper conclusion is that Einstein plagiarized Hilbert's work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

As for Einstein's Wife on PBS, they've aired speculative documentaries before, but I agree that if this documentary supported your claims it would indeed be a valid source. Unfortunately for you, this documentary does not conclude that Einstein stole his wife's work; it only raises the possibility and investigates somewhat the idea that Mileva Maric colloborated with her husband. One thing Bjerknes (and you) never explains is how Einstein can have both plagiarized all these famous men and at the same time have stolen the same ideas from his wife. That's a glaring contradiction in your theory. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look at

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/mileva.htm

which presents some of the evidence. If the Einsteins were partners, and Mileva approved of the publication of the papers with inadequate references, then both were plagiarists. If Mileva objected to the plagiarism and asked that her name not appear on the published paper, then Albert was the only plagiarist and he plagiarized the already plagiarized work. In other words, Albert may have taken credit for the plagiarized paper, which Mileva may have written or coauthored. That does not make the paper original, but it made Albert famous while Mileva suffered. I do not see a contradiction and I think Bjerknes is consistent. If person X steals or borrows a car from person Y and then person Z steals the same car from X and Y, Z is a thief.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 04:21, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

The documentary supports my claims by showing interviews with Evan Harris Walker, Senta Troemel-Ploetz and others who believe that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. Walker has also published articles in Physics Today, which state that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. John Stachel was interviewed in the documentary and published a criticism of Walker's article and he believes that Mileva was just a sounding board for Albert and if you want to mention that we can add it. The fact that the issue is worthy of a section in a encyclopedia article is demonstrated by Women in World History: A Biographical Encyclopedia, Volume 5, "Einstein-Maric, Mileva" (Yorkin Publications, 2000): 77-81, which is an encyclopedia that has addressed the issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 08:00, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

I said you contradicted yourself because you cite this PBS documentary; it does seem as though Bjerknes is consistent with respect to this issue. This documentary does not support your claim. These people you cite are not saying that Mileva was a co-plagiarist or plagiarized others and had her plagiaristic work stolen by Einstein. They are suggesting the possibility that Einstein stole his wife's original work on relativity, etc. You apparently don't see anything contradictory about propping up your idea that Mileva was a (co)plagiarist with assertions by people who believe that Mileva was not a plagiarist. But I do and I bet I'm not alone. One hallmark of your evidence thus far is that you frequently will cite a part of someone's work to support your case when the rest of that person's work refutes it. By this piecemeal fashion, you have generated quite a bit of "evidence". But I'm far from convinced by that kind of "evidence".

At this point what you're doing is more original research (which is not allowed on Wikipedia) rather than just citing someone who expresses your views. FastFission is correct in asserting that your researched material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's one thing to have some appropriate references to fringe theories and researchers but another (unacceptable) thing to do your own research and try to argue your ideas in an encylopedia article. In particular, you should think over why your reverted edits were reverted and what contributions are appropriate with respect to these issues you've raised.

C S 09:08, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

There are at least two historical issues involved and it is proper for me to rely upon different experts with regard to different issues. One of the issues is the question of whether or not Albert took credit for Mileva's work. I claim that he did and the PBS documentary supports that claim. Another issue is whether or not the work was plagiarized from another source. It is perfectly consistent and appropriate for me to rely upon other experts to answer that separate and distinct question. In the example of the stolen car, I might rely upon one set of experts to determine if Z's fingerprints were found on it, and another to determine if the engine was original to the car or had been replaced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 12:37, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't fit the situation. If indeed we were discussing a matter where there was a "smoking gun", e.g. fingerprints, same engine, etc., real facts that are undisputable, it would be a good analogy. But we are discussing a situation where you are citing expert opinions (assuming these people are qualifed). These kinds of opinions are not a matter of "here are the fingerprints and this is what I think", rather it is "here are some ambiguous data, I interpret them this way and this way". You only pick the part of the conclusion you like because the expert disagrees with you. Here's your analogy modified to fit the situation: expert A says he saw X steal the car. It is his expert opinion that it is so. As part of his opinion he states that not only did X steal the car, X was accompanied by Y who assisted. Another expert B gives her opinion: X was alone and did not steal the car, but merely walked by. You come along and cite A to demonstrate that X stole the car, and then cite B to demonstrate that X was alone. But the inconsistency here is that if these are indeed experts that you trust, what led you to discard part of their analyses and accept other parts?

In any case, you still don't understand how pointless this is. You're not going to get the page changed in the way you wanted with your edits. You still don't seem to understand why and you still don't seem to understand that at best that there will only be references to figures like Bjerknes's opinions (not yours) and that these references will point out that this is a fringe view. All this discussion has done nothing but demonstrate to everyone else that you're engaging in original research.

C S 13:40, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency with accepting point 1 made by expert A when the facts indicate that A is correct on point one, and not accepting point 2 made by expert A when the facts indicate that A is incorrect on point two. For example, consider the fact that Overbye cited Renn, Stachel and Corry's paper on Hilbert and Einstein and obviously Overbye was wrong in his conclusions on this point, but that does not mean that everything Overbye ever wrote must be discarded. I gave you a link to some of the facts which lead me to accept the conclusion that Albert took credit for Mileva's work. I gave you a link which led me to accept the conclusion that Poincare published the special theory of relativity before the Einsteins, that they never gave him adequate credit, and that Poincare's theory was superior to theirs. I see no conflict in agreeing with Overbye's book on the point of Kretschmann and disagreeing with it about Mileva Maric. I have proven to you that Albert's plagiarism of Mileva's work is a widely held view that has been published and discussed in mainstream venues. That is what is required for the view to appear in an encyclopedia and I have proven to you that the issue has indeed been published in a mainstream encyclopedia. I have not said that I want the page changed to my specifications without edits. On the contrary I have welcomed discussion and patiently and politely responded to it. I have invited you to offer changes and the invitation is still open. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 17:14, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

You've proven no such things. You've misused quotes and taken things out of context to support a wide mesh of nonsense. You are obviously a POV pusher and you're not going to get your way no matter how much you whine about censorship and have no seeming understanding of what is "mainstream" and what is not. Go find some alternative place to push your crackpot theories, it'll be a better use of your time than hassling us on here. --Fastfission 18:28, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that you are led to believe things by very scanty evidence as I've repeatedly seen now. You also have a problem with understanding the differences between plagiarism and improper attribution, among other things. Even if Lagunov is correct that Poincare basically had the special theory of relativity published before Einstein, and even if Einstein was very familiar with Poincare's work, you cannot conclude plagiarism. You can only conclude improper attribution. It's laughable that you think that the obscure Einstein could somehow plagiarize the incredibly famous and respected Poincare and not only get away with it but reap great fame. The proper conclusion is that Einstein made contributions considered important enough that he garnered much credit from his peers. Even Lagunov admits in his book that Einstein made important contributions to special relativity; he just thinks that Poincare's were more important.

You have not proven what you say: that thinking Einstein plagiarized his wife's work is a "widely held view". It did appear as you say, in the Women in World History: a biographical encyclopedia. But that is hardly a mainstream source. In fact, when I went to find it, I found it had the same call number range with all these books on feminist revisionist history. And when I read the entry on Einstein-Maric, I found it was absurdly biased and clearly biased toward trying to promote Einstein-Maric as a victim. The evidence it gave for her alleged collaboration was based entirely on out of context quotes and an innuendo that because Einstein's greatest work was done when he was young and still married to Einstein-Maric, she obviously did his math for him.

My patience has run out. You continually show ignorance of Wikipedia policy and are unable to see the obvious errors in your thinking. I only regret I've spent this much time on this matter, but hopefully it has benefitted the Wikipedia community in some way.

C S 19:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted to discuss the matter in a civil fashion with you. Wikipedia policy asks you to suggest revisions to my proposal and you have not done so. I have shown you numerous mainstream accounts that merit an entry into the Wikipedia Einstein page and you have redefined mainstream as completely agrees with Chan-Ho. You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have clearly stated. I have repeatedly shown that your logic is flawed. If you are not out to simply censor valid entries into the encyclopedia, then suggest changes. Otherwise, since my good faith efforts have not succeeded in persuading you to follow Wikipedia policy, I suggest it is time for arbitration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 20:14, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

One important and valuable point has been raised by this discussion however. There should be some portion of the article devoted to the Hilbert-Einstein controversy. It is indeed a controversy (although perhaps not a great one), but I haven't seen any definitive evidence either way. It should perhaps have its own page as neither the Einstein nor Hilbert articles seem a fitting place for such material. --C S 03:17, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." There is much more evidence presented there than in the journal articles. -- 24.15.188.92 04:21, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You keep mentioning Logunov as if he supports your theory. But he does not, as has been pointed out by DJ Clayworth. Indeed, in the paper you cite by Logunov (and two coauthors), it is said: "According to the standard point of view Einstein and Hilbert independently of each other and in different ways, discovered the gravitational field equations." The emphasis is mine and I did it to emphasize that Logunov and coauthors are first off admitting that this is the standard view (cf my comment right above where I was unsure what the consensus over the Hilbert-Einstein situation was).

Next, they actually conclude that the standard view is indeed correct! From the conclusion of their paper:"The analysis, undertaken in Sections 1 and 2, shows that Einstein and Hilbert inependently [sic] discovered the gravitational field equations. Their pathways were different but they led exactly to the same result. Nobody "nostrified" the other...All is absolutely clear: both authors made everything to immortalize their names in the title of the gravitational field equations. (their emphasis) But general relativity is Einstein's theory."

So this famous man you cite in fact disputes plagiarism by both Einstein and Hilbert! Not only that, he cites Bjerknes only to reference some portions of some historical documents. The citation not only proves nothing, but given the content of the paper is clearly only meant to reference these documents and not meant to say the authors agreed with Bjerknes. DJ Clayworth has basically pointed this out, but you seem incapable of understanding these points. You can keep citing famous people whose work do not support your theory as support for your theory, but you're only increasing your reputation of crankhood. All you've proven thus far is that Bjerknes is indeed very much alone in claiming what he does and that there is some controversy over the Hilbert-Einstein business but that the consensus is that Hilbert and Einstein are each given credit. --C S 03:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Logunov, and the other authors thank Bjerknes for helpful discussion in addition to citing his book for the publication of the proofs (I believe the citation in the first instance is more than just a reference to the publication of the proofs but also refers to the substantial commentary on the missing section found in Bjerknes's book "Anticipations of Einstein in the General Theory of Relativity." Bjerknes writes about a 2 1/2 page explanation where the missing section is indicated). I understand what Logunov has said, and my reference to his paper was to the fact that he has proven that Renn, Stachel and Corry's revisionism is incorrect. Do you dispute that Logunov has refuted their revisionism? I disagree with Logunov, et al's assertion that Einstein could not have copied from Hilbert, and their assertion simply does not agree with the facts. There most certainly has been a priority dispute, so I disagree with them on that point, also. I have also cited Logunov's book on Poincare in which he proves that Poincare published the special theory of relativity before Einstein. Do you disagree with my conclusion that that is what Logunov has said? Please understand that one aspect of plagiarism is the fact that one person publishes the work before another and when I say that Logunov has discussed Einstein's plagiarism I mean that Logunov has discussed the fact that Poincare anticipated Einstein and that Einstein failed to give Poincare due credit. Do you believe I am mistaken on that point? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 05:06, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

The point you're mistaken on is whether or not this belongs on an encyclopedia, which is all that matters here. Your own confusion about historical issues, usage of sources, and the history of physics has no bearing on the fact that this stuff doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. The fact that you are deliberately lumping in people who you know don't share your conclusions only further points out your intellectual dishonesty. --Fastfission 05:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fastfission has twice modified his/her original post to make it increasingly insulting. Wikipedia asks that I not respond to insulting posts, so I will not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.188.92 (talk • contribs) 05:50, January 26, 2005 (UTC)

If saying that you are intellectually dishonest is "increasingly insulting" then I'm happy to insult you, you poor little victim, you. --Fastfission 18:30, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bjerknes is self-published fringe which is not accepted by any established historians (whom he believes, if I recall, are all on the pro-Einstein dole). Winterberg is an established physicist but not a historian (and is fairly fringe himself, with a lot of ties to the LaRouche cult). These sorts of fringe don't belong in an article on Albert Einstein. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it belongs in an article specifically on this question (along the lines of Abraham Lincoln's sexuality and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations). In any event, it cannot be done in a way which appears that this is a mainstream view ("Numerous people" != three fringe authors and the wackos who follow them). --Fastfission 02:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a website dedicated to expounding, promoting, cataloguing, or debunking fringe theories. Rather, it is a compilation of generally-accepted information. If every article had to devote space to any existing fringe theories regarding its subject, we would greatly decrease our usefulness as an encyclopedia. Isomorphic 23:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Getting into a revert war is not a civil and responsible fashion, so you're not quite in a position to start talking about your moral superiority yet. And it's clear you have little discussion in mind when your first urge is to "complain." There is an entire page here now about why people don't want to include this. I'll repeat it for the sake of civility:

• Your sources are fringe figures discredited by mainstream scientists and historians.
• Your writing takes for granted their truth and shows no evidence of the fact that the "facts" and opinions you cite are not respected by mainstream scientists and historians.
• These sections add undue emphasis to what is considered a fringe and unscholarly theory.

As I wrote above, an encyclopedia entry on a figure should not have a fourth of it devoted to a fringe theory. It would be akin to having half of the article on nuclear weapons be devoted to a theory about how they were potentially powered by energy from God's big toe. If the latter crazy theory were popular enough to warrent attention from popular society, so that when one went to an article on nuclear weapons you would expect the Big Toe of God theory to be at least acknowledged, then it could have a separate page created for it (such as Abraham Lincoln's sexuality and Apollo moon landing hoax accusations) so that it would not mar up the main article with a fringe discussion.

Hopefully that will make some of these objections a little more clear. I expect you will discuss this in a civil manner now, right? --Fastfission 23:05, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feb 2005 – Aug 2005

einstein and education.

I think it would be good to include in the opening definition the fact that einstein left school with no formal qualifications other than a basic diploma and later a teaching diploma that was 'granted' to him by the same highschool.

the mention of his 'graduation' is misleading, It is I believe, an american term for completing school, In europe it signifies the gaining of a degree, something that einstein did not do, except for perhaps honourary degrees later in life. Even his doctorate was granted once his unconventional genious was recognised, after many years of submitting papers as a totaly unqualified author, .

I mention this because Einstein is often cited as a brilliant man worth emulating, i which case the highly unconventional nature of his brilliance should be clear, if only to encourage other non-academic brilliance that may be out there.

DavidP 19:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Autodidactic?

Why?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hexii (talk • contribs) 15:59, March 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can't see any reason for this classification either, so I'm removing it. --Susurrus 23:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I miss a part of this article

including: categories, interwiki, external links. I think the article is too long.--Emes 16:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Einstein bros. bagel company?

Is this bagel company anywhere notable enough to be listed at the top of an article about Albert Einstein? It seems a little silly to me. --Fastfission 19:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I changed it to a more appropriate disambig link. --Fastfission 19:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

Can we remove the hideous infobox? For one thing it's redundant; for another, why is that quote more representative than any other and who gets to choose it? - Fredrik | talk 19:33, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support. I agree for the reasons you've stated. There's no need for it, it doesn't really add anything except by killing some of the whitespace, and the quote seems arbitrary. --Fastfission 03:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I removed it but ChristopherWillis added it back. I have removed it again. Jooler 08:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Though I don't like it, I think we ought to try and talk about it before just removing and reverting. --Fastfission 13:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Was it talked about before adding it? Jooler 13:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Does it really matter? --Fastfission 07:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Support Sebastian 01:56, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

Began to admire the church

I came across this. Is it true? If so, I think it should be mentioned in the religion part of this article.

"Pius XII’s public efforts moved Albert Einstein to write to TIME magazine in 1940 that, in face of the Nazi barbarism, "only the Church remained standing to halt the progress of Hitler's campaigns to do away with truth. In the past I never felt any interest for the Church, but now I feel great love and admiration for her, as the Church was the only one with the courage and tenacity to support intellectual truth and moral freedom. I must admit that what I once despised, I now praise unconditionally."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanGM (talk • contribs) 01:39, March 14, 2005 (UTC)

• http://users.binary.net/polycarp/piusxii.html - seems to apply more to the pope's article - not about Einstein's religious views, more about but his views about the role of churches--JimWae 02:01, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

This would be a remarkable quote indeed. However, it sounds unlikely for three reasons: (1) I am not aware of any quote according to which E. "despised" the Church before 1940. That's a term he reserved for nationalism, racism and the military. (2) "the church was the only one" is an incoplete statement. The only what? This does not sound like the statement of someone who thinks deeply about what he says. Could be just a bad translation, though. (2) "unconditionally" sounds unusual for someone who usually did qualify his statements, given that "[t]here was little in the way of organized resistance to the Nazis' anti-Semitic policies by any Christian group during the 1930s in Germany"* (That was the original quote. I am toning it down there because there was some organized opposition.) and that there clearly was at least some collusion between official parts of the Church with the Nazi regime. Sebastian 04:11, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I can look it up, if people are interested (it wouldn't be that difficult). That would only confirm that TIME published it, not whether the quote itself was true, of course.--Fastfission 05:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that Einstein didn't fail math?

Is there any evidence that Einstein didn't fail that math class? I've seen a quote by a supposed teacher of Einstein (one Karl Arbeiter) that states that Einstein failed a class in grade school. So far, I've not been able to find the source for that, but it is apparently quoted on academic web pages, as well. At least that needs a link to a debunking website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.131.227.3 (talk • contribs) 12:48, March 16, 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at this: http://leiwen.tripod.com/diplo.gif it's the diploma of Einstein when he finished his school in Switzerland. Well, if the scanned picture is not a fraud, then he had he 6 in all mathematical branches, 6 in physics and 5 in chemistry. The tricky thing is: In Germany 1 is best and 6 is very bad. But in Switzerland, it's exactly the other way round, 6 ist best and 1 is very bad! I personaly see this as one source of the beleive that Einstein was a bad student at school. But in reality, he was a very good one. So failing a class in math and have these grades afterwards? I doubt that.

cheers

Thom

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.129.206.71 (talk • contribs) 08:35, April 6, 2005 (UTC)

I remember reading/hearing that the "Einstein flunked math" meme came from a confusion about the grading system. So that sounds right. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it is true that he didn't consider himself a particularly good mathematician. Isomorphic 05:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

shure, there is this phrase: "don't worry about your dificulties in mathematics. can assure you, that mine are still greater." but that is his personal opinion about himself. it's not really objective isn't it? he had problems to put his ideas of physics into mathematical formulations and thus to check whether they are correct. that is not an easy task! and it's on a completely different level than the stuff you learn in school. i think a lot of people want to believe that he flunked math because he is seen as the super genius by many and this would bring him a little closer to "normal mortals" like us :-)

cheers, thom

{unsigned2|16:47, April 12, 2005|129.129.206.71}}

Why is he on German-Americans and German people lists

He wasn't German, so why is he on these lists? I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 04:36, April 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Article says he was born in Germany, no?
  • Just because hes born somewhere doesnt make him that. I could take a woman to Bhutan and make her have a child there, it doesn't make the child Bhutanese. He dodged military service and fled to Switzerland also, not something a German would do. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 05:59, April 14, 2005 (UTC)
• No true Scotsman is a logical fallacy
  • Your statement that no true Scotsman is a logical fallacy is a fallacy, embodied logical fallacies can be Scotsmen too!;) —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:04, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
• If he lived in Germany his first 16 years or so, then "in 1914, just before the start of World War I, Einstein settled in Berlin as professor at the local university and became a member of the Prussian Academy of Sciences... and took German citizenship" there's every good reason to say he was German. -- and Swiss, and American
• You know the difference between Nazis & Germans? Einstein was friends with Germans (such as Albert Schweizer) - so saying he hated Germans his whole life is not only unencyclopedic, but false.
• Do you live under a bridge & keep lots of fishing lure? --JimWae 06:14, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

He hated Germans as a whole, he may have got along with individual ones but, as a whole he detested them. Plus, Jews can't be Germans, according to many Jews and Germans alike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 00:34, April 15, 2005 (UTC)

• • Don't you have something better to do than troll online encyclopedias? --Fastfission 00:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Einstein was German
• he didn't hate all Germans and
• there are many german Jews (even though many ware killed 60 years ago).

--MartinS 16:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He was German, plain and simple. The only people who dont qualify him as German seem to be people like Hitler. Do you like Hitler? I know I don't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canaduh (talk • contribs) 20:51, April 16, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein was born in bred in Germany until he was 16 years old. That makes him clearly a German, regardless whether he hated Germans. Andries 10:46, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Well, yes and no. The question is whether German refers to a nationality or something more transient, like an "ethinicity". If the former, it should be noted that he gave up his German citizenship very deliberately at one point, and spent most of his life not being a German. If the latter, we can problematize the notion of what it means to be "German" at all. Generally I believe Wikipedia policy is to go with self-identification, and I'm not sure Einstein would have ever identified himself along with any single country. The question is: should we bother to include a national identification at all? Is it helpful? Is it meaningful? Is it necessary? I'm very suspicious of the "we claim him" game when it comes to scientists, and I'm halfway sympathetic to the statement that since the German government officially decried him and his work (indeed, led an organized campaign against him), Einstein might have the right to decry his association with them back, and that would be something we ought to respect. (EB puts him as German-American, though, just as a note) --Fastfission 14:19, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hes not German, repeat, not German, in any way shape or form. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He was born in Germany, a German citizen, son of German citizens. What more does it take? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

How about being a German? That usually helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.228.86 (talk • contribs) 04:49, June 2, 2005 (UTC)

What makes someone "a German"? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not including a national identification makes sense. The work he is known for (and that's why he has his place in an encyclopedia) was published long before he became an American. So, emphasizing American nationality seems inadequate. Other people have mentioned reasons why emphasizing German nationality would be inadequate, too. So, let's just drop that information from the introduction. Anyone who really needs to know more about his nationality can read the rest of the article. Nationality is one of the most irrelevant pieces of information anyways. --171.64.204.98 22:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

As we're apparently dealing with someone who contends that Jews cannot be German, I don't think there can be any basis for agreement here. Life is too short. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Jew is a Jew eternally nothing else, not a German not a Spaniard not an Irishman but, a Jew. How would Jews feel if some Germans just came to Israel and started saying that they are also Israeli's? They wouldn't like it. Einstein isn't German, just because his name is made up of two German words doesn't make him German. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.214.87 (talk • contribs) 03:14, June 6, 2005 (UTC)

You don't have to be a Jew to be an Israeli; where did you get that notion? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is getting scarily like a Usenet discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, so many people do not understand the difference between Nationality, Ethnicity, and Religion. One can be ethnically semetic and not believe in Judaism. One can be German and believe in Judaism. One can be ethnically germanic and live in another country besides germany. Why is it so hard to believe Einstein was a German. Einstein's family lived in Germany for generations, he was a German citizen, and spoke german. All germans were not Nazis. Nazis were members of the National Socialist Workers Party, and not all Germans liked the Nazis. Einstein was one of the Germans who did not like Nazis. Einstein did believe nationalism was "the measels of humanity", but that doesn't mean he hated Germany. It just means he did not like Nazis, or believe in the State above all else. <ProgressivePantheist>

• sigh* I think my IQ drops ten points every time I read one of "unsigned"'s comments. My God, some people are ignorant!

--\Dev\Null —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.39.8 (talk • contribs) 22:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

E, mc2, etc

I removed the following text as being highly suspicious:

This connection of mass, energy and the speed of light was deduced first by Friedrich Hasenöhrl and published in Annalen der Physik, vol 15, 1904. This was the same journal that Einstein published his derivation in a year later. He used Maxwell's equations for the pressure exerted by light applied to an evacuated container undergoing an acceleration. The calculation was somewhat complicated, and he got a proportionality of 4/3 rather than the correct value of 1, however.

Given that most sites on the internet which mention this are crackpot "Einstein was a plaigiarist" sites, I'm going to insist on a legitimate citation before including this in an article. A full JSTOR search of "Hasenöhrl einstein" yields nothing. --Fastfission 18:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Good work. If I'd have seen something like that I'd remove it too. --Technogiddo 14:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Four or five papers?

In the section "Work and doctorate", it says:

That same year, he wrote four articles that provided the foundation of modern physics, without much scientific literature to which he could refer or many scientific colleagues with whom he could discuss the theories.

In the References section, it says:

John Stachel, Einstein's Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics, Princeton University Press, 1998, ISBN 0691059381

Which is correct?? The Wikipedia article only mentions four papers. --Susurrus 07:20, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, the fifth paper was actually his thesis. I've included the original German title for it as well. --Susurrus 23:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's religious beliefs

There is evidence he may of been a Deist. Since he did not come out and flat say he was a pantheist. I think this conjecture should be noted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.166.5.13 (talk • contribs) 06:51, April 17, 2005 (UTC)

Pantheist, Deist, and more?

Einstein believed in as he put it "Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists." Spinoza is the founder of Pantheism. Deism is the polar opposite of pantheism, because Deism is a form of dualism - not monism - and believes in a transcendant clockmaker god... not in a pantheistic immanent God - <ProgressivePantheist, May 25>

Just because he comments favorably on Spinoza a few times, does not mean he is not a Deist. The quote in article uses much of the terminology of Deism & uses a lot of language that suggests a god that is a separately identifiable entity. Deism has often been criticized for its pantheism, as pantheism has often been for its near atheism -- also see pandeism & panentheism & panendeism--JimWae 17:29, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Pantheist Only

This quote clearly shows he is only a pantheist: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Pandeism is just a synonym for pantheism that, as a term, has no purpose of existing, and panedeism is different from pantheism since it believes in a god that is transcendant and immanent. Pantheists believe in a wholly immanent God. Pantheists will describe God as the perfection of the universe, or as einstein said "the structure of our world". He said nothing of believing in a transcendant God. Maybe some deists say the same things, but they would be miscategorizing themselves if they do.

Deism still promotes the belief in Heaven and Souls, and anthropomorphizes god. Hence why the Deism wikipedia page refers to God as a "He" and gives him the human characteristics. Here is one example from that page "In this view, the reason God does not intervene in the world (via miracles) is not simply that he does not care, but rather that he has already created the best of all possible worlds and any intervention could not improve it." Einstein would not make baseless assumptions like this and is therefore a pantheist, and believes exactly what he stated and nothing remotely like the quote above. The fact that Einstein mentions Spinoza specifically should've given you enough of a clue though

Again one more quote from the einstein page to prove my point: Victor J. Stenger, author of Has Science Found God? (2001), wrote of Einstein's presumed pantheism, "Both deism and traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic theism must also be contrasted with pantheism, the notion attributed to Baruch Spinoza that the deity is associated with the order of nature or the universe itself." This means that pantheism is at odds with the judeo-christian view and also at odds with deism. This supports my claim that deism is the polar opposite of pantheism.

ProgressivePantheist 22:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Those arguments are interesting, but he was still described as both a Deist and a Pantheist, regardless of whether you think they are the polar opposites of each other. Please stop removing attested facts from the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I reordered the page, to help with the clarity ProgressivePantheist 03:25, June 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seemed to be more pushing a POV than helping with clarity. Let Einstein speak for himself, please, before your promote your own favoured view. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:31, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol let Einstein speak for himself... He did... he says he believes in Spinoza's God. Spinoza is the foremost pantheist philosopher. Go to Spinoza's page and look it up if you dont believe me. One cannot be deist and pantheist, It is like saying one is Christian and Islamic, it doesnt work. ProgressivePantheist 19:59, June 7, 2005 (UTC)

Your POV is fascinating, as always. However, please stop trying to promote your own POV on the article page itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between POV and obvious undeniable fact ProgressivePantheist 22:01, June 7, 2005 (UTC)

Please review the WP:NPOV policy; Wikipedia doesn't attempt to decide what is "undeniable fact"; instead it presents properly cited POVs on what the facts are. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you look up pantheism and deism in google, you get this site: http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/pantheism.htm It states in there that pantheism and deism are "polar opposites"... how's that for relevant citation. I already tried citing from this same page but you guys didn't like that, I hope this will take things from clear to crystal clear ProgressivePantheist 06:35, June 8, 2005

If you cannot understand why that is irrelevant to both my statements and this article, then I cannot help you. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

TM

Re the third pg, who registered his name as a trademark? Did he in say 1904, or did someone else do it last year? -SV|t 01:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting question; I e-mailed the company to see if I could get a response. I'll let you know if they get back to me. --Fastfission 16:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• A quick search of Patent and Trademark Office turns up a couple hundred trademarks using "Einstein", quite a few of which are the term Einstein alone. Trademarks are associated with specific items; so, for example, Einstein Brother Bagels and Albert Einstein stuffed toys and Einstein Wireless Communications co-exist quite happily. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The head of the Roger Richman Agency referred me to this article as a source of information on the topic. However it doesn't seem to have much on the history of it. As for its "use" -- it depends on how they have legally set it up. It is possible to trademark "celebrity" (i.e. Bela Lugosi's "I vant to suck your blaauudd") but it can be very tricky in court, and I'm not sure how it works after the celebrity in question has died (usually such things are held as forms of intellectual property because the persona has been "developed", however Einstein simply was Einstein, and it is hard to know how would could legally "develop" a personality of "being yourself" which extended indefinitely beyond one's grave!). Ah, this would be a wonderful and sexy little history paper to write... --Fastfission 01:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why no infobox?

?

Sam Spade 04:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that they were generally considered ugly and ultimately unnecessary. His name and birth/death dates/locations are easy to find (and the locations are generally not the first thing anybody needs to know about any given figure). There is also no criteria to decide what is the "paradigmatic quote", either, if that is still a continued field. In any event, we once had a very small discussion on it, with nobody actively supporting the infobox, so I reverted the addition as it was not discussed on the talk page. The "multiple times" reference in my initial comment seems incorrect as I look over the talk archive, and I imagine I am confusing it with the vote against the box at Charles Darwin.

If we wanted to vote again, I'd vote no infobox, for the reasons I've given. I don't think it improves anything, and I think it is ugly. --Fastfission 05:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting is very, very wrong. See User:Sam Spade/Voting is anti-wiki. Prost, Sam Spade 06:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Uh, okay. That aside, how exactly do you propose making aesthetic decisions such as this? It's not terribly helpful to post links to your cute little opinion pages without suggesting a clear alternative, you know. --Fastfission 14:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other biographies have infoboxes and there should be one here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:34, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

If all the other kids jumped off a bridge...

Seriously, the article looks so much better now. Infoboxes are only useful for presenting in a tight way important information that isn't (1) patently obvious (2) easily findable in the first paragraph. In this case, the first sentence states birth and death, while your average internet user knows more about who he is than could be conveyed in an infobox. Therefore I think that one would add nothing.

Also, although Wikipedia is not a democracy, one has to arrive at a consensus somehow. It looks like that has already happened here, but I welcome further discussion.--Laura Scudder | Talk 19:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there is indeed concensus to keep out the taxobox, I don't intend to violate it. That said, I think the issue can be discussed w/o fear of voting ;) Sam Spade 21:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Swiss/German?

Perhaps Einstein should have the last word? He famously remarked, "if relativity is proved right the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew." --RobertG ♬ talk 11:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The Germans called him a Jew, does that mean relativity is wrong? --Technogiddo 14:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You might not be aware that most Germans today would call him a German. The fact that he is also Jewish is acknowledged, of course.--171.64.204.98 22:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ch-Ch-Changes

I'd appreciate it if things like adding an infobox or changing the main picture were discussed here first -- while people should "be bold," they are major changes in the aesthetic appearance of the article, and I disagree that the TIME magazine photo is the one which should be the primary photograph for him (it puts far too much importance on what TIME thinks -- if they had made someone else person of the century it wouldn't have reduced Einstein's achievements one bit). I also removed the unsourced and in my mind likely ridiculous notion about his estimated IQ from the lead paragraph. Whether or not such a speculative line -- even with a reputable source -- should be included in the article is a question which should be raised in general, but the idea that it should be in the lead section is, in my mind, ridiculous. --Fastfission 04:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An infobox is good thing to have on biographies.

The main picture can be changed .... why discuss it here first?

These are not major changes in the aesthetic appearance.

The TIME magazine photo is the one which should be the primary photograph for him. Why does it put so much importance on what TIME thinks? It's just another accolade [though a bigger one then some] (and a good pic of him, better than the one that was there). If they had made someone else person of the century it wouldn't have reduced Einstein's achievements one bit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 15:20, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) I strongly support FF in disliking the Time promo material photo, and indeed in his entire point that Times opinion matters not one whit.

Connelly, don't remove information (if you see the diff in the history, you did that!)

Time promo material photo? It a good shot of Einstien. I put in the 1905 shot insteade though (1905 being his best year of work).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:25, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

I am highly suspicious that you are trying to "game the system" here. Making a lot of big changes (i.e. the infobox, picture changes, etc), then add a bunch of little details, then use the "removal" of those details when people revert the big changes as an excuse to revert. I've gone through (TWICE now) and tried to fix any such edits that happen after the infobox, picture changes, etc. so that no content changes are lost. This is in itself a good reason to stop making those sorts of changes before they are discussed, because they are hard to undo. Nobody has any desire to "remove content" -- they are just trying to undo these other, non-content changes. So please stop making them for the moment. --Fastfission 16:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think infoboxes are ugly and totally unnecessary. His name, birth and death day, and locations are easy to see in the article itself. Let's discuss it before trying to add it in. Work with me here.
• Because if everybody just changes it on a whim, then I'm just going to revert it on a whim. What I'm saying is, I think that TIME magazine image is a really awful main page image. So if you disagree with me, you'd better discuss it here with me! That's a polite way to put it.
• If you had spent 10 minutes trying to carefully undo those changes without reverting other edits already made, you'd find them to be less than minor changes too! Aside from that, they change the entire tone of the first page of the article, I consider that pretty important.
• I very much dislike the TIME magazine image. I don't think it captures anything about the man himself and I dislike that TIME is written across his forehead as well. Their opinion of him doesn't matter one bit -- their sanction means nothing towards whether he accomplished great things. (I'd take a Nobel Prize over TIME's approval any day of the week!)
• So let's discuss this a bit and see what other people think. I consider these to be big enough changes that I'd revert them if they were undiscussed. Now the main picture is grainy. That doesn't work either. Let's not get into a revert war -- I'm pleading with you people to discuss it here first, come to some sort of agreement. --Fastfission 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other main reason to discuss it here first is that it is incredibly difficult to undo JUST those sorts of changes if any other changes in content have been made. So let's figure all that out before making other changes to content, because otherwise we're likely to accidentally lose other changes. --Fastfission 16:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think infoboxes are nice looking. His name, birth and death day, and locations are easier to see in the infobox. Let's discuss it before rmoving it (as it was there early on). I'll work with you.
• The TIME magazine image isn't that awful, but I think the 1905 would be a better main image (1st one seen).
• I carefully undo changes without reverting other edits already made and I do find them to be minor changes. Howq do they change the entire tone of the first page of the article?
• These are not really big enough changes to throuw a fit about. I'd revert any blatant mass reversion.
• The main picture isn't grainy. Why doesn't work for you?
• Let's not get into a revert war -- I'm pleading with you to discuss it here first.
• -- Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:41, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) You're pleading with us to give up and accept your version. That won't happen. Discuss changes on talk first. And SIGN YOUR POSTS.

(William M. Connolley 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) BTW folks, the anon here appears to be the same as the one over at Dynamic theory of gravity if you care to take a look...

(William M. Connolley 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) AND apparent attempts to put AE's name on the aether page [23]

You've broken the Three Revert Rule. Please stop. The reason we need to discuss it without your picture changes first is that they are not easy to fix. Which you'd know if you tried to carefully undo them without disturbing the other content that was added since they were added! --Fastfission 16:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops, we both reported her. I've removed my report. William M. Connolley 17:08, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Now he/she's scrambled everything up. The whole thing needs a clean reversion. The only thing I can see of any value is fixing the spelling of "mad scientist" at the bottom, but I don't see the point in doing it if the whole thing is likely to be reverted back in the future (and I don't want to do that myself because I don't want to go over my own 3RR). This is ridiculous. Appealing to some version from six months ago as a precedent to continue this sort of revert war, without discussing it, is not "working with us." --Fastfission 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the infobox was removed on 18 Jan 2005 by Gzornenplatz ... it should not have been -- Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 17:16, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

if there isn't a infobox, then there shouldn't be any pictures @ the intro. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 17:17, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

You have no basis for "it should not have been", and now you're just committing petty vandalism. --Fastfission 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

revert explanation

I reverted the page a few minutes ago because the 20:54, 15 Jun 2005 version somehow was returned. But for some reason the version before mine in the history is different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ted-m (talk • contribs) 19:54, June 16, 2005 (UTC)

Kilobytes long

The page was 49 kilobytes long. Moving the Papers took off 5kb. It's now 44 kilobytes long. Some synopsis of facts and links to main articles would help this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 14:30, June 28, 2005 (talk • contribs) 204.56.7.1.

BTW, note to all watching this article: Annus Mirabilis Papers has been spawned off from it, and (sigh) needs watching too. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 16:26:12 (UTC).

Everything in the Papers articles is cited. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 16:50, June 30, 2005 (UTC)

This is your tradiational confusion. It is not true that everything that can be cited belongs in an article, and it would save rather a lot of effort if you could learn that. William M. Connolley 2005-06-30 17:17:10 (UTC).

Einstein's Quotes

I've removed this section from the page. It duplicates the Wikiquote in much less detail and without citation. Any objections? S.N. Hillbrand 18:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Swiss citizen?

Why is the fact that he was a Swiss citizen left out of the introduction?

"German-born American theoretical physicist"

The two countries that maybe is the most twinned with Einstein is Germany and Switzerland. Remember that he made all of his now famous works while he was in Switzerland/Germany. And I also think that most people tend to se him as German/Swiss - not "German-born American". So if there is just room for two different nationalities to be mentioneed then it should be German-born Swiss.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.89.229.207 (talk • contribs) 21:29, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein as film maker

I remember reading as a child that Einstein dabbled in film making when he was younger and living in Germany. Perhaps this is worth a mention in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamKF (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and quantum mechanics

His position seems to be similar to that of the last great alchemists relative to chemistry: he helped discover it but did not ever really believe it. --David R. Ingham 21:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion

There needs to be a little more info in the Religion section; particularily about what Einstein means when he mentions a "God". Does he mean it in a "being" form or simply a supreme non-being form (as in, god IS nature; sort of like Pantheism). Does Einstein believe in a being who created the universe, and left it untouched; or did he mean Pantheism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.2.47.248 (talk • contribs) 00:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's Last Words.

There appears to be a contradiction with respect to the description of Einstein's death. The statement says that Einsteind died in his sleep. But this is followed by the statement that the nurse said that he mumbled something in German before he died. So was he awake when he died or was he mumbling in his sleep. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.167.91 (talk • contribs) 11:22, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sep 2005 – Dec 2005

Einstein's neice

I.Q. (film) is a movie revolving around Einstein's neice Elizabeth Boyd. Is she fictional ? Einstein's only sibling Maja, didn't have children, so is the neice from one of his cousins ? Jay 18:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I got the answer from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Jay 10:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Jay, I believe she's totally fictional. At least, I have seen no references to any niece of Albert Einstein... On, and actually, the name of the character is Catherine Boyd, instead of Elizabeth. At least, this is what I read on IMDB.com. Milena 19:36, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Omissions

While the article is excellent, it misses two important points:

1. The fact that, from an early age, Einstein went off religion (apparently it made no sense to him)
2. His continued work against nuclear warfare in the last 10 years of his life.

203.129.48.8 06:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Categorization

From Wikipedia:categorization:

An article with the same name as a category should usually belong only to that category, for instance, Deism belongs only in Category:Deism.

Admitedly it is a guideline, but I think that it is a good one. That is why I moved the categorization to the category. Now it has been moved back. I would like to discuss that matter somewhat. Perhaps the guideline needs some work in this case.

--EMS | Talk 01:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself; it is strange to have an article on a person have no category other than itself, and it also makes the Albert Einstein category show up a bit strangely in other categories. For example, Albert Einstein, the person, had something important to do with the Manhattan Project, so he should be in Category:Manhattan Project. But when the cats are all in the category Category:Albert Einstein, then he appears as a sub-category of the Manhattan Project. Which isn't quite right. Only the person is meant by such a reference -- the Einstein's refrigerator has nothing to do with the Manhattan Project and shouldn't be in that category at all (though it is by sub-categorization).

I think the problem is that Category:Albert Einstein really means, if it is no so named, "Things associated with Albert Einstein", which is not the same thing as "The human being, Albert Einstein", which is what all of these categories (birth and death dates, etc.) refer to.

--Fastfission 15:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Aspergers

What is the relevance of mentioning a spurious mental disease and saying it is alleged to be part of the foundation of Einstein's intellect? This specious malady is only important to numerous male internet users because using reductive reasoning they can self-diagnose themselves just like Asperger's namesake. Unfortunately any criticism of the darling of the so-called 'geek' subculture, apparently this is as chic as an open discussion about who's taking which meds and the last time someone cut themselves for livejournal, only serves to rile up the Ass Pies. Aspergers did not write Einstein's 1905 papers. Einstein wrote them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.53.17.160 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your opinion. Please familiarize yourself with our neutral point of view and original research policies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Einstein, Newton, and Asperger Syndrome From Mary Kugler
• Einstein and Newton showed signs of autismfrom the New Scientist
• Einstein and Newton 'had autism'From the BBC

These links are to sources of high standing. I think the theory improves this featured Article. Psychologists of high standing believe Asperger's syndrome is real. Others disagree. Aspergers may be unreal. Assuming that the condition is definitely unreal is unscientific. Barbara Shack 17:52, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should go without saying that calling Asperger's Syndrome a "spurious mental disease"/"specious malady" is more than a little insulting to some of us, Mr./Ms. Unsigned User. *bites thumb in Shakespearean manner* thanx. Philolexica

Note to 206.53.17.160

(In reference to Aspergers syndrome and Albert)

1) Please do sign in to be worthy of belief,

2) I must take the side of Miss Barbara Shack here, it is credible information.

3) You have the opportunity here and now on this page to comment before randomly making deletion changes on someones diligent and time consuming effort/ work, to build an encyclopedia, and or debate the Aspergers syndrome topic. That is what this site is about, has been, and always will be. It's not an attempt to destroy information. You may argue your point here.

Thanks in advance Scott File:Gavel.gif22:41:57, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

(BTW I am not the unsigned writer.) What first concerns me is that all three articles are actually coming from the same press release of the same two researchers. They do no more than reproduce each other and neither the BBC nor New Scientist endorse the theory in any way - not that either is qualified to do so. There is no reference to a publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and no indication of whether anyone with expertise in the field *beyond these two researchers* believes that the theory is worth taking seriously. The only clear information is that two researchers say that Einstein *may* have had Asperger's

Second, the evidence cited in the articles appears weak. The Wikipedia article on Asperger's syndrome gives a number of distinctive traits for diagnosis and very few of them have been shown to be true of Einstein.

E.g. Wiki: "People with Asperger's syndrome are often noted for having a highly pedantic way of speaking, using language far more formal and structured than the situation would normally be thought to call for." Now surely someone would have noticed if Einstein was like this? One article says effectively the reverse: that Einstein's lectures were *confusing*. Testing for simply 'problems in communication' glosses over the difference.

Wiki: "The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." Not much evidence of this. The BBC article concedes: "... the German-born scientist made intimate friends, had numerous affairs and spoke out on political issues."

A thorough rebuttal (by an autistic man) with citation of research appears here:

http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fiction/undiagnosing.html

At the very least I think it would be appropriate to mention that the Asperger's theory is speculative, has not been peer evaluated, and is disagreed with by prominent researchers (Sowell for one).

--Tdent 10:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I've had intimate friends, been politically active... it's these affairs I'm missing out on. *sigh* No, no, no! Stop trying to generalize Asperger's Syndrome! It's a complex neurological condition with no known cause, but more importantly, it sits within an autistic spectrum, within which one autist might have more in common with a neurotypical than another autist. It's a fact that whether or not Einstein had or didn't have Asperger's is indeterminable, and therefore, this shouldn't be an issue of debate. Posthumous diagnosis is controversial by its very nature, and no legitimate scientist is going to come out with a definitive answer. The possibility that Einstein had Asperger's Syndrome is speculation, but on that note, it's widespread speculation with great ramifications -- for living autists more than Albert! Do to the evolution of the English language, people described as "autistic" today don't necessarily have autism; instead, it connotes many qualities and attributes that are associated with autism. There is nothing terrible about a breif mention of a speculative diagnosis, but when addressing Einstein the man, I think more exacting adjectives can be found. Debate on proper diction would, in my opinion, prove much more fruitful than the pointless debate that has ensued thus far. For example, since when has a man's kind and friendly demeanor been "rooted" in his pacifism? Seriously. Philolexica

Gap in the career outline

The career details are incomplete around 1900. It doesn't say when he started work at the patent office. CalJW 05:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, the family seems to magically transport itself from Ulm to Munich (where the Luitpoldgymnasium is) without explanation. Presumably they did actually move between the two places - when?

--Tdent 10:09, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is nothing much about the 1905 year. There is a link to it, but some sort of summary needs to be in the article. I came here looking for the history of Einstein's work on Special Relativity. 194.200.237.219 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think there is some unreverted vandalism in the article. Look here [24]; there is a much better discussion of the miracle year. If I have time, I will try to put the missing text back. Pfalstad 17:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed this. Pfalstad 22:54, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like someone (who was also anonymous) removed vandalism instead of reverting it. I do wish people would check to see what was changed, before cleaning up vandalism. 194.200.237.219 15:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Quotations

User:EarthBoundX5 added a loooong list of quotations and appended a COPYRIGHT notice. I removed the list. EarthBoundX5, please add these quotations to Wikiquotes if they are not in fact copyrighted. (How the heck can quotations by Einstein be copyrighted, anyway? Even by the Hebrew University, much less by this Kevin Harris?). EarthBoundX5's only other contrib has been an apparent hoax article up for AfD.---CH (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you made the right call on the removal. Aside from that... quotations can be copyrighted like any text but their use is usually considered "fair use" since they are usually such a small part of the overall work. There are more details at the Wikiquote copyright page if you'd like more information on how copyright law applies to quotations. --Fastfission 12:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Nationality & "who is the greatest"

24.253.120.206 (talk · contribs) made some changes that I reverted and I thought I would explain why.

1. I think the citizenship information was added because of endless disputes as to whether Einstein was German or American or whatever or not. I think it is a sensible thing to leave it in even if it is not ideal, because it stems off problems.
2. I don't know or care who is the "greatest physicist" but I think it is true that Einstein is "widely regarded" as the greatest scientist. I think "widely" here means "more than just the physics community", for one thing, but I also doubt that there is much "hard data" on whether or not Newton or Gauss is considered "better". If there is hard data, it should be added in the article somewhere (and cited) but doesn't need to be in the lead section, much less with an awkward note which references a basically empty statement.

Just my feelings on it, and why I reverted these changes. --Fastfission 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

I've been watching this page for a while and i've seen it being vandalized quite so often. Isn't there any mechanism in wikipedia to prevent changes to a page unless reviewed ? At least for frequently vandalized pages, one would have to spend a nontrivial amount of time checking if someone's added some crap. Manik Raina 13:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea tough it would not help much as revision would take time as well. Still, it is an idea and probably the best place to present it is at Village pump. -- Svest 17:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

The problem with this system is that it gets rid of the Wiki philosophy that anyone can edit at any time. There are methods for page protection but those are only used in very limited circumstances. I don't think it's a big deal, it's not usually very hard to undo vandalism. --Fastfission 00:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article seems to be vandalized at least once a day on average. Unfortunately, frequent reversion means that the article is gradually deteriorating over time. Pages can be more or less protected, but this is usually reserved for the highest profile pages like the Wikipedia main page, so I am not optimistic. If it were protected, naturally I'd like to see a nice clean (readable, minimally controversial) version protected. Aye, there's the rub; others will want to protect their own version, possibly with a passion. ---CH (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed folks, thanks for replying. Have a good day Manik Raina 01:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that all the vandalism comes from anonymous IP numbers. If Wikipedia editors had to take the single additional step of first logging in—under any pseudonyme they like, even as ridiculous as, say "Wetman"— the thoughtless, spur-of-the-moment vandalism, here and at Leonardo or Michelangelo etc etc, would be largely elimninated, with no loss of anonymity...after all, who is "Wetman"? --Wetman 13:51, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I have to say that I agree with Fastfission, FayssalF, and other users that recent attempts to insert comments into the introduction of this article have been disruptive and should be reverted.

The offenders, who are trying to discuss citizenship, etc. in the first paragraphs, should argue their views in this talk page if they desire instead of continuing to insert badly written material in a way which (in my view) disrupts the flow.

My own view is that Einstein was by his own account about as far from being a "nationalist" as is possible, and that there is in any case little point in explaining at great length various tangled attempts by patriotic citizens of various countries to claim figures like Einstein or Euler, etc., as citizens of Switzerland or wherever. However, if someone wants to argue that this is somehow a terribly important (despite Einstein's own views), let's discuss here where the best place to insert this material into the article might be, in terms of not disrupting what readability the article has left after so many previous careless edits has led to a certain "incoherence creep". ---CH (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Father of Modern Physics?

Hi, 24.253.120.206, I yield to no individual in my admiration of Albert Einstein's scientific work, but I am not sure that any single person really deserves to be called the Father of Modern Physics. Several others, such as Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Dirac, also played crucial roles in the rise of modern physics. In fact, there are very few cases in modern science in which one person could really be called the undisputed father of any subject. For example, hardly anyone who works in the field of information theory would fail to name Claude Shannon as the undisputed father of their field, but if you ask most scientists who work outside this area of mathematics (but use some concepts such as communication entropy in their work), you will find they are likely to name Norbert Weiner as a second "father" (and others such as John von Neumann also played a role in the events leading up to Shannon's 1948 paper).

Another problem is that according to the usual Wikipedia standards (which unfortunately tends to weigh the opionion of rank ignoramuses equally with that of experts), you can't say that anything about Einstein is undisputed. While few reputable physicists or historians familiar with Einstein's work would fail to agree that Einstein deserves to be called the the father of general relativity or the father of special relativity, in fact both of these titles have been vigorously disputed, beginning with politically inspired hate speech of scientists like Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard in the 1920s and continuing to various individuals our own time who have axes to grind (see sci.physics.research for a current very silly but long-running thread on this repugnant "argument"). I happen to think this alleged controversy is kept alive by nonscientists with sometimes complicated or obscure extrascientific movitations, which is rather disgusting (and sometimes hilarious), but by Wikipedia standards, it seems that the onl thing which matters is the public controversy, however silly from a scientific or historical point of view, does verifiably exist.

If we accept that we need to remove the word undisputeable, it seems to me that there is no point in keeping the rest of what you wrote. I believe it is quite sufficient, by way of assessing the magnitude of Einstein's scientific achievements, to say that he is regarded as one of the greatest scientists of all time, and in fact one of the most notable figures in intellectual history.

Can you please explain below why you insist on adding this new material to the introduction? ---CH (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreement. -- Svest 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Not a big fan of the Father of Modern Physics line either, for the points just raised re: multiple contributors to quantum theory. Gaff 16:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that one who dragged his feet on the full theory of quantum mechanics should be called the father of modern physics. I see him more as the last of the great classical physicists.David R. Ingham 05:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Views

Recent changes made to this section. Some direct quotes added and appreciated. I must wonder about this sentece, however: He showed a clear belief in the God of science. What does that even mean? I think it should probably be either removed or clarified. What are others thoughts? User_talk:Gaff 16:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that every reader should be highly suspicious of quotations attributed to Einstein. To some extent this is true of any celebrity, even living ones (e.g. Penrose), but Einstein quotations pose special problems. Some points to bear in mind:

• Einstein is one of the most (mis)-quoted persons in human history,
• Especially in scientific matters, Einstein often contradicted his earlier pronouncements multiple times,
• After 1920 or so, and especially after he moved to the U.S., there was enormous pressure upon Einstein to use his celebrity to aide various causes, usually by signing some letter or giving reporters a favorable sound bite. Like many people, Einstein liked to be helpful, so despite misgivings, he often obliged. And he often wound up feeling used (or abused) as a result. Pais has a good discussion of this.
• In an extreme case of helping a friend in need, it seems that Einstein once allowed his name to be added as a coauthor to a popular book (the goal was to boost sales in order to feed an impoverished refugee family)--- this book is the source of some well known "Einstein quotations", so in this case, Einstein could even be said to have collaborated in misattributions to him of things he didn't actually write or say! Needless to say, that would be misleading, and taking this story out of context certainly cannot be used to "justify" misattributions.
• In my experience Einstein quoters often have some agenda, e.g. arguing that quantum mechanics doesn't make sense, or that Nazism or the bomb are bad, that God exists, or does not exist, and so on and on and on, by appealing to Einstein's authority, often with little regard to the context in which Einstein said Q, or even whether he really said Q at all. As long as you are aware of this, the agenda (if any) is usually obvious enough.

Since I believe this article should focus on Einstein the man (which mostly means focusing on the aspect of his life which he himself regarded as most important, his contributions to theoretical physics), I would hope that editors would be sensitive to these issues in considering thoughtfully whether to introduce new material, and if so, where and how.

The legend or popular icon aspects are certainly notable, but if they threaten to take over this article, I would prefer discussion of "Einstein the pop culture icon" should be moved to a separate article (or articles). In particular, tracking down the provenance of various quotations attributed to Einstein, might be of some value as an illustration of how people have reacted to the "Einstein the pop culture icon" over the years. If some very persistent and careful reader out there has a lot of time plus copies at hand of all the reputable Einstein biographies, his collected papers, and so forth, it might be worthwhile to collect various alleged quotations, trying to determine their attribution, and writing a separate article. (I suggest calling it Spinning Einstein, but only in jest!) This article should carefully give the provenance of each alleged quotation. Examples:

• you have at hand a copy of paper X or book Y by Einstein, and you can verify directly that he did in fact write Q: add the bibliographic citation to the references section, and where you include Q, mention the citation and if possible the date,
• you have at hand a copy of a reputable biography (e.g. Pais) and can verify that the author believes that Einstein said Q: check the footnotes to see the source, perhaps a personal letter or diary by the person AE was talking to, add the bibliographic citation to the reference section, and where you include Q, explain who AE was talking to, if possible mention the date, and cite the biographer,
• you can verify from primary souces that Q is actually due to someone other than Einstein: add the bibliographic citatation, etc.,
• you can find the first known appearance of alleged quote Q in a highly dubious source, such as a political polemic, a book by an disreputable author, or perhaps a contemporary newspaper article which you can plausibly argue should be considered suspicious.

Another thing to bear in mind when editing this article: above I imagined a thoughtful editor, but as well all know, most edits of this article are either thoughtless (even malicious) or else represent hasty attempts to revert such edits. Incoherence creep is the phenomenon in which text is added by inexperienced writers in a way which breaks up the flow between previous paragraphs, sentences, or ideas, gradually transforming a readable, well-organized article into an incoherent, chaotically disorganized article). This phrase aptly describes the sad history of this article, as we can see on a weekly or even daily basis.---CH (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome

I have noticed that there is a tendency for patient advocacy groups for various real and serious conditions to make lists of historical figures or celebs who allegedly suffer from the condition. I have never really understood this agenda (if I am dying from liver cancer, would knowing that celebrity C is also dying from liver cancer really make me feel any better?), but I recognize that such lists are probably well-intentioned. Nonetheless, claims of post-mortem diagnosis are speculative at best, and sometimes are pretty damn absurd, which is the case here. They might be notable in the sense that scurrilious or silly gossip might be notable, but in the case of historical figures like Einstein with genuine claims to notability with go far beyond being the target of gossip, they should not be emphasized unduly.

I have known persons who really do have autism and also Asperger's syndrome. These are conditions which no doubt take an expert to reliably diagnose, but I doubt it takes an expert to doubt that, say, David Letterman has Asperger's syndrome! I have never met Letterman, but I think anyone who has ever seen him on TV, and who has known living individuals who really have been diagnosed autism or Asperger's syndrome, would know at once that David Letterman is not, and has never been, autistic!

The point is that I doubt it takes an expert to recognize that socially fairly normal persons do not have autism. I have seen newsreels of Einstein, I have read reputable biographies such as Pais, and I have even studied contemporary documents such as letters by Einstein, the diaries of Count Kessler (who knew AE socially in Berlin). None of these sources give the slightest hint, in my view, that Einstein could possibly be diagnosed with either of these today by any experienced and reputable physician. In fact, quite the contrary. I can hardly believe that this is even an issue, but I have complained elsewhere about society's tolerance for one the strangest hobbies of certain retired physicians, namely "diagnosing" historical figures such as Lincoln, Napoleon, or Einstein with all kinds of conditions, in flagrant disregard of accepted principles taught in medical school (such as declining to diagnose a patient whom one has not examined personally).

Needless to say, I'd like to see mention of the claim that Einstein was mildly autistic moved well down the article. I think this suggestion is much too silly to deserve mention in the first few paragraphs, given the many much more important aspects of Einstein's biography which clamor for the reader's attention.

CH (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it seems you are imposing your own prejudices about we Aspies. Whether Einstein has or has Asperger's Syndrome is probably less significant than that he displays personality traits which are autistic or at the least autistic-like. As an Aspie, it has long been my conviction that obsession is the most defining aspect of the condition, not social ineptitude. It is this aspect of the "geek syndrome" which gives me a nerdy disposition, which is perceived as such, and not as some social dysfunction. Aspies tend to be bad at "small talk," which is why individuals like myself and presumably like Einstein flurish among other intellectuals. Nonetheless, no Aspie is complete without at least some social quirks and indeed difficulties too, but my reading of Einstein's personal life has proven he's had his share. And personally, having had an admiration for Einstein all my life -- even though I'm an aspiring professor in socio-cultural anthropology (because I love to be in front of lots of people and talk about people) -- there isn't any historical figure with whom I feel more empathy. All that said, I agree with you for the most part: speculation as to whether Einstein was an Aspie should be treated only in passing, if at all; labeling Einstein with a neurological condition is a cheap way of generalizing a complex personality. On the other hand, that Einstein displayed autistic qualities says much about society, notions of normalcy, conformity, and of course, the autistic specturm. Appropriately, Einstein is mentioned in detail in the Asperger Syndrome article. Philolexica

Vandalism, Incoherence Creep, and Page Protection, and a Modest Proposal

Incoherence creep is the phenomenon in which an initally well-organized and readable article, with a clear flow of ideas from one sentence and one paragraph to the next, is gradually destroyed by edits of the following kinds:

• well-intended additions of material by inexperienced editors which breaks up the flow of previous writing, or disturbs an internal organizational scheme (e.g., recent additions discussing Einstein's "national origins"),
• vandalism of the silly or scatological variety (this high-profile article is highly vulnerable to this; to mention just one example, I have noticed that teachers in some computer labs seem to assign a class to look at it, with the result that some students attempt to send real-time "amusing" or hateful messages to each other by editing the article),
• additions of material in pursuance of some agenda which disturbs the balance and flow of the article; examples are too legion to list but include the Tesla freak, persons eager to tear Einstein down by any means, such as insinuating that he "stole" [sic] his theories from others, cranks promoting their own "theories", someone pursuing some Asperger's syndrome agenda),
• careless attempts to revert this kind of edit (sometimes to an inappropriate version allowing earlier damage to survive).

If you have been monitoring this article on a daily basis, you have very likely seen many examples of this kind of edit.

My point is that permitting (almost, one might say, encouraging) frequent vandalism and otherwise minor but bad edits of high profile articles is destructive to the Wikipedia for several reasons:

• it tends to prevent users with expert knowledge from contributing good writing because they wind up spending all their "WP time" trying to correct damage to articles which they or someone else worked hard to whip into shape,
• despite such efforts, incoherence creep tends to gradually damage or destroy articles which at one time were well-organized, accurate, fair, and readable.

Accordingly, I'd like to see this article restored to such a happy state and then protected permanently. Even this would not fix the problem over the long term, since not all admins have scientific or historical expertise or are unbiased when it comes to Einstein, and no doubt some admins would want to unblock the article, and indeed from time to time there might be good reason to add timely material (e.g. to note the current World Year of Physics honoring Einstein).

Does anyone know what is the best way to submit petitions of the kind I have in mind to Wikimedia?

More generally, does anyone know of suitable forums for discussing the Wikipedia model versus the classic Britannica model for creating an encyclopedia? I believe that the world wide web, wiki software, and other technological innovations offer promise for a blend of suitable features from this model which could lead to a "controlled content" encyclopedia which would offer better writing and factual reliability than the current Wikipedia but also greater timeliness (particularly on rapidly advanced technological topics) than a classical paper encyclopedia.

A related question: I am of course aware that I am by no means the only Wikipedia user who feels that Wikimedia will eventually be forced (by rampant vandalism and other destructive edits by anons which are overwhelming the current administration system) to abandon its strange insistence (which is unique to this site, in my experience) on allowing even unregistered users to freely edit content. Given the inevitability of this step, it is in the Wikipedia's best interests that it occur sooner rather than later. Would anyone else here be interested in circulating some kind of petition? Any suggestions for how to do this effectively? Anyone have past experience with previous attempts to nudge Wikimedia in this direction? I think its pretty clear such a major step would have to be approved by Jimbo Wales, in fact I have the impression he is at once the only person who needs to be persuaded and the only person who could veto such a change--- please correct me if I am wrong about that!

Thoughts? ---CH (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you're going to get your wish; Jimbo plans to have stricter editing rules for some articles. See [25]. I can't find any detail about this proposal on wikipedia itself, though. Also check out Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish_anonymous_users. Pfalstad 15:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, if you want an encyclopedia that you can edit but other people can't, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. I'm not sure that the "wiki" philosophy of "anyone can edit" is a workable approach, but it does seem like the number of janitors around here exceeds the number of vandals. An important question is "who gets bored first". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Bored? Who? Nothing! Bird Flu? Nothing! -- Svest 02:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up&#153;}

Hi, Jpgordon, if you read what I wrote more carefully, I actually mentioned several proposals, some less controversial than others, and I asked for suggestions about where might be the most suitable place to discuss these. If someone can suggest such a venue, perhaps we can continue the discussion there. OK?---CH (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit

Wikipedia is under 24/7 vandalism attack. Pages get blanked, replaced, overwritten in a destructive manner, however pages are reverted/removed/restored before you even know it as a result of "janators". "Anyone can edit" comes with his problem yes, if it werent "anyone can edit", who determines who can edit and who cant ;). I understand your frustration, however sometimes it is necesary to take drastic mesures against some more notable vandals. --Cool Cat ^Talk 11:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Link vandalism

Hi all, as an example of vandalism apparently designed to degrade this article but remain undetected, note the recent edits by 206.254.117.182 in Texas, which consisted of dewikifying the introduction.---CH (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Einstein German?

Is there any evidence that he has German ancestory? Ethnic German ancestory. I'm trying to remove all Austrian, Jewish and Swiss Americans from the German American category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.217.93 (talk • contribs) 04:37, November 1, 2005 (UTC)

Both of his parents were Jewish. He has no ethnic German ancestry.Vulturell 09:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhm, Germans who born in jewish family are not Germans? --128.214.69.47 11:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This "controversy" is an example of why I deplore inflammatory edits to this article. 128.214.69.47 from Helsinki, I am probably more sympathetic to your politics than to those of Vulturell (to judge from the comments above), but I wish you would avoid adding potentially inflammatory characterizations of Einstein's political views to this article. The 00:32, 6 November 2005 version is noticeably less inflammatory re Palestine than versions which you wrote. Please, let's all keep the focus on Einstein the man, particularly his scientific work, rather than attempting to hijack Einstein the icon to promote this political view or that. TIA ---CH (talk) 20:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Marion?

It's very possible I'm missing somethere here, but I can't understand who this "Marion" in Albert_Einstein#Political_views is. There is no other mention of a Marion in the article. Does anybody know what this refers to?

--Recnilgiarc 19:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe this may be a garbled reference to Marian Robeson, Paul Robeson's mother. I recently read a biography of Robeson but don't recall this episode being mentioned! I will remove it pending confirmation. Thanks for pointing out this problem. ---CH (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ahha, that could explain it. I ran across Paul Robeson after Googling "Marion Einstein", but I didn't think to check his mother's name. Thanks!

--Recnilgiarc 19:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. Paul Robeson's association with Einstein re civil rights and peace initiatives is documented elsewhere, and putting up Marian Robeson is certainly the kind of thing Einstein would have done, but I can't find independent verification of this right now. If anyone has the time to borrow from your local library reputable biograpies of Einstein and of Robeson to comb through for references to this episode, I'd be grateful, since if verified it adds a nice human touch to the article. Searching collections of Robeson's writings might also uncover further verification of his association with Einstein. Books like Susan Robeson's The Whole World in his Hands might have some pictures of Einstein with Robeson. Speaking of which, it would be nice to have a page collecting public domain or fair-use images of Einstein. I tried to obtain permission from the copyright holder of a very nice picture of Einstein sitting with Leon Infeld, so far without success. Too bad since it's one of the few pictures showing Einstein in a relaxed social situation (his customary expression ranges from bored to uncomfortable). I'd also love to be able to upload the picture with his sister Maya and the picture taken by a passerby in Berlin just days before Einstein left Germany forever, in which one can perhaps detect a bit of the distress and bewilderment he must have been feeling.---CH (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I have one quibble regarding the word friend, which is much overused with respect to Einstein. People who knew Einstein agree he had very few friends in the sense of close confidants. Besso, Born, and Infeld could probably be described as friends, Bohr as a much respected colleague, Lorentz and Mach as respected elders (in his early years), Szilard as someone whose company Einstein sometimes enjoyed (there is no question he enjoyed the famous refrigerator episode) and sometimes merely endured, Robeson, Painleve, and many others as politically prominent figures with whom Einstein discussed political issues and even collaborated with, at least to the extent of signing open letters and so forth. Robeson is someone he met with several times and corresponded with concerning social/political issues on which they shared common views, which is a bond of a kind, but I doubt there was a close personal friendship. I would prefer to see that paragraph rewritten to describe their occasional collaboration to further social justice and world peace, issues about which both men cared deeply.---CH (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Font problems

This talk page keeps growing, and an incorrectly coded signature of one participant, User:Gaff, messed up the fonts on the previous version of this page. (I have left a note on the talk page of that user asking him to fix the problem with his signature.) I have fixed the fonts in Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive/2 and moved recent discusions to a new archive page (see link above).---CH (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "creation"

Is it appropriate that the word "creation" is being used to describe the universe as part of an objective encyclopedia article?

From the third paragraph:

"His reverence for all creation, his belief in the grandeur..."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Funny Fins (talk • contribs) 15:32, December 3, 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Immanuel Kant

Does anyone who really knows Einstein's life know if he read Kant at all? I ask this for several reasons. First, Einstein said the following:

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

— Albert Einstein, Religion and Science (article in Ideas and Opinions)

Here's a quote from Kant:

Intuitions without ideas are blind, and ideas without intuitions are empty.

— Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason)

Kant means "a type of experience" from what has been translated as "intuition" here.

They're obvious not exactly the same, but they are similar enough for me to think they either come from a common source or one (Einstein's) is adopted from the other (Kant's).

Another reason I think Einstein might be affected by Kant (or maybe the German Idealists in general??) is because of the importance of space and time in Kant's philosophy - they are the prerequisites to knowledge, and in this way we can know the structure of future experiences before we've even experienced them (we know that we will always experience them in time).

My second reason is probably off target, but I think the issue I brought up with the quotes is interesting - I welcome any responses.

--FranksValli 08:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason at the age of 13. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.64.159 (talk • contribs) 19:10, December 7, 2005 (UTC)

bio by Pais, "Subtle..." , p 13, says he first read Kant in high school GangofOne 07:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

1889: Meets 21 year old student Max Talmud, introduces Einstein to key science and philosophy texts including Kant’s "Critique of pure reason" [26] --24.253.120.206 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Age 10. Did he understand it? GangofOne 05:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That source, which is posted above, does not say. This site states that he understood it at the age of 13, which is one of the reasons why the psychometrician estimates his ratio IQ to be 183. [27] --24.253.120.206 12:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Some V Stats

Big improvement in the past few days, keep it up! :-)

From the history page:

• 10 Dec (so far): V < 1 min
• 9 Dec: blanked for 1 min
• 8 Dec: no V (first time I've seen that in months!!)
• 7 Dec: V 1 min, 5.5 hrs, 2 min, 1 min
• 6 Dec: V 7 min, 1 min, 3.3 hrs, 1 min, 1 min

Maybe we finally have those pests on the run? ---CH 00:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Guess not, darn it, just saw a vandalism which was hear for 1.6 hours today. ---CH 04:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Einstein and Religion

From Ze'ev Rosenkranz "The Einstein Scrap Book", ISBN 0801872030, p. 89.

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.

Yesselman 19:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

From Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion"; ISBN: 0691006997; p. 43.

The extent Einstein concurred with the philosophy of Spinoza:

Rejecting the traditional theistic concept of God, Spinoza denied the existence of a cosmic purpose on the grounds that all events in nature occur according to immutable laws of cause and effect. The universe is governed by a mechanical or mathematical order and not according to purposeful or moral intentions. Though he employed the notion of "G-D," Spinoza applied it only to the structure of the order and declared that "neither intellect nor will appertain to G-D's nature." He therefore denied the Judeo-Christian conception of a personal God. What the Bible refers to as divine activities are identified by Spinoza course of nature. G-D is the "infinite substance" having and thought. G-D is devoid of ethical properties, for good and evil human desires. What is commonly called "G-D's will" is identical with the laws of nature. People do not act freely in the sense of having alternatives to their actions; their belief in freedom arises only from their ignorance of the causes of the desires that motivate their actions. The ultimate object of religious devotion can only be the perfect harmony of the universe, and human aspirations must accept the inexorable dictates of the deterministic laws that govern life.

Yesselman 16:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Table

Why don't we have a table in here about Einstein, like Richard Feynman, and most developed biographical articles? Or is it just no one has made one yet? -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 08:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• They are not required and a lot of people think they look ugly and select one quote entirely arbitrarily as a "representative" quote. --Fastfission 16:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Asperger's

For the vague "several researchers at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford", I have substituted the name of the principal researcher. But I am not convinced this belongs here at all. There is a lot of speculation along these lines, much of it published, including questions about the size of various lobes of Einstein's brain etc. But I don't think any of this has been widely accepted in the scientific community. In any case, I am surprised to see such a major thing introduced into the article without discussion on Talk, and with all the documentation coming from BBC news stories! --Macrakis 03:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The "diagnosis" of Einstein is extremely speculative at best - and let's not get into the controversy about Asperger's diagnoses in general. I've tried to edit this to help keep the pro-Asperger's POV from standing, and I'm not sure the current version is superior in any way to earlier versions - almost every word has had to be hammered out in numerous article revisions rather than discussions here on the talk page. --Krich 03:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I explained some time ago why I feel this entire paragraph should be removed as unverifiable speculation, not to mention an irrelevant distraction in a short biography of Einstein. If someone feels it is terribly important to have this (mis?)-information mentioned somewhere in the Wikipedia, I'd suggest creating a seperate article on "unverifiable speculations concerning Albert Einstein".---CH 03:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, mathematicians really are amazingly arrogant, unpleasant people to be around.... --Mistress Selina Kyle 04:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia. The contents should be well-sourced. What's more, they should be well-chosen. Lots and lots of people have speculated about many things about Einstein. But somehow we need to boil this down to a good article. Let's look at what Baron-Cohen himself says. In Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth about Autism (p167), he writes "[Einstein and Newton] certainly showed many of the signs of AS, though whether they would have warranted a diagnosis is questionable, since they hgad found a niche in which they could blossom." (my emphasis) So even B-C is not very definitive about it. I also note that the references are to BBC News articles. Piling on anonymous researchers at Oxford and Vanderbilt doesn't help. --Macrakis 04:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The current revision by User:Macrakis seems like a reasonable compromise between the need to keep unverifiable speculations and other possibly inappropriate distractions to a minimum, and the obviously very strong desire on the part of some users to prominently mention this "controversy". I hope that Selina will agree. ---CH 04:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The version by Macrakis looks absolutely fine to me as it current reads. I'll not make further edits in this section if this language stands. --Krich 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course it did not. I've changed this back to Macrakis' version, as it seems the most concise, accurate, and fair. Selina, you appear to be the only editor here that wants to push the Asperger's language. Honestly, if this keeps up, I'm going to change my stance to one of removing the reference to AS altogether - I was never sure it belonged here in the first place due to its dubious nature. Please work with us in the spirit of compromise, if you'd like your input to stand. I just don't think you are going to be able to get away with pushing a pro-diagnosis POV in this article. --Krich 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Selina has reverted to the old POV language once again today. I believe that she is now in violation of the three revert rule, and have told her so on her talk page, after trying several times to get her to discuss this issue on our talk pages or here on this talk page. She refuses to do so with me, or the others that are attempting to work with her on including language that refers to the controversial Asperger's issue without using pro-diagnosis POV wording. --Krich 20:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Could we put the Asperger's stuff in a separate article? Pfalstad 20:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please! (I too think the Asperger's stuff belongs in a separate article.) ---CH 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. There is (or was and could be again) a Category:Albert Einstein in which someone tried to collect all articles dealing with something Einstein did, or which otherwise referenced Einstein.

Asperger's material absolutely belongs in its own catagory. This is suppose to be a fact-base account on Einstein only, and not saddled with anything that remotely resembles opinion, hypervolie, speculation etc. This Selina should be reminded that its an encyclopedia, not a repository for personal bias. Any intent on trying to shift from that damages the integrety of this medium turns Wikipedia into a website aspiring to be an encyclopedia, rather than just being. P.N.G 20:43, 31 Jan 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.127.170.144 (talk • contribs) 04:44, February 1, 2006 (UTC)

Given the normie's desire to monopolise all beneficial discoveries of history, despite the fact that many gains in the fields of computing (just for instance) are the responsibility of verified, diagnosed Aspies, the speculation should stand. In fact, many reliable sources consider the posthumous diagnosis (and shamefully, if you died in our so-called enlightened English-speaking society before 2000, posthumous diagnosis was as good as you got) factual. Einstein's intelligence was focused entirely upon a pervasive, singular interest, to the point where schoolteachers told his parents he was retarded (see if you can name one of them) and his social skills were underdeveloped. That's two strikes against his being a normie. Strike three is that he apparently believed in not wasting his time choosing clothes to wear for the given day, and thus had a lot of suits that all looked the same (seriously, is there any photograph of him that does not show him in a simple suit?).

Given the rampant abuse that we aspies have to suffer, on top the of the flat-out lies from scum like Dick Wolf, while it might not be prudent to say that Einstein was definitely an Aspie (in spite of this being believed as fact by many credible sources), leaving the theory open to consideration is a must. This man endured much in an inability to buckle down and think like everyone else, and since Asperger's Syndrome is turning out to be nature's way of reminding us that it does not want us all to be the same, I feel that he would happily throw in his lot with we Aspies.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.229.98 (talk • contribs) 14:39, February 6, 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the statement above. If you took archive footage of Einstein, Warhol, and Gates, then ran it alongside footage of verified, diagnosed Aspies like myself, you would reach one conclusion. If Einstein was not an Aspie, then he was doing a very good job of impersonating one. That, by the way, is a very popular catchphrase among the plague of adults who should have been diagnosed decades ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.229.98 (talk • contribs) 11:40, February 8, 2006 (UTC)

World War IV quote

I have changed the quote to what I found in the Calaprice 2005 book. (diff) Ligulem 16:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Jan 2006 – Feb 2006

Brain examined vs Cremation

If his body was cremated, according to his wishes, on the same day of his death, how could his brain be analyzed post-mortem as stated in the Early Years chapter? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.2.210.78 (talk • contribs) 17:16, January 5, 2006 (UTC)

• He was autopsied before he was cremated, apparently, and had specifically outlined to donate his brain to science. --Fastfission 01:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've Copied

I've copied "He was also the stereotypical "absent-minded professor"; he was often forgetful of everyday items, such as keys, and would focus so intently on solving physics problems that he would often become oblivious to his surroundings. In his later years, his appearance inadvertently created (or reflected) another stereotype of scientist in the process: the researcher with unruly white hair. " into the People speculated to have been autistic article. It is relevant there. Barbara Shack 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any reason to suspect that Einstein was an autist. High-functioning autists may be considered "little professors", but that doesn't mean all eccentric professors are autistic. One of the signals that a person is autistic is that they are "mindblind", that is, unable to infer anything about the intentions of others. Einstein did not display such characteristics, to the best of my knowledge; his views on politics were sensitive and sophisticated, as is pretty notorious. Lucidish 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article seems pretty balanced, and appropriately sourced, though, so my worries should take a back seat to that. Lucidish 02:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear God. Not another one. That makes, what, 634,572,204 people, doesn't it? Please, Lucidish. If you'd like to stereotype people, at least read up on them first. If you read things on high-functioning autism, you probably would be ashamed that people would say things like that. It's like feeling sorry for a blind person, only worse, because

A. They don't remember what it was like before they got it, because they've always had it.

B. It's easier to spot a blind person on sight, whereas you think even worse of autistics because until you learn they have it, you wonder why they're not normal. And

C. People reason that if autistics are like this, then, thusly, if someone's not like this they're not autistic. But what if not all autistics are like this? This also leads to B.

I won't argue that Einstein is autistic, though. I try not to force my opinions on others, unless my opinion is that they're using illogical reasoning.

And for a different look at the subject, see this link. http://isnt.autistics.org/

1337 r0XX0r 20:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well now, JeffK, I would be better equipped to cite sources and defend my comments if I knew what exactly you were complaining about. The purposefully hedged mindblindness reference? The "little professors" reference? The acknowledgement of sourcing in the article? For info on mindblindness, read Uta Frith's "Autism: Explaining the Enigma" and Simon-Baron Cohen's ";Mindblindness". For a reference on the characterization of "little professors", see the classic works of Kanner and Asperger -- that is to say, the persons who discovered the disorder. For info on the sourcing of the article, see the article. Lucidish 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about all that. I really got carried away... I hope it didn't offend you. I still stand by my point, but it was a bit too harsh on you, Lucidish. My point was you probably should learn about what they're really like before you generalize about them, but you probably were just citing what you know when you talked about mindblindedness... true, generally it takes them a bit longer to realise things like that, but just because a person's diagnosed with autism doesn't mean they have no idea that other people have their own ideas and opinions. I certainly never had a problem with that. And truth be told, I'm probably taking a very biased stance. But small story short (too late ;-)), I was just angry at the time. People do stupid stuff when they're angry. Oh, and btw... autist? That can't be right... ;-p 1337 r0XX0r 15:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it. The thing is, I didn't generalize: it's one of the symptoms not the only symptom. There are other hallmarks, like certain pragmatic language deficits, and routined behaviors, which are just as important in gauging a person on the autistic spectrum. My point was just that mindblindness seemed to be a key criterion, and Einstein didn't seem to have it; this is reason to beleive that he wasn't an autist. Also, I wanted to point out that hindsight evaluations purely on the funny characteristics of professorial types may simply be superficial personality-related stuffs. If he had other characteristics (preferably the sort outlined in DSM4), then that would be reason to discount my worries.

None of this means anything about the autistic population at large, or that mindblind autists can't learn to compensate for that problem by learning complicated schemata (and it certainly doesn't mean that they lack instinctual empathy, which is not what's meant by "mindblindness"). It's just one way of trying to figure out the likelihood that a person was or wasn't autistic.

"Autist" is the term that Frith used in her book, and I like it a bit better than saying "an autistic", because it just seems aesthetically nicer. Though people in the field probably still use the descriptor "autistic", since "autist" sounds too much like "artist". Lucidish 16:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

German-American theoretical physicist

I disagree with the opening line which reads "..[Einstein] was a Jewish theoretical physicist..". The word Jew is used in many ways but generally refers to a follower of Judaism, a child of a Jewish mother, or someone of Jewish descent with a connection to Jewish culture, ethnicity and/or religion; It's improper to refer to Einstein with an ethnic/religious pretext. Traditionally, the opening line refers to one's place/nation of birth, not their cultural or religious background. I'm going to change this to German-American, and leave it up to the rest of the article to debate over his ethnic and religious heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.105.163.3 (talk • contribs) 21:10, January 9, 2006 (UTC)

His parents were Jewish as far as I know. Was also educated at a Jewish school, and persecuted for being Jewish. What's improper? Lucidish 04:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing his Jewish heritage at all. However, traditionally the opening line for an article relating to a person (or persons) outlines their profession (one related to their accomplishment(s)) and his or her place of birth. Discussing one's cultural/religion background should be debated in the body of the article, not the opening line. I.e.: Georges Cziffra (and other figures of distinct heritage) was Gypsy by birth, yet you don't see anyone describing him as a Gypsy first, and a classical pianist second. 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.105.163.3 (talk • contribs) 22:24, January 13, 2006 (UTC)

Okie doke, that sounds prudent. Lucidish 17:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge the children

I added the Mergefroms for Einstein's two sons, Eduard Einstein and Hans Albert Einstein. Neither of them is noteworthy for any reason other than having the name Einstein. Eduard's article even agrees with that: "...Eduard, however, is famous due to his family lineage." If we added a bio for every schizophrenic and hydraulic engineer in Wikipedia, we'd have a real huge (and uninteresting) database.

Comments? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep them out of the main article please. Merge them into "family of Albert Einstein" or something if you must. Kappa 15:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like everything useful in those articles is already in this one so maybe I'll just Afd those. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Of course we wouldn't have them in here if they were just schizophrenics or hydraulic engineers. They are in here because they are related to Einstein. Considering how much attention has been focused on Einstein's family members (the whole Maric thing) I think having short entries on his sons is not problematic in the slightest. Just ignore them, they were doing nobody any harm as they were. --Fastfission 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What about his contribution to fridge engineering?

You'll probably think I'm nuts, but there was an article about Einstein's contribution to fridge engineering in Scientific American quite a few years back. I'm surprised this isn't even touched on in the article. The German wikipedia actually mentions it: [28]. - Samsara 16:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See Albert Einstein#The Einstein refrigerator. Lupo 09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Dürrenmatt

Friedrich Dürrenmatt wrote an essay, Albert Einstein, that examines Einstein's interpretation of Spinoza's monotheism. Dürrenmatt also wrote a play, Die Physiker, the main character of which is a genius physicist who has found a formula that could be used to create a terrible weapon. Copenhagen by Michael Frayn is a similar work, although here the characters are not fictional. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"German-American"?

Why does the article begin by describing Einstein as "German-American"? It's inaccurate, or at least incomplete. If you're going to use such a hyphenate, it should be "German-Swiss-American", or better yet it should be dropped altogether. Einstein's somewhat complex citizenship is explained in the body of the article. It seems the only reason for the hyphenate is somebody wanted to tag Einstein as "American". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.163.98 (talk • contribs) 07:56, January 19, 2006 (UTC)

Spurious(?) quote

This is from Talk:Hanlon's Razor: Please discuss there

- "Albert Einstein also believed in the power of stupidity: 'Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.'" - I believe that this quote is spurious. I have a personal animus against this quote, and this is my chance to do something about it.

• (1) I don't remember ever seeing this quote before maybe sometime in the 1990s
• (2) This really doesn't sound like Einstein to me. He was very good-natured in his public pronouncements and didn't go around calling people "stupid". (Heck, he'd been considered "stupid" himself as a child, so I don't think he'd find this very amusing.)

Therefore, I challenge everyone reading this: can anyone find a good cite for this? (Preferably one dating from Einstein's own lifetime?)

Writtenonsand 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This wasn't in response to the Manhattan project was it? From what I've read of him, he became quite cynical about the human race in general... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.244.185.98 (talk • contribs) 13:17, February 3, 2006 (UTC)

Württemberg citizenship?

-"he renounced his Württemberg citizenship and became stateless."- Ths is somewhat confusing to the ignorant. Why "Württemberg citizenship" and not "German citizenship"? Could somebody please add a note of explanation about how this worked? Thanks -- Writtenonsand 14:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

1931 Unified Field Theory... Gone Missing???

From the International Herald Tribune's "In Our Pages 100, 75 & 50 Years Ago" article, 23 Jan 2005:

1931: Einstein's New Theory

PASADENA, California: The fundamental unity of light, gravity and electromagnetism was proclaimed by Professor Albert Einstein here today [Jan. 22], in a theory which scientists hail as the most revolutionary and the most daring ever propounded in the whole history of science. The theory which Einstein has now made public, after having been at work on it for the last 10 years, is known as the theory of the unified field. According to the generalized conception reached by the great mathematician, all optical, gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena figure as modifications, identical in their essence, of this one field.

Einstein explained that he believes that he has finally reduced all the principal laws of nature, as known to physics, in this one theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.81.219.54 (talk • contribs) .

Einsteins nationality / citizenship

I noticed there is a lot of dispute about Einstein's nationality. In order to stop the bouncing, removal of nationalities and insertion of nationality that einstein possesed once in his life i have added a small section about the nationalities that einstein used to have during his life. I sincerly hope that this clears up something, but i also hope that people do not simply delete this info (such as User:Max_rspct), (due to hateful feelings against germans?? or the belief that einstein would want to be a german, lets stay to the facts pls). Hanseichbaum 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

In addition, omitting the nationalities in the first sentence may lessen the controversy. Shawnc 13:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I dont feel that it is necessary to dedicate a whole section to his nationality; Is it really that important to know whether or not he was german? If so, I believe that this kind of information would reveal itself to the reader in the intorduction, or the section concerning his early life. Delta[XK] 21:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

German Democratic Party: Cite, please

"Einstein was a co-founder of the liberal German Democratic Party"

Could we get a cite on this, please? -- Writtenonsand 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

American Federation of Teachers: Cite, please

"Einstein was a ... a member of the AFL-CIO-affilated union the American Federation of Teachers."

Could we get a cite on this, please? -- Writtenonsand 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinked dates

Every date should not be linked. It's bad style and inapposite to information provided in the article. I removed said links. Please do not revert. green 65.88.65.217 19:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Our Manual of Style says that full dates (i.e. April 1, 1900) should be wikilinked, because then the Wiki software can re-adjust it to whatever the date format the user has specified (i.e. 1 April 1900). Only individual years (i.e. 1900) should not be linked, because no formatting occurs. I agree that it's sort of silly to have so many links of this sort but that's the normal convention followed on here.--Fastfission 20:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any requirement to link dates. In fact, the style rules state that overlinking is undesirable. They give different acceptable (unlinked) formats. If you concur, please revert what you changed. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29#Avoid_overlinking_dates green 65.88.65.217 21:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• But right above that it explains about date linking so that date preferences will work. "Editors are not required to link full dates, but most full dates in Wikipedia are linked so that each user's date-formatting preference appears in the text." --Fastfission 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to pursue this, but if date linking is not required, and is, as you agree, non-informative, from the pov of style they should be eliminated from the article. Have I missed something here? green 65.88.65.217 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

They serve a useful function and do little harm. That's why they are kept. BrokenSegue 03:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What's the function? green 64.136.26.226 04:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

From above, "the Wiki software can re-adjust it [the date] to whatever the date format the user has specified". BrokenSegue 04:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Right. Of course. But what does it mean? Have you used it profusely, or at all? What was the value-added? green 64.136.26.226 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The value added is that the date is formatted in a way that is most understandable to the reader. Truth be told, I don't understand your comment, but whatever, it doesn't matter that much. BrokenSegue 04:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhaaa! It means that if an editor is dumb enough to use a date like 01/02/06, Wiki software will default Jan 2 say, instead of Feb 1, if it is smart enough to know that 06 is not June. But if the editor was that careless, his edits would surely have greater insufficiencies. green 64.136.26.226 04:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it means that if I prefer to have dates display as '2001-01-15 16:12:34', then I can, but if I prefer the more human-readable '16:12, January 15, 2001', I can do that too. You might notice this preference if you logged in. FireWorks 02:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Feb 2006

1

In Feb 2006, the talk page of Albert Einstein filled up with a discussion of an alleged relativity priority dispute. Mainstream historians say this has been put to rest; others hotly disagree, as became very evident. To free up Talk:Albert Einstein, I moved the very long discussion to this archive. We encourage all concerned to confine further argumentation about the controversy to Talk:relativity priority dispute, an article created to describe this controversy according to Wikipedia NPOV rules. Thanks in advance for your cooperation! ---CH 09:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein, Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré dispute

Relativity anticipated by Leibniz claim

A recent addition suggests that Gottfried Leibniz anticipated Einstein's relativity. I'm pretty sure that's not a serious claim. If it is, though, please discuss it in Talk:Gottfried Leibniz. In the meantime, I'll remove the probable joke. The Rod 05:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It was no joke, see Talk:Gottfried Leibniz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.128.137.38 (talk • contribs) 19:01, December 23, 2005 (UTC)

I took that out of the intro paragraph. It doesn't belong there, breaking up the flow of the paragraph that introduces the subject of this article. Assuming it's true (I've no reason to believe otherwise), it really belongs in the article about relativity, or maybe the section about relativity here. But not up in Einstein's face, as it were, in the paragraph introducing Einstein in his own article. — Kbh3^rdtalk 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, it was a bad place for it. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. Dr. Gabriel Gojon 22:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• There is a big difference between the theory of relativity and the principle of relativity, just as an aside. When playing with priority disputes (I think they miss the point) we should be sure to clarify which is which and exactly what sort of relativity one is speaking about. --Fastfission 20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Claim that Poincaré first published the Theory of Relativity

Why is there no mention of the controversy surrounding the origin of Relativity ? Folsing in his authoritive biography of Einstein points out that E=mc2 and the Theory of Relativity were actually first published in detail by the Frenchman Henri Poincare, before Einstein. For numerous sources see http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:11, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Provide sources. Rumors do not belong to encyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 03:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the Frenchman, but there was an Italian scientist who published E=mc^2 in a journal in 1903, then it was reprinted in an Italian scientific magazine in 1904 (Einstein was 1905). The Italian's name was Olinto De Pretto and there is a Wiki entry for him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.161.30.194 (talk • contribs) 05:08, January 24, 2006 (UTC)

To see numerous sources see http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:24, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

There are seemingly more credible sources supporting the claim. See Who Invented Relativity, for instance. Since they are stronger than rumors, we probably shouldn't be so quick to revert such claims as "vandalism". The Rod 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The user making the claim I reverted didn't document it enough for me to determine that it was a valid edit, and since it look questionable I reverted without any further ado. My apologies if this was incorrect. I'll watch more carefully when RC patrolling this article in the future. Thanks for the pointer to this discussion on my Talk page. Triona 16:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that anonymous user 69.22.98.162 is being accused of vandalism, and his edits subject to reverts, for attempting to integrate a mention of Poincare into this article. For example, a recent edit by Prodego has eliminated the Poincare mention, despite the MathPages citation added above. I am not an expert in this area, and so do not feel knowledgable enough in writing an addition re: Poincare here, but I strongly encourage the editors of this article to take the claim seriously. Lucidish 01:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Prise edit (claim that Poincaré first published the Theory of Relativity, part 2)

IP 69.22.98.162, has repeatedly edited this sentence from the intro:

He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 (his "miracle year") and "for his services to Theoretical Physics.

so as to omit the phrase:

in 1905 (his "miracle year"),

and add the phrase:

although no specific mention was made of Relativity because of the "controversy surrounding its origin" as is stated in the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Einstein.,

susequently to be reverted by several editors (including me). First there is no reason to delete the year and thereference and link to" miracle year". Second this is not the proper place to introduce speculation about the originality of "Relativity". Can anyone verify the claim that his special relativity paper went unmentioned because of "controversy surrounding its origin"? The current Britannica entry merely says he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics “for your photoelectric law and your work in the field of theoretical physics.” Relativity, still the centre of controversy, was not mentioned. It does not say what the controvesy was.

Paul August ☎ 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The controversy was Henri Poincare's already publishing Relativity in detail before Einstein, including e=mc2. The Nobel Committee was aware of this and so refused to give Einstein a Nobel Prize for Relativity. Why does Wikipedia cover this up ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 23:07, December 28, 2005 (UTC)

Because this is nonsense, and we don't publish nonsense. If you understood Poincaré's work a little better, and maybe Einstein too, you'd see that they had different programs even though some aspects of their work were interrelated. A good, readable history of both of them is Peter Galison's Einstein's Clocks, Poincaré's maps, recently published. --Fastfission 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pais, Einstein Lived Here has a chapter on exactly why the Nobel committee awarded the prize, FYI. I don't have it at hand so I can't refer to it now. I believe Whittaker's A History of Theories of the Aether and Electricity in notable for giving Poincare credit over Einstein. Any commnets? (I haven't read it; this is a question not a statement.) GangofOne 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The reason Einstein was not given the prize for relativity was for a number of reasons; one major one being that it was still regarded as controversial among physicists at the time and the photoeletric theory was a much "safer" achievement. Again, the Poincaré/Einstein priority issue has been tossed around by various anti-Einsteinians for some time but no mainstream historians give it much attention. --Fastfission 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sir Edmund Whittaker wrote that Poincare published E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein, and Sir Whittaker credited Henri Poincare with the discovery of Relativity, not Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 03:51, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

What page? GangofOne 04:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In Sir Whittaker's famous book, named above, he has an entire chapter entitled The Theory of Relativity of Poincare and he there repeatedly refers to Poincare's E=mc2. Folsing's popular biography of Einstein quotes Whittaker, as does http://www.xtxinc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 14:26, December 29, 2005 (UTC)

The chapter in Whittaker's book is "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz" and in fact the chapter mentions Lorentz as least as much, if not more than it mentions Poincare. I find only two mentions of Poincare in relation to E = mc^2. I don't think Whittaker is very reliable (see elsewhere on this page), but let's get it right. Whittaker credited Poincare and Lorentz. E4mmacro 11:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• The link to Bjerknes's crank site actually does not seem contain any Whittaker quotes. So I'm not sure that helps your argument much. The question is not whether or not people over the years have said various things to disparage Einstein (there was an entire movement devoted to just this purpose in Germany if you will recall) but what the mainstream historical and scientific opinion is, which has repeatedly concluded that most such objections misunderstand quite a number of things. --Fastfission 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • I think to put the matter to rest would require a) rationales and responses to the quotes on that site from Harry Bateman, Charles Nordmann, Max Born, G. H. Keswani, and James Mackaye, and b) an explanation of the actual similarities and differences between Poincare/Lorenz and Einstein. Lucidish 02:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • Trying to "put the matter to rest" will become the sort of point/counterpoint B.S. which characterizes usenet debates. Let the historians sort it out. We just quote htem. I suspect most of those quotes are taken quite out of context. If the historians of science could show Einstein to be a fraud or his contributions are misunderstood on some grounds, they'd be happy to -- they do it with other luminous figures all of the time (Freud, Darwin, etc.). --Fastfission 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I'm dissapointed. Oh, well. In the following subsection I will quote a passage which I hope will clear up this discussion. Lucidish

• • • There are NO differences whatsoever with what Poincare published and what Einstein later published. Keswani is definitive on this matter. So is Whittaker. In addition, Kip Thorne in his popular book on General Relativity, available in all bookstores, Thorne states that General Relativity was published one week before Einstein by David Hilbert, which is generally recognized in the scientific community, and I intend to put that also on Wikipedia's Einstein Page as well.
      Keswani is definitive, that what Einstein inaccurately called General Relativity is really only a theory of gravitation, nothing more.
      Bjerknes' second book, which he published under the close guidance of Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, points out that the central equation of General Relativity was published one week before Einstein by David Hilbert. This fact is recognized by Kip Thorne and Stephan Hawking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
      • Please sign your posts with four tildes. You haven't told us the reference where Hilbert published it, where Thorne said it (which book , which chapter), where Hawking said it. --GangofOne 04:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, our anonymous friend, you are not only wrong in an ultimate sense in my opinion, but the historical and scientific community agree that you are wrong. The latter is what matters more here: Wikipedia is not the place to hash out what is true and what is not, see WP:NOR. We publish what is considered reputable. Winterberg is not a reputable source on this topic anyway and he does not reflect any scientific or historical opinion of merit. He's a cranky guy with some very strange Lyndon LaRouche ties if I remember correctly. --Fastfission 17:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And I should say: If you want to take the time to get a mainstream historical book, to discuss it with citations, to not mislead and to demonstrate that you understand our WP:NPOV policy -- your contributions will of course be welcome. But your avid citation of some of the crank-iest material on the subject does not lead me to think that this is the path you will be likely to follow. --Fastfission 17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission: Keswani and Sir Edmund Whittaker are as mainstream as you can get, and they both agree with Winterberg, and let me remind you that Dr. Winterberg is a professor of Theoretical Physics at the University of Nevada who has published hundreds of scientific articles and who received his PhD from Werner Heisenberg at world renowned Goettingen University.

Regarding what Einstein called General Relativity, Kip Thorne on page 117 of his popular book Black Holes and Time Warps, writes the following and I quote Kip Thorne: Recognition for the first discovery of the equation must go to David Hilbert. - It was therefore Hilbert who published the equation of General Relativity before Einstein, and this quotation should be inserted into Wikipedia's Einstein Page in the section discussing General Relativity. (Stephan Hawking said the same thing as Kip Thorne in Time Magazine, page 57, December 31, 1999). I will now insert Kip Thorne's quote into Wikipedia's Einstein Page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

Clearing up the similarities and differences

Darrigol, Olivier. (2004) "The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection". Isis. Philadelphia: Vol.95, Iss. 4; pg. 614, 14 pgs

By 1905 Poincaré's and Einstein's reflections on the electrodynamics of moving bodies led them to postulate the universal validity of the relativity principle, according to which the outcome of any conceivable experiment is independent of the inertial frame of reference in which it is performed.2 In particular, they both assumed that the velocity of light measured in different inertial frames was the same. They further argued that the space and time measured by observers belonging to different inertial systems were related to each other through the Lorentz transformations. They both recognized that the Maxwell-Lorentz equations of electrodynamics were left invariant by these transformations. They both required that every law of physics should be invariant under these transformations. They both gave the relativistic laws of motion. They both recognized that the relativity principle and the energy principle led to paradoxes when conjointly applied to radiation processes.3

On several points - namely, the relativity principle, the physical interpretation of Lorentz's transformations (to first order), and the radiation paradoxes - Poincaré's relevant publications antedated Einstein's relativity paper of 1905 by at least five years, and his suggestions were radically new when they first appeared. On the remaining points, publication was nearly simultaneous.

I turn now to basic conceptual differences. Einstein completely eliminated the ether, required that the expression of the laws of physics should be the same in any inertial frame, and introduced a "new kinematics" in which the space and time measured in different inertial systems were all on exactly the same footing. In contrast, Poincaré maintained the ether as a privileged frame of reference in which "true" space and time were defined, while he regarded the space and time measured in other frames as only "apparent." He treated the Lorentz contraction as a hypothesis regarding the effect of the edgewise motion of a rod through the ether, whereas for Einstein it was a kinematic consequence of the difference between the space and time defined by observers in relative motion. Einstein gave the operational meaning of time dilation, whereas Poincaré never discussed it. Einstein derived the expression of the Lorentz transformation from his two postulates (the relativity principle and the constancy of the velocity of light in a given inertial system), whereas Poincaré obtained these transformations as those that leave the Maxwell-Lorentz equations invariant. Whereas Einstein, having eliminated the ether, needed a second postulate, in Poincaré's view the constancy of the velocity of light (in the ether frame) derived from the assumption of a stationary ether. Einstein obtained the dynamics of any rapidly moving particle by the direct use of Lorentz covariance, whereas Poincaré reasoned according to a specific model of the electron built up in conformity with Lorentz covariance. Einstein saw that Poincaré's radiation paradoxes could be solved only by assuming the inertia of energy, whereas Poincaré never returned to this question. Lastly, Poincaré immediately proposed a relativistic modification of Newton's law of gravitation and saw the advantages of a four-vector formalism in this context, whereas Einstein waited a couple of years to address this problem complex.4 Lucidish

Olivier is only pointing out cosmetic differences, no real differences. He is just talking semantics. In addition, regarding any ether, Poincare was actually ambivalent towards any ether, he regarded ether as superfluous, and correctly so. It changes absolutely nothing in the equations. Finally, note that Olivier says Poincare was first, before Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

1. Yes, indeed, that is what Olivier says. This is an argument in your favor, though now with the benefit of reputable reference and citation which cannot be ignored (unlike your previous comments, which were lacking in that department).

2. Absolutely none of the above is "cosmetic" or "semantics". Either there is an ether, or there isn't: you claim one, or you claim the other. As it turns out, there isn't any such thing as an "ether"; Einstein helped bring an end to that notion. That's a core, very substantive difference. If you believe this to be "semantics", then it is only semantics in the sense that all substantial issues, including physics, are semantic. Lucidish 16:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, 69/Licorne, you may have missed something that you might say was in your favor in Darrigol's quote. "Einstein saw that Poincare's radiation paradoxes could be solved only by assuming the inertia of energy", which might suggest Einstein had read Poincare (1900) - the momentum of radiation paper, and was guided by that to guess that Poincare's "fictitious mass" of radiation had come from the mass of the emiting object, the step that de Kludde claims is really easy. I haven't heard of any proof that Einstein had read Poincare (1900), and don't know if Darrigol means to imply that. E4mmacro 11:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In the 1930's Dirac wrote that one can always keep a concept of an ether. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

You can also always keep a concept of invisible, untouchable bunnies who propel atoms by shooting fire from their noses. Science doesn't have anything to say about that. Lucidish 17:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish, you are correct there, that ether is a philosophical question. If you regard ether as the fabric of space then you can even today maintain a concept of ether, it really is a superfluous subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

We mostly agree. My point is, it's still an issue of substance, not just semantics. And it is not scientifically credible. That's a weakness of Poincare's, and one way in which Einstein was a clear improvement from a scientific POV. Lucidish 22:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish, Au Contraire, Poincare was correct to remain ambivalent towards a hypothetical ether. In contrast, Einstein was wrong to categorically support one side of an open question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I do not get the impression that "ambivalence" was quite the manner in which the above paragraphs characterize Poincare's take on the ether.

As to whether or not Einstein repudiated the ether as a concept, or simply removed the need for it, I don't know; only the former might be considered, perhaps, infelicitous of him. The latter, however, does not violate any nice conventions on scientific prudence. Lucidish 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Darrigol is probably one of the most reliable historians of physics out there (he's one of the few who both has a tremendous historical and philosophical mind while also having a truly remarkable understanding of physics), and I will be happy with any edits based on his work, as long as they don't misconstrue in any way. I don't have time at the moment to go over all of the above but I'll probably read the whole article when I get a chance next week, as it would be good to have down pat. --Fastfission 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Darrigol wants to keep his job and not step on any toes, he is restricted by political correctness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

I suspect that my eyes could not roll any further back into my head without breaking retinae. Lucidish 03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And comments like this are why there is very little good faith assumed in this case. --Fastfission 17:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert vs. Einstein

To Referees: Kip Thorne writes on page 117 of his book Black Holes and Time Warps that Einstein's Gravitational equation was first published by David Hilbert and that recognition for the equation must go to David Hilbert. So WHY don't you allow this to be posted in the section regarding General Relativity ? Kip Thorne is as good a source there is. Why do you disallow his words ? - Stephan Hawking agrees with Kip Thorne as I pointed out above. - Why do you censure this information  ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 04:10, January 8, 2006 (UTC)

Paul August's revert is understandable, given the lack of citation. However, I must admit being puzzled by the following revert (by Zsinj et al), since you did provide the source.

No doubt a large part of the reason why people are keen to revert you is that you are an anonymous user. Anons are regarded with suspicion by the community of Wiki-editors, especially on Featured Articles. I recommend you get an account. Lucidish 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Very Good, thank you, for finally adding to the article that Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation was indeed first published by David Hilbert. This equation is what Einstein called General Relativity and yes, it was first published by Hilbert, not Einstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 05:12, January 8, 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the Kip Thorne source. However his statement needs to be placed in context. According to Thorne, Hilbert published the result five days earlier than Einstein, after "mulling over things he had learned" from a recent visit by Einstein to Gottingen. He goes on to say:

"Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." (Kip Thorne, Black Holes and Time Warps pp. 117-118)

So Einstein seems deserving of the credit. Perhaps the fact that Hilbert published five days earlier together with the above quote could be placed in a footnote.

Paul August ☎ 05:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein could not do it, it took Hilbert to complete it, and what counts in science is who publishes first, not second. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 January 2006 vandalism has occured from this IP

What is your source for saying that Einstein "could not do it alone"? The source you cite above indicates that Einstein developed the equation independently from Hilbert. Paul August ☎ 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein submitted wrong field equations on November 4 and 11, 1915. The first set was only invariant under volume-preserving diffeomorphisms while the second was generally covariant, but required the vanishing of the trace of the stress-energy tensor of matter. On November 18, Einstein confirmed the arrival of a postcard (or letter) from Hilbert, probably written on November 16, containing information about Hilbert's work on the field equations. Also on November 18, Einstein submitted his Mercury paper, (wrongly) claiming twice (on p. 831 and p. 834) that the solution is based upon this assumption, while adding (apparently shortly before submission) a footnote stating that this assumption is not really necessary, and that he intended to change the field equations yet another time. This happened on November 25, 1915. See my WN wiki survey of the issue. User:De kludde Feb 5, 2006

Credit is about merit. Temporal priority is important as a means toward determining who merits what, who developed what independently of who. The fact that Hilbert's work was provoked by Einstein seems like a cogent enough reason to give Einstein credit. Lucidish 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert's merit is to have arrived at the correct field equations and also for pointing out that the problem of energy conservation, which was bothering Einstein, has a trivial solution if the field equations are derived from the principle of least action. This became known as the "Noether theorem" later on, and Emmy Noether was of course motivated by Hilbert's work, and acknowledged this in her paper. While it is is possible that Einstein might have arrived at the correct field equations pursuing his earlier line of thought, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that he did so, and there is every reason to believe that his decision to change his November 4/November 11 field equations was motivated by Hilbert's November 16 letter. The fact that Einstein (or Einstein/Grossmann) were the first authors to point out that gravity ought to be described by a pseudo-Riemannian metric doesn not at all change this situation. Theories may have several fathers. For instance, consider electromagnetism. The insight that electricity and magnetism are somehow linked together is totally non-trivial. In a way, the Einstein/Grossmann Entwurf paper can be compared to this insight. It pointed out that gravity should be described by a tensor theory, while people had previously tried to describe it as a scalar theory (like Poincare in his second Sur la Dynamique d'Électron paper). But without the correct field equations, you don't have a useful theory. No one would consider the fact that Maxwell was probably motivated by (inter alia) Faraday and Ørsted as a "cogent reason" to give them credit for the Maxwell equations! Thus, general relativity should be considered to be the work of Einstein AND (probably) Grossmann AND Hilbert. See, for instance, the remarks at the end of Winterbergs paper debunking the Corry-Renn-Stachel claims: In summary, one can say that general relativity is the work of three men: 1. Einstein ... 2. Grossmann ... 3. Hilbert ... User:De kludde, February 5, 2006

To Referees: It is correctly stated on your Henri Poincare Page that Poincare first published the famous equation E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein. This fact needs to be inserted on your Einstein Page for correctness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

• That page, as you might note, is listed as factually problematic for reasons such as this. --Fastfission 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• As for the substance of it — if the question is really one of historical dispute, then the dispute itself needs to be mentioned in neutral terms. One does not cherry-pick one POV (see WP:NPOV) and use it to stand in as the general truth of the thing. One reason the anon is getting reverted consistently is because he or she is inserting contentious information repeatedly and is otherwise acting like a POV-pusher. I have not pored over this particular question in detail but I don't trust the anon's contributions at all; they have not shown themselves to be anything more than a crank. The misconstruing of Kip Thorne's quote -- which does not simply say that Hilbert had priority, but points to a more complex and nuanced approach -- and "flattening" of it to fit the anon's pre-held POV about it, is simply more evidence of this. --Fastfission 17:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Hilbert claim may not stand up to scrutiny, but the Poincare thrusts seem to have legs -- though I'm not sure if he came up with the E=mc2 principle, unless that's what's meant by "principle of relativity". Lucidish 18:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the principle of relativity is not the same thing as matter/energy equivalence (it refers to the fact that simultaniety is merely a convention. However unlike Einstein I'm fairly sure Poincaré still believed there was an absolute reference even if it was unobtainable. Lorentz surely believed in such a thing. But anyway this can be checked fairly easily), not the same thing at all. --Fastfission 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Alright, good to know, thank you. Regarding relativity/absolute: Darrigol points out that Poincare privileged one point of view, the "ether" view, as absolute. But in practical terms, he talked in terms of relativity. Anyway, the merits of Poincare are that he had published "the relativity principle, the physical interpretation of Lorentz's transformations (to first order), and the radiation paradoxes" five years prior to Einstein. Lucidish 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission: Kip Thorne is categorical: Thorne's page 117 says and I quote Recognition for the first discovery of the equation must go to Hilbert - that is a precise quote.

To Lucidish: Wikipedia's Poincare Article is absolutely precise, that Poincare published E=mc2 in 1900. The article even describes the precise way in which Poincare derived E=mc2. This is exactly why Sir Edmund Whittaker called it Poincare's E=mc2. There is no arguing this it is precisely clear, no way around it. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs)

In what paper did Poincare give this equation? Lucidish 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• On Kip Thorne: The exact quote is above. You'll see it is not categorical. You are taking a quote out of context in a very intellectual dishonest way. --Fastfission 21:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If Thorne did write the quote attributed to him by Anon, what did he mean by it / what was he referring to? Lucidish 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To Lucidish: The equation that Thorne is referring to is the famous Field Equation of General Relativity, it is the central equation of General Relativity, the heart of the theory, and is regarded as the theory itself, in just one concise statement, which is the beauty of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
  • To Fastfission, Kip Thorne wrote recognition for the first discovery MUST go to Hilbert, and I italicise MUST. Sir, can you not read English ? Have you looked at Thorne's book ? I suggest you do so. Credit MUST go to Hilbert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .
    • Read above. The quote is there in its entirety, including all of the parts you are ignoring. It specifically discusses the way in which Hilbert's work was built upon Einstein's. Perhaps you are the one who cannot read English. Kip Thorne very clearly says "In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." But perhaps he was just trying to keep his job, right? --Fastfission 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

To both Fastfission and Lucidish: I have a PhD in Physics from UCLA. I suggest you leave the pages as they are, until another Physicist checks in, because obviously neither one of you is functional in this domain. I will be glad to continue to offer my expertise, as other Physicists check in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

You're quite right that I'm not a physicist. That doesn't mean I can or cannot read sources, citations, or observe when they are lacking. None of these skills are especially unique to physics scholarship (and if they were considered so, I would be worried, since they are quite elementary).

One example of where you were lacking in this department is, evidently, your selective ommission from Thorne, as demonstrated by Paul August. Though admittedly it remains to be proven what's going on with your particular "must be given credit" quote, a superficial interpretation of the quote indicates that Thorne thinks Hilbert deserves credit for doing it first, but not overall credit, which involves other factors.

Here is another bit of strange scholarship, re: the Time citation of Hawking: "Einstein had discussed his ideas with the mathematician David Hilbert during a visit to the University of Gottingen in the summer of 1915, and Hilbert independently found the same equations a few days before Einstein. Nevertheless, as Hilbert admitted, the credit for the new theory belonged to Einstein. It was his idea to relate gravity to the warping of space-time." What's interesting is that it says the very same thing as the Thorne quote provided by Paul August: that Einstein deserved the credit, because he laid the foundation for what Hilbert did. Quite clear.

But as I've indicated, I'm no physicist. Fastfission, on the other hand, is a historian of science. If we go by authority alone, then he has more than you, since credit has more to do with history and less with actual physics. Luckily, we being reasonable people, would not resort to such empty conceits, would we? Lucidish 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• It wouldn't matter if I or he were the Queen of England; he's POV-pushing, citing bonkers sources on the one hand, taking quotes completely out of context from legitimate sources on the other, and engaging in a rather pointless edit war at the same time. All of these are very serious violations of Wikipedia editing policy and I've personally seen no reason to assume any good faith with this guy in comparison with a dozen reasons to assume he is a quack. --Fastfission 22:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's reasonable to point out the relative contributions of Poincare and Hilbert, once a review of the literature is completed. Because of Darrigol's comments, I believe there is great substance to the claim that Poincare did a lot of seemingly unrecognized work that predates Einstein. It remains to be seen if he formulated E=mc2, or if anyone really has claimed he did. That'll require a trip to the library. Hilbert's contributions seem minimal given what I've read so far from Thorne and Hawking, but perhaps deserving of some brief mention, as Paul August suggested. Lucidish 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I've looked up the Whittaker reading. Whittaker does, indeed, state that Poincaré had formulated E=mc2 in 1900. The citation is "Archives Néerland. v (1900), p252." This absolutely deserves mention. However, what also deserves mention is that Poincaré never proved it, while Einstein did (at least, for one particular phenomenon). This is mentioned on page 52 of the same source. So Anon's point is a half-truth, but an important half-truth (assuming Whittaker got it right). Lucidish 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The question in this case has not been whether or not Whittaker (and others) have assigned priority one way or the other over time (it is well known that many people -- usually mathematicians or physicists taking a play as historian -- have made conclusions on all sides of things. Whittaker is apparently one of the rare anti-Einsteinians from the period with no history of anti-Semiticism,[29] good for him!) but 1. whether this priority question is notable enough to worth mentioning and 2. how Wikipedia's article should word it. Let me look into this a bit. --Fastfission 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: (Regarding E=mc2) You need to put on your reading glasses, you are misquoting Whittaker - he did not say that Poincare never proved it. Whittaker said that Poincare gave practically no proof, but Whittaker adds (p. 51) that Poincare did however give good scientific reasoning for stating that E=mc2.

Alright, "practically no proof". I think that that in itself is pretty clear on the point. Lucidish

Poincare's reasoning was correct, in deducing E=mc2, as described by Whittaker (p.51). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: You write that Hilbert's contributions seem minimal ? If you were a physicist you would know better than to say that. Hilbert published the famous gravitational Field Equations of General Relativity before Einstein. - and The Field Equations ARE the theory itself ! Einstein was furious that Hilbert was the first to correctly deduce and publish the Field Equations, because THAT IS the Theory of General Relativity, before Einstein. If you were a physicist you would understand this. Try reading Folsing's biography of Einstein. Folsing quotes Einstein who said it himself that the Field Equations are the theory itself.

I've tracked down your sources, read them, noted what each said. In both cases, the issue is that Hilbert a) used Einstein's ideas, and b) Einstein did the work, anyway (albeit five days later). Unless Hilbert's formulations were in turn read by Einstein, and Einstein used them in the creation of his own formulations, Hilbert's contribution is minimal. Noteworthy, I guess, but minimal, at least with respect to credit. Lucidish

Yes of course Einstein did read Hilbert's correct derivation of the Field Equations and then Einstein republished them. See Folsing, he cites the letter that Hilbert sent to Einstein giving him the correct Field Equations, days before Einstein then republished them. - Fully documented by Folsing. In addition, Hilbert in public conference presented the Field Equations five days before Einstein republished them, see Folsing it is all there, search Hilbert in Folsing's index for the pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: You need understand some physics here. Keswani (p.276) wrote what any physicist can tell you, that what Einstein inaccurately called the General Theory of Relativity is in fact in no sense a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity. -This is why Kip Thorne's book on general relativity is entitled simply Gravitation.

To Lucidish: Kip Thorne and Hawking have to say something good about Einstein to get their books distributed, but I am certain that they BOTH know that it was Grossmann who constructed the theory for Einstein. Einstein couldn't do it. It took Hilbert's genious to complete it.

Grossman is a new name. So is Smoluchowski. I'm not exactly interested in what Google has to say, have you got credible sources on hand for this? Lucidish 21:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See Folsing's biography of Einstein, he writes in detail regarding Marcel Grossmann who did the work constructing for Einstein the framework that Einstein had regarding General Relativity. Folsing continues, that Grossmann's work was still lacking terms, and how it took the genius of Hilbert to correctly produce the correct Field Equations. Regarding Smoluchowski, it is right there in Wikipedia, just click on Smoluchowski. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

To Lucidish: Search Smoluchowski on the net and you will find references that Einstein's solution for Brownian Motion was copied line for line from Smoluchowski. Einstein was indeed the Incorrigible Plagiarist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) . on 22:50, January 10, 2006)

I think we've come to the end of our reading of Whittaker. He says both a) that Poincare, in "referring to the fact that in free aether the electromagnetic momentum is (1/c^2) times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c^2) times the energy density : that is to say, E=mc^2 where E is energy and m is mass", and remarked that this fact would predict that a "Hertz oscillator" would recoil when fired; and b) that "Poincare had suggested this equation [E=mc^2] but had given practically no proof, while Einstein, who had also suggested it, had given a proof ... for a particular case". In the former, you have a very good point. In the latter, at least in Whittaker's estimation, you do not.

Alright, most of the rest of these comments are novel allegations with novel sources that need to be looked into. What is the exact title of Folsing's work? Lucidish 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask at any bookstore for Folsing's biography on Einstein, it is usually right on the shelf, it is considered the definitive biography of reference. Also, search on the net for The Einstein Myth Ives, to see Ives' publication regarding Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 which was an incorrect derivation, that nevertheless yielded the correct E=mc2, proving that Einstein was trying to derive what he knew was the correct answer, namely Poincare's E=mc2. -Einstein's 1905 paper derived therefore nothing. See Ives. The book The Einstein Myth reproduces Ives' published paper, and this book is in most major university librairies in the Physics section.

Lorentz transofrmation? Poincare and E=mc^2

Current version (1/27/06) says that Henri Poincare published the E=mc^2 equation first. As I understand it, this is inaccurate. I believe that Poincare developed results (the Lorentz transformation) which IMPLIED that E=mc^2 but that Poincare did not actually explore this aspect of his own work. I do not think the mass/energy conversion equation had been published in that form prior to Einstein, even if it was 'latent' within Poincare's own work. Perhaps an expert could clarify this and edit the page if necessary?Ben Kidwell 18:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am no expert in this area, but I can independently verify that this bit of information has been claimed (if not established) in the work cited and discussed above by Sir Edmund Whittaker. Moreover, I have run this particular text by historian/philosopher of science Howard Plotkin, who has indicated that Whittaker's claim seems to have some autheticity to it (though his area of concentration appears to be in astrophysics-related things). I will continue to investigate by presenting other authorities with the Whittaker text.

Fastfission is (so far as I can tell) the only one with an interest in this page who is an expert in the field of the history of science, but I believe he is occupied with other duties at the moment. So for the timebeing, it would not be prudent to remove the claim unless more evidence is put forward. Lucidish 19:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did some research with one of the best tools available (wikipedia, that is) and discovered a huge quantity of useful information at Talk:Henri_Poincaré. This issue has been debated extensively there, and it seems to me that crediting Poincare with the basic proportionality that underlies the equation is correct, altho he did not have the contextual understanding that Einstein created. I think the current one sentence statement in the article should be expanded. The whole topic of priority for the E = mc^2 equation is actually worth a whole article of its own, it's a fascinating case study in how complex these issues become when examined in detail. I'd like to see text along the lines of the following in the main:

"Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2 is a consequence of the Lorentz transformations that structure Minkowskian space-time. Henri Poincare anticipated this result in a prescient 1900 paper, but did not have Einstein's unifying perspective to give this proportionality context and significance."Ben Kidwell 04:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That sentence seems a little too dismissive of Poincare. Try: "In 1900 Poincare had shown, as a consequence of Maxwell's radiation pressure, and Lorentz's theory of electrons, that radiation, when emiited or absorbed, could be considered as a fictitious fluid with an equivalent mass of m = E/c^2. Einstein (1905), working from the variation of mass with velocity, suggested that when a body lost or gained energy of the amount E its mass decreased or increased by the amount E/c^2". This 1905 paper is the last? published in 1905, not the elctro-dynamics one. E4mmacro 21:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"The whole topic of priority for the E = mc^2 equation is actually worth a whole article of its own" -- Writtenonsand 23:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be avoided by instead concentrating on the contribution of Einstein: he was the first to present that equation as implying the equivalence of mass and energy content. Harald88 07:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Introduction must be rewritten

Wikipedia's own articles point out that Henri Poincare discovered Relativity, and David Hilbert first published on Novemer 20, 1915 the famous Field Equations of general relativity which completed that theory. Reference See Einstein-Hilbert action. Also, the so called theory of general relativity is only a theory of gravity, which should be pointed out. Thus, Einstein's Introduction on Wikipedia must be re-written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) 11:21, January 31, 2006.

Your complaint is no longer about facts, and now about presentation. How does any of this justify a factual accuracy warning on the article page? Lucidish 18:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This idea was covered many months, if not years, ago on the talk pages here. An anonymous user tried to accuse Einstein of plagarism. It may be the same person. It is certainly true that Einstein's work built substantially on those who had gone before, and that Poincare and Hilbert both made significant advances in what might be called Relativity. Who exactly 'discovered' it is one of those questions that depends on exactly what you mean by Relativity. What is certainly true is that Einstein was fully deserving of the praise he eventually got for the discoveries he did make. DJ Clayworth 19:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Made a slight tweak to acknowledge Poincare's simultaneous proposal of reltivity. Besides E=mx² deserves a mention in the intro. DJ Clayworth 20:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs more re-writing. He was not one of the original proposers. The theory was fully formulated, final discovery demonstrated, by Henri Poincare, all before Einstein's first paper even appeared. Also, Einstein did not correctly derive E=mc2 ever, his derivation was a tautology (Ives 1952). Also, the formula E=mc2 first appeared in 1900 in a paper by Poincare. Also David Hilbert completed the General theory, not Einstein. Hilbert first published the key equation the Field Equation, which completed General Relativity, not Einstein. Also General relativity is a misnomer, it is only a theory of gravity which needs be pointed out for correctness.69.22.98.146 20:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the principle of relativity, and the theory of relativity. While Pointcare and Lorentz certainly made huge advances, it was Einstein's interpretation that gave us the complete theory and made it more than a thought experiment.--Stephan Schulz 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

to Schultz, you are incorrect. Einstein's 1905 paper had no new interpretations from Poincare's 1905 paper. -- And the subject here is the 1905 discovery of relativity. 69.22.98.146 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I just now re-wrote it factually. If everyone agrees, we could lift the red tag. 69.22.98.146 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Your interpretation is far out of the maintream (to avoid a stronger word, like "false"). --Stephan Schulz 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the dates, it is precise what I wrote. 69.22.98.146 23:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please get a consensus on this talk page instead of reintroducing that priority dispute on the main article page. The Rod 00:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's silly to point to Wikipedia articles as proof of anything. If you want to document a controversy, create a page on "Disputes over the origin of Relativity" and describe the controversy there, and CITE YOUR SOURCES. --Alvestrand 00:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Precise dates with Sources are at Henri Poincare and David Hilbert. Einstein's Introduction ignores all the precise historical dates. 69.22.98.146 00:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"The theory was fully formulated, final discovery demonstrated, by Henri Poincare". Whittaker's work says the exact opposite of this. Explain your conclusions. Lucidish 00:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire ! Whittaker calls it Poincare's Relativity, and Poincare's E=mc2, in 1900. Also it is a fact Hilbert completed General relativity before Einstein. FACTS ! 69.22.98.146 00:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually Whittaker caled it "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz". E4mmacro 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think History of special relativity gives background on why it's called Einstein's relativity, not Poincaré's relativity. And History of general relativity gives the same background on Hilbert - mentioning that Hilbert never tried to get credit for his earlier publication. With reference. Did Poincaré ever dispute the general perception that it was Einstein's theory? --Alvestrand 00:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure did, Poincare always claimed it was Lorentz's theory, not Einstein's. See the Poincare page and the Lorentz page. E4mmacro 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. I should read talk pages before adding to them. This is covered in much greater detail further up the page. --Alvestrand 00:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

dates are all that matters. Face the facts. 66.194.104.5 00:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Whittaker talks about "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz" as a chapter heading, sure -- but this is not substance, it is superficial. Actual substance would involve justification, facts. And Whittaker's testimony is, in fact, the opposite of what you attribute to him wrt Poincare. Poincare did NOT fully formulate E=mc2, only arrived at that conclusion with the help of "practically no proof" (which we discussed above). It was Einstein who proved it. If you read the Whittaker text, and recall the discussion on this we've already had, you'd note it.

2. Again, dates are one consideration to be weighed against many others, such as the depth of the explanation involved.

The article is factually accurate. The header should be removed. Lucidish 00:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: Shame on you Lucidish. How much plainer could Whittaker make it ! -- And you call it no substance, are you crazy or blind ? -- Whittaker made it clear that Einstein's 1905 paper had the equivalent content, with no new interpretations, as Poincare's 1905 paper. 69.22.98.146 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. "Practically no proof": page 52. You are engaging in simple fabrication. Lucidish 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UT

Header removed, slight change to intro. Aside from your Hilbert complaint, I'm at a loss to see any lingering dispute. Perhaps you'd like to show where your greivance lies within the text.

About the "general theory" complaint: indeed, the general theory of relativity is just about gravity. It's a very popular misnomer which is well understood in physics circles (or so I'm told by my undergraduate physics friends). Its inclusion here would be harmless, if you insist upon it. Lucidish 01:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Lucidish yes I do insist. I shall then insert it. 69.22.98.146 03:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT : Hilbert published the Field Equations, which completed the General theory on November 20, 1915, before Einstein, and Hilbert called the general theory Meiner theorie . Einstein is NOT therefore the discoverer of general relativity, SOURCE: Folsing's biography of Einstein. Also SEE David Hilbert. 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Einstein did NOT FORMULATE the General theory in November of 1915. It was David Hilbert who first derived the Field Equation and published it on November 20, 1915, not Einstein. -- Therefore Hilbert FORMULATED it, not Einstein. -- It must be removed that Einstein is the one who formulated it. SOURCE: Folsing. 69.22.98.146 03:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. First to formulate != the only to formulate.

Credit goes to those who put most work into the conceptual foundations AND mathematical acumen to follow through. Hence: Einstein credit. Lucidish 19:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish by your logic you must credit Marcel Grossman who did 90% of the work for Einstein. -- But Neither Grossmann nor Einstein could complete the theory, it took the mathematical acumen of Hilbert to correctly formulate the theory (the Field Equation). 69.22.98.146 21:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to read Folsing's bio and info on Grossman, because the bio seems to have gone missing from my school's library. I will contiue to look. Hopefully your reading of Folsing is not as blatantly and explicitly false as your reading of Whittaker. Lucidish 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT : H. E. Ives (1952) proved that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology ( 0 = 0 ). Einstein derived nothing, no E=mc2, in his 1905 paper. -- It must be removed from Wikipedia that Einstein proved E=mc2 in 1905, he did not. -- IVES (1952) was never refuted and still stands. 69.22.98.146 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So? Anything with an equal sign involved is a tautology. That doesn't mean anything. Lucidish 05:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm heading off to sleep right now, but point #1 seems to be somewhat more complicated than you make it out to be. Hilbert's Nov. 20 paper was not the final version published, as I understand it. One article which discusses all of the math and the publication history in detail is: Leo Corry, Jürgen Renn, and John Stachel, "Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute" Science 278:5341 (14 Nov 1997), 1270-1273. I'm happy to send a PDF to anyone interested in following this up, just use the "E-mail this user" button. --Fastfission 04:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo Corry was totally discredited, by Dr. Winterberg, whose published article destroying Corry is reproduced in full at the site http://www.xtxinc.com 69.22.98.146 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where on that site? It seems to be a commercial site adverising a couple of polemical, pseudo-scholary books by a certain Bjerknes. I could not find a Winterberg there, or the full text of anything serious. I take an article in science over that site any day. Bjerknes even proudly points to a publication in Infinite Energy, an obvious quack publication. Oh yes: FACT: Writing "FACT:" in front of an alleged fact does not necessarily make it so. --Stephan Schulz 07:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg's paper is here on his homepage. The article of Logunov et al. debunking CRS is here, but only the Russian version is for free. A list of links compiled by the publisher of a recent anti-CRS book written by Wuensch is here. You may also have a look at the mutilation of Hilbert's printer proofs (a fact which CRS did not tell their readers) here. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

click on his second book, go to references. 69.22.98.146 12:56, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Hilbert's publication of the Field Equation on Nov 20, 1915 which completed GR is indeed the final discovery of GR, before Einstein(Source: SEE Folsing). -- Also in Folsing: Hilbert sent Einstein a copy of the Field Equation, only then did Einstein later publish it, after Hilbert published it. THUS, Hilbert FORMULATED GR, not Einstein, so the Wikipedia Introduction must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 04:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes Einstein a major proponent of relativity ? 69.22.98.146 05:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that he (along with Poincare) posited the universal validity of the relativity principle, relativistic laws of motion, etc. Lucidish 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish, Lucidish, you know better than that. -- Poincare showed those points in his 1905 paper which was identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper, which was hailed as the discovery. -- Poincare's was the same, and first. -- Second does not count in science, you know that. 69.22.98.146 20:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Look again at the claim you're supposed to be disputing -- that he was a "major proponent" -- and you'll find that your above comment does not conflict with it. (Presuming you meant "1900" in reference to Poincare). Dates do matter; so does the quality and degree of proof; which, according to Whittaker, and contrary to your claims, lies in Einstein's favor. Lucidish 22:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

To Lucidish: a major proponent publishes first, not last. -- And, you need re-read Whittaker who calls it Poincare's theory of Relativity and Poincare's E=mc2. 69.22.98.146 03:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this. Won't repeat myself. For my reply, see above. Lucidish 05:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Thorne, Kip, Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein's Outrageous Legacy, W. W. Norton & Company; Reprint edition, January 1, 1995, ISBN 0393312763, deals with the priority issue. From our David Hilbert article:

According to Thorne pp. 117–118, after "mulling over things he had learned" from a recent visit by Einstein to Gottingen, Hilbert published the correct derivation of the field equation five days before Einstein, going on to say: "Quite naturally, and in accord with Hilbert's view of things, the resulting law of warpage was quickly given the name the Einstein field equation rather than being named after Hilbert. Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later."

Kip Thorne is making excuses for Einstein. And what Kip Thorne won't tell you is that it was Marcel Grossmann who did 90% of the work for Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Now Corry, from looking at new evidence (some original galley's) calls into question the whether Hilbert actually published the result five days earlier. But even if he did publish first (and that begs the question who actually proved the equations first), by five days, the standard view, as given by Thorne and shared by Hilber, is that Einstein deserves the Lion's share of the credit.

Paul August ☎ 19:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Forget Corry, Corry was destroyed by Dr. Winterberg's article published recently in Z. Naturforsch. 69.22.98.146 20:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

So, the FACT remains, that David Hilbert was the first to correctly formulate and publish General relativity, before Einstein, who could not do it, reference see Einstein-Hilbert action. Hilbert gave the solution to Einstein who only then re-published Hilbert's solution, source reference: Folsing. 69.22.98.146 20:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: Hilbert FORMULATED general relativity, not Einstein, -- Also, Ives (1952) proved that Einstein did NOT derive E=mc2 in 1905. -- So, the Introduction must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 20:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice, but you have been told above, that even Winterberg gives the credit for GR to Einstein-Grossman-Hilbert (not just Hilbert). Just as you didn't notice that that even Whittaker gives the credit for SR to Poincare-Lorentz (not just Poincare). These anti-Einstein authors (Whittaker and Winterberg) at least attempt some nuance to give themselves more credibility. E4mmacro 21:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kip Thorne in his book referenced above, wrote that Hilbert MUST be given credit. --Hilbert was the first to correctly formulate GR. 69.22.98.146 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

FACT: Einstein did not FORMULATE GR. --The INTRO must be re-written for accuracy. 69.22.98.146 21:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your facts, but this is really not the place to expose conspiracy theories. Einstein has received credit for this work- whether or not he deserves it doesn't matter. -Gyzmr

Keswani 1966 wrote that GR is only a theory of gravity. Kip Thorne p. 117 says David Hilbert Must be given credit for the completed formulation of GR, not Einstein. Ives 1952 proved that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was wrong and proved nothing. Henri Poincare first published E=mc2 in 1900. -- DOES WIKIPEDIA OPERATE BY SOURCES OR NOT ? -- The INTRO needs be completely re-written. 69.22.98.146 15:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you have not noticed so far, Wikipedia works by consensus. It requires sources (well, in fact, it requires verifiability). Secondary source like the ones you cite are at best evidence, not proof of something. In this case, the consensus seems to be that your evidence is lacking and unconvincing. --Stephan Schulz 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not entirely. Anon's point about Poincare has substance, and his point about GR being a theory of gravity is true (though obvious, and banal). The rest is either a misreading of the sources cited or depends upon a very narrow and out-of-the-way criterion of priority. Lucidish 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote KIP THORNE. 16:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

...apparently out of context and without understanding. Hint: What is the title of his pular science book on general relativity and black holes?--Stephan Schulz 16:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

KIP THORNE IS PRECISE, p. 117. 66.194.104.5 16:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's have a poll on Hilbert & Poincare!

Since the lone ranger promoting the Hilbert/Poincare viewpoint simply won't give up, I suggest we take a poll, so that the community (and the logs) can show that there IS a commonly held view that SHOULD be the one given in the introduction. Sign up below! Of course polls can't decide what the facts are. But they DO show pretty clearly the majority opinion among the Wikipedia crowd on how to evaluate those facts. --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• I've noticed user 69 has refused to sign under any of the options. To 69: could you, you know, come up with a name so we won't have to continually refer to you by your IP adress? Delta[XK] 02:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1A: Albert Einstein should have main credit for Special Relativity

• --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Gyzmr 20:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --24.253.120.206 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Dalmoz 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Delta[XK] 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1B: Henri Poincare should have main credit for Special Relativity

• --User:De kludde

Alternative 1C: Both Poincare and Einstein should receive equal (or near-equal) credit

• Lucidish 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• E4mmacro 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 1D: Poincare-Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski should receive equal (or near equal) credit

• E4mmacro 21:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

"Einstein's work was the keystone to an arch which Lorentz, Poincare and others had built and which was to carry the structure erected by Minkowski. I think it is wrong to forget these other men ...", Max Born, Physics in My Generations, Pergamon Press, 1956, p 195, as quoted by G. H. Keswani "Origin and Concept of Relativity (II)", Brit J Phil Sci 1966. So I added to Minkowski to my alternative 1D. Actually I thought my one vote looked lonely so I dragged in Max Born :) E4mmacro 04:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 2A: Albert Einstein should have main credit for General Relativity

• --Alvestrand 16:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lucidish 18:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Paul August ☎ 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Gyzmr 20:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• 24.253.120.206 12:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• E4mmacro 21:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Dalmoz 11:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Delta[XK] 02:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• --Muugokszhiion 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative 2C: Einstein (and possibly Grossmann) and Hilbert should receive equal (or near equal) credit

• --User:De kludde

I adapted the formulation of the intro to the known facts. For now I left "author" of GRT; but in view of Hilbert, that might be considered POV as it could be seen as suggesting that Einstein was the sole contributor. Harald88 07:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Quality

The quality of the introduction has been seriously deteroriating over the last couple of days. It seems some people are intent on spoiling a once well written and fluent page on Einstein, with pointless references to Poincare and Hilbert in the intro. D Simms —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.166.26 (talk • contribs) 16:32, February 4, 2006 (UTC)

"Some people" = the anon user who's argued for days just above on the talk page. I just reverted him (again) - when nobody listens to his arguments, he just goes ahead and does it. Let's poll! --Alvestrand 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT mob rule, it is rule by SOURCES. Look at wikipedia's own articles on Henri Poincare and David Hilbert. They are fully referenced. Poincare COMPLETED the discovery of the theory of relativity before the plagiarist Einstein's first paper even appeared. - KIP THORNE p.117 states that Hilbert MUST get the credit for the Field Equation, which is general relativity itself, formulated correctly and published 20 Nov 1915 by Hilbert, not Einstein. The INTRO must be completely re-written. -- Poincare published E=mc2 five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This is completely ridicules; so far I have seen maybe four sites and one book claiming Einstein did not come up with these theories- that's five sources! I can show you at least 100 encyclopedias all claiming the opposite. I'm sorry but you simply can't discredit one of the world's most famous scientists with just that. I suggest we stick the mainstream opinion of how events took place. At the moment this artical is very well written, so stop editing it. If you want, add a note at the end and a link to one of your sources. Gyzmr 20:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There is NO BETTER SOURCE than Kip Thorne. and it is a published fact that Poincare derived and published E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein.. 69.22.98.146 20:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish had agreed that GR is only a theory of gravity -- Lucidish approved this -- so do not knock it out. 69.22.98.146 21:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, say it is true- this kind of information doesn't belong in the first paragraph- the one that should sum the life of Einstein; I think this note in the body of the article is more than enough: "A few historians of science believe that Einstein and his wife were both aware that the famous Frenchman Henri Poincare had already published the equations of Relativity, a few months before Einstein; most believe their work independent, especially given Einstein's isolation at this time."

OK, but Hilbert should be mentioned in the body as well. 69.22.98.146 21:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, please stop editing the article until we have reached an agreement! Give the poll a week, and we'll see the general feeling is regarding this subject.

OK, I'll wait some, but the INTRO is simply factually WRONG and must be completely re-written, to conform with facts and with the body of the article. The INTRO makes it sound like he discovered E=mc2 and the Field Equation, which he did not. 69.22.98.146 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And your edition makes it sound as if Einstein stole it! Here is the passage from Hilbert's article regarding the subject: "Hilbert had carried out the last few mathematical steps to its discovery independently and almost simultaneously with Einstein, but Einstein was responsible for essentially everything that preceded those steps: the recognition that tidal gravity must be the same thing as a warpage of spacetime, the vision that the law of warpage must obey the reativity principle, and the first 90 percent of that law, the Einstein field equation. In fact without Einstein the general relativistic laws of gravity might not have been discovered until several decades later." There was a reason Einstein received credit for this work and he deserved every bit of it- the scientific community agrees on that, and as you can see from the poll, so do we. Now if you want, add a small note at the end about Hilbert having published the last bit five days before him- but that's it. Gyzmr 22:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

What Kip Thorne will not tell you is that Marcel Grossmann did 90% of the work for Einstein. So why aren't you hypocrits crying for poor Grossmann ?? -- The fact is, neither Grossmann nor Einstein could figure it out. -- That is why Einstein went begging to Hilbert to figure it all out for him. -- Hilbert worked on the problem four or five months and put it all together in the correct Field Equation which Hilbert then published, and ALL SCIENTISTS KNOW that who publishes first gets the credit. The theory of gravity (GR) belongs to Hilbert, So stop your cry baby and correct the INTRO it must be re-written. 17.255.240.78 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Know what? Noone-nowhere around the world thinks like you. I've read the links from both articles, and none of them mentions the things you say. Why do you think this theory was named after Einstein in the first place? Because everyone likes him? The scientific community was facing the same facts you have- and they've decided Einstein deserves the credit. We all agree with them. I doubt Even Hilbert himself argued. It's you and you alone who wants to change history, and you're just mad because no one here lets you do it. Now either add a note at the end about Himler having published the last step of the theory five days before Einstein, or pray for a majority. Gyzmr 08:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am newly arrived and definitely NOT an Einstein basher. However, I find plausibility in the thesis that to some extent Einstein succumbed to plagiarism. E.g., his 1905 paper, On the Electrodynamics of a Moving Body, contains no references whatever -- odd in itself -- and there is pretty firm documentation that he was aware of Poincare's seminal work on the Principle of Relativity and clock synchronization. Both concepts are featured prominently in his 1905 paper but there is not acknowledgement of Poincare. green 65.88.65.217 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the 90% of the work done by Einstein/Hilbert made the last step thing above, so Einstein has to get majority of credit. It is similar to what I think about Lorentz and special relativity. Some large % of the work was done by Lorentz and Poincare/Einstein independently took the last step. However, I notice the argument is always about Poincare/Einstein, never Lorentz, which seems a bit strange to me. At least Lorentz has his name on the transformations. E4mmacro 21:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Einstein has done 90% of the work. He came up with the correct framework in which to describe gravity, but then failed to find the correct field equations for several years, until Hilbert solved that problem. See my remarks above, or the WN Wiki article on the subject. Also, even if your remark was correct, this would not change the fact that Einstein probably plagiarized these alleged 10% from Hilbert. User:De kludde, Feb 5, 2006

Note how you said "probably"; you yourself are not quite sure about the subject you're arguing about! Anyways, an encyclopedia is not where you can post new ideas; it has been accepted for some time that Einstein desereves the credit. Delta[XK] 02:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert field equations revisited

Indeed the world is cruel. Marcel Grossmann did 90% of the work for Einstein, and is never mentioned. -- In science he who publishes first gets the credit. -- David Hilbert first published the correct Field Equation, so GR belongs to Hilbert, even though Grossmann, and not Einstein, did 90% of the work. -- Hilbert in 1924 stated that GR is MEINER THEORIE-- So the INTRO must be re-written for correctness. 69.22.98.146 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. 69: What you state above flat-out contradicts what you wrote today on Poincare Talkpage, namely,

"To anyone who may be overly sensitive, I want it clear that I am in no way implying in the article that GR belongs to Hilbert instead of Einstein -- I am simply writing down in chronological correctness for the article. 69.22.98.146 23:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)"

On that particular site it is true, I was not making a point of it, but here, I am, and why not? . 69.22.98.146 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Further, what your wrote today on this page is a serious distortion of history. Hilbert was put on the path to the field equations by Einstein's profound physical intuition that matter-energy warps spacetime. Moreover, Einstein had been working the problem for many years before contacting Hilbert. These points have been made here and on the Poincare Talkpage. It's a no-brainer; namely, that even if Einstein was unable to derive the equations himself -- and I am not sure this was the case -- the credit for GR must go primarily to Einstein, with some recognition of course and deep gratitude to Hilbert. green 65.88.65.217 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is no one insisting that Grossmann be recognized, instead of Einstein ? -- Grossmann did 90% of the work, not Einstein. Neither Grossmann nor Einstein could finish the theory. Einstein went begging to Hilbert, to finish it, which Hilbert did. Hilbert called the theory MEINER THEORIE, and the published record fully justifies his doing so. 69.22.98.146 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you know Einstein went "begging"? Were you there? Btw, if Hilbert thought it was his theory, why did he name the field equations, "Einstein's"? I read that somewhere on these Talkpages and it seemed authoritative. I forget the source. green 65.88.65.217 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is what Einstein wrote to Hilbert on November 15, 1915: Your analysis interests me tremendously *** If possible, please send me a correction proof of your study to mitigate my impatience. (Volume 8 of the Princeton edition of Einstein's collected papers, document 144). Whether one should call this "begging" is open to dispute, but he clearly asked Hilbert for a copy of Hilbert's paper, and confirmed on November 18 that he received the information he wanted, while Einstein's November 25 field equations paper does not mention Hilbert at all. A clear cut case of plagiarism, no matter what you believe about the details of Hilbert's November 16 letter/postcard.User:De kludde, Feb 6, 2006

The way I see it is that Einstein and Hilbert collaborated when the former got bogged down in highly esoteric mathematics. No "begging" afaict or guess; rather, an extremely reasonable division of labor. However, as I recently posted, the case for plagiarism is hardly vacuous. Einstein could still have legimately called GR his theory while crediting Hilbert's key contribution. Or they could have negotiated an "Einstein-Hilbert GTR". green 65.88.65.217 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

They did not really collaborate. Einstein had published several versions of his theory along the lines of the Entwurf paper, and Hilbert started work of his own along the same line, quoting Einstein as the author of the idea to describe graivity by Riemannian geometry. This is a perfectly normal thing to do. For instance, the guys who came up with the electroweak interaction started work on their own, rather than contacting Yang and Mills about possibly writing a joint paper. They should have settled on "Einstein-Hilbert GTR" or "Einstein-Hilbert-Grossmann GTR", depending on what you believe about Grossmann's role. The Entwurf paper was divided in a physics section, written by Einstein, and a mathematics section, written by Grossmann. It is the physics section which contains what was to become the decisive new contribution of this paper, the use of the metric tensor to describe gravity. But Grossmann's role in the invetion is difficult to assess. I dont know how this division of the Entwurf paper came about, nor what is known about the subject. Grossmann may have objected to Einstein's looking for non-covariant field equations, for instance. Given the way Einstein treated Hilbert and Poincare, I am not inclined to believe anything Einsein may have written about the subject, unless it is confirmed by someone else. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

Einstein went begging to Hilbert see Einstein-Hilbert action. -- Hilbert called the theory MEINER THEORIE in 1924, how much clearer could he be ? 69.22.98.146 03:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I read it. Now stop avoiding my questionS. How do you know he went "begging"? Didn't AE have something to offer?! (It's a no-brainer.) Why did Hilbert name the equations after Einstein? green 65.88.65.217 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was UNABLE to finish the theory. 69.22.98.146 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

You continue avoiding the question! How do you know he went "begging"? Istm, he did the smart thing. He needed help from perhaps the greatest living mathematician of his time, and if Einstein didn't have something reeeeely substantial, do you think Hilbert would have wasted his (Hilbert's) time?

Hilbert did not waste much time. Wuensch, in the book [Wue05] I am quoting here, thinks he sent Einstein a postcard or two, containing the functional to which Hilbert applied the principle of least action, the least action principle itself, and the explicit field equations. She bases her speculation upon Hilbert's personal notes, which have a remark "3 Eq(uations) on a postcard, underlined in blue" on a sheet of paper devoted to the subject. Writing down these three equations would have taken a few minutes at most. But this information would have been sufficient for Einstein to come up with a slightly modified form of the field equations in his November 25 paper. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

Why do you think Hilbert called it MEINER THEORIE. 69.22.98.146 04:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Again you avoid my question. Why did Hilbert originally call it "Einstein's" field equation? Was it not because he understood Einstein's crucial conceptual role. Is this so hard to understand? green 65.88.65.217 04:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware that Hilbert ever called his field equations "Einstein field equations". Could you give a source for this claim? Hilbert did mention Einstein as the inventor of the correct framework to describe gravity (ie, as a pseudo-Riemannian metric). He did this in the printer proofs of his field equations paper, as well as in all published versions tereof. But I am not aware of a single line where he attributes the field equations to Einstein. And Hilbert did claim priority for the field equations, see my WN wiki article on the subject. User:De kludde, Feb 6, 2006

Thanks. I'll check out your link. I recall reading that claim within the last few days, either here or on Poincare Talkpage I think, but it would be hard to locate. It could be an error. Did Hilbert ever refer to GR as "MEINER THEORIE" as 69 alleges? green 65.88.65.217

Yes, absolutely. His field equations paper was reprinted in the Mathematische Annalen in 1924. He writes: Einstein *** kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradewegs zu meiner Theorie zurück (Einstein *** in his most recent publications, returns directly to my theory, highlighting made by myself). And in his November 13 letter to Einstein he refers to his paper as meine axiomatische Lösung Ihres großen Problemes (my axiomatic solution to your big problem.) I am quoting Wuensch's book, 81-83, instead of the original sources. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

De Kludde, your paper system seems to have suffered a LaTex crash - the equations are replaced with error messages. However, more interesting to me is your quote:

The version of his paper printed in 1916 contains the sentence "Die so zu Stande kommenden Differentialgleichungen der Gravitation sind, wie mir scheint, mit der von Einstein in seinen späteren Abhandlungen aufgestellten großzügigen Theorie der allgemeinen Relativität in gutem Einklang." "The differential equations of gravity obtained in this way appear to me to be in good accordance with the magnificant theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later publications", where later (später, highlighted by the author) appears to refer to the fact that Hilbert had submitted the first version of his paper earlier.

This seems to say that Hilbert claimed that his formulas WERE NOT general relativity. Just that they WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH general relativity - a completely different claim. do you have a reference for this version of the Hilbert paper, or are they quoted in the sources you cite there? --Alvestrand 05:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The TeX problem seems to be caused by the fact that the people who run WN wiki have not installed all the math programs (latex,gs) yet. I will complain to them again. But it works perfectly well for the wiki I run from my hard drive (which is unaccessible to the outside world). It would probably work here as well, but may face quick deletion if I try to post it here. Concerning your other claim, my point of view is that Hilbert, while he held Einstein's achievements as a physicist in high esteem, always insisted upon his priority for the field equations, and that later (später) is his polite way of expressing that Einstein's paper depended on his. See my response to "green 65.88.65.217" above. User:De kludde, Feb6, 2006

De Kludde, if you create a page called "Hilbert, Einstein and the General Theory of Relativity", I doubt very much that it will be deleted. I even think it's likely that a link in "see also" of the Einstein article will stay there. As far as I can tell, it's only the modifications to the Einstein article intro that get rapidly reverted.

My personal conclusion at the moment is that Hilbert seems to have considered the field equations to be *part* of General Relativity, and give Einstein credit for the whole, while he wanted some credit for the part. That doesn't seem like a very controversial issue... --Alvestrand 07:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the field equations are "part" of the theory downplays their importance way of too much. This is a correct description of the situation only if it is understood that removal of that "part" causes the collapse of the entire edifice. Without the equations, the theory does not make any prediction which you can test experimentally. One could say that Einstein only pointed out the direction in which one should look for a theory and that Hilbert filled this program with life. If this was a mere "part" of the theory, then why did Einstein write paper after paper in his vain attempt to get the correct field equations? Also, look at the plagiarism issue which is involved: Einstein published two papers containing wrong field equations on November 4 and 11, the main text of this November 18 Mercury paper still states that Einstein believed in this theory, while a footnote apparently added shortly before submitting the paper announces that Einstein was going to modify his equations. It is reasonable to assume that Einstein received Hilbert's postcard on November 17, and his November 18 letter confirms its arrival, and the fact that Einstein had read it and compared it to his own theory. So the picture is that Einstein changed his mind on the theory he had developed in early November in the first 24 hours after he received Hilbert's postcard. A clear cut case of plagiarism, in my opinion. Why should Einstein have done such a thing if Hilbert's paper was of minor importance? De kludde 06:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert preferred to correctly call it The Theory of Gravity, and he also called it MEINER THEORIE in 1924, and the published record fully backs up his statement. -- GR belongs to Hilbert not Einstein. 69.22.98.146 06:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To De kludde, et al: Here's a reputable link from your site, an article written in 2004 by authors at the Max-Planck Institute for the History of Science, that claims Einstein had the field equations as early as 1913 but didn't believe they were correct and hence didn't publish them at that time. The article is 86 pages in length and appears extremely well researched by individuals who know GR well. If the argument is valid, to some non-trivial extent it attenuates allegations of Einstein's plagiarism and mathematical deficiencies.

http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/Preprints/P264.PDF , green 65.88.65.217 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed this issue in section 7 of my WN wiki article on the CRS paper you are referring to. Their claim that Einstein found his way back to the correct field equations he had given up in 1913 is misleading. The 1996 Renn-Stachel paper only claims this to be true on the level of the linearized field equations ("auf der Ebene der linearisierten Feldgleichungen"). The preprint you are quoting does not really modify this assertion, although they state more in the title and in the introduction. The only chapter in it which deals with the notebook in detail is chapter 2 on p. 14, and as far as I can see they cannot pinpoint a line in the notebook where Einstein has the correct field equations.

Understanding the notebook is not easy, but it is easy (assuming a modicum of familiarity with the math being used) to form an educated guess about such claims, using Einstein's November 11 paper. On p. 800 he writes:

Dieser Tensor $G_{im}$ ist der einzige Tensor, der für die Aufstellung allgemein kovarianter Gravitionsgleichungen zur Verfügung steht.

Setzen wir nun fest, daß die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation lauten sollen

$G_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

so haben wir damit allgemein kovariante Feldgleichungen gewonnen.

I am now translating into English, using the modern $R_{im}$ instead of $G_{im}$ (in case you try to read the origninal paper, be warned that Einstein denotes something else by $R_{im}$):

This Tensor $R_{im}$ is the only one which can be used to formulate covariant equations of gravity.

If we postulate that the field equations of gravity should be

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

then we have obtained generally covariant field equations.

Now, Hilbert's field equations are

$R_{\mu \nu }-{\frac {R}{2}}g_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

where are $R=\sum _{\mu \nu }R_{\mu \nu }g^{\mu \nu }$ is the scalar derived from $R_{\mu \nu }$. If Einstein was familiar with forming this kind of field equations, then why didn't he propose

$R_{\mu \nu }-\lambda Rg_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu },$

or

$R_{\mu \nu }=-\kappa T_{\mu \nu }+\lambda Tg_{\mu \nu }$

(where the scalar T is obtained the same way as R), and then present his case for $\lambda =0$ (resulting in Einstein's wrong field equations of November 11)? Jannsen/Renn discuss this November 11 paper on pp. 48-50 without answering (or even posing) this very natural question.

This way of making bombastic and misleading claims seems to be typical of the Renn/Stachel crowd. They make a bombastic claim about the correct field equations beeing found and abandoned in 1912/13, and when you look closer it only applies to the linearized form or something else close to but not identical with the correct field equations. Maybe Einstein could have arrived at the correct form easily, but the simple truth appears to be that he didn't. Another example for their way of making misleading claims is the claim, made in their paper with Corry, that Hilbert was allegedly motivated by Einstein's November 25 paper to introduce the trace term (this notion refferring to terms like $Tg_{\mu \nu }$ or $Rg_{\mu \nu }$) into his equations. The simple fact is that they have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Hilbert ever wrote down field equations of gravity which have to be corrected by introducing such terms. The extant part of Hilbert's printer proofs no longer contains the field equations in explicit form, but only the correct principle of least action. Most likely this is so because part of the proofs has been cut off, a fact which CRS failed to tell their readers. But even if the missing part of the proofs did not contain the field equations in explicit form, this simply means that Hilbert did not bother to derive this form (which is somewhat unlikely since he wanted to discuss things with Einstein and since he gave a lecture about his work on November 16, of which Einstein btw obtained notes from a third person). There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that Hilbert ever miscalculated the derivative of his action functional.De kludde 06:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is some material that puts the issue in perspective. http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm. Is Bjerknes generally respected among his peers and considered reliable? Do you know when the mutilation of Hilbert's printer proofs was discovered? green 65.88.65.217 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what Bjerknes' formal qualifications are, or if he is a kinsman of [Vilhelm Bjerknes]. I have both his books and think they are an indispensible item on your bookshelf if you are interested in this matter. It was Bjerknes' second book from which I learned the significance of some remarks in the Mercury paper for the priority dispute over the field equations. However, I am not always happy with his way of presenting things. Part of these problems may be caused by the fact that Bjerknes writes for a popular publisher. Sommer, Wuensch and Winterberg (who wrote about the field equations issue) all have academic titles in one of the relevant fields. The same holds for Logunov, who is coauther of a refutation of the CRS article and author of a useful book on Poincaré and special relativity, giving an english translation, using modern notations, of Poincaré's E=mc² on p. 113. Logunov points out, among other important facts, that Einstein reviewed papers for the Beihefte der physikalischen Annalen in 1905, and that these Beihefte had published a review of the Lorentz transformation paper. This discredits the often made claims that Einstein was working in isolations and did not know about the Lorentz transformation when he wrote the 1905 paper. Bjerknes has interesting ideas and his books are useful if you have some familiarity with the subject, but he often formulates things in a misleading way. It is the Logunov, Sommer, Wuensch and Winterberg works to which I would turn for reliable information. But they all quote Bjerknes, probably because Bjerknes contributed several useful ideas to this debate.

It is not known when the cut to Hilbert's printer proofs was made. Wuensch (who is a historian of physics as well as a Hilbert and Kaluza expert) presents her case for the theory that it was made in modern time, while authors closer to the Renn/Stachel crowd naturally disagree. She thinks it was done by someone without a scholarly reputation to loose (perhaps acting on behalf of others with such a reputation), not by "Corry with his little razor blade". The cut must have been present when CRS wrote their paper, because they would have pointed out the opposite otherwise. The presence of the cut is mentioned by CRS themselves in a later article (but not in the Science article which attracted so much attention) and by Sauer and Winterberg. Bjerknes was informed about the cut by Winterberg.

I will be offline for a couple of days and cannot answer further questions before Sunday.De kludde 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One thing I am not clear about. Did Hilbert's first paper contain the same equations now known as Einstein's field equations, or is there some ambiguity here as well? Was his paper submitted and published first? green 65.88.65.217 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have explained all this in the WN Wiki article on the CRS paper. Hilbert derived his field equations from the principle of least action. There is no doubt at all that he had the correct action functional in early November 1915. To derive the field equations from this, you have to calculate the derivative of this action functional. As Hilbert rewrote his article and the printer proofs of the original article have been mutilated, we no longer have direct proof that the article contained the field equations in explicit form.

Indirect evidence is, however, overwhelming. Einstein never accused Hilbert of having introduced essential new material not described in his November 16 postcard. Several people have heard his November 16 lecture or received notes from it. Not one of them claimed that Hilbert's theory was lacking an explicit version of the field equations. Calculating the derivative is not that hard (I think Lorentz gave his own calculation when he wrote about the field equations), and it is likely that Hilbert has done it because he gave a talk about his theory and because he wanted to exchange ideas with Einstein.

In Hilbert's published paper, the field equations take the form $R_{ij}-(R/2)g_{ij}=-\kappa T_{ij}$, from which one obtains $R=\kappa T$ by taking traces. The trace term $(R/2)g_{ij}$ can now be identified with $(\kappa /2)Tg_{ij}$ and brought to the other side. The result is

$R_{ij}=-\kappa (T_{ij}-(T/2)g_{ij}),$

which is the form in which Einstein formulated the field equations in his November 25 paper. This purely algebraic manipulation was not hard for Einstein to carry out. But Hilbert's paper was only printed in 1916. It is the November 16 postcard, and the fact that Einstein had been given notes of Hilbert's November 16 Goettingen lecture by a third person (which was recently pointed out by Wuensch) upon which accusations of plagiarism against Einstein may be based.De kludde 07:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Worst case scenario; Einstein flat-out stole Hilbert's equations. But is it still not the case that it was Einstein who had the crucial physical insight to model gravity as a distortion of spacetime? Clearly, it was a bitch working out the details -- in this case the field equations -- but without the physical insight there would have been no details to work out! Isn't this the ultimate reality of the situation? green 65.88.65.217 07:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was presenting versions of the Field Equations during that period, and they were all missing key terms. 69.22.98.146 20:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Leo Corry went to Goettingen University with his little razor blade and started slicing up the archives to make it look like Hilbert did not have the Field Equations, but Corry did not cut enough -- Hilbert clearly did have the Field Equations, and as the published record clearly shows, GR belongs to Hilbert not Einstein, and the INTRO must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 12:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

There is another big problem that still no one is addressing, the paper by H.E.Ives (1952) which proves that Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology which proved nothing, no E=mc2 in 1905 by Einstein. Einstein was TRYING to derive the E=mc2 that Henri Poincare had published five years earlier, but Einstein couldn't do it in 1905. -- The INTRO must be re-written. 69.22.98.146 21:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

New article: Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories

It may seem strange to start trying to write an NPOV article about a subject where I have a strong opinion on the validity of the issues being questioned. But since the proponent of the theories refuses to do so, I guess someone has to start. Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories is a stub. Once it's no longer a stub, it makes sense to me to link it from the Einstein article. --Alvestrand 05:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just re-word Einstein's existing article to make it consistent with the facts and dates. This can be easily done. -- David Hilbert first (20 Nov 1915) published the Field Equations to complete the General theory of Relativity, which is a misnomer by Einstein and which is actually only a theory of gravity. -- And Henri Poincare first (5 June 1905) completed the Special Theory of Relativity, which is then actually the unique Theory of Relativity. -- Also Poincare first published E=mc2 in 1900 five years before Einstein, who never properly derived the equation in 1905. -- Just re-write the article consistent with these facts and dates and you'll be accurate. -- There is no need for any separate article, except perhaps one on Einstein the liar and plagiarist and media clown. --Einstein's article will forever be red tagged, unless you correct its inconsistency with historical publication dates. 69.22.98.146 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Because I think you're wrong. Poincare never (AFAIK) abandoned the concept of the "unique frame of reference" aka "ether", and Hilbert never (AFAIK) claimed to have invented the concept of "curved spacetime" to describe what he had helped to describe mathematically. Indeed, my impression is that both were extremely impressed with Einstein. Since we have a dispute, the Right Thing is to document it, not to make the Einstein article into a POV for the not-generally-accepted viewpoint. --Alvestrand 14:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are ignorant of the subject -- Poincare refused the idea of an absolute reference frame. - Also, Poincare never mentioned Einstein, why should he ? -- And Hilbert was the first to correctly publish GR, not Einstein. -- Also Grossmann told Einstein about curved spacetime. - BTW you can always still today keep a concept of an ether, it is superfluous. 69.22.98.146 15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite sources, cite sources, cite sources! So far I have one Nevada professor and one distorting, Jew-hating quote-collector with no cited qualifications as your sole quoted witnesses. Your addition of sources to Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories are unlikely to be reverted out. Put your sources where your mouth is! --Alvestrand 16:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

sources are wikipedia's own articles on Poincare and Hilbert ! 67.78.143.226 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

before or after you edited them? Wikipedia can't be an authoritative source for Wikipedia! --Alvestrand 17:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

For sure! (that is, Wiki can't be used as an authoritative source) green 65.88.65.217 19:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SOURCES : SEE Folsing's authoritive biography of Einstein in any bookstore, look in the index, he has quotes of Sir Edmund Whittaker that Poincare published Relativity in detail before Einstein, and also look in index for Hilbert, Folsing documents Hilbert's publishing the Field Equations to complete GR before Einstein, to whom Hilbert later gave the Equation and Einstein then re-published it, it is all in Folsing. SEE also Whittaker's 1953 book he calls it Poincare's formula E=mc2 five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 20:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added Folsing's biography to the references on the "Disputes" page. Amazon's "search inside the book" couldn't find "Poincare" inside it, which probably says more about Amazon than about the book. --Alvestrand 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I have only read material from Bjerknes's site, not his book, but he says he's Jewish and proud of his heritage. I am open-minded on this issue and applaud you for starting the new article. Can you state why you think Bjerknes is anti-semitic? green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

See the reference on the bottom of Christopher Jon Bjerknes to a defense of David Irving, which I found when I googled for his name. I was surprised to find it. Where does he say that he's Jewish? --Alvestrand 02:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I also was surprised at his defense of David Irving and his association with holocaust revisionists. I don't think anyone should be imprisoned for questioning the existence of the holocaust. Laws allowing such prosecution seem an overreaction to the holocaust. However, the case for Bjerkes being a crank is getting very strong imo. I also noticed that seems obsessed with Einstein's Zionism, as if that's necessarily a black mark on Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/Response.htm

"In conclusion, we should all acknowledge the importance of recognizing and recording the facts of the history of the theory of relativity and the history of the "insane publicity" which has promoted and which continues to promote Einstein, virtually to the exclusion of his predecessors. We face a moral imperative to give Einstein's predecessors justice, if only posthumously, and we must acknowledge their legacy. We have an obligation to the science of history to accurately record the past. It was for this purpose of accurately recording the history that I wrote my book. I am quite proud of my Jewish heritage, and if John Stachel wants to change the subject to anti-Semitism, I will join him in condemning it in all its forms, and go about the work of a historian recording the facts surrounding Einstein's career of plagiarism, even if it means enduring Dr. Stachel's petty insults. I do not think that alarmist slogans and attempts to render the subject taboo have any place in a scholarly exploration of the facts." green 65.88.65.217 03:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

One other thing; does Poincare's clock synching method consist of using a light source placed equidistant from two stationary clocks? If so, it seems to deny the existence of an ether since such a method implies that the speed of light is the same in both directions regardless of whether the frame is at rest wrt the ether or not. I am confused on this point and would appreciate clarification from any knowledgeable individual. If Einstein adopted this method, he also implicitly denied the ether, as distinguished from just making the ether hypothesis "superfluous". green 65.88.65.217 19:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Add on: If I have correctly stated Poincare's clock synching method (I am not sure of that), and if this is the method used by Einstein in his 1905 paper, then I would have to agree with Anon69 that Poincare denied the existence of a preferred frame (the ether) and that notwithstanding what many commentators claim, so did Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 19:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct the intro

Forget the antisemitism crap. -- No more distractions. -- The INTRO must be re-written to become consistent with facts. -- H.E.Ives (1952) proved that Einstein's 1905 derivation of E=mc2 was a tautology, which proved NOTHING. -- Poincare did publish E=mc2 in 1900 (Whittaker 1953). -- Hilbert did first publish the Field Equation to complete the Theory of General Relativity before Einstein (Folsing). -- The so called General theory is a misnomer by Einstein, and is only a theory of gravity (Keswani 1966, and V.Fock ). -- So how do we re-write the INTRO ? -- Any suggestions ? -- 69.22.98.146 04:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd make specific suggestions, but not in polite company. The facts are in dispute, and, your ranting and raving to the contrary, a solid majority opinion, both on Wikipedia and in the science history world, holds that the intro as written is fair. --Alvestrand 04:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

BULL !!!

BE SPECIFIC Alvestan, You are not addressing my precise SOURCES. 69.22.98.146 04:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm collecting the sources you mention, but it's hard, since you don't give complete references, just an author last name and a year. For some of them (like Bjerknes' book), I've also managed to find other people's comments on it - the reviews on amazon.com were interesting!

Among the things you haven't mentioned is Stachel's note that Hilbert's article, dated Nov 20 by Hilbert, was altered substantially from the version that's in the printer's proofs dated Dec 6 - there's probably multiple ways to explain this, but it does throw your rant about "five days" into a strange light. See CRS' response to Winterberg, referenced on the "dispute" page. --Alvestrand 04:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that that same old reponse they had, that they couldn't get published anywhere ? -- I think so, it's crap. 69.22.98.146 05:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not the old version of their response. In the old version, they admit that:

the Editors of Science submitted his paper to us for comment, and that we prepared a substantial set of comments that he received. It was on the basis of these comments that his paper was rejected. We quote from the letter of Stewart Wills, Online Editor, Science, dated 9 January 2003.

We have now received a response from the authors of the original paper, which is enclosed for your information. On evaluation of the comment and response, we regret to say that your comment received a lower priority rating than other technical comments under consideration. As a result, we won't be able to publish it. We believe that, at this point- particularly in view of the age of the original article- this discussion is best pursued through new papers and contributions in the specialty history-of-science literature than in the Technical Comments section of Science.

If I interpret this correctly it means that Science has dealt with an accusation of bad scholarship by having it refereed by the authors of the paper it criticized, and then based its rejection upon their opinion alone. A highly unusual way to proceed, unless you have a strong political pressure group trying to defend an otherwise untenable theory against criticism.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal to send a paper criticising a particular paper to the authors of the first paper for comment. Quite often the second (perhaps revised) paper is then published and the authors of the original paper write a rebuttal to appear immediately after. If so both the second paper and rebuttal are sent to referees. Clearly in this case the issue was going to consume a lot of space on an issue of the history of science, in a Journal concerned with science, rather than its history. The editors of Science say that a history of science journal is much better equipped to evaluate this controversy, and they clearly right. It seems a big step to assume "a strong political pressure group" influenced them to do what is perfectly normal. I don't think the paper Science rejected has appeared in a history of science journal, has it? What does that tell us? That Winterberg was discouraged by one rejection and never submitted it elsewhere? E4mmacro 21:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Winterberg in fact got a revised version of the paper published in a German English-language journal - "Zeitschrift für Naturforschung". See Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories.

Thanks to Anon for pointing out that Winterberg's paper was eventually published in a peer-reviewed Journal (as was Logunov/Mestvirishvili/Petrov. I don't think that the way 'Science' dealt with the accusations against CRS was appropriate for a journal devoted to the impartial investigation of facts. Not to mention the fact that a quarter of a page of their source was missing can be construed as bad scholarship, and accusations of this type usually go to an independent referee, not the accused party alone. I am familiar with the procedure as I have seen it in action when someone lost his PhD after his thesis turned out to be based on fraudulent evidence. If 'Science' thinks that a journal devoted to the study of the history of sciences is better equipped to evaluate the controversy, they should not have published the CRS paper claiming to bring a decision of that controversy. CRS basically made an accusation of plagiarism against Hilbert, even though they didn't call it that way, just as the attackers of Einstein don't normally use the p-word. After 'Science' had published such a paper, fairness towards Hilbert would have commanded that they investigate accusations of fraud made against the authors of such accusations. At the very least, they should have published a note pointing out that CRS had failed to mention that part of the proofs was missing, and that a debate about the significance of this fact was going on in journals devoted to the history of physics.De kludde 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As for my suspicion that there is a strong political pressure group behind their efforts to discredit Hilbert, this is what anyone with a modicum of common sense would suspect, given they way this debate proceeds. Moreover, CRS and their sycophants are also making such claims, at least indirectly. They did this in the initial version of their response to Winterberg, and they did it again when they published a polemical article, written by Renn against Wuensch in a daily newspaper in November 2005. On the same pair of pages was an article, written by Wazeck about the Nazi opposition to Einstein on the same pair of pages. Naturally, Renn's allegations about the proponents of Hilbert were rather unspecific and stopped short of being justiciable insults. But at least for me, mentioning antisemitism in the Weimar time and then, in the next paragraph, continuing that one has to keep that in mind ("Dies muß man sich klarmachen") when taking a closer look at the current Einstein-Hilbert debate, is not that far away from accusing Wuensch and Winterberg of Nazi sympathies (see the response of the Hilbert proponents containing links to the Renn and Wazeck articles.De kludde 19:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

keep the disputed sign there until you do 69.22.98.146 04:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The attackers seem generally to have had no problem getting published, although Bjerknes' book was supposedly published from a "vanity" publishing house - Amazon doesn't give publisher data, and I can't tell if Library of Congress does, so I can't test that. Ives' 1952 article seems to have appeared in the Journal of the Optical Society of America, for instance - and Bjerknes' response to Stachel's criticism appeared in the magazine "Infinite Energy". But just saying "Whittaker (1953)" is not a complete reference. --Alvestrand 05:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you leave the Intro basically as is for the time being, but add a section which lists some of the outstanding disputes that have recently arisen -- such as whether Einstein used Poincare's results without proper citation and the plausibility that he was aware of them; and e.g. whether Ives presents a good argument that E's derivation of the famous equation is wrong. This requires some analysis of Ives' 1952 paper. I also suggest you do this with other editors, and ignore the offensive individual. His view is distorted by an obsessive Einstein hate agenda, like Bjernkes as I am coming to believe, and nothing can be gained by engaging him in discussions. green 65.88.65.217 05:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest linking to the Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories article in the intro.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stachel was not even worth responding to. 69.22.98.146 05:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Folsing has it all, Whittaker's quote, and how Hilbert discovered the Field Equations and sent Einstein a copy which Einstein re-published five days later, see Folsing. Also, Whittaker's famous 1953 book calls it Poincare's E=mc2 in 1900, five years before Einstein. 69.22.98.146 05:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I still miss a citation for Folsing. --Alvestrand 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

ASK for FOLSING on Einstein in any bookstore Licorne 14:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

OK Good, I see E=mc2 is now removed from the Introduction, good. -- Now, please see Kip Thorne's p. 117 in his popular book he writes that credit MUST go to David Hilbert for the Field Equations. -- And note that the Field Equations ARE THE THEORY ITSELF. -- The Field Equation is to GR the same way that Maxwell's Equations are to Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism ! ! -- David Hilbert called it (general relativity) MY theory of gravity (MEINER THEORIE). -- Note GR is NOT a general theory of relativity, it is only a theory of gravity as Hilbert correctly called it. -- Einstein mistakenly called it GR which is a misnomer. - All this needs be in the article for accuracy. 69.22.98.146 13:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alvestrand: Let's be very careful not to distort history. Worst case scenario; Einstein flat-out stole Hilbert's equations. But it was Einstein, working with Grossman, who had the crucial physical insight to model gravity as a distortion of spacetime using tensor fields. Clearly, it was exceeding difficult to work out the details -- in this case the field equations -- but without the physical insight and the tensor modeling there would have been no details to work out. This is the ultimate reality of the situation. Einstein was open about his progress and problems. He gave several lectures at Goettingen in 1915 about GR which Hilbert attended. Without Einstein, Hilbert would not have known about the theory, its progress and problems. Without Einstein there would be no GR. green 65.88.65.217 16:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Without Newton there would have been no GR. -- Without Grossmann there would have been no Einstein. -- Einstein couldn't do it. -- Hilbert 's genious did it.69.22.98.146 20:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Depending on what you believe about $E=mc^{2},$ you risk adopting a position which would be perceived as hypocritical by most unbiased observers. Poincaré observed that electromagnetic radiation can be considered as a fluid with mass density equal do energy density divided by $c^{2}.$ whereas Einstein predicted that a body emitting a certain amount $E$ loses mass $E/c^{2}.$ While this is not what was stated by Poincaré, it is what everyone familiar with Poincaré's result would suspect. In this case, if you follow the majority opinion on Einstein, your view is that this was not just "a bitch working out the details" or "exceeding difficult to work out the details", but the most important contribution to the subject, for which Einstein should receive all the credit for $E=mc^{2}.$ By constrast, you are apparently willing to believe that Hilbert worked out a mere detail of a theory estabished by Einstein.

To De kludde: I didn't mean to give the impression that the discovery of the field equations was a mere detail. Hardly. If Einstein used Hilbert's solutions, he should have given Hilbert credit. But since there was so much work that anteceded their discovery, I think name-sharing would have been appropriate in this case -- to wit, the Einstein-Hilbert field equations. If you take Einstein's irate comment at face value -- what he was sharing with a friend, not intended for posterity -- apparently he (Einstein) believed he had derived the equations on his own and that Hilbert was trying to get credit for the entire theory. It is therefore conceivable that both derived the equations independently. Otherwise, why would Einstein have been so irate? green 65.88.65.217 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that name-sharing would have been appropriate. But Einstein's irate reaction can easily be explained by assuming that he did not want to share his fame with Hilbert. While it cannot be ruled out Einstein developed the field equations independently, a look at the November 18 Mercury paper makes that unlikely. I am not going to discuss this here, as it might be more appropriate for the Talk on Disputes about Einstein's claim to the relativity theories.

That this is not the case can be seen from the Wikipedia definition of "scientific theory":

In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from or supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations made that is predictive, logical, testable, and has never been falsified.

The Einstein-Grossmann Entwurf paper is, of course, a theory in this sense because it contained field equations. However, it is a theory which had to be abandoned. Take the Einstein-Grossmann paper and remove the field equations, you no longer have a theory (because no falsifiable predictions can be made without the field equations) but a mere program for building a theory. It was Hilbert who finished this program, creating the modern theory of gravity. Therefore, credit for this achievement should go to both Einstein and Hilbert.

Agreed. I would add Grossman as well, as does Norton. green 65.88.65.217 03:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this is already generous towards Einstein because there are similar cases where the scientists starting such a program for creating a theory get less attention than the ones who finished it. For instance, consider non-abelian gauge field theory created by Yang and Mills, for which t'Hooft proved renormalizability, while Weinberg and Salam got most of the credit for the theory of electroweak interaction they obtained by finishing this program.De kludde 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true Poincare's E=mc2 was for the case of radiation. Sir Edmund Whittaker nevertheless called it Poincare's E=mc2 because even though derived for a special case it was correct, and later generalized. --Also, it was not Einstein who generalized it, it was Planck, -- Ives (1953) showed that Einstein derived nothing, a tautology. -- Einstein was TRYING to derive Poincare's E=mc2. 69.22.98.146 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hilbert who called it MEINER THEORIE. --If Grossmann and Einstein couldn't do it, that's the way it goes. -- And why should Hilbert remember Einstein, when Einstein didn't remember Grossmann ! -- 69.22.98.146 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In physics if you can't put ideas into equation you are just blowing smoke. 69.22.98.146 19:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Alvertrand: Norton's paper at www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf gives a balanced view of the history of GR and concludes that it is the work of three individuals -- Einstein, Grossman and Hilbert. green 64.136.26.226 19:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Nikodemos: I reverted your latest edit, which was incorrect. Einstein was not the sole author of the theory of relativity as your edit suggests. It was originally developed by Lorentz and Poincare. Einstein changed its postulational basis in his 1905 paper, in addition to making some innovations, e.g., his method of deriving the Lorentz transformations from his postulates. It is not factual correct to state that Einstein was the "author" of the theory of relativity. green 65.88.65.217 20:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Henri Poincare COMPLETED the Theory of Relativity. -- Lorentz couldn't do it. -- Lorentz was more of an experimentalist. -- 69.22.98.146 20:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... I wish those who lengthen sections indefinitely would break them up once in a while. This is hard to read. And the page needs archiving... --Alvestrand 07:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker's credibility

To Alvestrand. You probably know from the Poincare page that I think Whittaker is a tad one-sided on the E = mc^2 issue. On p.51 Whittaker writes

"In 1900, referring to the fact that in the free aether the electromagnetic momentum is 1/c^2 times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess density equal to 1/c^2 times the energy density: that is to say E = mc^2."

Whittaker did not mention that Poincare did not believe this result and advanced it as a criticism of Lorentz's theory. He did not mention that Poincare called it a "fictitious" density and that Poincare had no idea where the mass came from; it was just created and if it was real mass this creation would violate the conservation of mass principle. Nor did Whittaker mention that Poincare retained this view until 1904 at least, since he discussed this problem a number of times in his popular science books from 1902-1904. (I am not knocking Poincare, just pointing out that Whittaker did not mention all this). On the next page Whittaker jumps to a paper by Lewis (1908) where he says that Lewis "affirmed" that a body absorbing energy dE increases its mass by dE/c^2, and

"affirmed that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its total energy, according to the equation E = mc^2. As we have seen, Poincare had suggested this equation but had given practically no proof, while Einstein, who had also suggested it had given a proof (which however, was put forward only as approximate) for a particular case [if Einstein's case is particular, then Poincare's case is even more so - e4] (Whittaker 1953, p 52, comments in [] by me)"

You will notice that Whittaker does not mention that Lewis was affirming Einstein’s (1905) and Planck’s (1907) result and suggests he was affirming Poincare’s result. Apart from the downplaying of Einstein's efforts, Whittaker is wrong to say that Poincare had suggested this equation in the sense that (Einstein and Planck and) Lewis had meant. Poincare (1900) had meant nothing of the kind, and had no idea of it in his book of 1904 (This result would have solved the whole problem of mass violation, energy violation, momentum violation that Poincare couldn’t solve and which he still in 1904 thought cast doubt on Lorentz’s theory). Nor did Poincare mention E = mc^2 it in his 1905 paper or his 1906 paper (I may have missed it in the 1906 paper, can anybody else find it?). It seems very difficult to imagine that Whittaker couldn't see the difference between Poincare's "ficititious fluid of radiation" and the different idea that a body had less mass when it cooled down (lost heat by any means, so I conclude he sees what he wants to see. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

E4mmacro, do you really want us to believe that $E=mc^{2}$ in the sense of Einstein and Planck is difficult to guess if one has the result of Poincaré? If a body cools down, it emits electromagnetic radiation which Poincaré tells us can be considered as a fluid with mass density equal to the energy density divided by $c^{2}$. The total mass of the fluid is the energy divided by $c^{2}$. Isn't it natural to assume that this is the mass lost by the body as a result of cooling down? The more intelligent high school students would we able connect the dots, when informed about Poincaré's work. And for this reason, Whittaker was justified to treat the Einstein, Planck and Lewis papers as part of a development started by Poincaré (and, perhaps, JJ Thomson).De kludde 23:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It may appear easy now, but the fact is that Poinacre never did connect the dots in the easy way you say. So I guess it was not so easy then. Poincare is on record in 1904 as being baffled by Madame Curie's radium experiments. He had no idea where the energy came from. And the technical reason why he couldn't get Einstein's results is that, although Lorentz had shown mass varied with velocity in 1899, Poincare still did not believe it until 1905. You need the mass being $\gamma m$ before you can get Einstein/Planck result. And even when Poincare did believe it, 1905 and 1906, he still did not produce Einsteins's or Planck derivation. So Poincare did not do everything, what's the big surprise? E4mmacro 00:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker has little credibility on this issue, and one day it might be worth listing all the mistakes of facts, as well as the correct things, in his chapter on "The relativity theory of Poincare and Lorentz". It will be worth only when those who use Whittaker as an infallible published source are taken too seriously. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

On another point De kludde. A body can cool down by convection or conduction, not just by emitting radiation. Einstein (Ann. der Phys, v17, 1905) started with a radiation process "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c^2" and immediately extended to any form of losing energy. "The fact that the energy withdrawn from the body becomes energy of radiation evidently makes no difference, so that we are led to the more general conclusion that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content." Whether one agrees with the reasoning or not it is clear he is talking about something very different from Poincare's 1900 "momentum of radiation", and Whittaker should have realised that.

Einstein then immediately applied the new result to the Madam Curie/radium problem that Poincare (1904, Science and Method) had no answer to. Thus: "It is not impossible that with the bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.q. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully but to the test (Einstein 1905)". Einstein finishes off by going back to the radiation process "If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies". He means the mass (inertia) lost from the emitting body, is gained by the receiving body. Poincare, on the other hand, said the "ficitious mass" was created (appeared from nowhere) when the radiation was emitted and was destroyed (disappeared to nowhere) when the radiation was absorbed. Poincare never suggested that the mass of the emitter or the receiver changed when radiation was emitted or absorbed. Now you can argue that Einstein should have mentioned Poincare's "fictitious fluid", or J. J. Thomson or any others who nearly got the result in Einstein's sense, and you may argue that Einstein "must have known" of these results. Einstein might counter claim that the "momentum of radiation" was as old as Maxwell's radiation pressure and required no reference and in any case Poincare never repeated or used his equation again after 1900, and that he (Einstein) was unaware of Poincare (1900). But Einstein is not my point here, Whittaker is: Whittaker never mentioned all the above things which show Einstein (1905), Planck (1907), Lewis (1908) meant something different from Poincare (1900); Whittaker never clarified what Poincare meant or said. These are more reasons why I say Whittaker is not a reliable source on the issue of Poincare/Einstein and E = mc^2. E4mmacro 02:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One point I tried to make was that Whittaker's sentences are ambigious enough to make the casual reader think that Poincare had suggested that "mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, accoding to the equation E = mc^2", something Poincare never suggested. Either Whittaker was careless, or lacked some easily gathered knowledge of Poincare's writings, or lacked good enough judgement to assess the material available, or something worse. In any case, I caution against relying on Whittaker's word as definitive. You have to check it. E4mmacro 04:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

To forestall any possible flaming by anon69,I will mention that Ives J Opt Soc Am. V42, p540 1952 claimed Einstein’s “proof” was a tautology, J. Riesman and I. G. Young, JOSA, v43(7) July 1953, disputed Ives’ assertion, defended Einstein’s proof and his physical insight. In reply Ives, JOSA, v43(7) July 1953, reasserted his claim that Einstein’s assumption was not a valid physical consideration. E4mmacro 22:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker correctly called it Poincare's E=mc2. -- Poincare correctly derived it first, for radiation, and Max Planck extended it, to massive bodies. --69.22.98.146 23:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the two extra words "correctly" the information you wrote is contained in the analysis above. So I can't imagine you think what you wrote is a rebuttal. Thanks for repeating it, anyway. I will repeat it too: we know Whittaker called it Poincare's E = mc^2. E4mmacro 07:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And, in case anyone doesn't notice, the analysis above is about Whittaker, what Whittaker says, what he notices and what he ignores or doesn't know. E4mmacro 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why hasn't the massive Einstein lobby published dozens of articles contradicting Ives ? -- Interesting they haven't. -- 69.22.98.146 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone cares about it, perhaps they think Riesman and Young's paper is enough. You may as well ask why hasn't the anit-Einstein lobby published dozens of articles proving Einstein's derivation was wrong (rather that just quoting Ives). The answer would be, because these supposed papers would be nothing new, if they merely repeated Ives. So we have two published papers which contradict each other - an insoluble dilemma for anyone who thinks anything published is auotmatically correct. Everyone else has to read Einstein, read Ives, read Riesman and Young and read Ives's answer to them, try seriously to understand what each is saying, and come to a reasoned judgement. You can see above a reasoned analysis of Whittaker. One doesn't have to agree with it, but it shows what is required. i.e. something different from the endless repetition of the parrot cry "Whittaker called it Poinacre's E = mc^2", something that isn't diened in the above analysis of Whittaker.

Ives answered them and they had no response. Licorne 14:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Institute for Advanced Study

The link to Unified Field Theory is incorrect. It links to GUT, which is something later, and different. I think the former was an attempt to unify gravity and EM. green 65.88.65.217 05:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green stop wasting people's time will you 69.22.98.146 05:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a point here .... Unified Field Theory as Einstein imagined it is not necessarily the same thing as a GUT. But the link is useful in context. I moved the link to the term "unification of the forces" a little later in the paragraph. --Alvestrand 05:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's improved. I added one sentence for further clarification. Check it out. green 65.88.65.217 05:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's letter to Zangger

I would like to know from the defenders of Einstein's cause what they think about a letter from Einstein to Heinrich Zangger written on November 26, a day after Einstein submitted (if I am correct) Hilbert's field equations as his own:

Die Theorie ist von unvergleichlicher Schönheit. Aber nur ein Kollege hat sie wirklich verstanden und der eine sucht sie auf geschickte Weise zu 'nostrifizieren' ***. Ich habe in meinen persönlichen Erfahrungen kaum je die Jämmerlichkeit besser kennen gelernt wie gelegentlich dieser Theorie ***

The theory is of incomparable beauty. However, only one colleague has really understood it, and he is trying to 'appropriate' it *** in a clever way. In my personal experiences I have rarely come to know the wretchedness of mankind better than while developing this theory ***

What do the astericks above signify? Thanks, green 65.88.65.217 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The asterisks are placeholders for omitted portions of text.De kludde 23:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what one assumes about the content of Hilbert's November 16 letter, Einstein's accusations against Hilbert are brazen beyond any comparison. The only thing Einstein knew at this time was that Hilbert had started his own research in a field started by Einstein, a procedure which is perfectly normal in science, and that he intended to publish his results. The preserved part of the printer proof mentions Einstein's previous work. The only reason for which Einstein may have feared that Hilbert might not duly mention him is perhaps the example given by his, Einstein's, use of ideas of Henri Poincaré without attributing them to their author. The November 1915 events are indeed a good lesson about the wretchedness of mankind, but is was Einstein's own wretchedness which resurfaced after it became apparent earlier when Einstein plagiarized Poincaré.

Moreover, is Einstein's nervousness about Hilbert's achievement consistent with your view that this was just a "a bitch working out the details"?De kludde 21:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You say the printer's proofs. Did Hilbert's published paper refer to Einstein? 220.237.80.193 02:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

An excellent question! green 65.88.65.217 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I really must read additional analyses of this issue before reaching a definitive conclusion. However, istm pretty clear that we would have no GR were it not for Einstein. He was the prime mover and had been for around 10 years. As I indicated above, he gave several lectures at Goettingen in 1915 which Hilbert almost certainly attended, giving the state of his research and its problems. I see them as a "heads-up" for Hilbert, to catalyze his work (and Noether's) as a collaborator -- someone that Einstein solicited when his theory was near completion. It would not surprise me if Hilbert solved the field equations first, given that that was what he was tasked to do. Nonetheless, I think the theory owes its existence to Einstein. As for the 1905 paper, one of its original features is that Einstein derived the LT's from the two postulates of relativity, not from physical hypotheses related to an ether. There is no evidence this was done by Poincare. If this is an incorrect assessment, then someone should be able to produce a link to Poincare's paper where he does so. But so far, there are no links, only repetitious bombastic claims. Poincare was already a very famous fellow in 1905, when Einstein was an unknown. If Einstein had simply reproduced Poincare's results, it is certainly odd -- indeed egregiously implausible -- that the scientific establishment didn't notice Poincare's achievement and defaulted to Einstein. green 65.88.65.217 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim that Poincare's 1905 paper (4 1/4 pages) is identical in content to Einstein's much longer paper 1905

YES, Einstein's (Sept)1905 paper was identical in content to Poincare's (June)1905 paper and with no new interpretations, and not a single footnote, PLAGIARISM, by any definition. 69.22.98.146 21:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant to plagarism charges that Einstein 1905 paper was submitted on 30 June 1905 (19-21 days after the appearance of Poincare's short paper in Paris). But "identical in content"? Poincare's 1905 paper was 4.25 pages long. How long was Einstein's 1905 paper - considerably more than 4.25 pages? Einstein's paper had, for example, the relativistic Doppler formula, Poincare's 1905 did not. Einstein took a different approach to the force on a moving charge. Poincare followed Lorentz, the moving charge was moving relative to both the rest frame and the moving frame. Einstein needed to only have the charge at rest in the moving frame. Just another content difference. E4mmacro 07:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The discovery content was identical, and you know it well. Licorne 14:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 69. If your purpose is to denigrate Einstein, you would have a much better chance of saying that he worked from Lorentz (1904), just as Poincare did, but did not credit Lorentz the way Poincare did. The idea that Einstein had the opportunity from 9 or 11 June (when Poincare's 41/4 page paper appeared) to 30 June (when Einstein submitted his paper to Annalen der Physik) to plagarise Poincare's paper (published in Paris) seems far-fetched. On the other hand Einstein could have had plenty of time to read Lorentz 1904, the acknowledged expert on electrodynamics at the time (I am not saying he did). It seems your pro-Poincare stance stops you taking the best anti-Einstein stance available to you. Irony is so ironic :) E4mmacro 11:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph as follows:

Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879–April 18, 1955) was a theoretical physicist, and is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century. The generally accepted view is that Einstein is the originator of the theory of relativity. However, the theory has historical roots in previous work by Hendrik Lorentz and Henri Poincaré that contains many (but not all) of the same results. He also made major contributions to the development of quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and cosmology. He was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics for his explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 (his "miracle year") and "for his services to Theoretical Physics."

I don't think there is any dispute as to what I refer to above as "[t]he generally accepted view". I also gave Lorentz and Poincare due credit, but it is surely not true that Poincare's 1905 paper is identical in content to Einstein's 1905 paper. E.g., it doesn't contain the same interpretation of E = mc^2. green 65.88.65.217 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green are you re-writing the article ? GOD HELP US. You know nothing at all of physics ! ZERO ! 69.22.98.146 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

To Green. Your rewrite (above is very fair and balanced. Well done. Will it survive? Who knows. E4mmacro 10:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. It keeps getting reverted even though it's completely in accord with the historical facts! What I wrote isn't even controversial (except from an obsessed, anti-Einstein pov). green 65.88.65.217 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: Thanks for confirming above (under Whittiker section) that Einstein's 1905 paper was not identical in its results to Poincare's paper of the same year. green 64.136.26.226 23:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Green you are a new-comer here, E4 agreed long ago that the two papers are identical. - And in the section above E4 is talking about a different 1905 paper, so Green please bug off will you. 69.22.98.146 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

That is news to me. I think the content of Poincare 1905 is different from Einstein 1905 (the relativity paper submitted 30 june 1905) (see below). Maybe you are confused. I remember you told me that Poincare's 5 page paper of June 1905 is identical in content to Poincare's 60+ page paper of 1906 (written in July 1905, published in 1906). I merely thanked you for making your view clear - if you thought I agreed with your view I apologise - I was maintaining a tactful silence. E4mmacro 07:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To E4: I need to correct my previous comment. I was interrupted in my editing -- otherwise this comment would have appeared earlier. The famous equation appears in Einstein's last paper in 1905. This, together with the fact that Poincare never mentions said equation in his unique 1905 paper, makes the latest Intro (edited by Anon) unconscionably misleading. It gives the fallacious impression that Poincare's relativity is identical to Einstein's relativity. As we have discussed ad nauseum, Einstein gave a dramatically different interpretation to the famous formula which is clearly part of relativity theory. Also, as an aside, I am pretty sure that Poincare did not derive the LT's from postulates as Einstein did in his 1905 paper on Electrodynamics, the one that Anon is comparing to Poincare's unique effort that year. If he did so, why would a complete unknown (like Einstein in 1905) have been given accolades, whereas an already famous man, Poincare, was ignored for that achievement? It makes no sense whatsoever, because it didn't happen that way! I have to leave soon so I suggest that someone else correct the Intro. green 64.136.26.226 00:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 64: It depends what you mean by the Lorentz transformations. If you mean only x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,x,t) then Poincare did not derive them at all. He got them from Lorentz (but he used a slightly new notation and re-arranged them algebraically, and named them the Lorentz transformations). Unknown to Poincare the LT had beed published in 1897 by Joseph Larmor. Poincare (1905) pointed out that these transformations formed a group and satisfied the principle of relativity. If by LT you mean x',y',z',t' = f(x,y,x,t) plus something extra, the way Maxwell's equations transform, then Lorentz made at least one mistake in the second bit, which Poincare corrected. Poincare does seem to have been guided by the Principle of Relativity in the way he corrected the mistake. E4mmacro 11:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To 64: You also ask why was an unknown like Einstein given accolades, when a famous man like Poincare was not? I think the answer is that generally the theory was at first considered to be Lorentz's theory (not Poincare's not Einstein's). Some like Planck noticed Einstein, but Poincare consistently referred to it as the "Lorentz's new mechanics"; Poincare never claimed it was his theory. In the 1912/3 edition of a German book book "The principle of relativity" the author list was Lorentz, Einstein and others (with no Poincare). When GR was confirmed in 1919 (Eddington's eclipse experiments) Einstein became world famous and the de facto "owner" of relativity in the public mind. The later editions of "The principle of relativity" had the author list as Einstein and others. Anyone new to the theory who tried to read GR was naturally puzzled and then tried Einstein's 1905 paper which was easier to understand. Since that paper had not a single reference (which was a bit lax of Einstein and the journal, did they not have referees in 1905?), it appeared to readers in the 1920s that the SR came from nowhere, with perhaps a lingering bafflement as to why the principle equations were called the Lorentz transformations. I think I got this interpretation of the history from Herbert Dingle. It sounds plausible to me. E4mmacro 11:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Green please telephone E4 and let him fill you in. 69.22.98.146 00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest version has the baseline value of not being misleading, but it is too watered down. green 65.88.65.217 00:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you rather we tell the truth ? 69.22.98.146 00:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Malice or poor prose?

I draw your attention to the following excerpt, especially the last sentence.

Max Planck had made the formal assumption that energy was quantized in deriving his black-body radiation law, published in 1901, but had considered this to be no more than a mathematical trick. The photoelectric effect thus provided a simple confirmation of Max Planck's hypothesis of quanta.

Can I suggest:

Max Planck had made the formal assumption that energy was quantized in deriving his black-body radiation law, published in 1901, but had considered this to be no more than a mathematical trick. The photoelectric effect was thus afforded a simple confirmation by virtue of Max Planck's 'trick'.

That preserves a relationship in the subject of the two sentences, without the absurdity of implying a mathematical trick is a theory.

There's other examples of this sort of hack in the text: it's not looking too good right now. And after having read this talk page I can see there is a determined effort to revise the mainstream history. Maybe y'all should do something about this--wouldn't want to be in your shoes trying to sort out the good from the malicious, but that's where you are.

On a second read I understand the intent of the author... still, it's clumsy

168.253.132.188 07:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

168.253.132.188 07:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quantum hypotheses

My understanding is that Planck assumed something a little different. He assumed that a vibrating system (the atoms in the walls of the black-body container) could change their energy only by a discrete amount. That is, he assumed the vibrational states of the oscillators were quantized, so the energy of oscillation of the matter could be $jh\nu$, for integer values of j only. He did NOT assume that the electromagnetic energy in the black-body container was quantized. It is a slightly different thing to say energy was absorbed or emitted from the oscillators in discrete amounts, those amounts depending on a physical property of the oscillator (the matter) - its natural frequency $\nu$. My understanding is that Einstein (in the photo-electric paper) turned it around, or extended it to the radiation, introducing the photon at the same time. Well that is what I think I was first taught, anyway. E4mmacro 07:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You may be well informed about this. But it still means that Planck did not consider his quantum hypothesis to be mere mathematical trick, as the original (biased) Wikipedia article claims.De kludde 17:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Max Planck had the wisdom to let future experiments show the full extent of the possible applicability of QUANTA. --Poincare did the same when he first discovered E=mc2, it no doubt occurred to Poincare the future possible ramifications of his formula E=mc2, but like Planck he showed the wisdom to not speculate until experiments could confirm. -- Poincare no doubt had in mind the obvious possbility of m=E/c2 being a real mass - it was no doubt obvious for him to consider such. Licorne 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Have they worked out yet on this page that Licorne is 66/69? E4mmacro 20:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been mentioned. It's an intelligence test of sorts, and if one passes, the individual is assured that his/her IQ is above 61. LOL. green 65.88.65.217 02:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Priority Page directly FROM THE INTRO

The Intro is clearly inaccurate, but no one can re-write it without making Einstein look like what he really was, a plagiarist. -- So the next best thing would be to keep the politically correct crap in the Intro to please those who are religiously attached to the myth, but to have a link FROM THE INTRO to a Priority Page for those who want hard facts and dates. Licorne 14:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking Suggestions

The Intro still needs re-wording to make it factual. Any suggestions ? -- Problems are that it was David Hilbert who first published the Field Equation which completed the Theory of General Relativity and which legitimately gives Hilbert rightful claim to the theory, and Henri Poincare completed the Special Theory of Relativity three months before Einstein. -- So how do we re-write the Intro without calling Einstein a plagiarist ? Any suggestions ? Licorne 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Hilbet issue is adequately dealt with in note 9. Paul August ☎ 05:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It affects the Intro. -- I strongly disagree with the Intro, due to Hilbert's first discovery. Licorne 05:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see the tiny footnote number 9, in the general relativity section, which goes to Kip Thorne. Thorne is there misquoting Hilbert. Thorne claims in Hilbert's view of things.... --There Thorne is WRONG. --Hilbert called the Field Equations MEINER THEORIE in 1924. -- So Hilbert is the AUTHOR of the theory, not Einstein. -- Also Thorne is WRONG to say Hilbert did the last tiny steps. --Hilbert created the magnificent variational principle, which completed the theory. Finally Thorne is WRONG to say Einstein did 90% of the work. -- It was Grossmann who did 90% of the work for Einstein. --Thorne is making excuses for Einstein, because Thorne's wife Ms. Weinstein would kill him if he didn't. Licorne 15:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That footnote number 9 should go to Hilbert's quote MEINER THEORIE in 1924. Licorne 15:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

General Relativity is a misnomer it is only a Theory of Gravity, as Hilbert properly called it. -- this must be in the Intro to not be misleading. Licorne 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Intro nows claims Einstein made major contributions to the development of Special Relativity. --In fact SR was completed before Einstein's first paper appeared ! -- Also Einstein's later derivation of E=mc2 was incorrect, Planck first derived E=mc2 for massive bodies, not Einstein. -- So what did Einstein contribute as it claims in the Intro ? -- Please explain ! --Licorne 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Intro is very misleading. -- The General Theory is a misnomer and is only a theory of gravity -- the Intro makes it appear Einstein completed Relativity which he did not. -- The Special Theory is Relativity, the General theory is just a theory of gravity. Einstein deliberately created the misnomer to hide these facts.Licorne 15:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong: the article on general relativity is wrong on this point too. Einstein explained very clearly (read intro 1916, it's online) that GRT contained a theory of gravitation, it wasn't itself a theory of gravitation. But in the end only that part was retained in full. Harald88 21:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

GOOD HARALD, yes GR is only a theory of gravity, Hilbert always called it his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity. -- Vladimir Fock said that Einstein's calling it General Relativity proved that Einstein never understood it. -- Grossmann constructed it for Einstein, and Hilbert completed the theory. Licorne 02:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous in 1915 or 1919?

A small point: did someone have a specific objection to the statement that Einstein became world famous after the 1919 eclipse expedition (rather than the 1915 paper) or did it just get changed back as part of the revert wars? I think "world famous" means having the NYTimes write the headlines shown in the article. I doubt there were similar headlines in 1915 when a theory was published in a germany language scientific journal. In other words: "After a dramatic prediction of general relativity, the bending of light by the sun's gravity, was confirmed in 1919, Einstein became world-famous ..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4mmacro (talk • contribs) 20:02, February 14, 2006 (UTC)

YES the New York media created the Einstein Myth after the eclipse. Poincare had died in 1912, and after the war no one would defend the German Hilbert because he no doubt had put babies on bayonets. Licorne 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the NYTimes knew of Hilbert (did Eddington ever mention Hilbert?). I guess the NYTimes thought someone working in Germany, and born in Germany, (and if they had bothered to check, with German citizenship from 1914), i.e. Einstein, was German. Or is Licorne's comment part of a Jewish conspiracy thing? E4mmacro 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• Did Eddington discuss Hilbert: not in his (jointly authored) paper on the eclipse. As for Licorne, he's just spouting off his typical nonsense. --Fastfission 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It was E4 who mentioned the NEW YORK TIMES. Licorne 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• As for the popularity... he didn't become world famous (outside of the community of physicists) until after 1919. Mentioning of Einstein in American newspapers was almost nil before 1919 (the only real incidence was he was one of many German scientists who signed a petition against WWI, and that gets mentioned); between 1919 and, say, 1922, he was discussed in well over a hundred articles in major U.S. newspapers, according to a ProQuest search I conducted. --Fastfission 01:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro is still wrong

Henri Poincare completed the discovery of Special Relativity on 5 June 1905, before Eistein's first paper even appeared, so Einstein is NOT the AUTHOR of relativity. Also, David Hilbert first correctly published the so called General Theory of Relativity on 20 November 1915, before Einstein. So the INTRO must be changed. -- Also, Hilbert called the theory his (MEINER THEORIE) Theory of Gravity. - Einstein later republished Hilbert's equations mistakenly calling it a General Theory of Relativity, a misnomer. -- All this needs be clearly reflected in the Intro. -- Licorne 20:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with yout that the statement "author" of GRT lacks subtleness, and might be considered POV. I wasn't inspired with a good objective alternative though. Maybe someone else will get a good idea how to phrase that in a straightforward but undisputable way.

Some of Einstein's contributions to SRT in 1905 "after the fact":

- published derivation from minimal assumptions (which, btw, some regard as the most important step; but that's a matter of taste of course)

- published symmetrical ("relativistic") Doppler effect

- published the "mass corresponds to energy" interpretation of E=mc2

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harald88 (talk • contribs) 21:33, February 14, 2006 (UTC)

GOOD HARALD, yes Einstein was after the fact. -- and GOOD HARALD Einstein was NOT the AUTHOR of GR. -- you better be careful Harald, fastfission will be calling you names too, soon enough. Licorne 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wrote above: Einstein: he was the first to present that equation as implying the equivalence of mass and energy content. Harald88 07:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC) ; moreover:

In 1905 he was also the first to make a prediction about measurable time dilation. Harald88 06:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that you failed to read the replies the last time you submitted exactly this comment? There is no point in saying the same thing over and over if you are not going to listen to the replies. DJ Clayworth 20:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No one had replied !!!!! Not even you !!!! Licorne 21:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As I read this talk page I find almost nothing discussed except the points you bring up. DJ Clayworth 21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, no one can deny the facts. Not even you. Licorne 21:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DJ, when someone speaks against him, he insults them; when nobody does, he takes it as evidence he's right. You can't win by argument against someone who doesn't listen. --Alvestrand 21:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And DJ, he will say the same thing any number of times, at least once again for every time any statement he makes is shown to be wrong. In answer to this post he will say "I have never been shown to be wrong" or "no censorship", or something else he has already said many times. E4mmacro 23:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

MACROSSAN GROW UP --- HILBERT BEAT OUT EINSTEIN -- THE PUBLISHED RECORD IS CLEAR. - CORRECT THE INTRO. 17.255.240.78 01:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Kip Thorne's Quote is WRONG (reference 9)

Kip Thorne's quote in reference number 9 is flatly contradicted by the published record -- Hilbert did not approve of Einstein stealing credit for GR -- in 1924 Hilbert called it MEINER THEORIE in published article -- so Kip Thorne is flat WRONG -- that quote need be deleted. Licorne 21:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So you only want secondary sources quoted when they agree with your misconceptions? Interesting that you can't imagine that Hilbert wasn't talking about the same thing as einstein when he said "meiner theorie".... --Alvestrand 21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This famous quote from Hilbert seems to support Thorne's view that Hilber gave credit for the theory to Einstein: Every boy in the streets of Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, in spite of that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians. — Paul August ☎ 21:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT SUPPOSED QUOTE ? Licorne 02:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha -- amazing that YOU were the one the first bring in Kip Thorne's opinion on this, but only when you were happy taking it out of context and interpretting it the way YOU wanted to. But now that the full quote is included and Kip Thorne's meaning is clear, suddenly he becomes a bad source, suddenly his quote becomes a liability rather than a benefit. How intellectually dishonest can you get? --Fastfission 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

fastfission how childish ! -- Kip Thorne is human, he makes mistakes, and his quote in reference number 9 is indeed a mistake by Thorne. Licorne 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh come now, you don't think it is a mistake. I have it on good authority that you think he says what he says because "if he didn't, his wife Ms.Weinstein would kill him." I'm not the only one who detects an anti-Semitic streak in such a comment, but I'll just leave that aside, because your dishonesty is more than enough in this instance. --Fastfission 04:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

KIP THORNE IS CERTIFIABLY WRONG ON THIS ONE (reference 9). -- GR BELONGS TO HILBERT.- HILBERT PUBLISHED GR BEFORE EINSTEIN 17.255.240.78 01:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald please remove footnote number 9, Thorne clearly missed Hilbert's famous MEINER THEORIE in 1924. Licorne 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is an OUTRAGE that Hilbert is NOWHERE even mentioned in the article ! -- He should be right in the Intro ! -- Licorne 03:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The published record indisputably documents that HILBERT is the AUTHOR of GR. -- Correct the Intro. Licorne 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

See [30], which notes that although Hilbert submitted his original article on November 20, 1915, ... the proofs of Hilbert's paper (dated 6 December 1915) do not contain the field equations. It also excerpts the following:

In the printed version of his paper, Hilbert added a reference to Einstein's conclusive paper and a concession to the latter's priority: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". If Hilbert had only altered the dateline to read "submitted on 20 November 1915, revised on [any date after 2 December 1915, the date of Einstein's conclusive paper]," no later priority question would have arisen.

Please stop pushing the minority anti-Einstein POV. The Rod 03:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

NO Rod, Your source is outdated, Corry was destroyed in Z.Naturforsch last year. Hilbert's proofs do contain the Field Equations in full. -- Also the quote in your source confirms what I said, that Hilbert published the Field Equations FIRST: your source quotes Hilbert pointing out that Einstein's work was LATER. -- That is precisely why Hilbert correctly called it Meiner Theorie. Licorne 03:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the Winterberg paper. If I recall, he does not say that the proofs contain the field equations in full; his entire argument is based on the fact that part of the Hilbert proof he looked at was simply missing and thus no answer could be easily drawn from it. I'll give you some time to review the article yourself and decide on what you want to insist on, before calling you intellectually dishonest again. I'm happy to provide a copy of the Winterberg paper to anybody who wants it by e-mail, though I don't think it is of very much value. (For the record, the authors of the original article think that Winterberg concentrated on something completely inconsequential, and ignores all of the other differences in the proofs.[31] Personally I think the fact that Winterberg cites his major contributor to the paper as being the certified nutball Bjerknes does not help his credibility, and neither do his ties to Lyndon LaRouche, but that's just my take on things.) --Fastfission 04:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that part of the paper is missing. But the fact, pointed out by Winterberg, is that Corry/Renn/Stachel made their argument without pointing this out to their readers, a clear and dishonest violation of principles of scientific research, similar to an experimental physicists mentioning only the results he likes while keeping silent about the facts he dislikes. By contrast, Winterberg simply points out that the missing part of the proof may have contained the equation, and presents his argument (based on a comparison of text preceeding the gap with text from the published paper) that it has contained the field equations in explicit form. Wuensch does the same thing, and bases her attempt to reconstruct the missing text upon the preserved text of lectures of Hilbert on the subject. If CRS had done the same thing, presented the facts they have together with their speculation that the missing piece did not contain the explicit field equations, no one would have critized them.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they claimed it wasn't relevant to their argument. I haven't gone over the technicalities of it very closely, but it doesn't seem like an inplausible reply, and they also go into some detail in their long-reply looking at some of Winterberg's assumption as well. I'm not sure who gets the "bad behavior" award (Winterberg calling them frauds, them calling Winterberg paranoid), but in any event I brought this up primarily to emphasize that unlike Licorne's claim, the Winterberg paper does not settle things -- at best, it indicates towards the conclusion that the CRS paper does not settle things, at worst, it does not do even that. --Fastfission 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It does not surprise me at all that they say it is not relevant. This is so because the fact that part of the proofs is missing is hard to overlook. And if they failed to mention a fact to their readers which is relevant and inconvient to them, and which is hard to overlook, this means that they violated the principles of good historical research. It is in a way close to fraud, and could totally destroy their reputations as historians of science.De kludde 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how I have to understand your assertion that you have not gone over the technicalities of it very closely. Do you understand what the principle of least action is, and what it means to calculate a variational derivative? But even so, you can look at the formulation of the Hilbert field equations (wrongly attributed to Einstein) in the Wikipedia article on the subject. They clearly fit on the missing piece of paper, which means that CRS have to come up with some argument supporting their assertions that they have not been there. This they failed to do, however. And even if they had done it, it would still have had the character of a speculation, contradicted by practically all the other facts around the issue.De kludde 22:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what I individually understand about the mathematical disputes -- it is not our job on Wikipedia to discern out the "ultimate truth of these things" but rather to report on the state of the mainstream research primarily, and fringe research secondarily if at all (see our policy on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research). I find the boundary-work here ("who gets to write about these things?") fairly humorous, since half of this involves physicists pretending to be historians in the first place. ;-) But seriously, what matters here is assessing what is the mainstream POV and what is not. I think it is pretty clear that Winterberg and Bjerknes are not the mainstream POV in this case, whatever one thinks of their ultimate accuracy (I'm doubtful of it, myself). --Fastfission 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure about the ties between Winterberg and LaRouche. Could you give further comments? While I hold LaRouche in low esteem, I do not see why such ties necessarily discredit him as a physicist. As for Bjerknes, he is never listed as a substantial contributor to the Winterberg paper. Winterberg pointed out to Bjerknes what CRS failed to mention in their paper. Bjerknes then wrote a book about relativity, which for the first time reprinted the extant part of the printer proofs. Bjerknes also brought the Logunov paper to Winterberg's attention, and read the manuscript before its final publication. It was perfectly natural to mention him for this.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I bring up Bjerknes simply to emphasize that Winterberg is not working here with respected historians -- he's working exclusively with a fellow who is known to have a major anti-Einstein bias, self-publishes, and has no positive reputation within the historical or physical community whatsoever. Whatever one thinks about what that indicates for his overall reputation, I think it indicates strongly that Winterberg should not be considered a "consensus" historical opinion, but is rather somewhat more fringe. As for the LaRouche connection, when I get home later today I'll be happy to write up a summary of it with some citations (I am away from my home office at the moment, where my books relating to the subject are). I stumbled across Winterberg and his LaRouche connections some time ago in connection with other research I was doing. Personally I think it again serves to bode poorly on his historical aptitude (I make no judgments of his aptitude as a physicist, of course, but he would not be the first physicist who made a poor historian). My memory of it is that he got connected with the LaRouche people in the 1970s as part of their fusion power advocacy wing, wrote a book for them, and then got involved in some issue relating to whether certain German scientists had done bad things during World War II. This is discussed in Dennis King's Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism, though I don't have the exact page numbers on me this minute (but I have the book at home). There's a nice picture of LaRouche and Winterberg in one of LaRouches' "autobiographies" too, if I recall. But anyway, I'll write that up in a little more detail. --Fastfission 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- I wrote up all I had on him as a new article. It is now at Friedwardt Winterberg. Enjoy. --Fastfission 03:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

One last little thing I stumbled across. The Corry paper authors apparently took down their long response (which Z. Naturforsch refused to publish) from the site linked above at the request of Winterberg. However one can still find the full version with the Wayback Machine, if one is curious. --Fastfission 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you will find that "the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science has decided to replace the original" after Prof Winterberg complained - the authors seem to imply they would leave it there, if it were up to them. In my opinion the short reply is more effective than the longer reply which was marred by insults (I remember when I first read the long reply last year sometime I was a little doubtful about which side to believe because both sides seemed to have reached the paranoid stage). I think there is lesson for all those who like to indulge in personal attacks - the attacks just detract from one's argument. (End of sermon, thanks) E4mmacro 08:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

fastfission you are wrong on all counts. Z.Naturforsch did NOT refuse to publish a response by Corry - Corry withdrew his response and could find NO ONE who would publish it anywhere. Also, the Field Equations are still in the proofs in several equivalent forms -- Corry was not smart enough to realize that not enough had been cut off by someone with their little razor blade. Also Winterberg is a top notch theoretician, who received his PhD from Werner Heisenberg at Goettingen University (Germany's MIT). Licorne 05:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Z.Naturforsch refused to publish without modifications. I don't know the nature of those, but anyway one can read Corry's full account in the link above of his side of the story. I never, by the way, disputed that Winterberg was a physicist; my comments are merely on his reliability as a historian. Both of my assertions about him (the LaRouche connection, the reliance on Bjerknes) are true and verifiable. In connection with the question of his respectability as a historian, it should also be noted that the one other time I am familar with his "historical" contributions it has had something to do with denying the culpability of accused German war criminals or something along those lines (it has been some time since I looked into him, for totally different reasons than this). Happy to provide citations to whoever wants them on any of these points. --Fastfission 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually asked Stachel about the Winterberg attack. He informed me that they had put up a longer reply on the Max Planck Institute website, but it was removed and replaced with the shorter reply after Winterberg threatened a lawsuit against the institute, leaving only the shorter note in place. So much for Winterberg's respect for the free exchange of ideas. --Alvestrand 11:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You can get the full reply at the link above, it was archived by the WayBack Machine. It accuses Winterberg of being paranoid (personally I think such accusations are in bad taste), but also goes very carefully over the argument and the equations. --Fastfission 17:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alvestrand, if you contacted Stachel, would be willing to contact Fölsing as well? The opponents of CRS (and thats not just Winterberg, in case you haven't noticed yet) quote him as saying that not to mention the cut to the printer proofs is comparable to an experimental physicist omitting unconvenient data. Fölsing is, as far as I can see, not publisher of a research paper on this subject and for this reason he is more likely to be an independent witness than Stachel. Stachel can probably be considered to be biased towards his own party.De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stachel says the main reason for withdrawing the original response was the fact that Winterberg felt insulted. This may well be the case. The original version of the Winterberg article was sent to CRS by Science and then rejected based upon their opion alone. A predictable response, given the fact that Winterberg's claims can well be construed to be an accusation of bad scholarship against these authors. Winterberg must have perceived this as an indication that there is a movement for falsifying the historic record about the matter, and added suspicions about forgery and a few comments about scientific hoaxes like the Piltdown man hoax at the end of his paper. Note that his comments were still not political in nature and did not mention Jewish or Zionist interests. It is the CRS response which completely dragged things on the political arena by making comparisons with "german physics" during the 1930s and "bourgeois genetics" in the Soviet Union. Renn has done a similar thing recently, in the newspaper article discussed here. The pattern in both cases is that one of the authors of the CRS papers is attacked of using unscientific methods (justifiably so, given their silence about the missing part of the proofs and their absurd claims that Hilbert introduced a trace term into his equations in December 1915), to which they respond by attempts to swing the nazi club against their opponents. Now, who is obstructing the free exchange of ideas?De kludde 17:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Corry withdrew his response, because all he could offer was a childish personal attack. -- That is why NO ONE will publish the response from Corry who's reputation is today nil. --Licorne 13:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

We're getting pretty far outside the bounds of verfiable claims here, though I know that's not a new thing for you. Regardless, my point is simply that there seems to be little to no reason to think that Winterberg is at all a final word on the matter, and that you mischaracterized his conclusions on top of that. --Fastfission 17:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

JUST LOOK at the photocopies reproduced in Winterberg's published article of the butchered proofs all cut up ! - The proofs prove NOTHING to ANYONE ! -- FASTFISSION ARE YOU BLIND !?! -- and the field equation is still there, in the other equations ! - Corry is destroyed ! --Licorne 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the photocopies, but if you look over the CRS papers they contain much more on that question. And it is you who claimed that the proofs proved something, not me: "Hilbert's proofs do contain the Field Equations in full." Why is it you change your story every other posting? By the way, in order to establish someone as "destroyed", you'd have to show that mainstream researchers considered him "destroyed", not just that you find Winterberg compelling. --Fastfission 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is OBVIOUS, that I was saying that it proved NOTHING for corry's argument. -- It proves everything for Winterberg, which is why this REFEREED paper was accepted for publishing. --Corry is destroyed.-- Licorne 21:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Fastfission, your personal attacks against Winterberg are irrelevent and prove nothing. -- ALL THAT MATTERS is that Winterberg's observation that the field equation is still contained in the proofs was in fact heavily scrutinized by REFEREES who certified Winterberg's correctness. -- That is all that matters here. -- Corry is destroyed. -- Licorne 21:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

MEINER THEORIE

Hilbert called GR Meiner Theorie in 1924, the exact reference is D.Hilbert,Grund Lagen der Physik, Mathematische Annalen, 92, p.2, 1924. Licorne 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald you are the only one I have any intellectual respect for there. You display intellectual integrity at times. I suggest this to you Harald, that the Intro be re-written vaguely by saying simply that Einstein made contributions to Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc etc. -- Also, Hilbert should definitely figure prominantly and by name, in the GR section, as soon as the Field Equation is mentioned. -- And Kip Thorne's reference number 9 does NOT suffice, it is wrong. -- Hilbert clearly did NOT credit Einstein as Thorne's quote states. Licorne 05:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Harald: The Intro is flatly contradicted by the published record which indisputably credits Hilbert with the discovery of General Relativity on 20 November 1915. The Intro is in total contradiction with the published record. Licorne 13:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the dispute article should be linked to the intro.De kludde 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The "dispute" is not something taken seriously by most historians, and most of the people on the "dispute" page who promote the idea of the "dispute" are not historians and are not respected in the historical community. If mentioned at all, it should be mentioned in the context of the disputed things themselves, later in the article where they appear in more detail. The intro is for the basics. See, for example, how the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article is dealt with at Project Apollo. --Fastfission 20:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

There is NO dispute. The published record is clear, GR belongs to Hilbert. -- The INTRO must be corrected, to be in accord with the published record of the discovery of GR by Hilbert on 20 November 1915, a published fact. -- Licorne 21:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Hilbert and GRT: If it is true that the field equations are relatively unimportant because the Einstein/Grossman Entwurf paper is the only major step, then why does the wikipedia article on General Relativity give 1915 as the date of publication of GRT, and not 1913 (the year the Entwurf paper was published?)De kludde 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hilbert called GR Meiner Theorie in 1924, the exact reference is D.Hilbert,Grund Lagen der Physik, Mathematische Annalen, 92, p.2, 1924." — Die Mathematische Annalen are online, so this can easily be checked. That page is at [32] (I'm not sure the URL will work; if not, follow the link in Mathematische Annalen). The words "Meiner Theorie" do not appear. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have photocopies of the original, in German, it is there MEINER THEORIE. Licorne 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the link I gave goes to The Center for Retrospective Digitization, Göttingen State and University Library, and they say it is scanned from either the original or microfilm. I doubt that would be incorrect.

Where do your copies differ from the Göttingen version? Are you sure of the page number? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, it is on page 2, at the very beginning of the article. Thank you again. Licorne 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My German is not so great (I'll go over the parts I'm having trouble with with a dictionary later when I get the chance), but it seems to me that on page one he refers to the "general relativity theory of Einstein" and says that his contribution is putting it into a more simple and natural expression of it. (Die gewaltigen Problemstellung und Gedankenbildungen der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie von Einstein finden nun, wie ich in meiner ersten Mitteilung ausgefürht habe, auf dem von Mie betretenen Wege ihren einfachsten und natürlichsten Ausdruck und zugleich in formaler Hinsicht ein systematische Ergänzung und Abrundung.) Though I think all of this is rather inconsequential to the decisions made regarding this encyclopedia article (this definitely crosses the lines of WP:NOR), especially as the crucial question is not what Hilbert may have claimed at one point, I'm somewhat curious about it in general. The selection with the "meiner Theorie" is part of a longer paragraph, and I'm having some difficulty figuring out whether or not Hilbert is intending at all to weigh in on the priority issue. The paragraph in question is:

Seit der Veröffentlichung meiner ersten Mitteilung sind bedeutsame Abhandlungen über diesen Gegenstand erschienen: ich erwähne nur die glänzenden und tiefsinnigen Untersuchungen von Weyl und die an immer neuen Ansätzen und Gedanken reichen Mitteilungen von Einstein. Indes sowohl Weyl gibt späterhin seinem Entwicklungsgange eine solche Wendung, daß er auf die von mir aufgestellten Gleichungen ebenfalls gelangt, und andererseits auch Einstein, obwohl wiederholt von abweichenden und unter sich verschiedenen Ansätzen ausgehend, kehrt schließlich in seinen letzten Publikationen geradenwegs zu den Gleichungen meiner Theorie zurück.

Perhaps someone with some better German can help with this. --Fastfission 21:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert there says that Einstein in his LAST publication, has FINALLY come to the equations of MEINER THEORIE. - as clear as anyone could say it ! -- Hilbert is clear on his priority. -- Kip Thorne's quote in reference 9 is clearly WRONG. --Licorne 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a pretty bad history of taking things out of context (remember it was you who was championing the including of the Kip Thorne quote originally, but only if the full quote was not included), so I don't think we're going to leave it to your take on things, thank you very much. Besides, the question has never been what Hilbert thought about it, but what independent historians have concluded (see our policy on No Original Research). For those interested, I've typed out the German of the non-technical part of the article here. I'm happy to help work through the translation, so we can see exactly what it is that Hilbert reffered to once as "his theory". --Fastfission 21:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stop playing Stupid. -- It is obvious I was saying that Thorne was correct when he said the Field Equation belongs to Hilbert, BUT he was WRONG when he said Hilbert did not claim priority. -- YOU GOT IT NOW ? ? -- Licorne 21:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's quite obvious that you were happy to quote Thorne, cite him as an authority, ask if others had read him, etc., as long as people didn't actually quote him completely. You never indicated that it was taken out of context until it was pointed out to you, and then you made up excuses for why Thorne was wrong. Don't you agree that such behavior is a cause for suspicion? That it looks like you were trying to intentionally mislead? And yet, you have never admitted to it, or provided the slightest explanation -- all you do is make excuses for Thorne, rather than offer accounts of your own errors. This is why I do not trust you. --Fastfission 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What is your problem man ? I simply say that Thorne did make one mistake, what is wrong with that ! Licorne 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My German isn't so hot (babel de-1), but I read "den Gleichungen meiner Theorie" as "the equations of my theory". My sense of the logic of the paragraph is that Einstein's been wandering all over the place, trying different things, but has now in his last publications returned to the equations of Hilbert's theory. Note that I don't accept the theory that equation = theory; theories have text that relate them to the real world, not just equations. So Hilbert could have a theory that contained an equation that Einstein wanted to use in his theory, without the two theories being equal. I think. (BTW, I upgraded this para from 4th level to 1st level - it seems separate from the above topics, and the ToC looks awful) --Alvestrand 21:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I just told you what it says . Licorne 21:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

GR indisputably belongs to Hilbert. -- The INTRO must be corrected. Licorne 21:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• You can keep repeating that as much as you'd like, but the fact remains that there seems to be quite a bit of people who do dispute that, and most of the people who think it belongs to Hilbert are, frankly, not representative of mainstream historical opinion. By the way, are you familiar with Tilman Sauer's article on the "missing page"? If you're interested, I could send you (or anyone else) a copy. Tilman Sauer, "Einstein Equations and Hilbert Action: What is missing on page 8 of the proofs for Hilbert’s First Communication on the Foundations of Physics?" Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 59 (2005) 577–590. --Fastfission 22:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The published record is completely on my side. -- If you have anything from Sauer that might challenge the published record, post it here by all means. Start a new topic and post what you claim to have. Licorne 22:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The only "side" that an encyclopdia article is allowed to take, is to cite facts about opinions as well as (more importantly) bare facts by themselves. Up tot the reader to decide. It's that simple. Harald88 06:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I saw Tilman's paper, it changes nothing. -- the Field Equation is still imbedded on other pages which were not cut off, as Winterberg clearly shows. Licorne 23:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I translated the start of Hilbert's article, as posted by Fastfission, and I noted that in the third paragraph, Hilbert appears to ascribe GR to Einstein. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what does he know? He's only a dead German....--Stephan Schulz 23:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Hilbert says Einstein did produce a magnificent Theory, but LATER. (it's easy when someone already gives you the right answer). Licorne 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Some quotes

There are several quotes from Hilbert which seem to support Thorne's view that Hilbert gave credit for the theory to Einstein. Both of the following quotes are given in both Phillip Frank's, Einstein, His Life and Times, Da Capo Press; Rev edition (May 1, 1989), ISBN 0306803585, p. 206 and Constance Reid's, Hilbert, Springer; 1 edition (April 19, 1996) ISBN 0387946748, p. 142

• Every boy in the streets of our mathematical Gottingen understands more about four-dimensional geometry than Einstein. Yet, despite that, Einstein did the work and not the mathematicians.
• Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time that have been said in our generation? Because he had learnt nothing about all the philosophy and mathematics of time and space.

On the same page Reid goes on to say:

• To Hilbert, The beauty of Einstein's theory lay in its great geometrical abstraction; and when the time arrived for the awarding of the third Bolyai Prize in 1915, he recommended that it go to Einstein "for the high mathematical spirit behind his achievements

J J O'Connor and E F Robertson, Hilbert referring to the Corry, Renn and Stachel paper Belated Decision in the Hilbert-Einstein Priority Dispute, Science 278 (14 November, 1997) write:

• Many have claimed that in 1915 Hilbert discovered the correct field equations for general relativity before Einstein but never claimed priority. The article [11] however, shows that this view is in error. In this paper the authors show convincingly that Hilbert submitted his article on 20 November 1915, five days before Einstein submitted his article containing the correct field equations. Einstein's article appeared on 2 December 1915 but the proofs of Hilbert's paper (dated 6 December 1915) do not contain the field equations.

As the authors of [11] write:-

In the printed version of his paper, Hilbert added a reference to Einstein's conclusive paper and a concession to the latter's priority: "The differential equations of gravitation that result are, as it seems to me, in agreement with the magnificent theory of general relativity established by Einstein in his later papers". If Hilbert had only altered the dateline to read "submitted on 20 November 1915, revised on [any date after 2 December 1915, the date of Einstein's conclusive paper]," no later priority question would have arisen.

Paul August ☎ 06:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul you are wrong, Hilbert said LATER regarding Einstein's work. Licorne 14:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In sci.physics.research and sci.physics.relativity, recently evidence was cited for the allegation that Hilbert was fooled into thinking that Einstein had priority, while all evidence shows the contrary (I now have no time to elaborate on this, I go on vacation, sorry). Harald88 06:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Paul August: WHO THE HECK is Philip Frank ? ? -- Don't believe what Frank says, look at what Hilbert himself said in the published record Hilbert published it MEINER THEORIE, that is what counts, the published record. Licorne 14:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, you might want to check out Philipp Frank. --Alvestrand 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE to Paul August: WHERE THE HECK have you been ? ? - those Proofs prove nothing at all for Corry who was destroyed in Z.Naturforsch last year. Licorne 14:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein, Smoluchowski and Brownian Motion

Mr. Anon69, in the discussion above you claim that "Einstein's solution for Brownian Motion was copied line for line from Smoluchowski." Could you give more details? Which paper(s) of Smoluchowski did Einstein copy from? Did Smoluchowski have $E[x_{t}^{2}]={\frac {kT}{3\pi \eta r}}t$, the equation used by Jean Baptiste Perrin to determine $k$?

I attended a conference in Paris about three years ago by Jean-Paul Auffray, with Jules Leveugle, they both were aware of this fact that Einstein copied line for line Smoluchowski's equations for Brownian motion. If you contact them I'm sure they have your precise answer. Max Planck credited Smoluchowski with the solution of Brownian motion, not Einstein. This is on page 258 of Jules Leveugle's magnificent book at the Ecole Polytechnique, for consultation. Copies of Leveugle's book are in other major Physics libraries in Paris, for consultation, I believe at the Institut Poincare, and probably the Bibliotheque Nationale. It is Leveugle's unabridged book Poincare et la Relativite: Question sur la Science. I believe Jean-Paul Auffray speaks perfect English, Jules Leveugle reads several languages including English. Licorne 03:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BLATANT CONTRADICTIONS in the article

1) That Einstein was the author of General Relativity is in blatant contradiction with the published record. -- Hilbert published it FIRST, on 20 November 1915.

2) What were Einstein's major contributions to the development of Special Relativity ? ? -- PLEASE NAME JUST ONE ? ?

3) The reference number 9 (Thorne's claim) is blatantly contradicted by Hilbert's Meiner Theorie. -- GET RID OF THORNE'S QUOTE NOW ! !

Licorne 04:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ad 2) I named them above, in answer to your same question. And I forgot to mention one, I'll add it now. Harald88 06:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Harald you youself had said AFTER THE FACT, did you not ? ? -- And the Intro says in the development. -- How can after the fact be in the development ? ? -- You clearly have a contradiction. -- Let me ask you once again: What were his contributions to the development ? ? Licorne 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

According to many, the development continued with Minkowski. Harald88 21:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

• You first point is, as noted, highly disputed and repeating it again and again is not helping anything. Your third point is a non-point. Just because Hilbert once elliptically referred to something as his does not make it his, and more to the point on Wikipedia our job is to use mainstream secondary sources, not primary sources. See our policy on No Original Research. Also, simply repeating your claims does not make them so, nor does it move any of this forward. --Fastfission 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission can you not read plain Engilsh or German ? ? -- Hilbert states categorically it is his theory, which Einstein later republished. - Can't you plainly read that ? ? -- So, Thorne is absolutely wrong -- you don't want to use a standard source if it is clearly wrong, do you now ? ? Licorne 13:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission you are wrong, the first point is NOT highly disputed, rather , it is universally recognized that Hilbert discovered the Field Equation to complete the theory, before Einstein, who could not do it, see also Einstein-Hilbert action, Einstein was unable to do it. -- Hilbert's name MUST be included in the article, right in the Intro, so as to not be misleading to readers. -- Hilbert was the AUTHOR not Einstein, by the published record. ---- Licorne 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, even if Hilbert made a categorical claim -- I don't see it in quite the same light as you, frankly, and I think resting your entire argument on a single possessive pronoun is rather weak -- it wouldn't matter. On Wikipedia, what matters is the consesus historical opinion from secondary sources. Please see our policy entitled "No Original Research". This is not up for debate, it is Wikipedia policy. And on the first point, it is clearly highly disputed, there has been a flurry of publication back and forth on the issue in the past thirty years. That counts as "highly disputed". The introduction is not the place to go into that sort of thing in any case. --Fastfission 14:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NO it is NOT a single pronoun, it is the entire crystal clear passage ! - Can't you read English ? ? - Thorne never read that passage or Thorne is just a liar -- Thorne's quote is WRONG, and must be deleted. Licorne 14:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hilbert states categorically it is his theory, which Einstein later republished" — even if we go by Hilbert's article, he only says that Einstein, in deriving general relativity, used the equations of some theory of Hilbert. So, the question is: which theory? It cannot be general relativity, because Hilbert himself says that GR is Einstein's theory.

I do agree that Einstein used the help of Hilbert and others to complete the mathematical formulation of GR. That's how science works: nobody creates a theory solely by himself. However, Einstein established the field of GR, thus, he is the author / creator / father / founder (if you disagree with "author", is there any other word you would agree with?). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC) (via edit conflict)

Which Theory ? ? -- Are you blind ? ? -- Can't you read English ? ? -- Licorne 14:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't you answer a question? Which theory does Hilbert refer to? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In Science, the AUTHOR is he who correctly publishes first, in this case HILBERT indisputably. Licorne 14:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In "Einstein is the author of GR", the word author does not mean writer but originator. It is too simplistic to say that the originator of a theory is he who correctly publishes first. To give an extreme example, Isaac Newton was not the first to publish his theory of fluxions, that was John Wallis, but we still attribute the theory of fluxions (and half of the founding of calculus) to Newton. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In modern Science he who correctly publishes first is the author AND originator. -- Licorne 20:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The scientific community credited Albert Einstein with that discovery and until the scientific renounces this decision the decision stands. By the way Kip Thorne does not represent the scientific community, so the shut the hell up about him. Whether their decision was wrong or not is irrelevant.

(unsigned comment by 68.146.81.136; Licorne blocked for 24 hours)

Move priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories

The Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories page seems to be a better place than here to continue priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I suggest, therefore, moving the discussions to that talk page. Does everyone agree to such a move? If anyone disagrees with such a move, I will open a straw poll with a one week deadline and options similar to the following:

• Current and subsequent discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories will move from Talk:Albert Einstein to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. Only a short summary of and a link to that discussion will remain here.
• Discussion of priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories may continue on Talk:Albert Einstein.

Note, the poll is not open, since a consensus would be preferable. Please do not vote yet, because if we do have to resort to such a poll, I will want some input on the best wording of the options. The Rod 21:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this would be a great move. And despite what Licorne says below, I think the term "priority dispute" is exactly right - different people argue different viewpoints, both inside and outside Wikipedia, which makes it a dispute. --Alvestrand 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

See HARALD's statement above, he says the page needs re-writing. -- Harald has more intellectual integrity than all of you put together. -- Wait for Harald to get back here. Licorne 23:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is Not a Priority Dispute - Wait for Harald

This is not a priority dispute. The three blatant contradictions listed above are more than that. We all know Hilbert published GR first, the published record is clear. What needs be done is to correct the wording of the article to make it consistent, regarding the three contradictions listed above. -- Wait till Harald returns, he is the only person halfway intelligent there amoungst you all. -- Harald acknowledges there is a problem with the wording, just wait for him to get back. --Licorne 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Source of name "relativity"?

Does anyone have a quote for the source of the name "relativity" for the Special Relativity theory? The History of special relativity article says:

The original title for Einstein's paper translates from the German as "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Max Planck suggested the term "relativity" to highlight the notion of transforming the laws of physics between observers moving relative to one another, and the term 'Special' was later given to it by Einstein in order to distinguish it from the general theory of relativity.

But that article is light on citing sources. --Alvestrand 09:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Keswani(1965) asserts that Relativité is Poincaré's word, that Einstein ripped off from Poincaré. Keswani points out this proves that Einstein WAS INDEED reading Poincare contrary to Einsteins's denials later in his life. Licorne 13:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

actually History of special relativity claims that the term was introduced to physics by Galileo, so the statute of copyrights seems to have expired on it. But I'm interested in finding a reference for who attached it to the STR. --Alvestrand 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare used the phrase "Principle of relativity motion" a number of times from 1900-194 when discussing Lorentz's work. He sometimes means it is Newton's principle, he sometimes means what we now call the principle of relativity. i.e he was wondering whether electro-magnetics violated the principle of relative motion and was interested in Lorentz's work which kept rescuing the principle, but he thought perhaps Lorentz was trying to hard - "too many hypotheses". In 1904, (St Louis conference) when he was discussing the principle results of Lorentz 1904 he used "The principle of Relativity" since by then Lorentz had produced a theory which obeyed it exactly, well Poincare noticed a small mistake later. (If we couldn't see that Poincare was discussing Lorentz from the 1904 paper itself, he mentions this to Lorentz in his first letter to Lorentz 1905 - I mention this because Poincare-only fans never mention that Poincare 1904 was discussing Lorentz 1904). E4mmacro 21:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The word probably existed in Ancient Greece, but it was Lorentz who said that Poincaré was the first to employ the term Principe de la Relativité. Licorne 23:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

standard question: reference for above statement? --Alvestrand 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It is there, you can look it up if you are really interested, Lorentz did say it, it should be in Keswani.-- Why are you so interested in Lorentz' quote ? -- I can get it myself if you have a real need for it ? why ? -- Look in Keswani I believe he has it, amoungst many others. --Licorne 14:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It should probably be obvious by now, but I don't believe a word you say when you're quoting without naming your source - and especially I don't believe that the words say what you claim they say when they are read in context - see the Kip Thorne debate, for example. If you give a book for which I can find the ISDN number and the page you're quoting from, I may believe you. --Alvestrand 14:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe a word of yours there son. -- I have been proved correct on everything. -- You are simply in a learning process. -- Thorne's quote is flatly contradicted by MEINER THEORIE, now is it not, there son. -- You want a quote on Lorentz ? For what ? Your personal curiosity ? I am not your secretary, you go look in Keswani it is there, son. -- Licorne 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By my count, you're five years older than me. Hardly a reason to call me "son".... and you're the one who makes the extraordinary claims, you're the one who bears the burden of proof. And so far, I haven't found one point you've been proved *right* on.... I do accept that you don't seem to have changed your mind on a single point based on the discussion, but that's not the same thing. --Alvestrand 15:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the teacher, you are the ignorant student. -- IF I feel like it I'll put Lorentz' precise reference here just to make a complete FOOL out of you there son, but frankly, you're not worth it. -- Licorne 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If David Hilbert's name does not appear somewhere on Einstein's page, then the name Einstein should be knocked off of all other's Wikipedia pages. -- Fair is Fair. -- Licorne 19:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. -- When does Harald get back ? -- He agrees the wording in Einstein's page needs be re-written. -- Also, it is ridiculous that the name David Hilbert appears nowhere on Einstein's page, and is only buried deep in an untrue footnote. -- Licorne 14:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I've opened a Request for Comments about the editing behavior of User:Licorne. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne, and those participating in this are encouraged to contribute as they see fit. --Fastfission 17:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Fastfizzy, did I hurt your feelings ? -- Licorne 23:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

How about putting the scientific work into a separate article?

This article is already too long. Folk keep adding new information. Is it time to make it into several smaller articles?Barbara Shack 15:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

One reason why it's growing is that there's a POV war going on (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne) - the usual response to a POV claim is to change the article towards being more precise about facts, but that makes it grow, since facts are messy. A lot of info is duplicated between articles; some "see also" tags would probably be a good feature. --Alvestrand 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible Addition

I am new to this site as a contributor, but have utilized it extensively. I seek to maintain the integrity of the site but feel that the Einstein page should include, at least in the body of the site, mention of two of his most famous, and needless to say inspirational, quotes. Strike me down if I am wrong, but I posted them here before inserting them to the page: 1."Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds..." 2."God does not roll the dice...". I do not have the citations for the original documentation of these statements, but feel that they are significant to the history, lore, and objective view of the man that has become a face of the modern scientific world.Sven1olaf 03:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You'll find the "dice" remark under the "Copenhagen interpretation" section, including citation and context... once you have the context of the first remark, I'm sure it fits somewhere. Welcome to Einstein! --Alvestrand 06:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The dice quote shows Einstein was all wrong about Quantum Mechanics too. If he weren't plagiarizing someone, he was always wrong. Licorne 12:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for Harald

Harald said above the Intro must be rewritten, so keep the red tag until he does it, thank you. Licorne 01:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

E=mc2 is Wrong, Fast fission !

Fast fission you took the qualifying comments off of the paragraph on E=mc2 ? ? ? -- It is now very misleading ! -- Sir Edmund Whittaker credited Poincare with E=mc2 in 1900. --You make it sound like Einstein was first, but he was not. -- -- Also, Einstein's derivation was False as published by Max Planck and H.E. Ives. -- Revert it back please, to be correct and not misleading. --EXPLAIN YOURSELF.--Licorne 01:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Whittaker is not a mainstream historical opinion about this. If we are to include it, it needs to be specifically attributed to Whittaker, labeled for what it is (a not-common opinion), and the references need to be to secondary literature, not primary literature. I've explained this about a dozen times to you, and it's clear that you have no intention of ever attempting to understand what I, or any other editor on here, are trying to tell you. The policies on this are WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. If you don't show any evidence of having read and understood them, I'm not sure this is worth discussing with you. --Fastfission 02:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan accurately wrote it up on Poincare's page, with sources, regarding E=mc2, so I will transcibe it to Einstein's page, then you can bitch at Macrossan for it. -- I just now went to put Macrossan's words onto the Einstein page regarding E=mc2, but it is I believe frozen ? --Licorne 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no false statement in the paragraph about e=mc^2 on the Einstein page, as reverted by FastFission. Planck did not say Einstein was wrong - he said Einstein's derivation was approximate as did Einstein ("ignoring terms of ...") and Planck produced what he thought was a better proof of Einstein's result (not Poincare's different result). The whole issue has been discussed ad nauseaum, so I can write Licorne's response for him: "Whittaker called it Poincare's E = mc^2". Thanks, but we know that. Whittaker is adequately discussed above under "Whittaker's credibility". E4mmacro 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Macrossan, I like the way you wrote it up on Poincare's page, I'll transcribe it to Einstein's page. -- Note Planck questioned the reasoning in Einstein's paper, and Ives showed it a tautology, just as you wrote it yourself I will transcribe it for you.Licorne 04:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that. On the Poincare page (which was the result of a tug-of-war between you and me) the emphasis is on Poincare's DIFFERENT result and why it is NOT the same as Einstein's result. You made the last edit (a deletion of Einstein's name) so that the final (frozen) text seems to imply that Poincare obtained Einstein's result. The Einstein page (as left by fastfission) accurately states Einstein's result that the energy of a body at rest is mc^2. This result was NOT derived by Poincare. If you want to denigrate Einstein with a footnote about Ives, I suppose you can, and I will add to the footnote Reisman and Young contradicting Ives on this point, but there is no point lengthening the article in this way. E4mmacro 05:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Give yourself more credit Macro, you wrote it up great, we'll use it. Licorne 05:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, Licorne, if Macrossan wants to change it, he's more than welcome to -- he's someone I trust to do things the right way. You, on the other hand, seem to make a consistent habit of misrepresenting sources as well as other editors. And it should be noted, as illustrated by Macrossan's link, is remove the statements about what other people thought about Einstein's work. I'm not convinced that those are representative of the larger scientific reaction to it, and as such I'm not convinced they should be in Einstein's biography (as opposed to, say, the article on E=mc2, where details about individual assessments, whether representative or not, could be relevant). --Fastfission 05:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I think Macrossan did a fine job writing it up about E=mc2, we can use Macrossan's own exact wording, on Einstein's page, because Macrossan is someone we trust to do the right way, as you just said. Licorne 05:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I did not make myself clear. I like the present paragraph

A fourth paper, "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?", ("Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?") published late in 1905, showed one further deduction from relativity's axioms, the famous equation that the energy of a body at rest (E) equals its mass (m) times the speed of light (c) squared: E = mc².

I do not want to change it. E4mmacro 06:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You made yourself perfectly clear, as did I, but Licorne seems to fancy purposefully misinterpretting editors, as he does his historical sources. I suspect he is just trying to get a rise out of people, so I've taken to just ignoring him on such things, since he obviously cannot be reasoned with. Fortunately his arbitration case has been launched so his time around here is very limited. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is misleading and must be changed. Too simplistic, very misleading. -- You were very precise on Poincare's page, we'll use it again here.Licorne 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You can change whatever you want, but you will simply be reverted. Nobody is fooled by your nonsense. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the red tag on there until Harald corrects the Intro. Licorne 05:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If Harald has problems with the Intro, he can voice them himself. He doesn't need you to be his watchdog, nor has he -- or anyone else -- ever asked you to be. Harald's authority, nor any other editor's, cannot be invoked for your pet projects, and should and will be ignored. --Fastfission 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

"The greatest" or "one of the greatest"?

An anonymous IP has edited the intro changing "widely regarded as the greatest" to "widely regarded as one of the greatest", citing Encarta, which he claims ranks Newton above Einstein. I don't have a strong POV, but I'd like to see if there are enough authoritative sources for "the greatest" that we should put it back - if not, "one of" is fine with me. --Alvestrand 06:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think "one of the greatest of all time" is probably safest. Many people might think Newton was greater. Picking the greatest of all time is too difficult, wouldn't you say? 130.102.2.60 08:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how he is regarded. I imagine that would vary from demographic to demographic, though. Perhaps "among the greatest"? that implies that there could be multiple "greatests". --Fastfission 14:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I never wrote that Encarta claims that Einstein ranks just below Newton. "See Encarta" was a reference to the fact that the encyclopedia states that he was one of the greatest scientists of all time. It is an understatement to state that Einstein is merely the greatest scientist of the 20th century. -- 24.253.120.206 17:46, 24 February 2006

I think English-speakers such as myself have always been told or thought Newton was "the greatest", which is understandable. But here are some quotes from Einstein (as quoted by by James Gleick in a book "Isaac Newton" 1988) which suggest to me that leaving Einstein as "one of the greatest of all time" (rather than the greatest) is OK by Einstein. "Let no one sippose that the mighty work of Newton can really be superseded by this or any other theory. His great and lucid ideas will retain their unique significance for all time as the foundations\ of our whole modern conceptual structure in the sphere of natural philosophy" (What is the theory of Relativity? Times of London, 28 Nov 1919, reprinted in "Out of My Later Years"). "We have to realize that before Newton there existed no self-contained system of physical causality which was somehow capable of representing any of the deeper features of the empirical world" (Ideas and Opinions). E4mmacro 20:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dream on, Macro. -- Licorne 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Does this mean you think Einstein is the greatest, not Newton? Do you think Poincare was the greatest scientist ever? We value your input, pelase let us know. E4mmacro 02:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein and Newton are the only credible possibilities for the title of "greatest of all time". I can't think of another physicist anywhere close to their stature. Maxwell would be my third choice, but a distant third. So I think the phrase should read "one of the two greatest". "One of the greatest" sounds like there's a bunch of others with a legitimate claim and it just isn't so. Clarityfiend 08:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton are the greatest scientists of all time. There are two figures who are simply off the charts. Isaac Newton is one. The other is Albert Einstein. If pressed, physicists give Newton pride of place, but it's a photo finish—and no one else is in the race. Newton's claim is obvious. He created modern physics. His system described the behavior of the entire cosmos, and while others before him had invented grand schemes, Newton's was different. His theories were mathematical, making specific predictions to be confirmed by experiments in the real world. Little wonder that those after Newton called him lucky—"for there is only one universe to discover, and he discovered it." But what of Einstein? Well, Einstein felt compelled to apologize to Newton. "Newton, forgive me," Einstein wrote in his Autobiographical Notes. "You found the only way which, in your age, was just about possible for a man of highest thought and creative power." Forgive him? For what? For replacing Newton's system with his own—and, like Newton, for putting his mark on virtually every branch of physics. Einstein transformed humankind's understanding of nature on every scale, from the smallest to that of the cosmos as a whole (for special relativity is embodied in all motion throughout the universe), through fundamental problems about the nature of energy, matter, motion, time, and space—all the while putting in 40 hours a week at the patent office. (In 1905, Einstein is 26, a patent examiner, working on physics on his own.) The problems he could not solve remain the ones that define the cutting edge, the most tantalizing and compelling. Who's smarter? You can't touch that. No one since Newton comes close. (Genius Among Geniuses [33])

The following shows that to say that he is widely regarded as the greatest scientist of all time is not POV pushing.Albert Einstein is considered one of the greatest and most popular scientists of all time. (Encarta Encyclopedia[34]) Others who support this claim: The famous Russian physicist Lev Landau ranked Einstein in a "superleague" of his own, beyond all others, at a 1/2. [35] A survey among today's leading 100 physicists put him as the greatest. [36] To state that he is merely the greatest scientist of the twentieth century is insulting; note that Maxwell is a very distant third to these two giants. --24.253.120.206 02:50, 27 February 2006

Yes I agree, Einstein is one of the greatest scientist to have ever lived. No one doubts that. But to say he is widely regarded as being perhaps the greatest of all time is not only a badly written piece of the intro, it isn’t true. He is considered the greatest by some but the majority would give Newton that title. As for the poll, Newton has been ranked number 1 in nearly all polls over the last couple of decades. But in my opinion Newton and Einstein should both be described as one of the greatest ever scientists in their articles - Arthur Rimbaud

The Greatest Plagiarist of the Century

Einstein was a media clown who plagiarized others and lied to cover himself all his life. -- He got away with it thanks to Sultzberger the owner of the New York Times. -- Why not tell the truth ! --Licorne 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did Sultzberger own The Times of London, and control Eddington who also helped make Einstein famous? E4mmacro 20:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sulzberger's cousin owns the Times.-- Eddington didn't realize it was Hilbert's work, with the war going on publications were limited, but Einstein was front page, with his tongue sticking out. Also, had Eddington tried to promote the German Hilbert he would have gotten ZERO press. Licorne 23:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What was the name of Sultzberger's cousin who owned The Times? I think the "tongue stuicking out photo" dates from the 1930s, not 1919 (but I could be wrong). I thought we were talking about 1919, Eddington and the eclipse observation. E4mmacro 02:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about the picture, but you know what I mean. Licorne 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

References for the above statement (apart from Bjerknes)? --Alvestrand 13:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good for Bjerknes he has the guts to say it, and he lists many sources. - I was personally interviewed at length on two national French Radio stations from Paris and I said it all. -- A half dozen books were published soon after by French Professors, Scientists and Mathematicians. -- I have named all their books in the discussion section of Henri Poincare's page. -- Lots of them, published by major French publishing houses. -- Licorne 13:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a reference or a link or a date or the name of the radio stations, or anything more about your "saying it all" on two National French Radio stations? E4mmacro 20:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the tapes, but you can't speak French. You are cultureless. Licorne 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I asked for the dates, names of radio station, link etc, not for the tapes. E4mmacro 02:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar ? -- What difference does it make to you which ones ? -- I had an enormous impact, that is what matters. Licorne 03:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know the names of the radio stations, and the radio host too, because it might give some information about the importance of your broadcast, whether it had an ernomous effect in France. This are some of the reasons why anyone wants references for any claim. You may have over-estimated its effect (I am sure we all sometimes over-estimate the importance of what we do). Don't take it personally. Is the information secret? E4mmacro 07:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No secret at all, it was right on national French radio, but now you're asking me to brag about myself, which you know I never do. But I had a large enough impact that the French Minister of Education wrote an article entitled Poincaré le Grand in which he made reference to my radio interviews. I pointed out in my radio interviews how many years later, Einstein claimed to have a General theory of Relativity, which was only a theory of gravity, and that he called it General just to try to steal credit for Relativity from Poincare. Needless to say I was wined and dined by French politicians, and treated like Benjamin Franklin, it was the greatest thing I've ever done, and will not be forgotten there. --Licorne 13:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And why can't we be given the dates of the radio shows and the article you mention, and where the article was published? E4mmacro 01:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tell me first why you're so interested, then put down a little wager, say 10,000. Licorne 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Unless you think Albrecht Fölsing is "lots of French people". You have promised six books by French authors, published by major French publishing houses. ISBN numbers, please. --Alvestrand 15:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't look at Bjerknes' list of books did you ? And you didn't go to Poincare's talk page where I listed them did you ? Try searching on Yahoo for Professor Dr. Jean Hladik's new book for starters. It's Title in French is How the young ambitious Einstein Plagiarized Poincare. Then try searching Jules Leveugle, Jean-Paul Auffray, Bernard D'Espagnat, see Wuensch's new book, go look at Bjerknes' list of top world publications such as the UK Register, etc, where have you been ! -- Read Folsing closely he has it all in so many words between his lines.Licorne 15:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This why everyone has so much trouble with your contributions, Licorne. You can "read between the lines" and are prepared to quote your imagination as an authorative source. I think the sensible strategy from now on is not to accept anything you say unless you give complete quotes, sources that anyone can check easily. Given that the chances are that you have read between the lines again, there is little incentive for anyone to go to the trouble of finding the originals (we are "not your secretary"). In summary: You have to realise that "in so many words" is not the same as "between the lines", it is the opposite. You cannot claim that an author said something ("in so many words") if you have only seen these words "between the lines". If it was just a typing error and you ment to say "not in so many words", I apologise. E4mmacro 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan what does is mean ? -- Stop playing games. -- Folsing points it out how Hilbert sent Einstein the solution on the eve of his November 20 presentation, but Einstein then went and republished it anyhow, just five days later. - Folsing is clear enough ! -- Folsing also reproduces a large quote of Sir Edmund Whittaker saying that Einstein republished Poincare's discovery of Relativity just a few months after Poincare. -- Bravo Folsing ! -- Licorne 22:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As entertaining as your outbursts are, they really aren't germane to writing an encyclopedia article. Here we try and stick only to real historians, not the mixed up work of anti-Semites. But thanks though. --Fastfission 16:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You're a true intellectual who can only resort to name calling ? --Just look at the record, right when Smoluchowski was circulating his solution for Brownian motion to laboratories in Berlin in 1904 for experimental verification, Einstein suddenly in 1905 discovers the same solution, and then a few months after Poincare's final discovery of Relativity Einstein suddenly comes up with the same results as Poincare and once again no footnotes, just like how Einstein republished Hilbert's Field Equation five days after Hilbert, and again no footnotes. -- The Incorrigible Plagiarist by anyone's definition. Licorne 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to laud a crank Holocaust denier, be my guest, but don't get uptight when someone points it out. --Fastfission 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to show the ascertainable facts about when things were published and when they were submitted, but that isn't enough to prove plagarism. There are many cases throughout the history of science of simultaneous discovery. We know Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare published the LT before Einstein, We know Einstein submitted 25 days after Poincare's paper was read to the Academy in Paris on 5 June 1905. I think the consensus view is that Einstein, working in isolation in the Swiss patent office, (i.e. not in Paris, not in Berlin) wrote his 1905 papers independently of Poincare's 1905 paper. He knew from his student days that using electromagnetics to detect the earth's motion through the aether was a big issue. He could know from his student days that statistical mechanics (Maxwell-Boltzmann stuff) was a big issue. He could have discovered these things independently. E4mmacro 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, NO FOOT NOTES IS PLAGIARISM ! -- Einstein did it in 1905 and again in 1915, the Incorrigible Plagiarist. - And yeah sure Einstein was a little fart working in a patent office and dreamed all this up in isolation, yeah sure. -- Remember that everyone was reading Poincare including Einstein's wife who I suspect pushed Einstein to plagiarize him, because Einstein long after their divorce paid for her silence when he gave her the Nobel Prize money - it was indeed actually hers ! -- Finally note that Jules Leveugle's publications compare line for line Einstein's work with that of Poincare, no coincidence at all, Macrossan ! -- Licorne 22:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought I had read the relevant Poincare and Einstein papers and am surpised to hear they can be compared line for line. But we have discussued that before, so there is no point repeating ourselves. If they are not line for line the same, "no footnotes" does not equal "plagiarisim". And your "suspicions" about Einstein's wife are not valid sources for wikipedia. I encourage you to publish your suspicions in a good journal. E4mmacro 02:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NO FOOT NOTES IS PLAGIARISM, that's how I was taught, apparently you are from a completely different school of morality. Licorne 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the French have some material indicating that there was a correspondence between Einstein and Poincaré in 1905, just like the exchange of ideas between Einstein and Hilbert in 1915? Unfortunately, Licorne only quotes Auffray and similar authors, but does not attempt to outline their line of thought in the [Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories|Priority dispute article]. Of course, Einstein's 1905 Elektrodynamik paper and Poincaré's second 1905 paper are quite different. Logunov thinks that Poincaré's is the BETTER article, for instance. This of course is an argument against the theory that Einstein plagiarized from Poincaré's large paper, but he may have had some information about the Comptes Rendues paper. Note that I base my claim that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré not on such speculations but upon the fact, which we know for sure, that he was familiar with Poincaré's position on simultaneity.De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

There was no correspondance between Einstein and Poincaré, why should Poincaré have wanted to speak to a little crapper like Einstein down there at some Swiss Patent office, what for ? -- Also, compare the two 1905 papers, the structure and sujects are far too similar to have been coincidental, and Einstein even used phrases like these form a group which were mathematician's phrases that Einstein clearly lifted out of Poincare's paper. -- Licorne 13:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Without a correspondence, I don't see how Einstein was able to plagiarize one (or both) of Poincaré's 1905 papers. By dowsing? From some conspirator on the editorial board of the journals, xeroxing Poincaré's papers and sending them to Einstein? I agree that Einstein plagiarized Poincaré's rejection of absolute space and time, and may have plagiarized the clock setting procedure and $E=mc^{2}.$ But without any specification of the channel through which Einstein is supposed to have obtained the knowledge of Poincaré's 1905 papers, I don't see how one can claim that he plagiarized them.

Concerning the group theoretic language: One has to be careful, because what Einstein wrote is not what Poincaré wrote. Einstein considers Lorentz transforms belonging to movement in one direction, which form a one-parameter group:

... man sieht daraus, daß solche Paralleltransformationen, wie es sein muß, eine Gruppe bilden.

Highlighting is by myself. See the last dozen lines of Part I of Einstein's paper. Note that Einstein carfully avoids the wrong claim that all the Lorentz transformations in dimension 4 form a group. Now, this is what Poincaré writes in his 1905 Comptes Rendues paper:

L'ensemble de toutes ces transformations, joint à l'ensemble de toutes les rotations de l'espace, doit formener un groupe...

More precisely, if $K$ is the (compact) group of rotations and $P$ the set of Lorentz transforms for the given choice of space and time variables, then $G=KP=PK$ is a group (the Poincaré group), and the decomposition $G=KP=PK$ is a Cartan decomposition of that group. Note that the Cartan decomposition was not known in 1905, but Poincaré, being one of the greatest mathematicians ever, was probably familiar with examples of it. Einstein wasn't, and apparently had no idea of the symmetry group involved, at least not in 1905. This is one of the reasons why Logunov thinks that Poincaré's 1905 papers are SUPERIOR to the Einstein Elektrodynamik paper, and I tend to agree.144.92.82.21 14:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Lightning can't keep striking repeatedly in the same place, it is plagiarism. Everyone was reading Poincare, including Einstein and his wife. -- Licorne 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said above: I agree that Einstein's use of the ideas about space and time from [Poi02] without naming Poincaré is plagiarism. Moreover, it is certainly not unreasonable to assume that Einstein was familiar with the things Poincaré published until 1904. But the 1905 papers of Einstein and Poincaré were submitted at about the same time. Unless you explain how Einstein learned about Poincaré's paper, there is no reason to believe he plagiarized it.De kludde 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you insist that the 1905 papers of Poincaré and Einstein are similar? Poincaré's is SUPERIOR in many ways.De kludde 18:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Compare side by side the two 1905 papers, one by Poincare one by Einstein, they are the SAME POINT FOR POINT and in the same order, No coincidence at all. Principle of Relativity - speed of light - transformations - velocity transformations addition rule - invariance of Maxell -- POINT FOR POINT. -- And Einstein's wife had no trouble quickly procuring Poincare's papers, if Poincare would even spit, Einstein would lick it off the floor. Licorne 00:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you might compare the two papers, side by side, point for point, for us. Please publish the comparison soemwhere on the net where we can get to it. I am intruged to know how a 5 page paper (Poincare 1905) will line up with a 30 page paper. On the face of it, it seems there will be large gaps on the Poincare side (about 25 pages of gaps), but it would be a useful exercsie which I encourage you to do. 130.102.2.60 02:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that you say Einstein plagiarized Poincare but never say that he plagiarised Lorentz or Larmor? Am I missing something? E4mmacro 02:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why copy Lorentz ? -- It is Poincare's 1905 that he copied, right down the line, you know that. Licorne 03:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why copy Lorentz? Well, according to one of your favorite sources the theory of relativity belongs to "Poincare AND Lorentz" (Whittaker 1953). It seems to follow (if Whittaker is right) that if Einstein stole the theory of relativity from anyone it must have been Poincare AND Lorentz (I am not saying that Einstein did do so). Is this some sort of French pride thing: because Poincare is French and Lorentz is not? BTW, in case you think it is relevant, I love France. E4mmacro 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason is that Poincaré was willing to give up absolute time, while Lorentz was not, at least if Whittaker is correct. Also, Poincaré apparently was the first one to actually use the condition of Lorentz invariance as an important design criterion for a physical theory (his 1905 theory of gravitation).De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You didn't ask about Larmor, but I will answer anyway. According to your standards of proof (published second with no footnotes=plagiarism) Poincare and Lorentz plagiarised Larmor. Larmor published the Lorentz transformations in 1897; we have evidence in Poincare's books and Lorentz's papers that each knows of Larmor (each mentions Larmor). Neither Lorentz or Poincare credited Larmor with the Lorentz transformations. So it seems to me that, by your logic, this should be more than enough proof that Poincare and Lorentz (the originators of relativity, according to Whittaker) plagiarised Larmor (though I am not saying that). E4mmacro 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I read a paper about Larmor a couple of weeks ago and think it says that Lamor's article only contained the Lorentz transformations in an implicit form. You had to carry out some substitutions to arrive at the explicit version. This may explain why the importance of this paper went unnoticed (eg, by Whittaker, who claims that Larmor only had the correct second order transformations). In Einstein's case we KNOW that Einstein was informed about Poincaré's position on absolute space and time, and nevertheless did not quote Poincaré. Moreover, it is at least not unreasonable to assume that Einstein was familiar with the Lorentz transformation from the review the Beiblätter of Physikalische Annalen, as Einstein was a frequent contributor of reviews for this journal in 1905 (Logunov's argument).De kludde 12:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Beiblatter" is is a new spurce to me de Kludde. Can you tell me more about it? E4mmacro 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Beiblätter seem to have been the review section of the Annalen der Physik. Einstein's reviews are reprinted in his collected works. See my comments on the credibility of the Einstein worked in isolation defense below.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

WAIT A MINUTE, I thought Einstein was in complete isolation at the time he discovered relativity? - HA HA. -- All these old excuses for Einstein are garbage aren't they ! -- Licorne 14:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, these insinuations that Einstein worked in isolation like Ramanujan did in Chennai are total bullsh--. And even if they were true, he should not claim familiarity with the state of the art of the subject he was writing on, claiming to have found "die Wurzel der Schwierigkeiten, mit denen die Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper gegenwärtig zu kämpfen hat" - "the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies currently encounters".83.245.15.87 15:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan did you see that ? -- Whittaker said your Larmor did not have anything after all. -- HA HA -- What's your response Macrossan ? --Licorne 14:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I said above in "Whittaker's credibility" that it might be worth pointing out all the mistakes Whittaker made, if people take him too seriously. Whittaker was wrong on Larmor and hadn't noticed that Larmor's form of the Lorentz Transformation is exactly Lorentz's form, the same equations that Poincare called "the Lorentz transformation". Larmor called his transformation "the second order version", and maybe Larmor himself never realised what he had. Whitakker's credibility would be greater if he had noticed two sets of equations (Larmor's and Lorentz's) were the same (except Lorentz had a term l = 1, scattered throughout). Please don't now quote Ives again saying Lorentz was wrong and Poincare corrected him (and also Larmor). We have been thru it many times - Poincare was correct to say the equations he (Poincare) wrote (the coordinate transformations) are the same equations as Lorentz's transformations (the same once you realized that Lorentz and Poincare used a different notation, a different meaning for the term x in each equation, and it is only this different notation which makes them appear different - this is the "substituion" de KLudde refers to above, which de Kludde's unnamed source appears to misinterpret). Read "A note of relativity before Einstein". Please don't quote again the statement in Poincare 1905 "a little different from Lorentz" where he was refering to the convection current and the forces on a moving charge, not the coordinate transformations. E4mmacro 20:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne does not have to quote Ives, as Lorentz says the same thing (Acta Math. 38(1921), p. 295): En effet, pour certaines des grandeurs physiques je n'ai pas indiqué la transformation qui convient le mieux. Cele a été fait par Poincaré et encore par M. Einstein et Minkowski. I think this refers to the tranformation rule for j, the 4-current, as you mention above.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not read the Larmor paper(s). If I remember correctly, you had to introduce a scale factor for x and t into a first stage version of the transformation to obtain the correct form. It was easy to see, and Larmor must have noted this when the Lorentz paper appeared. But did he give the correct transformation for the quantities entering the Maxwell equations?De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just list all mistakes of Whittaker? At the moment, Whittaker does not have a section in the "Attackers and defenders" part of the priority dispute article. I think you are overblowing your case by making a big credibility issue out of the fact that Whittaker failed to notice something in Larmor's paper which, as you admit, has escaped the attention the other contemporary authors and perhaps even of Larmor himself. I will perhaps say more about this credibility issue below.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

de Kludde, my case against Whittaker's credibility was stated in a previous section above (see the contents at the top of the paper) and it had nothing to do with Larmor. Larmor was just a side issuse for Licorne to show that his simplistic "arguments" "prove" not only that A.E. plagarised Poincare (who got it from Lorentz), but that Lorentz (by Licorne "logic") must have plagiarised Larmor. The issue of the Lorentz coordinate transformation has been covered mant times in these pages and the Poinacre talk pages. If you want the exact form of what Larmor, Lorentz and Poincare wrote for the coordinate transformation, in one short paper (so you can check the simple alegbra to see why they are the same coordinate transformations) then I recommend a journal paper A Note of Relativity before Einstein. I would like to know the reference you referred to above which talked of Larmor. Thanks E4mmacro 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Whittaker was right to be unimpressed by Larmor, and who is some civil engineer to criticize Whittaker ! -- Licorne 00:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

By civil engineer you mean me? It's a long time since I did any civil engineering but I have come to expect partial quotes from you. I am just someone who can read sources. E4mmacro 00:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't the proper background credentials nor IQ to grasp what you read. Licorne 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But what I don't think you have answered is why you think Whittaker should be unimpressed with Larmor but impressed with Lorentz? Are the Lorentz transformations insignificant? Maybe, but Whittaker doesn't appear to think so. The LT are one of the reasons Whittaker credits Poincare AND Lorentz with the relativity theory. Is the prediction that dynamic electromagnetic processes run slower in a moving system (a prediction published in 1897) insignificant? Maybe, but I confess it sounds significant to me. I find Whittaker's assessment of Larmor strange enough (given his views on Lorentz) to make me wonder if Whittaker actually read Larmor in any detail. E4mmacro 00:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare COMPLETED the Theory, that's why Whittaker names Poincare first. Licorne 03:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Jean Hladik is on the French Wikipedia: [37]. Unfortunately I can't read French, but someone else can translate Comment le jeune et ambitieux Einstein s'est approprié la relativité restreinte de Poincaré (Mai 2004), ISBN 2729819541, and tell us whether that's published by a reputable publisher. --Alvestrand 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't be a fool Alvestrand, Jean Hladik is a very well known French scientist. Licorne 22:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Licorne - what I'm trying to say is that I can't check this, and someone else might. If you give us verifiable facts, we can (and should) verify them. You apparently have Bjerknes' book right by your hand. Why don't you open it up and type in the author, title and ISBN number of the six books by "French Professors, Scientists and Mathematicians" you told us about above? And no, they're NOT currently on the Poincaré talk page - I found your Jan 19 references in the archived page: [38]. Still no ISBN numbers. --Alvestrand 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bjernes' site http://www.xtxinc.com He there has the exact information on those books in France, click on Bjerknes' first book, then scroll to sources, you'll see Jules Leveugle, Hladik, etc. Licorne 23:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that in the end, you always come back to Bjerknes -- a self-published amateur historian, well-known to be a complete crank. Says a lot about your ability to use secondary literature. --Fastfission 04:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bjerknes has all the sources together conveniently, is why I cite him. Licorne 05:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Who else directs these criticisms, aside from Bjerknes? El_C 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Man, if an obscure patent examiner could steal the work of people of sterling reputations like Poincare and Hilbert without them raising an enormous stink, and somehow bamboozle all the great physicists he worked or corresponded with for decades, he would have to be the greatest plagiarist of all time, not just the 20th century. Tell me, from whom did he steal the famous EPR paradox, the solutions of the photoelectric effect and Brownian motion? Did he also claim to have written the plays of Shakespeare? Clarityfiend 08:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare died in 1912. Hilbert did in 1924 call the Theory of Gravity (so called GR) MEINE THEORIE. What more could Hilbert do ? When the mass media swarmed all over Einstein, how do you fight that ? -- Also the EPR paradox, like God playing with dice, shows that Einstein never understood or believed Quantum Mechanics, really nothing to brag about. And Einstein copied Smoluchowski's solution for Brownian motion line for line. The dumb ass photoelectric effect is something you can show in high school level physics, but I'll bet he even got that from someone, given his track record. -- If Einstein could have plagiarized Shakespeare he no doubt would have tried that too. -- Licorne 14:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What more could Hilbert do? How about publishing a refutation in any of the physics or math journals? As the foremost mathematician of his time, it wouldn't have been difficult. It's also strange that none of the readers of Hilbert's article noticed the "theft". Plagiarism of this magnitude is absurd - in the small, closely-knit community of physicists, it's just too difficult to hide. Plagiarism in general can only succeed when you steal from somebody who is obscure, not someone as famous as Hilbert.

The rest of your allegations show that you can't be the physicist I believe you claim to be. Sure, the photoelectric effect is taught in high school now. So are Newton's laws. By your "reasoning", Newton is just as overrated. Maybe he stole HIS ideas from some other Frenchman! And if the effect was so obvious, how come other physicists didn't come up with the explanation first? As for the EPR paradox, it took a lot of hard thinking before the flaws were uncovered. If Einstein didn't have a deep understanding of QM, it should have been trivial to demolish. I don't know about Smoluchowski, but I guess you're implying the Nobel award committee was made up of gullible fools for giving Einstein the prize instead of this other fellow. Clarityfiend 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning Einstein and plagiarism, we have Solvay's testimony that Poincaré's reflections on absolute time in La science et l'hypothèse had been discussed in the circle around Einstein and Habicht. This means that Einstein would have been obliged to quote Poincaré in the first two sections of his 1905 Elektrodynamik paper. The same holds for the clock setting procedure, assuming that Einstein knew Poincaré's 1900 paper or the 1904 St. Louis paper. We know that he knew [Poi1900] in 1906. E4mmacro, you make a big issue out of the fact that Einstein worked in isolation. But Bern had a university at that time, and Einstein was almost certainly able to use its library. As Logunov points out (page 142), Einstein wrote reviews for the Beiblätter of Annalen der Physik, the review section of that Journal. Einstein contributed 21 reviews in 1905. According to Logunov, Issue 4/1905 (of 24) contains a review of Lorentz' 1904 paper, and this review contains the Lorentz transformation.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, de Kludde, I said "mainstream opinion" says he worked in isolation. I am always happy to hear of any proof that he didn't. But I am dead against accepting Licorne's imaganation as proof. What is the 1906 reference where Einstein knows of Poincare 1900? E4mmacro 22:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And if you care to track down anotehr lead, I recall somewhere, someone who attended Minkowski's lectures round about 1905 or before saying they studied papers by Lorentz and Larmor (and he may have said Poincare). He went on to say that it wasn't till he read Einstein 1905 that it all becamse clear. I can't remember who said this or where, so it is not much of a lead for you. But Einstein did attended lectures by Minkowski didn't he? E4mmacro 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And can't someone check Logunov's statement about issue 4/1905.

For all these reasons, it is not unreasonable to assume the Einstein was familiar with most of the papers of Poincaré and Lorentz on the subject published in 1904 or earlier. Of course, the only case in which we have a clear-cut proof (provided by Solvay's recollections) is Einstein's familiarity with Science and Hypothesis. In principle, Einstein may have overlooked the review of the Lorentz 1904 article, or he may have found his clock-setting procedure independently. But should we really believe this, given the similarity between Einstein's and Poincaré's procedure and the fact that we have a clear-cut proof that Einstein knowingly failed to quote similar work of Poincaré? By "not unreasonable" I mean that a PhD student doing a similar thing would probably be in serious trouble. Most plagiarism guidelines seem to make it easy to convict, according to the Wikipedia article on Plagiarism:De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also accidental plagiarism. One case involved a boy whose mother had repeatedly read to him a story as a very small child. Later in life he was writing a story for an assignment, and a story 'came to him', but the story turned out to be exactly that which his mother had read to him as a small child, though he had no recollection of her reading it to him.

However, due to their fear of litigation, many editors refuse to recognize any difference between either simultaneous or accidental inspiration and true plagiarism. In many academic settings intent does not even enter into consideration. Princeton dismisses intent as "irrelevant", and Doug Johnson says that intent is "not necessary for a work to be considered plagiaristic, and as one respondent put it, 'ignorance of the law is no excuse.' (Of course, this is a fallacy, as plagiarism is not even legally recognised as an offence.) Some universities will even revoke a degree retroactively if an alumnus' plagiarism comes to light within a year after graduation.

Note that in Einstein's case we have Solvay's recollections which exclude the cryptomnesia excuse and prove conscious malpractice, while students could easily get into serious trouble for less. If Einstein had been unaware of Poincaré's other articles, he should at least have given him due credit later on. Compare his behaviour, for instance, to Lorentz' willingness to give Woldemar Voigt credit for the Lorentz transformation despite the fact that Voigt's transformation differs from the correct one by a scale factor.De kludde 09:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Add to this the Einstein-Hilbert isssue. Regardless of the precise content of Hilbert's November 16 letter, Einstein should have mentioned this letter somewhere in his publications, either to point out the differences between the letter and the final field equations or to acknowledge Hilbert's influence upon his own work. Should we really exonerate someone of plagiarism against so many odds?

Bjerknes is absolutely correct. http://www.xtxinc.com Licorne 13:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Robetking academy"?

From the article:

...at the insistence of his mother, was given violin lessons at the musical arts academy, Die Robetking Schule (english translation "The Kingdome of Robet academy").

As English, the "e" at the end of the "Kingdome" looks offensive to me. But the whole translation looks dubious - and a Google search for "Robetking" turns up only one occurence apart from the Wikipedia article. Could someone check with a reliable source whether the name is spelled correctly, and whether an "official English translation" exists? A true nit, but nits are important... --Alvestrand 08:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that does look suspicious. Google books hasn't heard of it at all, and they have a number of Einstein biographies on there. None of the ones I have checked have named where he took his lessons. I honestly don't think it is an important fact about him, in any event, as to where he took the lessons. I would probably go with dropping it no matter what the case, but especially if not verifiable. --Fastfission 16:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

• Why doesn't "Die Robetking Schule" translate as "The Robetking School" or "Acdamey" - a naive question? 203.101.227.3 05:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, it probably should be translated as that. But even with that, there's no evidence that that was the correct name, that I can find. "Robetking" gets no Google hits outside of the Wikipedia article, gets no Google Books hits, gets no Google Scholar hits. Not a good sign. ;-) --Fastfission 16:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

    Furthermore, "Robetking" or even "Robert King" do not sound German at all. Lupo 20:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein Image

The main image is clearly inverted, as it was modified with Photoshop. Look at his hair. Can someone please find a better image with copyright information? --24.253.120.206 13:18, 25 February 2006

Put the clown picture with his tongue sticking out. -- Licorne 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The photograph is fine. It would of course be inverted as it would have been taken with a negative-film camera, which creates a 'negative' of the image. This is then inverted in order to create the 'positive'. The image looks perfectly usable. The one which you are trying to replace it with is not a good image as it has an incorrect copyright tag (it is not a screenshot and therefore cannot be used under fair use), it is bad quality - low scan quality and this one is a 'free' image so it should be chosen above fair use images anyway (as per the guidelines). -Localzuk ^(talk) 21:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If the image should be flipped, we can do that without too much difficulty. I think the current version is inferior in quality but I'm not going to bother trying to fix it until you've finished all of your editing. --Fastfission 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

"Born in Germany to Jewish parents, he temporarily renounced his German citizenship and took Swiss citizenship in 1901. He remained a Swiss citizen for the rest of his life, but regained German citizenship from 1914-1933 and in 1940 added American citizenship."

I find the information on his nationality distracting for the introduction. The information on his Jewish heritage and Swiss citizenship in addition to his American and German ties are already mentioned in a section entitled Nationality: German, Swiss or American?

--24.253.120.206 20:33 25, February 2006

The problem is that summing up Einstein's nationality/ethnicity takes a lot more than doing it in one or two adjectives. By putting that small explanation down a little lower, it keeps people from endlessly changing it, which is a constant nuisance otherwise. --Fastfission 04:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

But then the quality of the article is sacrificed to appease concerns on a trivial matter. --24.253.120.206 20:49 25, February 2006

It's not a trivial matter to many people, some of whom don't like that he is identified as German when he clearly didn't want to be German, and things of that nature. Einstein himself seemed to find the whole nationality question irrelevant: "If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will say I am a man of the world. If it's proven wrong, France will say I am a German and Germany will say I am a Jew." But anyway, since there is no way to create a brief, one-or-two adjective version of this, I don't think it is too incorrect to have two short sentences about it early on. I don't think it harms the quality that much. --Fastfission 14:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is Harald, to Rewrite the Intro

Harald said the Intro must be rewritten, in light of the Blatant Contradictions section above. -- Where is Harald ? ? Licorne 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

On the credibility issue/Whittaker and mc²

E4mmacro, I would like to address some of your complaints against Whittaker. I quote from his passage about $E=mc^{2}$, omitting most of the footnotes: As we have seen, J. J. Thomson in 1881 arrived at the result that a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line behaves as if it had an additional mass of amount (4/3c²) times the energy of its electrostatic field. At this point, Whittaker adds a footnote to Fermi, Lincei Rend. xxxi₁ (1922) pp. 184, 306 for a paper of Fermi pinpointing the mistake in Thomson's deduction, arriving at the correct value of c^-2) times the energy. In 1900 Poincaré, referring to the fact that in free aether the electromagnetic momentum is (1/c²) times the Poynting flux of energy, suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density equal to (1/c²) times the energy density : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : and he remarked that if this were so, then a Hertz oscillator, which sends out electromagnetic energy preponderantly in one direction, should recoil as a gun does when it is fired. Whittaker now quotes a 1904 paper of F. Hasenöhrl (1874-1915) considering a hollow box with perfectly reflecting walls filled with radiation, and arriving at an excess mass of (8/3c²) times the energy, which Hasenöhrl corrected to (4/3c²) times the energy in 1905, to which Whittaker adds to comment quoted by Licorne: ... that is, he [Hasenöhrl] agreed with J. J. Thomson's E=(3/4)mc² rather than with Poincaré's E=mc². He then quotes Einstein's famous paper that when a body is losing energy in the form of radiation its mass is diminished approximately (i.e. neglecting quantities of fourth order) by (1/c²) times the amount of energy lost.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I could have quoted this in more detail but don't want to risk a copyright violation. In your above criticism of Whittaker, you claim that Whittaker's sentences are ambiguous enough to make the casual reader think that Poincare had suggested that "mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content, according to the equation E = mc^2", something Poincare never suggested. This assertion is difficult to defend, in my opinion. Whittaker's comment : that is to say, E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass : (at least as I would read it) simply means that formally integrating Poincaré's proposal for the energy density gives =mc². And Whittaker added this remark not in the intention to mislead his readers but to point out the difference between Thomson's and Poincaré's result, which have a different $\lambda$ in $E=\lambda mc^{2}$. Whittaker is calling it Poincaré's E=mc² in the comment on Hasenöhrl for a similar reason, to point out that Poincaré has $\lambda =1,$ and the reader of Whittaker is not likely to be misled, as Whittaker had given a correct description of Poincaré's statement previously. Of course, it is possible to quote this Poincaré's E=mc² out of context, but Whittaker is certainly not responsible for this. It is, however, correct to claim Whittaker considered Einstein's paper as a mere step in a development of ideas going from Thomson via Poincaré, Einstein and Planck to Lewis. And this is an opinion which I share, since Einstein's result is what one would guess when reading Poincaré's 1900 paper and accepting Lorentz' theory, which Poincaré did by 1905. Whittaker's is diminished approximately in connection with Einstein's work may merit further comment, but I don't have the time for this now and the remark is certainly not germane to the question of whether or not Whittaker tried to obfuscate the difference between Einstein's and Poincaré's version of $E=mc^{2}$.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bit of Whittaker that I think shows his sloppiness and unreliability and lack of credibility is where he says that Lewis

"affirmed that the mass of a body is a direct measure of its total energy, according to the equation E = mc^2. As we have seen, Poincare had suggested this equation ...".

While it is technically true that Poincare had suggeested this equation, it is wrong to imply, as I think Whittaker's sentence does, that Poincare had suggested the mass of a body is a direct measure of its energy content. This is something Poincare (1900) did not do. Also the later claim that Einstein's result was a "particular case" (I think Einstein's case was rather general) with no mention that Poincare's case is very particular (restricted to momentum of radiation) again shows Whittaker has odd views. One could almost think Whittaker deliberately wrote this way to take some credit from Einstein and give it to Poincare. But let's just say Whittaker is unreliable, makes mistakes. E4mmacro 23:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If you compare this to the Wikipedia article on E=mc², it is difficult to see who has a bigger credibility problem: Whittaker, who has given an essentially correct description of how the theory developed (even if you may disagree with his assessment of the relative importance of Einstein's article)? Or the large Wikipedia article, which gives you the impression that $E=mc^{2}$was a totally new result in 1905, whereas in fact at least four authors (Thomson, Poincaré, Hasenöhrl, de Pretto) had published articles with closely related results, save for the different $\lambda$, by 1905? I could also add a comparison with certain assertions of Stachel and friends, but again I don't have the time for this now.De kludde 11:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein in 1905 was simply trying to rederive Poincare's E=mc2. -- To De Kludde, Ives' paper said Planck questioned the reasoning in Einstein's derivation. Ives said Einstein's derivation was a tautology, which is something far worse than just a simple approximation. Could you expound on why it was a tautology please, thank you. Licorne 14:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I cannot expound on the Ives issue because I am not familiar with Ives' paper. But in any case I don't think that one can dismiss Ives' view as outlandish, comparable to flat earth. For instance, as Logunov, p. 121 points out that Max Jammer ("The concept of mass in classical and modern physics") accepted Ives' criticism. And of course, Logunov himself also accepts it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is true that Max Planck considered the reasoning in Einstein's 1905 E=mc² paper to be only approximately valid. In footnote 1 §17 of "Zur Dynamik bewegter Systeme", p. 204 vol. II of his collected works, he points out that Einstein's reasoning is valid "unter der nur in erster Näherung zulässigen Voraussetzung, daß die gesamte Energie eines bewegten Körpers sich additiv zusammensetzt aus seiner kinetischen Energie und aus seiner Energie für ein in ihm ruhendes Bezugssystem" - "under the assumption, which is valid only in first approximation, that the total energy of a moving body is the sum of its kinetic energy and its energy in an inertial system at rest in the body". I think this is absolutely correct. As far as I understand it, the problem here is that, in the classical approximation and for a body composed of many particles with masses m_i, one can identify the difference of $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{2}$ and $\sum {\frac {m_{i}}{2}}v_{i}^{(o)2}$ (where the superscript (o) denotes speeds in the inertial system where the body rests) with ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$, formed using the body's mass and speed. For the classical situation, using ${\frac {m}{2}}v^{2}$ and the classical addition of speeds, this is easily seen to be valid, but for relativistic speeds the situation is more complicated. The fact that Einstein lets v tend to zero does not help because the quotient $v_{i}^{(o)}/c$ may still fail to be $\ll 1$. Therefore, Planck's assertion that there is a problem of relativistic thermodynamics which has to be addressed is imho correct. Actually, the result at which Planck arrives, and to which the footnote I quoted refers, is his equation (48)

$M=\left({\frac {G}{q}}\right)_{o}={\frac {R_{o}}{c^{2}}}={\frac {E_{o}+pV_{o}}{c^{2}}}$

where G (called Bewegungsgröße by Planck) is momentum, q is speed, the subscript o denotes values taken at speed zero, and R ("Gibbssche Wärmefunktion bei konstantem Druck") is enthalpy.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's 1905 article was, as far as I know, the first to suggest that E=mc2 applied for ALL mass, not just mass being exchanged by means of radiation. See [Ein05d]. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And all for all energy, not just radiation. i.e. heat has mass. (And I hope Alvestrand or anyoner is not thinking Poincare 1900 talked of mass being exchanged between two bodies by radiation?). E4mmacro 22:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

De kludde: Whittaker's view is not considered the mainstream approach; he is considered eccentric by most historians, and the vast majority of historians of physics and Einstein do not put any truck on the priority issue. See our policy on WP:NPOV, which clearly discusses the importance of giving the consensus view priority. Now I think it would be fine to put a line on the E=mc^2 article about this and note that it is not considered true by most historians, which is, as you will see, exactly what is there, at least in relation to de Pretto. --Fastfission 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Poincare should be there, not de Pretto. Also, Whittaker is considered the greatest British historian of science of the 20th century. Whittaker called it like it is, he had integrity unlike Fastfission. Licorne 14:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission, I was writing this in response to e4mmacro's earlier criticism of Whittaker. Apparently e4mmacro thought that simply stating that Whittaker "is considered eccentric by most historians" may not suffice, given Whittaker's undoubtedly excellent reputation as a mathematician. I never said that my attempt to address e4mmacro's criticism should occupy a prominent space in the Einstein article. In fact, I never tried to push large changes to the Einstein article on this Wiki. But note that the NPOV states that "Texts that present multiple viewpoints fairly, without demanding that the reader accept any one of them, are liberating." For me, this means that the fact that a dispute exists should not be denied, and the positions should be stated. I think this means that the dispute page should be linked to a place in the Einstein article where people looking for details (other than date of birth/death,...) will find it.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out NPOV specifically states that "Facts ... are not Points Of View". That the papers of Thomson (1881) and Poincaré (1900) quoted by Whittaker exist probably is a fact ("a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."), unless someone wants to claim that Whittaker misquoted them. And that they are part of the history of E=mc² may also be quite non-controversial. I don't know whether e4mmacro (or you) want to disagree here. In this case, it would be a fact that the history of E=mc² started in 1881 and that the article I was quoting, which in its current form has the history of this equation starting in 1905, has to be rewritten.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be most interesting to study Ives's paper, I only have excerpts, I wonder if it is on the internet complete ? ? -- In the excerpts Ives points out that Einstein built in E=mc2 then derived it back out, in other words he derived nothing at all, a tautology. --Einstein just essentially stated what he wanted to prove, namely, Poincare's E=mc2.--Licorne 22:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please add a reference to the Whittaker they're talking about to the Einstein article and the "disputes" article? "Whittaker (1953)" isn't a complete citation by any metric. The E. T. Whittaker page does not list any 1953 book in his publication list. --Alvestrand 16:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They had the wrong date on Whittaker's page, I put it right, 1953, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity. Licorne 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The bibliographical data, as given by Bjerknes, are Edmund T. Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Volume II, Philosophical Library Inc., New York, 1954. Note that it was reprinted in the 1970s (something unusual for the "eccentric" work of a dead man), and it is this version which I have seen in the library.De kludde 22:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reference from the Library of Congress LC Control Number: 85240132 Whittaker, E. T. (Edmund Taylor), 1873-1956. A history of the theories of aether and electricity from the age of Descartes to the close of the nineteenth century [microform] / by E.T. Whittaker. London ; New York : Longmans, Green ; Dublin : Hodges, Figgis, 1910. xiii, 475 p. ; 23 cm. I note it came out in 1910, so maybe his understanding of what Einstein had so recently done was not complete. I notice the title explicitly says "to the close of the nineteenth century" which would exclude Einstein, 1905. GangofOne 02:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was 1953. -- Licorne 03:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the 1953 edition a reprint of the 1910 edition, or has it been modified/expanded? I don't see a note about "second edition" in any refs that mention 1953. GangofOne 03:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get this 1910 stuff ? 1953 is the only date I've seen. You may be looking at a typo error somewhere ? Unless he began it as a young man and finally finished it at the end of his life. The 1953 is the important one. Licorne 03:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

http://catalog.loc.gov/ GangofOne 03:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I see he did do one in 1910, but the 1953 update is the one we all use and quote from. Licorne 03:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ives's paper

There is a copy of Ives's paper in a Book called "The Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" (a complete collection of Ives relativity papers. Licorne said somewhere this book is in every University Library, if that is any help. There is something odd about Ives's criticism. Ives claims that Eisntein assumption that the energy = rest energy + kinetic energy (the assumption Planck questioend and de Kludde discusses above) "builds in the relation E = mc^2". If this were so one would think that Einstein would then derive E = mc^2 exactly. However Einstein does not derive it exactly, he has to approximate the term $\left(1-v^{2}/c^{2}\right)^{-1/2}-1$ as $\approx {\frac {1}{2}}v^{2}/c^{2}$, so I am not entirely satisfied with Ives's criticism (why doesn't the results "fall out" exactly if it were "built in". On anotehr point, I don't think anyone has claimed that Planck's rederivation was not correct and in fact better than Eisntein's. But Planck never claimed to have priority in suggesting the mass-energy equivalence. E4mmacro 07:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

References

This is an encyclopedia article, not a wikibook. I am concerned that it is

1. getting too long
2. being hijacked by highly POV dispute regarding alleged "controversy" about who introduced relativity (which is regarded by mainstream as having long since settled with the various significant contributions sorted out).

As a tiny first step toward restoring the once glorious state of this article (a former featured article), I have removed the Whittaker reference as being irrelevant to a biography of Einstein. The user who added that reference might want to consider moving it to Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories, where it is relevant as an example of a well-known contemporary attack of relativity theory (and arguably of Einstein himself). ---CH 02:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

CENSORSHIP ! -- I shall put it back. Licorne 02:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Archive the priority "dispute" discussion?

The whole priority "dispute" [sic] is very long, ugly and contentious. I strongly urge everyone to take that entire dispute to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories. I'd like to propose a highly unusual step: let's move the priority "dispute" sections above to Talk:Priority disputes about Einstein and the relativity theories/Archive0 and add a link to that at the top of this talk page. Comments?---CH 02:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no priority dispute. Only in the minds of disappointed Einstein fans.

The published record is crystal clear, Poincare discovered Special Relativity, which is the only theory of relativity, because so called GR is just a theory of gravity, that was discovered by Hilbert. -- And Einstein could not even derive E=mc2, even when Poincare had first given the correct formula.

It is time for Harald to correct the Intro. --Licorne 02:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Just Do It, Hillman. --Alvestrand 06:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC) =Feb 2006 – Mar 2006

Fastfission is Trying to BAN Licorne from Wikipedia

Fastfission is leading a lynch mob to try to ban Licorne, because Licorne KNOWS WHAT THE STORY IS about the fraudster plagiarist einstein. -- Fastfission's efforts amount to CENSORSHIP. -- Licorne 20:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I personally do not find anything wrong with that. You do not make a convincing argument, especially by referring to yourself in the thrid person. Something like this should not be posted on the talk page for Albert Einstein. Delta 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

HARALD said the Introduction needs be Rewritten

Harald returns soon from vacation and he will rewrite the Intro to make it conform with the published facts. -- Meanwhile Fastfission is desperately trying to BAN Licorne before Harald returns.-- Licorne 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne. You brought it on yourself, Licorne. --Alvestrand 22:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alvestrand. Licorne no longer has anything positive to offer. According to Licorne Einstein can only plagarise or be wrong (always). He is not susceptible to argument or reason. All he can do is repeat and shout his views which we all know by now. E4mmacro 00:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, there is no one who is surprised at this -- I announced both to this page and on your page many times that I find your editing disruptive and that continuing it would lead to arbitration and eventually probably your own banning. If anybody is curious as to why I am trying to ban Licorne from Wikipedia, they are welcome to view the RFC or the RFA about it. It isn't a "lynch mob", it's well over a dozen editors who think you have consistently violated both the policies of this website and lack any ability to contribute productively. You've brought it upon yourself, and people have shown unbelieveable amounts of patience with you on this issue. --Fastfission 02:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

WAIT FOR HARALD, he agrees with me that the Intro must be rewritten. -- Harald has more integrity than any of you masqueraders. Licorne 02:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. It isn't about the line, it's not about the facts of the article, it isn't about who agrees with you. It's about your editing behavior. If Harald came back today and said you were the greatest guy in the whole world, it wouldn't keep you from being banned, not with posts like this. --Fastfission 03:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You just hate what I say because it is true. Licorne 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the best you can manage by way of a response? Don't you have something more meaningful to do with your life? Come on now. Would someone who is "superior" resort to arguments like "Fastfission You Started It"? --Fastfission 03:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission Wikipedia should dump you immediately for insulting people and CENSORSHIP ! -- Licorne 03:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission You set up that nasty page to insult Dr.Winterberg, the same way you insult me, it is because you hate the message that you persecute the messengers.-- You should be fired by Wikipedia fast. --Licorne 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission You should be FIRED for insulting Dr.Winterberg ! --Licorne 03:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your inability to take responsibility for your own actions is sad, but not unexpected. Looking forward to seeing you gone. --Fastfission 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

E=mc2 Paragraph is Misleading and Incorrect

The article simplistically and incorrectly credits Einstein with E=mc2. In fact, Einstein never derived the equation (H.E. Ives, 1952), his derivation was a circular tautology which proved nothing. Einstein was trying to rederive Henri Poincare's E=mc2 but could not do it. -- The article must therefore be rewritten. -- Licorne 04:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Relativity priority dispute. --Alvestrand 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

NO -- This is NOT a priority dispute -- Ives proved Einstein did not derive the equation -- correct the article ! -- Licorne 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Development of Special Relativity ?

The article says Einstein developed Special Relativity ? -- Please name one thing to support this ! -- Special Relativity's DISCOVERY was COMPLETE before Einstein's first paper ! -- Correct the article ! -- Rephrase it. --Licorne 04:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If we take Poincare at his word, SR was developed by Lorentz, and there are subtle, important, and well-known distinctions between Lorentz's version of the theory and Einstein's. Zorba 194.44.154.17 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Poincare COMPLETED Relativity. Lorentz couldn't do it. -- You claim there are well-known distinctions of Einstein's version ? Reality is, there is no new interpretation whatsoever in Einstein's 1905 paper, none. So go stuff it Zorba you're just a liar. -- And Zorba you're trying to twist this into a priority dispute. --Licorne 13:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If Lorentz "couldn't do it", why did Poincare give Lorentz credit for what we now call special relativity? Are you better informed than Poincare? Zorba 194.44.154.17 14:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a priority dispute page, Henri Poincare was a polite gentleman, who completed what Lorentz could not. You'll find your answer elsewhere in more detail but not here please. Licorne 14:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Need Use Proper Footnotes in the Article

Kip Thorne's fallacious quote (reference 9) amounts to a sneaky priority dispute and should thus be eliminated on two counts.

Also, Wikipedia should not do as Einstein who failed to properly cite without footnotes. - The Field Equation in the article should be properly footnoted, to David Hilbert, 20 November 1915.

Licorne 05:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not duplicate the previous page

I suggest that we all resist the temptation to go over all the same ground again in this talk page. E4mmacro 07:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan once again, avoiding to answer anything specific, just his false god Einstein, his golden calf of israel. -- Keep the blinders on Macrossan. -- Licorne 12:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very simple, please ignore everything Licorne says. It has become obvious that he craves attention, and so I submit to everyone to ignore his posts and not answer them. He should eventually leave when his comments go unanswered. Tailpig 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When Harald rewrites the Intro then I'll leave. Only then. Licorne 20:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just came back from vacation... knowing you, even when I improve the intro, I very much doubt that you'll like it! Even more, the intro seems not to bad; there is a glitch however, but that is in the linked general relativity article intro - it's misleading to state that "General relativity (GR) is the geometrical theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1915". But I was unable to explain it to the bunch of people who currently tweeks that article. Maybe someone else wants to try to explain that in 1915/1916 "general relativity"was not a "theory of gravitation"? Harald88 06:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean here. 66.194.98.232 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

GRT was a theory according to which all motion is relative , in general, just like inertial motion was in SRT. As Einstein put it (Einstein 1916), GRT "leads" to a theory of gravitation, which however he didn't give a separate name. Nowadays that unnamed theory is called "GRT". Harald88 11:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

About the new archive0 page

Concerning the new archive page: Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0, which was created from content from this page. I think it would be less confusing if it were moved to "Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6". I will do that unless anybody objects. Paul August ☎ 20:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave it alone. These constant name changes are confusing. Zorba 193.108.45.254 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It should move. The current name is obviously a typo. A redirect from Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0 to Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 6 should prevent confusion. The Rod (☎ Smith) 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

CH, who created the archive, also agrees with the move, so I went ahead and moved it. I really think it will be less confusing to future editors this way. I left Talk:Relativity priority dispute/Archive0 as a redirect, so you will still be able to find the archive under the old name. and I updated the "Archive box" above. Paul August ☎ 18:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorne's Quote is out of Context

Kip Thorne's quote is out of context. In the whole context along with Hilbert's claims of priority, Thorne's quote becomes quickly neutralized. Thorne's quote shoud be removed, unless the whole context is further developed there.

Also, the GR section makes it sound like Einstein discovered the field equation which is of course false. -- Where is Harald he said he would rewrite the article, where is he. Licorne 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Ironic, that you would be making an argument about it being quoted out of context in this respect. But in this case, you are, I think, wrong: Thorne's quote conveys exactly what Thorne meant. It clearly says that the issue of dates is complicated, that Hilbert may have published first technically, but then explains some of the difficulties in just saying that "Hilbert has priority". It's very easy to understand what Thorne was intending, and I saw nothing in the book itself which would imply that Thorne meant anything different by it. I suspect you might be using the term "quoting out of context" wrong: it refers to the question of whether the quote has been used in a way which would imply something not said in the text of the original work (i.e., the way you originally used Thorne's quote, to try and imply that Thorne thought Hilbert had simple priority, was using a quote out of context). --Fastfission 23:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean in the greater context of quotes by OTHERS especially by Hilbert himself who repeatedly claimed priority, which neutralizes Thorne. In this larger context Thorne is clearly seen as wrong, so his quote should removed, or else for balance Hilbert's claims of priority should be there too, for the COMPLETE CONTEXT. Licorne 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As I suspected, you're using the term "quoted out of context" incorrectly and somewhat nonsensically. What you are saying is that you think Thorne's quote is incorrect. Which is a different type of claim (and the same one you've been going on about, ever since Thorne's quote was no longer being quoted out of context).

Quoting "out of context" refers to the process of isolating a quote from a larger work in a way which obscures or distorts the meaning of the author in a way which would have been clear had the work as a whole been taken into consideration. A classic example is the phenomena of Creationist websites which take Darwin's passage on the evolution of the eye from Origin of Species (in which Darwin expresses the fact that it is hard to imagine the eye having been evolved gradually) and then say, "Look, even Darwin knew his theory was wrong!" In reality, Darwin thought no such thing: the passage immediately following the part quoted out of context by the Creationists resolves the issue completely for Darwin (he says that even though it is hard to believe, there are reasons to think even the eye could have been evolved gradually over time, and lists them). Hence, the Creationists remove the quote from its overall context and use it in a way which gives a false or misleading impression of Darwin's opinions, in this case.

So having a quote on a page which, say, disagrees with other things on a page is not "quoting out of context". At worst it would be a case of contradiction. And having a quote which other facts disagree with does not make it a "quote out of context" either -- it just means one or the other quotes could be wrong. In this case I think neither is the case, but that's a separate issue.

Quoting out of context is the sort of thing you did with the Thorne quote originally, attempting to imply that Thorne believed that Hilbert had priority. In reality, as the whole context of Thorne's work explains, Thorne thought no such thing. As you seem to realize in your many "theories" about why Thorne disagrees with your opinion.

Hope that clears things up! If you have any other questions feel free to ask. --Fastfission 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thorne's quote is out of the context of the general discussion of the priority dispute, BUT OK let's look at it your way, Thorne is simply wrong, even better reason to remove his quote, it contradicts the published record where Hilbert did in fact claim priority, several times. Remove Thorne's quote therefore. -- DO IT, IT'S PROVEN WRONG. --Licorne 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some sources for these assertions which do not include your own idiosyncratic interpretations/translations of Hilbert or from questionable sources? --Fastfission 03:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As quoted in the new book by Wuensch in Hilbert's 1916 letter to Schwarzschild he called it MY THEORY, and again in his 1924 paper Hilbert wrote Einstein in his latter publications finally arrived at the equations of MY THEORY. -- So Kip Thorne is WRONG, and Thorne's quote should be removed (reference 9). -- Licorne 03:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That all seems pretty tenuous to me. You're basically saying that on the basis of two pronouns, you think a long and more synthetic approach should be removed. I don't think that's a sound research strategy, sorry. Find a good secondary source that says that Hilbert claimed priority, and we'll consider integrating their point of view in. Otherwise it's not acceptable. If your only recourse is to your own idiosyncratic interpretations and translations of Hilbert, that's not good enough, sorry. --Fastfission 22:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is your source: Jagdish Mehra (1974). Licorne 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert Claimed Priority

Jagdish Mehra 1974 Einstein, Hilbert, and the Theory of Gravitation, Reidel. -- There Mehra says Hilbert claimed priority and he cites Hilbert's 1924 paper as evidence.67.78.143.226 20:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where is Harald ?

Harald you said you would rewrite the artcle.

No I did not say so, you read too much into things. Harald88 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1) Einstein was not the author, it was simultaneous by Hilbert.

2) The article makes it sound like Einstein discovered the field equation, which is false.

3) Thorne's quote is contradicted by Hilbert's exact words regarding priority.

4) Ives(1952) proved Einstein did not derive E=mc2, his derivation was a circular tautology.

5) Einstein contributed NOTHING to the DEVELOPMENT of special relativity. -- Please name just ONE thing ?

Licorne 23:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I did, several times... but if you are oversensitive to "development": in fact that word is not needed and can thus be left out (as I did now). Harald88 01:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on Harald you have much more to rewrite, don't quit now. Licorne 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Licorne, please back up your claims and cite where Hilbert discussed the general principle of relativity before Einstein, thanks! Harald88 01:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hilbert would not have done such a thing, because none exists, which is one more place where Einstein was wrong, and which also is why GR is only a theory of gravity, as Hilbert correctly called it. -- Einstein never understood the theory, which Grossman had constructed, not Einstein. -- Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can not but take that as conformation that even according to you, GRT as introduced by Einstein, was really Einstein's theory - and that it's therefore not faulty to simply state that he was the author of it. You may propose to add a clarification: I already pointed out to you, that the problem is not in this article, but in the intro to general relativity where the distinction between the original GRT and what nowadays is called "GRT" is wiped under the carpet. Harald88 10:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well Harald, then CORRECT THE INTRO. -- PS it was Grossmann's theory, not Einstein's, and it was wrong until Hilbert correctly published it. Licorne 13:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I regard Einstein's authorship on GRT to have been started long before 1915/1916, notably in 1911 he already gave the approximate equations based on the equivalence principle. For many practical applications such as GPS, his 1911 paper suffices. Who published these things before him? Harald88 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Who would want to publish wrong equations ? -- And Equivalence goes back to Newton, not Einstein. -- Einstein's 1911 equations were wrong, no one could base GPS on that, you'd get lost and crash your car. -- Also note, that in science, the AUTHOR is he who published first and correctly, which was not Einstein nor Grossmann, but Hilbert. Licorne 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Harald, You must know it is futile. Ignore him and hope he goes away. :) E4mmacro 19:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Zorba concurs, fully and completely. Is Zorba a "green" clone? Zorba 193.108.45.247 10:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Toblerone

comment says "see talk," but nothing there. Toblerone is a technical term that many won't understand . We have article on it so it should be linked to. GangofOne 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

See below. Paul August ☎ 07:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Toblerone patent?

I've reverted the bit about Einstein approving "the patent for the mold for Toblerone". Although there are many web pages that claim something of this sort, I am nevertheless somewhat skeptical of this claim. For example see question 22 here, this page at the Tobleone.com and this page on the history of Toblerone. Even if true (and we could find a reliable source) I'm not sure it warrants a place in the article, except perhaps in a "trivia" section. Paul August ☎ 07:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks false. The Toblerone article has a link to the patent, but Einstein's name is not on it. The patent pdf is from toblerone.com. at that site (link above) it says "The TOBLERONE brand is registered with the Federal Institute for Intellectual Property in Bern, and shortly thereafter TOBLERONE becomes the first patented milk chocolate with almonds and honey. The physicist Albert Einstein, barely thirty years old, is employed at the Institute. A few years later, he will become famous for his theory of relativity." So THEIR site doesn't even say Albert approved it. So it's bogus. GangofOne 07:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: I reverted the addition of the remark about Toblerone as vandalism, but a quick web search made me think that maybe it was intended as a serious contribution, so I reverted my revert. At any rate, even if it is true, it is a minor piece of trivia that probably does not deserve to be in the article, especially given that there are so many more important things to say about Einstein. dbtfz^talk 07:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your actions were alll quite understandable. Paul August ☎ 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Einstein examined patents on electrical devices (signal transmission, clock coordination, etc.), not food or molding equipment. It would be pretty strange for him to have approved it personally; definitely not the sort of work he was certified to do. --Fastfission 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology

"Important contributions to ... cosmology", looks like an understatement. I think he (almost) originated the study of cosmology by applying GR to the whole Universe. AS far as I know, the only serious cosmology before that was a realisation by someboby that Newton's Universe must be infinite to stop it collapsing under gravity, and the possibly contrary notion that if it were infinite the night sky should be much brighter (you see a star in whatever direction you look). But modern cosmology started with his "cosmological constant" paper didn't it? E4mmacro 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

But Einstein called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder, don't you know that. 67.78.143.226 20:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dean, I do know that. E4mmacro 20:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What was Macrossan's article doing on the Einstein page ? It is not relevent to Einstein and is contradicted by Whittaker's low opinion of Larmor's work. It is only there for self aggrandisement of Macrossan who put it there himself. 67.78.143.226 20:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought it was there to help you in your campaign to show Einstein didn't originate SR. Probably should have been moved with the removal of priority disputes. And what does your comment have to do with cosmology? Why not start a new topic if you think this is importnat? E4mmacro 20:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Tone of this article

I have been asked to explain what I think is inappropriate about the tone of this article. I find these questions difficult to answer with examples, because usually in cases like these I will give specific examples, and then those examples will be fixed, and then I will be expected to remove the dispute or cleanup tag even though many more remain. Therefore I will try to explain as generally as possible and give a few examples for illustrative purposes only. I think it's important that we all understand the formal tone that is expected of encyclopedia articles, and when we do, we should be able to improve everything here.

Broadly, this article reads like "hero worship". Certainly, Einstein was a remarkable person, but I think there is an undercurrent of adulation and an overall attempt to emphasize all the amazing things he did. Please understand that I am not criticizing the factual accuracy of this article, but only the method of presentation. Some examples:

• The final lecture climaxed with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Field Equation.

The use of the word "climax" here implies that there was something monumental about his equation.

• Einstein's postulation that light can be described not only as a wave with no kinetic energy, but also as massless discrete packets of energy called quanta with measurable kinetic energy (now known as photons) was a landmark break with the classical physics.

Not true? green 193.108.45.246 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Point-of-view

• Einstein himself was a great statistician

Point-of-view

• Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a way that also led to a new subtle understanding of quantum mechanics.

It isn't really explained how this is "subtle" or how it lead to a "new understanding".

• He died at 1:15 AM[2] in Princeton hospital[3] in Princeton, New Jersey, on April 18, 1955 at the age of 76 from internal bleeding, which was caused by the rupture of an aortic aneurism, leaving the Generalized Theory of Gravitation unsolved.

Unclear what this means, but it seems to imply that the generalized theory of gravitation is "unsolved" only due to Einstein's death. Maybe "unfinished" would be better?

• The whole introduction to the Personality section is informal and has the personal air of someone describing an old friend, not a formal discussion proper for an encyclopedia.

• Einstein initially favored construction of the atomic bomb, in order to ensure that Hitler did not do so first, and even sent a letter18 to President Roosevelt (dated August 2, 1939, before World War II broke out, and probably written by Leó Szilárd) encouraging him to initiate a program to create a nuclear weapon. Roosevelt responded to this by setting up a committee for the investigation of using uranium as a weapon, which in a few years was superseded by the Manhattan Project.

Implies that Roosevelt was investigating atomic weapons only beacuse Einstein suggested it, which is something I understand to be factually false.

Hopefully this discussion will enable us to improve this article. ⟳ausa کui ^× 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree E4mmacro 20:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the atomic bomb: the current version is mostly correct. The Einstein-bomb connection is often overstated, claiming the entire Manhattan Project was a result. This is not true (the bureaucratic story is more complicated than this), but the Einstein-Szilard letter did result in the initial bomb investigations sponsored by the federal government (though these early investigations were not very productive; only later did the program really get going). As our article on the letter goes into in more detail, Einstein did not actually write the letter, he just signed it, which helped to guarantee that it would be taken seriously (since Szilard was relatively unknown outside of the physics community). --Fastfission 02:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points, please don't hesitate to make improvememts. Harald88 11:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Author - Rephrase the Article to Avoid Misuse of Terms

To Harald: In scientific context the author is the one who first correctly publishes.

Hilbert first correctly published the discovery of general relativity on 20 November 1915.

So Harald Please rephrase the Intro, as you had done with Special relativity.

67.78.143.226 20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To Harald, It is a misuse of terms, Einstein did not introduce the field equation, he only discussed it. So rephrase that too in the article, because it was Hilbert who had introduced the field equation five days before. Licorne 13:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Generalized theory

"Einstein began to form a generalized theory of gravitation with the Universal Law of Gravitation and the electromagnetic force in his first attempt to demonstrate the unification and simplification of the fundamental forces. In 1950 he described his work in a Scientific American article. Einstein was guided by a belief in a single statistical measure of variance for the entire set of physical laws."

Is the last sentence true or high level bs? It doesn't seem to have any intelligible meaning. Moreover, iiuc, Einstein was seeking a deterministic (not statistical) theory for his Unified Field Theory. So even if the last sentence is intelligible, it seems out of sync with his research direction wrt "Generalized theory". green 193.108.45.134 21:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it does sound like high level bs... on what source or sources is it based? Harald88 22:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea? There is the suggestion it comes from some Scientific American article. I just noticed some likely additional bs: "Einstein tried to unify gravity and electromagnetism in a way that also led to a new subtle understanding of quantum mechanics." What subtle new understanding is the author referring to? I'd sure like to know, and probably the rest of the physics community would as well! green 193.108.45.246 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would guess "hidden variable theories". His letters to Schrodinger late in life show that he considers himself and Schrodinger as a lonely outpost (which they were I think) believeing there must be a hidden variable theory that could work. E4mmacro 21:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

But this had nothing to do with his attempt to unify gravity and EM, which came later in his career. The EPR paper, e.g., was published in 1935. green 193.108.45.244 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL

Someone removed this sentence from the intro: "widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century", referring to WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL.

I reverted that change. The reason being that I think it's important for our understanding of Einstein's role in the 20th century to note that he is so regarded.

If it were not for the few naysayers like Bjerknes and User:Licorne, I'd remove the qualification and say "is" the greatest scientist of the 20th century. --Alvestrand 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed that phrase, and I think with good reason: it's both weaselly and peacockish. Don't get me wrong; he probably was the century's greatest scientist, and I'd bet he's widely regarded as such. But it doesn't contribute anything to the article to say so (if there's someone who's reading this article who's not familiar with Einstein, well, Wikipedia's not going to convince them of such a bold claim, true or not), and it's not a verifiable claim (or if it is, no one has bothered to provide a source for it). I think Licorne et al are irrelevant; how does their presence justify the intentional inclusion of unencyclopedic statements? Ruakh 22:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't find it weaselish, as it is a rather straightforward, blunt statement. As for WP:PEACOCK, there's no need to let a style guide take on the role of absolute policy on editing this page. I bet plenty of editors of this article would like it to stay; it's been there a while, been discussed on the talk page of WP:Peacock as an exception to the general "rule of thumb", and has been there since well before its change of status to FA. If you want to remove the phrase, you're going to have to convince us, and just quoting WP:PEACOCK isn't good enough. --C S (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me start by striking out the last sentence of my earlier response; I had misread part of Alvestrand's comment. (Sorry.)

Okay, that done — something can be both straightforward and blunt, yet violate the policy to Avoid weasel words. (I assume the policy's name comes not from the noun meaning "a person regarded as sneaky or treacherous", but rather from the verb meaning "to be evasive; equivocate" [39].)

At any rate, I don't think it's a useful or encyclopedic statement — the paragraph already mentions several of his contributions and his Nobel Prize, and if anything, we should put more emphasis on those rather than pre-empting them with barely-meaningful peacockfulness — and neither you nor Alvestrand seems to be arguing that it is useful or encyclopedic. You mention the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_peacock_terms, but of the four commenters there commenting on the Einstein article, one agrees with you and three with me.

If everyone here really does agree with you, then I'll drop the matter; hopefully, other editors will comment here, and we'll find out whether that's the case.

Ruakh 00:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion at WP:Peacock I don't see a breakdown of three people saying that you are correct in saying that specific statement about Einstein should be removed. So I find your summary rather suspect. In any case, I still think that discussion points out Einstein as an exception to the general rule of thumb, with tacit agreement by several others. Note in particular, the comment by Stan, with response by ESP.

The statement in question is a very useful statement. It points out Einstein's unique role in public consciousness as the greatest scientist of recent times. Your use of "encyclopedic" is rather vague, as Brittanica is even more praising, saying he was "recognized in his own time as one of the most creative intellects in human history". It is not alone. So clearly encyclopedias do say stuff like this, as far as Einstein is concerned. Your additional use of this term in addition to saying it's not useful, is meant to convey some additional point that I am missing. --C S (Talk) 01:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, I find your comment that "neither you nor Alvestrand seems to be arguing that it is useful or encyclopedic" objectionable. Clearly we do think that and so does Fastfission. Alvestrand clearly gave a reason, and my comments clearly indicated I believe there is a good rationale for keeping the remark. We're all experienced editors here and to imply that we are not basing our comments on a belief that we are keeping useful content, or that we are somehow arguing to keep unencyclopedic content, is in poor taste. --C S (Talk) 02:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did not imply any of what you're inferring. Ruakh 03:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What did you mean to imply by that comment then? Rather than try to understand why Alvestrand and I would consider the statement useful or encyclopedic, you state that we don't seem to be arguing on that basis. So you basically said we were arguing for something else, while leaving it open as to what that could be. Do you see why that would be insulting to someone? --C S (Talk) 03:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't imply anything. You did not argue that it was useful; I'm sure you thought that it was, and I'm sure you still think it is, but you did not make the claim that it was, and you certainly didn't give any arguments (in your original comment) that it was. (I'll admit that I shouldn't have painted you and Alvestrand with the same brush, though; he did give an argument, albeit one that I didn't agree with: "I think it's important for our understanding of Einstein's role in the 20th century to note that he is so regarded." You, however, gave no such argument.) Re-read your comment, and you'll see what I mean. Ruakh 15:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty strong statement -- to be widely regarded as the greatest (not "a great", mind you, but the superlative form) scientist of the 20th century is a remarkable fact in and of itself. We are not -- and should not -- say whether he was or was not "the greatest" (how would one measure such a thing?) but saying that he is regarded as such is not a problem and, I think, generally true. --Fastfission 00:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And as a note.. we should not, and do not, say that Einstein is the greatest. That's the peacock phrase. Saying that he is regarded as the greatest is not -- that's a statement about perception, and a significant one. The statement does not intend to convince the reader that he was the greatest -- it is a statement about his status in the minds of others. --Fastfission 00:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, sort of; see the second half of WP:WEASEL#Improving weasel words, which gives an almost identical example (using "Some people think that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team in history" as the example). Ruakh 00:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a somewhat more exceptional situation than the Yankees. We're not talking about some loose sense of fan opinion, we're talking about major publications, the fact that he's probably the only scientist almost everyone knows about, and so forth. As the article explains in a later section, the number of verifiable things enshrining him with that status. Compare it with the opening lines of Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on Einstein: "In the first 15 years of the 20th century, Einstein—recognized in his own time as one of the most creative intellects in human history—advanced a series of theories that proposed entirely new ways of thinking about space, time, and gravitation." --Fastfission 03:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is inappropriate. It's part of the general tone problems in this article that I described above. ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the first sentence is appropriate and adds to the article. One of the guiding styles for encyclopedic writing is news style, which is written using the "inverted pyramid" structure. In this style there is a sequence consisting of the first sentence, first paragraph, first section (the lead or lede), etc., with each element giving more detail, but also capable of standing on its own. The idea being that the reader can stop reading at any point and the article would still make sense. So the first sentence should ideally be how you would describe the subject if you had to do it in one sentence. The first paragraph would be what you would write if you could only write one paragraph and so on. If I had to explain who Einstein was, in one short sentence, saying something like Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born theoretical physicist widely regarded as the greatest scientist of the 20th century., would be my choice. Paul August ☎ 04:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

FTR, I think the sentence is useful and encyclopedic. --Alvestrand 10:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I regard Feynman as the greatest scientist of the 20th century, and I think that many agree. It's better to quote such an opinion: "So-and-so calls him the greatest scientists of the 20th century". That can't be hard to find, and it's certainly more encyclopedic. Harald88 10:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I must shamefully admit that I had to look up Feynmann to remember what he did. He did a lot of great stuff, but his stature is still vastly different from Einstein's. Agree that it is good if the claim in the intro is backed up with citations later (under "popularity and cultural impact"?), but disagree that those need to be in the lead paragraph. --Alvestrand 11:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I go along with that, for reasons of style. Harald88 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like the best solution. Simply putting a quote in the opening does not effectively present the reader with the reality of the situation -- it's not that one commentator views him as important, but that a huge number do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a search on books.google.com for "einstein greatest scientist" - there seems no lack of places to cite from, but the job of punching in references will be a chore.... [40] --Alvestrand 09:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)