Jump to content

Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive index

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

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
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)

thomas fears

thomas is a brave person but he has a fear which is he could fail.fail is his fear you know once a upon a time 152.59.199.245 (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2024 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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://wiki.riteme.site/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. — Kbh3rdtalk 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) .

  • 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

Alternative 1B: Henri Poincare should have main credit for Special Relativity

Alternative 1C: Both Poincare and Einstein should receive equal (or near-equal) credit

Alternative 1D: Poincare-Lorentz and Einstein/Minkowski should receive equal (or near equal) credit

"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

Alternative 2B: David Hilbert should have main credit for General Relativity

Alternative 2C: Einstein (and possibly Grossmann) and Hilbert should receive equal (or near equal) credit

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 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
so haben wir damit allgemein kovariante Feldgleichungen gewonnen.
I am now translating into English, using the modern instead of (in case you try to read the origninal paper, be warned that Einstein denotes something else by ):
This Tensor 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
then we have obtained generally covariant field equations.
Now, Hilbert's field equations are
where are is the scalar derived from . If Einstein was familiar with forming this kind of field equations, then why didn't he propose

or

(where the scalar T is obtained the same way as R), and then present his case for (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 or ) 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 , from which one obtains by taking traces. The trace term can now be identified with and brought to the other side. The result is
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 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 whereas Einstein predicted that a body emitting a certain amount loses mass 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 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 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 . The total mass of the fluid is the energy divided by . 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 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 , 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 . 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)

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 , the equation used by Jean Baptiste Perrin to determine ?

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:

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 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 is the (compact) group of rotations and the set of Lorentz transforms for the given choice of space and time variables, then is a group (the Poincaré group), and the decomposition 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)
    • 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 , 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 in . Whittaker is calling it Poincaré's E=mc2 in the comment on Hasenöhrl for a similar reason, to point out that Poincaré has 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 .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 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 , 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 and (where the superscript (o) denotes speeds in the inertial system where the body rests) with , formed using the body's mass and speed. For the classical situation, using 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 may still fail to be . 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)
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 as , 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. dbtfztalk 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)

Mar 2006 – June 2006


Religion and atheism

I think you sould add the places where he was born/died. That are main information...

It's an interesting piece, but I think this material certainly casts further light on his views. Expansion of the current article may be worthy of attention. --AWF

Another source. [41]

Einstein, Hilbert, Lorentz, and Poincaré dispute

This very very long discussion been moved, as per myself and User:Alvestrand. User:Licorne, please continue your argumentation at Talk:Relativity priority dispute. TIA ---CH 09:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For Paul August: please note above comment and do not revert Licorne's incessant propaganda. He should post his views on Talk:Relativity Priority Dispute. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.44.154.6 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28 18:00:53 (UTC)

"important contributions to the special theory of relativity"??? Now that Licorne has been diverted to another article, shouldn't this be rephrased? Clarityfiend 17:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's objective and (nearly) undisputed; if on top of that you want to push for adding a strongly disputed claim you'll have to add the dispute as well. See for example Hendrik Lorentz, Henri Poincaré, relativity priority dispute, with which this article should be consistent. However, a simple link to relativity priority dispute may be a good idea; we could for example add that "The widely held opinion that Einstein created the theory of special relativity has been contested, see [[relativity priority dispute."; but I think such a phrase doesn't belong in the summary. Anyway, I'll add a link now. Harald88 23:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Deficiency in article -- no mention of EPR paper

green 193.108.45.149 18:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

please expand acronym.... --Alvestrand 18:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I supose that should be Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (as in Wormhole). --Stephan Schulz 20:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
See EPR paradox. Paul August ☎ 03:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I added the link to the "See also" section, but some indication of its signficance should be incorporated in the article along with another internal link. green 193.108.45.252 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

cleanup and featured article

How is it that this article is tagged for cleanup, but is still a featured article? vedant (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The guy who added the cleanup tag didn't like the tone. Perhaps the guys who made it featured a long time ago did like it, or perhaps the tone has changed since then. It only takes one person to place a cleanup tag. --Alvestrand 07:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
And one person to remove it ;-) But is the cleanup-tone tag still required? I haven't read the article fully so cannot comment on its tone. vedant (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I assume you meant Licorne. I don't think we'll be hearing from him any more. I removed the tag. If I was wrong, please reinstate it. –Joke 15:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Never mind, I explored the history and it was ⟳ausa کui. We should work to get rid of it ASAP, it's absurd to have it on an FAC and a sure sign that someone will put the article up for FARC. –Joke 15:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The cleanup tag is still there. There are two entries in history to explain this:
  1. (cur) (last) 21:18, 14 March 2006 Joke137 (revert self)
  2. (cur) (last) 21:13, 14 March 2006 Joke137 (rv stupid cleanup tag)
It is apparent that you removed the tag but reverted it. What was the reason for removal of the cleanup tag? vedant (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Work in progress; and what is "FARC"?! Anyway, from the above discussions it appears that there is concensus that here and there the tone was a bit overdone. And what of this one that is still there: "In his later years, his fame exceeded that of any other scientist in history". I'd say that his fame almost certainly did not exceed that of Isaac Newton, and I even vaguely remember having seen an opinion poll about it - but I don't know how to find it back... Harald88 01:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it probably did exceed Newton's fame... he's still famous, but from the mid-40s through the 60s, he was massively, massively popular. But you're right, without a source, it's overdoing it a bit.--ragesoss 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
FARC is Featured Article Removal Candidates. If you find the tone overdone, why don't you make it normal? Be Bold. vedant (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I stated: work in progress. I don't always find the right words to really improve it, and I have limited time, as most of us. I guess that in one or two weeks we'll have improved it enough in a way that we all can live with it, so that we can remove that tag without opposition (and then no need to remove its featured status!). Harald88 10:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the tag thinking that Licorne had added it, as I was doing with some of his other edits on Wikipedia. A detailed look at the history suggested that ⟳ausa کui was actually the one who had added it, and I felt it would be inappropriate to remove his tag. FARC is indeed featured article removal candidates, and I think this article deserves to remain one, but surely someone will nominate it if the cleanup tag remains indefinitely. –Joke 04:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the focus should be on improving the article, not maintaining its featured status at any cost. Incidentally, I do think this article still has bad tone problems. ⟳ausa کui × 04:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just making sure. Obviously, I'm not proposing removing the tag without resolving these problems. –Joke 05:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am waiting for the article to improve. As with Joke, it is obvious that I will not remove the tag without resolving the problems. vedant (talk • contribs) 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

To Ryan Delaney: If you place a clean up tag on an article then it's expected that you explain yourself. A one liner doesn't explain what's wrong with the article especially when it's something subjective as "tone". Specific examples would go a long way in helping others try to clean things up when you haven't done any editting on it in 3 weeks (sans reverts and putting the tag back). That said: what exactly is wrong? Cburnett 06:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the tag down to the personality section, I don't think there's a problem with the tone of the first section and I hate the tag to be on top of the page. Piet 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To Cburnett: Check the archives. I posted on the talk page here when I added the tag. ⟳ausa کui × 16:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick scan doesn't reveal any obvious problems. If all the prior discussion has disappeared into the archives, it must be somewhat old. How about you re-explain the problems, since (obviously) you don't think they were solved. And why does the tag have to be on the article - it would be better on talk, if anywhere William M. Connolley 16:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
For starters, cleanup tags go in the article space so that people who look at the articles will be encouraged to look for and fix the problems. This is a style issue about templates that has substantial precedent and if debated should be debated elsewhere. I'm busy with school right now (I probably shouldn't even be typing this) so I can't reiterate old discussion that I think is still relevant; that is, the problems are still there. You can find more than one example that I gave and is still unfixed, but there are others that I didn't name explicitly, for reasons outlined in the original post. ⟳ausa کui × 16:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Smoluchowski

I found an interesting source on this (see link below). It appears that, though Smoluchowski worked in parallel (and from other sources, starting before Einstein) on Brownian motion, his first publication was not only later than Einstein's, but also not correct (it was also different in methodology than Einstein's). From some other sources, Smoluchowski was concerned first and foremost with explaining Brownian motion, and thus didn't want to publish without experimental confirmation. Einstein's approach was 'here is a theoretical prediction of something that should happen. It may or may not be Brownian motion (his paper explicitly stated the measurements so far were not good enough to confirm agreement one way or the other). This predictive, rather than exlanatory approach allowed him to puplish first. Given this, I have moved the Smoluchowski comment to a footnote, where it is more appropriate to add brief qualifying information. However, I have no problem if someone else suggests or acts on a different way of handling this informaion. I would be interested if someone who has Bjerkne's book (e.g. Harald88) would comment on what it says in reference to Smoluchowski - if it claims (as Licorne did) that Smoluchowski's result is identical and similar in method to Einstein's, then Bjerkne's credibility takes another nosedive. The source is a translation of a paper by Langevin, along with some commentary: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/theo1/hanggi/History/Langevin1908.pdf --Pallen 05:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Bjerkness wrote nothing about him. Harald88 22:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but despite checking lots of wikipedia help docs, I can't figure out how to give the footnote number a proper sequence without manually changing all following footnotes. Hopefully someone else can fix this or explain how. --Pallen 07:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Paul August ☎ 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Styles

Looking at some other articles, I see that there are at least two self numbering footnote styles available. Why don't we use one of those in this article? --Pallen 19:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On the "disputes" article, I tried to use the Wikipedia:Footnotes style, which uses <ref> tags to generate footnotes. It seems to be easier to maintain than the currently used templates. --Alvestrand 23:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What's with removing all the external links!!

I looked at the 5 pillars article, but I interpret is 'avoid an article consisting primarily or excessively of links'. It is a judgement call, but the recently deleted links (by Jibran1) are much more in the nature of 'references' that you find in any main article in Britannica. In the modern world, web references are the most accessible. I would like to argue in favor of restoring them, but don't want to start an edit war.--Pallen 00:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the reason given was not a very compelling one, but in looking over them, I thought most of those removed were unlikely to significantly aid the reader and didn't look like they were being used in the article as references. I am a fan of culling down external links every once in awhile (too many external links gives too much choice to be useful, in my experience), though I don't think the five pillars is a good justification for that. I restored one which was a good site, but we don't need to link to every Einstein-related site on the internet. I removed the letter from Einstein to FDR simply because we already have a whole article on it linked prominently in the text itself, and from there it is accessible both as external links and at Wikisource. --Fastfission 00:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


World War II

The WWII part is actually a bit more complicated than presented here. What happened is that when Hitler came to power in 1933 is that Einstein was on the boat for his return trip to Europe. While on the boat he found out that the Nazi's has ransacked his vacation home in Caputh, his bankaccount was blocked, and his beloved sailing boat had been confiscated. When he arrived in the Belgian port of Antwerp he decided to stay there, and not to continue his trip back to Germany. With the help of his Belgian friends (De Groodt and De Donder) he rented a house in the Belgian beach resort of De Haan (Le Coq in French), and stayed there for several months. While there he co-signed a declaration denouncing the newly established Nazi regime, and declared that he did not want to live in a country where basic human freedoms were not guaranteed. Following that there was a official condemnation by the Prussian Academy of Sciences, at which point Einstein resigned as member of the Prussian Academy, and renounced his Prussian citizenship as well. At the end of all this turmoil he was offered a permament position at Princeton, and he returned to the US to never return to Germany.

I intend to clean this up at some point and stick it in the main text. JdH 19:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

An Einstein Quote

I came across a powerful quote by Albert Einstein:

“The world is too terrible a place to live in, not because of the bad things that happen, but because of the good people who stand by and do nothing."

I believe it is relevant to this very moment in time.

There are other quotes from Einstein embedded in the existing Article.

I tried to add it to the Einstein Article, but was reversed with the comment “Quotes belong in Wikiquote".

I would like to see this quote inserted in Einstein’s ‘Personality’ Section between his ‘Religious’ and ‘Political’ views. I feel this quote would be more powerful in the flow of the Article itself, than in another link altogether.

Thoughts?

Michael David 23:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that if we start with something like this, pretty soon we'll have a huge list of everybody's favorite Einstein quotes (he has a lot of good ones!). If you want an idea of how out of hand it can get, see our Einstein page at Wikiquote. --Fastfission 00:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
We also have to be very careful that they are real Einstein quotes also. As Fastfission says, "he has a lot of good ones", but some of the good ones are actually fake or suspect. See the book, The quotable Einstein, for some examples (which are indicated). --C S (Talk) 14:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein in Relationships

Hello,

Albert Einstein in Relationships is meant to give the visitor a wide angle view of how Albert Einstein handles his relationships in essence and in practice. It also allows the visitors to examine the characteristics of their own relationships with Albert Einstein.

Both content and test are based on sound astrological knowledge and research and they gained popularity among web surfers.

I believe that even though Astrology is not considered a mainstream science, these knowledge and compatibility tool should be made available to whoever wishes to study Albert Einstein as broadly as possible.

I have no desire to be considered a spammer and I don't want to force Top Synergy on the authors of Albert Einstein's article.

I ask you, authors of Albert Einstein that if you have an objection to placing a link to Albert Einstein in Relationships in the External Links section, please note it here. Else, I’ll place the link hoping that it would be a valid resource for Albert Einstein's fans and researchers.

With appreciation, Midas touch 04:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I see from your contrib list that you have added this crap to a dozen other articles after "asking for permission", so I guess someone has to speak up.
No. Don't do it. It adds nothing (zero, nada, zilch) to our KNOWLEDGE about Einstein; anyone can come up with more THEORIES about Einstein, and with a lot better justification than this. --Alvestrand 08:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


extraordinary professor at the University of Leiden

Some clarification seems warranted. "Extraordinary" is in no way intended as a "peacock" phrase. What is stands for is "buitengewoon" in Dutch. This is a pretty common arrangement at Dutch Universities, where somebody who has his main employment somewhere else (often in industry, or at a University or research institute elsewhere) may hold a parttime appointment at the University. Typically for 1 day/week, or -as in Einstein's case- for a few weeks/year. Such a 'buitengewoon' professor has all the privileges of a full professor, may give lectures on special topics, or may supervise graduate students who may do their lab work at the place of his main employment. 'Extraordinary' is the literal translation of 'buitengewoon'; however, as pointed out by ⟳ausa کui, is may raise some unwanted associations. For the time being I have come up with 'parttime appointment'; I don't like it, but it is all I can think of for now. Anybody a better idea? JdH 10:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to delete perfectly good terminology which is used in plenty of scholarly works. "Extraordinary professor" is the way that term is translated and that's probably why Wikipedia has plenty of articles using that term; it should be noted that "extraodinary professor" does have different meanings though, depending on the country of origin. Some of this is explained in professor, but I don't see the Dutch version. The reasonable course of action here is just to insert the appropriate info in professor, or create a kind of disambig page for extraordinary professor, and use the term in the article, linking to it if someone thinks it really necessary. --C S (Talk) 14:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
To say that he was "extraordinary" is ambiguous in English. It might be a good idea to clarify that it is meant as a formal title rather than an adjective, either by capitalizing ("Extraordinary Professor") or putting the original term afterward, for example: "Extraordinary Professor (buitengewoon)." ⟳ausa کui × 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The term "extraordinary professor" may be ambiguous in English only because we are unfamiliar with its use as a formal title in this country. The aforementioned clarification may solve the problem. If it is of any help, in the U.S. these positions are often referred to as "Adjunct Professors." Rachel 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fable?

Scanning for clean-up (despite the removal of the tag), I stumbled on "His conclusion [at age 16], that the speed of light is independent of the observer" is probably a fable. I never heard it and it sounds rather doubtful: it can't be considered a fact, except if a written and reliably dated original document is available that proves it beyond doubt, and that's highly unlikely to exist (I think I've seen them all, and I never saw that one!). Anyone who knows the source? BTW, with such passages still in there, I agree to keep the clean-up tag. Harald88 21:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As there was no reaction I now park it here, until someone corroborates it or part of it:

That year, at the age of 16, he performed the thought experiment known as "Albert Einstein's mirror". After gazing into a mirror, he examined what would happen to his image if he were moving at the speed of light; his conclusion, that the speed of light is independent of the observer, would later become one of the two postulates of special relativity.

Also, can anyone corroborate that he really wrote a "scientific work" at age 15? Harald88 22:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
This article www.321books.co.uk/biography/einstein-albert.htm and Clark's Einstein: The Life and Times confirm that the anecdotes are correct. The work that he wrote when he was fifteen was for his uncle and may not be an actual scientific paper, though it is quite a remarkable achievement at such a young age according to Clark's account. --24.253.120.206 13:56, 10 April 2006

That link can hardly be considered authoritative; it does not even give a reference to where that came from. You need something better than this to appear convincing JdH

Hmm, it resembles a bit the stories about Jesus when he was small (BTW, that article is a good example for how to present such accounts). Perhaps the passage can be put back with a change of tone together with mention of source (also for that "scientific paper"). Harald88 21:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nova's Einstein's Big Idea documentary reveals that Einstein did perform the thought experiment with the mirror. --24.253.120.206 22:45, 11 April 2006

Documentaries are notoriously unreliable; if I were to believe everything that is presented in documentaries the world should be crowded with Bigfeet and covered with cropcirkels, UFO's are buzzing overhead, and ET's running the government. You need an original source, such as a letter from Einstein himself, or a scholarly biography. JdH 09:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Strange: despite the above discussion, someone put that unsupported material back in - again without source! I'll remove it again... Harald88 19:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the spring of 1905, after considering these problems for ten years, Einstein realized that the crux of the problem lay not in a theory of matter but in a theory of measurement." [42] This statement from the Encarta Encyclopedia Albert Einstein article under Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity section shows that Einstein had began tackling conceptual ideas for relativity at the age of sixteen. --24.253.120.206 14:19, 23 April 2006

I found a source in a book (one from Cambridge University Press, too, not some self-published thing). Here, about halfway down the page. Due to this, I'm going to be bold and add that sentence back. --Rory096(block) 22:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of any thought experiment involving a mirror with Einstein; however, Jacob Bronowski, in his Book, "The Ascent of Man: A Personal View" by J. Bronowski," which was also produced as a mini-series docu-film version of the book, and in which he relates that Einstein did have a thought experiment on the speed of light while taking the tram to and from the patent office. Einstein had a view of a clock on a tower and apparently wondered what would happen as he receded from the clock at an ever increasing speed until he reached the speed of light so that the wave front reaching Einstein would remain static and the time as shown on the clock would freeze.

removed interesting passage about religious conviction

The following has been removed:

"From a letter written in English, dated March 24, 1954, Einstein wrote, "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."

I found it interesting, although perhaps not very important. Whoever removed it, explain why, thanks! Harald88 21:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.celebatheists.com/index.php?title=Albert_Einstein

There was no comment, but I notice that some other similar passages now occur. Thus I won't put it back in, although it's perhaps clearer than some of the current citations... Harald88 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Family life

What I noticed is that the subject of family life is spread out all over the place. Somewhere it mentions that he fell in love with Mileva, several paragraphs later it mentions that Mileva and Albert had a daughter out of wedlock, then again several paragraphs later it mentions that they got married, and many paragraphs further down it says that they had two sons, got divored, and that he married Elsa. Wouldn't it make more sense to collect all that in one paragraph upfront, so that the main body of the article can focus on his education, professional carreer, and scientific achievements? JdH 01:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Harald88 20:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Story or Article??!!!

This "article" is more or less like a story. What do you think? (unsigned comment by User:Kingykongy)

If by "story" you mean it has a narrative, then yes, but I don't really see that as being a problem in a biography. If you mean something else by "story", then I'm not sure I understand what you mean. --Fastfission 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The article seems to follow an historic timeline: events are arranged according to when they happened, and not categorized in subjects. An example of this is the "family life" issue brought up in the previous paragraph, but it is much more widespread than that. I just noticed the confusion about citizenship; that subject of citizenship is also spread out over paragraphs throughout the article, just like the family life thing. I think that in an encyclopedia you try the subdivide an article in a number of logical subjects; make separate paragraphs about "private life", "youth and education", "professional carreer", and "scientific contributions", perhaps one on "political views" as well, things like that. That way the article would be much more focussed, and also duplication would be avoided as is happening now. However, to rearrange the article that way would be a huge task, and I am not sure whether it is worth the effort. JdH 08:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, however you want to do it. Categorization by subject matter and characterization by narrative are just two different approaches. The current is somewhat of a hybrid, which I personally think is fine. I find that articles which try to be overly categorized by subject are often a bit hard to read and often end up being very redundant (since you have to give some of the same context many times over), but anyway, that's just one approach. I think most long biographies exist in a productive tension between the two narrative forms. --Fastfission 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Baden-Württemberg in the German Empire?

I took the freedom of editing Baden-Württemberg into Württemberg, as the former did not exist in Imperial Germany: From the respective article:

The state combines the historical states of Baden, Hohenzollern and Württemberg. After World War II the Allied forces established three states: Württemberg-Baden (occupied by the USA), Württemberg-Hohenzollern (France) and Baden (France). In 1952 these states were merged in order to form the State of Baden-Württemberg; the 1949 constitution of West Germany contained a special clause (Article 118) that made this merger possible. --MasterLycidas 21:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Iconification of Einstein"

A large amount of text was recently added to the Einstein article about his "iconification" and other things, pasted in by User:Slicky from http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/23mar_spacealien.htm. I have removed it for the following reasons:

  1. Most of it was not encyclopedic in style. It is written as a chatty news article, not an encyclopedia. It has a strong POV on a number of points. It editorializes. It is a piece of journalism.
  2. Most of it was copy-and-pasted from other articles on the web. Even if these are from NASA, this is generally discouraged, especially for large amounts of narrative text. If you think the NASA article is important, we can add an external link to it. The NASA page also lists an author credit which generally means that they are supposed to be credited as the author, which we do not do with text edits generally, and so I don't think it works with our licensing.
  3. The article is already very long and has a coherent narrative structure. The added text almost doubled its length, disrupts the narrative completely, repeats things already said, and generally is not compatible with the other text.

I'm happy with the article being added as an external link, or quotes from if there are any specific claims in it which are necessary for the article. But it shouldn't be copied-and-pasted wholesale in any case, which I think should be obvious. --Fastfission 22:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

See comment on Fastfission's talk page.

It looks to me like a page by itself and not approriate on the Einstein page. E4mmacro 07:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The section is well researched but needs your, as wikipedians, attention:

Here goes, please improve accordingly and let it trifle into the Einstein article, as it is everything but NPOV due to the fact that Einstein per se is iconified.


PLEASE EDIT THIS SECTION: {{WIP}} — INUSE template (by user talk: Slicky 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) removed at this time as spotted it in category page. FrankB 04:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's iconification

Today Einstein is regarded as an icon throughout the world, and his name stands synonymous with genius, intelligence and the revolutionisation of the world, ushering in the atomic age. There are myths ranging from the claim that Einstein donated his brain for further scientific post-mortem analysis, bad school years, to claims that he invented or found the relationship between energy and mass in E=mc². Einstein is constantly featured on various magazine covers, reports, documentations, stamps, comic figures, coins, T-shirts, wallpapers, posters... and lionized by the public at large. The remarkable thing is that Albert Einstein achieved that universality in the pre-television era, without an agent or the help of a public-relations company. His face has become an icon for wisdom, imagination, creativity and concentrated mental power; his brand name so pervasive a synonym for genius that even he once had to confess: "I am no Einstein."

Reasons for Einstein's iconification:

  • The ubiquity of the older Einstein image meant that the concept of the scientific genius became associated with the image of an old fatherly figure
  • Extensive media coverage, whilst concealing the message, thus appealing to people's interest in mystery.

Einstein restored belief in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious."

  • Relativity soon established as a fashionable notion and scientific hallmark
  • Paraphrasing ideas about space and time by using familiar words, such as mass and energy, but endowing them with new and seemingly richer meanings
  • Bandwagon propaganda: convincing the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it (appeal of the subject towards stronger, majority groups) [example links & quotes required, Michelson-Moore, etc..]
  • Card stacking: presenting information that supports an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it
  • Glittering generalities: words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts, thus concepts less critically questioned by the subject
  • Lesser of two evils: tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option [example links & quotes required, Michelson-Moore, etc..]
  • Transfer: 'E=mc²' as transfer technique. No other scienctist in history has been assigned a similar iconification symbol in such a direct approach
  • Plain folks: 'plain folks device' is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and are therefore working for the benefit of the common person. This is attempted by the wording targeted at a specific audience as well as using of specific idioms or jokes: "everything is relative"
  • Simplification (stereotyping): reduction to a clear-cut choices e.g. "moving clocks run slow"

(paragraph loosely but precisely based on Nature Essay Einstein as icon) Principles of propaganda, social influence and persuasion outlined here.

Introduction

Before Einstein, the last scientist who had such a seemingly creative outburst was Sir Isaac Newton. It happened in 1666 when Newton secluded himself at his mother's farm to avoid an outbreak of plague at Cambridge. With nothing better to do, he developed his Theory of Universal Gravitation.

Annus mirabilis

For centuries historians called 1666 Newton's annus mirabilis, or "miracle year." Now those words have a different meaning: Einstein and 1905. The United Nations has declared 2005 "The World Year of Physics" to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Einstein's annus mirabilis.

Superthinker...ordinary man - or both

Modern pop culture paints Einstein as a bushy-haired superthinker. His ideas, we're told, were improbably far ahead of other scientists. He must have come from some other planet--maybe the same one Newton grew up on.

Physicist and science historian Peter Galison from Harvard University says that "He was a man of his time." All of his 1905 papers unraveled problems being worked on, with mixed success, by other scientists. "If Einstein hadn't been born, (those papers) would have been written in some form, eventually, by others".

What's remarkable about 1905 is that a single person authored all five papers (with the help of his wife and friends), plus the original, irreverent way Einstein came to his conclusions.

For example: the photoelectric effect. This was a puzzle in the early 1900s. When light hits a metal, like zinc, electrons fly off. This can happen only if light comes in little packets concentrated enough to knock an electron loose. A spread-out wave wouldn't do the photoelectric trick.

The solution seems simple--light is particulate. Indeed, this is the solution Einstein proposed in 1905 and won the Nobel Prize for in 1921. Other physicists like Max Planck (working on a related problem: blackbody radiation), more senior and experienced than Einstein, were closing in on the answer, but Einstein got there first. Why?

It's a question of authority.

Authority

"In Einstein's day, if you tried to say that light was made of particles, you found yourself disagreeing with physicist James Clerk Maxwell. Nobody wanted to do that," says Galison. Maxwell's equations were enormously successful, unifying the physics of electricity, magnetism and optics. Maxwell had proved beyond any doubt that light was an electromagnetic wave. Maxwell was an Authority Figure.

Einstein didn't give a fig for authority. He didn't resist being told what to do, not so much, but he hated being told what was true. Even as a child he was constantly doubting and questioning. "Your mere presence here undermines the class's respect for me," spat his 7th grade teacher, Dr. Joseph Degenhart. (Degenhart also predicted that Einstein "would never get anywhere in life.") This character flaw was to be a key ingredient in Einstein's discoveries.

High School Diploma / Ph.D.

Einstein's High School Diploma. Contrary to urban legend, Albert did great in school.

At the age of 7, Einstein started school in Munich. At the age of 9, he entered the Luitpold-Gymnasium. By the age of 12 he was studying calculus. Now this was very advanced, because the students would normally study calculus when they were 15 years old. He was very good at the sciences. But, because the 19th-century German education system was very harsh and regimented, he didn't really develop his non-mathematical skills (such as history, languages, music and geography). In fact, it was his mother, not his school, who encouraged him to study the violin - and he did quite well at that as well.

In 1895, he sat the entrance examinations to get into the prestigious Federal Polytechnic School (or Academy) in Zurich, Switzerland. He was 16, two years younger than his fellow applicants. He did outstandingly well in physics and mathematics, but failed the non-science subjects, doing especially badly in French - so he was not accepted. So in that same year, he continued his studies at the Canton school in Aargau (also called Aarau). He studied well, and this time, he passed the entry exams into the Federal Polytechnic School (see diploma to the right).

So how did the myth that he failed high school start?

Easy. In 1896, which was Einstein's last year at the school in Aargau, the school's system of marking was reversed.

A grading of "6", which had previously been the lowest mark, was now the highest mark. And so, a grading of "1", which had been the highest mark, was now the lowest mark.

And so, anybody looking up Einstein's grades would see that he had scored lots of grades around "1" - which under the new marking scheme, meant a "fail".

"In 1905," notes Galison, "Einstein had just received his Ph.D. He wasn't beholden to a thesis advisor or any other authority figure." His mind was free to roam accordingly.

In retrospect, Maxwell was right. Light is a wave. But Einstein was right, too. Light is a particle. This bizarre duality baffles Physics 101 students today just as it baffled Einstein in 1905. How can light be both? Einstein had no idea.

That didn't slow him down. Disdaining caution, Einstein adopted the intuitive leap as a basic tool. "I believe in intuition and inspiration," he wrote in 1931. "At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason."

Although Einstein's five papers were published in a single year, he had been thinking about physics, deeply, since childhood. "Science was dinner-table conversation in the Einstein household," explains Galison. Albert's father Hermann and uncle Jakob ran a German company making such things as dynamos, arc lamps, light bulbs and telephones. This was high-tech at the turn of the century, "like a Silicon Valley company would be today," notes Galison. "Albert's interest in science and technology came naturally."

Last effort

Later in life, it should be remembered, he struggled mightily to produce a unified field theory, combining gravity with other forces of nature. He failed. Einstein's brainpower was not limitless.

Neither was Einstein's brain. It was removed without permission by Dr. Thomas Harvey in 1955 when Einstein died. He probably expected to find something extraordinary: Einstein's mother Pauline had famously worried that baby Einstein's head was lopsided. (Einstein's grandmother had a different concern: "Much too fat!") But Einstein's brain looked much like any other, gray, crinkly, and, if anything, a trifle smaller than average.

Detailed studies of Einstein's brain are few and recent. In 1985, for instance, Prof. Marian Diamond of UC Berkeley reported an above-average number of glial cells (which nourish neurons) in areas of the left hemisphere thought to control math skills. In 1999, neuroscientist Sandra Witelson reported that Einstein's inferior parietal lobe, an area related to mathematical reasoning, was 15% wider than normal. Furthermore, she found, the Slyvian fissure, a groove that normally extends from the front of the brain to the back, did not go all the way in Einstein's case. Might this have allowed greater connectivity among different parts of Einstein's brain?

No one knows.

Not knowing. It makes some researchers feel uncomfortable. It exhilarated Einstein: "The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious," he said. "It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science."

It's the fundamental emotion that Einstein felt, walking to work, awake with the baby, sitting at the dinner table. Wonder beat exhaustion, every day. (Source: Nasa article)

Einstein's Self Doubts

Einstein himself at various times had expressed doubts about the edifice of modern physics that he had helped to create— witness the remarks that follow. Perhaps his most serious expression of doubt came in a 1954 letter, the year before he died, to his friend Michel Besso: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, and of the rest of modern physics."[1] Biographer Abraham Pais hastens to excuse this slip from contemporary certainty about relativity theory, claiming that virtually all physicists think that this self-assessment at the end of Einstein's life was "unreasonably harsh." But just a few years earlier (1948), in an introduction to a popularized book about relativity, Einstein was also circumspect about physics, in a more general sense: ". . .the growth of our factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified theoretical conception comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation which is characterized— notwithstanding all successes— by an uncertainty concerning the choice of basic theoretical concepts."[2]

In my estimation, Einstein was a person much more cautious about dogmatic expression than those who have claimed invincibility for his relativity theories. In a letter to J. Lee in 1945, Einstein wrote: "A scientific person will never understand why he should believe opinions only because they are written in a certain book. Furthermore, he will never believe that the results of his own attempts are final."[3]

On the other hand, Dr. James DeMeo has unearthed ambiguities in Einstein's reaction to the threatening experimental results from Dr. Dayton C. Miller, who in June 1933 published in Reviews of Modern Physics, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth."16 In the present issue, DeMeo (p. 72) provides an outstanding critique of the Miller work and its apparently glib rejection by others, such as Einstein's biographers, who dismiss Miller's work outright. Though Miller's extensive experimental work is not crucial to Einstein criticism, Einstein's and others' reaction to it is very telling.

Problems

The other great scientific transformation, which occurred as the icon was emerging, concerned the style of scientific work. In the 'brilliant papers of 1905, we see the hallmark of the young Einstein: penetrating ideas, motivated by crucial thought-experiments and finally fashioned into perfect form by mathematics that is "as simple as possible but no simpler".' . During the formulation of GR Einstein was introduced to the power of abstract mathematical formalisms, notably that of tensor calculus. In the following years the blanced of deep physical insight orchestrating the mathematics of GR, tipped the other way and thus a rising fascination with the abstract formalisms themselves. "Rather than using physical arguments or thought-experiments, the strength and degrees of completeness of the formalisms themselves were used to sift their appropriateness as physical theories."

(nature essay)

The stall in progress regarding a unified theory and many other theoretical scientific fields is greatly attributed to this paradim shift, ushered by Einstein's populist-style promotion of his Theory of general relativity: The ill effects of such nonsense have spread throughout western science and culture over the last century. The problem seems to have sprung from the worship of Einstein, who was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory.

Those who would aspire to a theory of everything are told they must undertake "the gruelling complex and abstract mathematics" required for the task. Who says so? Mathematicians of course. It is a chronically narrow view, like looking through the wrong end of the telescope and imagining you see stars. This view has led to elitism in physics based on mathematical ability. Most bizarre have been those who claim to see God in their own image – as a mathematician. (New Scientist, Magazine issue 2529, "Physics' greatest endeavour is grinding to a halt")

One expert on relativity theory attempted to discourage such hubris. He publicly exposed an inconsistency in Einstein's special theory of relativity. Following his experience of other leading experts deliberately misinterpreting and misrepresenting the problem he posed, he wrote: "I am not yet convinced that facility in performing mathematical operations must inevitably deprive its possessor of the power of elementary reasoning, though the evidence against me is strong." (Professor H. Dingle in his Presidential Address to the Royal Astronomical Society in 1953.)

Debunked myths

  • Einstein did not donate his brain for further studies
  • It is true that Einstein's cerebral hemispheres were cut into approximately 240 blocks, each about 10 cm cubed. The blocks were embedded in celloidin, and histological sections were made. The reason is that back at that time advanced Computer Tomography as is now the norm did not exist.
  • The studies of his brain do not show extraordinary features per se or does "resolve the long-standing issue of neuroanatomical substrate of intelligence", but rather corroborates suggestions that "variation in specific cognitive functions may be associated with the structure of the brain regions mediating those functions" [43].
  • Einstein did not win the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on Relativity but for the works on the photoelectric effect.
  • Einstein did well in school
  • Einstein did not discover the relation of E=mc². A critical paper Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher Jon Bjerknes (2002) http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/emc2.htm denotes that "it appears that the physics community and the media invented a comic book figure, "Einstein", with "E = mc2" stenciled across his chest.

Sources

Slicky 00:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

seldom-taught Maxwell's electromagnetic theory?

"he studied the seldom-taught Maxwell's electromagnetic theory"... As far as I understand, it was commonly taught. According to whom was it "seldom-taught"? Harald88 19:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See the Image and Impact website. -- 68.224.247.2341 1:18, 26 April 2006

Religious views

I agree that the recent additions on "religious views" are too long and too much original research. Good secondary sources would be better than selected isolated quotations. --Macrakis 03:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the removal; in addition to the other objections raised, the passage upsets the article's style and flow. It may be appropriate to transwiki the quotes to wikiquote:Albert Einstein. --Muchness 03:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I of course agree completely. --Fastfission 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys... The quotes are not bons mots, they provide a _Concise_ views of Einstein's Well_Thought_Out, Well_Articulated views on religion. I've spent many years studying the topic.

There is no mistaking what Einstein thought, the quotes have links showing the greater context.

The [ now deleted ] section that called Einstein a theist is like calling Charles Darwin a theist... anyone who has taken the time to study his point of view would soon discover that.

General_Relativity's Cosmological_Constant is at the very heart of today's Standard_Model of cosmology, Lambda_CDM, and Einstein was the one who first convinced the world that photons and atoms exist.

Einstein's "Cosmic_Religious_Sense" was inspired by today's standard models of cosmology and particle physics and eschews the "primitive" gods of traditional society.

His non-standard use of the word God does _Not_ invoke an image that one would pray to.

Einstein's metaphysics was very special in that he discovered many causalities _Decades_ before they were empirically proven.

If you disagree with some portion, then let's discuss it... instead of totally trashing it.

Until I get totally shutdown, I'll continue to insist that Einstein was a Scientist with advanced metaphysical views, not a theist by any standard usage of the word. Jeff Relf 17:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jeff I think you might be missing the point the others are trying to make here. No one is saying Eistein was a theist or that your information is wrong - just that you are presenting what is apparently a big list of quotes with a lot of original interpretations of those quotes. You are creating the situation where your interpretation of Einstein's meaning is being passed off as the "standard interpretation" which is not necessarily the case. The quotes have a place, but may be better in the WikiQuote area. --Astralusenet 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Astral_Usenet,

My comments and quotes are very concise and the links provide the context, further detailing Einstein's views on religion.

I tell of his muses, what drove him to find the deeper causalities, zooming ever farther out/in.

By the way, Astral_Usenet, For some unknown reason, most of what I wrote got munged so I had to revert to an older copy I had, undoing your changes.

Hard coded carriage returns don't show up in the HTML and they make it easier for me to edit the souce-text in Visual_Studio.

Further, they make it _Much_ easier to track changes.

So why did you take them out ?

Also, blank lines makes the text much more readable.

Hello Jeff, The religious views section is straying more and more away from the general style found on wikipedia pages. It is looking like a collection of disparate sentences with no overall coherence. There is little flow between topics and the sequence is jumbled. If you wish to generate a list of his quotes then there is a separate place for that, this is effectively an open source encyclopedia not the place for personal interpretations and opinions. As for the blank lines an forced carriage returns it actually makes the text less readable for most people. While it doesnt directly affect the displayed product, your process of single sentence paragraphs makes for very, very hard reading. The source code is much harder for anyone except you to edit and you increase the amount of the scree which must be used. From what I can see, you are determined to "buck" the conventions used here and do things your own way. Is there any reason for this? --Astralusenet 14:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Astral_Usenet,

The first sentence of the paragraph that you added, right below the stuff I wrote, is basically saying: Jew, Jew, Jew. Nice going.

Einstein was _Not_ raised Jewish, whatever that means, it's enough to say he thought of himself as an ethnic Jew, not a practitioner of Judaism.

Why, for God's sake, do you link to the word Jew and not the term Ethnic Jew ? ! Huh ! I should call an administrator about that one.

What I wrote does have a coherent thread, it does outline his thoughts on God, religion, physics and metaphysics.

What I wrote is concise with very carfully selected quotes. All of my quotes have links to the greater context... providing a plethora of further content.

Einstein was very articulate, a deep thinker, and, although you don't agree with him, there is no mistaking his point of view.

If you have an issue with a particluar word or sentence, let's examine that.

Jeff Relf 01:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait, how could Einstein be an "ethnic jew" when there is no jewish ethnicity? -Alex, 12.203.169.186 20:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC).


Hi Alex, There's a Jewish culture quite aside from genetics or religion... Right ? This Jewish culture was, at it's very heart, Book_Centric and dates back to the time when Egypt was the regional superpower.

Remember the Greek and Hebrew in Library of Alexandria ? Alexandria is where the New_Testiment was first canonised ! Athanasius_of_Alexandria#New_Testament_canon Jeff Relf 14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I strongly prefer the previous version of this section, before it was reworked here. I propose that we revert to the previous wording, and use it as a basis to add any valuable info from subsequent edits. --Muchness 06:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too quotaceous - meanwhile I removed a bunch of he saids and reformated w/out all those absurd carriage returns. Vsmith 13:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Muchness and Vsmith,
   The previous version was a lot of nonsense about
 Einstein's Jewishness and little about his actual
 convictions that wasn't already said 
 in what I wrote.
    Einstein's religious views were extremely well 
 thought out and he was very articulate so that it's
 hard to mistake his views.  The quotes and the
 links to the greater context further remove 
 any doubt about what he meant.
   I suspect that the real problem is that 
 you two disagree with his views.
   Instead of deleting what I wrote en masse,
 I suggest we agrue it line by line.
 Jeff Relf 23:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, my objection is that your edits consist of a list of quotes that lack overall flow and coherency; they upset the article's readability and are contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on content and formatting. Vsmith attempted to address the carriage return problem, but you reverted him. I don't advocate deleting your edits en masse; I advocate reverting to the last edit that was compliant with WP's guidelines, and adding any valuable info from your edits in prose form, instead of as a list of quotes. --Muchness 22:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 Hi Muchness,
   I only removed CRs from the source code,
 the resulting display was uneffected.
 I did that so that changes are easier to track
 and because I find it easier to edit that way.
   The quotes have to be there, otherwise 
 it looks like I'm just making stuff up.
 The quotes come with links to the greater context,
 another essential feature.
   What I wrote does have a definate thread,
 and is _Very_ on topic.
   As I said, the edit you prepose to revert too
 essentially said:  Jew, Jew, Jew.
   You obviously agree with that, and not with
 Einstein's views... you should be ashamed,
 in my opinion.
 Jeff Relf 16:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, you are now inserting nonsense. To believe that, based on the quote given, that Einstein believed all randomness was pseudorandomness is not only the worst of your own ridiculous interpretations, but it reflects not only a poor understanding of Einstein's views of randomness but a total lack of understanding of what pseudorandomness means. I think you've tried our patience here quite enough, and if you are not going to introduce real secondary literature which espouses your interpretations of Einstein's belief, I am going to be forced to delete all of your additions to them based on our No Original Research policy. Either do things according to our policies, or do them somewhere else. --Fastfission 03:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Fastfission,  
   Einstein took the very metaphysical, 
 yet very sober view that 
 all randomness is pseudorandom.
   The very famous Einstein-Bohr debates, 
 extending over 20 years, are just one example.
   So, contrary to your suggestion above, 
 it's what Einstein believed, not Original_Research.
 Jeff Relf 08:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It's what you claim Einstein believed, based on your research. But that's against WP policy. You have to find a credible source who offers the argument that this is what Einstein believes, you can't make the argument yourself; you have no authority, no matter how long or thoroughly you have you've looked into the matter or how adamant you are that this is what Einstein believes. Them's the rules. -- Jibal 11:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's books

In case someone wonders, while the phrase "The World As I See It" is a pretty good translation of the phrase "Mein Weltbild", the book The World As I See It (1934) is a different book than the book Mein Weltbild (Zurich 1953). Portions of both books are contained in the book Ideas and Opinions published in 1954. --Blainster 09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Solar Eclipse Revisited

I read somewhere (in a newspaper maybe?) that the famous solar eclipse measurements did not really agree with Einstein's calculations, i.e. that a deviation from Newtonian expectations was detected, but not nearly as much as predicted by Einstein. Did anybody else see this? Clarityfiend 05:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see that one, but the first solar eclipse analysis has been largely discredited as too inaccurate for definite conclusions, even accompanied by a disputed selective use of data. However, later measurements are considered to be conclusively supporting Einstein's prediction. Harald88 10:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the issue with the measurement of General Relativity by Eddington in 1917 was that the measurement of the star's displacement on the photographic place was on the very edge of limits of the experiment's acceptable errors due the the equipment, weather, etc. In essence, Eddington saw what he wanted to see, although this effect has been measured to far greater precision manytimes over

Well, if Eddington's measurements didn't prove anything, shouldn't the article say that? Clarityfiend 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Eddington's claimed results were important for Einstein, as it brought him fame. You are discussing the (ir)relevance for GRT, which is not the main subject for this article. OTOH, this article shouldn't spread fables; thus the phrasing isn't right. With a slight change of phrasing we may make it correct. Harald88 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should be careful about the wording. The measurements brought Einstein fame and were seen by many as proving his theory. However even at the time their accuracy was doubted, and now we consider them quite poor. We really ought to have a whole page about that particular eclipse, since it is an interesting story and pretty important to the history of physics/Einstein/etc., but we don't at the moment. --Fastfission 20:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal Life

Perhaps there should be a section on his personal life, in which informaion about his family would be included. Also, his love of sailing should be mentioned.


Vegetarian?

Hi, can anyone please provide sources that prove that Einstein is vegetarian? Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Probably only for the last year of his life: See here. 85.125.157.106 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The biographer in Einstein Myth and Muse, pretty much indicates he wasn't a hardcore vegitarian, but did have tendancies in that direction, especially later in his life due to systemic health ailments. Irrc, the author indicates it wasn't a philosphical interest, but physical. Are you looking for a citation? If so, I can dig it out and skim out a quote or three. Drop me a note by email if that's your need. FrankB 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Unified Field Theory Blurb

Quote from the IAS/Generalized theory section: "Einstein treated subatomic particles as objects embedded in the unified field, influencing it and existing as an essential constituent of the unified field but not of it.". The "not of it" at the end of the sentence has me puzzled, is there a word missing or something? 85.125.157.106 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

TWO ERRORS

This article contains two errors.

1. The 1918 solar eclipse observation did not really confirm Einstein's prediction. The results were in the margin of error. Only later, more accurate observations of the solar eclipse really confirmed Einstein's theory. Actually, the 1918 eclipes observation did convince most everyone Einstein's theory was correct, but in reality it should not have do so. As it really did not confirm Einstein's prediction.

2. Einstein signed not one, but two letters to FDR alerting him to the need that the US needed to investigate the possibility of an atomic bomb.

This second point I learned from a History Channel special on Szilard's attempt to warn FDR. Both letters were probably written by Szilard.

Michael D. Wolok 16:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I had corrected (1) in the body but overlooked that it also is in the intro. Maybe someone else knows how to improve that sentence.
I have no idea about point (2). Harald88 08:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
On point 2: there were actually four total letters to Roosevelt from Einstein, all most likely written by Szilard. But the first one is the one which is known as the Einstein-Szilard letter and is credited with being not only received by Roosevelt but having produced a little bit of action. --Fastfission 14:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

V0.5 nomination

This article won't get into V0.5 with that cleanup template. Those who work on this article, please take steps to remove it. Thanks. NCurse 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed on quality: not up to par with the clean-up tag still there, which is valid based on article talk. Chuck(척뉴넘) 01:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It was sent to held, I would place it back to the failed section per the protection. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 16:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trash

I cleared this whole paragraph since it was completely useless. It's funny though. The person who did this was 24.47.19.9, which have a habit of vandalizing articles. "In 1902 Einstien had a dream he was bing chased by black midgets who tried to eat his mothers cranberries. The midgets were Moe Chirs and Craig therefore MC squared. The night before he was told that Elderberries taste like rainber sherbert straightr from the leprachauns behind. thats where the E came from. After having this dream he invented the flux cupassitor which enabled him to go back in time and eat the rainbow sherbert straight from the lepraxhauns behind because its better that wa. He soon found out that in 1641 that leprachauns were too ugly to eat from so he had to settle for the creamsicle sherbert from the unicorns behind. This unicorn feces tasted incredible . He couldn;t believe what he came upon. He was going to go back and tell the world but someone through a spare testicle from a three baller and it hit thim right in the gwigglesposher. This put him into a coma for 62 years straight and when he woke up he kept saying E=MCsquared over and over again. Brock Lee a man from the time that he was in took Einsteins idea and told it to his kids so they could grow up and invent bombs. HE named his kid Albert Einstein and that Albert Einstien is the one who invented bombs and is wanted in 36 countries. To this day people think he is alive becuase he invented a solution consisting of unicorn feces a beard form an irish goblin and the neck of the fattest kid he knew (his name was Phil) this concoction gave him eternal life and he is believed to live somewhere in the mideast under the name Chris parker but his friends call him osama been lame man."--RNAi 06:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

German pronunciation - ogg-file

Im a german and i just want to note that the pronunciation of the forename is not quite correct. Since the pronunciation is good for a non-native speaker i don't want to delete the link to the file, but if someone is able to deliver a better pronunciation-file, please do so. -- 83.242.62.82 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Prank edit?

Section 1.1 6th paragraph should read: "excelled," not "was expelled." A google search reveals that "excelled" was in an earlier version, so either edit protection came too late or someone hacked the protection. Thomasmeeks 01:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Old vandalism repaired. Vsmith 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New erroneous intro

To my surprise I see that now the intro reads:

He independently developed the special and general theories of relativity.

Apparently someone added "independently". This is known to be factually erroneous, as pointed out in discussions on this Talk page and other Wikipedia articles explain it in detail. In this way this article is never going to make it. :-( -- Harald88 09:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed the word independently per Harald88 and earlier disc. Vsmith 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Religious Views

The religious views section is very overdue for some proper editing. It has started to get the reading style of an eight year old back from their summer holidays and the two worst offending paragraphs cite a single source for references. On visiting the source (einstienandreligion.com) it appears that the interpretations made from that source are very distant from the NPOV standard.

There is no reason to think Einstein ever thought the things attributed to him here and the bit about "pseudorandomness" is gibberish. Isnt there a separate area for quotes?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Astralusenet (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 June 2006.
 Hi  Astral_Usenet,
 It's unprofessional/uncivil to label me an
 " eight year old back from his summer holidays. "
Jeff, what makes you think I was taklking about you specifically?--Astralusenet 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 Einstein's views on pseudorandomness
 and block time are _Extremely_ clear, 
 numerous and well documented.
 You are Exhibit_A on why the quotes,
 along with links to the greater context,
 _Must_ be there.  Jeff Relf 20:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, this is not true. You have taken your interpretation of a comment and moved it out of context to support your ideas. This is far from a neutral point of view and it is, basically, an example of original research. Can you not see how this is not what is accepted behaviour here? --Astralusenet 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Astralusenet,
 This section is only about _Einstein_'s views,
 not mine or yours, so _Einstein_'s words 
 must be there, along with footnotes showing
 the greater context.
     It's no secret what Einstein thought 
 on this topic he discussed it 
 in public for decades, including in 
 a 1955 Scientific_American article.
 Jeff Relf 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Astralusenet, I think you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately a single user, Jeff Relf, refuses to listen to anyone else, and thinks that he understands Einstein's religious views. Additionally, Jeff confuses Einstein's religion and Einstein's metaphysics in a rather ridiculous ways, and attributes notions to Einstein that show a definite lack of understanding. Note, for example, Jeff's consistent misuse of the idea of pseudorandomness — he thinks it refers to the believe that all random phenomena is at heart deterministic, when in reality it refers to the ability to simulate random phenomena by use of determinist methods, an entirely different thing. Jeff does not care nor understand how articles are written or formatted on Wikipedia, and has clearly never understood our policy on Wikipedia:No original research. My hope is that someone will take the time to write a few short paragraphs on Einstein's religious beliefs, will source them with secondary sources, and then we can have a pointless yet apparently necessary straw poll as to whether it is better than Jeff's personal Einstein. --Fastfission 22:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I fully support a rewrite. Guess that's my pre pointless yet apparently necessary straw poll vote :-) Vsmith 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
I concur! This is getting silly. It strikes me that a single individual's refusal to incorporate the accepted policies of wiki is the source of all the problems here. I will see if I can find some one willing to produce a few (NPOV, cited) paragraphs on the topic. --Astralusenet 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Fastfission,  The Wiki entry on the word
 Pseudorandomness begins:
 " A pseudorandom process is a process that 
   appears random but is not. 
   Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit
   statistical randomness while being generated by
   an entirely deterministic causal process."
 As you can see, the meaning is not restricted
 to computer simulations.
     As the quotes from Einstein reveal,
 Nothing I wrote was Original_Research.
 In fact, that's why the quotes Must_Be there,
 no matter how much you disagree with Einstein.
 Jeff Relf 03:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
But all you have done is reproduce quotes, out of context, with occasional (incorrect) assumptions about what those quotes were supposed to mean. I am sorry that you think this is acceptable. --Astralusenet 09:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting claim. Please prove it - verifiability rules! Harald88 20:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Astralusenet,
 The footnotes provide the context,
 Einstein's views are perfectly clear,
 and well documented over many decades.
 People need the quotes because, like you,
 they don't know, or can't accept, Einstein's views.
    The clash between Einstein 
 and traditional religion is even greater than
 that between Darwin and traditional religion,
 I believe.
 Jeff Relf 21:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the biggest problem with this section is that Jeff is trying to evaluate the views of someone when he doesn't strictly understand the science of the person, let alone the religous views. The "pseudo-random" quote above is babble and it would actually improve the article on AE no end by striking this section from the entry.

Wikipedia shouldn't be able to be hijacked by any one person with a particular agenda, however for this entry it seems that is the case. --Desdinova 11:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desinova,  
 Roulette wheels are fully predictable,
 -- pseudorandom --,
 the casinos would go broke if they weren't.
   Likewise, Einstein maintained that every part of
 the Physical Cosmos can be, 
 or might someday be, observable
 given current or future theories/technologies.
   Are you an unhappy gambler ? complaining here ?
 Jeff Relf 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

God not only plays dice, he sometimes rolls them where they cannot be seen.

And what you are doing is trying to impose your particular interpretation of the issue into an encyclopedia entry.

That renders the whole entry suspect in many peoples eyes.--Desdinova 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,
 While I'm sure _You_ believe  " God plays dice ",
 can you show me where _Einstein_ believed that ?
 Remember this entry is supposed to be about
 Einstein's views, not yours.
 Jeff Relf 02:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember this entry is supposed to be about
 Einstein's views, not yours.

PRECISELY! Its not YOUR views either. If you don't understand my dice quote, then you certainly shouldn't be enforcing your views of Einstein's religous views on Wikipedia. --Desdinova 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, reference the "God plays dice" comment - I agree with Desdinova here, if you cant follow the reference, and what is implied, then you need to stop re-wording the religious views sections. Especially with your odd habit of inappropriate underscores. --81.178.66.163 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,  My interpretation of the word God
 is _Nothing_ like Einstein's, nothing at all.
 I say the word God denotes a postion:
 I'm God's slave, and God to my slaves.
   For example, if you raise mice 
 to feed your snake, then you're God to those mice, 
 because you created/controlled/destroyed them.
 Jeff Relf 02:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But yet you insist of pushing YOUR interpretations of Einstein's views, to the detriment of all others, --Desdinova 02:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff - you seem insistent on challenging the comments people have made here, yet all you do is create more meaningless word combinations. Your last post was completely irrelevant and if anything simply highlighted the fact that you have your interpretation of the words used and think it acceptable for this Wiki entry to reflect that. This is not the purpose of this site / system. If you want to push your own interpretaion of history on to people then please, set up your own site to that effect. --81.178.66.163 17:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  81.178.66.163,  The purpose of my post above
 was to illustrate that my religious views have
 _Nothing_ to do with Einstein's views.
 WikiPedia should not claim Einstein said
 " God Plays Dice "  unless that's exactly what
 Einstein said, over and over again, 
 in public, for decades.
 Jeff Relf 19:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But your version of events relies on a SINGLE source, and is your own interpretation of his views. Its a travesty. --Desdinova 21:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,  you obviously haven't read
 the links in the footnotes, they provide
 many sources and the greater context.
 Einstein's religious views were very public,
 very clear, very famous, very numerous,
 and spanned decades.
 Jeff Relf 21:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

And you still don't understand - its YOUR interpretation of them that is suspect, plus your pig-headed insistence that yours is the only way - seen from your insistence of an unusual edit style and your continual revert strategy. --Desdinova 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,  WikiPedia needs to be professional.
 Please don't bring your Usenet-style flames here.
 Which so-called interpretation
 of mine do you find suspect ?
    As for the so-called reversions,
 in one 24 hour period, I...
 1. Added line breaks, by hand, to the edit 
    that first added the _Ref_ tags,
    ...that was not a revert.
 2. Added titles to the _Ref_ tags.
    Although many CRs were added by hand,
    as I prefer, that was not a revert,
    ...the end-user saw no other changes.
 3. Reverted 3 times to the version 
    with CRs in the source code,
    but those too were not a true reverts,
    as the end-user saw no changes.
 Jeff Relf 03:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Again - you are trying to force your way on wikipedia. Are you really so blind? --Desdinova 10:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful for other editors if Astralusenet and Desdinova pinpoint what exactly they claim to be erronous or biased in that section. Harald88 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
The bits and peices that various contributors have added to the Religious Views section has descended it into a collection of phrases surrounding a quote, attributed to Einstein but often available from a single website source. In addition to this, there are meaningless sections like Einstein postulated that time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudorandom, i.e. the future is just as immutable as the past, saying: "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past." This begins from a premise (time is pseudo-directional) which may, at a push, be supported by the quote however it is then followed by the nonsense randomness is always pseudorandom which is far from supported by the quote. The implication here is that time and randomness are implicitly linked - this is not supported by the quote and can only be assumed to be original research. --Astralusenet 17:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that sounds rather convincing! TObviously all non-sourced (internet included) information should be deleted. Harald88 19:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Well I concur :-). Seriously, part of the problem appears to be Jeffs sheer selfish stubborness and refusal to accept any sitewide standards. This is even evinced by his chosen method of posting replies in the debates. It appears that his chosen method of editing and updating the text has to take precedence over others - and this approach to social interactions is mirrored in his approach to the entry. Jeff has his ideas of what Einstein thought and determined to keep posting them over and over again - with or without supporting evidence. It is a shame, as this section is letting down what is an otherwise fine page. --Astralusenet 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Astralusenet and  Harald88,
 The quote:
   " But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.
     The future, to him, 
     is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. "
 was taken from the abridged edition of Einstein's book 
 " The World As I See It. "
 In this edition the essay appears on pp. 28-29.
 See:  www.EinsteinAndReligion.COM/sciencereligious.html
 It is also in Einstein's " Ideas and Opinions " book
 where the essay is entitled:  " The Religious Spirit of Science "
     If that wasn't enough, we have decade after decade,
 quote after quote, where Einstein said essentially the same thing.
 I can and will list them all for you, one at a time, right here.
   General Relativity's time-like dimension is symmetrical,
 meaning it works the same way no matter the direction of time,
 and it has _Spatial_ units:  ( - ( c * t ) ^ 2 ) ^ .5
 See  Block_time.
   A complete lack of acausality means randomness is always pseudo-random,
 that's why Einstein wrote:
   " I do not believe in freedom of the will. Schopenhauer's words:
     “ Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills ”
     accompany me in all situations throughout my life 
     and reconcile me with the actions of others
     even if they are rather painful to me.
       This awareness of the lack of freedom of will
     preserves me from taking too seriously myself
     and my fellow men as acting and deciding individuals
     and from losing my temper. "
 Astralusenet doesn't agree with this philosophy, I know.
 But that doesn't alter that fact that Einstein had this POV.
 Jeff Relf 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

 Astral_Usenet quoted Jeff_Relf saying:
  General Relativity's time-like dimension is symmetrical,
 meaning it works the same way no matter the direction of time,
 and it has _Spatial_ units:  ( - ( c * t ) ^ 2 ) ^ .5
 See  Block_time.
Jeff, I really have no idea where you are getting this from. Both general and special relativity imply that time is a dimension, yet it is not the same type of dimension as the three we are used to dealing with. Spatial dimensions have special characteristics, not found in the temporal dimension. The units of Time in relativity are not spatial in nature. Can I point out two additional things here. First off this is nothing to do with the Wiki entry on Albert Einstein - I get the feeling you are trying to troll wiki and divert this off into different directions. If you want to start a debate on the dimensional nature of time then please find the appropriate place. Secondly, this is an example of how you put forward your own ideas with irrelevant referencing. Jeff, I see you have been on Wiki for some time so can you please spend a little while reading on accepted behaviour and what sort of things should and shouldnt be posted. --Astralusenet 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Astral_Usenet,
     You interpretation of General and Special
 Relativity does not jibe with Einstein's,
 nor is it scientifically correct.
     Time is parochial and symmetrical
 in the standard models of particle physics
 and cosmology... the direction of time
 is irrelevant to the models.
 That's why Einstein wrote:
 " People like us, who believe in physics,
   know that the distinction between 
   past, present, and future 
   is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."
 Now, who's POV should prevail here ?
 Yours or Einstein's ?
 Jeff Relf 20:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 Astral_Usenet quoted Jeff_Relf saying:
   A complete lack of acausality means randomness is always pseudo-random,
 that's why Einstein wrote...
What is the citation for this following excerpt? Is there anything which supports the phrase randomness is always pseudo-random or is that simply how you interpret the quote you have cited? If so, then please identify and admit to that fact. --Astralusenet 16:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Astral_Usenet,
     Einstein's philosophy of time
 and the total lack of acausality
 was strongly influenced by General_Relativity
 and it's explained well enough by Einstein himself 
 in the many books he wrote.
   But if you took out what I wrote
 there'd be nothing but quotes.
 My wording simply adds emphasis and clarity
 to what Einstein wrote.
     Do you have a better way to add 
 emphasis and clarity to Einstein's POV ?
 If so, let's here what they are.
 Jeff Relf 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Its based on research from a single source, and has no mention of any OTHER sources that validate it. Besides, a cursory reading of this page would have revealed this.--Desdinova 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing prevents you from adding POV's from other sources, insofar as they differ. And in case that subsequently the section becomes too long, one may discuss on how to trim it while keeping a balanced POV - that's the Wikipedia way. Harald88 20:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested Edit

I have a request that an admin edit the external links section. Currently, it has a box containing various links to sister projects, but above that it has 2 boxes linking to the same places. These 2 boxes should be deleted.--Max Talk (add) 22:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein developed ?

How can we say that Einstein developed relativity when the article further down states that Poincare had discovered it first ? ?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) sockpuppet of banned User:Licorne.

Someone can create the framework for something, and an later person can develop it into a fuller framework--Desdinova 10:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir you are incorrect. Poincare completed the full framework before Einstein's first paper even appeared.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) sockpuppet of banned User:Licorne
For SRT that word may be slightly exaggerated, while for GRT it may be an understatement. An intro attemps to sketch achievements in a few words; the main text of the article provides greater detail, and therewith improved accuracy.
About Poincare, certainly he didn't do all; for example, he didn't publish a derivation of the LT's from first principles, and he didn't come up with time dilation experiments - which is an important application of SRT. Harald88 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If you'd read my reply, you'd see I was talking in the general...

--Desdinova 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

GTR is only a theory of gravity. Poincare certainly did derive STR from first principles, his principle of relativity. Einstein in no way developed relativity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.78 (talk • contribs) sockpuppet of banned User:Licorne

I think an earlier formulation "Einstein made major contributions to SR", was a better formulation. SR really was, like calculus, a set of ideas whose time was ripe. The totality of Lorentz and Poincare's work before Einstein covers a large majority of the ideas and results of Einstein's first two papers on SR. Unlike Licorne, I think Einstein's contribution was substantial and deservedly influential, but 'developed' seems to me an over statement. (I don't mean to stir the pot here, and should point out I will remain minimally involved in wikipedia until the fall or so, due to increased work commitments.)--Pallen 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pallen. Harald88 20:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed then Harald and Pallen, let's make your suggested change then. Let's do it already.

Line break edit war

It appears that the article has been protected because Jeff Relf wants the source of the sections he wants to edit to have very short lines, while others (all who have acted so far) want to use the same style as the rest of Wikipedia - long lines that wrap in the edit window.

Since things that cause "protect" should have an entry on the talk page, IMHO.. I'm adding this section. I know it's been discussed in [#Religious views] multiple times - but let's separate the discussions. --Alvestrand 06:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Alvestrand, I use a code editor, Visual_Studio,
 set at 80 columns, monospaced.
 This makes for more deliberate edits, I find,
 instead of  " quickies ".
     I find it extremely difficult to compare
 entire paragraphs... stupid me.
 But why not compare shorter lines instead ?
    I only add the carriage returns to 
 the souce code that I'm working on,
 ...a small section to be sure.
 I welcome alternate assessments of 
 Einstein's religious views, so long as
 some of my assessments are also allowed, somewhere,
 along with some quotes and supporting footnotes.
 Jeff Relf 07:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suggest that you use another editor for Wikipedia. I believe that 95% of those who edit Wikipedia actually edit in the edit window on the Web page; if you inconvenience 95% of the community by your unique preferences, that is not a win. And yes, it is definitely an inconvenience for me to try to edit text in the format you use. --Alvestrand 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Alvestrand, I didn't write much,
 just a part of a section on 
 Einstein's Religious views.
   I require the line breaks in order to
 track changes, I can't compare whole paragraphs.
 Any edits/readings I make to this subsection
 will have the line breaks in them.
   This does _Not_, I repeat, not,
 effect 95 percent of WikiPedia's contributers.
 Jeff Relf 22:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it will affect every other user of Wikipedia, the lines look wrong and it breaks the flow of reading the article to suddenly change to short choppy lines part way through (like no other article). Wikipedia provides its own tools for tracking changes, so try using them as everyone else manages to. David Underdown 09:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I am with David Underdown here. Everyone I know who makes / edits entries on Wikipedia use the normal editing interface provided by the site. Jeff, as you have deliberately chosen to use an alternatative method, can you explain why everyone else should have to struggle with code which becomes harder to read and less comprehensive when they use the more normal method? The wiki software provides an excellent system which can track changes and the like. Obviously what you have is not better - so why not use the wiki software?--Astralusenet 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  David_Underdown and Astral_Usenet,
     WikiPedia compares lines, 
 that comparison is almost useless when
 each line is one paragraph long.
     I'm only reading/editing
 the 7 paragraphs I wrote for 
 the Religious_Views section.
     I will add line breaks to the source code
 when I edit/read it, just like you remove them
 when you read/edit it... that's that, BFD.
   The end-user and most WikiPedia contributers
 are not effected in the least.
 Jeff Relf 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, I have no clue what you are talking about with WikiPedia compares lines, that comparison is almost useless when each line is one paragraph long. When I click on diff on my watchlist for example, Wikipedia produces a comparison screen right there in my browser. That screen contains two side-by-side columns of text all neatly word-wrapped with any differences highlighted in red or green. It only messes up occaisionally such as when some vandal enters a very long text string. I assume the others here see the same thing. Now, your comment suggests that you are using some other comparison method or else something is weird with your browser. Also, please note that we are not writing source code - rather we are writing an encyclopedia which is written in prose, not programming code. And that point is a BFD.
Now, you can stubbornly do it your way and have more to worry about, to quote from your talk, or you could try working with other editors - the Wikipedia way. If you persist in your stubbornness - your option - you will meet resistance and conflict. Cheers, Vsmith 21:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Vsmith,  I require a black background.
 I've been coding since 1976, professionally
 ever since the start of 1982... my eyes are bad.
     That means I _Must_ use something like 
 the style sheet override listed below.
     I'll see what changes I can make to it
 that might allow me to see WikiPedia's colors.
     I never said I was writing programming code,
 I was just using the term Source_Code to describe
 WikiPedia's syntax.
     As you can see, 
 whitespace is a very personal issue,
 each of use reserves/deserves the right
 to use it as we will.
 Jeff Relf 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia provides the ability to over-ride the style of with your own customisations. In this case, you could copy that style sheet into User:Jeff Relf/monobook.css (if you are using the monobook skin), and then perform a hard refresh. Jude (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Bookofjude,  FireFox's userContent.CSS
 is already in effect, what difference would
 making it my monobook.css make ?
     I looked at the source of the diff page
 and I didn't see which tags I could change
 to ensure that diffs get highlighted using
 cyan on black.
     Paritally blind people like me require
 a pure-black background.
 Jeff Relf 09:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus --[[User:Desdinova|] 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant, if you're concerned with Wikipedia's usage of the word.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is... there is a consensus agreement on the methods of wiki, which JR seems incapable of understanding. --Desdinova 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

's ok - its 2AM here so I'll confess ;-) Throw myself on the mercy of the court ;-)

Should have really expanded. As free as wiki is, certain rules must be adhered to to avoid chaos. While I understand that in certain cases rules can be bent, his justifications for not following the wiki rules is pretty weak.

--Desdinova 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

    • Yeah. I haven't been following this talk page for a few weeks -- jeepers! sure is hard to read...y'know, every diff I've used has had an option to ignore whitespace. Maybe this one should too... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Jpgordon, a carriage return is white space
 and I've yet to see a diff that would ignore them.
     I'm partially blind, I have to use 
 Win_XP's high contrast mode, yellow on black.
 I also have to use FireFox's userContent.CSS to
 insure that the background color is always black.
     Highlighted/selected text is cyan on black,
 both in Win_XP and in all web pages I view.
     Because WikiPedia ignores these accessability
 issues I find it almost impossible to compare
 changes hidden deep inside long paragraphs.
    Adding line breaks to the source I wrote,
 7 paragraphs in the Religious_Views section,
 allows me to compare changes.
 Seldom do I edit any other section.
    Here are three possible solutions
 to this edit war:
    1. The admin gives me a pass on
       the line breaks I need in the source.
    2. WikiPedia's coders _Respect_ 
       my meed for a black background.
    3. Make WikiPedia's diff ignore line breaks
       and compares x number of words at a time.
 Jeff Relf 08:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really involved, but since Wikipedia uses relatively clean CSS, shouldn't it be possible to overwrite the system setting, e.g. by appropriately editing your monobook.css? I'm not a CSS (or monobook) expert, but someone should be able to set this up for you. It's always good to find a technical solution to a social dispute ;-). If you are interested, I can try to look for someone competent - I think this should be a useful thing for all Wikipedia. --Stephan Schulz 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I especially like the fact that the three "solutions" to the "edit war" were for everyone else to submit to Jeff's idea of how things should be / look.

--Astralusenet 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Stephan Schulz,
     Sure, I use FireFox's userContent.CSS to ensure
 I always have a black background.
 Cyan on black is what selected/highlighted
 text looks like.
     I examined the Page_Source of a diff
 but I couldn't figure out which tags needed
 what forground/background colors.
     Partially blind people like me
 _Require_ pure-black backgrounds.
 Jeff Relf 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Jeff! The relevant classes seem to be
  • diff-context
  • diff-addedline
  • diff-deletedline
  • diffchange (this one is probably the one you want to highlight in your best colour scheme).
--Stephan Schulz 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Stephan Schulz,
 Now I feel stupid, I should've seen that.
 All I needed was:
   span[class="diffchange"] { 
     color: rgb( 99, 155, 188 ) !important; 
     background: black !important; }
 Jeff Relf 22:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that it works. Have fun editing! --Stephan Schulz 22:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Stephan Schulz,  Thanks for your help.
 That should reduce the line-break edit wars.
 Jeff Relf 05:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected the article in that case. Hopefully we can now iron out an acceptable "religious views" section, referencing secondary sources primarily and with as little individual interpretation as possible, as that is what is currently making this article a blemish. --Fastfission 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

June 2006 – Aug 2006


Back onto the question of the content

Why is there no mention of Einstein abandoning his first family in Europe? He walked away from his first wife and children without any further financial support of them. That should be included in this article. In many respects, this article is more of a mythology of Einstein than a biography... Stevenmitchell 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC) 


 Hi  Fastfission, what's wrong with primary sources
 directly from Einstein's mouth ? 
 He spoke clearly about his religious opinions.
     His  " God does not play dice "  quote,
 from the 20 year debate he had with Bohr,
 is known by almost everyone.
    He was also a popular author who's
 " Ideas & Opinions " and  " The World As I See It " 
 books were widely read.
 My most central quote comes from those books.  
 Jeff Relf 22:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Strange comment indeed! For sure Wikipedia should avoid secondary sources in those cases where primary sources are available and sufficient, as in general originals are more reliable than paraphrases of those originals. An example is the Ehrenfest paradox, where one or two secondary (and more tertiary etc.) sources even misquoted the original source. Harald88 23:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I took fastfission's comment to mean Secondary Source quotes and information needed to be properly referenced. As Jibal says, when some one quotes a primary source, but rephrases what they say - often creating a different interpretation, especially when the primary source is dead - it creates a lot of confusion. Out of curiousity I did a google search on Jeff Relf and it seems he has a history along these lines. (Mainly on USENET). --Astralusenet 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, Einstein never used the word "pseudorandom"; that came out of your mouth, not his. Thus, it's not a primary source. You either realize this, and are acting here in bad faith, or you don't. WP policy says I must not assume bad faith, but since it is quite beyond plausibility that you don't realize that your words are not a primary source, I haven't assumed it, rather I have had it forced upon me as a matter of logic. As that is rather unpleasant, please stop doing that which forces that conclusion upon me (and most others here, I suspect). -- Jibal 10:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Jibal,  There can be no doubt that
 Einstein took the very metaphysical, 
 yet very sober view that all randomness
 is pseudorandom.
     The Wiki entry on the word
 Pseudorandomness begins:
 " A pseudorandom process is a process that 
   appears random but is not. 
       Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit
   statistical randomness while being generated by
   an entirely deterministic causal process."
 As you can see, the meaning is not restricted
 to computer simulations.
     As countless quotes from Einstein reveal,
 Nothing I wrote was Original_Research.
 In fact, that's why the quotes Must_Be there,
 no matter how much _You_ disagree with Einstein.
 Jeff Relf 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Point out EXACTLY where Einstein used the word psuedorandom in this context. A verifiable source, in literature. Till then ITS YOUR OPINION 62.56.70.236 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, let's back off a bit. What Einstein did say was, essentially, that anything we call "random" is so because we don't understand the causality behind it. I think it would be a mistake to link this to the word "pseudorandom", unless we can provide an authority for connecting Einstein's metaphysical position to the mathematical term "pseudorandom". It shouldn't be hard, if it's as obvious as Jeff says. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff please cut the BS and quit hiding behind the ...no matter how much _You_ disagree with Einstein bit. I don't see anyone here disagreeing with Einstein, they are all just questioning your interpretation and wording connections between the quotes. The article can be written without any quotes and your lame, the quotes Must_Be there, phrase is quite simply absurd. An article is not just a creatively patched together list of quotes. Vsmith 02:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Jpgordon, Vsmith and 62.56.70.236,
 I'd love to see better  " interpretations ".
 The word pseudorandom was never limited to mathematics.
 Einstein wrote:
   Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end,
   by forces over which we have no control.
       It is determined for the insects as well as the star.
   Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to 
   a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible piper.
 He also wrote:
   If  [ God ]  is omnipotent,  then every occurrence,
   including every human action,  every human thought, 
   and Every human feeling and aspiration is also His work;
       how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for
   their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being ?
   In giving out punishment and rewards he would,
   to a certain extent, be passing judgment on Himself.
       How can this be combined with
   the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him ?
   EinsteinAndReligion.COM/scienceandreligion2.html
 Jeff Relf 02:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

So? Our interpretations of those quotes and your interpretations of those quotes are utterly irrelevant. You really need to get to understand this. We don't get to come to conclusions here. We don't get to make inferences. We don't get to analyze. If you want to link Einstein with the term "pseudorandom" -- and I think it's quite a good connection, actually -- you just need to find a single verifiable reliable source making that connection. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Jpgordon,  My interpretation ?
 Einstein didn't write in hieroglyphics.
     Einstein debated 20 years with Bohr
 about this topic and wrote best-selling books which
 also discussed it.
 What does the ever-famous phrase:
    God does not play dice.
 mean to you ? any why doesn't that imply that
 randomness is always pseudo-random ?
 Do you imagine that dice are truly random ?
 Jeff Relf 03:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

 Astralusenet quoted Jeff_Relf:
 Hi  Jpgordon,  My interpretation ?
 Einstein didn't write in hieroglyphics.

What could that conceivably have to do with anything? Stop. Listen. Please. Find that reliable source. That's the only way the word is getting into the article. That's how it works here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Jpgordon,  Imagine my surprise last Saturday
 when, glancing at the top-left front page
 of the New York Times, the fist line I read was:
   Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that
   " anyone can edit."  Unless you want to edit
   the entries on Albert Einstein...
 Einstein was first, last, and foremost,
 a mathematician... modeling nature herself, God.
 Dice are pseudorandom, Einstein talked about
 psuedorandomness all the time, ten different ways,
 ...I can show you the quotes.
 And that's true no matter if
 he used that exact word or not.
 Jeff Relf 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And no you admit he may never have used the word at all. Its not exactly a great advert for wiki... --Desdinova 10:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the pseudorandom bit with a more in context quote as it seemed Jeff was using "The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation.The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past." quite out of context. Now the longer quote I added (from Jeff's source[44]) provides context, but needs to be integrated better if it is to remain. I dislike cherry picking quotes to support a "personal" interpretation out of context. Vsmith 13:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Vsmith  ( and Desdinova ),
 I moved the fuller context to the footnotes
 because it disrupted the flow, the intent.
 I replaced the word pseudorandom with the phrase
 " never truly random ".
 Look guys, it's obvious to me that you simply
 don't like what Einstein had to say 
 about randomness; but that should not influence
 WikiPedia's report of the facts.
 Jeff Relf 00:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been asked several times to provide a fuller explanation for your interpretations, which yyou have failed to do. --Desdinova 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,
 There's no doubt about what Einstein believed
 concering block time.
     The only doubt is
 whether you'll allow WikiPedia to mention
 those beliefs.  My comments merely point
 to the philosophical catagory that it falls under
 and to emphasize and clarify.
 Jeff Relf 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The full quote sums up his religious views quite well and does not belong in a footnote. Your picking out a single line of it to support your pseudo- stuff is out of context cherry picking and quite possibly OR. Your cherry picking of that quote says to me that you don't like what he says about religion and are trying to turn it into some pseudorandom speculation. He had a strong disagreement with aspects of quantum mechanics because of the uncertainties and unpredictabilities involved, but that was not due to his religious ideas but his scientific philosophy (where the line is between those is quite uncertain 'though). Vsmith 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Vsmith, oddly enough,
 I like the changes you made.
 Jeff Relf 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1. I don't like the use of the term "psuedorandom" to describe the opinion that in the end there is no ultimate randomness. This is not what pseudorandom means (when something is pseudorandom, it means it is simulating randomness. That is not the same thing as saying that randomness does not ultimately exist). If you want to say that Einstein believes that observed randomness is really just apparent randomness, or that he ultimately believes in a deterministic universe, then just say it; don't misuse terminology when there is no reason to. 2. Whatever the case may be (honestly, I don't care whether randomness exists or not), I still don't see why this is in the "Religion" section. This is quantum metaphysics. It does not really have much to do with his religious views, in my opinion. When people read a section on "religious views", they want to know things like does he believe in a monotheistic God, does he believe people go to heaven, does he believe that the world was created by a God or that it came about under natural processes, etc. The question as to whether or not there is actual randomness in the universe seems to have little to do with that except under the most strained and un-intuitive of interpretations of the word "religion". (It should be noted that believing that observed randomness is only apparent randomness is not an opinion unique to Einstein in the slightest; much of 18th century statistics was made by people who thought that the randomness they observed was just a sign of their ultimate lack of true comprehension. It is only slightly interesting in the context of the Bohr-Einstein debates and in relation to Einstein's views on quantum mechanics, IMO, which again has practically nothing to do with religion in any sense that I know of). --Fastfission 03:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems, based on his comment history here, and what I found on Google Groups, that Jeff has some level of obsession about presenting his ideas regarding "psuedorandomness" and equating it to a religious belief (which he asserts is held by Einstein). Anyway, (sorry for the ramble), you are quite right. Reading this now, it would be much better served by being in a different section. It seems to have less and less to do with Einstien and more to do with a metaphysical interpretation of the world.

--Astralusenet 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Fastfission,  Please read 
 the latest Religious_Views section.
     Vsmith's changes now make it quite clear
 how randomness was a _Religious_ issue 
 for Einstein.  ( Thanks Vsmith )
     Per your request, 
 the word pseudorandom has been replaced with 
 this wording:
   Einstein asserted that
   time is pseudo-directional; 
   in other words, God (physical nature)
   is never truly random so the future
   is just as immutable as the past.
   For example, he once said:
     People like us, who believe in physics,
     know that the distinction between past,
     present, and future is 
     only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
 If you read the block time entry,
 including all the greater links,
 you'll see that it's a philosophical belief.
 Jeff Relf 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok so is this Einstein's Religous Views, or JR's personal interpretation? This is getting beyond a joke. He's been told several times to lay off, and he just keeps editing it back in. --Desdinova 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

JR seems to blur the distinction between religion and philosophy. The two are not the same and Einstein's personal philosophy regarding determinism and other philosophical points seem rather out of place in a Religion section. I think the non-religious philosophical bits should be removed from the section. Einstein's philosophy can be discussed separately. Although the boundaries between religion, mysticism, and philosophy are not distinct - we shouldn' lump them all in the religious views section. Vsmith 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd go along with that if I didn't know the facts. As everyone(except you and Fastfission?) knows, Einstein claimed "God does not play dice". Thus he himself presented it as religious philosophy (otherwise, his argument is meaningless). Don't you know that churches have been divided and literally split in two on that issue? Thus it's unwarranted to call his opinion about randomness a "non-religious philosophical bit". Harald88 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not consider his one (famous) line about God playing dice to be representative of the connection between religion and quantum metaphysics in his head (no more than it is a claim about the existence of a monotheistic God -- Einstein himself took pains to encourage people not to read too much into that famous line). As I pointed out, I thoroughly recognize that metaphysics and religion are related to one another but to label his thoughts on questions of determinism in quantum mechanics as his "religious views" is thoroughly misleading. --Fastfission 22:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Amazingly enough, that famous line is absent. IMHO it belongs there, with comments - especially Einstein's explanation "to encourage people not to read too much into that famous line", as you put it, will be very useful for the general reader. We can't pretend that the issue doesn't exist, instead it's better to deal with it. Harald88 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
(following edit conflict) Agreed, it is perhaps one of the most misused quotes of the century. Also the related quip by Stephen Hawking: Not only does God play dice, but he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.[45] It was an analogy used in a discussion of deterministic philosophy of 19th century science and the weirdness and unpredictability of quantum mechanics. Neither Einstein nor Hawking were discussing religion - unless religion encompasses all philosophy. Also, if I hit my thumb with a hammer and exclaim God damn!, am I discussing religion? - I think not. Vsmith 23:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, please stop enforcing your personal view on this entry, particularly with words that are not representative of his views. You are running dangerously close to the three reverts. --Desdinova 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Fastfission, Harald88, Vsmith and  Desdinova,
     Vsmith's quote perfectly compares and contrasts
 Einstein's _Religious_ views with that of
 traditional society.
    I can't win either way...
 if I add any words other than quotes you all
 claim that I'm making wooly interpretations
 and coming up with Original_Research.
    Yet if I just list quotes you claim it's
 just a list of silly bons mots, better left to
 WikiQuote.
    The reference to Block Time _Must_ be there,
 as it's a known philosophy which is central to
 _Einstein_'s POV  ( not yours, quite obviously )
 see: Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
 ACA.MQ.EDU.AU/PaulDavies/publications/reviews/THAT%20MYSTERIOUS%20FLOW.pdf
 Jeff Relf 23:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is YOUR VIEW. --Desdinova 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, you're absolutely correct in saying that neither your interpretations of Einstein's views or simple quotations of them will suffice here. But those are not the only two solutions. I have tried to suggest the third way, the way sanctioned by Wikipedia's content policies, a few times already: use secondary sources, per the guidelines in our Wikipedia:No original research policy. If nothing on block time is presented as a religious view of Einstein's in secondary literature, then it should not be presented as such in the Wikipedia article. It is pretty simple. There is a lot of good secondary literature on Einstein's religious views, and it should be taken advantage of (there is even an entire book on the topic by the eminent Max Jammer called, aptly, Einstein and Religion, which is searchable through Google Books).
I am not at all opposed as to having an entire article devoted to Einstein's views on quantum mechanics, his views on the nature of time itself, his views on metaphysics, etc. It would be very interesting if it was well put together and clear. We could even have a short paragraph or two in this article with a link to the main article. But I don't think we should try and cram all of that under the heading of "religious views" unless it has an easy and clear relation (Jammer, for example, mentions the "God doesn't place dice" very briefly in connection with Spinoza-like unlimited determinism, but only in passing, saying that it was a belief that was "at least to some extent, religiously motivated". Note that this is far from saying that it is a statement of his religious views.)
I think the current section is woefully inadequate (the lack of any mention of the theology Spinoza, which Einstein explicitly affiliated himself with many times, is due evidence of this). --Fastfission 23:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Fastfission,
 You've chosen to ignore this authority:
   Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
 Not even this Scientific_American article
 appeased you:
 ACA.MQ.EDU.AU/PaulDavies/publications/reviews/THAT%20MYSTERIOUS%20FLOW.pdf
 Isn't that because 
 -- you can't accept Einstein's ideas -- ?
 Even if you confined your comments to just books,
 you couldn't do any better than 
 Einstein's own books.
     He compared his religion with that of
 more traditional ones.
     I fail to see what's wrong with looking
 directly at what Einstein said,
 instead of some idiot selling Feel_Good ideas.
     Sure most people object to his ideas,
 but what a shame it would be if they were
 exluded from WikiPedia solely for that reason.
 Does WikiPedia have any standards ?  I wonder.
    I'll appeal to more level heads if I have too.
 I'm a _Very_ patient man.
 Jeff Relf 03:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Jeff - once more you use the strawman that any one who disagrees with you and the way you present things simply can't accept Einstein's ideas. This is not the case. You are posting Your opinion about what, generally out of context, quotes means. It seems that when you have read about Einstein, you have selected particular references which support your own point of view and are more than willing to dismiss all others. Despite what you try to assert, you have never spoken to the man and you have no greater insight into his thought processess than anyone else. I especially like the threat at the end, where you combine disgreeing with you as a lack of standards and imply you will find "more powerful" allies.

--Astralusenet 08:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Astral_Usenet,
 Einstein's views on pseudorandomness are famous.
     I can give you endless quotes
 where he talked about it. Jeff Relf 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
what you actually mean here, is you can produce endless quotes where Einstein has said things which you have interpreted as being about pseudorandomness. Do you have a single quote where he has used the word in any context? --Astralusenet 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 Can you provide one quotes where 
 he changed his opinion ? Jeff Relf 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I see you really arent getting it. First you assert Einstein held opinion X, then when challenged demand others prove proof of when this opinion was changed. Do you see what is wrong here? --Astralusenet 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
     Why did none of the admins here
 correct Desinova when he claimed 
 Einstein favored Determinism over probabilities ?
 The two are _Not_ related.  I'm in shock. Jeff Relf 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect you havent read it properly. --Astralusenet 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
     Why did none of the admins take the time
 to read these authoritative sources:
   Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
   ACA.MQ.EDU.AU/PaulDavies/publications/reviews/THAT%20MYSTERIOUS%20FLOW.pdf
   WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_time
 Again, I'm in shock.
 I plan on being here for years,
 so you better get used to me.
    And yes, I might get help if I need to. Jeff Relf 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Really? Second time you have made this threat. What is it supposed to mean? --Astralusenet 17:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 WikiPedia should not be allowed to make
 Einstein look like a Christian just because
 it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
     Fastfission's Secondary_Sources are fine,
 _If_ they carry more weight than 
 the many/serious sources I have.
 Jeff Relf 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff,

Einstein (via the EPR paradox) proved he was uncomfortable with a probabilistic universe, hence his dice quote and his continual attempts to find fault with QM. He was in essence a classical scientist in that case, with an almost Newtonian view that the underlying theories of the universe could be modelled (hidden variables).

The quote about "deterministic..." is proper scientific terminology. As you don't understand it, let me explain. Einstein's views was that the Universe could be understood, calculated and catalogued - determinism, rather the the QM view that everything was, in essence, controlled by probabilistic wave functions.

Above, you have simply proved you don't understand what I have said, and have instead used a strawman argument to argue against what you thought I have said.

Your threats to vandalize this page are a disgrace. Your USENET profile shows you are intent of imposing your views only on this page. --Desdinova 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, I have tried to explain exactly what the objections are and how to go about rectifying them. Others have done similarly. The objections are clearly in line with Wikipeida content editing policy. In return you have dismissed them as being simply the results of people who "disagree" with Einstein's views, something which is quite unwarranted (I do not have an opinion on whether the universe is ultimately deterministic at a quantum level or not, it has no effect on my perception of the world). Nobody is trying to make "Einstein look like a Christian" -- this is a pure straw man you are pulling out from who knows where. Secondary sources are always better than the idiosyncratic attempts to interpret primary sources in cases like this. I took a look at the stanford.edu source -- I see no reference to Einstein or his religious views there. Again, it seems like an idiosyncratic interpretation of yours that it is related somehow to Einstein's religious views, rather than a self-evident fact. I read the Davies piece. It is an interesting pop-science piece on the philosophy of time which uses Einstein's views in the very beginning to outline one aspect of it. I don't see the immediate relevance to Einstein's religious views at all.
Here are some sources I found, searching around, which seem to be on the topic and seem to be from reliable bibliographers:
Primary sources can be used to further illustrate interpretations already put forward in secondary sources. Again, read our Wikipedia:No original research policy on this: "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." --Fastfission 13:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Fastfission,
 You admit that Einstein asserted that
 randomness is always pseudorandom,
 no matter if the outcome is knowable or not.
    On numerous occations, Einstein compared
 this assertion with traditional religions,
 that's why it belongs in the Religious_Views
 section.
     Desdinova and Vsmith have demonstrated
 their ignorance on this topic by imagining that 
 pseudorandmoness implies Newtonian-like
 a priori knowledge and the dismissal of all things
 probabilistic.
     As Einstein was one of the 
 founding fathers of quantum mechanics,
 I can assure you that this idea
 is _Horridly_ amiss.  Desdinova and Vsmith
 should be _Blocked_ from spreading such _Absurd_
 notions.
     I can make this arguement all year long,
 and I probably will.
 Jeff Relf 03:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as Jeff Relf has tried to add it again, and I reverted - is there any chance this particular section can be locked until the issue is resolved?

Jeff - Einstein was not a founder of QM, he spent most of his physical career trying to refute it. He used early quantum theory to explain the photoelectric effect, but Heisenberg and Bohr are far more pivotal to QM. You are arguing from false premises. What gives you the notion that you are the only one who knows Einsteins mind? --Desdinova 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/

EPR Paradox

"Initially Einstein was enthusiastic about the quantum theory. By 1935, however, his enthusiasm for the theory had been replaced by a sense of disappointment. His reservations were twofold. Firstly, he felt the theory had abdicated the historical task of natural science to provide knowledge of, or at least justified belief in, significant aspects of nature that were independent of observers or their observations. Instead the fundamental understanding of the wave function (alternatively, the "state function", "state vector", or "psi-function") in quantum theory was that it provided probabilities only for "results" if appropriate measurements were made (the Born Rule). The theory was simply silent about what, if anything, was likely to be true in the absence of observation. In this sense it was irrealist. Secondly, the quantum theory was essentially statistical. The probabilities built into the state function were fundamental and, unlike the situation in classical statistical mechanics, they were not understood as arising from ignorance of fine details. In this sense the theory was indeterministic. Thus Einstein began to probe how strongly the quantum theory was tied to irrealism and indeterminism.

He wondered whether it was possible, at least in principle, to ascribe certain properties to a quantum system in the absence of measurement (and not just probabilistically). Can we suppose, for instance, that the decay of an atom occurs at a definite moment in time even though such a definite time-value is not implied by the quantum state function? That is, Einstein began to ask whether the quantum mechanical description of reality was complete. Since Bohr's complementarity provided strong support both for irrealism and indeterminism and since it played such a dominant role in shaping the prevailing attitude toward quantum theory, complementarity became Einstein's first target. In particular, Einstein had reservations about the scope and uncontrollable effects of the physical disturbances invoked by Bohr and about their role in fixing the interpretation of the wave function. EPR was intended to support those reservations in a particularly dramatic way" --Desdinova 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Religion vs sci philosophy

Time for another header :-)
I have divided the Religious views section of the article also. Seems there is a distinction between Einstein's religious views and his ideas on scientific philosophy and the discussion needs to be separated. Vsmith 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Excelent idea. --Desdinova 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desinova and Vsmith,
 Einstein asserted that nature is never truly random.
 No one disputes that... right ?
     What you two fail to realize is that that
 does not mean probabilies are out the window
 and everything is knowable/Newtonian.
     Einstein co-invented Bose-Einstein statistics,
 and was one of the founders of quantum mechanics,
 he had _No_ problems with probability distributions.
     Einstein compared is views on pseudorandomness
 with traditional religions... that why
 it has to be in the Religious_Views section.
 Jeff Relf 02:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again you show a complete lack of understanding here. When I say probabilistic in terms of the universe, I mean quantum mechanics. He was not a founder of it, he was pivotal in statistical mechanics which is very different indeed.

Einsteins work with the EPR was because he believed that underneath it all, the universe was deterministic. Your first two paragraphs do not make sense.

I actually understand it as today I (in essence) got a first class degree in Astrophysics, and this senester included the study of statistical mechanics - so I am well aware of BE and FD statistical mechanics.

I heartily suggest you read up on the EPR paradox and Einsteins ongoing battle against the probabilistic view of the universe. You do not understand the underlying physics behind his views.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quantum_mechanics,_philosophy_and_controversy

"The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: "Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go." Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: "There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go"."

Einsteins position was determimistic, therefore a classical view - Bohr and Heisenberg were probabilistic. --Desdinova 03:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Jeff, no it doesn't have to be anywhere. His views on religion are quite separable from his debates about science philosophy and he did have profound disagreements with some aspects of QM, but not on religious grounds. I've reverted your changes and obvious pseudorandom original research. Vsmith 03:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Jeff. Your claim that "Einstein asserted that nature is never truly random. No one disputes that... right ?" bears no relevance to the debate here. Seriously if you are trying to troll this wiki page into a USENET flame war, please find something else to get your kicks from. --Astralusenet 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Vsmith and Desdinova,
 Einstein compared his views with 
 traditional religions, so I'll be 
 putting it back into the Religious Views section
 every chance I get.
    You two are so wrong,
 in so many ways, it almost makes me want to _Cry_.
     Do you know what Bose_Einstein systems are ?
 Einstein got the Nobel prize for proving to 
 the world that atoms and photons exist as _Quanta_.
     _Hell_Yes_ he was a founding father of
 quantum mechanics.
 Bohr was a positivist, while Einstein
 was a logical-positivist.
    Bohr intentionally refused to take 
 a metaphysical stand while Einstein
 constantly predicted things like Atom_Lasers
 and the Cosmological_Constant... which are only
 _Today_ gathering _Strong_ empirical evidence.
     You can not deny that Einstein asserted
 that randomness must always be pseudorandom,
 irregardless of knowability.
     I'll correct you all year long if I have to. 
 Jeff Relf 03:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Threat noted to vandalize wiki. I am well aware of statistical mechanics, scoring in the high 90's of that subject Jeff. Einstein's early work was with the photoelectric effect and quanta - BUT he did not develop, or support QM. Read the links I provided on EPR.

Nobel prize was for explaining the photoelectric effect - showing energy levels in atoms were discrete. --Desdinova 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,
 Not only are you and Vsmith vandalizing WikiPedia
 I can _Easily_ demonstrate why that's so. Jeff Relf 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please feel free to do so. At the moment you have created a situation where you assert that when Einstein said "XYZ" he really meant "WXY." This is fine in the great scheme of things, but is not appropriate for Wiki. Remember Wikipedia:No original research the policies in force here. I appreciate that you don't feel these policies are appropriate for you or that you should be bound by them. This is not the case. If you want a website which follows your rules, then set one up. This is Wikipedia. If you want to post here, then you can follow the rules. --Astralusenet 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
     Einstein compared his views with traditional
 religion, that why it _Must_ be in the
 Religious_Views section. 
     Einstein got the _Nobel_Prize_ for proving
 to the world that quanta exist !  For fuck's sake. Jeff Relf 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Dont be rude. There is no reason to take the fact that Einstein was awarded the Nobel for the Photoelectric Effect as proof that his ideas about any form of philosophy bear more weight than anyone elses. You are citing an authority fallacy here. Also, this is nothing to do with Einstein's religious viewpoint, it is his philosophical view point. The fact you arent happy with that is becoming unimportant. --Astralusenet 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 Before Einstein there was considerable doubt
 about the existence of atoms and photons.
     Likewise, my dear sir, you fail to realize
 that nature is pseudorandom even when outcomes
 are _Unknowable_. Jeff Relf 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

     You also fail to realise that this postulate
 says nothing about knowability or probabilities.
 Jeff Relf 03:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No there wasn't - there was just confusion as to their nature. Even the Greeks postulated atoms. Your edits are full of babble and is Original Research.

Jeff, you have yourself admitted in various places your lack of physics education. Please do some REAL reading of the subject. Your insistence that nature is pseudorandom is your view, it is not commonly accepted science. Read on the EPR paradox, and Bells Inequality to read the argument against it.Desdinova 03:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova, it's not enough to
 read about the EPR paradox in a class.
 Jeff Relf 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

However, reading about it in a class is far preferable to not reading about it at all. Jeff, you cannot keep insisting that you have the fast track to knowledge in this case. Your edits are non-sensical, and unsupported by any evidence. Desdinova 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 

     Despite unknowables, Einstein famously asserted
 that randomness is always pseudorandom.Jeff Relf 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is your citation for this? I have still not seen any signs that Einstein ever used the word pseudorandom. As it stands, the best you can say here is that Einstein used a phrase which you have interpreted to mean randomness is always pseudorandom. You dont even seem to understand what this argument is about. --Astralusenet 00:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
     This does not mean Einstein didn't understand
 quanta and probablities... in fact,
 it's horribly obvious that it's _You_ who doesn't
 understand such concepts.
 Jeff Relf 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Strawman argument - again you assert because I disagree with you that I do not understand it. That is borderline delusional behaviour Desdinova 16:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC) 

     He compared his views with 
 traditional religion/science.
     Bohr intentionally took no metaphysical stand
 and thus could never predict, 
 decades in advance of any empirical evidence,
 such marvelous things as the lasing of atoms
 or the cosmological constant, a.k.a. lambda,
 a.k.a. the dark energy equation of state,
 w = -1, pressure over density.
 Jeff Relf 04:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

We've had this arguemnt before, and I note you haven't yet tried to introduce your flawed reasoning that temperature is another dimension onto Wikipedia.

Jeff, please give up. It is now becoming fundamentally clear this is less about Einsteins views, and more to do with your flawed interpretation of them. You are using strawmen arguments. Your lack of physics education is becoming ever more clear. Desdinova 12:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The bit about atoms and quanta is also not correct:

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Ls7adisc.htm

(c. 1803)"The notion of atoms started from a fundamental problem in chemistry (#1): why did (say) one gram of hydrogen always combine with 8 grams of oxygen, never more, never less? Because each molecule of the resulting compound--water--always contained a fixed number of atoms of each kind. By comparing different reactions, Dalton concluded that (for instance) 2 atoms of hydrogen combined with one of oxygen, to create H2O."

I'll also point you to:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Quantum_mechanics%2C_philosophy_and_controversy#Consequences_of_the_uncertainty_principle

"Albert Einstein was not happy with the uncertainty principle, and he challenged Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg with a famous thought experiment (See the Bohr-Einstein debates for more details).

It is this interpretation that Einstein was questioning when he said "I cannot believe that God would choose to play dice with the universe." Bohr, who was one of the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation responded, "Einstein, don't tell God what to do." Niels Bohr himself acknowledged that quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle were counter-intuitive when he stated, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood a single word."

The basic debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) was that Einstein was in essence saying: "Of course, we can know where something is; we can know the position of a moving particle if we know every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can predict where it will go." Bohr and Heisenberg were saying the opposite: "There is no way to know where a moving particle is ever even given every possible detail, and thereby by extension, we can never predict where it will go."

Einstein was convinced that this interpretation was in error. His reasoning was that all previously known probability distributions arose from deterministic events. The distribution of a flipped coin or a rolled dice can be described with a probability distribution (50% heads, 50% tails). But this does not mean that their physical motions are unpredictable. Ordinary mechanics can be used to calculate exactly how each coin will land, if the forces acting on it are known. And the heads/tails distribution will still line up with the probability distribution (given random initial forces).

Einstein was not adverse to quantum mechanics as a whole, but specifically with the uncertainty principle itself....."

And as to photons ... In 1704, Isaac Newton (England). In his Opticks, Newton put forward his view that light is corpuscular but that the corpuscles are able to excite waves in the aether. His adherence to a corpuscular nature of light was based primarily on the presumption that light travels in straight lines whereas waves can bend into the region of shadows. [ http://members.aol.com/WSRNet/D1/hist.htm ]

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Light also discusses the wave and particulate nature of light 200 years previously.

Desdinova 13:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


Wow, I thought this thread was about Einstein's influence of his religion on his outcome of advances in science, the specific example being the debate between Einstein and Bohr (including Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

I didn't see where anybody mentioned that Einstein believed in God in such a way that drove him to search for answers where he went on faith that such answers must exist. What was his view of God in the sense of his guessing God's mind in the symphony of creation?

Isn't Einstein's belief in God of interest to how it affected the search to develop math to connect everything to everything in the universe? He didn't do completely, but did make amazing progress toward.

While the theories that used probability turned out to be a more practical approach at the time, isn't it of interest in Wiki world that even today it is taught to children that events in nature could truly be random, while most sane experts understand we are really talking about human limitations of measurement and techniques?

All this dating back to the Einstein/Bohr debate. I find it truly amazing, that's all.

Bptdude 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WW II - the atomic bomb

I could not find any reference to Albert Einstein's role to kick-start the American development of the atomic bomb project.

I have read the original letter he wrote to FDR, which is fascinating for a number of reasons as well as historically significant. This is the source of his name being linked to the equation E=MC^2 as well as shows kind of humorously, how such a brilliant scientist could be such an awful engineer and warfare strategist. I admire him, like so many, and think this very human aspect should not be left out of such a comprehensive sight.

Did I overlook mention of this?

Is it worth my time to track down the verifiable reference?

Or am I just going to set off a bunch of nut-jobs, either the pro-Einstein or anti-Einstein?

Bptdude 07:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in the article twice. Once under the World War II section and once under the Political views section. There are even two links to an article about the Einstein-Szilard letter. There is even a picture of Einstein re-enacting the writing of the letter. So... yeah, I think you somehow overlooked it? --Fastfission 14:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, you are right, and I'm impressed. Thank you. I do wish the entire contents of the letter was on Wiki, not selected parts. After all, it is very short.

Bptdude 19:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire content is on Wikisource, which is linked to from the page about the letter. At the time I made the page about it I thought that the letter was a little lengthy (2 pages, though double-spaced) for total inclusion in the article (and only parts of it seems really important to get in the original language, whereas the rest could be summarize). --Fastfission 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Thank you again. I followed the link, read the letter and the other source material about the letter. I'm even sorry I called him an awefull engineer. I'm done. I've never read such detail about him.

Bptdude 01:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Learning Disability

My first day here, so I guess I'm bound to misunderstand. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be a place for anyone to add to the knowledge database, yet the first time I actually take the time to make an entry Fastfission deletes the entire thing within minutes. Why bother?

I suppose if I were really serious I should take the time to go back through decades of documents to find where I originally learned such trivia. Or if someone else was really interested they could do the research and find out themselves the details on the disabilities of such notables as Einstein, John Lennon, Hans Christian Andersen, Woodrow Wilson, etc. I was only trying to begin sharing knowledge gleaned through several decades of teaching Disabled students.

Fastfission comments: I don't think that's all entirely true. He apparently did fine in school. I would really need to see a citation about him never learning to tie his shoes.)

As regards Einstein's difficulties, he had ongoing difficulties in school because the brains of individuals with Learning Disabilities are wired differently, and not in the same way in each case. His mother kept him from starting school until the age of seven, preferring to educate him at home. Here he was permitted to learn at his own rate and in his own way, but was not exposed to peer socialization. When he did go to school, he had interpersonal difficulties with instructors although he was far advanced academically. He questioned everyone and everything. He failed fourth-grade math, not because he couldn't do the math, but because he was one of those people who can intuit, or "see" the answer, but cannot explain the "steps" to tell you how to arrive at that answer. The rather inflexible teacher failed him because he failed to "show his work." He also had little use for assumed authority, and had a major blowout with his seventh grade teacher, who predicted Einstein "would never get anywhere in life." His mother was primarily responsible for his education in many arenas not covered by the narrow curriculum available in his school at the time, but this was insufficient for him to pass his entrance exams for the higher education institution of his choice, though he was clearly brilliant. He saw things differently from other people, and was too preoccupied with other matters to be overly concerned with his appearance. Whether this was a result of his Learning Disability or of his Giftedness is uncertain, as both populations exhibit similar characteristics in many areas. He really never did learn to tie his shoes, unless this was a myth taught to me in my early college days, but I doubt I will ever take the time to go find my notes from thirty-plus years ago.

I concede with as much grace as my professional pride permits. Do with it what you will. However, I hope that this will at least serve to inform some few individuals who take the time to read about a seldom-revealed side of an "icon." As an editorial note, it only serves to reinforce the social norm that relegates the disabled to the bottom of the heap and ignores the major contributions of many disabled individuals throughout history. It particularly fails to instill the belief that others struggling with similar conditions may be able to use their ability to see things differently to achieve heretofore unanticipated success. Rachel 05:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't mean to be a pill here, but the reason for my suspicion is that a lot of these claims about his difficulty in school and absentmindedness in life are seriously contested by historians. The famous "Einstein flunked math" claim is based on a misunderstanding of the grading system in Einstein's time, and as our article says:
There are innumerable legends which suggest that Einstein was a poor student, a slow learner, or a sufferer of autism, dyslexia, and/or attention deficit disorder. According to the authoritative biography by Pais (page 36, among others), such legends are unfounded. An article in The Washington Post on April 24, 2001 further debunked these legends.
It's only because these claims have come up here before that I removed them without much comment (I considered leaving a message here, but never got to it). There are some people who claim that Einstein suffered from certain learning disabilities (i.e. autism), but like most cases of post-hoc attribution of mental disabilities, they remain pretty dubious diagnoses.
There are a lot of myths floating around about world-class figures like Einstein, repeated by very smart and well-meaning people, so when it comes to things which have a high likelihood of being apocryphal, we tend to stray on the side of conservatism unless we have a really definitive statement supporting it. In this case, we have a fairly definitive statement saying that it is unlikely to be true (Pais's biography).
Hope that clears things up. --Fastfission 05:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, and sorry I got so angry. As a newbie, of course I had no idea of the on-site history you based your response on. I will be interested in reading the sources you mentioned. Thanks for providing these for my edification.
FYI, autism is not a learning disability. It differs greatly in severity, characteristics, and methodology, and, unless he responded amazingly well to early intervention efforts, I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly think he could have been autistic. (Though this would clear up the debate neatly about exactly why his mom kept him home from school until age 7, wouldn't it?) An individual with a learning disability, however, can exhibit any one OR ANY COMBINATION OF 96 different symptoms, which is a large part of what makes diagnosis so difficult. Dyslexia is a label that has been applied to one common such grouping of symptoms. Rachel 06:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
watch out.... in Europe, the age at which you normally start school has varied (it was only a few years ago that Norway changed it from seven to six). So if you make a statement like "his mother kept him home rom school until age 7", you'd better have citable sources showing:
  • what the normal age for starting school for a kid in his social stratum was
  • that it was his mother, and not his father, who made the decision (if there was one)
Traps abound for the unwary - been down a couple of them myself... --Alvestrand 07:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
FASTFISSION- Where is "our article?" Unable to locate Washington Post April 24, 2001 article. Do you have a title? Author? Anything that might help the search? Thanks. Rachel 08:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
"our article" that Fastfission referred to is the Wikipedia Albert Einstein article we are discussing. The WaPo article can be located by searching their on-line archives, which I've done for you; here's the abstract (it loads slowly; be patient -- make some coffee, walk the dog ...), you'll have to pay for the full article:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/71706692.html?dids=71706692:71706692&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Apr+24%2C+2001&author=&desc=EXTRA+CREDIT

P.S. What you need to understand about WP is that there is already a very large knowledgeable community of people who have added to the knowledge database, and there are demanding standards (policies) that "trivia" that you have "learned" but for which you cannot pinpoint "decades of documents" do not meet. Each of our "learn"ings, while they seem like facts to us are, in a more objective framework, merely our opinions in the absence of substantiation -- and there are policies against adding such opinions to WP articles; see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines, which refers to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability, http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Of course, we're all human and fail to live up to these standards, but it's a goal to strive toward. You seem to be a diligent person who is open to such standards and quick to appreciate input (unfortunately, many contributors to WP stray very far from those traits), so you should fit in well here and will no doubt make some wonderful contributions. -- Jibal 12:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Rachel said this "Whether this was a result of his Learning Disability or of his Giftedness is uncertain, as both populations exhibit similar characteristics in many areas."

Hero worship aside, Einstein was quite a character, different in so many ways. Isn't disability and giftedness often really how a person's unusual "specializations" match up with how they fit in with the world around them? There was something different about Einstein; I'm hoping people can at least agree on that. Am I to assume there is no common belief about it having a clinical explanation? Or, should we just say he was wonderful, which he was, and have to close the book on why?

Bptdude 04:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mileva Marić's contribution

He wrote many papers before they were married. He wrote many papers after they were divorced. She wrote no papers before they were married and wrote none after they were divorced. No one has produced evidence showing any contribution that she made to his papers during their marriage that would have been more important than the influence of any of the other people he chatted with about his work. Is it still necessary to include in the article that it is a controversial subject? It might be debated by people with a political agenda, but not by anyone with any familiarity with the history of the subject. Sighalot 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You need see the PBS TV program called Mileva they present much evidence. Her name did appear on early drafts with Albert's.
"No one has produced evidence showing any contribution that she made to his papers during their marriage that would have been more important than the influence of any of the other people he chatted with about his work" : no, that's erroneous. Harald88 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the source material. The source material does not support PBS's agenda. Much has been written pointing that out. They took phrases out of context and wielded a heavy political agenda. Their spurious conclusions are being repeated as though they are fact. They are not. They are television journalism with an agenda. I thought maybe the time had come when we could move beyond that. I guess we have not. I waited a decade for the same thing to die down after the book that originally started this ball rolling. I guess I'll wait another decade for people to move beyond this PBS special before trying again. Sighalot 00:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I second Sighalot. The PBS documentary was based upon a book which runs sharply counter to the mainstream opinion in the history of science, which is essentially that Maric was Einstein's (first) wife and a fellow graduate student, not his collaborator. See for starters the most recent mainstream popular biography, the book by Albrecht Fölsing, then see papers by John Stachel etc.---CH 03:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Write PBS a letter. They'll laugh at you. And Stachel has been thoroughly discredited. 67.8.115.243 04:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
67.8.115.243 (talk · contribs), aka the tampabay.res.rr.com anon
Please sign your comments in future (see the headers if you forget how).

Archives

They are growing very rapidly, unfortunately. This talk page is currently at 42 KB and was 140 KB until I archived stuff from earlier this year. ---CH 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

List of papers

The article is currently too long to load conveniently for most WP readers. I think the long list of links to his papers is very useful, but I'd like to see it moved to a seperate page, perhaps Albert Einstein/List of works. Comments? Similar suggestions? ---CH 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. --Fastfission 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

Removed the rapidly expanding quotes section. They belong in Wikiquotes. The page is already quite long and a list of contextless unsourced quotes is just an invitation to exponential growth. Vsmith 23:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

First, I was locating a source when you reverted all the quotes. Second, if the lack of sources was the issue you could have left a [citation needed]. Third, you should improve not delete, so why didn't you move them to where you said they should go and (fourth) leave a pointer behind for easy navigation. --Michael C. Price talk 23:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. First - you should have had a source - they came from somewhere ... Second, lack of source was just part of the issue. We simply don't need a list of quotes w/out any context. The page is a bit long already. Third, hey the link was provided and your quotes are still to be found in the history of the article. Take 'em to wikiquotes or write some in context article content to go with the quote. Cheers, Vsmith 23:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
And there was I thinking that WP was about improvement, not perfection. --Michael C. Price talk 23:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikiquote is the place for lists of quotes. There's no way to decide which quotes are notable enough to add to an article like this, where (as the Wikiquote page shows) there are hundreds of quotes to choose from. Some of those quotes look a little dubious IMO as well. --Fastfission 23:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added:-
  • Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.
    • [Einstein] objecting to the placing observables at the heart of the new quantum mechanics, during Heisenberg's 1926 lecture at Berlin; related by Heisenberg, quoted in Unification of Fundamental Forces ISBN 0521371406 by Abdus Salam (1990)
--Michael C. Price talk 00:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein Founded Relativity ?

How can we say Einstein founded relativity when later in the article it says that Henri Poincaré had discovered it first ? ?

Nobody says this. The introduction into this article reads: He _founded_ the special and general theories of relativity. So what this introduction says is simply that Einstein founded (set up) a THEORY of relativity. He did not find nor found relativity. And here you may have misunderstood something. Don't think twice, it's all right... Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (24062006)
That is a highly controversial statement. It was generally regarded that relativity before general relativity was founded by Lorentz and Einstein, while nowadays the contributions of Poincare are also receiving recognition. See also Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_8, item 32, where Pallen proposed to revert to the earlier formulation "Einstein made major contributions to SR", thus to distinguish between his work on SRT and GRT.
I'll do that now. Harald88 08:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't like "founded" (relativity is not an organization), but I don't think "major contributions" quite does it either. Without wanting to diminish the obvious contributions of Lorentz or Poincaré, I think we can do a little stronger language than that. Lorentz and Poincaré, in my mind, made "major contributions" to special relativity, but Einstein is generally recognized as the chief formulator of it as a coherent theory and method. Perhaps the best way to approach it is use something a little more weasely, like "is recognized as the formulator of" or something like that. --Fastfission 17:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I surely go along with that: lately I hesitated between "major contributions" and "developed", neither of which is entirely satisfying (a little too weak vs. a little too strong). Thus something like you propose is fine.
What about this one: "He was the chief formulator of special relativity and he founded general relativity."?
But if we go for general opinions (which often are oversimplified anyway!), no need to be that "weasely". That's an alternative way out of the problem.
Thus what about this one: ";He is regarded as the father of the special and general theories of relativity." Harald88 19:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. It seems that this article cycles through the options every few months. And the "annus mirabilis" section is now in full flight as "lots of people did the same theory at the same time", which I still think is wrong - others got the same formulae, but only Einstein was willing to draw the implications and accept them. For the intro section, I think Harald88's formulation is exactly right - he IS regarded as the father of both relativities. But the "annus mirabilis" section needs to become less hesitant about his contribution too. --Alvestrand 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:Agnostics ?

Is he? "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"... Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 14:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think labeling him as an agnostic simplifies things quite a bit. I've always thought of him as somewhat of a Deist. --Fastfission 15:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
No, he was a pantheist; he explicitly compared himself to Spinoza, to a Rabbi in a telegram. A Jewish pantheist, of course :-). --Michael C. Price talk 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In any case, calling him an agnostic flattens him quite a bit, I think we can agree. --Fastfission 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Major Contribution ?

Harald, exactly what was Einstein's major contribution to Special Relativity ? The article points out that Poincare completed the theory before Einstein's first paper even appeared.

Also Harald, GR was founded by Marcel Grossmann who was Einstein's tudor on the subject. - and as you know David Hilbert first completed GR, from a variational principle, a fact that is nowhere made clear on Wikipedia, and why is it not ?

Who wrote that? Anyway, some major contributions IMO were the derivation of the LT from few assumptions, the prediction of time dilation, the "relativistic Doppler" effect. And then there was something with the Maxwell equations that Lorentz and Poicare had not shown yet, if I recall well. Harald88 21:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Lorentz and Poincare did come up with the basic transformation formulas, but Einstein gets credit for seeing that the effects were both artifacts of coordinatization (choice of frame of reference) and descriptions of real, testable physical phenomena. It has been remarked that the special theory of relativity was an idea whose time had come and that Einstein was the first to tie all the pieces together, whereas general relativity was an unexpected answer to a question that nobody but Einstein thought to ask. That's an oversimplification, of course, but there is some truth in it. DAGwyn 20:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Views

In response to [46]

( The veracity of this alleged ad and the previous quote, is disputed. No copies can be found in New York Times Archives and the referred source here is a student's private web page. The alleged letter/ad is found only on politicized propaganda web sites. It is also not found nor mentioned in the Einstein archives http://www.alberteinstein.info/ )

Author: 24.187.77.138

Religious views redux

I've been working some additions to the religious views section to try and address some of the concerns raised by myself and others. Here is a draft of my work so far; it's perhaps too long at the moment but your feedback is appreciated. Maybe some of this will be useful for the article. --Muchness 17:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's parents were secular Jews who did not observe Hebrew traditions. However, the state required all children to receive religious education, so at the age of 9, Einstein began studying Judaism with a distant relative.[1] According to his sister Maja, the teachings awakened in Einstein "a deep religious feeling".[2] Einstein later described this period as the "religious paradise of youth";[3] he gave up eating pork and composed hymns in praise of God that he sang as he walked to and from school.[1]

The phase came to an end when Einstein was about twelve. His uncles Jakob (who introduced Einstein to the Pythagorean theorem and algebra) and Caesar encouraged him to pursue sciences, and to further discourage his religious fervor, Einstein's parents invited a Polish medical student, Max Talmud, to visit them weekly. Talmud lent Einstein many books, including Aaron Bernstein's Popular Books on Natural Science.[2] Einstein later said that this reading inspired in him "fanatic freethinking, coupled with the impression that youth is being intentionally deceived by the state through lies."[3] He would never again believe in a personal God, writing in 1947 that "the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously."[4]

According to a neighbor at Princeton, Einstein read both Testaments regularly;[5] however, Einstein described the Bible as "in part beautiful, in part wicked," adding that "to take it as eternal truth seems to me also superstition which would have vanished a long time ago would its conservation not be in the interest of the privileged classes."[6] When New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein telegrammed him on 1929 to ask whether he believed in God, he replied, "I believe in Spinoza's god who reveals himself in the harmony of all things, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of men."[7]

In an interview with George Sylvester Viereck, Einstein stated, "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. . . . We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." In the same interview, he professed his admiration for what he called "the luminous figure of the Nazarene", saying, "No man can read the Gospel without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word."[8]

I suggest you be more explicit with dates and try to time order the presentation. It would readers a feel for the evolution of his thoughts. --Michael C. Price talk 20:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
So, is Einstein an agnostic or not? He said he believed in Spinoza's God, and Spinoza was a pantheist. However, he said he wasn't a pantheist. Is there any evidence to support the label of agnosticism.Homagetocatalonia 21:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we just have to accept that, like most people, Einstein said things that are contradictory or apparently so. However I note that whilst he was quite sure about saying he wasn't an atheist his denial of pantheism sounded less definite. Perhaps agnostic-pantheist? --Michael C. Price talk 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking in Wikiquotes I see, in addition to the Spinoza quote,:

  • I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls.
  • Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.

--Michael C. Price talk 01:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Brian, Denis (1996). "Childhood and Youth". Einstein: A Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 4–5. ISBN 0-471-11459-6.
  2. ^ a b Smith, Peter D. (2003). "maths, Music, and Magnetism (1879-1894)". Einstein. London: Haus Publishing Limited. pp. 14–16. ISBN 1-904341-15-2.
  3. ^ a b Overbye, Dennis (2000). "On the Road". Einstein in Love. New York, NY: Viking Penguin. pp. 6–7. ISBN 0-670-89430-3.
  4. ^ Rosenkranz, Ze'ev (2002). "Einstein's Jewish Identity". The Einstein Scrapbook. Baltimore, MA: The Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 89. ISBN 0-801-87203-0.
  5. ^ Brian, Denis (1996). "A New Life in Princeton". Einstein: A Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 266. ISBN 0-471-11459-6.
  6. ^ Brian, Denis (1996). "The Race for the Bomb". Einstein: A Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 334. ISBN 0-471-11459-6.
  7. ^ Smith, Peter D. (2003). "Eclipsing Newton (1916-1933)". Einstein. London: Haus Publishing Limited. p. 103. ISBN 1-904341-15-2.
  8. ^ Brian, Denis (1996). "The Unified Field Theory". Einstein: A Life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p. 186. ISBN 0-471-11459-6.

Nobelprize

I think that the portrait of the Nobel prize is wrong. The passage is: "Most physicists agree that three of those papers (on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and special relativity) deserved Nobel Prizes. Only the paper on the photoelectric effect would be mentioned by the Nobel committee in the award." It is wrong, because the Nobel Prize is given only to people who a) live and b) have a particular application. The special relativity is a theoretical proposition with no concrete application. It is the foundation of physics, not an application. I don't know about the one about Brownian motion, but it is impossible to actually give a Nobel prize for special relativity. I therefore suggest that one should reformulate the text in such a way that it makes clear why Einstein was only given one Nobel Prize for a paper which isn't considered his biggest masterpiece. --194.45.150.17 11:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The reasons you have given are not why Einstein did not receive the prize—plenty of people have received prizes for purely theoretical and foundational work. However we should go into some more detail on it. A recent book was just published on the subject, using actual Nobel archival sources, under the title of Einstein's Nobel Prize, A Glimpse Behind Closed Doors: The Archival Evidence (by Aant Elzinga). It seems like the natural place to consult on the issue, though I haven't had time to look at it yet. --Fastfission 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Another very interesting article based on archival sources is available on line. I posted it long ago in a different thread: http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/34/article5.pdf --Pallen 21:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Some information that might be used in the article (my paraphrase of Robert Marc Friedman's The Politics of Excellence: Behind the Nobel Prize in Science, chapter 7):

Einstein was first nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1910, and there was gradually increasing support from nominators until by 1920, he was the only candidate to have more than a handful of nominations. However, the Nobel Physics committee was very hostile to theoretical physics in general and quantum physics in particular; in part the Swedish Academy greatly admired German culture, and especially the anti-theoretical style of much German science (which would eventually evolve into Deutsche Physik). Committee member Allvar Gullstrand, a medical physicist, led the opposition to Einstein receiving an award, and prepared reports criticizing special and general relativity even after most physicists had accept the latter and nearly all had accepted the former; his reports betrayed a misunderstanding of the physics, but the Academy in general was disinclined to give Einstein an award and did not look into it too deeply. In 1920 they instead selected Charles-Edouard Guillaume and were widely criticized for the choice. They withheld the prize in 1921 and awarded the 1921 prize to Einstein and the 1922 prize to Bohr at the same time the next year, in part because of what a black eye it would be for the Nobel Institution to hold off giving it to Einstein (and Bohr) for any longer. Mentioning only the photoelectric effect was a strategy on the part of Einstein's supporters (particularly Carl Wilhelm Oseen) find a way to award Einstein the prize without arousing the opposition of so many Academy members who disapproved of ongoing transformation of the theoretical foundation of physics.

This is the same author as the above linked article; it looks like the article is a condesation of the book chapter.--ragesoss 22:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Never Learned Hebrew?

This isn't made clear in the article, but it sounds like Einstein never knew Hebrew. How odd: Einstein never knew how to read, write, or speak the traditional language of the Jews, despite being one of the most prominent Jews in the history of the World? Does anyone know if he ever tried to learn it? -205.188.117.65 12:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


never learned Hebrew?

I'm not Jewish, but plucked the following from the listed source, which seemed credible enough:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/yiddish.html

"For nearly a thousand years, Yiddish was the primary, sometimes the only language that Ashkenazi Jews spoke."

"The six million European Jews who died in the Holocaust comprised the majority of the world's Yiddish speakers."

My guess is he probably didn't speak Hebrew, but spoke Yiddish. Actually, this might be an obvious fact to Jewish people! *smiles*

Bptdude 01:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

See the Yiddish article, especially the "The modern Haskalah" section. Yiddish had died out among German Jews by the late 1800s and was primarily an Eastern European dialect spoken in what we would think of as the former Soviet Union and East Bloc countries. So Einstein almost certainly didn't learn Yiddish. If his parents weren't observant, then he might not have learned Hebrew either.--A. B. 02:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Actually I did look up Yiddish in Wiki and found the following:

" On the eve of World War II, there were 10 million Yiddish speakers, overwhelmingly of the Eastern dialects. [Liptzin, 1972, 2] The Holocaust, however, led to a dramatic, sudden decline in the use of Yiddish, as the extensive Jewish communities, both secular and religious, that used Yiddish in their day-to-day life were largely destroyed. "

I think we are talking about Eastern Yiddish versus Western Yiddish. So, to keep on topic, I still would best guess Einstein, spoke Eastern Yiddish, to be exact. I'm done with this thread. It is silly for me to talk about something like this, when there are so many of that culture with more expertise and interest. I'm convinced about the Einstein question, though it is indirect guess.

Bptdude 06:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean up on religious views...A must

I'm going to keep all of the same quotes, but format the section differently, to get rid of the tag...


Continual addition of pseudo-nonsense on this page

So is Jeff allowed to get away with this pseudo-*? Its original research.

Isn't this a case of a user trying to force their original research and subjective point of view on a document. Desdinova 22:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's how it looks to me. "Classical physcist" describes Einstein quite well since he did not accept the quantum view of the universe. Classical physics generally means non-quantum, but includes SR & GR. Use of "block time" is highly non-standard -- it would be clearer to say that E viewed time as another dimension alongside the spatial ones -- which is the standard view, of course. --Michael C. Price talk 07:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There are serious errors in Jeff's additions. For instance he equates causality with determinism, whereas probabilistic processes are still causal. And then he asserts that consequentially time is "pseudodirectional" (new, non-standard terminology) without a nod to standard view that time is just another dimension similar to space (yet one of the references he cites is entitled "4D view of time" which is the standard view in standard terminology). 4D time is not a consquence of indeterminism.

Jeff, if you don't incorporate such changes the likelhood is that all your work will be lost.

--Michael C. Price talk 10:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to possibly request protection for this section.

Desdinova 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted Jeff's changes. Jeff please pay attention to standard terminology, and in particular to the opening sentence of classical physics:

Classical physics is physics based on principles developed before the rise of quantum theory, usually including the special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity. (In contrast, modern physics commonly refers to the physicist's world view wrought by the revolutionary quantum theory.)

--Michael C. Price talk 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)5

I note in the last 24 hours JR has reverted at:

1:21, 6:14 and 12:13

Desdinova 13:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As a heads up - Jeff is now trying to rewrite the classical physics entry to further this obsession with "pseudo-*". More precisely, the section MichaelCPrice quoted above. Desdinova 00:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Urgh. Is there a quack-watch list we can report him too for monitoring? --Michael C. Price talk 00:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Jeff is fairly well known (i.e. notorious) on the USENET group sci.physics, where he continually drips his nonsense. He appears convinced that he is the natural successor to Albert Einstein and is the only person who truly understands physics. As you may imagine he is repeatedly proven wrong. --TWake 19:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think something has to be done - His justification is

"Quantum theory is based on relativity, relativity has not been superseded, it's modern physics, not classical. Right or wrong, Einstein believed in block time." and "Previous wording claimed relativity was "Classical""

Which shows a woeful lack of knowledge of G/S R and QM... Desdinova 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out the Salon link at the bottom of the article -- something worth keeping?
--A. B. 20:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

What Salon link?

Ah that one - read it before, reading it again. Its good - thanks for the pointer ;-)

Desdinova 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll throw this in -

My copy of Hartle:"Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's General Relativity" (My fourth year GR textbook) opens chapter 1 with: "Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject of this book" My copies of "Black Holes : Einsteins outrageous legacy" and "The Road to Reality" all lump relativity in to Classical Physics as well.

Desdinova 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scientific/Religious Perspectives

 Like it or not, 
 everything in this new section is documented as 
 something Einstein strongly believed in.
     Einstein's Perspective of time 
 was not traditional...how could it be ?
 Jeff Relf 09:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You've also put in a lot of extra duplication.

Desdinova 13:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 

 I find it's very misleading to call relativity
 "Classical".  Some call Relativity 
 "modern physics" [47]
 as nothing has superseded it and
 it plays a central role in Relativistic
 quantum field theories
 which are indispensable to 
 the standard model of particle physics.
 Jeff Relf 11:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes some include relativity in modern physics, but also in classical physics since it does not use Planck's constant. The superseding angle is a complete red herring since no one disputes that QFT is part of modern physics. --Michael C. Price talk 11:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its traditional to include relativity in Classical Physics because it contains no uncertainty as such. I have included cites, including a GR text book at UG/PG level, that shows the current position is to include relativity in Classical Physics. I have copied them below from my Talk Page.

My copy of "Road to Reality" by Penrose has a Chapter 19 "The Classical fields of Maxwell and Einstein" and says (Pg 440) "What are now called the classical fields are, indeed, the electromagnetic field of Maxwell and the gravitational field of Einstein".

I think the problem here comes from the rather ambiguous use of the word "Modern" as well. If you read the Classical Physics page it adds more depth to the argument then the Modern Physics page. The definition comes from Wiki's own page on Classical Physics and as I said, in my own studies in University the above definition is the one I was also taught as well. My dissertation was on GR orbital motions so I placed in my dissertation that Relativity was "Modern Physics" when I was corrected by my project supervisor that it comes under Classical Physics. As it stands, there is no quantisation in Relativity. Relativity and QM disagree on the nature of space time on small scales. Relativity's roots comes from classical sources, as I said, Lorentz, Poincare and Maxwell - to name a few.

As I originally said, this is just a very small part of my argument against Jeff. Einstein himself had a very deterministic view of the universe.

Just found in my copy of Kip Thorne: "Black holes and time warps" Classical: Subject to the laws of physics that govern macroscopic objects, non-quantum mechanical.

And my copy of Hartle:"Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's General Relativity" (My fourth year GR textbook) opens chapter 1 with:

"Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject of this book"

You've also been told SEVERAL times about NOT putting in the psuedorandom nonsense has you have NO direct cite for that information to back up your original research.

Desdinova 13:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, without the duplication - that section is now just a list of achievements. I think it doesn't belong. What do others think?


Desdinova 13:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff

I removed

a) the unnecessary duplication bewtween your section and the one below it b) the "pseudorandon" stuff which you have consistently failed to show is original research

Please stop gaming the system, you are working your way around 3RR again.

Desdinova 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,
 Need I document your hate of me ?

 Your sole reason for being here is to revert me.
 Must I show everyone where you endlessly ridiculed
 Wiki_Pedia, Einstein, relativity and me personally ?
     You're only here to vandalize these pages,
 and you're doing a fine job of it to, I might add.
 Further, I can prove to everyone here that
 you don't understand simple time dilation.
   The word Pseudorandom is clear,
 and I used the word Causal to make it even clearer.
 A dice toss is only notionally random.
     As I said above "Classical" implies depricated
 to anyone but yourself.  Relativity has never
 been depricated, it an essential part of both
 the standard model of particle physics
 and the concordance model of cosmology.
    I'm documenting
 an important part of Einstein's life...
 the part that you, and people like you,
 hate so very much.
     Everything I wrote is tied together
 in a thread... it can't be separated.
 I'm adding it back.
 Jeff Relf 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I do understand relativity pretty well Jeff. As I have said, I spent a year studying GR orbital motion. My knowledge of relativity is not on trial - stop setting up strawmen arguments. I don't hare GR or SR, excep when I have to revise it for exams ;-).

2) I have never said Classical means deprecated - thats your interpretation. Penrose, Hartle and Thorne all class relativity as Classical. It is "Classical" as it shows no probabilistic tendencies. In fact, the nature of the HUP is in conflict with GR when it comes to the nature of spacetime in small scales - a prime reason for classing relativity as "Classical" particularly considering its roots.

3) I have already reported you for 3RR as it is obvious that you have no intent to show consensus.

Desdinova 14:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Desdinova,
 Thanks for bringing such a huge flame war
 to Wiki_Pedia... we're all indebted to you.
 Thanks again for immediately reverting
 anything I write... now I know what
 the word consensus means to you.
 Might you tell us why this aspect of Eintein's
 life must never be told ? huh ?
 Jeff Relf 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You are the one with the inability to show consensus Jeff. The history of this page has shown MULTIPLE people telling you that your "pseudorandom" stuff is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and has no place in this article. This is not to do with "surpression of the truth" as you seem to think it is, because you have shown time and time again no direct cites of the source of this information - only a mangled interpretation of other sources.

As I have pointed out, it is not just me that is concerned about this. I am not interested in a flame war, only the truth. You have shown a deliberate desire to impose your interpretation to this argument, even when shown (as in the "Classical" argument above) that you are mistaken.

Desdinova 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It may be worth noting Jeff's comments on news://sci.physics regarding this - mainly in msg id:Jeff_Relf_2006_Jul_10_FaJl@Cotse.NET - where he stated "I'll wander on to any page I like and edit whatever/whenever I want." (message titled "I've already won") --TWake 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Desdinova, if relativity is classical
 then how do you explain QFT's presence in
 the standard model ?
 I don't like the word "Classical",
 it suggests buggy whips, not QFT.
 Jeff Relf 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeff, this is the same problem you have had in your USENET debates on this subject. The crux of the issue is that you dont like the word classical because it conjures images for you of something you cant equate with relativity. Other people do not suffer from this, yet you feel the need to assert your issues on every one else. Can you see this is wrong? --TWake 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    There's nothing wrong with saying:
 "pseudorandom ( i.e. causal )"
 The idea is there, Einstein is famous
 for thinking it, and he's quoted saying
 something almost exactly like it.
 As if that weren't enough, I show:
   WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_Time
   Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
   Scientific American, Sep 2002:
     Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
   Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
 Please get over Wiki_Pedia, Einstein and me,
 and let the story be told... no more insta-reverts.
 I need all the parts to tell the story.
 Jeff Relf 15:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Jeff, until you learn to debate in a civilised fashion and start listening to what people tell you all your contributions will be reverted as vandalism. You have argued here and elsewhere pushing your non-standard terminology, but no-one believes you or has any interest in your minority view of one. If you have any new physical insights then get the stuff published in a peer reviewed journal. Any non-original research insights are acceptable but only presented in the standard terminology. Wikipedia is not in the business of acting as your personal formum for pushing your neologisms. I don't seriously expect you to take on board any single word I say (why should I, you haven't listened to anyone else?); I expect you to be banned soon. --Michael C. Price talk 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


You said:

" Hi Desdinova, if relativity is classical 

 then how do you explain QFT's presence in
 the standard model ?"

Plenty of classical physics shows up in modern physics Jeff. Non-Euclidean geometry is considered classical for example. By that arguement, there is no classical physics.

I already pointed out Hartle, Penrose and Thorne. Are you saying you know more about relativity then these three?

" The idea is there, Einstein is famous 

 for thinking it, and he's quoted saying
 something almost exactly like it."

And right there is the problem "something almost exactly" which is not equal to "he said that...".

" As if that weren't enough, I show: 

   WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Block_Time
   Philsci-Archive.Pitt.EDU/archive/00002408/
   Scientific American, Sep 2002:
     Urgrue.ORG/lib/mysterious-flow.html
   Plato.Stanford.EDU/entries/time/#8
 Please get over Wiki_Pedia, Einstein and me,
 and let the story be told... no more insta-reverts.
 I need all the parts to tell the story."

Which has no relevance to this part of the discussion.

Desdinova 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Einsteins nationality

I think the notion of a "German-born Swiss-American scientist" is not appropriate. Einstein never described himself in that way. His roots of thinking and cultural imprint was German (not in a geographical but in a cultural sense). And later in his life his Jewish background became more and more important for him. He adopted Swiss citizenship to escape from possible military service in the German Army in 1896 but became again German citizen when he moved to Berlin and adopted American citizenship when he later had settled in America. He admired the American democracy and fully supported America's struggle during the war against Nazi Germany. But everyone can realize when hearing his American radio speeches that he only spoke English with an effort. He still performed all his important intellectual discussions even in his time in America in German (e.g. with his close friend Kurt Gödel in Princeton or with other refugees from Europe like Leó Szilárd and others).

I therefore suggest to apostrophize him as a German-Jewish scientist and changed the article accordingly. Please discuss!

Furfur, July 13, 2006

I agree with this change and only defined his nationality in accordance with Kip Thorne's book Black Holes and Time Warps.

Help wanted for an Einstein spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is [http:// einstein. ipfox. com/ A selection of Quotes from Dr. Einstein]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


I'll keep an eye out - thanks for the headsup

Desdinova 11:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Dispute

So, people have tried to put an infobox on Einstein's page for what must be the fifth time at least. Is there any great reason to do this? The non-scientist box contains no useful information not already found immediately in the article, while the "scientist box" has huge amounts of whitespace and dubious categories like his Erdos number (who cares? does anybody really think that the Erdos number means anything?), the names of his children and spouses (is this vital information?), and other information which looks completely silly to try and be boiled down to a single field category. I think all of the infoboxes are ugly and unnecessary, and there is no mandate to have infoboxes on biography pages or scientist pages. I've removed it for now, are there other opinions on this? To compare, here it is with a generic infobox, scientist infobox, and no infobox. In the past, every attempt to add an infobox has been rejected as unnecessary, ugly, and potentially destabilizing (just what we need, another place for people to try and boil Einstein's religious views into three words or less). --Fastfission 21:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the infobox is not especially useful. (But I must take strong exception to your shocking disregard for the importance of Erdos numbers, see: Wikipedia:Wikipedians by Erdős number!) Paul August ☎ 21:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Please consider putting the infobox back for the following reasons:

  • The white space is there anyway because of the contents header. Ugliness is relative. When things stabilise white can easily filled with something useful.
  • The info is no more silly than the infobox for US presidents or that in many other categories. They are there for a reason. It in fact is very useful to have dates & details summarized in a quick snapshot.
  • It was a good infobox and thus was rather draconian removing it so quickly. Please give it at least two weeks in future, so others can actually see it and form an opinion. How can any one discuss it if it has been removed? I understand the need to quickly remove vandalism, but in this case it obviously was done with care and scholarship. It clearly was a rolls-royce job with good information in the infobox.
  • To answer your question: "Is there any great reason," the answer is twofold: (a) You are looking up basic biographical information and you want to know where Einstein (say) graduated or the names of his wives, you have to trawl through the article for 20 minutes. With the infobox you get this in a snapshop. You get all his relevant dates in a snapshot too. That's why the Wikipedia supports infoboxes! Look at them in other categories and see how widespread and useful they are. (b) The new infobox had a great concept of recording the Erdos number that most people are fascinated by and also recording the scientist's doctorate advisor and key doctorates he supervised.
  • Now just think about that last point for a second and its implication. One of the problems in current biographies of scientists it is really difficult finding out a scientist's "academic heritage." That is who is the "father" (doctoral advisor) of the scientist, and who is the "grandfather" and so on. This is very very useful for those who study the history of science in the understanding of the linkages and influences. It is really hard work digging up such information in conventional encyclopedias, but a web-based wikipedia is perfect for this task. As the infobox propagates to all scientists one just clicks on the infobox links and you instantly can find a scientist's "academic tree" easily going back to the 16th century. This is the beauty of the wikipedia. So let's use its power for good!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
  • This infobox also recorded the religion of scientists. It seems it was this field of the infobox that really annoyed you the most. OK, so let's discuss it. There are many solutions to this problem. As you know with infoboxes if you leave a field blank it goes away. So this could be a good solution, if people deem that a one-word descriptor such as "humanism" doesn't adequately summarise Einstein's religious position. Another possible solution is to put a link in the infobox to the religion discussion in the text.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)
Please sign your posts. BTW I agree with the above unsigned POV: I thought the infobox looked quite good, was informative and, yes, Erdos numbers are cool. Please restore it. --Michael C. Price talk 23:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
The Erdos number doesn't seem to mean much and it seems like a science-geek in-joke; the equivalent of the "six-degrees to Kevin Bacon" sort of thing. I think we need to take into account here that this is a general audience encyclopedia, and that most people are going to be confused by it. (I had never heard of an Erdos number before and I'm relatively well-informed about science and scientists compared to most of the population.) I think it looks pretty unprofessional. If we were going to use silly numbers, some of those which reflect how many papers he wrote and their degree of citation would be more appropriate. (Einstein's 1905 papers are among the most highly cited in physics, if I recall correctly). --Fastfission 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't consider the whitespace to really be a problem. And yes, ugliness is relative, but I think the infobox is uglier. You claim the infobox was "very useful" but I still don't see what it is useful for. In the rare event that somebody needs to know about his kids and wife they can find the information in the article without any difficulty. His relevant dates are in the first line of the article—if they can't find that quickly, then we really can't help them. As for the doctoral advisor and students, for Einstein we have "unknown" as the advisor and "None" for the students, so I really don't see how making such a strong argument for the importance of those categories being at the top as being very relevant here. Again, I don't see how this is likely to help people at all. Most of that information is useless to 99% of the people who will read this article, and the information which is not useless is easily found if not already in the first paragraph. --Fastfission 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
So remove the duplicated information from the first paragraph. --Michael C. Price talk 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Duplicate info like what his name is, what he is known for, when he was born and died, what his nationality is, and things like that? Give me a break. They are more useful in the first paragraph than they are in the infobox. --Fastfission 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I note that Isaac Newton has a simple infobox; just the bare details: classic portrait, born & died, where/when. Why shouldn't Einstein? As with Newton I agree it would not be good to try to categorise his religious views. --Michael C. Price talk 08:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well Newton was a hard core Anglican. He's is a simple case.
"Why shouldn't Einstein?" The question here is "Why should Einstein?" I don't edit the Newton page, I don't have any opinions about how they run their own ship. --Fastfission 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
No, he denied the Trinity. Prophetic Unitarian might be closer. --Michael C. Price talk 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
But I agree there would be many scientists that would hard to categorize. Polkinghorne would be an easy one :-) I think in those cases the religion field can be easily skipped. If you look at infoboxes for presidents, actors etc etc they use a particular infobox template but do not necessarily use all the fields. The feilds only need be used when appropriate.


First proposed infobox

OK guys. Here's an example for discussion. No religion and no Erdos number. Any objections?

Albert Einstein
1947 photographed by Oren J. Turner
BornMarch 14, 1879
Ulm in Württemberg, Germany
DiedApril 18, 1955
Princeton, New Jersey
NationalityOriginally German-Jewish, then finally a US-Swiss citizen
Alma materETH Zurich
Known forBrownian motion, photoelectric effect, special relativity, and general relativity
Spouse(s)Mileva Marić (1903-1919), Elsa Löwenthal (1919-1936)
ChildrenLieserl (b. 1902, d. unknown), Hans Albert (b. 1904, d. 1973), Eduard "Tete" (b. 1910, d. 1965)
AwardsNobel Prize (1921), Copley Medal (1925), Franklin Medal (1935)
Scientific career
FieldsPhysics
Doctoral advisor<to be checked>
Doctoral students<to be checked>
Wow, this is an awesome infobox. In response to the concerns of Fastfission, here are some pointers to remember:
  • The issue is not about Einstein. Think beyond Einstein and note how useful an infobox template will be when propagated to all scientist biographies.
  • Wikipedia supports infoboxes for danged good reasons. Let's use them! They nicely encapsulate key biographic data.
  • If we are going to delete infoboxes for scientists, then perhaps we should visit all the US President pages and delete their infoboxes too, and in all the other categories. Clearly that would be vandalism and wrong. If that is wrong, then why was deleting the Einstein infobox right?
  • Fastfission, I challenge you to start a stopwatch and time how long it takes you to trawl through the Einstein article and find the infobox data. You'll see it's not that easy. I will eat my hat if you can do it under 20 mins. In fact, if you do this exercise it will help you to notice that some data is actually not in the Einstein article, and that parts of the article are so poorly structured and ambiguous you will spend a lot longer than 20mins. For example, say you didn't know that Einstein was a dual Swiss-US citizen. Try finding that in the article. The infobox thus has a secondary benefit for motivating improvements in the article. Also there is a part of the article that is ambiguously written and makes it sound like Einstein had a son called Paul. The infobox helps the reader to work out that there is no son called Paul and therefore the article is talking about another relation to Einstein. The infobox fixes a lot of readership questions and problems. In otherwords the infobox can act rather like a "spreadsheet" ensuring all the checks and balances add up.
  • Regarding the objection that birthdate etc. is at the beginning of the article and the infobox. If you look at examples of biographies in non-science categories they all repeat the birth info in the infobox. It's just standard infobox practice. This because there is a category of readership that will just browse infoboxes only. I think this and many of the other objections have arisen because of thinking just about the Einstein article in isolation. However if one thinks more globally about how the whole wikipedia is designed then the infobox makes total sense.
  • Request to Fastfission: please reconsider putting the infobox back. How much free beer would you like in return? :-)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) at 11:35, July 16, 2006
The dates of spouses overlap. Also I suggest changing Nationality from German-Jewish to German (there is no nation "Jew"). And please sign your posts, otherwise people will think your words are mine. --Michael C. Price talk 12:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm someone else. I'm new so I don't know how to sign. Sorry. But all I want to say is that Einstein divorced Mileva in 1919 and married Elsa the same year, so there is actually no overlap. Einstein was pretty slick when it came to women! I hope no one thinks this is you. Perhaps I can disagree with you a little and say appending "Jewish" is quite normal in biographies. I agree its not a nationality, but it seems to be a widespread thang. I guess it wouldn't hurt to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs) 13:51, July 16, 2006 (UTC)

  • Again, why have his spouses and children in an infobox? Why do we need this information in an infobox at all? The rare person who really wants to know the names of Einstein's sons can figure it out, just like the rare person who just wants to know what he was doing during World War II would as well (or should we add a field for that in the infobox?).
  • There is no "standard infobox practice" — some people like them, many people do not, not all articles have them at all, and typically they are decided on a case-by-case basis. There is no mandate to do it, and I honestly don't see the benefit for all scientists to have standardized infoboxes. Most encyclopedias do not have such silly things which arbitrarily chosen categories. I don't know what the "dang good reason" is that Wikipedia supports them, and if you can't articulate it I think it says something about how "dang good" it is.
  • For something where there are typical and standardized categories (i.e. the "Vice President" and "Terms" and "Preceded by" for a President), I can see where that sort of information can make sense. For someone like Einstein, I don't. Most of the categories are arbitrarily chosen (why his children? why his wives? why his last university? why his alma mater?) and all of the non-arbitrary information (i.e. birth/death dates, what he is "known for", his field of study) are in the introduction, where they ought to be.
  • I still have not seen any explanation which explains what we get from an infobox that we don't already have from an article, and so in the end it comes down to aesthetics and perhaps professionalism, which IMO would default to not having a silly and somewhat pretentious infobox. I sincerely doubt there is a category of "readership" who "browse infoboxes only" (and even if there were, I fail to see how this infobox would tell them anything useful or interesting that they couldn't get from the first paragraph of the article). This is an encyclopedia article — there is a "dang good reason" that Wikipedia supports having narrative text for things like biographies and encourages people to use them to reflect the nuance in someone's life, rather than trying to boil them down to a few arbitrarily chosen variables. I think the infobox is both aesthetically and conceptually ugly, I think it is useless, and I think it is silly. I think the endless attempts to change fields in the infobox (was Einstein a physicist or a theoretical physicist? was he also known for his work on a unified field theory, or for the formulation of E=mc^2? should his "residence" reflect all of his residences, or just his final one? did he die in Princeton, NJ, or Trenton, NJ? and god knows what we are supposed to do with the "nationality" field). I think it was fine the way it was. --Fastfission 16:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't see your problem. The various people above have answered your questions in great detail. You are repeating yourself. Did you read them carefully? Did you do the suggested challenge of taking out your stopwatch? Sure there can sometimes can be a little arbitrariness in an infobox...but, hey, what we chose to retain in a whole article is all a matter of taste too. You seem to be the only guy/gal complaining. What makes you the big cop? Relax. Take it easy and try to see the big picture. Tell me this: why is it that in the Spanish wikipedia the Einstein article is so much better? Do you even realise how bad the current English version is? (See above discussion for the flaws that are in it). Now get this: this discussion page goes on and on and is even archived for several years. Whereas in the Spanish wikipedia the Einstein article is so much crisper, well-structured, and cleaner—and guess what: there is only one tiny page of discussion!! Not volumes of archived discussion. How is it the Spanish can be so civil, laid back and sensible, whereas we English speakers are always having these edit wars? Cummon' man, be a little Spanish tonite and put the infobox back. Leave out some of the fields you don't like. You can leave them bank. When you look through the archives of this discussion site here, the name "Fastfission" comes up over and over again. Your name doesn't appear in the Spanish discussion board and it is 1% of the size this one—ask yourself what you are doing to this site! Are you the cause of all these endless discussion wars? We beg you to put the infobox back and show a little charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.34.209.186 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 18:10, 16 July 2006

In saying that Fastfission is the only one opposed to infoboxes, you don't seem to read very well: The second post was a concurrence by Paul August.
I too think the infobox is ugly — and (in the case of Einstein as least) useless, misleading and contentious. (The sample above, for example, lists his residence as USA and his university as Princeton. This despite the fact that he did no memorable work in the USA or at Princeton.) I find no added value in the sample above.
You mention the length of this talk page. Much of that length is in arguments against additions of nonsense to the article. The top half of the talk page, e.g., is "discussion" with a single editor, who insisted that the article must contain the word "pseudorandom." This article seems to attract nuts.
You might be reasonable about whether Einstein was German-Jewish or about leaving out of an infobox a section about his religion, but these are very contentious issues on this article. People are continually trying to add nonsense about his religion. Look at the edit history, and read this talk page. Note in particular that when Fastfission removed the infobox, he interrupted an edit war on Einstein's religion.
Perhaps an infobox may be useful for some scientists. For Einstein it is misleading; he defies being pinned down to the few words that fit in the infobox. --teb728 00:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I am 14 years old and at high school. I have never tried this before so do not know what this signing thing is about. Anyways, me, my friends and all the milions of kids in the world love those infoboxes. When we have home work assinments that make us rite essays about famous people, we are suppose to add stuff about family life of the person and there kids and who they married. So remember us. We are people to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.36.216.111 (talk • contribs) 15:11, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Hah! Well said -- we need to remember there is a wider audience here. And to respond to teb728's point, Einstein does not defy description in a few words any more than anyone else. Just leave out those items from the infobox that do not admit to a concise description. How hard is that?
PS to stop most of the edit wars semi-protect the article. Admins? --Michael C. Price talk 15:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I haven't been following this article long enough, but my impression is that most edit warriors (here and elsewhere) are logged-in users. Semi-protection stops principally vandals. --teb728 02:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
My impression is that anons add substantially to the noise level during edit wars. --Michael C. Price talk 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I have to admit that 80.36.216.111 and his sock puppets, 212.145.145.227 and 194.42.125.16 have proved I was wrong. I've submitted an RFP. --teb728 21:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Second proposed infobox

Albert Einstein
Photographed by Oren J. Turner (1947)
BornMarch 14, 1879
Ulm in Württemberg, Germany
DiedApril 18, 1955
Princeton, New Jersey
NationalityInitially German; finally dual US-Swiss citizen
Known forBrownian motion, photoelectric effect, special relativity, and general relativity
Spouse(s)Mileva Maric (1903-1919), Elsa Löwenthal née Einstein (1919-1936)
ChildrenLieserl (b. 1902, d. unknown), Hans Albert (b. 1904, d. 1973), Eduard "Tete" (b. 1910, d. 1965)
AwardsNobel Prize (1921), Copley Medal (1925), Franklin Medal (1935)
Scientific career
FieldsPhysics
InstitutionsUniversity of Zurich (1909-1910), Karl Ferdinand University (1911), ETH Zurich (1912-1913), University of Berlin (1914-1931), Princeton (1932-1955)

OK, guys here is a version that overcomes all the major objections above. The only way to resolve this dispute is to now go ahead and put it on the page for a 30-day trial period to see how it goes. There can be no reasonable objection to a trial period.

80.36.216.111 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In another section User:203.114.48.84 said "The wiki status quo is 'to be bold.'" Yes, indeed, "be bold." But if you get reverted, negotiate. That means persuade. A good start would be agreeing to give up on "dispute" templates, which are unacceptable even to those who will accept an infobox. Note also that insults have an anti-persuasive effect.--teb728 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Einstein autistic?

There is clearly POV-claims in the section about Einsten not being autistic. AFAIK, this has definitely not been disproved or discarded. A BBC-article on the topic confirms that it hasn't been disprove: [48]

I think for POV-reasons, this article should be added as proof that this is still a possibility. --Rdos 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Line "There are innumerable legends which suggest that Einstein was a poor student, a slow learner, or a sufferer of autism (such as High-functioning autism, or Asperger syndrome), dyslexia, and/or attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder." Legends certainly seems POV. I'm altering it to the NPOV "claims" —the preceding comment is by 69.123.210.71 - 20:28, 19 July 2006: Please sign your posts!

I think that calling the section "myths" is biased towards the perspective that Einstein is not dyslexic and autistic. I really think something like "speculation and controversy" would be more NPOV. Q0 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Henri Poincaré

In light of the new Einstein letters, more credibility has been given to the fact that Einstein was not working in isolation. This paragraph should be updated to reflect these new findings.--Esprit15d 19:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Box

A dispute box is totally necessary for a number of reasons:

  • Many readers may pass through the page and not realise there is a dispute
  • In thirty days time if the info box is suddenly removed, all these people will

then wonder why the box was removed and then there will be a flood of protest.

  • Therefore in the interest of keeping wars to a minimum, the warning box is definitely needed.
  • This namby-pamby attitude of "oooh, it lookths so obtruthif" is really spineless. Real adults use warning boxes.
  • Hiding under a cloud of pretense that nothing is happening is how wars are created
  • Warning boxes shoot straight and tell it like it is.

212.145.145.227 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some fuzzy and duplicated info so that it shoots quicker and straighter. Hope you all like it. --Michael C. Price talk 21:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually the way that edit wars are created is that some editors insist on their own way and refuse to compromise. I removed {{Calm talk}} and {{trialperiod}} (as opposed to reverting the whole info box entry) to see if without it other editors would let the infobox stand without them.
Incidentally, I notice that IP 80.36.216.111 disappeared at the same time you (IP 212.145.145.227) appeared, defending the same position. If you are the same person, you are now in violation of WP:3RR.
In any case, using insults like "spineless" will win you no supporters here. --teb728 18:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


It seems the warning box is necessary as other editors are removing the infobox unwittingly. The dispute box is really needed otherwise people really do not know what is going on.

Also because laguage like "spineless" is being used, I think the "calm talk" box is now justified.

194.42.125.16 19:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Debate

I've removed the infobox again. I think we should achieve a consensus of the editors of this page first before the an infobox is added to this page. Paul August ☎ 23:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the infobox again. I think we should achieve a consensus of the editors of this page first before the an infobox is removed from this page. --Michael C. Price talk 23:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Paul August ☎ 00:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is foolish. The status quo should be maintained, at least on a featured article, until there is consensus on the talk page. In this case, the status quo is no infobox. I myself have no opinion one way or the other, so long as the article is not polluted with childish dispute templates. –Joke 01:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Leave it out pending consensus. My vote toward that consensus is ditch the ugly thing, here and on other scientist pages. Vsmith 01:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it out. It's ugly and mostly unhelpful. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep it in! It's a 30-day trial period. The wikipedia will be around long after all you guys are dead and you'll have no control over it then. Stop sweating small stuff. How can the public have an intelligent discussion about this box if it is not there to talk about? This is a legit box with good info that deserves some discussion. I think a 30-day trial period is entirely reasonable.

If you guys are scared of the 30-day period because everyone else will like it and want it kept in....then you guys need to be seriously banned from wikipedia because there is no place for control freaks here. However, I'm sure that you are all nice guys and that is _not_ your fear.

So 30-days it is. Unless you can spell out a legitimate fear why 30-days is bad. You need to clearly state a valid argument.

The wiki status quo is "to be bold." Thirty days is teeny-weeny compared to the next 1000 years of the wiki's existence. A reality check is in order here:-) I have reverted the infobox. If you put back, be warned that I am only 16 years old so will outlive you and revert it when you are all too old to care. The future of wiki in the hands of your kids. So be nice to us and try to understand that we love infoboxes.

You adults are behaving like little spoilt brats, and us kids have a maturer outlook. Go back to the old people's home where you belong and keep outta here! 203.114.48.84 11:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I suggest you create a named user login account, otherwise you may find yourself blocked out when the protection kicks in. --Michael C. Price talk 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No Infobox is my vote. Infoboxes are very useful for movies, radio stations, countries...things that have laundry lists of tangible information that everyone will most likely be looking for (population, box office gross, call letters, etc.). Scientists don't need infoboxes because cramming their research into 3 words is too derivatized to describe their contribution to the topics meaningfully. The text of the infobox also reads like a duplication of the summary paragraph at the top of the article. Birth, death, a prize or two, fields of research, countries of residence...it's all in there. Scientists don't put up stats, so they don't need a baseball card at the top of their articles. Let the article speak for itself and do away with the infobox. ju66l3r 14:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What rubbish. Scientists are no different from other notables. There is no reason why basic, consensual biographical details shouldn't appear in an infobox. --Michael C. Price talk 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
To use one of your own rhetorical devices: There is no reason why basic, consensual biographical details should appear in an infobox. See, I can be just as dismissive, as you have done multiple times within this topic, all the while adding nothing to the discussion, yet interjecting my opinion as fact at the same time. Back to the point, scientists are people, making their biographical encylopedic articles different from those of inanimate notable objects (like movies, radio stations, countries). The biographic nature of the article should easily convey all of the infobox facts but in a context of the person's life that gives much more information than the infobox ever will. The infobox format also requires the removal of parts of a person's life that don't easily fit the space requirements. For example, the most recently removed version of the infobox was missing at least 2 of the Institutions that Einstein held appointments at as well as the fact that he held Prussian citizenship and as a young man he resided in Italy at one point. These are examples of how boiling down to just the largest or most important facts in the infobox misses out on details which the box makes one believe it has conveyed. Use of an infobox on this page (and others like it) adds next to no value (if more summary is needed, let it be added to the introduction) and potentially removes the finer details of a person's contributions, legacy, and life that brings a person to read the biographical article in the first place. ju66l3r 04:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's clear that we haven't reached a consensus over the past week. What next? Should someone initiate a straw poll perhaps? Maybe an RfC? ju66l3r 18:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep the infobox. I see no special reason why it should not appear in this article when it appears in many, many other biographical articles on wikipedia. Deputydog23 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No infobox Just because someone gets the bright idea that there could be an infobox in all biographies doesn’t make a Wikipedia policy that the editors who watch the bio need a “special reason” to keep it out. An infobox (like all content) needs a reason to be included not a reason to be left out. An infobox makes sense in the bios of most if not all celebrities and politicians, but it makes no sense here. BTW, the Nationality entry in the 13 August version should be reviewed in the light of the discussion at Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist?. --teb728 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Another Rumor

I've been told that Einstein only had one suit of clothing, although several pairs of it, so in the morning he would never need to decide what to wear, for there was no choice. It's kind of apparent in all his pictures, he's wearing the same thing, I'm wondering if someone is willing to add it to myths and rumors, or is it true? Lovok 12:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I heard that, although my source is the film "The Fly"... --Michael C. Price talk 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's true or not, if someone added it, it would be immediately reverted as trivial and unencyclopedic. --teb728 21:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I find that a very sad comment, that you should dictate what other people should be interested in about Einstein. The whole world knows that Einstein didn't wear socks (or did he? WP is silent on the matter) and regards this as an expression of his iconclasm or independence of mind; yet you take it upon yourself to declare that such satorial items are too trivial to mention. --Michael C. Price talk 21:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a compendium for trivia. It is not just him who makes up these sorts of standards, there are lots of us who would rather our entries be useful and respectful and leave the pointless (and probably apocryphal) bits to "the whole world" out there on the internet which trades in kooky trivia. --Fastfission 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What is trivia is subjective and POVish. Einstein's sock habits have been noted by notable people (including Einstein himself[49]) -- thus it is itself notable. --Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is 84 kb already. Need to find ways of tightening rather than add more useless banalities. Maybe start an article called Useless Einstein trivia orTabloid Einstein. So, even if some find socks and suits mind-bogglingly fascinating, let's leave that sort of trivia out. Cheers, Vsmith 10:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A shame you can't offer unprejudiced advice. A more sensible solution to the problem of overlarge articles is to break them down into separate articles/sections. --Michael C. Price talk 10:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, shame on me! Now isn't that sensible solution sorta what I was saying? Sorry 'bout my weird attempt at humor. Vsmith 13:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Well if that was 'sorta' what you were saying it would help if you had actually said it. As I'm sure you're aware humour can easily be misinterpreted without emoticons. --Michael C. Price talk 13:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I see that the rest of you are as bored as I am since they semi-protect the page: No vandalism, no edit wars. Sigh --teb728 17:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cosmology

I changed "...significant contributions to ... cosmology" in the intro to "...significant contributions to ... gravitation." I was reverted by an editor citing the cosmological constant and dark matter. It is true that the cosmological constant was Einstein's idea, but that wrong idea is pretty much where his contribution to cosmology begins and ends. (As for dark matter, I don't know where that came from.) On the other hand, his theory of gravitation is the basis of modern cosmology. –Joke 12:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be an author who earlier tried to put some other nonsense into this page, as it fits their interpretation of Einstein and his work

Desdinova 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I never tried to put nonsense into this page. Don't make baseless accusations. The following is not my interpretation of Einstein and his work. Einstein predicted an effect called cosmological shear. Astrophysicists are seeing that he was right all along about measuring what we now call dark matter. (Aside: The cosmological constant may serve as the most economical solution to the accelerating universe problem. It is not a wrong idea.)

--68.224.247.234 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say he made a significant to cosmology as well as gravitation. Who before Einstein constructed a plausible gravitating cosmos model? I know Newton tried but I think it is generally reckoned (now, not then) that was catastrophically gravitationally unstable. --Michael C. Price talk 20:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It was not Einstein. Einstein did it wrong and had an unstable model. (I don't know if Newton did anything – I can't see why his model would be unstable, if indeed he ever worked on it – perhaps it is related to Olber's paradox?) Alexander Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, Howard Percy Robertson and Arthur Geoffrey Walker were the ones who did it, using Einstein's theory. –Joke 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Einstein's model was unstable, but not as unstable as Newton's. See Appendix B "Newton and the infinite static universe" Alan Guth (1997). The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Random House. ISBN 0224044486.. GR was major step forward for cosmology. --Michael C. Price talk 20:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It is a gravitational version of Olber's paradox, that an infinite homogeneous mass distribution is unstable. That is pretty much exactly the same instability that plagues the Einstein static universe.
I think the instability is more profound with Newton, although I'd have to check to be sure. --Michael C. Price talk 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the instability is more profound with Einstein, because not only does the severe perturbative instability of Newton's model persist, but also the cosmological constant has to be fine-tuned to ensure a static universe (although one might say this a problem with Newton's model too). –Joke 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, it is much worse with Newton -- the whole Newtonian universe collapses in , whereas Einstein's original model was metastable. --Michael C. Price talk 07:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't contest that GR was a major step forward for cosmology – it was the tool that, combined with the cosmological principle and the Copernican principle, allowed the first understanding of the structure of the universe as a whole. Likewise, the transistor was a giant step forward for computer science. That doesn't mean that John Bardeen made significant contributions to computer science. –Joke 21:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I would have thought it implied just that. --Michael C. Price talk 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's Nobel biography confirms his contributions to relativistic cosmology. --68.224.247.234 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This section is getting a little off track. The issue is not whether Einstein contributed indirectly to cosmology: No one is disputing that. The issue is whether this contribution should be mentioned in the lead paragraph alongside quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. I think it should not. --teb728 22:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Certainly, his contributions to those areas, and to gravitation, are of an order much greater than his contributions to cosmology. –Joke 23:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Einstein and de Sitter both developed cosmological models in 1917. Einstein obtained a static universe by “tinkering” with his own equations of general relativity… he added the so-called cosmological constant to prevent his presumed static universe from contracting and collapsing under its own gravity. This cosmological model is referred to as the Einstein-de Sitter Model of the Universe. --68.224.247.234 23:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There is an interesting historical paper about this here Janssen paper. –Joke 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Further, Einstein's formulation of the general theory of relativity is widely regarded as the most significant contribution to cosmology made by an individual. In fact, this theory is the entire basis for cosmology and the Big Bang theory. What is indirect about these contributions and, more importantly, why are they relatively lesser when compared to his contributions to statistical and quantum mechanics? To state his contributions to relativity theory but ignore those to cosmology is ridiculous. (Note: Einstein introduced valuable results in relativistic cosmology, a branch of theoretical cosmology.) --68.224.247.234 00:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Widely regarded by whom? Many introductory texts on cosmology start from an entirely Newtonian point of view – in fact, the Friedmann equation can be viewed as a Newtonian equation. I am not denying that it is important – indeed the physical cosmology article, which I largely wrote, cites it, along with Hubbles observation of the redshift-luminosity relationship, as the foundation of modern cosmology. But it is a theory of gravity, not a cosmological model, and thus a tool used by cosmologists. Einstein's best known work on cosmological model building is pretty much limited to the Einstein static universe. This is by no means insignificant – every cosmologist knows what it is, and why it is a failure – but it is not that important. By all means mention it in the article, just not in the intro. –Joke 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on this matter or not? --68.224.247.234 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you agree with my comments? –Joke 00:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He laid the foundations for cosmology with his general theory of relativity and took one of the first steps towards modelling the behavior of the entire universe through his application of this theory. I agree with Michael Pryce in the above example of Bardeen. --68.224.247.234 01:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

"He contributed to statistical mechanics by his development of the quantum theory of a monatomic gas and he has also accomplished valuable work in connection with atomic transition probabilities and relativistic cosmology." Do you refute this statement in his Nobel biography? --68.224.247.234 01:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What if the phrasing were to state "relativistic cosmology" rather than cosmology (maybe referencing this sourced information)? --68.224.247.234 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have made this edit I aforementioned and have included the reference. I see no reason for further conflict. --68.224.247.234 02:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made my perspective clear, but I don't intend to carry on the pointless conversation any longer. Perhaps we should just replace the page with the Nobel biography, and be done with it? –Joke 02:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

One reference to the Nobel biography does not suggest replacing the entire article with this source. Your pointless sarcasm is not worth my time. I can see all you are interested is reverting the work of others -- I proposed a solution and you have become offensive. Do not lecture me, you are unqualified. --68.224.247.234 02:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In what way am I unqualified? –Joke 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please - personal jabs don't belong here. Keep focused. The consensus seems to be that the cosmology bit is valid for inclusion within the article, but not important enough for the intro. At least that's my take on it. So, stop the revert war and find a spot elswhere in the article for the info & source. Vsmith 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


I'm with Joke on this one. Relativity is a tool that is used in Cosmology sure, but Walker, Robertson, etc etc. The transistor comment above is a useful analogy.

Desdinova 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it was an awful analogy, because the transistor isn't really a contribution to computer science, but to computer technology. If we neutrally rephrase the sentence we can see how misleading it is:

Likewise, the X was a giant step forward for Y-science. That doesn't mean that X's inventor made significant contributions to Y- science.

which is plainly false. --Michael C. Price talk 12:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, both of you, let's stay on topic here: This talk page is not a forum for general discussions but a place to discuss what should go in the article. I'm with Vsmith: "The cosmology bit is valid for inclusion within the article, but not important enough for the intro." --teb728 17:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with your conclusion -- I just don't like seeing bogus arguments being put forward, even if I agree with the conclusions. And BTW the false analogy wasn't off topic. --Michael C. Price talk 17:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's work is a tool that's used in Cosmology, but its also used in a lot of other places as well. I agree that the phrasing in the intro would be better in the main subject - otherwise one could argue that a lot of current physics comes under the same boat. There's also the issue that seemingly went undiscussed about making edits before the discussion...

As joke said - a lot of cosmology starts off from Newtonian principles. I think the word "gravitation" is better considering it describes the fundamental tool underneath that Einstein did his work in.


Desdinova 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think the rider "and gravitation" should be deleted from the intro -- it already mentions general relativity and implies ("moreover") that "gravitation" is something outside his relativity work. --Michael C. Price talk 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that. --teb728 22:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree to the fact that Einstein made valuable contributions to the more restrictive branch of theoretical cosmology known as relativistic cosmology, but not to cosmology, in general, beyond general relativity. Perhaps, the term "gravitation" can be replaced to account for this. --Kasparov 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, well seem to have a sorta consensus, so I struck while the iron was hot and deleted the reference to "gravitation" from the intro. --Michael C. Price talk 23:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone contend with the addition of relativistic cosmology to the list under debate? --Kasparov 23:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll've to have clue me in a bit here. Are you talking about the introduction: if so, I don't think we need mention it there, and that seems(?) to be the consensus. If we're talking about other sections, is that in the proposal in the section below (here on the talk page): if so we can address the issue there. --Michael C. Price talk 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the introduction. --Kasparov 23:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't really know what relativistic cosmology means. It is certainly not a term that is in wide use. Is it related to high-energy astrophysics? or does it just mean cosmology with relativity, which is implicit these days? In any case, I think it would be best to explain Einstein's work in some depth in the body. –Joke 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Relativistic cosmology would surely be covered by the mention of general relativity. Other wise we would have to mention all of modern physics (which is all relativistic): relativistic dynamics, quantum electrodynamics, string theory.... etc --Michael C. Price talk 00:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not necessarily true as one can study classical problems in relativity without recourse to their astrophysical implications. --Kasparov 00:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Relativistic cosmology studies the relativistic Universe (i.e. universe dynamics and structure as a result of relativistic consequences). (Matter and radiation give a 1+3 local splitting of spacetime into time and space directions. Further, spacetime symmetries determine preferred space sections and associated preferred time coordinates. A classic example of broken symmetry.) Models which were basically geometrical initially, became the vehicle for observational predictions, used for testing the models, and then became the basis for extensive studies of physics in the expanding Universe. This then led to revised views of universe dynamics, where quantum fields in the early universe led to dramatically changed possibilities in dynamics, in particular including inflation as a major paradigm. This has led in a curious way to an emphasis on detailed observational predictions, but also a viewpoint where theory takes precedence over observations in some other ways. Einstein initiated all this in 1917 with his seminal and ground-breaking paper on the subject. --Kasparov 01:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I am discussing work that Eintein himself undertook. Mentioning modern physics is not the matter herein. --Kasparov 01:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

By “relativistic cosmology” do you mean the same thing as the content of the physical cosmology article? I ask because 68.224.247.234 (who seems to have a special relationship with you, being the only person to make un-reverted changes to your user page) tried to impose a link to that article with the text “relativistic cosmology.” That article seems to credit Einstein only with general relativity and the cosmology.
You mention Einstein’s 1917 paper: That was the paper where he introduced the cosmological constant in the mistaken belief that it would produce a static universe.
Do you find an Einstein contribution to “relativistic cosmology” beyond general relativity and the cosmological constant?
You mentioned “broken symmetry” of spacetime. That sounds like a very modern and non-Einstein interpretation of relativity—perhaps even OR. --teb728 04:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you think "Prof" 68.224.247.234 is Kasparov's evil twin  :-) --Michael C. Price talk 04:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting that they probably have the same conception of relativistic cosmology. I certainly prefer Kasparov's approach to editing. --teb728 06:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed content on cosmology etc

OK, how about this for a place to talk about cosmology in the article? I am think of adding something like the following as new subsection (perhaps at the end of Biography). You all undoubtedly would have additions and clarifications. But are there any objections to the idea?

===Contributions to other fields===
Although Einstein rejected the inherent randomness of modern quantum mechanics he made vital contributions to its development:
  • The photoelectric effect began the quantum revolution by showing that the quantization of light (which had appeared as a mathematical device in Planck) was real.
  • Bose-Einstein statistics remains a part of quantum mechanics. In addition, it led to Fermi-Dirac statistics, which in turn led directly to modern quantum mechanics.
  • Special relativity is an essential part of quantum mechanics.
Although Einstein regretted adding the cosmological constant to general relativity, the cosmological constant – and general relativity generally remain in modern cosmology:
  • Etc

--teb728 21:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we mention cosmology, Hubble and the cosmological constant in the section on GR. --Michael C. Price talk 22:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist?

What is this convoluted nonsense? Einstein was born in Germany to a Jewish family, spent good part of his life in Switzerland (where he was also schooled and later naturalized) and ultimately died in the USA as its citizen. If you guys can't decide on how to effectively describe this in the opening line, I'm removing it completely. He was a theoretical physicist, period. His national and religious identities can be discusssed within the body of the article. Gordon Freeman 21:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Most professional encyclopedias refer to Einstein as a German-American. He was born in Germany and died in the United States. This is not an issue of citizenship. --68.224.247.234 21:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen this article use such instances as: "German-born American theoretical scientist", "Jewish theoretical scientist", "German-Swiss-American theoretical scientist", and the list goes on. All of these descriptions are incomplete in one way or another and certainly biased towards one end of the spectrum. I have no issues utilizing the expression "German-American", however he was also Jewish by birth - an ethno-religious group; And omitting the mention of it might violate NPOV. If anyone can effectively phrase the opening line with all of the aforementioned points, and do so without jeopardizing the integrity of it - I'm all ears. Until then however, I prefer we stick with the statement "theoretical physicist". Gordon Freeman 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Below this section on the talk page is one entitled "Jewishness" that also addresses this edit conflict. My response there is: "May I suggest: '...was a Jewish, Swiss-American theoretical physicist born in Germany.' or '...was a German-born, Swiss-American theoretical physicist of Jewish (persuasion/heritage/ethnicity)'." Do either of these two options satisfy you? ju66l3r 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Both your versions are way too long and convoluted to go in the header, where brevity is at a premium. Both versions add almost half as many words as are in the header's mention of relativity. If a brief label like “German-American” were adequate, no one would object to it. The body of the article adequately explains the extent to which he was Jewish, German, Swiss, and American; there is no need for it in the header. --teb728 21:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I will continue this debate below in "Jewishness" Gordon Freeman 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i'm new to wikipedia but i'd like to request one quick change to this article that hasn't been mentioned. Can someone please link the mention of Deir Yassin to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre ? it's good to have a link to it so people know what exactly he was protesting. if there's a better place for me to make this request, please let me know! Xfireworksx 02:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC) xfireworksx

Jewishness

Does this define the man?? Is this his most important accomplishment?? Should this be noted in the HEADER? Thanks! --Tom 14:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and is living in America his most important accomplishment? Perhaps it doesn't really matter what he was born or where he lived. --Lividore 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

His being Jewish had a pretty big impact on his life, yes (his work was derided as "Jewish physics" by the Germans, it had big effects on his employment arrangements, was a big reason he left Germany after Hitler came to power, and had big effects on his political views as well). I don't know whether it is useful in the header, though. --Fastfission 14:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

He was conspicuously Jewish. He lent his name to Zionist causes. He was to some extent a target of anti-Semitism. He was personally active in the founding of what was to become Brandeis University, etc. etc. It's not irrelevant. Indeed, I'd say that in recent years, in pop-culture Einstein hagiography, there's been a bit of a tendency to try to downplay or minimize his religion, just as there has certainly been a tendency to downplay or minimize his political views. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It's really sad, and further proves that anti-Semitism just changes its form, it never dies. --Lividore 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In search of a compromise on "Jewish" vs "German-born, Swiss-American", may I suggest that both be included. Based on WP:MOSBIO, "German-born, Swiss-American" is necessary for style considerations. At the same time, MOSBIO suggests that ethnicity is relevant if important to the notability. I agree with those here that say it is relevant. His ethnicity shaped his ideologies, determined his citizenships, played a role in the acceptance of his work, and influenced many other aspects of his life because he was a Jew in Germany leading up to WWII. Therefore, both are appropriate material for the introductory paragraph. May I suggest: "...was a Jewish, Swiss-American theoretical physicist born in Germany." or "...was a German-born, Swiss-American theoretical physicist of Jewish (persuasion/heritage/ethnicity)". ju66l3r 18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My I suggest we look at other biograpgies? Very few bios if ANY say "Joe Bow was a Jewish-American whatever" for good reason. If the person was a famous rabbi or their being Jewish was the reason for their notability, then I would agree. I agree with what you are saying but is Einstein notable for being Jewish or something else? I would say the later. I would look at Edward Teller. He was a featured article awhile back and somebody added Jewish to his header and this is what got me interested in this whole "issue". I still feel that the wording/the way it reads(2nd sentence) today still needs work but whatever. Einstein and all people should have their ethnicity discussed, but just not, imho, in the header/lead sentence UNLESS that is what makes them notable. Anyways...--Tom 18:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a valid point. Louis Armstrong for example is not described as an African-American jazz musician, but merely American. Unless an individual's ethnicity/religious heritage is of utmost importance and/or relation to their most notable achievement, it should be omitted in the header. Now in regards to Einstein's Jewish background: Not only were Einstein's parents non-observant Jews, but he also attended a Catholic elementary school. His Jewish heritage, however valid, was a small contributing factor to his scientific achievements. While Einstein renounced his German citizenship when he became a Swiss citizen, he certainly did not identify with the Swiss land, its people, nor its culture and customs to the extent which would equally qualify it worth of a mention. With that in mind, I propose we utilize either "German-American theoretical physicist.." (which is used in most encyclopedias) or "German-born theoretical physicist..". If anyone wishes to challenge this feel free to give your input. Gordon Freeman 19:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I went with the "German born American xxxx...."...I am sure we will be back to this in a few months...and the beat goes on...--Tom 19:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no terribly strong feelings on this one way or the other. I see that The Columbia Encyclopedia, which of course is a very short article, opens with "American theoretical physicist, known for the formulation of the relativity theory, b. Ulm, Germany." Jewishness is mentioned only once: "His property was confiscated (1934) by the Nazi government because he was Jewish, and he was deprived of his German citizenship," and implicitly when it says "Einstein's writings include.... About ZIonism."
The Britannica, after giving his dates, opens "German-American physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity and won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921 for his explanation of the photoelectric effect." Second paragraph says "His celebrity gave him an influential voice that he used to champion such causes as pacifism, liberalism, and Zionism." Longest statement about his Jewishness occurs mid-article:
With the rising tide of anti-Semitism in Berlin, Einstein was castigated for his “Bolshevism in physics,” and the fury against him in right-wing circles grew when he began to publicly support the Zionist movement (see Zionism). Judaism had played little part in his life, but he insisted that, as a snail can shed his shell and still be a snail, so a Jew can shed his faith and still be a Jew.
Encarta leads with "Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born American physicist and Nobel laureate, best known as the creator of the special and general theories of relativity and for his bold hypothesis concerning the particle nature of light." The words "Jew" or "Jewish" don't appear in the article, but it says "After the war his continued public support of pacifist and Zionist goals made him the target of vicious attacks by anti-Semitic and right-wing elements in Germany. Even his scientific theories were publicly ridiculed, especially the theory of relativity."
So, it doesn't seem as if other encyclopedias think Jewishness or... what is the word? Swissness? are lead-sentence material. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the current phrasing "German-born American scientist". It gives off a false perception of his nationality. Let's not forget that he was schooled in Germany and Switzerland, and has formulated his defining theories while there as well. He only emigrated to the US towards the later part of his life. One could argue he was more Swiss than American. I vow to either use "German-American theoretical scientist" or "German-born theoretical scientist". I feel the current heading is very US-centric. Gordon Freeman 19:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that his jewish ancestry is on a level in signficance with his being German-born. We cannot quantify the affect either of those things had on his actual work. After all, physics has no nationality nor religion. However, when it comes to the way his work was accepted, the circumstance of his life and his own personal attitudes towards faith they are very signficant. Not to delve too deeply into a Turtledove line of reasoning here, but imagine if he had been born a non-observant Christian, and stayed in Germany through WWII. I doubt he would have joined the nazis but surely his work would have been more acceptable and they would have made further inroads into nuclear research, drastically changing the 20th century paradigm.
As for his "German-Swiss-American" status those things are largely trumped by his being Jewish, for he would likely never have become the second or third if he weren't born a Jew. Indeed, identifying him as "German-born" without noting he was jewish is something of a muddle. Where Charles Darwin can simply be described as English, Linus Pauling as American, and Henri Poincaré "one of France's greatest mathematicians and theoretical physicists, and a philosopher of science" without noting that Einstein was jewish his "German-born" status is confused. If he were not a jew he'd be "German" rather than "German-born." --Geeman 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Aug 2006 – Nov 2006


Nationalities

The very first sentence clearly needs cleanup. It now says: Einstein "was a German-born Jewish-American Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist". What kind of spin doctor wrote this sentence that is misleading in so many ways? Einstein's Nobel Prize certificate mentions only Germany and Switzerland, where he did all his important scientific work. He did not conduct any important science in the US. So the association "American Nobel Prize-winning theoretical physicist" seems funny indeed. True, he got American citizenship when he was an old man, but even then he remained Swiss. In fact, he held Swiss nationality longer than any other (oddly, Switzerland is not even mentioned in the introduction). Similarly, why call him Jewish-American but not Jewish-German, Swiss-Jewish etc? Mixing up religions and nations is making things even worse, IMHO, and although he was Jewish-born, he was not a practising Jew. Since Einstein despised patriotism, I suggest to remove all the nationalities etc. from the first paragraph. There is a reasonable section on citizenships further down. But if for some reason this proposal does not get accepted, then we will have to correct the list of nationalities by extending it. For example, it would not be wrong but cumbersome to write that Einstein was a German-born (1878), Jewish, German (1878-96, 1914-33), stateless (1896-1901), Swiss (1901-55), American (1940-55) theoretical physicist who won a physics Nobel Prize in 1921. Physicists 17:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We went through this at some length in the now-archived sections of this talk page Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist? and Jewishness. The consensus (if I read it correctly) was that he should be labeled as “German-born” (or perhaps as “German-born American” or “German-American”) for consistency with other Wikipedia bios and that he should not be labeled as “Jewish” or “Swiss.” The text that you found was not the work of any one editor but rather the result of editing drift. (BTW it’s customary to start a new topic at the bottom of the talk page.) --teb728 21:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
But what kind of "consensus" or "consistency" could possibly have led to the deletion of the nationality that he held until his death and longer than any other? He was Swiss during his last 55 years. He was Swiss and American during his final 15 years (but did not produce any important science during this time). Clearly his "Swissness" totally dominates the additional "Americanness" of the retirement years. Your answer seems to indicate this kind of "consistency" is distorting other Wikipedia articles as well - but then let's correct them as quickly as possible! I understand that many nations want to claim a share of Einstein, but Wikipedia is not the place to warp reality through patriotism or something. I sincerely hope this was not some sort of 40:1 majority "consensus" reflecting the fact that the Americans outnuber the Swiss 40:1! Let facts be our guide, not wishful thinking. Physicists 19:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
That opening sentence was getting so silly that I felt obliged to clean it up. There is already a Citizenship section later in the article. "German-born" is relevant for explaining why the German pronunciation of the name (seen just before the subject sentence) is relevant. The parenthetical birth year after "German-born" was not needed, as it had just been given in the text immediately preceding. — DAGwyn 21:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And with regard to Einstein's Swiss-ness: User:Physicists seems to confuse nationality with citizenship. As Gordon Freeman said in the archive I cited above, “he certainly did not identify with the Swiss land, its people, nor its culture and customs to the extent which would equally qualify it worth of a mention.” (If he had, he could have safely spent his last ten years in Switzerland.) --teb728 21:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
In some countries there may be subtle differences between nationality and citizenship, but not in Switzerland. What makes you think he did not identify with it? Here is a graphical overview of his nationalities by einstein-website.de: http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/variousthings.html#national Since Einstein despised patriotism, the present intro seems ok though. Physicists 15:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny Spin-Doctored Microsoft Encarta Article

I think I found the source of the misleading statements discussed above - it is the Encarta Encyclopedia of Microsoft! See [50]. I couldn't help smiling when I read its first sentence: "Albert Einstein (1879-1955), German-born American physicist and Nobel laureate." They simply ignored that his Nobel Prize mentions only Germany and Switzerland [51], that he was Swiss for most of his life, that he was an old man when he added the US citizenship to the Swiss one, and that he did not do any important physics in the US. Alas, the pride of nations! I wonder whether other Microsoft Encarta articles are similarly spin-doctored. Fortunately, in Wikipedia such reality distortions can be undone, illustrating the superiority of Wikipedia's approach to fact finding. Physicists 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

IQ

And his IQ was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.48.226.60 (talk • contribs).

Dunno - did he take a test? I doubt it. Otherwise we'd just be guessing. And guesses don't make this page or any other. He would likely have scored very highly in certain tests though not necessarily have done very well (comparatively) on general IQ tests which often stress linguistic skills as highly as reason and mental manipulation. It would also have depended when he took his test. He would likely have scored better as a young man. In addition, accurate IQ testing is a notoriously tricky. --LiamE 22:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I recall long ago seeing somebody's estimate that it was around 200, but there are several things wrong with that; unless a reliable measurement of Einstein's IQ is cited, it shouldn't be inserted into the article. IQ isn't much of a measure of anything relevant anyway, especially in the "tails" of the distribution. — DAGwyn 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

Kasparov added to the header that Einstein is “widely regarded as the most important scientist of the 20th century and one of the greatest physicists of all time,” with the comment “I don't think this information even needs a reference.” On the contrary I doubt that any reference would be adequate. The issue is not so much with his importance as with the phrase “widely regarded.” (IMHO that phrase has no place in Wikipedia except in examples in the article on weasel words.) Who regards him as the most important scientist; and how did they decide he was more important than Madame Curie, Feynman, Fleming, Hubble, Pauling, and Watson and Crick, for example; and what is their qualification to judge? If you want to keep the assessment of his importance—with an explanation of who “they” are, move it to the “Popularity and cultural impact” section; let’s keep it out of the header. --teb728 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this before. A google for "einstein greatest scientist" gives 11 million hits. Google book search gives 7080 hits. "Widely regarded" isn't a weasel word in this case; it's true. "is the greatest scientist" would need a specific reference to someone who's an authority on measuring scientists' stature, and would be a magnet for all the Einstein-bashers that regularly make maintaining this article such a pain in the posterior.
If you want a place to put "widely held beliefs about Einstein" (the other common one is that his name has become a synonym for "genius"), feel free to start typing in those 7000+ references - but NOT in the Einstein article, please. --Alvestrand 06:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not looking for all the attributed references—the best one or two will do. I just don't want any (unattributed) “widely held beliefs.” As I now see, an attributed reference already exists in the “Popularity and cultural impact” section: It is attributed to Michael H. Hart and says virtually the same thing as the new text. With that there I see no need for duplicate text in the header. --teb728 08:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I tried what you suggested and googled "the most important scientist of the 20th century" [52] and got 171 hits. I looked at the first 10 and at least half the links were either to Wikipedia or clearly quoted from Wikipedia. Also, notice what you are saying, you want to convey the meaning that Einstein was the most important scientist, but you want to evade taking responsibility for those words. That’s precisely what weasel words do. --teb728 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And now a timeline?

I thought the infobox was ugly, but I wasn't prepared for this:


Is there any reason to include an ugly and cumbersome timeline at the bottom of the page? I don't think it helps the article out one bit. It is unbearably foul looking (nothing like poorly kerned Helvetica to ruin a page), and most of the dates added are unbearably dull (all of the ones of note are already well known and well-discussed in the article; some of them are down-right pointless, like when he was in grade school and when he stuck his tongue out for a camera—the most interesting thing about the latter is not the year in which it took place).

Just because one can do something with a computer does not mean that one should, and while timelines may have their place in other articles where it is actually useful to plot out ten different things relevant to each other, it certainly does little good here. A sure-sign that a timeline is useless is when it looks like a descending staircase; it fails at its only benefit, which is to show concurrent events, when the events follow in a linear fashion (as they usually do with someone's life, time-travellers excepted).

In the end I don't think one gains any greater insight from it, and it is, I do repeat, unbearably ugly (the fault of the software, mind you, not whoever made it, who I'm sure had good intentions). I'm going to remove it unless there is a provocative argument for its staying here. --Fastfission 18:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it is far too wide for a low res screen - chop it. Vsmith 11:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I am a postdoctoral theoretical physicist and I found the timeline helpful, though it should clearly exclude the "tongue" photo and include marriages, divorce, children born, emigration to USA, and declining of the presidency of Israel. If it's formatted badly, why not improve it rather than binning it, eg by putting the years along the top rather than the botom? [NB To Fastfission: I've greatly appreciated your fine contributions to Wikipedia.] - AG, Stockport, UK.

Nobel image

Can we move the glaring Nobel template image somewhere other than before the first line? To me it is quite distracting and doesn't belong up front. Vsmith 11:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It’s apparently someone’s bright idea to mark the beginning of all articles on Nobel laureates (copied from the same practice on Czech Wikipedia). It probably doesn’t belong at the beginning, but I doubt it belongs better anywhere else. --teb728 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it could go into the honors section. Q0 03:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't like it in the beginning either. I think it is pretty silly. Also I have some misgivings on the copyright status. --Fastfission 03:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's brain

I'm a bit confused, as the section talking about the autopsy reports significant differences in the make-up of Einstein's brain and a normal brain, yet under "Speculation and controversy" it says that no significant differences have ever been found. Can one or the other be cited, and the other removed? 69.175.66.113 12:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This may be moot now, but I believe that the "Speculation and controversy" section mentions the lack of brain differences in connection to his mental health. I'm not a neuroscientist, but I am fairly sure from my elementary knowledge that the lobe irregularity is interesting since Einstein was a brilliant mathematician, and that part of his brain was enlarged. And the higher number of glial cells has an effect on fundamental brain chemistry as a sort of helper cell to the neurons. Regardless, neither of these irregular aspects of Einstein's brain can be connected to a specific disorder, such as those listed in that section. Perhaps the article could say that better, but I'm not comfortable adding to an excellent featured article with information that is implied. I'm not sticking around to watch if someone else does, either. Cheers, 69.19.14.15 22:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Einstein wasn't "a brilliant mathematician" but a brilliant physicist. A friend of his had to help him with the complex mathematics he needed. Maxt 08:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

French

I added that Einstein received poor grades in history, languages, and geography. I noticed that someone else changed "languages" to "French". However, the reference I used says languages, it does not say French. Does anyone have a reference that says it was French, and not other languages, that he received poor grades in? I can't help but wonder if "languages" is a reference to study of foreign languages, or if it a reference to the study of literature and composition of his native language. Q0 09:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I did find this source [53] that said "He studied for the entrance exam, which he took and failed. His downfall was French, chemistry, and biology, subjects he had neglected through lack of interest (Brian, 1996, 8)." Q0 07:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Einstein was a excelent student, this was a wrong interpretation of his grades. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 189.136.82.190 (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2006.

My understanding is that the only grades that were misinterpretted were his math grades, and that it is true that he still received poor grades in other subjects. Q0 22:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Squeaky Science

I know that this site is not supposed to be used as a forum, but I thought that this was the only place that I might be able to find adaquate answers. I was wondering if anyone besides myself has ever heard anything about squeaky science and what it relates to in Einsteins field of expertiece.--Reedaltman 12:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

tweaks made to "generalized theory of gravitation" section

In light of the recent expanded discussion of Einstein's work in this area in the classical unified field theories article, I updated the subject section (now titled "Unified field theory"). I also integrated the small remaining bit from the "Institute for Advanced Studies" section into the earlier mention of the IAS. DAGwyn 21:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

NY Times ad

The segment dealing with Einstein's participation in the December 2nd, 1948 NYT ad regarding Menachem Begin's Freedom Party is highly misleading as it currently stands:


He also purchased a full-page ad in the New York Times condemning early Zionists for their treatment of the indigenous Arabs, especially at Deir Yassin (New York Times ad).


For one, Einstein didn't purchase the ad; he just signed it, along with many other notables of the time, including Hannah Arendt and Rabbi Cardozo. Moreover, it's quite overly broad to suggest that the petitioners condemned the early Zionists as a whole for their supposed mistreatment of the indigenous popuation, since the text of the letter makes quite clear that its animus is specifically directed at Begin and the Freedom Party.

In fact, it also discusses the dangers the paramilitary groups which were the party's predecessors posed to the Jewish community in Palestine as well:


During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute.


There's no evidence the authors of the ad believed the early Zionists were abusing the local Arab populations on a general basis.

Kamandi 22:41 16 August 2006

Is this what you wanted? “He also signed an open letter to the New York Times condemning Revisionist Zionists for their treatment of the indigenous Arabs, especially at Deir Yassin .”
BTW if you wanted your second block quote to be all italics, leave out the line breaks. If you wanted quotation marks instead of italics, use quotation marks instead of double apostrophes. (Double apostrophes are wikicode for italics.) --teb728 06:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that "Revisionist Zionists" would also be too inclusive, as the letter denounced the IZL, Stern Gang, and Begin specifically, not Jabotinsky, for example. Thanks for the tip. :-) Kamandi 17 August 2006

OK, how about? “He also signed an open letter to the New York Times condemning Menachem Begin and his nationalistic Herut party, especially for the treatment of the indigenous Arabs at Deir Yassin by Herut’s predecessor Irgun.” --teb728 05:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Brandeis naming

The Brandeis article says he had his name dropped befoe cutting ties with the University. I'm confused. --Gbleem 18:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Misquote / typo

This has to be misquoted or a typo, it doesn't make any sense unless you change the but to an and after the first comma.

"I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."[43]

Re-Misquote / typo

What I hear being said is; if there is going to be a world war 3, how unimaginable as it would be regarding how intelligent we are, but if it must be; it also is unimaginable how we will carry this out. Although (but) as to say, may I but in and say: It would be wise to pay attention to 2000 years of lessons, knowing this, and with all the technology at our hands, why are we continuing this course. Handle this thought and realize; it dose not have to be, and whoever understands this also understands we are not just talking anymore.Kisida 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Run that past me again.... --LiamE 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Crank magnet articles

I am looking for information from experience WP editors on the problem of keeping good editors on Wiki. See the page here User:Dbuckner/Expert rebellion

This is no more than a list of people who have left Wikipedia, or thinking of leaving, or generally cheesed off, for the reason (1) what I will unpolitely call 'cranks', i.e. people engaged in a persistenta and determined campaign to portray their highly idiosyncratic (and dubious) personal opinion as well-established mainstream scientific or historical fact, or 'crank subculture' i.e. fairly sizeable subcultures which adhere strongly to various anti-scientific conspiracy theories (e.g. Free energy suppression) or anti-scientific political movements (e.g. Intelligent design) masquerading as "scholarship". (2) the problem of edit creep, i.e. the tendency of piecemeal editing to make articles worse over time, rather than better.

If you are in this category, leave a link to your user page there. If you can, put something on your user page that indicates reason for discontent.

There is a more general discussion of this issue on Lina Mishima's page. User:LinaMishima/Experts Problem Note I am not in agreement with her title as it is not in my view a problem about experts, but more of adherence to scholarly standards, ability to put polished and balanced articles together. But her idea is good.

I'm putting this message on the Einstein page because I know there are all sorts of, well, cranky theories on the man (I noted the 'speculation and controversy' section, but this doesn't really mention the mad stuff). As I don't know the first thing about physics, would be grateful for a list of any other physics subjects that are 'crank magnets'. Even better, cut and paste this message on those pages. I'm going round the obvious places like intelligent design, Goedel, Cantor and so forth, but there must be many such. Dbuckner 14:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"Theories of everything" abound in crank physics literature; in "Fads & Fallacies: in the Name of Science" Martin Gardner described several, including one based on "energy vortices". Usually these are full of neologisms and short on precise definitions or formulas that could be used to test the predictions. Another perpetual favorite for cranks is perpetual motion. — DAGwyn 21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reverted without comment

 Why was I reverted without comment ?
 The quotes I used were nearly the same as 
 what was already there... only the intros changed.
 Jeff Relf 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Frankly Jeff it's more of the same thing you've been trying to add for some time now, with your same fairly irrelevant citations. I'm not sure how many comments were needed since they would be essentially what was said before. It's not the same thing as the original text at all, but you're so embedded in your own personal way of reading Einstein that you can't see it. Personally I think the whole section needs to be scrapped — a list of quotes is not helpful, and nobody seems to be willing to do an honest synthesis of secondary literature. The entire section—both yours and the one before it—is unclear, is full of junk, and is not encycopedic. --Fastfission 13:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Fastfission,  I don't think it's junk.
     Einstein's views on universal causality and
 quantum mechanics is a fascinating topic which is
 much dicussed everywhere.
      Your critique of what I wrote is too vague
 for me to address, please be more specific.
 How, exactly, was what I wrote 
 not in agreement with what Einstein thought ?
 Jeff Relf 18:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
See previous discussions of the matter. You're a crank. We know it, you don't. Please go away. --Michael C. Price talk 20:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Mr. Price,  Please stick to the topic.
 The question is,
 " Where, exactly, did I submit something that was 
 contrary to Einstein's philosophy ? "
     Please provide as many quotes from Einstein
 as you can and cite quality articles from
 major science magazines, as I have.
 Jeff Relf 21:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice try, but the question really is "why do you continue to push your neologisms and terminology onto Wikpedia?" -- as has been extensively discussed previously. --Michael C. Price talk 23:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  Mr. Price,  Universal causation was a topic
 dear to Einstein's heart, he talked about it
 on many occations throughout his life.
     So I hope you will make room for it.
 The wording I used was very simple,
 and has plenty of quotes from Einstein
 and others to support it.
     Now, if you'd be so kind as to do the same,
 I'd like quotes from Einstein and others
 which indicate I've somehow misrepresented him.
 Jeff Relf 01:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a master at not listening. Find a quote from Einstein where he uses the phrase "block time". --Michael C. Price talk 11:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Mr. Price,  
 What's wrong with referencing Block_Time ?
 Einstein said his belief in " universal causation "
 ( which, by the way, is shared by people like 
   Stephen Hawking )
 means the future is just as fixed as the past.
     Where do you think the term Block_Time
 came from, if not from descriptions of
 the field equations of General_Relativity ?
 Stephen Hawking wrote:
     In relativity,  
 there is no real distinction between
 the space and time coordinates, just as there is
 no difference between two space coordinates.
 ...
 In summary, the title of this essay was a question:
   Is_Everything_Determined ?
 The answer is yes, it is.  
 But it might as well not be, because
 we can never know what is determined.
 ...
 The boundary condition of the universe is that
 it has no boundary.
 The universe would be completely self-contained 
 and not affected by anything outside itself.
      It would neither be created nor destroyed.
 It would just _Be_. 
 What place, then, for a creator ?
 Jeff Relf 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please stop inserting your special-interest point of view into the Einstein article. I am quite familiar with what Einstein's technical writings — and he did not mention "block time" nor "pseudorandomness" (which term you are misapplying, by the way, as others have told you). While you might think you know ideas from other sources that Einstein would agree with, an encyclopedia article about Einstein's ideas needs to limit itself to what Einstein verifiably said himself. Further, the place where you inserted the block-time note (re. determinism) disrupted the flow of the surrounding context. It brought in a bunch of ideas "out of the blue" and thereby raised more questions than it provided answers. — DAGwyn 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  DAGwyn,
 Why are references to spatial time,
 spacetime, Block time, 4D time,
 ( whatever you want to call it )
 unmentionable ? not even in 3 lines ?
     Do you also have a problem with evolution ?
 " universal causality "  was central to
 Einstein's religious and scientific philosophy.
 Jeff Relf 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Where do you think the term Block_Time came from" Certainly not Einstein. You just don't get it, do you? See WP:OR

Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.

That includes neologisms: see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. --Michael C. Price talk 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Mr. Price,  Relativity and 
 Einstein's philosophies behind it are
 over a hundred years old.
    Why is this such a hot potato for you ?
 Do you have issues with evolution as well ?
 I loath to keep begging you like this,
 but I don't see why you can't find
 three lines to reference Block time articles.
 Jeff Relf 23:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You have amply demonstrated your crank credentials. There's no point continuing. --Michael C. Price talk 00:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Mr. Price,  As you won't answer my questions,
 I can only assume that it's your own personal
 religious philosophies that are making you revert
 the links I added to back up Einstein's views on
 the spatial nature of time and universal causality.
 Jeff Relf 05:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The reasons have been explained to you, Jeff. Until you understand them, you should not even think about reinserting the text that so many others are objecting to — is it not clear to you that that text is your point of view, and has not been shown to be Einstein's? It's certainly clear to us. Note that some of us have worked in this technical area and do not agree that your addition is either correct or helpful to the general reader of the article. Why it is a "hot potato" is that it damages the article, which is too important to allow that to happen. — DAGwyn 00:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  DAGwyn,  As you won't answer my questions,
 I can only assume that it's your own personal
 religious philosophies that are making you revert
 the links I added to back up Einstein's views on
 the spatial nature of time and universal causality.
 Jeff Relf 05:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
IMHO it is a mistake to try to reason with Jeff: See the latest archive of this talk page for previous attempts to do so. But thanks for your help in reverting his nonsense. Oh, and Jeff, thanks for your moratorium from 10 July to 4 September on entering the nonsense. --teb728 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  TEB728,  You're welcome, of course.
 There's nothing I hate more than begging hordes of
 mystical-magical, anti-relativity folks like you.
     But I'll likely keep up the fight anyways,
 just because it's such a simple idea to explain,
 it's a lot like teaching evolution to 
 newly discovered tribes in the Amazon.
 Jeff Relf 05:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Your addition to the Einstein article is a fraud, because you claim that it is Einstein's point of view without any documentary evidence to back up that specific claim. And being merely somebody else's ideas about space-time or randomness, it certainly does not belong in the article about Einstein. It also damages the coherence of the discussion about determinism to insert a bunch of alien references and neologisms there. Further, we have answered your legitimate questions several times; we didn't respond to the query about evolution because it was based on false premises and is not relevant to the matter at hand. I would match my intelligence, rationality, credentials, and depth of understanding of (and support for) relativity theory against yours any day. What you need to do, but seem uninclined to do, is to critically examine your own motives in repeatedly vandalizing the Einstein article. If you think it is about promoting truth or enhancing the value of the Wikipedia, think again. — DAGwyn 19:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  DAGwyn,  Prima facie,
 the small intro ( with three footnotes ) 
 that I wrote agrees with its quote from Einstein.
     Why you think otherwise is beyond me.
 The only thing I can think of is that you have
 some far out, anti-causal philosophy which
 involves some sort of primeval " logic ".
 Jeff Relf 20:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously several other editors disagree with you on the appropriateness of the change you keep trying to make. Since there is no consensus for the change, and no pressing need for any change in that area, the appropriate default action is to leave the previous text the way it is. It isn't even important to debate the truth of the insertion, just to understand that this particular change is not acceptable. You especially should not try to guess about our motivations (which you're getting completely wrong), which we have explained already but which really don't matter when it comes to the advisability of the editing. If the editing made something (which was relevant and undisputed by other experts) clearer to the general reader, then it would be a good idea and we would presumably be all for it. Your attempt did not satisfy that criterion. — DAGwyn 18:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 Hi  DAGwyn,  Unlike you, 
 my objective is to provide better content,
 not lowest-common-demoninator (mis)information.
     Universal_Causality and spatial-time are
 metaphysical philosophies ( logical positivism ),
 ...and, as such, have _Nothing_ to do with 
 experimental uncertainties
 ( such as the uncertainty principle ).
 Einstein knew that, Hawking knows that,
 you and your yokel friends do not,
 ...I aim to set the record straight.
 Jeff Relf 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your last edit Jeff, as you seem unable to achieve consensus here for your version. The blatant personal attacks you are using here do your arguement no service and may earn you another block if you persist with the incivilities. Vsmith 00:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 

 Hi  Vsmith,  Please argue the topic
 instead of just flamming me all the time.
 For you, WikiPedia is about consensus ( right ? ),
 for me it's about setting the record straight.
 Jeff Relf 01:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Jeff, Wikipedia's content is determined by the consensus of editors. Individual editors who persist on "setting the record straight" against the will of others are highly frowned upon. We have a few core content policies which govern what can appear on pages, one of the clearest is that no original research or analysis is allowed. What you are doing is putting a highly idiosyncratic and personalized interpretation of Einstein's views into the article, and this is against our policies. Either start citing some sources which actually purport to discuss Einstein's philosophical views (and not in passing, but directly) or you might as well take your one-man Einstein show back to Usenet. --Fastfission 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Indent citations

In other articles, it has been noted that citations to webpages should be expanded as footnotes that include the author/group, title, and date of a reference, so in case the webpage expires in a few months, the reference can still be hunted by title or author, perhaps found on other webpages or in print journals. The problem caused by expanding most citations to have author/title/date is that the citations can become huge within a sentence and clutter the text of the article, unless formatted to avoid the "mass-of-text" appearance. I have found that ref-tag footnotes can be indented (with restrictions), similar to a block-structured programming language, to improve readability of all the added details, without totally obscuring the original sentence with a "mass of text" about the cited author/webpage/publication. The following is an example of an indented ref-tag (where "ref-tag" will be "ref" in the actual citation):

<ref-tag>

John Authore, "Title of Topic Story," MyOrganization, May 10, 2006,
webpage: [http: //www.sourcewebsite.org XXX-Story].

</ref>

The main restriction is to never split a bracketed link "[xx yy]" across 2 lines using a carriage-return newline (or the link could appear as unlinked text); however, each separate text line (after carriage-return) can be indented (such as by 5 spaces), similar to a computer programming language where each line has a carriage-return. Also, the lead ref-tag cannot be separated by a blank line from the prior sentence phrase, or the Wiki-formatted line will split. There is no reason to impose a standard indentation: it could vary, throughout an article, such as indenting the author name by 5 spaces, or 7, with no strict limit. Indented ref-tags can make it bearable to have a dozen footnotes in a paragraph without appearing, internally, as a complex mass of text. -Wikid77 06:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

vegetarian?

Why is he under category: vegitarians. I am well within my right to ask for a reference. Thanks.nids(♂) 18:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a short description about his vegetarianism to the article with a reference [54]. It appears that Einstein was a vegetarian for the last 18 months of his life but that he might have been a non-practicing supporter of of vegetarianism for a while before that. Q0 01:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Whether he is in a category for it or not, it is not important enough an aspect of his life to warrant an entire section in the article. --Fastfission 03:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
But how is the article going to provide a reference that Einstein belongs in the vegetarianism categories? Even if Einstein's vegetarianism does not deserve an entire section, doesn't it at least deserve a sentence or two? Q0 03:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Inasmuch as nids seems to have doubted he was a vegetarian, it was appropriate to provide a reference on this talk page. But I see no need to provide a reference for every category in the article. Similarly the fact that someone added Einstein to the Fellows of Christ Church, Oxford category doesn’t necessitate a description of that detail of his life. --teb728 07:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
People have asked for a reference for Einstein's vegetarianism before. After this talk page is archived, I expect someone else to ask again for a reference. The vegetarian category has a tendancy to get challenged a lot on articles in general and then it gets removed and added like a yo-yo. It seems like there should be a perminant place to keep a reference so that people don't have to keep asking about it. Q0 10:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i guess it will be correct to keep the reference on the article. And if he was an ardent supporter of the vegetarianism, this can also be mentioned on the article. Just like it has been done on Hitler's article.nids(♂) 10:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
He was not an ardent supporter of vegetarianism — he mentioned it once or twice in a few letters at the end of his life. In any case there are ways we can indicate his vegetarianism with an HTML comment which are less obtrusive. --Fastfission 13:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit more than that. I recall a letter from 1930 where Einstein expressed support of a vegetarian diet but said that external circumstances prevented him from practicing an entirely vegetarian diet. Q0 10:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think that intention made someone a vegetarian, if they still ate meat. ;-) --Fastfission 12:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I did not mean to argue that Einstein was a vegetarian in 1930. I meant that his support of vegetarianism appears to be more than at the last 18 months of his life. Q0 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I second the opinion that this should be briefly mentioned in the current article.nids(♂) 10:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

His work is contrversial

Many physicists detest his work as not proven. Gianni

  • There are detractors to every major theory in science. However as far as deeming Einstein's work "controversial" in a scientific sense, that's about as reliable as saying that Darwin's work is "controversial" in a scientific sense. It is not "controversial" like string theory is controversial, where there are indeed many mainstream practitioners who have their doubts over it. --Fastfission 23:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually Einstein's work is not really controversial among professional physicists. Special relativity is part of the working toolkit of particle physics and quantum field theory. The only widely accepted theory of gravitation is still Einstein's, and modern cosmology depends on it. There is a general consensus that Einstein's efforts toward a unified field theory were unfruitful and that his criticism of the incompleteness of quantum physics was puzzling, yet work proceeds today even in those areas, albeit from a somewhat different perspective. —DAGwyn 06:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The predictions of his relativity theories accord with the observations to great (and increasing) accuracy. Though all theories are in some sense provisional (or physics would stop), this accord is what is colloquially meant by "proven" in physics. Because his theories come into their own at speeds and gravitational field strengths far greater than those in which human intuition is schooled, his work probably will always be controversial. For instance it is not easy to accept that a clock flown round the world in a fast jet will return showing very slightly behind one kept stationary with which it had been synchronised. It is no coincidence that the cleverest anti-relativity arguments are by engineers, who have the best developed Newtonian intuition of all. (I mean this as a compliment!) But their arguments always somewhere involve a subtle Newtonian assumption. There are also differences of viewpoint; Einstein worked out general relativity as a theory of curved space, but it can also be derived from gauging considerations as a flat-space theory with a different interpretation. Since no testable predictions differ, this is a matter of taste. What counts is that the equations accurately predict values measured in the experiments, and no other set of equations does. To derive those equations for the first time was one of the greatest feats in theoretical physics, perhaps the greatest. The equations work, and whether people like or detest them tells you more about their own outlook. As for his unified field investigations, he would be the first to agree they are not proven, because they did not really get as far as generating clear predictions. This work is not detested but ignored today, because physicists prefer other lines of attack. - AG, Stockport, UK.
As to the unified field theory work, much of it wasn't done with the expectation of producing new predicted physical behavior, but was rather an attempt to derive the already accepted "laws" from a single unifying principle. Einstein and Infeld did manage to show that trajectories of singularities of their (circa 1950) theory were consistent with particle trajectories known from conventional physics, although the significance of that is arguable. The main reason for general lack of interest in such work is that it didn't seem likely to incorporate quantum principles, which most physicists believe to be fundamental. — DAGwyn 20:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The aim of unification is not merely aesthetic, but to improve prediction. Quantum effects are ignored - which must lead to inaccurate prediction - in general relativity, and vice-versa. I agree that you can't hope to ignore quantum when attempting unification. - AG, Stockport, UK.

WikiProject Biography assessment/suggestions

Hello Einstein editors! First, congratulations on putting together such a well-written article! Just wanted to let you know that I have assessed this article for WikiProject Biography. My assessment is that the article is still Featured Article quality. I have left a couple of suggestion for you on the comments page. Keep up the good work! Kaldari 20:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to make things easier, here are the comments that I left for this article: Article is nearly 100K. The See Also and External Links sections could probably be trimmed. I would also suggest moving Works by Albert Einstein to a separate article and listing a handful of selected works here rather than his entire catalog. Kaldari 23:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to prune the external links yet, but I tried to do the other two tasks. I just removed the "see also" section, because it was a collection of three sorts of things:
  • Things that were already linked in the main text, or should be.
  • Things that are named after Einstein &ndash if this is really that important, make an article called "List of things named after Einstein."
  • Kurt Gödel
–Joke 13:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I have now pruned the external links as well. The most important one is probably the first one, the Albert Einstein archives. –Joke 15:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Works missing from Works by Albert Einstein

Is there a reason that "On the Quantum Mechanics of Radiation" ("Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung," Physkalische Zeitschrift 18) is not included in Works by Albert Einstein? Kaldari 23:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there are many other works missing from the list, most notably several of the non-scientific books that Einstein wrote. Can someone proof this list, and add the works that are missing? Kaldari 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Theories

Although he maintained that the only source of knowledge is experience, he also believed that scientific theories are the free creations of a finely tuned physical intuition and that the premises on which theories are based cannot be connected logically to experiment. A good theory, therefore, is one in which a minimum number of postulates is required to account for the physical evidence. This sparseness of postulates, a feature of all Einstein’s work, was what made his work so difficult for colleagues to comprehend, let alone support. [55] Perhaps someone could add this information to the section on his scientific philosophy. --68.224.247.234 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Although that's a nice paragraph, unfortunately it is taken from Encarta and presumably cannot be used in the Wikipedia due to copyright considerations. — DAGwyn 00:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Putting "Jewish" back in the opening sentence.

I know this topic has been discussed at a pretty good length, but I'd like to revisit it for a bit because I don't think any the following arguments have been made. Initially I made these comments in one of the talk page archives, I'm afraid, so I'm reproducing them here and expanding on them a bit. (Thanks to TEB728 for pointing out my error.)

I would argue that his Jewish ancestry is on a level in significance with his being German-born, and that noting his German origin without mentioning his Jewish ancestry is confusing. We cannot quantify the affect either of those things had on his actual work. After all, despite the misguided characterization of Einstein's work as "Jewish physics" as is noted in the article, physics has neither nationality nor religion. However, when it comes to the way his work was accepted, the circumstance of his life and his own personal attitudes towards faith they are very significant.

Not to delve too deeply into a Turtledove line of reasoning here, but let's imagine for a moment that he had been born a non-observant Christian, and stayed in Germany through WWII. I sincerely doubt he would have joined the Nazis but surely his work would have been more acceptable to scientists working under the Reich, and they would have made further inroads into nuclear research, drastically changing the 20th century paradigm. By way of comparison, imagine that Werner von Braun (whose wikipedia introduction, BTW, takes pains to note both his German and American background) was born a Jew. That's not to say that von Braun was to rocket science what Einstein was to physics (von Braun is probably more aptly compared to Openheimer) but it does illustrate that simply noting that the man who originated much of the science that molded his century was "German-born" leaves one wondering why his ideas didn't wind up as the payload of a V-2 rocket. The rest of the article does address the issue, but the acknowledgement of his ancestry does much to address the issue at very little cost at the beginning of the article. Indeed, I would argue that it is definitive of the nature of his contribution to world history--at least as much as his German birth, and that the circumstances of his birth are incomplete without noting both sides of the issue.

As for his "German-Swiss-American" status those things are largely trumped by his being Jewish, for he would likely never have become the second or third if he weren't born a Jew. Indeed, identifying him as "German-born" without noting he was Jewish is something of a muddle. Where Charles Darwin can simply be described as English, Linus Pauling as American, and Henri Poincaré "one of France's greatest mathematicians and theoretical physicists, and a philosopher of science" in their wikipedia articles without noting that Einstein was Jewish his "German-born" status is confused. If he were not a Jew he'd simply be "German" rather than "German-born" so "German-born Jew" explains his itinerant nationality better than would a hyphenated list of the nations in which he had/took citizenship, introduces the text on his life, and gives a reader at first glance an idea of the implications of such an origin that are addressed later in the article.

Einstein himself, of course, noted that "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." I would suggest, however, that describing him as a "German-born physicist of Jewish ancestry" or words to that effect elegantly and accurately addresses both sides of the issue. It indicates that he was nominally both but not really either. --Geeman 10:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see Einstein's Jewish ancestry as being notable enough to include in the intro. Einstein was not especially known for being Jewish. Obviously the fact that he was of Jewish ancestry affected his life in many ways, but it doesn't seem to be significantly connected to his notability. By way of comparison, neither the Encyclopædia Britannica nor Encarta mention Einstein being Jewish in their intros. Indeed, Encarta's biography doesn't mention it whatsoever. Kaldari 17:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Is his German background any more notable? More importantly, "German-born" by itself is inadequate. Why not say he was a physicist and ignore his nationality and ethnic background entirely in the opening sentence? My argument is that saying he was "German-born" without saying he was also jewish creates a muddle for the reasons described above.
I don't think we should put too much stock in how this particular issue is handled in other encyclopedia's, but since you mentioned those two it should be noted that MSN Encarta's opening sentence calls Einstein a "German-born American physicist" (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562147/Einstein_Albert.html) while the rhapsodic EB says "German-American physicist" (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106018/Albert-Einstein). My point being that "German-born" alone would appear to be inadequate if we are going to use those two as a guideline.
That said, I would argue that Einstein was famous for being a Zionist, and this it was a significant part of his identity. He did, after all, pen a book on the subject and was widely recognized for his stance on the issue. The rest of this article, however, is peppered with his participation in Jewish causes, so I think it contradicts your assessment that he was not known for being Jewish. His Jewish background relates directly to his early participation in politics, and continued throughout his life. I think a more accurate assessment would be that much of the world did not embrace his being Jewish.... That does not, however, vitiate the reality of his background nor address the nature of his background.
The Big Picture here, however, is that "German-born" is not a particularly accurate or well-considered way of describing his background. It differs from the norm for other wikipedia articles (already cited) the articles on Einstein in other encyclopedias and is vague.
--Geeman 08:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that so many groups want to lay claim to Einstein that when we let them all into the intro it ends up looking ridiculous. The only reason I left "German-born" in the intro when I simplified it was that it ties to the preceding German sound snippet, an easy way of indicating why the German pronunciation matters. Of course, other nationalities, Judaism, vegetarianism, etc. should be (and are) discussed within the body of the article. Speaking of which, this article is way too long, containing myriad details that would be considered irrelevant for most biographical articles. — DAGwyn 20:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It definitely is problematic.... I do think saying he was "German-born" rather than just "German" is important, given his history, politics and the nature of his character. It's a fairly elegant way of dealing with that particular aspect his background, and introduces that he gave up that citizenship, which will later be described in the article. That alone, however, does not tell the whole story, and in the brief introductory sentence a few more words (IMO "of Jewish ancestry") would be the most meaningful (though, admittedly, probably not the most politically correct) way of conveying information in as short a manner as possible. As has been argued in the past "-Swiss-American vegetarian" might be (and occasionally have been) added as well, but catalogueing the list of his citizenship or later affiliations is not a particularly accurate way to describe the nature of that transition or what motivated it. Saying that he has a Jewish background implies that he was not himself an observant Jew, but that it did inform his personality, and influence the way his background influenced others. I can't speak to whether he was or was not a vegetarian, let alone whether he would have been one or not had he been Jewish :) but would he have been "-Swiss-American" were he not born a Jew? Would he have supported Zionism, written a book on the subject and been offered Israeli political posts were that not part of his background?
"German-American" as other encyclopedias describe him does give a hint as to his background and political shifts, but it is a vague term, and innaccurate in this case. As I'm sure everyone is aware, such phrases can as easily mean "American-born of German ancestry" rather than expatriated German. It is, perhaps, a smidge more accurate than just saying "German-born" because it indicates that he moved from one to another, and expresses the beginning and end of that process, which is why it is better than the polyglottal German-Swiss-American. But as you note it opens up the issue to those who want to lay claim to Einstein for their own reasons--whatever those might be. I suggest "of Jewish ancestry" rather than just "Jewish" because it parallels "German-born" in that it reflects his tepid attitude towards the faith, that he was a Zionist on an intellectual level, but didn't actually "pull the trigger" as it were when it came to the nitty-gritty of creating Israel or participating in its government. It shows how the circumstances of his birth were an influence on his life and personality, but doesn't actually ally him with that origin.
In any case, I'm not going to make this particular change until/unless there is some sort of support for it because I expect it would be reverted pretty quickly, and what's the point in that? However, I would suggest that if accuracy is the goal here--if some sort of truthful assessment of his background and personality is what we want in the introduction--and we can adopt a little language that implies details to be more fully described in the body of the article (which is what I think a good intro does) then the addition of those three words would be the way to go, just as "German-born" is more accurate than "German" alone. I suspect people might be a bit too sensitive on this particular issue even if it might be the most "truthful" way of expressing his origins, and that is understandable. It touches upon things that people seem to find unsettling: the whole religion and science thing, let alone issues of religion to begin with.... I think "of Jewish ancestry" skirts that topic in a manner similar to the way "German-born" does, but I do realize the casual reader may not recognize that distinction. Nonetheless, if we're interested in being true to Einstein's character then I think it's the way to go. Other ways of describing him really seem to fall victim to the most insidious trap of biography: expressing the POV of the author(s) rather than summing up the person. — Geeman 13:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

one of the greatest physicists of all time

The opening paragraph states that Einstein "is widely regarded as one of the greatest physicists of all time". I believe this does not accurately convey the situation. That sentence could be applied to six or seven people, whereas Einstein stood alone in the modern era. Better would be "He is widely regarded as the greatest physicist of all time" (the only rival is Newton, and they are so far apart that it is difficult to compare); or "He is universally regarded as one of the greatest physicists of all time". Pedantically, "of all time" includes the unknown future, and the alternative "yet" is understated; I prefer "there has ever been" - AG, Stockport, UK.

Seems a little pedantic to me. You certainly wouldn't get away with "universally regarded as one of the greatest...", as he has many detractors (whether they're right in criticising him is a moot point). --Oscarthecat 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Shorn of peripherals, I'm saying that the present statement significantly understates the opinion of Einstein's work held by both laymen and physicists, and I suggest it be changed accordingly. - AG, Stockport, UK.
I think the existing wording is as close to an expression of consensus as we are likely to attain. Elsewhere in the article are such facts as Einstein's being TIME's "Person of the Century", which conveys pretty well the general level of esteem he has been accorded. — DAGwyn 20:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

interesting additions

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." - Einstein [56] This quotes source should be at the bottom under External Links.

Einstein slept ten hours a night.

Speculation and controversy: Einstein's parents thought he was retarded when he was young, because he was so occupied with thinking, that he didn't take care of his hair, hygiene, etc. As he grew up, it became clear he was a genius. Even as an adult, he would forget to pull up his pants and would walk out of the bathroom with his pants around his ankles. He was not interested in the mundane, everyday things. His mind was usually elsewhere. He would often ignore the immediate reality around him.

I found this in commented out text

[[:IMAGE:Einstein Memorial.jpg|thumb|right|215px|The Albert Einstein Memorial, Washington DC (more photos)at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC.]] //Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Greatest was?

Einstein? Newton? Galileo? Archimedes? Someone else? The intro of the article on Isaac Newton says: The mathematician and mathematical physicist Joseph Louis Lagrange (1736–1813) often said that Newton was the greatest genius that ever existed, and once added "and the most fortunate, for we cannot find more than once a system of the world to establish." Well, Lagrange didn't know Einstein, and of course one can always find a famous guy saying something positive about another famous guy. For symmetry reasons, similar praise by more recent luminaries could be added to the Einstein intro. For example, this Einstein site [57] of Jürgen Schmidhuber quotes Nobel laureates Paul Dirac and Max Born: The former called General Relativity "probably the greatest scientific discovery ever made". The latter called it the "greatest feat of human thinking about nature". IMO these statements could nicely round off the Einstein intro in a way similar to Newton's. Physicists 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added this right before the statement about popular culture. Physicists 16:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove Dubious Honor

The list of honors presently starts with a rather dubious one: "In 1992, he was ranked #10 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history." On further inspection it turns out that this strange and biased list (how did it possibly make it into Wikipedia?) places Newton in second place. I say: by Einstein's standards, any rank below Newton is not an honor. Let's remove this. (In fact, the entire list should be deleted, being an extreme case of POV that does not meet the goals and standards of Wikipedia.) Other lists such as the BBC list of greatest physicists [58] (topped by Einstein) are more appropriate for an article on Einstein. Physicists 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we see if we can get an infobox inclusion consensus here?

Infobox Scientist has just undergone a revamp, by consensus, (see [59]) and so now is a good time to consider if it is wanted in this article or not. Here is a proposed infobox. Please record Keep or Delete with a short description of your viewpoint...and let's see how the fortune cookie crumbles :-) SureFire 00:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Albert Einstein
Photographed by Oren J. Turner (1947)
BornMarch 14, 1879
Ulm, Württemberg, Germany
DiedApril 18, 1955
Princeton, New Jersey
NationalityDual US -Swiss
Alma materETH Zurich
Known forBrownian motion
Photoelectric effect
Special relativity
General relativity
AwardsNobel Prize in Physics (1921)
Scientific career
FieldsPhysics
InstitutionsUniversity of Zurich (1909-1910)

Karl Ferdinand University (1911)
ETH Zurich (1912-1913)
University of Berlin (1914-1931)

IAS (1932-1955)
Doctoral advisorAlfred Kleiner
Doctoral studentsHans Tanner
Notes
Note that the residence and nationality fields are a snapshot of Einstein's life. See article for expanded details.
  • Keep. The infobox is handy for people who want a quick executive summary, without scanning the article. It also assists those who want to quickly compare key facts between different biographies. It also nicely populates some of the glaring the white space at the beginning of the article.SureFire 00:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful summary. Tyrenius 01:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I still don't see the point. It doesn't really "summarize" anything — almost none of that information (the exception being what he is "known for", but a stale list doesn't really cover that) is what I would include in a summary of Einstein's life, as knowing it does not really tell you anything about Einstein at all (alma mater? work institution? doctoral advisor? doctoral students? who cares? these are not the essence of Einstein; any of these could have been changed by chance and he'd still be Einstein. You can't say that about the rest of the fields, at the very least). I don't really think it has much functional benefit. Aesthetics are obviously going to differ from person to person, and I'm against it, but that's another question anyway. In any case, I think that the religion field should be jettisoned whatever the case; his religious beliefs are too individual and too complicated to fit into a simple field and it is not worth even trying to do so. --Fastfission 01:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment.I agree that the religion field is inappropriate for Einstein. No religous synopsis is possible. --Michael C. Price talk 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It's a huge improvemnet on the previous bloated version. It's harmless and I do find it useful for quick comparison of scientists. Aethetics look good to me too. SuperGirl 05:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – a nice, concise summary, except maybe for the religion: it should not be a quote, and what it contains is more puzzling than informative for the reader. I'd suggest removing it altogether. Schutz 06:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe an infobox is useful for some scientists, but it is pretty worthless for Einstein. At least the Residence, Nationality and Institution fields should be deleted: They refer to a time after he did his useful science. Likewise the Alma Mater, Doctoral Advisor and Doctoral Students fields: These are not important things to know about Einstein; the advisor and student is not worth mentioning even in the details of the article. And above all the Religion field should be deleted: His religion cannot be summarized in a few words. What’s left (other that the Born and Died fields) is a repetition of what’s already in the lead paragraph, which would stand right next to the infobox. --teb728 07:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (By the way, I don't recall seeing previous contributions to this article from SureFire, Tyrenius, LW77, Avi, or SuperGirl. Their sudden interest in our infobox is curious. --teb728 08:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
  • Reply. I can't speak for everyone. But my personal interest (and possibly that of others) has been spurred by the recent revamping of the infobox (and many people are now propagating it--some >200 scientific biographies now have it). I have been doing some of the work in placing it in other articles, then when I came around to doing the Einstein one I noticed there is a warning not to add an infobox unless it is discussed first. Well...here I am :-) Now to answer your questions: (a) regarding your point about repetition and the importance of the fields, these have all been discussed here [60] at some length in a consentual debate about the infobox. The answers are there. A little repetition isn't necessarily bad thing, especially as many readers go directly to the infobox as a first pass. (b) The doctoral advisor/student idea is important because it is part of his academic genealogy ...if you follow the external links in that article you will see there is intense interest in this. You may well become fascinated yourself :-) Also if you read the article on Alfred Kleiner, you'll see that he was one of the influences on the young Einstein. I'm surprised the Einstein article doesn't mention him. (c) Take a look at the footnote field that warns the reader to refer to the article for expansion. As you rightly pointed out that Einstein is a colorful case, the footnote is appropriate. This covers your other objections. (d) Regarding your point about his "time after useful science," my take is that a biography includes the person as well as the science. As a person, that's where his life ended up. The reader then goes to the main article for expansion. (e) Regarding the religion issue, the Spinoza quote nicely sums up his position in adulthood...the footnote again directs the reader to the article for expansion. (f) Remember a summary by nature is a form of lossy compression of facts, in the same way that the wiki article itself is a lossy compression of what could be said in a book about Einstein. Our lives revolve around summarizing things. Scientists have to summarise a whole journal article into a tiny Abstract. Summary is an art that can and is done. So let us collaborate together and take on the challenge of how to best present Einstein in summary. I believe the foonote takes care of the problems you raise but am open to other creative ideas. Any suggestions? SureFire 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I disagree strongly on the religion issue. Firstly, as I wrote above, an infobox is not the place to put a quote (except in rare cases, such as a motto in a country infobox). Secondly: while most of the other fields are self-explanatory and useful, even if in some cases (such as citizenship) reading the text is required to get the full story, this indication of religion is absolutely useless to any reader who has not read the full article (except your goal is to get curious people to read it...). Even after reading the page, I see a difference between reading Einstein's (interesting) quote in a telegram, and generalising it to "His religion was ...". As you say, a summary is a compression of facts; "I believe in Spinoza's God" is not a fact about Einstein's religious belief even if the word God is part of it. Schutz 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is much, much better. I am not 100% sure if I would call Spinozism a religion (this word does not even appear in the article itself, expect in the infobox), and I worry that attributing it to Einstein may be borderline on original research, but at least the infobox is understandable and useful. Thanks ! Schutz 14:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. My pleasure. Moreover, we are using the word "religion" in its broadest sense to include philosophical systems about God. Given that Einstein is quoted as identifying himself with that philosophy, I don't see how your "original research" argument holds. SureFire 14:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.. Well, the only source, as far as I know, is this 25-words telegram. Given the context, the fact that the recipient was a religious man, and other kind of letters I have seen from Einstein, I would not be surprised if he was more trying to make a point rather that expressing a real religious feeling. Inferring his "religion" from this anecdotical piece of evidence is what I call borderline to original research; I would much prefer seeing a reference to a secondary source, e.g. a biography where it is shown that this "religious belief" was more or less consistently (and several times !) expressed (maybe it exists and I have missed it). Hope this clarifies my thoughts. Schutz 19:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I don’t see why you think you have to put something in every available field no matter how inapplicable to Einstein. Take Nationality for example: If you read this talk page you will see that the question of how to summarize his nationality is a very contentious matter. If there must be an entry for Nationality, it should be “German-born” or “German” and/or “Jewish” – certainly neither Swiss nor American – those were his citizenships not his nationality. And certainly there should be no flag: Einstein was anti-nationalist. If there must be an entry for Institution, it should be the Swiss patent office and the University of Berlin – certainly not the Institute for Advanced Study, where he did no notable science. As for Religion: Why put anything?! --teb728 00:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. I agree with teb728 to remove relgion; though a note saying "see main article" in the religion field works for me too. Actually that is not a bad idea...readers who are unfamiliar with the details of Einstein's life will see that statement in the "religion field" and it will pique their interest to go and read the main article. Now that's not a bad strategy. I disagree, however, with mixing up Einstein's anti-nationalist sentiments with wanting to remove flags from the infobox. Flags are in there as standard. Just because some scientists may have hated computers, doesn't mean we respect their sentiments and exclude them from computer-based online encyclopedias :-) Spread the wiki-love. SuperGirl 23:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.Somebody spammed me on my talk page, but anyway, as a very active member of WPBIO: I can understand reservations about this particular infobox (it's a bit unweildy) but the standard by consensus now is for bios to have infoboxes. This one looked naked without an infobox. You might want to use a smaller box, perhaps just with birth, death and profession details. I don't think, though, that having no infobox at all is a reasonable solution. Many people like to get this biographical information at a glance, before reading the article in depth (I know I do). --kingboyk 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) PS Consensus is clear that the infobox should be in this article, so I restored it. I suggest taking SureFire#'s advice and refocussing on how to best present Einstein in summary. --kingboyk 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Action. My, that was bold! But I guess that's the policy :-) However, it seems that the concensus is saying to delete the religion field. I have therefore gone ahead and commented that out to respect the consensus. Does anyone want to suggest other modifications? Do people want all his work institutions in, for eample? (I think there are only 4-5, and there is still some white space to use up. SureFire 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I reject the assertion that there is a consensus in favor of Keep. Votes obtained through the controversial practice of votestacking should not be given the same value as those of the resident editors. --teb728 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - There are many readers who are satisfied by reading just an infobox. They may not have time to read some parts of the article. The infobox is a resume and i believe that the "residence" issue is solved by inserting the footnote below. -- Szvest 12:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
  • Snide Comment Frankly, I don't think Wikipedia should pander to the sort of reader who goes to the Einstein bio just to read the infobox (unless it is to look up some bit of trivia). –Joke 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Unsnide comment Well, the purpose is also to learn. (Note that I made an exception above for looking up trivia – this is something I myself often use Wikipedia for.) I was just against the notion that people who want to really learn something but "don't have the time to read the article" could really glean an iota of meaningful knowledge from the infobox. –Joke 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Even unsnider comment - Guys, we offer a wider scope when we add an infobox. A lot of info are packed in a small jukebox.
  • Comment. I see one thing being rational when we talk about the removal of the box. I agree that info sush religion affiliation not relevant. He wasn't a preacher of Spinoza thoughts anyway. -- Szvest 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but wouldn't it be more useful to make the "Residence" and "Institution" fields "Residence(s)" and "Institution(s)", that way multiple significant residences and institutions could be listed? Also, was Einstein's Institution of record really Princeton University or was it just the Institute for Advanced Study (which was in Princeton, New Jersey but was not affiliated with the university)? Robert K S13:52, 17 October 2006
  • NO! I think it is absurd to put a celebrity infobox like this here. I would be happy to have the infobox if it contains only the following information: Born, Died and perhaps something about him being a physicist and a Nobel laureate. But, c'mon, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a baseball card collection. –Joke 14:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think the "baseball card collection" argument is somewhat redundant as the horse has bolted and there are thousands of bio infoboxes on wikipedia. As per kingboyk, above, it's now the consensus standard to have infoboxes for bios. If you go to WPBIO: here [61] you'll see infoboxes are part of the instructions for creating a biography. SureFire 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Yes, but that doesn't mean we can't be reasonable in keeping the size of the infobox down. I mean, the box as it is doesn't provide any particularly useful information about Einstein, and I can't imagine that it ever will. Why not limit it to information that is amenable to the box format: that that can be stated clearly and unambiguously in one line. In this case, that is Birth, Death, Field, his Nobel prize (although there is already a template for that at the bottom of the page) and (if necessary) his Alma Mater and doctoral advisor. –Joke 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Since the weight of consensus seems to be against me, can we at least delete the silly religion, nationality and residence fields? If something is too subtle to put in an infobox, then don't put it in the damn box! –Joke 14:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. If you see the actual box on the main page, I did already delete the "religion" field. The consensus for nationality & residence is rather too strong to delete at present. Anybody want to comment? SureFire 14:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete — The selection of fields for the box makes it look stupid. Why is his thesis advisor more important than any of dozens of other factoids about Einstein? Or for that matter, why is the "nationality" worthy of mention, especially when it is artificial? If somebody needs a quick summary, the article's introduction already provides that. DAGwyn 20:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, apart of some details as sketched above: in particular alma_mater, few readers will understand that latin term (I don't for starters). To keep religion or not is debatable, but I found that information on Newton rather interesting after all. Harald88 21:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Too bad for your concensus then - with several people here disagreeing with that term the concensus is gone, obviously. And I notice that your "concensus"there wasn't one really, with for example "Delete. If kept then Rename to a more international name.". Harald88 21:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Next Step. The consensus to remove the "religion" field for Einstein is now loud and clear. Remember I did already delete it from the main page. In the above example I've put "See main article" as an experiment to see if you all like it. The next step is to decide if we want the slightly shorter version that is on the main page or the slightly longer one in the above example. My opinion is that there is still white space on the main page that could be nicely taken up by the longer version. Any comments?SureFire 22:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Reply. I'm not clear on your motivation for shortening. If you see the main Einstein page, you'll see there is still plenty of white space. The doctoral advisor/student idea is important because it is part of his academic genealogy ...if you follow the external links in that article you will see there is intense interest in this. Also if you read the article on Einstein's supervisor Alfred Kleiner, you'll see that it is not uninteresting. It's handy for the reader to get an easy link to find the academic genealogy. SureFire 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Einstein was cremated and his ashes scattered, I believe. Perhaps you mean: "place where his brain sits in a jar" ? –Joke 00:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I actually did the ones mentioned by teb728. I did them in the good faith that it was only a dozen just to get the debate kick started. I only requested comment in a neutral fashion. I did not suggest a particular position. They are a mixture of random people picked from "history" of the Einstein page and random ones from other biographies to add a little new blood. As can be seen from the responses, very few voters support the infobox for Einstein without modification; so there was no "vote rigging." I deplore what happened in Florida, and would perish the thought of that happening here :-) SureFire 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Vote tally so far:
  • Keep 11: Michael C. Price, Schutz, Harald88, bunix, SureFire, Avi, SuperGirl, Szvest, Kaldari, SquidSK, Howard the Duck
  • Delete 5: Fastfission, teb728, Joke, DAGwyn, Pjacobi
  • Votes apparently resulting from votestacking 8: SureFire, Tyrenius, LW77, Avi, SuperGirl, Bender235, bunix, kingboyk, Szvest, Robert K S, Kaldari, Billlion, Bejnar, SquidSK, Steiger
So by my count the vote is 11 to 5 for Keep. --teb728 02:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC) updated --teb728 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. teb728 you are a darling. I do confirm I wasn't spammed and thank you for correcting my vote. Barnstars and hugs for you. People do watchlist pages without necessarily contributing, as yet, y'know! Question: should Fastfission and Kingboyk be totally removed from the above tally? My reasoning is that neither committed to a "keep" or "delete" position. It seemed both were stating comments, whilst abstaining from voting. Kisses, SuperGirl 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Thank bunix for suggesting that I move your vote. Thank you for pointing out the omission of Steiger. To you and anyone else who say the fact that some “Keep” voters favor the omission of some fields proves their neutrality: The issue in this poll is the insertion of any infobox; a previous infobox was removed which contained only the name, picture, and Born and Died fields. (BTW, I second SureFire’s comments on wiki-kisses.) --teb728 01:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another observation. I've just noticed that all you guys forgot to include Steiger's vote. Also, I personally wouldn't list Billlion and RobertKS as votestackees, because they spoke their own minds and called for some deletions. It seems that only Tyrenius, Bender235, and LW77 were SureFire's sock-friend lapdogs. A count of three is pretty harmless. Wiki-kisses and wiki-love to everyone. SuperGirl 23:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. SuperGirl, that was a bit out-of-line to suggest they were SockPuppets. I have no connection to them. Calling then "lapdogs" was rather insulting. Whilst I'm no heterophobe, please keep your WikiKisses to yourself. SureFire 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wasn't spammed. (And if I was I didn't look :-) I'm investigating the other claims. Still checking. However, my initial observation is that Fastfission was spammed too!!! So why are you including his/her vote? Isn't that a little naughty? Also many of the respondents above are voting to remove various fields especially the religion one. This tells me that the solicitation was done without favor. Therefore is valid IMHO. bunix 06:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.You’re right; you weren't spammed: My appologies. I included on the Votestacking list those whom I did not recognise as contributers to the article. Even though I knew Fastfission, Michael C. Price, and Harald88 were spammed, I included them in the Keep and Delete lists because I recognised them as contributers, and thus they almost certainly have the article on their watch lists. I see now that you contributed to the article back in July; so you should have be on the Keep list too—again my appologies. But I think my conclusion is still valid. --teb728 08:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.I've made 8 edits to this article just in the past month and started two of the discussion sections on this talk page. Just because you don't happen to recognize my name doesn't mean I'm not a "contributor". Honestly, I didn't pay any attention to Surefire's post on my talk page. I came here to vote because I saw all the activity on my watchlist. Kaldari 21:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.Thank you for your gracious and civil apology. I've completed my inquisition and here are my conclusions: (1) It's all pretty unbiassed, as most people are asking to delete the religion field. As I said before: this suggests it was done in a neutral way. (2) Avi and SuperGirl were not spammed if you check the histories on their talk pages. (3) You can't exclude SureFire...how can someone spam themself? Your logic is questionable :-) He/she started this thing, so should be in the vote. (4) Your argument that both I and Fastfission were prior contributors, also applies to Kaldari who contributed on 24 Sep 2006 and SquidSK who contributed 13 Oct 2006. and Schulz who contributed on 16 Oct 2006. (5) You appear to have totally missed Schulz in your count. (6) Also Szvest contributed on 18 May 2006 under his primary name: FayssalF. (7) In view of these observations, please can you re-tally? bunix 11:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Username is Schutz, with a t instead of an l, and I am correctly listed in the 'Keep' list... or are you talking about another user that I missed ? Schutz 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Thank you for your research. I certainly agree that SureFire and Kaldari belong on the Keep list (if only because their contributions to this section show interest in the article). I’ll include the others you mention (although I have the sense that some were just visiting to vote). --teb728 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment.Not so fast! The spam lists appear to be composed of people who expressed an interest in Template:Infobox Scientist, and thus is hardly neutral. Fastfission in particular responded to the TfD in a manner consistent with keeping the reduced version of the template. --teb728 08:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Even the longest infobox is still a nice way of getting quickie information on a subject, and though this one is longer than average it's still not so long as to ruin its effectiveness as a way of conveying data. However, as others have noted I would take out the "Religion" category. It's not because that information is irrelevant or unnecessary--as seems to be the opinion expressed by some folks--but because describing Einstein as Jewish is so overly simplistic as to be misleading. --Geeman 09:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add: oc:Albert Einstein

Thanks.

Done; sorry that the page is semi-protected right now; there has been quite a bit of vandalism here today... Schutz 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Albert Einstein

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly the material for such an article in Einstein's case. Shall I begin migration of the relevant material? -Fsotrain09 01:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox fields

The infobox poll is getting quite long, and comments on the fields are spread throughout. So I think it useful to consolidate comments on the fields and their content in this section. For each field vote Keep or Delete, optionally with a reason and/or proposed content (if different from the proposal). --teb728 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Born

Died

Residence

  • Delete. He’s dead; he doesn’t have a residence. --teb728 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The intention (according to the guidelines for this template) is to only list the main countries of domicile, where the scientist once lived. I think just putting USA (as that's where he ended up), and letting the footnote point the reader to the main article is the most compact solution. Another tolerable solution would be just to list the top 2-3 countries where he lived for the longest duration. Anyone know which they are? SuperGirl 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Include the places where he resided for five years or more.--Howard the Duck 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per Howard the Duck. I like the idea of limiting to all countries where he lived to those >=5yrs. bunix 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I support and laugh at teb728's comment. Well, apart from agreeing w/ their comment i must say that the below nationality field with "born" field are quite enough to let the user know that this guy was born in Germany and got 3 citizenships! Any other info would be redundant. -- Szvest 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Makes no sense to summarize this in an infobox. We're left with the choice of putting all the countries he lived in or the one he died in? The former takes up a lot of space and isn't particularly informative, the latter is downright misleading. Better to have this information in the text. –Joke 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. This is exactly the reason we need it in the infobox. It's there so the reader does not have to trawl to get the key biographical facts. It's only 4 places Einstein lived in: Germany, Switzerland, Prague, and USA. Why not put them all in? If there is a space problem, then toss out Prague as he was only there for 1 year. He was in the other 3 places for >=10years each and therefore this is significant.SuperGirl 21:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nationality

  • Strong Delete. As one can see on this talk page, the question of how to summarize his nationality is a very contentious matter. If there must be an entry for Nationality, it should be “German-born” and/or “Jewish” – certainly neither Swiss nor American – those were his citizenships not his nationality. And certainly there should be no flag: Einstein was anti-nationalist, and flags imply nationalism to many people. --teb728 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whilst I see teb728's point, I would keep it simply because it would make this template look rather strange compared to the >200 others on the wikipedia. I think the intention of this template field is to treat Nationality/Citizenship in the broad sense. They are often broadly used to mean the same thing. They are only different in legal detail to do with political voting rights (see nationality). The template uses the label in the broad sense, not the narrow legal sense. Thus, Swiss-US is fine, so long as the footnote is used to point the reader to the main article. I am hesistant to include "Jewish" as that is more to do with ethnicity rather than nationality. SuperGirl 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. To me “Nationality” refers to one’s nation or ethnicity and has no necessary connection to a state in which one may have citizenship. (IMHO the first part of the article on nationality is very confused on this issue.) If there were a “Citizenship” field, I would say delete it because it would tell you nothing of more importance about Einstein than his Erdos number. --teb728 07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Your phrase 'to me' confirms you realise you are being POV. Let's get encyclopedic here. I just checked "nationality" on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online and it says nationality is: "the status of being a citizen or subject of a particular state." Bingo. The same as what the wiki article on nationality says. Case closed.SuperGirl 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Response. See reply in separate subsection below. --teb728 07:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Listing American and not Swiss would probably be POV, since he has never been American without being Swiss (and he was particularly keen on keeping Swiss citizenship), and had been Swiss for much longer. Schutz 06:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't see the point of renaming "Nationality." However, if "Citizenship" is a more understandable term for the masses, then I may be swayed. Keep the flags in...don't care if Einstein turns in his grave...it's what all the other scientist infoboxes have. Need to keep some semblance of standardization. Einstein is dead, no need to pander to him. bunix 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Only in case the "residence" field is removed. (see my comment above). -- Szvest 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Makes no sense to summarize this in an infobox – it is not even really possible since his citizenship changed. –Joke 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. True, but my concern is that this is a very standard part of the infobox and it will look strange to the reader if it is missing. It is better to just put his last nationality in (Swiss-American) and then let the footnote take care of it, as we have in the present working example. It's not broke, why fix it? SuperGirl 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It will only "look strange to the reader" if the reader only reads Wikipedia infoboxes. I am not sure that is our audience here. If the reader wanted to know more details they could, per chance, actually read the article. --Fastfission 01:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. Disagree. There are many ways an infobox gets used. Here are just five examples (1) As a navigational tool before reading the main article, (2) As an appetite whetter before deciding whether or not to read the main article, (3) By someone who's read the main article some time ago, forgotten a detail and then wants to go back and quickly find a fact, (4) By people who scan several biographies wanting to quickly compare trivia between them, (5) By school children who print the articles out, cut out the infoboxes and collect them like baseball cards. SuperGirl 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC) PS: Now let's not get too precious about the fifth point because as a scientist, myself, I know one of our big problems is in inspiring the younger generations. It's just not fair that baseballers get infoboxes, and scientists (till now) were subject to some misplaced honor of being "above that."
  • Comment. I think point (2) above is notable in the case of Einstein...people will see the infobox...they will then read footnote that points out the difficulties in summarising Einstein, which then points them to the main article. I think this will result in more readers getting curious and actually then taking the effort to read the main article, instead of just scanning the infobox. Isn't a bigger audience what the resident editors of this page would like? It's a win-win. Surely? SuperGirl 20:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but as per Howard the Duck. Harald88 21:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename, as per Howard the Duck. -- Avi 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, all of them. As per bunix — Einstein not being nationalist has no influence whatsoever on our decision to put flags in the infobox or not. This is an encyclopedia article, not an hommage. Schutz 06:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep all flags as per Schutz...this is an encylopedia, not a shrine to Einstein's idiosyncrasies. Keep all nationalities. If too long, then just keep the last one, with appropriate caveat inserted in the footnote. SureFire 22:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I think most folks can get the distinction between nation+citizenship=nationality and nationalism, and in the context of a blurb we can't really worry about what people might read into such a thing. Those unable to know or grasp the difference are unlikely to be swayed even by a fuller explanation in the body of the article.... Geeman 02:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Howard the Duck and bunix. Trebor 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I still don’t like the Nationality field for Einstein, or including citizenship in Nationality if present. (I think both his Jewishness and his Germanness are far more notable than his citizenships.) But I seem to be outnumbered on both counts. Perhaps the solution is an inclusive list with both ethnic identity and citizenship. That might also reduce the likelyhood of edit wars over his nationality (which we have seen in the past). Maybe like this:
Ethnic identify:
  • Jewish
  • German
Citizenship:
  • Swiss (1901-death)
  • Prussian (1914-1933)
  • American (1940-death)
I’m not sure “Ethnic identity” is the right label. What I am trying to express by it is the cultural group one identifies with or is identified with. --teb728 06:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. OK teb728, I'm beginning to appreciate the way you think. Sorry for being slow :-) What you are saying is looking good. I think put the Swiss, Prussian, and Anerican items in the Nationality field of the infobox. Then let the Footnote field take care of the ethnicity. I would recommend not to bother with flags for the ethnicity. If you make up an example infobox in this talk page, we can all take a look and perhaps collaborate on fine-tuning the wording. SuperGirl 09:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry I am coming late to the discussion (but basically agree with SuperGirl's comment just above); just one question/comment. If we include the Prussian citizenship, why not add also the German one he held between 1879 and 1896 ? Schutz 09:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. My 7-line example above was intended as a fragment of a proposed infobox; imagine the caption Nationality to the left of it. If part of it were relegated to the footnote, it should be the citizenship, for the notable thing about Einstein’s nationality is his ethnic identity not his citizenship. It’s like the Hamilton example you brought up in the side thread below: Hamilton’s Irish ethnic identity is listed as his nationality, and his British citizenship is not even mentioned. Since you suggest using the footnote, how about listing his nationality as “German-Jewish”? (with no flag?) And say in the footnote, “Although his nationality was German-Jewish, he held Swiss and American citizenships at the time of his death.” (On Einstein’s citizenship prior to 1896, I don’t know what it was: Württemberger, Bavarian, both? The article doesn’t find it important enough to discuss.) --teb728 07:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Side thread on Nationality

I feel obliged to reply to SuperGirl’s accusation of POV. But to avoid breaking the flow of the Nationality section with what may be a longish side thread, I put this reply in a separate subsection: In reply to my comment, “To me “Nationality” refers to one’s nation or ethnicity and has no necessary connection to a state in which one may have citizenship,” she wrote:

  • Reply. Your phrase 'to me' confirms you realise you are being POV. Let's get encyclopedic here. I just checked "nationality" on the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) online and it says nationality is: "the status of being a citizen or subject of a particular state." Bingo. The same as what the wiki article on nationality says. Case closed.SuperGirl 08:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Well no, the phrase “to me” means I prefer one of two accepted meanings. If you look more closely at the article on Nationality, you will see that it includes my preferred meaning as an “Alternate usage.” I simply regard this “alternate” meaning as the more basic. (I hope you don’t regard it POV to think an article could be improved.)
My understanding is that ethnic affiliation was the original meaning of “nationality,” but that in a nation-state it is natural to extend this meaning to include state affiliation. Inasmuch as most states these days are nation-states, this extension has come for many people to dominate the understood meaning. The extension, however, is really proper only in a nation-state.
To demonstrate that consider: Einstein was born a subject of the Kingdom of Württemberg . I’m pretty sure that did not make him directly a subject of the German Empire . (In any case, Württembergers could not have been German Empire subjects prior to 1871.) The point is that I doubt anyone would claim the “nationality” of Württembergers then was Württemberger rather than German.
So, there are two meanings of “nationality”; some people think more in terms of one, and some the other. This difference has led editors to change Einstein’s nationality label—sometimes quite insistently. --teb728 07:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. Dear teb728, wow, I'm really impressed by your research. I like you because you dig up stuff and back yourself up rather than shooting from the hip like many 'pedia editors out there in wiki-land. So you have my respect. You are right that there are alternative interpretations of 'nationality.' However, what I've been trying to get at is that the intention of the template guidelines appears to go more for the citizenship angle, and to steer clear of the ethnicity angle. Ethinicity is a can of worms and we should try avoid getting into its evil trap ...Citizenship is a clean well-defined status that can be backed-up by historical documentation and paperwork. Ethnicity on the other hand is a grey concept...for example what if a given scientist has mixed grandparentage from different countries? What if the grandmother cheated with the Mexican milkman? What do we say the ethnicity is? There is no paper trail back-up for ethnicity and there is even no sure-fire DNA test for ethnicity either. So we can't even go to Einstein's preserved brain samples and test them. So let's keep it encyclopedic, and stick with the more legal citizenship interpretation of the word "Nationality" as orginally intended by the template. Dare I blow you a wiki-kiss? SuperGirl 09:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC) PS: If people feel "citizenship" is a more clearer term than "nationality" for describing the legal national status (as opposed to ethnicity) then I am for supporting a change to the template master.
    Comment. This may be a good fit for many modern states, but breaks down in a lot of other cases. "Roman citizenship" was not extended to all Roman nationals, but it was over time extended to a lot of non-Romans. For a more modern example: Were slaves considered citizens in the pre-civil war US? Were blacks considered citizens in apartheid South Africa? --Stephan Schulz 11:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. One can cross that bridge in such articles on Romans and South Africans, should you need to write one. Our mission here is to focus on Einstein. I am pointing out the general principle that it's much safer to stick to citizenship (and steer clear of ethnicity) for modern "western" scientists such as Einstein. Ethnicity is too much of a hot potato. For modern western biographies there is a clear paper-trail of documentation to verify citizenship. Ethnicity is always open to some uncertainty. For example, take the mathematician Hamilton, (as in Hamiltonians). Was he Scottish or was he Irish? He was an Irish national and born there, but his family came from Scotland. It's much cleaner to put him down as Irish as that was his legal status and his upbringing. He identified with being Irish. It would be silly to list him as a Scottish scientist...even though his ethnicity was clearly Scottish. SuperGirl 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Oh. Once again we are tripping over varying meanings of words. By nationality (and ethnicity) I refer to the people (the singular noun—not the plural of person) that one identifies with or that one is identified with—a social meaning, related to culture and not particularly to genetics. I am sorry if I wasn’t clear about that before. So as far as I am concerned, Hamilton was Irish because he is associated with the Irish people, and he was not Scots because is not identified with the Scots people. By your OED definition, however, he should be regarded as British because he was a British subject. Applying this to Einstein: He was Jewish because throughout his life he identified with the Jewish people. His Jewish identity was far more significant in his life than his Swiss or American citizenships. --teb728 21:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. See how it is handled in Hamilton. It says "Irish" and there is an Irish flag. However, there is a qualifier there saying he is of Scottish descent. Notice there is no Scottish flag. So the same applies to Einstein. I have no objections with a qualifier saying he is from a Jewish family, but I object to an Israeli flag...because Einstein was not an Israeli. It would be as silly as putting a Scottish flag there for Hamilton. (An aside: the reason why the British flag is not there for Hamilton is that he was not from Northern Ireland...only Northern Ireland came part of the UK in 1801).SuperGirl 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. That’s not what it says in the article United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It says there that Northern Ireland was not split off until the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Are those articles wrong? If not, shouldn’t you change Hamilton’s nationality to British to be consistent with what you are advocating here? I don’t see why Hamilton’s “Scottish descent” is noted at all; that’s even dumber than stuff some people are trying to insert here: his nationality was not Scots at all. Einstein, in contrast, was Jewish not because of his Jewish descent but because of his Jewish identity. He was Jewish for the same reason Hamilton was Irish. --teb728 01:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Dear teb728, I have to reluctantly admit you are swaying me with your smooth talk:-) I am honestly uncertain now. OK, now the discussion has settled down, why don't you put together an example template on this talk page so we can see what your overall vision looks like? If u get it started, I can help prettify it if you need a hand. Let's collaborate! Wiki-kisses, SuperGirl 21:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) PS: As it would only be an example for discussion it would be kinda fun to stick our necks out a little and put religion in, just to test the reaction. If you can think up something half sensible to put in the religion field, people may ending up liking it. Why deny them this avenue of pleasure? :-)

Field

Institution

  • KeepNeutral. List the Swiss Patent Office and the University of Berlin but perhaps not the University of Zurich, Karl Ferdinand University, or ETH —and certainly not the Institute for Advanced Study, where he did no notable science. --teb728 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC) modified --teb728 22:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There is not going to be an answer here which makes sense as a "summary", same as the nationality issue. --Fastfission 00:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per teb728. I am happy with putting in as many of his institutions he worked at that help to fill up white space on the page. I have no problem with the IAS...his critique of QM leading to EPR discussions is notable.SuperGirl 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Why not list his pets, if you just want to fill up whitespace? I thought there were supposed to be intellectual reasons for having these "summaries". --Fastfission 17:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply. Pets?....giggle. Getting a job in Princeton is a pretty damn good acheivement. He was there for 23 years which is about a third of his whole life. Therefore from a historial biographical viewpoint the IAS needs to be listed. Otherwise the reader will think, "well, where was he for 23 years?" Also his critique of QM was very influential; it is untrue to say his acheivements then were zero. Critiquing things is part of the scientific process. His modus operandi simply changed when he went to the USA. He took a risk that simply didn't pay off as much as his previous work. But I call that still a success, not a failure. SuperGirl 21:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Are we pandering to the "reader" who reads only the infobox, now? Listing the IAS (which is not part of Princeton University) as his "institution" will not tell this hypothetical reader anything about how long he stayed there, where he was before then, or when or where he did his most important work. It tells you a single fact and one which isolated from all explanation is worthless. And most of Einstein's critiques of QM were developed and published well before he went to IAS (EPR was published two years after he arrived at IAS, though Einstein didn't actually write that one, but that's a bit pedantic to point out). --Fastfission 01:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply. I agree with your details but not your sentiment. The fact is that Einstein was at the IAS for a long time. So it's part of his biographical record. Yes, his work there was not as significant as his prior work, but you are plain wrong to say his IAS years are not noteworthy. The infobox is a navigational tool and it quickly shows the reader where Einstein was working. SuperGirl 01:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Howard the Duck 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per SuperGirl. Just list as many that use up the space. If too bloated, then delete the ones where he spent the shortest time.bunix 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too much info for little value. -- Szvest 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Makes no sense to summarize this in an infobox. He didn't even do his best work at any of these institutions! –Joke 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply. We are making a historical record here. We are an encylopedia and not here to judge where he did his best work or not. (That's inherently POV.) To be true to the historical record we list all the places he worked. If it is too long, we then just put 2-3 where he spent the most time and let the footnote take care of the rest. bunix 10:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, makes perfect sense to summarize this in an infobox. Robert K S 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kaldari 16:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, including IAS. -- Avi 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Schutz 06:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all. This is a classic example of the usefulness of an infobox. A chronological list of where he worked saves a lot of article trawling. There's enough white space there to handle this content. SureFire 22:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think there's too much to summarise neatly. Trebor 00:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Alma Mater

Reply. That's fine of course Harald88 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Doctoral Advisor

  • Response-to-response I think that scientific genealogy project is a good idea, but in the context of an infobox its rather unwieldy. Probably a better way of compiling such a system is with a set of articles. The infobox should be for quickie-reference information. "When did he die?" "What award/s did he win?" A "family tree" of intellectual development going back centuries is a valuable and fascinating subject, but using infoboxes as the hook into such a project is like using postage stamps to pay your mortage. Geeman 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply This is a non sequitor. There is no family tree in the infobox. It's just the advisor and any students with a wiki article. This provides quick and handy links primarily to these related articles so the reader can then easily check for themselves how significant or trivial these influences were. Then a secondary effect is that the reader can then crawl up or down the tree via successive infoboxes. This is no different to a succession infobox in many other articles out there.SuperGirl 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification My comment was regarding "a 'family tree' of intellectual development" not an actual geneological family tree. :) I support the idea behind the project--a series of links connecting up the mentor to student relationship throughout the centuries, showing the development of ideas and scholarly work. That's a good idea. However, it would be better portrayed in actual article pages in which the whole "tree" could be written out, and/or the process could be given its due attention. Using infoboxes to create a series of links is unwieldy because it doesn't show a whole lot of information at once, requires the reader/browser to make the "family tree" leaps himself (as in, it presents these people as being related without any actual explanation of how) and because it is rather a hamfisted use of the infobox system. Geeman 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response. Sure....making trees and putting them on pages is a good idea and some editors are already doing that, for example see: [65]. No problem! However, this in no way replaces the idea of having quick links to the immediate supervisor and students in the infobox. I can see there is room for both on wikipedia and they can co-exist in harmony. As I said before, what you are seeing with this infobox is no different to succession boxes for monarchs or politicians. SuperGirl 08:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Reply Well, I think it should replace the idea of having quick links to the immediate supervisor in the infobox mostly because I don't think supervisor/student is the kind of information that is signficant enough to belong in an infobox. Who is going to look for quick reference information regarding Einstein's doctoral advisor? I can see someone wanting quick reference to his DOB, DOD, the major theories he is credited with, etc. but are people really going to want quick reference to the people he studied with? What's more, the infobox format isn't the right way to display such data. The succession of boxes used for monarchs and politicians is a much better way of portraying such data--at the bottom of the page where such links belong (for format's sake and because it really is rather tangential information.) It'd be more in line with the method you describe for politicians and monarchs and a better presentation of the idea (tracking the chain of scholarly learning) in a more obvious and meaningful way. Geeman 20:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Many people would be curious to click on the links in the infobox and explore. Your assertion that no one is interested in Einstein's advisor is false. Have you read the article on Alfred Kleiner yourself to see that it is in fact interesting? Also what you are saying about succession boxes being at the bottom of the page is false too. Check out Bill Clinton, for example, where you'll see the succession of presidents is done at the top of the page in the infobox. The fact is that different ways of displaying succession do peacefully coexist on wikipedia. If it ain't broke why fix it? If you seriously wanna change over 200 templates, are you offering to do all the work? I'm not! If you are serious about this change go ahead and do it yourself. The correct way to start is not here (because this is specifically for Einstein)--you need to start a discussion at the talk page of the infobox and raise a concensus here: [66]. May the force be with you and watch out for grumpy bitches like me. SuperGirl 21:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some More Clarification First, I have not asserted that no one is interested in Einstein's advisor, and I think I've been pretty clear that I think the project is a good idea.... (Honestly, where did that come from?) That said, I actually would assert that there there is a pretty big difference between the infoboxes of politicians listing their predecessors and successors in office and a more abstract concept like a mentor and student relationship. That's the kind of information someone might want a quick reference to. Who succeeded Polk or preceded Taylor? People ask those kind of questions all the time about those sorts of people. Very few people have the same question about the educational development of Max Planck or even of Einstein.... Do people need quick reference to that right at the top of the page? In this case, using the infobox as a method of relating information about the history of scholarly development for centuries is an odd way of trying to relate that information and outside the scope of what that little portion of the page is meant for. Second, there are other tools that can be used, ones that suit the situation better. The "succession box" at the bottom of many bio pages (like those of U.S. Presidents) would be more appropriate. If you take a look at the bios of Presidents (like Bill Clinton's) you'll see that there is the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" entries in the infobox, but the succession box is the one at the bottom of the page that has a more complete list (and that's where such a concept would be more appropriately placed.) --Geeman 08:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply Where did it come from? It was when you said its inclusion wasn't "significant." Maybe I was hormonal and overeacted. You are right about a succession box being at the bottom of the the US president page. However, note: (i) succession is also in the infobox and the two coexist, (ii) in the US prez case, the bottom succession box is necessary because there is more than one type of office to describe. In our case we only have one item and that is "advisors"...so it is much neater and more visible in the infobox. (iii) Who said anything about "centuries?" (Honestly, where did that come from?). No. The infobox only has the predecessor and successor only. Period. The "centuries" thing _may_ happen as a side-effect one day when enough biographies are there to form a "chain." But that is nothing that needs concern you. That is something that naturally happens via a self-organization process as the number of biographies increases. The idea is to let that effect evolve by itself. SuperGirl 09:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yet more Clarification Well, I'm going to leap to my own defense once more to say that I think the academic geneology project is a good idea. I just don't think the infobox is the appropriate place for such information. There exist better methods already extant on WP that are more apt. My comments that advisor/students isn't right for the infobox is quite different from asserting that nobody is interested in such information, so please be more careful when attributing statements to others. Heck, I'm interested in it myself. I look forward to spending some time checking it out. However, the issue is not whether that information can coexist in the infobox and in a succession box at the bottom of the page, but if it is appropriate for the infobox in the first place. For an infobox on politicians or regents it makes sense to have "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" because that's the kind of information that people might want quickly. Students memorize the succession of presidents all the time, for example, and lots of people might want to quickly reference that kind of thing. The connection between advisor and student, however, is more abstract. In certain cases the connections are even debatable, not just factually but whether that relationship was, in fact, significant. The whole concept is less concrete than DOB, DOD, countries that someone held citizenship in, or the order of office holders, and as such doesn't belong in what should be a brief list of definite facts about an individual. Now, as for where "centuries" came from, according to the link you provided above for the academic geneology projects one of them (the Mathematics Genealogy Project) "attempts to go back to the time of Leibnitz." Since Gottfried Leibnitz died nearly 300 years ago that'd put the project's timeline in the centuries. The "Genealogy of theoretical physicists" page goes back even further. Again, it's a good idea and a fascinating subject, but I don't see the infobox as being the proper place to put it for the reasons already described. --Geeman 13:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Again, I'll repeat that the "centuries" factor is nothing that concerns us here. We are only taking about immediate succession and precession. If several boxes happen to link together and go back centuries, then that is a nice side-effect. It is not something we have to consciously aim for. That takes care of itself as the wikipedia grows. Whilst I agree that succession connections can sometimes be debated, I disagree that monarchs etc are more clear cut. There are contested monarchs. And look at the succession of Popes. Lot's of controversy there! That's why we have Antipopes. Advisor/student relationships are much easier to handle than Popes. Sure you can put a succession box at the bottom of the page. Nobody is going to stop you! As I said before, here is not the correct place to discuss that. The correct proceedure is to just go ahead and do it. Then once you've populated all the bios, start a discussion on the Infobox Scientist talk page suggesting the Advisor and Students then be removed from the infobox. You need to do the work first, to ensure that the information is not buried. I will support your proposed removal once I see your succession box nicely populated throughout the bios, and not before! SuperGirl 01:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response I'm probably not going to have time to populate several hundred succession boxes myself, but I'm going to make the suggestion that that be the format on the appropriate page and see if we can get that method used by people contributing rather than the infobox. Thanks for the input. --Geeman 07:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. It would help acceptance of your idea if you put together a succession box and created a working example. Then populate it on (say) 6 pages so people can take a look at how it works and get the idea. Test run in on the lineage of Carl Friedrich Gauss, as that is a very exciting academic ancestry example. I will be happy to offer a constructive critique if you alert me. SuperGirl 08:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll get on that as soon as practicable. I'm running into a lot of those pesky real world demands on my time lately... hence, the tardiness of this response :) I appreciate the discussion and your pointing me in the direction of that particular project, though, so thanks. -- Geeman 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Doctoral Students

Known for

Notable Prizes

Religion

  • Strong Delete. No entry at all—not even “See main article” --teb728 00:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC) The advice at Template talk:Infobox Scientist#Field #17: Religion is “Only use it where they have strong religious views which related to their scientific achievement.” --teb728 08:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Keep Delete, otherwise keep only if we put "See main article." This is probably good for capturing more readers :-) SuperGirl 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Howard the Duck 12:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Though not opposed to keeping if "See main article" is inserted. I could be swayed if the concensus wants this. bunix 12:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to add a srtong to delete. He wasn't preaching! He was excercising Physics. -- Szvest 13:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    Reply. For that matter, no scientist is a preacher. The point of this entry is to recognise the intense readership interest in the religious position of scientists. The whole issue of the relationship between religion and science is a contemporary hot topic. So that's why it's there. But the real question here today, is can we summarise it in the case of Einstein? It's a tough one and needs some collaborative creative thinking. Any ideas? bunix 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Obviously. –Joke 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and under no circumstance should "see main article" be the entry for any infobox field. If it cannot be reduced to something elegant--and in Einstein's case, Spinozism is elegant--then the field should not be used at all. I will add that Einstein is a good example--and maybe the best example since Newton--of religion taking part in a scientist's thinking. Many of his famous quotes deal with the beauty of scientific law from the perspective of a Creator--"God does not play dice with the universe" (a belief that may have prevented him from making contributions to quantum theory); one would be hard-pressed to find a page of quotes by Einstein that does not mention God three or four times. For anyone who might think Einstein's work was limited to investigations of physics, they might try reading Einstein's correspondence with Paul Diel, which cut to the core of his thinking on religion. Robert K S 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This is a non sequitur. "Einstein's complex thinking on religion was of tremendous personal importance, therefore it should be summarized in an infobox." –Joke 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Response It is the criteria printed above, viz., "Only use it where they have strong religious views which related to their scientific achievement." Einstein's religious views related to both his scientific and political courses. Robert K S 16:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can't sum up Einstein's views on religion in an infobox. I don't understand why the scientist infobox has a religion parameter anyway. Kaldari 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Simply because the science biography readership is very interested in the religious position of scientists. The dialog between religion and science is a notable area of both public and scholarly interest. SuperGirl 06:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot be summed up easily (is not a standard checkbox religious view) and "see main article" is abominable for an infobox. --Fastfission 17:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Too complex for an infobox, he was not a practicing Jew, but was a very religious person. Unless we put "Yes" in as the entry -- Avi 00:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as per teb728. Schutz 06:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Boy this is a tough one. I'm kinda sticking my neck out here, for a royal flaming :-) So please be gentle with me. Here is my reasoning for "keep." The fact is that the discussion in both the popular literature and scholarly literature on the interplay between Einstein's scientific and religious beliefs is huge. If I stacked every piece of paper written on it end-to-end, I could circle the globe. The paradox is that because it is so complex and significant, an entry in the infobox is justified...but because of that very complexity it makes the wording tricky and the entry difficult. Because it's difficult, is no reason to "delete" IMHO. We are all clever guys and surely we can collaborate to come up with something pithy and suitable. I've trawled around some of the other science biography articles to see how they have coped with this problem to get ideas. One idea is to put it in the negative, and say what Einstein is not. So something like "Did not subscribe to any organised religion" or even "Did not believe in a personal God" could be possible entries. Or even something like, "Had complex beliefs that are described in the main article" might work. SureFire 23:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with a proviso I think Einstein should be described as "German-born... of Jewish ancestry" in the first sentence of the article for reasons having to do with consistency with other WP articles, his description in other encyclopedias (encyclopedium?), because it works best as an introduction to the body of this article and most importantly its an accurate assessment of Einstein (to that extent that something like this can be done in a few words, of course.) If the current opening sentence is kept (which lists his date of birth, death and the locations in which they occurred) then I vote Keep as such information is incomplete on its own. Though an infobox notation is not very informative, it's better than nothing. IMO: It needs to say right at the top of the page that Einstein was of Jewish ancestry. Geeman 02:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Einstein would hate this infobox with the flags

He despised nationalism. If you guys really want flags, then put in all of them, to reflect his cosmopolitan attitude. Maybe insert an extra section "Other remarkable events" next to "Notable Prizes" and mention Israel's offer of the presidency. That will give a nice excuse to insert the Israelian flag as well, to better illustrate the notion of Einstein, the cosmopolitan. And add the German and Swiss flags again after his Nobel Prize, otherwise superficial readers might think the other flags have something to do with it! Physicists 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so there are three points here — four if I start with a general comment:
  1. The content of the infobox has been discussed in details on this page just a few days ago; I am not sure it is a good idea to reopen the discussion so soon, or to modify the infobox before any such discussion.
  2. This has been discussed above as well: we are writing an encyclopedia, and with all respect due to Einstein, his potential opinion about the presence of flags in our infoboxes is of very little interest to us. We want to make articles that are complete, informative, easy to access, etc, not articles that are modeled according to their subject.
  3. The fact that he got offered the presidency of Israel is significant, and deserve to be discussed in the article (and currently is); however, should we really indicate in an infobox all the potential nationalities that a person could have had if he had made different choices in his life ? Nationality was the most discussed topic in the discussion above, so I reverted this change for now (as I will revert the change made while I was writing this edit and which put "Cosmopolitan" as a nationality).
  4. As for the flags added to the Nobel Prize, I don't really care, even though I would rather not add them. Sure they are useful, but they essentially duplicate information already present in the infobox.
Schutz 20:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I think Physicists was being facetious. He has a good point too. I have removed the flags from the Nobel Prize as their use there is rediculous. Kaldari 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, maybe but... being facetious on the talk page is ok; if he was being just facetious while editing in the article, then he probably forgot to read WP:POINT. Schutz 20:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
As an aside... As mentioned above, I agree with you, flags should not be added to the Nobel Prize, but this prize was actually the occasion of a (diplomatic) fight between Switzerland and Germany who both wanted to claim it (especially because Einstein was not present to receive it, so "his" Embassy was supposed to receive it for him). Funny story (the Swiss let the Germans take it in the end, partly because the Germans insisted, and partly because a Swiss already got a Nobel prize just one or two years before), but maybe a bit too anecdotical to deserve a note in the article (if someone disagrees, I can add it — relevant sources and copies of original documents are available online in misc archives). Schutz 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Add it, why not. If the he-was-famous-so-he-was-one-of-us kind of attitude was already there before wikipedia, it maybe diffuse things here, by adding the issue itself in the article. --Van helsing 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC) My God, just saw the Infobox stuff above… err… are you sure this was discussed before? That is… motivating.

I agree. Having just looked at the article again, the flags are hideous. Why can't we remove the lot of them? Where is the consensus to have tiny little flags, like we're covering the Olympics? Does it help people too lazy to actually read the infobox to have the little flags? Too often on Wikipedia, people roll with the misguided notion that just because we can do something (populate a page with templates, infoboxes, links, categories, banners, little flags) it is a good idea. –Joke 21:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind one way or the other, although hideous is probably a bit exagerated... Anyway, I've just looked at about 10 random pages which include {{Infobox Scientist}}, and all but one (Leonhard Euler) had flags. Being consistent definitively is a good idea, so this part of the discussion should probably happen on the template talk page. Schutz 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

So the infobox is for those, who can't be bothered to read the article. And the flags or for those, who can't be bothered to read the infobox? --Pjacobi 21:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. –Joke 21:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The flags are disturbing and distract from the contents. Consistency is nice but I don't agree that we have to let others with general infobox ideas decide what should or should not be in this article. Let's vote!

Vote to Keep/Delete Flags in Infobox

Vote: Assuming that we accept the infobox, do we agree to include flags in this article's infobox or not?

  • No flags: apart of being against Einstein's philosophy it's ugly, useless and distracting Harald88 22:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No flags for the Nobel prize, don't care about the rest. Honestly, I don't care for any of the flags, and I'm kind of sick of voting on everything, but as long as we're going through the motions, I'm going to give an adament "no" on the Nobel Prize flags, since Nobel Prizes are not awarded to countries (normally), and no one gives a flip what country claims the prize. It degrades the prize in my mind to treat like an Olympic medal, where some country can claim a certain number. Really all the flagcruft is pretty ugly and distracting, IMO. Kaldari 23:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No flags for the Nobel prize, yes for the rest, if only for consistency. Schutz 07:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No flags --teb728 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep flags. I see nothing wrong with them. They are ubiquitous on the 'pedia. However Delete nobel prize flags as none of the other infoboxes do that. Also I recommend to delete "Bohemia" from the residence entry as it is insignificant and that flag is not properly bordered anyway. Possibly bring it back one day if someone draws it properly. SuperGirl 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No flags — The whole idea of the Infobox was supposed to be a quick summary of certain properties. The flags add bulk ("clutter") without adding information. If somebody cares about national flags, I'm sure he can look them up. — DAGwyn 04:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nobel prize flags. Keep rest, as per Schutz. Consistency is good. Doesn't look ugly to me. Also the argument that "Einstein wouldn't like it" is not the point. In George W. Bush's wiki article there is a graph of his popularity ratings going way down...should we delete that graph because Bush does not like that graph? The idiosyncrasies of the subject matter should not dictate the standard practice in an encyclopedia. Flags are pretty standard in many infoboxes where countries are listed. SureFire 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. Then those other infoboxes ought to be fixed, too. The infobox looks really silly with the flags. DAGwyn 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment. I just calculated that the American flag alone is in 500 wiki articles. That means there are 1000s of silly editors out there. Have fun deleting them all. SureFire 10:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    Careful. Some editors clean up 500 pages for breakfast! :-) Carcharoth 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral on the nobel prize flags. Keep rest of flags. What looks silliy is not the flags per se, but listing all his residences where he hardly spent enough time to scratch himself. I would stick to the major ones (>=10years), and the reader then goes to the article for expansion.bunix 00:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the flags. They are splashes of garish colour on what should be an article that people read, not a pretty flag mosaic for people to admire. Carcharoth 14:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - please see Wikipedia:Don't overuse flags - only a guideline, but something to think about. Carcharoth 10:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment see the talk page of that "unofficial" guideline, where you will see support for flags. When you also consider the 1000's of flags used throughout the wikipedia, the consentual horse has bolted and flags are here to stay. We can't beat 'em, so we may as well join 'em. The use of the flags in the Einstein box does look tasteful and does not look at all cluttered IMHO. SuperGirl 14:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No flags as per User:Carcharoth. They are ugly, distracting, and add nothing of value.--Stephan Schulz 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete there are too many of them, so they lose their purpose as either an indication of allegiance(s) [which we must recognize was not really what Einstein was known for] or even as a useful visual reference. Geeman 02:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics

I am not an expert on Albert Einstein, so maybe I am incorrect, but from what I had heard about Einstein he had difficulty with mathematics and always needed help from a mathematician when he was working mathematical equations out, but this article says he was brilliant at math from an early age. FDR | MyTalk 20:29:25 October 21, 2006 (UTC)

What you heard is wrong. Einstein was rather good with math. That does not mean that he did not confer with others on difficult topics (notably Hilbert on general relativity), but that's just the normal process of science. --Stephan Schulz 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
See User:Samsara/Debunking an urban myth: Einstein at school. I have a book with a copy of his final high-school certificate, and he got top marks in all mathematical related branches. I should probably scan it and add it to the article, since it is such a widespread myth. Of course, being good at math in high-school does not mean being good at "higher maths", but at least we know he was indeed brilliant from an early age, as you say. Schutz 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was not because he was poor at maths, but rather whilst developing his theories he found occasionally he had to learn some new (to him) elements of mathematics to help explain and/or develop his theories. I am 90% sure that is the angle Kip Thorne uses in "Einstein's outrageous legacy:Black holes and warped spacetime" but I admit I do not have the book to hand at the moment. Desdinova 23:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Incompleteness and Realism"

This section needs a little work. It has some excessive quoting, for one thing, and does not really explain any of it in simple terms. Additionally, when it says "In the Schilpp book", does it just mean, "In EPR, which is in the Schilpp book"? I can't tell though I guess I could pull out EPR and see if that is what the text is from. There is a general problem with talking about EPR in the way which is done here, mainly that Einstein didn't himself write EPR — it was written by Podolsky based on conversations with Einstein and Rosen. Einstein himself didn't like the way it was formulated at all — he thought it was unclear. Though one can use EPR as an example of Einstein's thinking on incompleteness, the quotes in it cannot be directly attributed to Einstein individually (if at all directly). Maybe someone can go over this and fix it up a bit. --Fastfission 01:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC) I agree i does need to be fixed. -Jman888

Head Sise?

Where did the info about his head come from? And why is it included. Its interesting but not entirely needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.108.223.7 (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Spurious quotation on Buddhism

I removed the following from the list of quotations on religion. The webpage cited does not provide a source for the alleged quote, which is described as spurious in Wikiquote. I don't think it should be allowed in the article unless and until a proper source to the works of Einstein can be provided.

--Dannyno 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say we should delete the whole section anyway, since quotations belong to wikiquote; in Wikipedia, we should just have a summary of his beliefs, backed by references to the actual quotations, not by the quotations themselves. Schutz 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Better than that would be a synthesis based on secondary sources, not quotes isolated from their context. At the moment I think the quotations on religion and his "scientific philosophy" are totally worthless and totally against Wikipedia policy. --Fastfission 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough; either way, the quotes should go away. Schutz 06:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes quotations are suitable for Wikipedia. You cannot generalise and say that all quotes should be in wikiquote. Wikiquote is for, and I quote from their policy pages: "...quotations which are notable. A quotation can be notable either because it has achieved fame by itself, but more usually because it was said by someone notable, or appeared in a notable work." I take this to mean that a short quote to illustrate a specific point in Wikipedia should not be entered into Wikiquote, but might be found in wikisource if the original document was there. Having said that, yes, the quotes section should be replaced by the link to q:Einstein. Carcharoth 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of WP templates

I see that the wikiproject notices at the top of this page have been severely trimmed. I'm unsure if this is a good or bad thing, and am tempted to suggest that instead of being removed they get put into a section at the top of the page - so that the most important ones appear at the top, then the TOC, then the less important ones. What do people here think? Mike Peel 12:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the templates should be moved to a subpage of the talk page, such as Talk:Albert Einstein/WP templates. Q0 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added back most of the templates, and put the important talk page ones at the top, the ones that have a small option to the right of the TOC, and those that don't have a small option in a section below the TOC. Hopefuly that's OK? I'll be talking to the people in the wikiprojects that don't have a small option on their template, to see if they can add one. Mike Peel 09:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The Cosmological Constant and GR's Substrates

I think that there should be an extrapolation on his cosmological constant, such as his reasoning behind it and its resurfacing in modern theoretical physics, such as an explanation for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, as well as its connection to the Higgs field.

The general policy seems to be that detailed discussions of the various physical theories are conducted in their own articles, not in the general Einstein article (which includes just enough about them to orient the reader). For example, the cosmological constant has its own article. Actually Einstein was not personally involved with either the accelerated expansion of the universe nor the Higgs field. — DAGwyn 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, GR has led to many discoveries, such as black holes, and it is also in controversy with quantum mechanics, which is very worth noting. Watchayakan 07:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

General relativity has its own article. Einstein was not personally involved with black holes, either, and I rather doubt that he would have approved of the way that theory has developed. Actually, all classical theories conflict with quantum theory. The problem of constructing a consistent quantum theory of gravitation is quite apart from anything Einstein did. — DAGwyn 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand (on extensiveness), but mentioning them and their impact on society (even if just the scientific community, but we all know that black holes and curved space have become a big part of pop culture) would seem a good idea, especially considering the fact thet what he claimed was his greatest blunder might turn out to be a very prescient thought. Watchayakan 11:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think that the coverage of that topic in the cosmological constant article is sufficient, and that it would be too much detail for the Einstein article, which is already way too long. Note also the Schrödinger section of the classical unified field theories article, where it is observed that in his formulation the cosmological term arises automatically. That article also notes that Eddington thought that there was a natural role for the cosmological constant. If somebody searches for the phrase he should turn up hits on these. I'm especially concerned that we don't give the impression that Einstein approved of black holes nor of modern cosmological ideas. — DAGwyn 22:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Random Text Added To Speculation & Controversy Section

The following statement has been inserted by someone into the Speculation and Controversy section which obviously needs removed. (I am new to wikipedia and tried to use the edit feature however the text in question didn't appear for some reason) I would be grateful if someone could assist with its removal. Statement in question as follows:

"The world needs to know, 2=1. It is proven. A new revolution is upon us. type 1=2 in google and you will find it. Mathematics as we know it is over. Amarvir rules." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.208.27 (talk)

Hi 84.71.208.27, Welcome to Wikipedia. The text that you mention is an instance of vandalism, which happens all too frequent at Wikipedia—this article in particular gets hit by it about 10 times a day. Fortunately a lot of editors watch changes on this page; so such garbage is usually reverted quickly. This instance survived for over 3 hours, which is unusual. (By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages by adding ~~~~.) --teb728 08:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Bold text

Nov 2006 – Jan 2007


High school drop out

How the hell did he drop out of high school, if he went to college? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.131.124 (talk • contribs).

You have to remember that this is in the pre-SAT days and not finishing high school wouldn't necessarily bar you from admission to college (especially if you had a good reason for not finishing, as Einstein did). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.147.86.187 (talk • contribs).
Being in pre-SAT days does not really have anything to do with it, since the rules for admission to University in Switzerland haven't changed much since then. While Einstein dropped out of high school in Germany, he went back and finished high school in Switzerland, thus making sure he would be allowed to go to University (see the article). Schutz 06:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but maybe it was because he was smart that he didn't have to


Read the article again - he dropped out, tried to apply to Zurich Polytechnic early (but flunked the admission exam) and then went to Asau to finish high school. He just took a vacation when his parents left him behind.
~ Otterpops 15:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian

Al's views on vegetarianism are somewhat well-known and influential. They should likely be included, albeit briefly. Re: "extending the circle of compassion," etc. I think most evidence shows he was a wavering vegetarian in practice, but more committed in ideology. Hey, just like my mom.

Geeman's comments on "Jewish"

I've just reread Geeman's comments in the archive about wanting to put the words "Jewish" into the opening paragraph on Einstein. On balance I think this is a good idea for clarity and I support it. A good way of overcoming all the objections against it is to see the phrasing for a similar case in the article on Solomon Lefschetz where it says that Lefschetz was "born in Moscow into a Jewish family (his parents were Turkish citizens) who moved shortly after that to Paris." Isn't that so simple? This phrasing is particularly clever because the phrase "Jewish family" gets out of all the problems of religious and nationalistic labels (which I agree we should avoid in the case of Einstein's "Jewishness"). Therefore I support a similar phrasing in the opening paragraph of Einstein. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and make this correction in 5 days time so you guys have time to sleep on it. bunix 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It already says he was born to a Jewish family in the first sentence after the intro. Personally I don't think his "Jewishness" or "Germanness" are important enough to put in the intro, but we include the nationality for the sake of convention. I would support fewer labels in the intro (removing "German-born", but not adding more. Kaldari 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the intro...but not in the top lead paragraph....which is what I think Geeman was refering to. Geeman can you comment? I support the inclusion of these labels. Such labels are there for every other biography on the wikipedia...just because Einstein's case is a little more complicated than average doesn't mean we should shirk from the challenge of finding a succinct way of putting it across. We can collaborate to find the optimal wording. bunix 06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

the Jewish ethnic identity is a very distinctive from thus of other nations.when it comes to europe, an Austrian that was born in Germany can be considerd ,by many, as a genuine german .this is not the same for jews,since the Phoenicians which were from the very same origin as the Jewish people, there are no ethnicly relatives left for the jews between the nations.--Gilisa 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

“Such labels are there for every other biography on the wikipedia.” Really? How about Michelson, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Gell-Mann, Weinberg, and Witten. None of them is labeled as “Jewish” in the lead paragraph. I think the lead paragraph of a biography (and the other paragraphs above the Contents) should summarize what is most notable about the subject. I would, however, support mentioning his Jewishness in the Nationality field of the Infobox. --teb728 06:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC) As for the Lefschetz biography, that article does not yet have multiple sections; so it does not yet have a summary header. --teb728 06:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy to comment, bunix. Thanks for the invitation... :) First off, let's establish a few things. There is a convention in the bios of WP to state the person's national origin, background and affiliations in the first sentence. That's useful because it gives us a quick reference to the personality and cultural heritage of the person. In most cases nation of origin is not really pertinent to the person him/herself with certain obvious exceptions like politicians, rulers or soldiers. It's just a nice way for us to get a quick handle on the person's identity. In other cases, though, it is more significant. For many biographies of scientists their cultural/religious background really isn't particularly important to their personalities or their lives, but for others it is very important. For instance, if one didn't mention Oppenheimer was American in the intro to his biography one would be really missing the point of his relevance to 20th century history. Imagine for a moment that Oppenheimer had faced racial discrimation as part of his later troubles and that he wrote a book on Zionism, was considered for posts in Israel, etc. Wouldn't it be worth noting his background in the intro sentence then? The problem with Einstein, of course, is that his Jewish ancestry influenced his life so directly but he was also a complex guy whose personal identity was more paradoxical than most. He was born a German, but through sense and circumstance left Germany (both physically and legally.) He was born a Jew but through intellect and inclination did not practice that faith overtly, though many people (myself included) would argue that he remained culturally very Jewish. Both of those things were a huge influence on his life and appear dramatically throughout his biography. The words "German" or "Jew/Jewish" each appear over a dozen times in the body of the article, not including the text box and category listings. If he were not born a Jew in Germany he'd probably not have left (and how might the world have changed?) Even if he hadn't written a book on Jewish topics, how many people were offered leading positions in Israel? Simply describing him as German and/or Jewish (or worse calling him Swedish or American as others have done) stumbles over the whole purpose of that introductory sentence because it is at best vague and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth.
Before I hop off my high horse, let me comment that I think the issue here is that we should try to have in the opening sentence a description that is as accurate as possible and that introduces the rest of the biography as elegantly as we can. For Einstein, I think the substance and complexity evident in the rest of the article warrants some more care in the opening sentence, and if that makes for language that qualifies itself then all the better because Einstein himself was very much about such qualification. I understand that a lot of folks would (idealistically, I believe) prefer to ignore the issue of nationality and religion. (Let's not kid ourselves about not having an agenda here, shall we? Nobody participates in an encyclopedia without one....) I'll buy that as far as it goes because I think it has an essentially noble motivation, and in many cases is really truthful in addition to being an expression of tolerance. In this case, though, such a method winds up doing more harm than good because it isn't truthful and degrades the tolerance of Einstein as expressed by the circumstances of his background. Doesn't it seem odd that the current introduction parses his profession into "theoretical physicist" in order to distinguish him from experimental physicists, qualifies his place of birth by saying he was "German-born" yet ignores his Jewish ancestry? IMO we should try for a sentence that most accurately describes the man, and one that does not mention his Jewish ancestry fails to do that.
All that said, I'd like a little more support or substantive refutation of these ideas before making such changes. Perhaps we should just go ahead and make them though and see how long it takes before they are reverted in order to get some idea what people think about it. Geeman 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of what Geeman says—except perhaps his conclusion. I’m not opposed in principle to mentioning Jewishness in the intro, but I see two problems:
  • One is stability. The “German-born” label has remained stable for some time. I fear that if you change it, that would open the door to those who want to label him in addition or instead as “Swiss” and/or “American.” (You can see from the archive that there is sentiment in that favor.)
  • The other problem is conciseness. You presumably want to add this to the first sentence, which is already pretty full. Adding more than a word or two would make for unwieldy prose. I don’t care at all for bunix’s suggestion of introducing Jewishness indirectly, for it is inherently wordy. I wonder if a solution might be to add a third paragraph to the intro, summarizing the non-scientific things he is noted for, and mention Jewishness there.
Although his Jewishness is marginally notable, if someone is reading the intro only, they can do without a mention of Jewishness. If they are reading more, its mention at the top of the biography proper, is sufficient. I suggest we leave it at that. --teb728 03:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This argument has been going on for a long time now, with reversion wars etc. along the way. There is a whole (overly long) article for getting into details and influences; the intro should be just enough to orient readers who don't already know anything about the subject (which may be an empty set when it comes to Einstein). The only reason that "German-born" was retained was that it explains why there is a German-language pronunciation link immediately beforehand. Everybody wants to claim Einstein as a member of their particular tribe, which if we try to accommodate that in the intro leads to a ridiculous-looking result. (We also had that with regard to national flags in the infobox.) — DAGwyn 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Of the counter-arguments presented above I think the most compelling is the conciseness issue. The remaining arguments strike me as being variations on a theme: that adding information to the existing "German-born" description will lead to a series of edits in which people will, for the sake of their own agendas, try to lay claim to Einstein. My counter-arguments to those counter-arguments:
Regarding Conciseness: Unfortunately, there is no single word that adequately describes a German-born, expatriated, non-dogmatic Jew. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just say "Agnostigebrew" or something? :) In his native tongue, of course, we could probably slap a few words together to create one of those Germanic lingual monstrosities that even included his profession ("Einstein was an Ausdeutcherjudenphysiker who....) but, sadly, English is a rather blunt tool. The problem, though, is that where some folks may see the current intro as concise others I see it as incomplete. In fact, the "German-born" descriptor is really more confused than concise. Isn't the logical next step in the conciseness argument to be even more concise and simply say "German" rather than "German-born" and if someone wanted more information about his later nationalities they should turn to the body of the article? I don't think that's the way to go. "German-born" is more truthful to the man for all that it is less concise. But "German-born" is only half-truthful because it ignores the reason for his emigration: his Jewish ancestry. Since Einstein was such a complex guy we're just not going to be clear, accurate AND concise all at once unless someone somehow manages to come up with the linguistic equivalent of Relatively where E=Einstein, M=Maternity and C=Culture.... We're just going to have to accept that limitation (like the speed of light--since I'm going nuts with the physics metaphors.)
Regarding Stability and Laying Claim to Einstein I appreciate that folks like stability in WP articles, but I would argue that we should be less concerned with stability and those who lay claim to someone's legacy than we are with the accuracy of the article. Yes, I know there are Americans and Swiss who want to lay claim to Einstein in one way or another, and they are certainly welcome to make their arguments. We should give those arguments due consideration when they inevitably crop up. I'm equally certain there are a large number of Jews who claim Einstein as one of their own in ways that Einstein himself would find highly disagreeable. However, the fear of additional edits and opening up the issue to the whole nationalistic muddle should not be used as a counter to the argument about whether Einstein should or should not be defined in the opening sentence of his WP article as being of Jewish ancestry. The question is whether it more accurately describes him than the current text.
I also disagree with the suggestion that "German-born" only remains in the article in order to explain the German pronunciation of Einstein's name. Mentioning the national origin and major affiliation of a person in the opening sentence of the WP biography is so common as to be a template.
A more legitimate way of dealing with the issue is to have a note in the plaintext of the article asking those who would edit it away from "German-born" and "Jewish ancestry" (or whatever terms wind up being used) to please look to the talk page and present their arguments there before making a change. As it is, the Einstein page seems to get vandalized fairly regularly, and there are plenty of folks monitoring it, so we can certainly deal with folks who might be able to actually muster an argument to support their agenda. Geeman 06:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I was the last one (modulo reversions) to edit the nationality portion of the intro, so the reason I gave for retaining the (long-standing) "German-born" is first-hand. "German" can't be used for conciseness, simply because it's a wrong characterization. One nice aspect of "-born" is it hints at a more complicated nationality, which is in fact exhibited later in the article. — DAGwyn 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I like "German-born" as a descriptor very much. It's much more truthful than would be German, Swiss, American, Jew or any particular description that one might want to put in the first sentence of his bio. My contention, though, is that it does half the job. Einstein's German ancestry is on a level with his Jewish ancestry for reasons that are also dealt with in the body of the article on a more or less equal basis with his German origin (depending on how one might want to account for such things.) In any case, rather than regurgitate my prolix prose, let me do what I probably should have done to begin with and float the following opening sentence structure to see how folks feel about incorporating some of the ideas already expressed here while keeping the original "German-born" alive and express the "other half" of his origins: "Born in Germany to a family of Jewish ancestry, Albert Einstein (pronunciation and birth-death dates) was a theoretical physicist widely known as one of the greatest physicists of all time." That's a pretty concise way of introducing this article that would satisfy all my concerns. It doesn't start off the text with his name as so many other bios do, but I think that's good thing. Such openings are so dull. Comments? Geeman 08:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, that’s not bad. How about more succinctly, “Born a German Jew, …”? --teb728 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed responding to this before I posted the note below. The thing about "German Jew" alone is that it doesn't really convey the fact that Einstein left Germany to take citizenship in other countries, and it fails to acknowledge that he was not nationalistic nor religious. "Born in Germany" or "German-born" is more truthful and segues into the text of the article better. IMO, acknowledging his Jewish ancestry does the same for reasons noted previously. We need to sacrifice a smidge of conciseness (about 30 characters worth) and qualify the terms qualify for the sake of accuracy. Hence "Born in German" or "German-born" and "to a family of Jewish ancestry" rather than just "Jew." Geeman 06:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
If his Jewishness were limited to his family ancestry, it would certainly not be worth mentioning in the header. I acknowledge that his Jewishness is marginally notable enough for inclusion there because he identified with the Jewish people throughout his life. Not only was his family Jewish—he was Jewish—not in a religious or Zionist sense, but in a social and cultural sense. --teb728 09:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

well, it seems like you all try to avoide his (einstein) true origins,jewishness is treated in the same way as race by most of the world, its a real distinct identity. geneticlly,as many studies about population genetics have allready showd, einstein was a jew and not a German.if we were able to compare the unik markers of the Jewish population with thus of einstein he most probably was considerd as a jew and very far from being German.if we tallking about his backround-so ,einstein came from touhsands of years of jewish lagacy(as the entire european Jewish population) -and lagacies like this are very differnt from the european non-Jewish populations in every aspect (history,origins,genetics,culture,language , etc.and this combinations and made einstein) .so , claiming that he was German and a Jewish equally is just to go far from the facts.its true that he became assimalte jew,alot of jews which wish to have secular education had to do so back then in europe.and the un stopable prussure on jews make alot of them running away from their identity (such as kapka and fritz haver,which both return to their origins in the end of their life) .but still, in the same way that Lorens the man of arbia still was british, so the jews are still and first of all jews.(sorry for the bad english...speaking well only hebrew and spanish).--Gilisa 06:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not as bad as it might be, but the question is, why mention the Jewish ancestry in the first sentence? Wikipedia biographics articles normally don't mention family religion or other cultural associations in the intro sentence, unlike birthplaces, unless there is a compelling reason to do so. The "German-born" was retained primarily to explain the adjacent German pronunciation button; otherwise I would have preferred to remove it too, to help keep out all those group-membership claims that some people like to insert. — DAGwyn 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for mentioning his Jewish ancestry in the first sentence are described at some length above. The most recent archives have further explanation if the above comments don't do. It should be noted, however, that "German-born" is not merely there primarily to explain the pronunciation button. Noting the origin of the person in a biography in the first sentence is a standard way of going about such things. It's a standard way of going about such things. The above is meant to give an accurate and truthful version of what is a standard first sentence structure for WP biographies. Geeman 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and put the proposed change to the opening sentence noted above into the actual article. Let's see if it actually freaks people out or is so offensive that it gets reverted quickly. Geeman 04:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

96 minutes: That's a pretty quick revert--particularly in a Sunday night/Monday morning time frame when the article normally gets few changes. --teb728 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
One option to get around this problem might be to make the German-born implicit and avoid all of this dicussion in the first paragraph as follows: Albert Einstein (German pronunciation (help·info)) (b. March 14, 1879 in Ulm, Germany, d. April 18, 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey) was a theoretical physicist widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time.[1][2]. I'm not unhappy with the current version, but I thought this possibility worth mentioning.--Stephan Schulz 12:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Somebody tried that a couple of months ago. (It seemed like a good idea to me.) But first someone reinserted “German-born,” and then someone deleted the cities with a reference to WP:MOSDATE#Dates of birth and death. --teb728 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm coming in a bit late here, but personally I don't see why his heritage is mentioned in the opening line of the article. It basically says Einstein was born to a family of Jewish heritage but doesn't expand on it at all. I think it would be much better off left alone at the start of the biography. I think it'd be much better to mention his relevance to Jewish culture (ie being offered the job as leader of Israel) after the intro. He is known for being a physicist, not necessarily for being a Jew. I'd prefer something like "Albert Einstein was a renowned physicist (mention stuff about work in physics) and was significant Jewish cultural/political figure". Of course, the wording would have to be less blunt, but that's my two cents. --Wafulz 01:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It's tough to get a good opening sentence that mentions his birthplace, his cultural signficance and his status as a physicist. I do take your point that we should acknowledge his significance to Jewish culture/politics, but it's tough to figure how a good opening sentence would accomplish that. Particularly with the "standard" of mentioning nationality (or nation of origin) at the same time. When it gets down to it, I think we have to be somewhat general in the opening. What was Einstein? A list of his "qualities" if you will. His contributions might be more appropriate to the fuller description of the article itself, unless we can figure out how to word it in some way that manages to satisfy....
Regarding just putting in his places of birth and death without mentioning either his German or Jewish origins explicity: I think that does make a certain amount of sense. It is a "compromise by elimination" but it is, at least, accurate and simple.
What are the actual objections to using the "Born in German to a family of Jewish ancestry," as the opening? Geeman 04:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I may have just worded myself poorly, but I'd prefer not to see anything related to religion or heritage in the opening sentence. It should be left in the biography section. The way I see it, he was a physicist primarily, and maybe a Jewish cultural icon. I don't see the relevance of mentioning (or rather, justifying) his heritage in the same sentence. --Wafulz 05:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don’t object to saying he was born a Jew, but his family’s ancestry is certainly not notable. Only Geeman and bunix seem to be in favor of the proposal; some people have expressed opposition to mentioning Jewishness in the first sentence. It seems premature to put it in the article. --teb728 21:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
"Jewish" is unfortunately a broad term. As several folks have noted he was not a particularly devout man in many ways, but his fundamental personality and character are in many ways Jewish. However, the importance of his German/Jewish background to the introduction of this article is that it characterizes not only the man more accurately, but addresses his role in history. German-born and Jewish ancestry connect up to the way his work was (and was not) accepted in Germany through to his later citizenship in America. To paraphrase the comments I made in the archives, if we say he was German-born and not mention that he was Jewish then we are not too far off wondering why it was Hiroshima not London that was the target of the first atomic weapon. That Einstein's primary role in history is as a physicist is not in question. Why his role as a physicist played out as it did (and 20th century history unfolded as it did) is directly informed by his Jewish ancestry.
I know this isn't a popular way of characterizing people, and in 99.9% of WP biographies I'd agree that such considerations are really not as signficant enough to warrent inclusion in the first sentence of the bio, but because of his role in history Einstein is a special case. That role was directly affected (and its hard to argue that world history would have remained the same) because of his background, so his biography requires a bit more complexity. Geeman 04:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Its just Abad taste to say that Einstein was a"german" since its really to give the honor for Jewish achievements to the german people ,which are the most hated nation by many Jews because of their endless crimes ,during the history, against the Jewish nation.

This is just not right to claim that the Jewish identity is an abstract identity,judaisem is not only a religion . Jewish people have their own genetic pool ,which is very different from that of the hosting population ,they have their own culture and their own over then 3500 years history. I deliberately didn’t remained the fact that they have their own languages since that in the modern world there are a lot of Jewish people, even religious ones ,which couldnt speak any Jewish dialect properly. any way,to mention Einstein as a German first of all offend me as decent of a Jewish family originally from Germany and Hungary ,there is not such a thing as a jew which is German before he is a Jew, a specially not after the holocaust .as it well known from the jewish history,since the Diaspora started ,after the failure of the second revolt against the roman empire , the jewish people were always wandering from one country to another, suffering from endless persecutions and false charges .so, naturally the vast majority of the jewish people didn’t live at their historical homeland (even now ,after the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel, in which I live, most of the Jewish people are still living at the diaspora) and so, against their will , most of the Jewish people had a residence at foreign countries. Its still doesn't make a jaw that live at germany to be more german than a Jew or even to have equally german and Jewish identity. in conclusion, the jewish identity must to be mentioned before any other identity even if we are talking about an assimilating jew ,AND every jew represents many generations of being refuges With a unique identity. It must be taken for granted that the Jewish identity, in the same way like a lot of other ethnic Identities,is an objective identity and not only subjective and the post modernistic claims which state that the identity of any person is out of touch with his history, or even with his genes are not more valuable then the opposite claims, and when it comes to the reality test they are just failed.

My ancestors were exile from Israel to Europe, by force. they lived in Italy and in spain and then were exiled from spain to turkey and from there they immigrate to Austria , Poland,Hungary ,and Germany. this kind of history is common to most of the Jewish people, still ,we are Jews ,first of all. Sorry for the syntax mistakes.

Gilisa,ISRAEL,14.02.07

I feel obliged to comment that I think there are a few very good reasons to include the term "of Jewish ancestry" in the opening sentence of this article, but none of them are amongst those described in the previous note. It has nothing to do with what the previous comment attributes to the "Jewish... genetic pool." In fact, I cringe at the thought.... From what I understand Einstein's brainpower might have been a slight genetic/anatomical anomaly that has nothing to do with his actual genetic heritage. That aside, if genetics were the significant aspect of a person that needed mentioning in a biographical article we could ignore nation of origin and cultural heritage and simply note that his genetic variation was well within the human norm and leave it at that. "98% chimpanzee" is just as apt a genetic description. The reasons I want to include Einstein's Jewish heritage are solely based upon his role in history, his personal political views/activities and how his work was perceived by his contemporaries, NOT his genes.
For those folks who are thinking, "See, I told you so!" I do appreciate that sentiment. Really, I do. I know "of jewish ancestry" opens up this particular can of worms. However, that phrase still remains the most truthful characterization of the man himself. IMO, not including it avoids reality. It might inevitably lead to interpretations by those who are going to lay claim to the man for reasons that he himself, I have no doubt, would have rejected, because they overextend the simple truth in a way he found repugnant, but we should recognize that that is going to happen no matter what people do and simply try to be as truthful as possible. Geeman 13:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

first of all, we are not 98% chimpanzee,recent studies put the similarity on 95% or less (if we consider the different arregment and the different otosoms and Y chromosom structure it can be put on less then 90%).we are also 70% banana (more or less,and there are animals in which we have no eledge common ancestry in which we have ,suprisingly,very much alike),still ,every percent contain milions of milions of cod letters.the differnce between populations genoms seems tooday much and much grater then been thought only few years ago (and again,sorry for the bad gramer,spelling and etc).How ever,the meaning of even one single genetic letter (A,T,G,C) could be very meaningful (wheter it lethal or not) and even if humans ,generaly, have alot in common-the 'little' gap and the 'little' in common could make a big differnce.now,about the Jewish people,there are,in fact,new research groups-mostly of non-jewish scientist at the USA which propose that there is a genetic origin for the "Jewish intelect" .and probably,einstein intelect is a by product of his own genes.

Hitler(ימ"ש וזכרו ) wasnt the first rabbi of israel or the first rabbi of the Jewish world ,NO body can tell me not to "over" mention the identity of any jew because "it is dangours" .this kind of spirit belongs for loosers which allready gave up over their own identity .acctually , when it get to famous jews i get the immpression that there is a wide prefernce to hide as much as possiable their Jewish origin . in the case of johan von neumann - i tried to write about his Jewish background at the infobox (in the religion line) but it allways was deleted.the Jewishness of somebody is not secondery to his residence .

and about his identity ,as Einstein state himself: "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew".

in the same way,jewish who was born in germany is still ,and first of all, a jew--Gilisa 16:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I again feel abliged to note that the above text is precisely the kind of racist nonsense that doesn't belong here, and you've done nothing but damage the idea with your comments. In fact, you've not only supported the opinions of those who have argued that mentioning his ethnicity in the opening sentence of this article will lead inevitably to such unmitigated garbage, be even managed to come very close to changing my mind on the issue. As I am the originator of this recent debate and the person who was its most vociferous proponent I think that's quite an accomplishment.... If the opinions expressed above exemplify reasons why Einstein's CULTURAL heritage should be mentioned in the opening sentence of his biography then I must side with the opposition to that idea. Geeman 23:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

atomic bomb

I always heard that Einstein had invented the atomic bomb while working in a top secret area of America is this true? If so where? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.125 (talk • contribs).

I don't know where you heard that, but you shouldn't trust them as an information source. The role played by Einstein in the development of the atomic bomb was twofold: (a) the physics of nuclear fission had been materially advanced by Einstein's earlier theoretical work, e.g. the principle of mass-energy equivalence; (b) at the outset of WWII, Einstein was persuaded to sign the Einstein-Szilárd letter to the President of the US urging that the US mount an effort to develop an atomic weapon before the Germans. That was the impetus for the Manhattan Project, which was the actual development effort (in which Einstein played no part). — DAGwyn 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's really only one-fold. Einstein didn't do anything with nuclear physics. E=mc^2 comes into play but not in any way Einstein would have known about at the time he postulated it. His biggest role was the letter, and even if he had not written that the Manhattan Project probably would have begun independently a few years later (and the project that was created by his letter didn't amount to much of anything). --Fastfission 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Note: I didn't say that Einstein worked in the area of nuclear physics; I chose my wording carefully. DAGwyn 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Stimulated emmission is what he proposed, he may or may not have understood how it would be used. Atom/nuclear bomb goes off when the energy that holds the proton center of an atom together is released suddenly (nuclear fission) because it's bombarded by particles from another atom (stimulated emmission). Requires more than one to get a big boom, that's the "chain reaction". That's what makes the sun burn.
Forgive me if I'm garbling it, this is what I remember from Physics II at University of Colorado at Boulder ten years ago.
So Einstein told us why the sky is blue and how the sun keeps burning. Master Shaman, Woot!
~ Otterpops 15:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually "stimulated emission" refers to a different phenomenon altogether. Nuclear fission exploits the principle that if one can overcome the binding energy, the separate fragments of the nucleus has less intrinsic ("rest") energy than the original, and the surplus energy gets put into radiation and kinetic energy of the fragments. By concentrating the material, the radiated particles reach a density where they are able to cause more splitting, (chain reaction), a "positive feedback" system that grows rapidly enough to keep ahead of the exploding material. — DAGwyn 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yah yah, but how do you overcome the binding energy? ~ Otterpops 17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Notable prizes

Every time I add the Copley Medal to the notable prizes section of the infobox, SuperGirl removes it. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Kaldari 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think SuperGirl usurps too much authority; I recall her saying on past occasions that there was a "consensus" for this or that (always in favor of her personal opinion) when opinion was actually substantially divided. The Copley Medal is a prestigious award, comparable to the Fields Medal in mathematicians, which we would expect to see noted.
It seems like a "notable" enough "prize" to keep in the infobox to me.... Supergirl: Why are you removing it? Is it against some infobox list or template? Geeman 05:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I originally added that prize to the infobox and was later shocked to see it removed. --68.224.247.53 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a consensus, I'll add it. --Kasparov 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Summation Convention

No mention of the Einstein Summation convention, not his most important work, but maybe could be included? (this thing is at: Einstein notation) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) .

Feel free to add a link in the "appendices" to the article; it isn't significant enough to mention in the main body. — DAGwyn 23:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Einstein Plagiarism Speculation

I think that the links below speak for them self . At least 3 of them been taken from the racist and an anti-Semitic web site "jew watch" which its credibility is quite low and from other shady ,crazy, stupid web sites such as "white civil rights" …any way ,the claims that Mileva was the real inventor of the relativity ,for my opinion , is a poor claim that rise up from an anti-semitic and\or feministic agendas , and it being promote ,at different level and in different ways , by people which are anti-semitic and/or feministic supporters and/or suffering from bad ability to see the reality as it is.


there is not even one strong argument that supports the idea that Einstein relativity theory had been helped by his first wife, and all of the evidence for this suggestion is weak .two examples are: 1. the argument that Einstein and mileva used to work on the same desk 2.that Einstein shared the Nobel grant money with mileva. more reasonable explanations for these evidences are 1. that they had only one desk in their house ,because they couldn’t afford themselves to buy one another, which is a known fact. 2. many other Nobel winners ,beside Einstein, used to share the prize money with their ex-wife as a part of the divorce agreement and its known that mileva refuse to sign the divorce papers until Einstein agreed to share with her the nobel prize ,along with other stuff of their common property. Mileva use this money to buy an apartment building and used the monthly rent money for the living of her and of the children she had from the marriage with Albert .More, when he was asked about his own mother scientific contribution to the relativity theory , Einstein only living son couldn’t recall any. Additionally, Albert remained an extremely fruitful scientist for the rest of his life, long after divorcing mileva, while she, on the other hand, never published any significant paper work and was never mentioned, by any of her or albert’s acquaintances for having her own original ideas, And finally, Mileva herself never claimed that she took any important part in the scientific work attributed to Albert .

There are two other major claims suggesting that Mileva had a scientific contribution to Einstein, like that she enjoyed a lot from listening Albert and his friends talking about physics, but its only natural considering that she was a physics student for many years ,and that’s also was the way in which she met Einstein for the first time and this is quite usual that educated people getting married with educationally equal partners.

In his romantic letters to Mileva, Einstein refer to the theory of relativity as "ours" ,and this was taken as a prove for the influence of Mileva on Einstein prodigies. But when it scrutinized , it is well notable that in his letters and writing Einstein refer to any aspect of his life ,in the time that he was still in love with Mileva, as "ours".

While there is heavy doubts regarding claims that Mileva had an active part in Einstein scientific works ,there is no doubt that he appreciate her earring for his own ideas.

Again, sorry for the bad syntax and spelling...

Gilisa,Israel,13/02/07.


Maybe their should be a section detailin this:- *Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist *Plagiarist of the Century

From many peoples understanding Albert Einstein was a plagiarist. However his work on Brownian motion (for which he got the Nobel prize) was apparently original and quite good. Remember, he didn't get the Nobel prize for "his" relativity theory. :DEinstein received the Nobel Prize for his work on the photo-electric effect. [70]

This should be in the article from a non biased POV (regardless of whether links are Communist or Nationalist the references and facts should be taken note of) FK0071a 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

your "references" are a collection of anti-semitic and confused Christian cranks. Wikipedia doesn't need every piece of nonsense found on the internet. The full article is at Relativity priority dispute and discusses anything you ever wanted to know about the topic. dab (𒁳) 15:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you even read or looked at the references you are mentioning above ? In particular, the paper Physics Notes: E = mc² is not Einstein's Equation says exactly the opposite of what you are implying. Schutz 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
And who is Viktor Toth, that we must accept his googling bit? Vsmith 23:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at the post script to Toth's article. Well worth a read --LiamE 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
None of the above are Reliable Sources. This is a crackpot theory trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites. It gets no voice on Wikipedia. --Fastfission 02:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps they are not “sources,” but the Physics World and Toth essays contain anything but “crackpot theor[ies] trafficked by white supremists and anti-Semites.” The Physics World article considers various criticisms, but the only one it accepts is womanizing. Toth says only that the Einstein field equation should be called “Einstein’s equation” rather than his other equation, E=mc². --teb728 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I was ignoring the Toth page because it clearly had nothing to do with the others and was probably put in there by mistake. The Physics World article basically says the same things about the other sources as I did, and obviously I wasn't referring to it as among them. --Fastfission 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

It was probably a blue eyes blond hair 1.90 muscular Aryan who invite the theory of relativity ,while Einstein himself was only a thief …this is the basic principle of the links above, unfortunately for the Europeans and their descents else where which supports the grotesque ideas of "white superiority" ,this is really far from the facts. Regarding the Jewish people, their contribution to the world were always, all along the history and at any given place, much grater then their actual weight in the population. So claming that there is any "superiority" for non-Jewish Europeans is only true when it comes to the quantity.(there are about 1 billion Europeans and Europeans descents around the world and only 13 million Jews)Gilisa

Theory of Relativity

If I'm not mistaken, isn't it Einstein's general theory of relativity itself that is the tool that has proven that reality is made of flat Euclidean space (when mass isn't around)? 2:14 December 7, 2006 (EST)


In the general theory of relativity (but not the special theory), gravitation is treated as an effect of the curvature of the space-time continuum, building on geometric ideas of Gauss, Riemann, and others. The success of the theory supports the notion that the actual physical structure of space-time is such a more general geometry than the flat one of Euclid. On what grounds do you assert that it is actually Euclidean? — DAGwyn 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is pointless to speculate about properties of an empty universe, since that doesn't correspond to anything that can ever be within our experience. Nearly all cosmology (theory of the large-scale structure of the universe) relies heavily on the general relativistic property of mass causing space-time to curve. — DAGwyn 00:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


You said "non-Euclidean geometry does not correspond to physical reality", and I asked on what grounds you claim that. — DAGwyn 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually non-Euclidean geometries are just as rigorous and concrete and have the same axioms and postulates as Euclidean Geometry, except that the parallel postulate is different, and straight lines are generalized to geodesics.
The gravitational field near the earth is low, and so space-time is almost flat here. As a result it is easy to imagine lines remaining parallel forever. But space-time is strongly curved near a massive object as in a gravitational lens; so light, which travels along geodesics, can diverge from a distant star, move along paths on opposite side of the massive object as it passes by, and converge to a telescope on earth.
Thus near the earth reality corresponds nearly to Euclidean Geometry, but near a strong gravitational field it corresponds to non-Euclidean geometry. --teb728 00:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
While this is getting off-track for a Wikipedia Talk page, it may help the fellow to mention the case for 2-D "plane" geometry, which may be easier to envision. A relatively small region of the Earth's surface seems to be a portion of a plane, and so planar Euclidean geometry seems "natural", but navigators have long appreciated that for extended voyages they have to take into account that the surface is curved on a larger scale. "Spherical trigonometry" used to be taught as an intermediate math course in US schools, some time after "plane trigonometry". Trigonometry on a sphere is just as rigorous as trig on a plane, but the formulas are different – for example, the sum of the internal angles of a triangle on a sphere exceed 180 degrees by an amount that is proportional to the area of the triangle. (The radius of the sphere enters into the formula.) It is a practical example of a case where non-Euclidean geometry is a much better fit to reality than is Euclidean geometry. — DAGwyn 07:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind and decided that the point I made was not valid so I have decided to delete my comments about this issue. FDR 23:43:32 12/29/2006 (UTC)

Education "controversy"

Do we really need the lengthy analysis of Einstein's grade card. Seems the article is plenty long without dragging out the grade details. Also, it is not our job here to presume or deduce anything (removed that part) - just to report the pertinate published and notable information. Vsmith 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Einstein had the same attitude that almost every good scientist and engineer has (and probably lots of other people): he paid more attention to and did more work in those subjects that he found of interest. It's really silly to analyze individual report card grades anyway. (For example, I took a course in two different years, failed it one time and aced it the next.) The only point I see in mentioning the topic at all is to counter the oft-heard claim that "Einstein failed mathematics in school". — DAGwyn 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Copied the following from my talk for all to view:

Einstein Edits

Alright, let me explain to you the logic of this, when it comes to flow of article.

I agree that embellishment and such should have no place in scientific articles in general, however I disagree with your ideas here.

You are being narrow minded. Read the 2 paragraphs pertaining to his education and performance in school. The reason why I included the additional information is to end that section with "Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career."

This is THE TRUTH. Alright, i can take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, if need be, however, I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS VITAL INFORMATION AS TO THE thinking of Albert Einstein, or his perception of education in general as a reflection of his own experiences through high school, is VERY IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT to this article. It's not just the flow of the entire paragraph, its a concluding sentence, which is important in any academic essay.

I am not sure about your level of understanding of these subtle ideas. But JUST FOR YOU, i will take out the "presume" and "deduce" bit, even though it is blatantly obvious, I was being pragmatic by using those 2 verbs to suggest that there might have been more to Einstein than what's on paper.

Fine, i'll take it out, but I am going to include the concluding sentence, and if you still have a problem with it, let's take it up with higher personell.

Regards, --Emperor 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Emperor ?? where'd that come from? OK Peter (as you first signed the above post), but I'd suggest taking the issue to the Einstein talk page rather than some higher personell - whoever you're referring to there. As I obviously cannot argue with THE TRUTH with my limited level of understanding of these subtle ideas.
"Einstein only excelled in the subjects he deemed relevant to his scientific career." -- hmm, or was he more normal and excelled in subjects that he was interested in? Do we have a reference that states his career oriented focus? or just that he was following his interests as many very bright teens have done throughout history. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Copying this to talk:Albert Einstein - please respond there wher all of the higher personell guys can watch. Vsmith 03:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Overlord or Emperor has inserted another version of his concluding sentence which appears to be based on his interpretation and thus comes near to or is WP:OR. Also he seems to have re-added similar material a number of times, I have previously left him a WP:3RR warning on his talk page. Vsmith 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest version of Overlord’s conclusion with the comment, “This conclusion does not necessarily follow.” In doing so I had in mind Vsmith’s comment above, “was he more normal and excelled in subjects that he was interested in? …” On reflection, however, I see that the evidence not only fails to support Overlord’s conclusion; it positively refutes it: Einstein got a 6 in history and 5’s in German and Italian, and in Munich he got high marks in Latin and Greek. How did this excellence advance his scientific career? On the other hand, he got only a 4 in technical drawing; you would think that if he were so career-focused, he would have tried harder there. --teb728 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) I have heard that his low mark in French was the result of trying to cram three years of French into one year. So Robinson’s interpretation is questionable. --teb728 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I must say I both agree and disagree with the above arguments. Firstly, the marks he obtained in other courses DO NOT refute the concluding sentence of mine. However, they don't necessarily support it either. That's why I have accepted the current changes until I can find evidence of a quote of Einstein, clearly supporting my conclusion. I am almost certain that I am right, however proving it is difficult. Einstein's priorities lied in the physical and mathematical sciences. Obtaining an excellent grade in also history doesn't suggest I am wrong. His above average marks in other courses do not falsify my claims in any way. If anything, it does suggest that irrespective of his qualms he did take pride in what he attempted. The reason why I am certain of my claims, is because of several aspects in his earlier life. I am not going to mention these, as they do not provide the proof that I am looking for at this point. I believe in the future, once I find something irrefutable, I will include my original concluding sentence. --Emperor 14:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

English and Einstein's matura

Something hopefully less controversial... The article currently says: Einstein also completed English studies, for which he received no grade.. This, I believe, is incorrect. The document is a pre-printed form with the possible courses; if Einstein did no receive a grade, it is proably because he did not take the course. In more recent times (until a few years ago), Swiss students could choose between Italian and English as a third language. I cannot be confident that it was already the case in Einstein's times, but it looks like a good explanation for the absence of a grade. In any case, I'll just remove the sentence. Schutz 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


I studied in switzerland for several years during primary school, secondary and high school, and it IS possible to complete subjects WITHOUT receiving a grade. However, usually it would be denoted with "bes." for "besucht" and so it seems that you might be right. I must add, however, that it is not unlikely that Einstein also completed English studies, because I have a friend, in his 50s, who studied in the same High school as einstein did, and he did indeed receive grades for german, french, italian and english. However, it might well be the case that Einstein studied the more scientifically focused "typ". In any case, it's better not to presume. --Emperor 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no reliable source for the statement that he received no grade, it should simply be deleted. Harald88 19:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

relativity

would it be true to say that he was wrong and that e=mcsquared and that at higher velocities the energy increased and not the mass? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.137.118.130 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

No (I don't know what to say more as the three suppostions don't match). Harald88 19:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, there is some sort of misunderstanding, but it's not clear what. One way of looking at E=mc² (click on that link for more detail) is that the m refers to a velocity-dependent mass which increases according to . — DAGwyn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I should add that whether or not the preceding interpretation is a really good one depends on whether the gravitation-generating effective mass should be m(v) or the "rest mass" m(0). It is more usual when working with fundamental particles to reserve m for rest mass, and use the energy-momentum-(rest)mass relationship: , where E and p c together transform properly as a relativistic 4-vector. The source of gravitation in the general theory of relativity is the more sophisticated stress-energy tensor. — DAGwyn 00:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita quote

Removed the following as neither source gives the original occurrence of the quote.

When I read the Bhagavad Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.[2][3]

About.com is not a valid source and the Bhagavad Gita and Management source seems rather a poor source for the quote. Provide a better - or the original source and context or leave it out. Vsmith 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if a reference to Einstein's own writings can be cited, then it would be an interesting quotation to have in the article, but if (as I suspect) Einstein never said that then it certainly does not belong in the article. A problem with Einstein is that every group and creed wants to claim him as one of their own, regardless of whether he really was.. — DAGwyn 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and beside the requirement of verifiability for all information in articles (see WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources), citing a source for this quote in Einstein’s own writings would provide a context for it, rather than just something he supposedly said sometime in his life. --teb728 06:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have come across Einstein's quote on the Bhagavad Gita a number of times. However, what you guys said above makes sense. --Incman|वार्ता 00:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If you can track down the reference to Einstein's own writings, you'd be doing us all a favor, and then the quotation would be interesting to add (assuming that it wasn't taken too far out of context, which we could then check). — DAGwyn 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious views

I've put in the relevant quotes from Pais (the definitive biography) which cite the Nature Paper, and a ref to the Nature Paper. As user:Sparkhead pointed out the mention of the Nature paper should not be in the quotes section, but the previous one. Since the other "blind/lame" quote is slightly different and cited to a secondary source I have not deleted it, because he may have said it twice, but the primary source Nature and definitive bio should take priority IMHO. NBeale 23:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

That said bio is "definitive" is POV (not just your POV), there's no need to include the quote twice. It's already in there. --*Spark* 03:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Spark. I've now got the original Nature Article from the Wellcome Library - unfortunately for copyright reasons I can't post the whole of it but I have quoted it extensively in the article. The blind/lame quote is different so either the other ref is wrong or (as I suspect) E. said much the same thing in 2 different ways. If you want to delete the latter (secondary source etc..) I have no objections. I think Nature trumps a book about E. (PS I wouldn't say definitive in an article, but that's pretty much how Pais is described in this. NBeale 19:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Einstein's refusal "might have stemmed from"

You write:

"Einstein's refusal might have stemmed from his disapproval of some of the Israeli policies during the war of independence."

Your "might have stemmed from" claim appears as your private position on this. Please, provide a quotation from a reputable source or remove your claim if you can not substantiate it.

64.160.42.130 03:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Michael Yatziv

The sentence you cite was a toned down remnant of a POV edit, which originally referenced his open letter criticizing Begin and Herut. That letter, of course, does not justify the speculation. I have removed the remnant. --teb728 08:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only U.S. citizen offered foreign leadership position

Tansu Çiller served as prime minister of Turkey from 1993-1995 after acquiring American citizenship while in graduate school in Connecticut: http://mediaguidetoislam.sfsu.edu/women/03b_feminism.htm

Belgrade-born California businessman Milan Panić was a U.S. citizen when he served as the prime minister of Yugoslavia from 1992-1993.

Valdus Adamkus is currently the president of Lithuania (he had U.S. citizenship but renounced it.)

Golda Meir was prime minister of Israel after having had American citizenship (it is unclear whether she renounced it). Critic9328 18:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly there is a difference between being offered it, and deciding to stand for election. David Underdown 17:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, although I would highly doubt that someone would quit their job and move halfway around the world (especially those who had to renounce their U.S. citizenship) if they weren't either offered a leadership position or virtually guaranteed in some way that they would win the election; Tansu Çiller, for example, was teaching economics at a liberal arts college in the U.S. when she announced that she would be leaving the faculty to serve as Turkey's prime minister, in other words I don't believe she was intimately involved in Turkish electoral politics up to that point. (Point being, being asked by representatives of one's native land to stand in an election which one was promised to win is to me essentially the same as being offered the job). Critic9328 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The offending was removed during copy edit, thanks for the data! That would have been almost impossible to verify. ~ Otterpops 18:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Experiment at age 16 not correct, I think

I think the article is incorrect in describing the wonderful thought experiment that Einstein performed at age 16. The article as now posted says: "...at the age of 16, he performed the thought experiment known as "Albert Einstein's mirror". After gazing into a mirror, he examined what would happen to his image if he were moving at the speed of light; his conclusion, that the speed of light is independent of the observer, would later become one of the two postulates of special relativity."

In fact, I think his great thought experiment, which led to his theory of special relativity, was about riding alongside a light beam and trying to catch up with it.

Here is his quote as recorded in Peter Bucky, The Private Albert Einstein, Kansas City: Andrew and McMeel, 1992, page 26: “In Aarau I made my first rather childish experiments in thinking that had a direct bearing on the Special Theory. If a person could run after a light wave with the same speed as light, you would have a wave arrangement which could be completely independent of time. Of course, such a thing is impossible." He expanded on this experiment in Aarau at age 16 in his own "Autobiographical notes," printed in Paul Arthur Schilpp, Albert Einstein, Chicago: Open Court Press, 1949, page 49: "If I pursue a beam of light with the velocity c (velocity of light in a vacuum), I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest though spatially oscillating. There seems to be no such thing, however, neither on the basis of experience nor according to Maxwell’s equations. From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from the standpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to the same laws as for an observer who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For how should the first observer know or be able to determine that he is in a state of fast uniform motion? One sees in this paradox the germ of the special relativity theory is already contained."

I think it would be better to say: "That same year, at age 16, he performed a famous thought experiment by trying to visualize what it would be like to ride alongside a light beam. He realized that, according to Maxwell's equations, light waves would obey the principle of relativity: the speed of the light would seem the same, a constant speed, no matter what the constant velocity of the observer." 209.97.231.74 04:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)Jefferson St. Charles


I'm copy-editing this enormous thing, when I got to that section I found myself agreeing with you, but going one step further - most of us don't grok Einstein at 16 or at 26 even with the help of his own explanations, so I'm tightening that passage just to: "At the age of 16 he first performed his famous {{thought experiment}}..." Link should lead to explanation of what 'thought experiment' is (and is not) and give the details and relevance of Einstein's first one. Thanks for the clue.
~ Otterpops 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Einstein has so many memorable quotes. Why isn't there a section in the article dedicated only to his quotes even if the have to be repeated??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marwan123 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Quotes belong in Wikiquote, not in Wikipedia articles (at least not extensively)Acornwithwings 02:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved text on special relativity

The following was posted to the article by 207.210.130.113. Assuming it is not plagiarized, it deserves a home somewhere, but this biography is not a suitable home:

"The classical laws of physics were formulated by Newton in the Principia in 1687. According to this theory the motion of a particle has to be described relative to an inertial frame .... (many paragraphs removed from this copy—see note below * —Æ) .... The committee was at first cautious and waited for experimental confirmation. By the time such confirmation was available Einstein had moved on to further momentous work."

--moved to talk page by teb728 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

* With thanks to TEB728 for removing the plagiarism from the article and to 24.147.86.187 for locating its source, I have abbreviated the talk page copy in the interest of economy of space here. Athænara ✉ 03:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Note that the reason given for the Nobel decision is bogus. He wasn't awarded the Nobel prize for "further momentous" work, but for clearly less momentous work. More likely the Nobel committee was leery of awarding prizes for theories, period. — DAGwyn 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The Einstein Nobel decision is rather complicated — the easiest answer is that they gave it to the part of his work which was undeniable by all, was very concrete in its implications and truth, and was in itself still terribly important (his photoelectric work is one of the most important things in early quantum theory, pushing the quanta from an theoretical construct into something more real). There are more details than that, of course, but I'm fairly sure that's the gist of it. --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
It is plagiarized at that. [71]. --24.147.86.187 01:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Remark on reverted edit concerning c & constant

I agree with the reversion: Not only would Einstein have been more likely to use "k" for "konstant" if that were the etymology (he didn't speak English at the time), but also he would not have believed anything so ludicrous as that the speed of light was the only constant in the universe. (Immediate counterexamples would be 1 and c^2.) Indeed, check out cosmological constant. — DAGwyn 07:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Show trials

Einstein endorsed Stalin's 1936 and 1937 show trials. See "Einstein-Born Brief Wechseln" and an English translation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Where can we find some citation by Einstein to that effect? It seems very unlikely.. — DAGwyn 01:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Einstein Born Letters, London, MacMillan, 1971, 2005. Einstein/Born Briefwechsel, 1916-1955, Verlag Rowohlt, 1984. In 1937, Born wrote to Einstein, suggesting that he recommend a physicist to the Soviets, mainly Molotov. Then Born said, "I could understand it if you wanted nothing to do with the Soviets. The new trial against Radek is disgusting." Einstein replied by endorsing the phoney trials and quoting the ipse dixit of experts on Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.4.21 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


Gimme a [citation needed] and I'll include it. ~ Otterpops 18:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tongue

The tongue photograph citation link is dead. (currently Albert Einstein# note-54). I don't have time to wayback machine it or find alternative source, so leaving note here. —Quiddity 02:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very important.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.113.156 (talk)
It kind of is, from a particular point of view. See [72]. Which I'll now add/replace as the ref in question. —Quiddity 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why don't we show the picture here? I'm sure it was included in the article at some point, but I really don't feel like going through the archives and page history to find out what happened to it, I haven't checked the article in months. --Conti|✉ 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was deleted from the Image namespace in July for failure to meet copyright requirements. --teb728 07:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I managed to find the deleted image (Image:Zunge.jpg) from the article history. The image was apparently deleted because no proper source was given, which is kinda silly given the fact that the source is even discussed in this very article. --Conti|✉ 15:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I've reuploaded the image with a proper fair use rationale and added it to the article. --Conti|✉ 16:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Hoorah! thanks :) —Quiddity 18:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The october/november 1915 communications

I think I spotted a minor mistake. In the article it is stated:

In November 1915, Einstein presented a series of lectures before the Prussian Academy of Sciences on a new theory of gravity, known as general relativity. The final lecture ended with his introduction of an equation that replaced Newton's law of gravity, the Einstein field equation.

All other sources that I have seen relate the following:
In oktober/november Einstein submitted in quick succession several hurried communications to the magazine: 'Proceedings of the Prussion academy of sciences' (Preusische Academie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte).

Not a series of lectures in november, but hasty notes to the magazine, each one basically a correction/amendation on the preceeding one. At the time, Einstein and Hilbert were corresponding with each other, keeping each other informed about their progress. Einstein and Hilbert assisted and stimulated each other (any secrecy would have been frowned upon as contrary to the free spirit of science), but at the same time they were competitors, and historians of science indicate that if Einstein would have hesitated he would not have had priority of publication.

Anyway, the november communications weren't lectures, and they weren't articles. It is my understanding that the november communications were hurried notes, each published within a week of being submitted, aimed at securing Einstein's priority.

Several months before, in the summer of 1915, Einstein had been invited to Göttingen to present lectures on his new theory. The subject of these lectures was the theory that nowadays is known as the 'Entwurf theory', the attempt at formulating a general theory of relativity that was published in 1913, a collaboration between Einstein and his friend Marcel Grossman.

Einstein's first systematic exposition of the general theory of relativity was composed and published in 1916. --Cleonis | Talk 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact history, which presumably could be looked up, but in fact Einstein had been trying to devise a relativistic gravitational theory, publishing various attempts, for several years before 1915. — DAGwyn 01:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I need to correct myself on a very important point. The 1913 Entwurf theory was an attempt at a relativistic theory of gravitation. Contrary to what I wrote above it was not an attempt at formulating a general theory of relativity. In fact, between the publication of the Entwurf theory, and the october/november communications, Einstein published on four different occasions a line of reasoning aimed at proving that any theory with the property of being generally covariant could not possibly be correct. That is, Einstein was denying the possibility of formulating a physically acceptable theory that would have the property of general covariance.
The development of Einstein's general theory of relativity was one with many U-turns. In october of 1915 Einstein changed his mind once more, and returned to a set of equations he had considered but then discarded in 1913. Einstein calculated once more an approximate value for the perihelion precession of Mercury, and this time he obtained a value very close to the astronomical value. In quick succession an elated Einstein rushed several communications to the Sitzungsberichte. --Cleonis | Talk 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Ack! All y'all Einstein experts, please get some solid references (the journal in question is less than 100 years old so it will be sitting on a shelf in just about any given university, probably covered with dust) and see if the "hasty notes" exist or not. I'm not sure how to confirm/disprove the existence of a lecture. This is important because it's making David Hilbert look lame, and he was no small fish. Until we get some actual reference (and not from some random one of 1000+ biographies in various languages, secondary sources don't count) I have an obligation as copy editor to remove this whole passage. Would be an excellent idea if a (fluent)(no, native) German speaker looked up and confirmed this info so we can legitimately make this radical statement (Einstein was claiming he could best Newton?) with a solid footnote. Academic battles are nasty things, and at 36 Einstein would have had to be a street fighter - nothing will surprise me. Please find it, it's important.
~ Otterpops 15:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the text—but not for the reasons given. The first paragraph is more pertinent to History of general relativity than to the biography, and the details of the second are pertinent to Relativity priority dispute but not biographical at all. References to Relativity priority dispute should be present, however—in both the special and general relativity sections of the bio. (Somehow they seem to have been lost.) I disagree with Otterpops's reason for removing the text, however: Thorne is a noted expert on general relativity and not a random biographer. In an NPOV article like Relativity priority dispute he is a reliable source. --teb728 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no info here about Thorne, not even a link to another Wiki...I'll try linking it and see what comes up. You have a good point about the pp being a tangent. Anyone see a strong reason to put the passage back into this bio despite these two reservations?
~ Otterpops 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yep, there it is in the References section, Kip Thorne, noted physicist and author of the popular Einstein biography Black Holes and etc., which made Einstein's ideas accessible to a generation of non-physicists, has written that "Einstein stood up there and outright claimed he could best Newton!" (Quote is purely invented, of course.) Can we get Thorne's exact words regarding Einstein and his astonishing hubris? Very nice flavor, adds to characterization of Einstein as well as important bio info. Also shows that The Times didn't make it up from whole cloth. You're right again, TEB. But what do you (plural) think? Is it great characterization or is it a tangent that belongs in other Relativity article? I can fish it out of the History if that's the way the consensus goes.
~ Otterpops 18:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Need explanation or another article on "geometrization of gravity"

I know some vague stuff about the general theory of relativity, but not enough to write anything about "geometrization of gravity", which this article refers to.

Somebody added a link to Geometry for "geometrization", but that is inadequate to explain what this is about.

I think either an explanation is needed or an another article is needed. Clemwang 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What is meant by that term is explaining gravitation as a geometric property of the space-time manifold, instead of a separate thing that just happens within space-time without being part of it. It's probably not worth any additional effort to explain in connection with the Einstein article. — DAGwyn 06:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If I link the whole phrase to a hypothetical article, will someone write it? Whoever's been adding in about tensors seems to have a handle on this stuff.
~ Otterpops 19:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Noinclude tag

Could an admin remove/ fix the "noinclude" tag visible near the bottom of the page?Thanks. 24.20.69.240 11:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The tag came from vandalism to an included template, so fixing it didn't require an admin. Hemmingsen 11:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 2007 – Apr 2007


Nationality

I believe that Albert Einstein's nationality tag should be changed immediately to 'Swiss-American' for the several reasons which I will now explain:

  • Wikipedia's laws state that each subject must be tagged by their citizenship(s) ('German-born' is most definitely not a citizenship)
  • At the time of his death, he was a citizen of the United States of America and Switzerland, not Germany (he had previously renounced his German citizenship)
  • Wikipedia advocates using citizenship (Swiss and American), not ethnicity (German (possibly Jewish depending on personal beliefs about Jews as an ethnic group)), as the nationality tag placed in the introductory biography.
  • Birth place is unnecessary and not supported in the opening paragraph. Such details are shown clearly in Einstein's info box and also explained further down in the article.

For those reasons I will change the nationality tag immediately.

Cypriot stud 18:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There is no "Wikipedia law". If you think there is a policy or guideline, providing a link would be useful.
  • Why do you pick the time of his death? He was born German (and later became a citizen of the German Reich).
  • Einsteins Nationality is complex and this parapgraph is the result of a long discussion. Before changing it "immediately", try to obtain consensus.
--Stephan Schulz 22:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Whatever label(s) go in the lead sentence of a bio are decided on a case-by-case basis, according to whatever best summarizes to subject. The question of what label(s) to put in Einstein’s lead sentence has been extensively discussed on this talk page (Einsteins nationality (archived), Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist (archived), Jewishness (archived), Nationalities (archived), Putting "Jewish" back in the opening sentence (archived), Geeman's comments on "Jewish" (archived)). The consensus was that Einstein’s nationality, citizenship and religion were not sufficiently notable to mention in the lead sentence (but that “German-born” should be retained to explain why the German pronounciation is given). Notice, however, that his Swiss and American citizenships are listed in the infobox, and his citizenship has a section in the body of the article. --teb728 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the two relevant questions to ask when deciding how Einstein's nationality/ethnicity should be described in the opening sentence is first: What best describes the man? Second: how did his origins affected his legacy? From what I can tell, Einstein's Swiss and American citizenships were more pragmatic than personal, and more incidental than influential, so I don't think they belong in the opening sentence. Further, they did not necessarily have a dramatic effect on his impact in history. I would argue that his being German-BORN was significant, and that his being a jew is signficant (for reasons I've already elaborated upon pretty extensively, so I'll not regurgitate them other than to mention that I don't think anyone has made any substantial counter argument to them so far) but despite being an American myself I don't find his American citizenship particularly noteworthy, nor do I think his Swiss citizenship tells us much about Einstein as a person or historical figure that we don't already learn by noting he was a German-born jew. Geeman 23:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look [73] here. You will see where it says that citizenship, not ethnicity, must be used as the nationality tags.
Why do I choose his citizenship at the time of his death? Because it was the most recent citizenship he had. He was no longer, in the eyes of the law, classed as a German (about a German as a Jamaican who has never left Jamaica). His birth place is clearly visible in his info box, as well as his explained multiple nationalities. But the most up-to-date and, in accordance with Wikipedia's regulations on citizenship, correct citizenships were Swiss and American, so there is no reason for him to be labelled otherwise. Also, 'German-born ' is not a citizenship; it can really only be German or Swiss-American. Birth isn't relevant in the introductory paragraph.
Cypriot stud 17:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Look again. What the Manual of Style says is that one of the things the opening paragraph should give is “Nationality (In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person … was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.)” In the first place, it says “should” not “must”: it’s a guideline not a law. In the second place, taking the guideline at face value, if Einstein’s nationality were a “normal case” (which it isn’t), it should be listed as “Swiss” (where he discovered special relativity and the photo-electric effect) and/or German (where he discovered general relativity) – certainly not American (where he came long after becoming notable).
But Einstein’s nationality is anything but the normal case: He hated nationalism. And labeling him Swiss or German (or American) tells a reader nothing significant about him. His is the rare case where his German-born (or perhaps, as Geeman says, German-born Jewish) ethnicity is more relevant to his notability than his citizenship. --teb728 22:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just to reiterate a bit on TEB728's (who is a bit quicker on the trigger than I--God, I hate edit conflicts....) comments. The MoS says: "In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." (My emphasis.) Einstein fits all of these qualifications as if they were written to describe him. His citizenship is not normal. His ethnicity is directly related to his notability. His personality and relevance to world history (to completely introduce 4. What they did, and 5. Why they are significant in the opening paragraph) are directly tied to his being "German-born" (not simply German, Swiss or American) and his being born to a family of Jewish ancestry. Otherwise, why didn't Germany get the atom bomb first and nuke London, Leningrad and/or Washington D.C. for that matter? Why was he offered a leadership position in the new nation of Israel? Why did he become American or Swiss at all if he weren't born in Germany into a jewish family at a time when that was particularly unpleasant? Geeman 22:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Just a small correction: At the time Einstein was born, being born Jewish was less unpleasant in Germany than in most other continental European countries. One of the scary things about the Nazi ideology is that it overtook what was until then a (relatively) enlightened and liberal society. --Stephan Schulz 09:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. The basic idea behind including his nation of birth and jewish heritage remains the same for the qualification, though. Geeman 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, his nationality is complex and should not be reduced to "German-born" in the opening paragraph. "German" and "German-born" are two different things. It needs to be disscused in detail, otherwise mentioned, American and Swiss citzenship as well. And as for his Jewish ethnicity, it was very relevant to his history...... Epson291 03:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, it is all discussed in detail, later in the article. Again, the use of "German-born" in the introduction was justified to explain the immediately preceding use of a German pronunciation guide. If Einstein had instead been a Hebrew name, then probably the introduction would have said "Jewish-born". Of course "German" and "German-born" are different, which is why "German-born" was correctly chosen for that spot. Again, once you start adding qualifications and details to the introduction, it becomes a very poor example of an introduction. The introduction is already too wordy (in listing so many areas of physics). — DAGwyn 23:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
One would find out that he was German-born within the details (and understand why there is a German pronounciation). By just saying German born, many readers would be very confused and wonder why the man credited for being the father of the atomic bomb (and a Jew), that Germany did not have the bomb until much later in the article. And many people will think, "wasn't he American?". And it isn't so simple as him being German born. His citzenship was revoked. As for him being Jewish, in his later life he focused a lot of it on the creation of Israel (as well as being an American), and is fatured on Israeli currency, helped Israeli universities (and left all his work to them), and was even offered the position of Israeli president. It does not seam right for the country that revoked his citizenship, to be the only country listed, espeically, when had it not been for this theories and working with the United States (versus Germany) that they sucessfully developed the atom bomb. The way it is now is very confusing, I do not dispute that his German birth shouldn't be mentioned but it should be along the lines of,
Albert Einstein (German pronunciationⓘ) (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955) was a German-born Jew of Swiss and American citizenship, who, as a theoretical physicist is widely considered one of the greatest physicists of all time.[4][5] While best known for the theory of relativity (and specifically mass-energy equivalence, E=mc2), he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics for his 1905 (Annus Mirabilis) explanation of the photoelectric effect and "for his services to Theoretical Physics". In popular culture, the name "Einstein" has become synonymous with great intelligence and genius. Einstein was named Time magazine's "Man of the Century."
As for the ethnicity, when the ethnicity is important to the role of the individual, which in many, many cases was with him (his citizenship being revoked and working for the Americans instead, his role later in his life supporting the State of Israel, etc...) it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. As for his American citizenship, it needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph (as opposed to tucked away in the 4th) as it had a profound impact on his work and the course of history. However, the details of this is of course entirely inapopiate for the opening paragraph. And in fact, it is quite enycylopedic to announce his citizenship at the opening paragraph (from 1933 onwards he was no longer a German citizen), and after the war he never petitioned for his German citizenship back. Epson291 11:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We went through an editing cycle like that before, and the result just looked ridiculous. In fact the details are given, elsewhere in the article and in the Infobox.
A major problem we have with Einstein is that so many special interest groups want to claim him as one of their own. I left "German-born" there when I cleaned up the previous mess, not because I'm promoting Germany but because (a) the pronunciation link raised the immediate question, Why German pronunciation? and (b) it hints at complex nationality, which will be discussed later in the article (just as relativity is discussed later, not all crammed into the introduction). — DAGwyn 11:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
And I would like to add his significance to Jewish culture/politics was imense, and it should be mentioed that he was a Jew in the opening paragraph. The manual of style (which is not wikipolicy, only a wikiguideline) says that ethnicity should be mentioed when it is notable to the person, yes his main notability is for being a physicst, but also he is very notable for being a Jew. Epson291 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I responded below at the new ongoing discussion. Epson291 07:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We could put in "various" as a teaser... ~ Otterpops 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


As far as I'm concerned, Albert was German. Not American. People who want him labelled as American do it for selfish reasons. He was Germany's treasure, not America's. Civ-online 19:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny discussion. typical american ;-) always claiming great men for themself due a lack of having one by themself.... at last he was a great men and its nonrelevant if he was american or german. everyone who claims him for their own country is a *****


Religion entry in infobox

User: Starnold recently wanted Einstein’s religion to be listed in the infobox as “Pantheist, does not believe in a personal God.” User: Prep111 wanted it to be “Jewish (non-observant ).” These are just two instances of why his religion is too complex to summarize in the infobox. We discussed this issue at length in an archived section of this talk page. --teb728 00:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in the preceding section, everybody wants to lay claim to Einstein. (Unless they're deriding him.) I've studied Einstein's work for nearly 50 years now, yet am unaware of any significant impact he made on Judaism per se. Indeed, his Jewish heritage helps explain his migration, and perhaps influenced some of his thought, and thus deserves coverage in the article, but doesn't seem significant enough to further bloat the introduction with it.
If any changes are going to be made in the introduction concerning his group membership, it should be to remove rather than add. However, I think it is fine as it stands. — DAGwyn 11:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believed he praticed Judaism in any great lengths. So I would agree it should be left out of the infox box. And to user:DAGwyn, I am not aware of any, and I mean any, impact (significant or otherwise he made on Judaism). So I would disagree with you. He was completly unreligous. However, the issue is not his Judaism but his nationality. He certiantly conciderd himself a Jew, by nationality (or ethnicity if you prefer). To quote Einstein himself, A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew. Einstein was a commited Zionist (with Zionism being originally a purely secualr idea). And if you are confused about the differences between what Jew and Judaism mean, please see the articles. Epson291
No, the issue in this section has nothing whatsoever to do with his nationality: In this section the issue is what if anything should go in the “Religion” entry of the infobox (read the section header). The poll here decided there should be no Religion entry in the infobox. --teb728 06:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but you didn't read my post, that isn't what I said. Epson291 20:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I did read your post; you said, “However, the issue is not his Judaism but his nationality.” Nationality may be the issue in some other section of this talk page, but it is not the issue in this one. --teb728 21:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I know, that is the point. But maybe you didn't read it the second time either, just one part, so I'll quote it for you. "So I would agree it should be left out of the infox box" As in, his ethnicity might be Jewish, but his religion is complex and clearly not clear cut Judiasm. So it shouldn't be mentioned under "Religion" for the infox box (the issue at hand). Yes I did mention his ethnicity, for the reason that the user's above were discussing his "Jewishness" and his "Jewishness" has nothing to do with his religion but rather the cultural part, which has nothing to do with it... I wouldn't really object to "Jewish (non religious)" in the info box, but I still believe it should not be there. (And rather discussed in the article about his complex relationship with religion) Teb728, I believe you were confused because of what I wrote in the other part of the talk page I'm guessing, or I wasn't clear in what I wrote, but I did intend to only talk about the religion talk. Epson291 06:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was a difficult person, it's fact, but he always said: "I don't believe in a personal god." And he also said: "I believe in Spinoza's God". He was a pantheist and nonbeliever of a personal God. He didn't like atheism. --Starnold 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And of course, I agree with the view, that Einstein came from a Jewish family, but after the age of 12, he was a nonobservant Jewish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Starnold (talk • contribs) 15:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
Agreed, though I will point out pantheist isn't actually a religion, so it shouldn't be going into the info box. Epson291 22:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
But Pantheism already a religion. I saw "religions" in Wikipedia called: Agnosticism for instance (it isn't a religion too.)--Starnold 18:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nationality field of infobox

Although I remain skeptical of mentioning Einstein’s Jewish nationality in the first paragraph and quite opposed to mentioning his Swiss and American citizenships there, I think it might be a good thing to list his Jewish nationality in the Nationality field of the infobox. I wonder if Geeman and Epson291 would be content with that. The difference between the infobox and the first paragraph is that the infobox is a list: As such it doesn’t need to be good prose and it is easy to skip over information that one is not interested in. I am thinking of a Nationality entry like this:

Ethnic identity:
Citizenship:

An archived poll here voted to include only citizenship in this field, but perhaps that issue might be reopened. --teb728 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, but I wonder if some users may object to it. (the Jewish nation being referred to as a nation (as lets say a "people"), for the reason that they might take "nation" in the most common definition of the word, (being a "country"), rather then, as the article nation or a dictionary would say, "A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent." So while I would be personally content with that (but still prefer it to be in the opening paragraph because as a Jew, his contributions were great to the Jewish people), but I do wonder if wikiusers would find issues with this because of confusion (or ambiguity) over the term "nation" Epson291 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

National labels in opening paragraph

To user, user:DAGwyn, as for your comment about people wanting to claim him as his own, I would think so, concidering his contributions, if it was say, Émile Durkheim or one of the many famous Europeans (who just happened to be Jewish), and whose being a Jew had nothing to do with their life or notability , I would definitely argue for it not to be in the opening paragrah (rather in their biography of growing up). However, Einstein is notable for his continued contributions to the Jewish people, which was a big part of what he did later in his life. The word "Jew" would give proper respect to that. I object to "German-born" being the only mention in the opening paragraph, since it is not simply that he was just "German-born" and then moved around a lot. I would not object to "German-born" or just German, if other mentions were made. (Are there any quotes to how he felt about his "Germaness" after his German citizenship was taken from him, or later in his life?) I object to it being the only mention since it disorts the picture of reality. As for the German pronounciation, a confused reader, would find out later in the article the reason for that. It is not different from a user getting confused by the singular German mention. (An American English pronounciation, should likely be included as well, since he became an English speaking naturalized American citizen for the rest of his life) Epson291 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Religious Quotes

Should we move the quotes to wikiquote and provide a link at the relevent point? It would help 'streamline' the article Jnb 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, although it is probably worth retaining the one about a personal god vs. Spinoza's god in the main article, just so it doesn't leave the reader who doesn't follow the links completely in the dark. After all, Einstein was not really a religious leader; the only reason anybody would really care about his opinions outside his area of expertise would be to hear what the "smartest man in the world" had to say on the matter. — DAGwyn 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Taking out the big block quotes and replacing them with a link to other Einstein-relevant articles is one of the things I'm doing while I copy edit. Reassignment and organization of them into the other articles is NOT something I'm doing though, does anyone want to pick that up so they don't just vanish forever? ~ Otterpops 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away from this article for a bit, but I really don't think it was a good idea to gut the religious views section. This is an important matter in the contemporary debate - Dawkins devotes a whole chapter on it in The God Delusion and we need the (carefully amassed) evidence here. FWIW I also think we need to slow down the massive number of changes esp by a single editor. NBeale 06:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion an encyclopedia article is no place for a string of miscellaneous quotes. The place for these quotes is (if anywhere) Wikiquote:Albert Einstein. --teb728 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The Einstein article is primarily a biography of Einstein, and religion played a negligible role in his life. I think the very minimal remaining coverage of this in the current article is just about right, for this article. If it matters for some other article, the extra text (quotes etc.) should go there. — DAGwyn 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi DAGwyn. It is completely untrue that religion played a negligible part in his life! Even Richard Dawkins knows this! Have you read Subtle is the Lord?? "By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of coruse, a deeply relgious person." (Pais, 1982 p 319) NBeale 07:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it as is. Its fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.187.72.3 (talk)

"By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of coruse, a deeply relgious person." (Pais, 1982 p 319) I have a big problem with this because in fact this give a totally false impression. This is what Pais claims about Einstein ie ("deeply religious") and not what Einstein says about himself, which is the impression that the editor is trying to give. The whole religious views section is distorted and contains none of Einsteins criticisms of "believers" 68.60.68.203 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Photos

It seems to me that User:Epson291 is adding more photos than are needed, particularly since some of them are questionable in the fair use department. In particularly the pictures of Einstein playing the violin, with Eban, and with Ben-Gurion do not contribute significantly to the article, as required by the Wikipedia fair use policy. (In contrast a plausible fair-use rationale can be made for the use of the Time cover and the picture of the Einstein memorial, for example, in that they illustrate the mentions in the text of the Person of the Century award and the memorial.) --teb728 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The photographs do contribute significantly to the article, and I hope their attributions can be sorted out satisfactorily. The problem is that, as it is now, the main article is far too long. Several massive sections should be stand-alone articles with summaries and pointers in much more brief sections in the main article. — Athænara ✉ 02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The photos seem great to me, even though some of them are in funky places. They add intriguing teaser and modifying detail that really adds to the text. I especially like the one with Einstein and the future first president of Israel in New York the year Einstein accepted the Nobel, and the one of "combatants" Einstein and Bohr sitting around together smoking with messy hair. Photos! Photos! ~ Otterpops 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've found that cleaning up the grammar, removing redundancies and reserving the in-depth descriptions and critiques of Annus Mirabilis Papers for the Annus Mirabilis Papers article (although they were very well written) has knocked about 10kb off the article.
I've only gotten to the section entitled "General Relativity" so far, no links checked, and still inconsistent about native v. English translations of organizations. I'll be back to work on it tomorrow.
~ Otterpops 18:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Still working on the General Relativity section when vandals struck and activity on article went way up. I think the east coast kiddies must have gotten home from school.
I'm combining the Middle Years and General Relativity sections into one that shows chronological continuity for the pre-Nobel years. Also helped get rid of redundancies and made a lot more sense without all the foreshadowing. Removed scientific descriptions by writers who have not yet taken freshman physics. ~ Otterpops 20:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The Middle Years + General Relativity = The Academic Einstein: General Relativity. Still needs links checked. Source citations are a bit um elementary. ~ Otterpops 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobel Prize section, not done when 1:30 p.m. activity went up - trying to assemble the events of 1921 into a coherent portrait of Einstein that year with notable statements and actions. Repercussions of same will be treated in their own later sections e.g. the Copenhagen Interpretation.~ Otterpops 21:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of priority dispute info

This paragraph replaced a post by a banned user. In relevant part he noted the removal of the link to Relativity priority dispute and the names of other scientists mentioned there. --teb728 09:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of that is well removed as non-biographical material from an overly long article. Also well removed was text defending Einstein's priority. All that is treated in Relativity priority dispute; this biography is not the place to duplicate it. I agree, however, there should be a link to Relativity priority dispute, together with the briefest mention of why it is relevant. --teb728 05:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Elaborating on the debate merely makes the bloated article even worse. I agree that (just) a link is appropriate. I would like to see even more irrelevant cruft removes, such as Einstein's early schooling, to the extent that it was not unique.
General relativity is not "just a theory of gravity", It is foremost a theory of general covariance of physical laws; gravitation then falls out from that principle as a natural consequence, rather than as an ad hoc phenomenon as it was in previous theories. — DAGwyn 16:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Done and done. Right up top, "see Relativity priority dispute". Thanks to whoever was so quick with that. ~ Otterpops 18:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Good attributions will help make these very similar relativity terms less confusing - Gallileo, Newton, Planck, etc., also show non-scientist readers why Einstein was startling and groundbreaking (not because he was famous, had a big tongue, messy hair and liked the Bhagavad Gita). I'm working on the attributions but it's slow, I have to look up each one (science is a second language for me), so I'll appreciate the efforts of the historians who can just see "Brownian motion" or "principle of relativity" and know who it came from and what century they lived in.~ Otterpops 21:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Annis Mirabilis Papers & Einstein as a PhD student

Urban legend says that Einstein was a lowly patent office drone when he wrote the A.M. Papers that eventually got him the Nobel, but putting the chronology together I'm starting to understand that he was actually a PhD student (ABD at that) when he published them in a very prestigious journal where he had published before. (This is plenty remarkable, as any ABD will tell you.)
I'm getting the impression that Einstein couldn't get TA-ships because he annoyed professors but had to keep supporting his family while he was in grad school so he got the job at the patent office while doing the PhD, it was an after-school job (also plenty remarkable). As it reads now the article implies that as soon as he published those four papers in 1905 (as if Annalin der Physic took manuscripts over the transom) he was boom granted a PhD by the University of Zurich.
Anyone have good info from one of the bios that talks about what PhD programs he applied to, when he applied to them, in what subjects, and how he ended up at Universitait Zurich? I did find a quick note in the article on his advisor that mentions Einstein quarreling with his first advisor and changing horses midstream.
Reality checking... ~ Otterpops 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

See the article on Einstein's doctoral advisor Alfred Kleiner. --teb728 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Also, the current version seems to imply that he was actually studying in 1905 rather than working on his thesis, and one might get the impression that Kleiner was responsible for the 1905 papers other than the thesis. --teb728 08:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how 1905 Swiss universities worked at the time, but to get a PhD in the US today, a person applies to (is sponsored into) a program bcz s/he is potentially a desirable member of the advisor's research team. S/he then takes classes for about three semesters but also works as an instructor (a TA) for a tiny salary plus "considerations" (tuition waiver plus health insurance, usually). When the classes are finished, the person takes a nasty series of written and oral exams called "comps" (comprehensive examinations). When the comps are passed, the person is "ABD" (All But Dissertation) and begins writing a giant torturous paper or more likely series of papers on one topic (the dissertation) including original publishable research that makes a master's thesis look like a book report. A person might be ABD for years and years, a student in perfectly good standing without taking any classes at all (they register for "thesis hours" listing their advisor as the instructor). The long dissertation is sometimes wise because that means s/he has access to university research facilities, equipment and staff with only Teaching Assistant responsibilities.
Academia is a weird world with its own jargon, I'm trying to find good ways to communicate accurately to people living in it at the same time as being clear for people who have no reason to know anything about it. I'll have another look at that wording to see if it can be put better. ~ Otterpops 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't read your first post carefully enough: Apparently you did see the Kleiner article but missed its explanation of why Einstein's PhD was technically from the University of Zurich. Also when you call the patent office an "after-school job," is it your impression that he commuted daily between ETH in Zurich and the patent office in Bern? I always understood that the patent office was a full-time day job and that he visited Zurich off hours as needed. --teb728 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Two different universities? Oh my goodness. I don't have an Einstein bio lying around, can someone who does dump some info into that section? Changing advisor (research project) is one thing but quitting a PhD program in one school to move to another school is something else. I never looked at a map to see how far Bern was from Zurich...yes, I did assume he was commuting. He wouldn't have had to show his face at the campus daily if he wasn't taking classes, but still, holy moly. My only point was that universities don't spontaneously hand people PhDs on account of smartness (oh if only they did!) ~ Otterpops 16:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Otterpops, do you really know enough about Einstein to do such extensive copyedits? He was at the patent office when he wrote the papers. It was not a minor job, it was a major preoccupation and had direct connections to his special relativity work. He was not commuting, he was an outsider to the physics community completely at that point. And the European system of education bears little resemblance, especially in 1905, to the modern US educational system. --24.147.86.187 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the chronology is wrong? If you want to get some solid references on date of graduation from PhD program, etc. that would be terrific. Put them in and I'll integrate (and correct my misunderstandings) when I do the reference-check sweep.
~ Otterpops 16:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Mostly organization today, coming back to work on Dangerous Politics section more tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have removed "probabilistic interpretation of quantum theory" which is linked to the 'copenhagen interpretation'. I feel that this is more of a intellectual dispute rather than a major contribution - particularly in comparison with his groundbreaking "annus mirabilis" papers. The 'unified field theory' was an ambition rather than an achievement. Overall I feel that the introduction could be improved, so that users without a background in quantum physics have a smooth start. Inwind 02:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Unified field theory as an ambition unfilled is noted, you are correct. I'm clarifying that as I work through the article. What section did you remove from? Intro? I think the topic is actually covered adequately in the "Collaborations & Conflicts" section. I'm with you on the non-scientist reader needing serious consideration in this article.
~ Otterpops 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you are incorrect. Einstein during his last couple of decades was famously known for his work on a unified field theory, right behind relativity and e=mc², and he did construct such a thing (in several prograssive versions). While it may not have been considered a major success by most physicists, it has significant ramifications in the history of ideas and it was more important to Einstein than many of the other things mentioned in the introduction; it was the main thing he worked on for a major portion of his life, and was one of the main things he was known for by the general public, therefore it should not be downplayed in the biography. The preexisting text about UFT, and the linked main article, has already been carefully edited by an expert in the subject, and is best not changed to say something different.
As to the Copenhagen interpretation, it is important to retain it in the context of the Einstein-Bohr debates, although I agree that it isn't an achievement of the same kind as the other things listed in the introduction (including construction of a UFT), and thus isn't necessary to include in the introduction. — DAGwyn 00:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's been carefully edited by all and sundry. I'm working hard to find a way to say it that will make everyone happy. Still not there yet... ~ Otterpops 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

EPR Paradox section removed (sorry!)

The EPR Paradox not only has an article of its own, it's covered in-depth in the Bohr-Einstein Debates article (which links to the EPR article). EPR Paradox has virtually no meaning (let alone significance) to a person with an ordinay college education and because its importance is apparent only in the context of the debate (the intricacies of and explanations for which there is no room for in the "Albert Einstein" biography article) I had to take this newly introduced section out. I'm so sorry, please don't be hurt, your contribution was and is valuable. Could you maybe go to work on the "Bohr-Einstein Debates"? I think that one needs an educated eye.
Please understand that this article is much too large, and was becoming incomprehensible to the everyday reader. A newspaper article is written at a 6th grade reading level, and I'm attempting to edit this Albert Einstein bio to a Liberal Arts BA level.
Thanks for the offered help. Say...if you have any Einstein books laying around the house, could you check some of these "fact"-tagged dates and quotes? That would be a huge help.
~ Otterpops 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The reasons I added it in the first place were (a) to continue the Bohr-Einstein explanation in a more useful direction than what had previously been there, and (b) to provide a hook for the link to the main EPR article, which definitely belongs in an Einstein biography, being one of the main things his name is associated with (much more so than the refrigerator!) EPR is of considerable importance in the history of ideas, being often cited in connection with quantum entanglement, for example. A reader should not be expected to read the linked Bohr-Einstein article in order to even see a reference to EPR. Further, I dispute the notion that the article should be dumbed down to the extent of omitting references to anything requiring more than trivial thought; the main thing about Einstein was that his ideas were nontrivial. Note that the text I inserted should be intelligible enough to anybody who has a decent general English vocabulary; the linked article(s) go into greater depth. I'm putting the text back, however as a paragraph rather than a section, to help clarify the Bohr-Einstein issue and also to make a reference to EPR visible to anybody looking for it in the logical place. — DAGwyn 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
EPR paradox could be explained in plain language quite easily, but in any case I think it should not be overstated how much it represented Einstein's views: it was primarily written by Rosen, not Einstein, and Einstein himself later expressed discontent with the argumentation. --24.147.86.187 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Accidentally dropped the picture of the Einstein 5-lira note from Israel

I can't intuit how to put it back in after the section about Einstein being offered the presidency of Israel in "Dangerous Politics". I can look up how to do it, but is there anyone more on the ball than me who can just pop it back in? ~ Otterpops 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I frankly doubt it adds much to the article, but if you really want it, add
[[Image:Einstein paper money.jpg|thumb|right|222px|A 5 [[Israeli pound]] note from 1968 with the portrait of Einstein.]]
ahead of the paragraph you want even with the top of the image. --teb728 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I think it adds because it shows Einstein as a kind of founding father of a country, not just a pop hero. It's also a quick way of showing the info instead of adding in an awkward sentence about "Einstein's portrait appears on Israeli paper money between the years Y and Z". ~ Otterpops 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That’s my point, sort of: It shows him as a kind of founding father of Israel, but he was not any kind of founding father. Undoubtedly the Israeli government put his picture on the money because he was a pop hero who was also a Zionist (but not kind who would emigrate to Israel). Maybe the place for the image is in the “Honors” section. --teb728 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Good point. Do you want it gone? Or moved? I haven't gotten to the "Honors" section yet, that might work better and look more natural. ~ Otterpops 22:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Organization, language, globalization, historical clarification for "Dangerous Politics". Have not checked links, will do tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Persisting speculation about the long running Myth

Why is it believed that when Einstein was in highschool the grading scale was suddenly reversed? I do not understand where this information comes from and why such a change would happen, neither is it noted in the article. Naturally, the scale is 1-6 with 1 being the highest at the Luitpold Gymnasium and it is to this day, so why was it reversed to begin with? And what of the quote, "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." Though this isn't proof enough, neither is merely stating that he was a good student. unsigned comment was added by 139.182.13.148 talk • contribs 02:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who believes the grading system was reversed--suddenly or otherwise; that's not what the article says. It was always one way in Germany and the other way in Switzerland. --teb728 09:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Then there it is, the Luitpold Gymnasium has always been the way described above so either it "was" reversed, or he did bad in school. Perhaps he did bad in highscool and superb in elementary school? But things are still either unclear or outright wrong. But, his diploma reads half 6's and at the Gymnasium the highest is 1.

This Page Needs Serious Editing and Additional Content

When comparing the Einstein page to the Carl Gauss page its very apparent that this needs a lot of work. There is no discussion about the subjects of his 1905 papers nor its impact on the field of physics. Nor is there any discussion about the problems that he worked on in any serious matter. All in all you dont really get a feel for why Einsten is considered to be one of the greatest physicists of all time from this write up. unsigned comment was added by Zaidkhalil (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The subjects of his 1905 papers are discussed in Annus Mirabilis Papers; the biography links to that sub-page. When the Gauss biography gets overly long like this one, the editors there will move details into subpages. --teb728 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Putting Einstein's most important work into a subpage is a ridiculous approach. I think people are losing sight of what an encyclopedia article is meant to look like; Wikipedia articles are meant to be articles, after all, not just a maze of links to subpages. To call the 1905 papers "details" shows either a painful ignorance of the subject or a willful desire to have a bad article. --24.147.86.187 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If it were it would be necessary and practical to put everything on a subject on one article. The fact that Wikipedia is a web encyclopædia means on the one hand that it is easy to link to subpages, and on the other hand it is necessary to have guidelines on article size. If Annus Mirabilis Papers were folded into the main article, the result would be about 100 KB long—a very long article by Wikipedia standards. I would agree, however, that the main article should have a better summary of the 1905 papers—one that entices interested readers to look at the subpage. --teb728 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to express the scope of what Einstein did by attribution of the various theories - if we say he reworked "Newton's" principle instead of just "the" principle it will help show how world-changing his work was. ~ Otterpops 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Except you keep getting it wrong. I suggest that you leave all explanation of physics to the physicists, who evidently care more than you about the ideas involved. — DAGwyn 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The summary of the 1905 articles that I think should go in this article would emphasise their importance, avoiding as much as possible the details of what they say (leaving that for the subpage). That importance as I see it is: He wrote 4 papers in one year--any one of which would have made him an important physicist. The 1st paper led to his Nobel prize and revolutionized physics--leading ultimately to quantum mechanics. The SR papers also revolutionized physics--replacing Newtonian mechanics in theoretical physics. Actually writing this may be beyond what Otterpops can do; does someone else want to take a crack at it? --teb728 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The actual influence of Einstein's ideas/discoveries/inventions goes much deeper than that; they affected the entire framework within which theoretical physics is done. For example, special relativity is a principle, not just a theory of mechanics, and it is now so entrenched that relativistic invariance is taken for granted as a requirement when developing any fundamental physical theory, including quantum theories. (For example, Dirac's equation for the electron, which unexpectedly predicted positrons, arose from trying to meet this requirement.) Elementary particle theories these days are almost always gauge theories, the essential ideas of which hark back to unified field theory work by Weyl, Eddington, and others that probably would not have progressed as far without Einstein's involvement. Some areas of mathematics, such as fiber bundles, received more attention due to their connection with Einstein's theoretical work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Copy Edit

Copy edit turned into writing a section, this may duplicate linked articles but I'm out of energy and will have to check and pare it down tomorrow. Dont proofread yet, please. ~ Otterpops 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Desecration?

IMO the article was better without the so called “desecration” part. Maybe it should be moved to Thomas Stoltz Harvey and/or relegated to an extended footnote to a statement that some investigators found differences in the brain and others none. As it is, it is an irrelevant, lurid (and borderline POV in its criticism of Harvey) detail in an overly long article. --teb728 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I took a break and then came back and worked it down so that someone that follows the link to "Albert Einstein's brain" will still get an interesting story. Is an extended footnote a possibility? I hadn't considered that.
I'm not sure I like "desecration" in the section title myself, but Law says it's a big and bad no-no. People even talk to their rabbis before checking the 'organs-donor' box. I included a link-ref that leads to a thoughtful discussion of when the Law permits it (if it's done to save someone's life, the instruction to help overrides the instruction to bury a person's remains intact).
Does anyone have a text that includes discussion of Einstein's will or portions of it? We've already said that he left all his papers to The Hebrew University, and now there are the instructions about him wanting to be cremated and disagreement over whether he left portions of his body to science...
Mostly I was trying to account for all the pseudo-technical babble details ("Einstein's geo-cortical texture fissure, the region resposible for visual audio sensory theater, was found to be 15% larger than normal people's") in there - if the topic isn't addressed at all someone(s) is almost immediately going to add them back in, in all innocence, because it's interesting.
~ Otterpops 17:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
If Talmudic Law on dismemberment were relevant to this article, then so would its position on cremation. --teb728 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Einstein was not a practicing Jew at all, I don't see how this is relevant. --24.147.86.187 00:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

'Desecration' is going to go but I haven't figured out a better way to put that yet. Any suggestions? The two reasons for that passage (after the one about his death) are to account for all the common knowledge info about how his brain differed from others, and also to include the info that yes, his brain was stolen, it wasn't just a rumor even though it sounds like one.

Your first reason is good for this article; the second is not. Saying the brain was stolen smacks of POV, and handling that angle in an NPOV way is too much for this article. Maybe the part that follows that angle could be merged in an NPOV way into the Harvey article. --teb728 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think "stolen" is NPOV in this case. It's not as if the brain was lying around on the sidewalk and Harvey happened upon it. If someone takes a body part from a corpse without permission and refuses to return it after being told by the family that it was against that individual's wishes then one is an organ thief. Maybe (though, doubtfully) Harvey's theft will be of some benefit to science, but describing it as something other than theivery is IMO a whitewash. Geeman 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "Albert Einstein's brain was removed from his body and preserved, but it was several decades before neuroscience progressed to a point where examination of it could provide any fruitful...etc. etc." and mention Marian Diamond by name because she was the first? In other words, get the link in there but don't touch it otherwise?
~ Otterpops 14:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The latest copyedits are awful

The changes of the last few days look awful, on the whole. The article no longer makes sense at all and several sections are totally gutted and have ridiculous titles. Good job, guys. Compare the most recent version with the one from six days ago. Even the table of contents looks better on the other one. I vote to restore it, no offense Otterpops but it is a mess at the moment. Headings like "The patent office job" look both unencyclopedic, unprofessional, and silly. And at the moment there is NO explanation in this article of why anyone gave a damn about his 1905 papers! Obviously we can have a whole article devoted to the details but any reasonable person would expect to be able to at least understand that these fundamentally bucked the status quo and had all sorts of startling conclusions!! And his rise to fame and prominence is covered in one sentence?!?! I also love the complete overkill on the "citation needed" — apparently every single sentence needs a citation, even ones which are their own source (i.e. the description of the London Times headline.

The article was a mess before, true enough, but now it is a disgrace and a tragedy. If it is not restored it just means that someone will have to rewrite it all in the future—it is fundamentally unacceptable and does not at all reflect any real understanding of the subject or what is important about it. Its current state is embarassing and amateurish. Again, no offense Otterpops, but I think you are in a little over your head here and I don't think it has been positive. We all have things we are good at writing about and we all have things we would bungle. --24.147.86.187 03:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive, 24.147.86.187. A big part of the problem is that this isn't a quick one-day job, so the interim versions are really ugly. I wonder if I should just put an "under construction" template at the top and leave it there. I know a lot of people love this article and have contributed to it, so maybe that will help them feel better as they watch scary change happening. Mutilations even.
In the future it will be rewritten (even as I work it's being rewritten) and that's the nature of Wikipedia. The League of Copy Editors has a >1000-article backlog, I just got lucky and pulled this one off the top of the pile ("A" for "Albert"). They're doing a recruitment drive right now - it's hard work but it's interesting, and I recommend signing up!
Citations: Every quote requires one. Paraphrase paragraphs from a source listed in the References section can get a single note at the end of the paragraph. Psychic biography is beyond the pale (i.e. we can't put "Einstein thought that rote learning was a waste of time" but we can put "Einstein wrote that rote learning was a waste of time" as long as we reference where he wrote it and when). There's more...there's a Wikipedia instruction page or two for referencing, also they teach this stuff starting in 9th grade in the U.S. - that's why you have to waste all your time on that godawful Research Paper (buck up, they used to make us do it with index cards, and we had to turn in the index cards too). All the requirements for 'verifiability' do add up to a whole bunch of "fact" marks all over the page but the object is to let the reader who thinks "Hm, that sounds fishy" follow the evidence backwards to something they find reliable. The alternative is to fill up the article with "My friend heard on the radio once that Albert Einstein used opium to enhance his thought experiments".
Keep on caring, bud. I am going to put that Under Construction sign at the top.
~ Otterpops 18:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we'll see how good it looks after you are done. I am not convinced you know what you are doing here, I am not convinced you are actually improving it in any way. I'll be more than happy to eat my hat if it turns out that all of the problems the article currently has incurred as a result of your "editing drive" are simply "temporary" or "transitional". As for the citation needed quotes; you have 45 in the article right now. That plus its pre-existing 72 references means that an encyclopedia article should have 117 references? Rather humorous but oh well. As for referencing I am well familiar with it -- I am an academic, I know how to reference, I also know that adding footnotes does not in any way equate with actually adding accuracy or verifiability, and I know that a quantitative number of footnotes does not in any way add up to a better or more reliable article. But this is a general criticism, not one specific to your editing. It is especially ironic given the subject matter here, though; Einstein's first famous 1905 paper carried with it zero footnotes. --24.147.86.187 00:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Otterpops spits on her hand and holds it out. Deal. And when I'm done, you can leap in and give the whole thing a face-lift if you want. It's just that all the insult yelling while I'm working on it is distracting. So is the editing and counter-editing, as you can imagine!
~ Otterpops 17:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've got to agree with Otterpops' assessment above. I might do a bit of hacking at it myself (I don't mind stumbling through construction zones). Oh, and anonymous editor, have a bit of patience-you ought to see some of the terrible-looking drafts I've hacked at in userspace before putting them up, sometimes a major project needs some work for a bit. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Userspace...Sandbox...wait...if the whole article were copied into the sandbox, edited there and then just dropped onto...no, no, people would flip out completely, they'd lose their minds. Also I need and use the information and feedback as I go...but...hmmm...
~ Otterpops 23:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
AHA! The large number of "fact" marks is because sentences were being moved all over the place. The whole sentence, with all notes, editor's marks and references, had to travel intact. THAT's why those are all over the place. I'm cleaning some up now to let paragraphs paraphrased from biographies get a single reference (at the end of the paragraph). If anyone can remember which biographer said what, it would be terrific to put some citations onto the long strings of biographical passages and give them some credit for their research.
~ Otterpops 23:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking every date and year

What's the reasoning behind linking each date and year? Once the info is added to the The Timetables of History-style articles, does it need to stay linked? Curious readers can look for a year or a date in the Search: "Hmm, but what else was going on that year...was that before or after the explosion of the Hindenburg?"
~ Otterpops 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If the full date is given, one should link it so that it is displayed in accordance with the user's set preference. Otherwise, one should probably not link it unless it adds to the article and the reader's understanding of the topic. --ElKevbo 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Took down Under Construction template

The chronology is in place, also overall structure of the article - no further really alarming changes coming at you. Working through Manual of Style, standardizing and checking notes, references, and links now. Have at it.
~ Otterpops 10:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised at how little mention was made in the lead to his non-Physics writings and activities. Saying "... but also non-scientific works, ... " and then having at least one-third of the article talk about those is strange.
It used to be even worse. Really, Einstein is mainly about physics; the rest is comparatively minor. — DAGwyn 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
... later married Paul Winteler".
The brother of Marie?
In 1917, Einstein published an article in Physkalische Zeitschrift that proposed the possibility of stimulated emission, the physical technique that makes possible both the laser and the nuclear warhead.
Um, no problem with 'laser', but how does this relate to fission/fusion? I don't think this should be taken to be neutron emission ... ?
No, I hadn't noticed that text before but it's wrong about the connection to nuclear warheads. — DAGwyn 04:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I like how the article reads currently. It is quite 'compact'. I hope that this universe will not be subject to too much inflation. My congratulations to the editors.
That said, I appreciate SuperGirl finding and adding back the See Also section. The See Also list provides an easy review of links that people might like to pursue, without having to either click on every link as they occur, or at the end paging back through the article to find a link to click. Please see Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Shenme 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

you spelled traveling wrong! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.63.203.240 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I got a shock the other day to find that I was correcting the word traveling/travelling to the 'other' spelling, the one not taught in our schools! After reading Wikipedia articles, CNN, BBC, and such long enough, I've kinda lost a particular preference for either English conventionality. And that feels comfortable. :-) Shenme 04:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

General and Special Relativity texts

Writing by Einstein himself on General and Special Relativity (two articles) is available at the Gutenburg Project website, his own words. Doesn't seem like it should be just a footnote (External Link, actually) but I'm not sure of the best place to either mention it, see-also, or link it. Suggestions? This would be the best explanation of all for the physicists around here.
~ Otterpops 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just the link is fine. Einstein's own writings (in German!) are not the best way to describe these subjects to somebody who isn't a contemporary (early 1900s) physicist, and after all the Wikipedia does have articles on these topics. — DAGwyn 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

While cleaning up 'External Links' links, I found sources for some uncited assertions, also looks like one user was clipping sentences right out of the pages listed there. If anyone feels like learning ALL ABOUT Albert Einstein, it would be a worthy project to spend some time with those articles and then add attributions, paraphrase and/or quote marks, and citations for the information we stole from them.
~ Otterpops 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation system

Why are we switching from one of the 3 MOS approved citation systems to another? It seems to me that Wikipedia:Footnotes read better than Wikipedia:Harvard referencing. --teb728 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I chose the Harvard system because it's not necessary to make footnotes serve double duty. Additional comments by users shouldn't be "buried in a footnote" with that footnote then buried in citations (or grafted onto the ends of them). "See also: XYZ" is a terrific traditional footnote that we've taken to putting into the middle of the text because by using numbered footnotes for citations as well as Notes we've guaranteed that reader doesn't see a small superscript numeral as anything alerting.
With embedded citations the reader doesn't click to another screen just to read "ibid." and then click back to look for his or her place in the article again.
A text citation is less likely to be left behind if a sentence has to be cut and pasted at some future point.
Finally, I have a vague hope that if citing your source is as easy as writing (TEB728 2007), then people will start to do it, instead of running along as if they were writing fiction. Tolerating that invites the notorious Internet Lies, Half-Truths and Rumor-mongering.
"Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source."
- Anonymous
I had to check and correct the citations and the References section anyway so I picked the most workable citation system for an everchanging piece of hypertext.
~ Otterpops 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a reason to accept new Harvard citations but not for converting existing footnotes. --teb728 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't make such changes without a strong consensus. As a Cambridge (England) man I find the Harvard system a bit fussy anyway. And it also makes it very hard to understand what amendments have actually been made if the history page shows 50 or so edits which turn out to be changing ref style from one format to another. If errors creep in how can fellow-editors know? Suggest we leave well alone. NBeale 14:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


As a Southern Girl (US Army) I caution you not to drink and revert - the citation style is the smallest part of what I'm doing with the references. For each one I'm link-checking, looking up author, homepage, ISBN, copyright date and publisher information (if they were missing, the majority), and listing the source in the References section if it's not there already (about half). I'm separating out User notes from the citation info and inserting them as stand-alone notes, all information and comments intact. An added bonus of the Harvard referencing is that it sticks out, so everyone can easily see the ones I've worked on, contrasted to the ones that still need verification.
If you really really love that citation style, change the citation style, but please know what you're wiping out when you wipe... Also, if you remove a reference without removing all the citations that point to it, someone's just going to have to dig it up later.
~ Otterpops 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Matura

6 is not the highest possible mark. It is the lowest on a scale of 1-6 commonly used in German, Austrian and Swiss grading systems, from what I learned in German class. Nesbittk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the Switzerland today, but in 1896 the highest mark in Switzerland was 6. In Germany the highest mark was 1 as you say. The matura image seems to have been separated from explanatory text to that effect. --teb728 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Einstein's Obit, NY Times, 4/19/1955

There is available a pretty good obit on the greatest physicist of all time at the NYT... if someone with edit rights on the locked article deems to include it under External Links:

Obituary, NY Times, April 19, 1955, Dr. Albert Einstein Dies in Sleep at 76; World Mourns Loss of Great Scientist68.228.70.223 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ethnicity field of infobox

User:Gilisa disputes whether the "Ethnicity" field of the infobox should list Einstein's German-ness, but he seems resistant to discussing his objection here, where it belongs. So I copy his posts from my talk page together with my replies: --teb728 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The nazis said ,once upon the time, that only an arian or ethnic German could be a citizen of the third rich.Einstein, like many other prominent Jewish scienticts, was expelled from Germany since he wasnt an ethnic German. When you refer to him as an "ethnic" German you mean that it acctually was his historical origin-and it wasnt...In the same way, you wouldnt refer to any German citizen which is of a Turkish ancestry as an "ethnic German" I would ask you to understand that Jewishness is not only a matter of relligion , but it also an ethnic group as well -in any aspect you choose to test it :from history to biology.More, I dont understood how a man which is not of a mixed origin can be realted to 2 very different ethnic groups.Einstein state himself (nor did it matter for the facts about his true and only ethnic origin) after Hitler's rise to power:"If this is Germany,I am not a German any more"(he never came back from his words).And finally, it think that you shoyld know a litle a bout the welding of the German ethnic identity before you state that he was a German ("... The ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes is assumed to have occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age, or at the latest, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. From southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, the tribes began expanding south, east and west in the first century BC, coming into contact with the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes in Eastern Europe..".-and not only you did it, you also put it over his Jewish ethnic origin. I deleted the "German" from the Albert Einstein ethnic clause -and I hope it will stay like that.--Gilisa 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

By Nazi ideology he was not German because he was not racially German, but their ideology is not applicable to Wikipedia. Your quote on the Bronze Age is similarly inapplicable, for his German-ness was cultural rather than racial. (I think it unfortunatate that you insist on defining people racially.)
Thank you for your Einstein quote, “If this is Germany, I am not a German any more.” It shows that except for the 15 years of Nazi rule he considered himself a German. Furthermore, combined with his undoubted Jewishness, it shows that one can be both German and Jewish. --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
See answers below -einstein didnt seem himself as an ethnic German but only as acultural one (and as the ethnic origin is arbitrary its not really important how he consider himself )-and any way , he didnt consider himself as acultural German after the holocaust , he never said "Im a German again". you state that your ancestors are all from europe but you are american.Well ,USA is undoubtly amulti ethnic state and you can consider yourself as "all american" might be that you are have Jewish roots (for example) and you dont know it-so i can never refer to you as a Jew because only if you know what is your ethnic roots-they mean somthing.As im against the nazis , not only that i belive that one could be a German without beeing Aryan, but also one can be a German without beeing an ethnic one.more over-there is just to much words in this page-mainly because of my long answers.--Gilisa 18:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Since when the facts are for democratic vote???? and the culture from which he was affected mean nothing for the ethnic origin which is undepented.I understand that you dont like to mention his Jewishness,but he was an ethnic Jew...--Gilisa 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

He was definitely an ethnic Jew. And I have always wanted to say so (except in the lead paragraph). Indeed when we added the infobox, I argued in favor of listing his “Nationality” as “German and Jewish,” but I lost in a democratic vote to those defined “nationality” to mean “citizenship.” (In those days the “Citizenship” and “Ethnicity” fields were combined as “Nationality.”) --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You wouldny claim that a person from the Turkish community in Germany is an ethnic german-even if he were influenced from the German culture.And if you do-its just dont true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gilisa (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

I don’t know much about the Turkish community in Germany. But I would certainly say that anyone so culturally assimilated as Einstein was German. The same way, I, for example, am American even though all of ancestors come ultimately from Europe. --teb728 18:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

--copied from my talk page teb728 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims about the ethnic origin are beat about the bush.In the common sense, an ethnic origin refers to the people from which someone historclly came from.True,it involve with heritage and ancestry defintions but not with RACISEM (i.e the German nazis made alot of crimes, one was to categorize humans as deserve or not deserve to live according to their own ethnic identity which was there much before Hitler and will stay there much after him)!!!and thats the big difference.If you want to redefine the meaning of "ethnic origin"-dont do it on the back of the Jewish people.My father was from a long German Jewish ancestry ,He acctually born there -speak the language -and knew the culture-like any body who born there:Turkish,African,Russian -and etc and didnt became being an ethnic Germans he stayed an ethnic Jew-nothing else.In the case of the Jewish people which were forced to establish their communities outside their own historical homeland -its even stronger.Objectivly, refering Einstein as an ethnic German is bad for the true, bad for Wikipedia , and just a provocing act.--Gilisa 11:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you follow the Nazi definition. For them, Jewishness was not an ethnic question, but a racial one. Fully assimilated, christianized Jews, some of which were highly decorated veterans of the first world war, would be prosecuted. People with one quarter Jewish heritage, some of which were not even aware of it, were send to the death camps. Fully "Germanic" converts to Judaism, on the other hand, might be pressured to repudiate the faith, or forced to break up marriages (the most frequent reason for conversion), but they were not targeted for annihilation. Einstein was a German Jew, born into and participating in German culture probably more than in Jewish traditions. --Stephan Schulz 13:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop your demagoig claims-THE ONES WHO FOLLOW THE NAZIS ARE THUS WHICH TRY TO ELIMNATE AND TO DELETE ANY MENTION FOR EINSTEIN ETHNIC ORIGIN!!!FOLLOW THE NAZIS MEAN TO DEFIND PEOPOLE AS BAD OR GOOD FOR THEIR RACE ,TO CITE GREAT MAN LIKE EINSTEIN AS A JEW IS ON THE OPPOSITE FROM THE NAZIS. the ethnic origin have nothing to do with Hitler. according your claims:since Hitler it is forbiden to consider Jewishness as an ethnic origin-or, there is no Jewish ethnic origin....we should denay that there is such a thing as Jews and this is a different origin...I feel no guilty to cite Einstein as a Jew.Jew which convert himself is still from Jewsih ethnic origin -the problem is with the anti semic Europeans which make it to a problem-not with me , and i have no intention pay for their own crimes by changing the facts.More, i get support from many Jews all over the world - might be they are all nazis?is that what you said MR Schulz?--Gilisa 18:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot make out what you are trying to say, except that you strongly disagree with me. What I am saying is that not all people in this world have a single ethnic origin, and that, in contrast to the Nazi opinion, it is possible to be both a Jew and a German at the same time, just as it is possible to be an Italian American, or a Jewish Arab, or a Swiss Italian. And if you insist on formality, it's Dr. Schulz. I'd be fine with Stephan, though. --Stephan Schulz 23:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Gilisa, Please clarify: According to you, can one be a German without being German in a racial sense? --teb728 00:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are trying to win this disscussion by asking provok , unrealted quastions then I dont have to clearfy nothing to you or to schultz-you are doing it on purpose ,but: I can be a German citizen , yes , but it doesnt change my ethnicity - only the nazis , and there followers, said that someone who want to be a german citizen and\ or to live must being an ethnic german . When people tallking about the ethnic origin they refer to the historicl nation of which someone came from.schultz-I guess you are a german-sorry to say, but the german culture for which Einstein grown to was the culture that made the holocaust...so even if the ethnic origin was based on the culture -and it is a pure lie to say so ,to put someone which is from the Jewish nation as a german is only a provocing act. More, i know much more about Jews then you peopole know (i.e im a Jewish myself , living all my life between Jews) and the very most of the Jewish peopole which , for example, came from Arab countries are strongly against the notion of "Arab Jew" (and ethnicly , from all classical communities, Jews are far more realted to the Arabs than to the germans) which came -like your deliberately missleading ,poor claims about ethnicity from left wing , post modernist thinkers (several Sephardi Jews which are clearly not represent the very most of the Mizrachi and Sephardi commuinites-and it is not only an assumption-it was drawn by mant studies) .Sure, Italian or german which immigrate to USA can be cosiderd as Americans-but their his ethnicity will stay Italian (does i really have to explain it to you? or you just delibertaly refuse to understand?) whats wrong about that...is it make him less good person?????In the same way -A Jew which immigrate from Israel to England , and his descendents from there to USA and then to Australia -are keeping only one ethnic identity constant-the Jewish one.you are raciset if you think that someone ethnic identity is being delete while he living in other country in which his ancetors didnt came from.--Gilisa 07:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


I don't understand. Do you think one be a German without being an “Aryan” German in a racial sense? It's a simple yes or no question. --teb728 07:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --revised teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
It is, but I agree that it is misstated. Not even the Nazi's claimed that, especially not in the later years. The relevant question is wether one can have more than one ethnicity. And the answer is - to me - obviously yes. What if your parents are Italian and Swedish, but you grow up in France?--Stephan Schulz 07:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"..Not even the Nazi's claimed that, especially not in the later years.." really?? are you sure?? i do know about mixed origin germans (i.e half Jewish or quarter Jewish-they calld "Mishlinga (you probably know to spell it better as it is a German word ,insulting when it refer to humans , as it usually referd to mixed dogs)) that been forced to serve in the German army but was excuted by many in the end of the war.More , it was manily peopole with German mother and so their mother had to decleare that the child is not from the Jewish husband... this is a strange comparsion any way since what important is what nazis done and any way it is clearly very fer from me.--Gilisa 16:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

One can have more then one ethnic identity but it not depends on the culture in which you were grown.thats why there are such a things like "Afro American" and countless ethnic groups which live inside countries that are dominated by other ethnic groups -this is a valid fact. Best--Gilisa 18:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I now see what you mean: "Aryan" never meant what I was trying to say. But it seems to be precisely the crux of our disagreement with Gilisa that he defines ethnicity as a purely racial matter. Is that right, Gilisa? --teb728 08:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC) --revised teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This kind of quastions you used ,calld: beeing provocative (and you allready put me a warning for saying that opinion-who can it fits with democratic discussion? and in any aspect i didnt mean to that you did it on purpose or to be personal-so why did you put me a warning??)

you used this quastion: "I don't understand. Do you think one be a German without being an “Aryan”? It's a simple yes or no question." which looks to me provokative( and i assumed good faith as i )explend here-but ,again,you choose to put me awarning insted of answer it.

The"Aryan" is aprovocative word and it takes all of my claims out of the context because it means , as it used in Nazi-Germany , that the ethnic Germans are better , not only them -but all of the north european original ethnicitis

.The nazis ignore the different history of each group (which is of a slight difference if you compared it with the historical differnce between Jews and Germans) and the differnte self definition of each group.They claim that any body who fit the racial definitions is a suprior human.

More, they made racial tests (i.e,hair texture,hair color,skin color,height ,face figurs, phsycal body structure , eyes color and etc) which send purly ethnic Germans to concentration camps (i.e they send Germans that look like they are of a Jewish or Gipsy ancestry , retierds, cripels , mental ill pepole and etc) and on the other hand took Russin and Polish childs (which according to their twisted definitions came from an inferior race in general , i.e the slavik race)and state that they are Aryans because they pass the race test with great success.

I guess that you know all of this very well ,and you also know that i never claimed that the ethnic origin make somebody to be suprior or inferior -but when you use the word "Aryan" you make me sound like that, and thats why i referd to this quastion as a potentialy provocative. (the bold is for importance and not for shuting).

So why are you still implied to a connection between my definition of ethnic origin (which is by far the most common) to a racisem??(and just for your knowledge you are doing that inevitably when you are using the word Arayn...not only that , you also strongly implies that im a racist with your second quastion: "...Perhaps the Nazis didn't claim that, but unless I misunderstand him, Gilisa does. That seems to be precisely the crux of our disagreement with him: he defines ethnicity as a purely racial matter. Is that right, Gilisa?.." and so i strongl suggest that you delete your unjustified warnings against me).

I think that if you take a minute to think about that you will find this claims/suggestions to be unfair and from a kind that shouldnt take place.

I just claim that it is highly offensive to credit the germans (and by doing that causing to discredit the Jews-wheter you want it or not) for somhting which is just not true.

for many Jews it is offensive to hear that einstein was equally ethnic geramn and ethnic Jew-while he wasnt an ethnic German at all.

Yes, i think that someone who wasnt born as a Jew will never be an ethnic one -but there are many converts to Judaism which are very much part of the Jewish peopole , and like that i think that someone who wasnt born to an ethnic german will never be a one (and it depend on the German peopole wheter they consider some one who adopt there culture as "German"-but ethnicly he is not a one).

It look to me that you make a wrong and missleading connection ,out of the context , between my claims that Einstein was an ethnic Jew and not a German one -and racisem (acctually , its on the contrary).

And so, i suggest that you refrese your quastions -since im quite the opposite of beeing racist in any aspect and this kind of quastions is sounds provoking and missleading.

Acctually,speaking with all the cards on the table , in the first time that i read them i had no intention to aswer your qaustions-but now , after i read your last comment to me on my tallk page, i assume good faith and i will answer your quastion: an ethnic Jew is a desecndent for the "sons of Israel" (בני ישראל "Bnney Israel") , i.e, the pepole which were exiled from Israel -as all the Jewish ethnic groups in there vast majority answering this definition it refers to all of them.If, for example, Einstein granfather was a German that convert to judaism -you could state that Einstein had German ethnic roots-but he wasnt...--Gilisa 18:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now,afetr you read my revised comment-please delete any warning that you put upon me.I feel like you adopt a new method of shuting me-but there is nothing personal or uncivilzied in my comment-so,just move it and stop sending me a warning any time you dont understand or dont like something that i wrote. Best--Gilisa 07:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Gilisa, Ordinarily I don't have trouble with your English, but that last post is too much for me--even after your revision of it. I have clarified my questions. Please revise your reply in light of my revised questions. I am sorry you were offended by my using the word “Aryan.” I used it as a shorthand for “German in the pure racial sense.” I intended no value connotation. But it was insensitive of me to use it, and what's more, the word never had the meaning I intended. --teb728 01:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit

Okay! I am outa here! Good luck, and many thanks to my quiet supporters (you know who you are). Please pardon the mess and disruption, and thank you all for all I've learned through the Albert Einstein ordeal. ~ Otterpops 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About Einstein's ethnic identity

First, i have to appologize about my English. I have deleted the "German" from Einstein ethnic clause.TEB728 is systamticly go against it -with out giving any any good expalnation -he just dont want Einstein to be a Jew. As i allready told to Teb, and he delete my quots from his tallk page -when he run out of exuses, a Turkish which born in Germany is not an ethnic German....there is very big difference between the culture in which sombody was grown to and between his ethnic identity.According to the absurd claim of TEB i could, for example, to live in Cuba but to be considerd as an ethnic German since I was raisd upon the German culture...no body claim that Einstein was an ethnic german .Acctually ,einstein was expelld from germany since he wasn a one- in every objective sense in which you consider to test it:from history to biology...An ethnic identity is no body to decide-its forced on every human since beeing in the womb. But TAB,and God know his reasons, just keeping doing that -ignoring the facts.

You should look my claims against TEB728 ,which he deleted without answering (to my last claim HagermanBot get involved and told TEB728 that i didnt sign my last, and the less important , messege...Very good exuses....)

Now plese look at my answers and claims to TEB728 :

Dear TEB728 - - The nazis said ,once upon the time, that only an arian or ethnic German could be a citizen of the third rich.Einstein, like many other prominent Jewish scienticts, was expelled from Germany since he wasnt an ethnic German. When you refer to him as an "ethnic" German you mean that it acctually was his historical origin-and it wasnt...In the same way, you wouldnt refer to any German citizen which is of a Turkish ancestry as an "ethnic German" I would ask you to understand that Jewishness is not only a matter of relligion , but it also an ethnic group as well -in any aspect you choose to test it :from history to biology.More, I dont understood how a man which is not of a mixed origin can be realted to 2 very different ethnic groups.Einstein state himself (nor did it matter for the facts about his true and only ethnic origin) after Hitler's rise to power:"If this is Germany,I am not a German any more"(he never came back from his words).And finally, it think that you shoyld know a litle a bout the welding of the German ethnic identity before you state that he was a German ("... The ethnogenesis of the Germanic tribes is assumed to have occurred during the Nordic Bronze Age, or at the latest, during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. From southern Scandinavia and northern Germany, the tribes began expanding south, east and west in the first century BC, coming into contact with the Celtic tribes of Gaul and Iranian, Baltic, and Slavic tribes in Eastern Europe.."[74])*. and not only you did it, you also put it over his Jewish ethnic origin. I deleted the "German" from the Albert Einstein ethnic clause -and I hope it will stay like that.--Gilisa 08:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC) - - consensus??????????????????????????

- - Since when the facts are for democratic vote???? and the culture from which he was affected mean nothing for the ethnic origin which is undepented.I understand that you dont like to mention his Jewishness,but he was an ethnic Jew...--Gilisa 12:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC) -

and again - - You wouldny claim that a person from the Turkish community in Germany is an ethnic german-even if he were influenced from the German culture.And if you do-its just dont true.(THIS WAS MY LAST COMMENT TO HIM-WHICH I FORGOT TO SIGN)

  • If you compare the german ethnogensis to the Jewish one- you find that they are from a very, very very, different ethnic origin-So, how can einstein considerd as an ethnic german

This is an insult to every jew and espesically to thus whos servive the holocast been done by the ethnic Germans -TEB728 is going delivertly agains the facts!!!. --Gilisa 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated in the deletion edit summary on my talk page, I deleted your comments there because I moved them to this talk page (two sections up). Please look there and read my thorough replies to your comments. Perhaps the crux of our disagreement is that you seem to understand ethnicity as a racial matter whereas I understand it as a cultural matter. Also, if I understood you correctly, you complained on my talk page and in an edit summary somewhere that his German-ness was listed ahead of his Jewishness. I would have no objection to reversing the order, if that would satisfy you. --teb728 08:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is very well mentioned in the table that he was raised in Germany -and this is enough.There are several ethnic groups in Germany and allmost in any country , and the ethnic origin is invaribaly refers to the historical roots of which every Human have, you should know that, so the ethnic origin of an Arab, for example, who was raised in china -is still Arabic .So this is completly wrong to mention Einstein as an ethnic German.--Gilisa 09:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no need for you to apologize for your lack of fluency in English; I think we understand you well enough. You might consider apologizing, however, for your use of all CAPS; doing so is considered shouting and rude.
You might consider apologizing for apparently not trying to understand other people’s replies to your comments and replying meaningfully to them. In particular you keep saying that someone is trying to deny Einstein’s Jewishness. No one denies he was an ethnic Jew; the question is only whether culturally he was also a German. You seem to be the only one who denies his German-ness. Einstein considered himself to have been a German, for his statement that he might not be a German any more (as you quote him) clearly implies he was (at least formerly) a German. --teb728 00:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear TEB728

I never claimed that culturly he wasnt infulenced by the german culture-or even been culturle one. I Just said that he wasnt an ethnic german ,there is a big differnce between the two-i hope that you at last can agree with me on that .

Using the Caps had no intention to shut or beeing rude I just didnt rememberd this part in Wikipedia policy , and more , it was because to me it looks like you ignoring my claims.

And Einstien statmnet clearly dont implay that he was an ethnic German (this is an Objective fact even throw it is not neccery to mention it because he explicity admited his ethnic origin as beeing Jewish-and i dont remeber the exact statmnet in which he said it) but it can implay that he was culturly one (and abndoned it ,at least ,formaly)-if you want to add a clause about his culture-i have no objection...

and another thing: Einstein ones said that a Jew remain a Jew eve if he convert or dont consider himself as one.this refers to ethnic backgroud which is arbitrary.So,when he said that he "is not longer German" it mean that he never consider himself as an ethnic one...So,even he himself admit it...

  • I bold the " I never" only because it is important .

--Gilisa 10:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I please urge everyone to abide by WP:AGF - it goes both ways. Please also remember WP:Bite.--Runcorn 16:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what should really be addressed, instead of all the above ranting, is what the purpose of the "Ethnicity" field in the Infobox is supposed to be! Why is it supposed to be so important that it is one of the few items of information presented in a summary of the man? Is there any possible entry in anybody else's "Ethnicity" field other than "Jewish", or is that the only Ethnicity that wants to be called out in this medium? — DAGwyn 18:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous Students of Einstein

Why isn't Cornelius Lanczos included? And according to Dover Press's bio Peter G. Bergmann was one of his students, too.

So when you all are quite through generating more heat than light with discussions confusing ethnicity with nationality, please consider updating the list of his famous students (near the bottom of the article) with these students/coworkers/assistants of Einstein.

For that matter, if you want to broaden the category to famous coworkers/associates, you should include Paul Ehrenfest, too. 204.119.233.210 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Cornelius Lanczos did his PhD at the University of Budapest. Einstein was never there. Lanczos was an assistant to Einstein. The box would have to be broadened to co-workers to include this. In my opinion that is too much work. It would be better to just add a section to the article on notable co-workers. That is interesting in the case of Einstein...but totally boring in the case of a lesser known scientist. In the case of Peter Gabriel Bergmann, unfortunately Philipp Frank was his PhD advisor and not Einstein [75]. Just because the Dover book says he was a 'student' means nothing. I am said to be a 'student of Aristotle', if I study the works of Aristotle. This box is talking about a close PhD-advisor type relationship not some general 'student' relationship. To broaden it to that would be way too wide and it would get out of control. Schlammer 13:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur, and there is another problem with trying to fairly mention notable coworkers even in the main text: to say what they were working on, which seems like a minimum requirement, would in many cases be "too technical" for this general biography. For example Einstein and Infeld produced a wonderful result concerning Einstein's version of the unified field theory (actually, just one of its more or less similar versions), namely that true singularities in solutions to the field equations would obey particle-like geodesic laws. Try explaining that to the general public within our space constraints! — DAGwyn 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eating my hat

Hi, just dropped back in to tell you guys this: I had a very distinct memory of my Physics 2010 (CU Boulder 1995) describing (and answering a student question on) the use of stimulated emmission (which produces a photon from the nucleus while the introduced photon is fully accounted for) in overcoming binding energy to initiate the chain reaction in nuclear fission. So many of you said "Huh?" that I looked up my old professor to double check. He's gone from CU Physics now, so I sent an e-mail to the two others teaching 2010 nowadays (an adjunct and an associate prof) to ask them if I remembered correctly. Only one answered, Michael Dubson, and he says nope, it's not the case. So I apologize and I bow to your objections, not because you wanted it that way but because you were right! Here's what Dubson had to say on the matter:

No, Einstein's work on stimulated emission had

no direct effect on the development of the A-bomb. Stimulated emission has nothing to do with the A-bomb chain reaction (which involved neutrons). Actually, none of Einstein's work had any *direct* bearing on the design and development of the A-bomb. Contrary to popular opinion, the formula E=mc^2 had no more influence on the design of the A-bomb than it did on the design of refrigerators. Einstein's influence is almost everywhere in modern science, but it is often indirect. Einstein's work laid the foundations for 20th century physics, which produced lasers, transistors, and A-bombs. Einstein worked on none of these things directly, but all of them can all be traced back to Einstein's work. It is as if Einstein invented bricks, concrete, and steel. Other people went on to design and build cities. Feel free to quote me. -cheerio, Mike

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otterpops (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

Does Anyone Know This...

What was Albert Einstein's middle name? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LILLYofTHEsouth (talk • contribs).

According to an except from the official birth register printed in Jürgen Neffe's "Einstein - Eine Biographie", he had just one given name. That is in no way unusual in Germany. --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

References

One wonders about some of the huge list of "Books about Einstein". In particular, does the Hawking & Mlodinow book really talk about Einstein as such, or is it like Hawking's other books and merely contains a different interpretation of relativity theory. If the latter, then it doesn't belong in this list (although it may be appropriate for one of the technical articles). — DAGwyn 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, that book was added here. --teb728 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

General relativity section

The current article's "General relativity" section first of all discusses things other than general relativity, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to anywhere state that in 1915 Einstein published his theory of general relativity in essentially final form. — DAGwyn 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the missing statement the other day. — DAGwyn 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Accusations and Evidence of Plagiarism

I've just run into this article[76] claiming that in his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein essentially represents work already developed by Poincare, Lorenz and others as his own; that his paper of 1905 lists no references to earlier work in which the famous formula E = mc^2 appears, nor any references to prior work at all.

If someone can verify these assertions, they may be worth incorporating into the Wikipedia article. Best regards, Duality Rules 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The claims of the article to which you refer and similar claims are already discussed in the Wikipedia article Relativity priority dispute. --teb728 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. Regards, Duality Rules 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Dover Press book on General Relativity by Torretti, "Relativity and Geometry", Torretti covers this topic in some detail. It is clear from that coverage that the accusation of plagiarism is simply not true. Rather, it fails to understand the key difference between Poincaré's theory, which could _not_ break with the notion of an absolute ether, and Einstein's, which introduced a new constant of nature (the speed of light in vacuo) and dispensed with the 19th century notion of an absolute ether.

So the nexus magazine article you cite has failed to understand this fundamental difference.

Finally, one of the interesting things about Torretti's coverage is that he speculates that such accusations of plagiarism get a lot of momentum from Poincaré's own shock at being outdone by a 'mere' patent clerk! To the end of his life, he could not get over this. 204.119.233.210 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Poincaré did not have any problem "getting over it" because he just didn't recognize Einstein's work as that important. For him it was a clever trick to derive the Lorentz contraction from the idea of a constant velocity of the speed of light; he didn't really consider the hypothetical ramifications of that to have a lot of concrete physical meaning. And as for the ether, Poincaré found it useful but not indispensible. Galison's book on Einstein and Poincaré is essentially about the differences between the two; he argues quite coherently that it shouldn't be seen as a modern guy versus an unmodern guy, but as two different types of modern guys with two very different agendas. --140.247.249.200 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Einstein's major contribution, viewed with 20/20 hindsight, was in appreciating that the form of physical laws had to be related to symmetry, space-time invariance in the case of relativity. This general principle has been exploited ever since, including at the foundations of QED and QCD. — DAGwyn 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The arguments above, that Einstein was completely different from Lorentz and Poincare (and incidentally Larmor), abolishing the ether, different point of view, importance of symmetry etc, is not an answer to why there are no references in the 1905 paper. By today's standards the only proper answer to that question is that Einstein did not know of those papers; if he did he know of them he should have commented on those earlier papers and show why his was different from them. If the modern system of review before publications was in place then, the referee might well have been Lorentz, the expert in the field of electrodynamics at the time, but if it were another expert, that expert would insist on a re-write to clarify what was different about the paper. So the question is "Did Einstein know the papers?" So if Torretti is really only interested in why Einstein is different and better then he has missed the point, in my opinion. Of course, this assumes anyone cares anymore, but apparently some people do care. E4mmacro 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The interesting point form a history of science point of view is how bad or non-existent the reviewing system for Journals must have been then. A modern journal would be very disappointed if it published a major paper which derives a set of equations which were already published eight years previously (in 1897 by Sir Joseph Larmor for the Lorentz transformations) and never refers to that work. It would want a re-write before publication, putting the work in context. E4mmacro 05:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Objection to refering Einstein ethnic origin as "German -Jew"

"...If the relativity theory will be proven true, the Germans will say I am a German, the Swiss I am a Swiss and the French that I am a great man. If not, the Germans will call me Swiss, the Swiss will call me German, and the French will say I am a Jew...." Albert Einstein , long before the nazis, long before Hitler rise to power.

1.German Jews are actually from the very same origin as other Jewish groups of Europe ,North Africa and most of the middle east (there are few Jewish groups which are from a different historical lineage). So , a Jew which born in Germany is only from a different culture from other Jews(not necessarily) and in any way the Jews of Germany are only an ethnic sub-group, at most , within the very same ethnic group (and refering a Jew as Arab-Jew or German-Jew is at least contriversal*). So there is no justification to mention Einstein as a "German Jew".

2.Einstein might be , Off course, very influenced from different aspects of the German culture -but this doesn't make his ethnic origin from Jewish to German. Actually , the culture is only one part in the ethnic identity and it have weight with in ones ethnic identity only if there is connection between his/her culture and his historical origin (in the case of Einstein :Jew). For example : Lawrence of Arabia was , at least part of his life , very influenced from the Arab culture -but it doesn't made him to be an ethnic Arab . When it come to a minority group which had no autonomic state and so being almost forced to adopt the same language and at least parts of the culture elements of the (hostile) hosting ethnic group (i.e. German in the case of Einstein) it make my argument much stronger.

3.Einstein saw himself as a "citizen of the world" , and while saying that he is not a German ,after the Nazis raised to power ,he known for saying that: "A Jew will always be a Jew even if he convert". So , while there are few users who blaming me for promoting an agenda (well, at least one hint that) -it is better for them to check why they are so eager to refer Jewish Einstein as a German . I getting harder and harder to assume good faith for part of them.

  • At Israel and USA , where Jews from all the communities around the world are living (especially in Israel), by the vast majority of the Jews (and i really believe that in the same extent by non-Jews), the term German-Jew is only referring to the country (or to the community at this country) in which someone was born and never have any connection to his ethnic or even non-Jewish cultural background (i.e. it means that some one is a German/Poland / Hungary and etc -born Jew, that used , for years (but not for eons) ,to identify someone as culturally "Ashkenazi" or "Sephardic"-and today it became less and less important) .Any way , when the average reader looking at the ethnic origin clause he is referring to some one historical origin and I assume that most of us can agree on this.

--Gilisa 12:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, It doesn't appear we will ever get agreement on ethnicity. Rather than get into another heated debate, let's just take the entry out of the infobox. --teb728 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Teb I have seen your continued attempts on this page to strip Enstein of being Jewish. However, not only do I still believe that his Jewishness should still be mentioned in the opening paragraph, it most certainly should not be taken out of the info box. We know him being Jewish was the most important bond he considered. As for his Germaness being menioned in it, you can argue that, I'm fine with it, but he was Jewish and that was his ethnicity without doubt and there is no need for it to be removed, it has nothing to do with his so called German ethnicity. If you want it removed from the info box then lets move it to the opening paragraph, his work for the creation of the State of Israel and other Jewish causes in undeniable, and he is very notable for being the Jewish scientist from Germany who lost his German citizenship for being a Jew and then when on to help the United States develop the theories for the atomic bomb. Epson291 00:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is absolutely false that I have attempted to strip Einstein of being Jewish, and I cannot imagine what would give you such a notion. What I have opposed is:
  • Listing his religion in the infobox, whether Jewish or anything else and
  • Saying in the intro that his family was Jewish. (That is not at all notable).
  • I am also weakly opposed to saying in the first sentence that he was Jewish because IMO that is not sufficiently notable. But this applies only to the first sentence, and if there were a consensus for it there (which IMO there is not), I would have no heartburn over it.
Other than that I have always been in favor of mentioning his Jewishness. Indeed, in the initial discussion on the infobox I said that his Nationality should be “Jewish and German” rather than Swiss and American. Outvoted on that, I proposed that his Ethnicity be added as “Jewish and German.” And I was glad on February 27 when you took up my proposal. When Gilisa objected, I tried changing your initial listing of “German and Jewish” to “Jewish and German.” And I was content when R9tgokunks changed it to “German Jew.” Gilisa, however, seems unwilling to consider any compromise. And rather than get into another long, heated, fruitless debate over his German ethnicity, I propose removing the Ethnicity entry (even though I originally proposed adding it). --teb728 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) (By the way, he did not “help the United States develop the theories for the atomic bomb.”) --teb728 02:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Teb728,There is only one agreement: he was a Jew , his sub group was an Ashkenazi one (i.e like more than 80% of the Jewish people today and 90% before the holocaust and this term refer to the most Jews of Europe, USA,Israel (nowadays), Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South-America and South-Africa). thats mean , that you can only put "Jewish" within his ethnic clause. I had no objection for deleting this clause before , but now it seems to me that this is the only way to make it sure that Einstein will be mention as a Jew (which is not of less importance then to mention that he grew up and lived in Germany, Swiss, Italy and USA), so I storngly against taking this clause out. It is really sounds odd to me that you are willing to delete this clause only because his "German ethnicity " which is very controversial ( at least, as i already wrote many times)-no argue about that , wouldn't be mentioned , but his consensus ethnicity (i.e. Jewish) would be...is it a modern version to the "Judgement of Solomon"?. [and regarding to your answer to Epson291 , I guess that he meant that Einstein push the USA to arm with nuclear weapon and had a lot of influence over many Jewish and non-Jewish scientists which worked together to make it out (or even advise to them) , any way -the theory of relativity is a scientific solid base for the development of the nuclear weapon (E=MC² means that you can make a lot of damage with a small amount of mater) and Einstein asked the American president to use this knowledge to built a project which will put an end to Nazi Germany - even if it will cost with the elimination of Germany. More,even if Epson was wrong (and I dont think so , at least not a major mistake) this is really dont make his arguments weaker]--Gilisa 07:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"the French will say I am a Jew" this is a perversion of the quote "If my theory of relativity is proven successful, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew." Einstein knew damn well who would call him a JEW (and how to make a joke). (Address to the French Philosophical Society at the Sorbonne (6 April 1922); French press clipping (7 April 1922) [Einstein Archive 36-378] and Berliner Tageblatt (8 April 1922) [Einstein Archive 79-535])68.60.68.203 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Teb728, thats fine with me, but if the Jewish as an ethnictiy stays by itself it isn't exactly inncorrect or misleading, with the citizenship is shown right above. Though I would say that [ironically] as a side note, before the War, German Jews were the most assimilated, of all of Europe's Jewish population. I would though say that German would certainly be an ethnicity of Einstein (even though for the horror the Germans did to Jews, Gilisa). The whole Jewish thing is a special thing, since it is not mearly a religion like Islam or Christianity or an ethnicity like "Italian American" or something, considering Jews were a nationless people for 2000 years (while still being a nation). (Though I would normally opposed to menioning Jewishness in anywhere but "born to Jewish parents" unless it is in some way notable to the person, which in his case it is many times over. And I would agree with you it would be wrong to put his religion as Judaism or anything else for that matter as his religion story is quite complicated, but thats a esaily established consensus. Anyways, I am grudginly fine with having it just in the infobox verus the main paragraph, though it needs to be mentioned somewhere in the first bit either way, though just if any of us agree on it won't probably matter too much in the long run. Oh, and as for the comment about the atomic bomb, I was referring to the assitence he lent to the U.S.'s project, at the very least the famous letter in 1939, but either way my other information stands. Epson291 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Epson291, Jews were assimilate only when they get their short lived emancipation .Before of it they were isolated from the non-Jewish population for many generations (Einstein family originally came from the Jewish communities of eastren Europe few generations before he was born) .1600 years out of 3500-4000 years of existence , the Jews were forcibly nationless ,but still shared , even due the exile, common history (i.e. most of the Jews immigrate to north Africa and European countries from Spain around the 13-15AC) had common tones and very similar customs or even food (חמין:"Chamin" which is a good example for a such), more important , they remain as a very distinct ethnic group. They assimilate when they were tiered of being hunted ,and understood that their children's will truly be equal only if they will be born as non Jewish. Under this heavy hostility from the non-Jewish population some Jews even developed self anti-Semite (as Woody Allen himself call it , this is well known problem of the Jewish people even though self-hate exist in other minority ethnic groups for smaller extents) or other complexes as a result of their hard life there. What Im trying to say is that many Jews don't really had (or filed they had) the choice to remain Jewish .by the way , the term anti-Semite was coined by Wilhelm Marr long before Hitler , when Jews allready start to assimilate (short after and probably because of the emancipation were given), published in a big news paper , and was targeted to the notion of hating the Jews because they were of different ethnic group , i.e , different historical origin. When you are writing that Einstein ethnicity was German you actually said that he have the "same story" (historical talking) as the Germans . This is not correct and Im not the only one who think like that. a Jew can be British , even if he is a very practising Jew -he can be British in many aspects : passport , loyalty , language and culture. But it have nothing with his ethnicity , I believe in Pluralism i.e. the notion that many different ethnic groups can live in the very same country , sometimes dominated by one ethnic group , and they can all have the same loyalty ,culture and etc .This is what happening now in Canada , USA and French (but now French trying to change it).--Gilisa 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two primary reasons for mentioning Einstein's Jewish heritage: (1) it helps explain his emigration from Germany, and (2) it helps explain his connection with Israel, both of which are mentioned in the article. I think the current article has this just about right. — DAGwyn 23:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
OK Epson291, I will not try to remove the Ethnicity field. I just wish Gilisa were as willing to compromise as you. (And I think it ironic that he says his father “was from a long German Jewish ancestry,” but he is not willing to say that Einstein was a German Jew.) --teb728 07:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please make the distinction between ethnicity and ethnic sub groups . My father was an ethnic Jew which came from the German Jewish community , i refer to him as a "German" Jew with no connection to his ethnic origin- I tried to explain it many times before. Any way , about culture- for my understanding , and I think that it make a lot of sense , it have implications for the ethncity of one only when it come with the "right" historical context (thats what ethnic culture is all about, otherwise it is far more related with unidentified civilian society-like this that French is trying to be). More -few facts (which are only for your knowledge) , Einstein referd to Jewish peopole as "my brothers" and said that his moral values , which was extremly important to him , was part of his Jewish identity (in which he was praude).Oh, and his second wife was Jewish. I don't understand why only when it comes to Jewish great people there are so many difficulties that being made so their ethnic identity wont be mention or would be mention in short or in non notable place.Im not looking for a "fight" nor do i enjoy it , but, I never tried to claim that Riemann , Gauss (which his achivments are unbeliveable) or Beethoven , for example , were Jewish-but on the other hand I'm not willing to "give" Jewish great persons or to share them with the Germans just like that.--Gilisa 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

OK that is fine with me, however Gili did make very valid points, though Gili I don't think the issue is so cut and dry. But Ashkenazim did found modern (and originally secular) Zionism as a result of Haskalah and the Age of Enlightenment which orignally sought to asslimlate Jews and was born out of the failure of that. Einstein's family was evidently very assimlated into German society, also evident by Einstein's lack of religion. I am sure Einstein reconized it's failure, considering he was a Zionist far before the National Socialists gained power. But all of that is speculation, which is why I'm saying it isn't cut and dry. [And Gili, I wish you a chag kasher v'sameach (a happy and kosher holiday) [as it is now Passover]. And teb, as for the thing about his father's ancestry, even though many Jews had (and sadly past tense) a long history in Germany, Poland, etc... they were often not considerd German, Polish, etc..., even after the so called "Jewish emancipation". Epson291 11:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Epson291, it is cut and dry -think on it . Jews lost their ethnicity (i.e wont pass it) only trough their non-Jewish offspring's (result of assimilation) actually , they assimilate because they knew that if they truly want to change their ethnicity this is the only way ,and so some of them prefer to married gentiles. Any way, Chag kasher v'sameach leacha ve lecol beit israel (חג כשר ושמח לך ולכל בית ישראל) . I guess that you will have to do it one day longer (pessache galuyot)...--Gilisa 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed archive ==

I propose to archive everything above except the sections "Citations and Copyright Violations" and "Objection to refering Einstein ethnic origin as 'German -Jew'," which seem still active. Does anyone want to retain any other sections on the active talk page? --teb728 08:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

==Poll on Ethnicity field of infobox ==

Let’s end the debate by voting which ethnic labels should go in the Ethnicity field of the infobox. For each proposed label, please vote whether to include it or not. --teb728 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I just have to say that this poll is hilarious! Do y'all know about this Einstein quote?: "If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew. -Einstein " (see: Americanheritage.com) Dang! Einstein was so smart he's even predicted this debate! QuizzicalBee 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The subject is closed, new votes will not acount.--Gilisa 10:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Jewish

  • Include. Not only was Einstein of Jewish descent, more significantly he involved himself in Zionist and other Jewish causes. --teb728 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Include. For the same reasons as above. He was an ethnic Jew, who was very dedicated to his identity of that, a man who dedicated his life, from the early 20's to the 50's, to the reestabliishment of the Jewish homeland, and other Jewish causes. I am (and at the same time not) surprised on this artcle the number of people who don't want to reconize his Jewishness, and for another user to drag this to a poll once again (see the archives). Him being Jewish should be indentified in the main paragraph for all he did for the Jewish people. Epson291 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. It's important background for at least some of his biography. --Stephan Schulz 19:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include He was Jewish and is universally so described.--Newport 12:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include Obviously.--Runcorn 20:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include Is anyone suggesting he wasn't?--Brownlee 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include How can you not do so?--R613vlu 13:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong exclude Ethnicity Jewish? That is racism of the worst kind. Jewish is a honorable religion, but not an ETHNICITY -- that is Nazi-terminologie! Einstein was GERMAN, that is why in his last years he only spoke German and defended Germany, pointing out, that many Nazis are German, but that most Germans are not Nazis! And just for the record: Einstein moved to the German part of Switzerland (accepting Citizenship was mandatory in those times) to avoid the draft of the German Imperial Army, after the war he "became" a citizin of Germany again. Many Americans went to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft, were/are they any less "American"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.87.229 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Please notice that only registered users can participate (its right for any poll),thats, to avoid double votings and etc (also, before one is allowed to edit Einstein's article he/she have to be a registered and a known user for a time).as you didn't sign your votings on this poll(which I already opposed and I don't see as alegitimate one), your voice cant be counted.I also strongly recommend you to reformulate your comments which can look hostile and unsincere.More, the issue of Einstein's ethnicity is allready closed.--Gilisa 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you could find many people who would say so! :-) DAGwyn 03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

German

  • Include. First of all let me clarify the meaning of the English word “ethnicity.” The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines ethnicity in terms of the word ethnic, which it defines in terms of a combination of factors, including racial and cultural among others. So “ethnicity” does not mean the same as “ethnic origin.” Einstein was thoroughly assimilated into German culture. He married a gentile woman, and until the Nazis he tried to be as German as he could. Even late in his life his culture remained basically German: For example he wrote the draft of his last speech in German. --teb728 21:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • teb728, there are several inaccurises in what you wrote. Firstly, he was not "trying to be as "German" as he could", I'm not sure where you picked up on that, (though he was German), if I believe correctly he had (before the NAZIs), revoked his German citizenship voluntarily once before in favour of Swiss citzenship. As for writing his last speech in German (For Israel's independence day no less), German was his first language. And, as for marrying a non-Jewish women, whom he later divorced, I'm not sure how that affected his bond with the Jewish people (or the German people for that matter). He are some of his quotes....
In 1918: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever." Letter to Alfred Kneser (7 June 1918); Doc. 560 in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein Vol. 8
In 1952: On November 18, 1952, he wrote to David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, speaking of his relationship to the Jewish people, writing, ". . . 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."
  • Weak include. Nonetheless, he was an ethnic german, based upon his birth, his family, and his language, and heritage. I am fine with it, even if he revoked his German citizenship once, and had it revoked again for being a Jew, he was still German. Normally ethnicity should not be menioned in the opening area, but with Einstein there is particular reason for it, and putting him being a Jew in the info box, was a compromise from the main article. And more than a Jew, he was still also German, though and this is why it's weak, did not really consider himself German. Epson291 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose Maybe just Jew for ethnictity, when German and Swiss citizenship is clearly written right above it anyways. As well it meniones, other then his German citizenship, that he is German born on the first line of the page, along with the German pronoucation of his name, all in the first line of the page. I read what DAGwyn wrote after, and I tend to agree his German ethnicity, is not in any way important to menion it in the info box, and constoversial at that (since his German citizenship was taken away from him), and no way related to his life and contrabutions and generally ethnicity shouldn't be placed unless relevant. (Such as him being a Jew is). Epson291 22:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral or Exclude (depending on how one wants to look at it....) Einstein's ethnicity is just too complex to include in a word (or even two) in an infobox. Due to his role in history, the circumstances of his life, his own character and intellectual ideals, he is most accurately described as having been "born in Germany to a family of Jewish ancestry" and IMO anything less than that is, at best, a half-truth. Text like that is best left to the first sentence of the introductory paragraph rather than than somewhere else. As such, I can't support EITHER "German" or "Jewish" or even both in an ethnicity section of an infobox because they fail any attempt at accurate summarization. Geeman 09:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Include. He was a classical German (Jewish-German) researcher for much of his live. He was born in Germany, spoke German, and published in the German scientific press.--Stephan Schulz 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude He was born German by nationality,and it says so in the infobox. It is thus right to call him a German Jew. That does not make him an ethnic German.--Newport 12:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude To give him German ethnicity is to twist the meaning of ethnicity.--Runcorn 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Exclude The arguments for exclusion seem muchstronger than those for inclusion.--Brownlee 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak exclude Depends on what you think ethnicity means. He was born a German Jew, but that means german by nationality, not necessarily ethnicity I think.--R613vlu 13:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong include Albert Einstein was a German of Jewish Belief, he was born to German parents of Jewish belief, just like I was born to parents of Catholic belief -- but neither Catholic, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Moslem and so on is my ETHNICITY! How absurd... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.140.87.229 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:First, wellcome to Wikipedia, and I enojyd reading the contributions that you made in such a short time about other German related topics.For the issue:Your 'voting's' (i.e. unsigned)at this poll (which I opposed)suggest that, unfortunately, you are not familiar with Judaism and Jewish people at all.The other option, which I exclude of course , is that you are simply a racist/anti-semitic:1. youre saying that the Jewish people are not an ethnic group nor do they can be one 2. the Germans are.i.e.:Judaism is only a religion and a cultural thing, with no ethnical element (i.e. group history end etc)-> Jews are not a race (you wrote that the Jews are not an ethnic group, which is a weak claim that relate to other subjects but not to this talk page. you also wrote this sentence (for me it sounds abit demagogic/self-righteous ): "Ethnicity Jewish? That is racism of the worst kind. Jewish is a honorable religion, but not an ETHNICITY -- that is Nazi-terminologie!.." , for me its very clear, than, that ethnicity=race for you)->I understand that you actually meaning that ethnicity is also should be a racial or a dynastical thing[and this argument (i.e. not those of the Nzis, which also calimed that the Germans are the peoples of a super race and that humans should be grade by their race or/and ethnicity) is not a racist one-so that's not what made your claims seeing bad, I can accept this very common view as long as you don't also claming that to refer Einstein as an ethnic Jew is a racist thing to do]->Jews can never be an ethnic group for themselvs .So, if you are saying that ethnicity is a matter of race, or heritage, and then saying that calling Einstein an ethnic Jew is a racisem (now, that's really strange-here you are hinting that we refer to Einstein by his race or by his heritage when we consider him as a Jew), but consider him as an ethnic German is not racisem (but you are also hinting that he is probably a German by his race and/ or by his heritage (which is also not true) and so by his ethnicity) -than,its very confusing/odd. And regarding the German people-I'm tired from hearing slogans about how much they are "anti-Nazis" or\ and "like Jews" or that most of them didnt support the Nazi regime (....), save me this kind of nonsense which cant support your claims any way.More, you're saying that : Einstein defended Germany by saying that many Nazis was Germans but most of the Germans were not (or are not?-please make it clear) and that he said so because he was German(i.e:according to you only German could said such a thing or only a German should???? what you actually mean -explain it soon)-can you explain us, please, the connection you just made between what he said and his ethnic identity? just for your knowledge, there are holocaust survivors which would said the same (but not most of them), partly because they want to believe so. and any ways, Einstein left Germany at the right time (1934) + most/all of his german friends were scientific geniuses and etc which many of them were from the very, very very, rare kind of Germans which oppose the Nazi regime (like Max Planck, which his son was sent to prison as he opposed the Nazis) and any why, didn't represent the average German nor did they represent all of the german scientists which part of them were committed Nazis .many Historians and people that lived back then will tell that the vast majority of the germans were Nazis, at least by their views).Jews do consider themselves for being an ethnic group -and objectively they are, by any mean (a good example for you is that the Jewish people (Ashkenazis&Sephardic) do have agenetic profile which is specific to them only .any way, as a Jew, your claims, that the Jews are actually not a people (among with other claims), sounds to me as a very racist and humiliating ones, even though I'm not saying that you did it on purpose and I'm 200% sure that you meant no harm ). Considering an eminent Jewish scientist as a German-after all the crimes that the Germans done against Jews and against Humanity, and after Einstein himself cut off any contact with the Germans as a people and vice versa-its not only sounds cynical, playing dumb and etc ,but it also can looks like a racism of the worst kind.You are also suggesting, in fact, that the people who made the holocaust (killing 6 millions Jews and who knows how many scientific revolutions with them),i.e. , non Jewish Germans, and the Jews which born in Germany and were their victims, long before Hitler, are the same by their essence or so (Depended on how important you consider the ethnic identity -to me it seems that its very important for you),It might sounds for some as a very politically correct argument, and so as a good one, but I afraid that not for others, which can interpret such an arguments as being hostile, hypocritical or etc (by mistake), and in any case this is not a good way for one to show how enlightened he/she is.So, while I truely cherish your sensitivity against anti-semite and Nazi-terminologie, I think that you must understand that blaming every one which support the exclusion of "German" from the ethnic entry for using a " Nazi-terminologie" could sounds sarcastic for some,and to prize (and it sounds like this:he was a great scientist->than, he was German(...)),in the absence of any reasonable explantion, the Germans with Einstein (and to steal him from the Jewish people by doing so), is not a good solution against "Nazi-terminologie" or Nazi actions.Thats why I oppose this irritatiting poll from the first place, it seems that about religions,minorits and etc-a poll should never take place, this is just an open invitation for racisem of all kinds, even when there are not bad intentions.So, actually, while you had no intention to do so ,and now I mean it, you gave all the right reasons why not to consider Einstein as an ethnic german.Any ways, this subject is already closed-Einstein is only Jewish by his ethnicity-and so it stays.�--Gilisa 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)�
  • Just to make it clear and to avoid any provoking comments: for me ethnicity is also strongly related with dynasty, rather than race-so an Ethiopian/ Yamane/ Georgian Jews, which are not Jewish by their genetics (contrary to most of the Jewish communities) are an ethnical Jews because of their Jewish dynasty which were formed through a long and a local process of ethnogensis (now they dont even remember that they have a non-Jewish background, only genetic studies and historical accounts remained it).More, anti-Semite not always was based exclusively or mostly upon race, in Spain Jews were persecuted because of their religion- so, stating that Jews are not a race not necessarily meaning that one's is not an anti-Semitic (some times its on the contarary- I have many exampels).And any way, there are people which have difficulties with admiting that ethnicity is also based upon heritage, I dont, since I dont think that one should feel threatened/ discomfort /insecurity or to be discriminated, where ever he/she live, because he/ she is of a certain race or heritage and I'm afraid that the Nazis and their successors wont agree with me--Gilisa 12:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose the poll

Does anybody have such a strong objection to the current status quo (Inforbox Ethnicity=Jewish) that they can't live with it? As a general policy I oppose to attaching ethnic labels to individuals, although in this particular case there are some good reasons for doing so (which I alluded to previously), but those reasons do not justify anything different from the status quo, except possibly removing that field from the Infobox altogether. — DAGwyn 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the poll for reasons stated before. Epson291 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I offered the poll because already 42KB of this talk page had been devoted to the Ethnicity field without getting anywhere. (And it was still growing!) I thought that a poll would result in a conclusion (at the cost of a bit more verbiage). --teb728 23:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Why not just settle on having Jewish as the only ethnicity? There really isn't a huge need to mention he is of German ethnicity when you consider he was born in Germany (Had he born let's say in, Britian, then menionting it would be more paramount of a concern). Epson291 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


teb728,There is allready a conclusion (i.e infobox :ethnicity=Jewish) and if we look on it now , you are the only one which , God knows why, cant accept it.--Gilisa 05:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

teb728 ,I ask you to stop it right now - there should be no poll about his Jewish ethnicity because there is no doubt that he was (even you admit it) - you are going too far and I can find not even one good reason for that.At any case Einstein so called German ethnicity will never enjoy a consensus. I really dont think that a poll about one's ethnic origin should take place and it truely never happend . At most , ethnic origin is something that can be debated and this happend only when it come to Jews or when one's ethnic origins are unclear (for exmple,when its not known if one British artist was from Japan or from Chine).I explained my self alot of times , but it seems that you just cant burry the current status quo which is the only one which can made consesnus.to your claims:as far as I know ethnic culture refer to tradition that passes from one generation to another (all your claims about married with gentile women (which wasnt german by the way) or others-have nothing to do with that , and any way his second wife was Jewish) I dont even know if the Germans had an ethnic tradition.ethinicty defenition refers to the same ethnic origin (same ancestry and thats what some dictionries mean when they choose the word "race") and/or ethnic culture (tradition with certain customs)[77]) that being passed from one generation to other.this valid for many dictionaries , studies or even Wikipedia "ethnicity" values at different languages ,and I allready prove you that (but it seems that you forgot) .The fact that he wrote his last words in German mean absolutly nothing since this was his native tone (he also speak it when he was at Swiss.by the way ,many Jews in many countries including ultra orthodox Jewish of USA speaking as first tone the native one, its not unik only to Jews but to any immigrant or minority groups which allready have native-born young generation), even practising Jewish holocaust servivors spoke German , sometimes, to their last day.Some facts :Einstein calld the Jewish peopole "my brothers". he said that a Jew will remain a Jew even if he will stop to see himself as such. He saw himself as adescent of Abraham (because he is the father of the Jewish peopole) and said that his moral values are a result of his Jewishness.many Jews married to non-Jewish but considerd themselvs as fully Jewish even if not practising.His Jewishness is saparted from his German culture background and as the Jewish identity is very different from the german it is only fair to keep the status-quo.Einstein himself said that if his theories will proven true then the Germans will call him a German but if they wont then they will call him a Jew.In the 30' he state that he is no longer a German (probably not a cultural one and evidently not a citizen).he never said that he is/was an ethnic German and he never said that he is a "German again".At any ethnic group the members normaly seeing themselves as from the same ancestry and etc , the Germans didnt saw the Jews , at any given time , as being of the same ethnic group.As I see it teb728 giving the wrong exmples or put them in the wrong way.I recomend you all to read the comments at "Objection to refering Einstein ethnic origin as "German -Jew" " and to oppose the poll.(sorry for the bad english-Im not a native speaker)

--Gilisa 19:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to a poll. I don't think I'll agree with the results, but the poll is at least valuable in discovering the majority view here. Geeman 09:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Geeman , Well . the facts are that he is already mentioned as being born , lived and been a citizen of Germany . He also was born into a Jewish family , and as the Jewish ethnicity is not merely a matter of religion - else, it is a very complex identity, as it is for a minority group which was nation less and isolated for a very long time (and Jews , even where they are totally assimilated and have a full emancipation (USA is the best example ever ,and by far , since the exile)are evidently have an ethnic group standing for itself as it comes to there special origins and history which is not understood by Teb728) . take the combination of German born +German residence +German citizen ship + Jewish ethnicity = "German -born into a Jewish family (and this can be valid even to converted Jews where you should add an up to date religion clause)" .if you are willing to put this sentence in the open paragraph -I would agree to delete the ethnicity from the info box, the Jewishness of Einstein is too important but it doesn't stop some users for trying to hide it in many different ways (and I don't point to you in any way).As for the German ethnic identity many people could be confused and think "German which born to a Non-Jewish family" ,or mixed , when you put it together with the Jewish ethnicity- in different from Canadian /American and other countries which are multi ethnical. So , it shouldn't be there .Let's get into an agreement which its meaning will be "German -born into a Jewish* family" and finish this debate.

  • possibly non practicing but which kept on Jewish traditional elements , and as far as I know wasn't an assimilated family as Einstein mother opposed his marriage with Mileve since she was from other religion--Gilisa 11:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that his ethnicity wasn't even mentioned in the first paragraph. The fact is Einstein left Germany because he was a Jew. He gave many speeches in which he identified himself as a Jew and as a Zionist. He dedicated a book "to the Jews of Germany" and renounced his German citizenship. The fact that he's Jewish, needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Lizrael 14:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

==Ending the poll==

3 weeks have passed since the poll (which I opposed to then and still do) begin, .Not much have changed and the poll dosn't seems active any longer, the status quo shuold stay as it is, i.e. : only Jewish at the ethnic entry.Reasons were give, very good ones, and the discussion shouldnt start over again.The poll results showd that only Schulz and TEB support the inclusion of "German" in the ethnic entry (one more didn't sign and so cant be counted, unless we want users to double voting).The others (5 voters) supported the exclusion of "German", few more opposed the poll .so, the case is closed.--Gilisa 19:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment without no topic or signature on the "opposing the poll" section

// I find this issue very strange. The very idea of a label "ethnicity", and no clear definition, is quite absurd. Maybe it has to do with the American obsession with "race" labels, and their self-definition as an immigrants' country, I don't know... Meanig it seems to be particularily American to me.

If you look at the article for N.Bohr, he is just Danish (label in box), but the text talks about jewish heritage.

I just wonder how humans who consider themselves "Jewish" and live in Germany today, and have not recently immigrated ( i.e. from the ex-Soviet Union ) AND are familiar with the subtleties of the (particularily American?) use of the label "ethnicity" would "classify" themselves. Perhaps one should do a poll, doing field research for clarification...

- And how they would have done at various times in pre-NS history ( concepts and "identities" aren't necessarily stable over time, esp. in pre-WWI- and pre-N.S. times "Jews" apparently generally wished to be assimilated and not-so-distinct from other Germans, which in turn is not a clear-cut either-or thing, but a whole spectrum of shades, that "assimilation" )?

And how A.E. would have responded at various stages of his life, esp. before he had to flee the country...

- By the way, having a particular "ethn." identity, or such label affixed to you, is not the only reason to be persecuted, and was not the only reason to be killed in N.S. dictatorship. Fleeing is no aequivalent to cutting ties and hence doesn't prove a thing as such.

- To my mind what really matters most for identities is language ( your main and mother l., which you would use in dreams and memories and phantasies and emergency shouts), because you cannot think but in and through a particular language, and express a lot of your emotions through it. Next would be physical appearance, which is an objective fact and you will notice it every time you look into a mirror; and the whole complex of culture. So it is "mind and soul" (with lg. a clearly identifiable core element) first, then physique, then "all the ways of living and feeling and thinking" third, in that order. One-word labels are neither adaequate nor very helpful ( except for some political purposes...).

- A.E. was celebrated with great aplomp and a lot of (mainly, I think) goverment/tax money in 2005 in Germany, and certainly no-one would have thought of him other than "a German" ( who also happened to be a Jew, which in his times... etc. ). That doesn't establish "a truth" any more than anything you wrote above, it just shows that the whole issue is hopelessly confused and terms depend on points of view and cultural bias ( i.e. your own ! ) etc. Bye 147.142.186.54 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

== The first line (again) ==

I hope this doesn’t trigger yet another round of fruitless discussion, but… How do other people feel about changing “German-born” to “German-Jewish-born”? Such a change would satisfy my concern that the first sentence be brief and defensible against additions of other labels such as Swiss and American. I previously proposed something similar, but Geeman objected for reasons I do not understand. Perhaps this is something we can agree on. --teb728 21:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking now about a new formulation which be something like a "German Jewish scientist" (I'm still not sure but in the next few days I will since I promised Schulz with a quick answer)which any one could interpret according to his/her understanding about ethnicity and etc (Stephan Schulz suggested that it would be "German scientist born to a Jewish family" (a formulation which I first asked him about)."German-Jewish born" isn't a very good definition for my understanding (and I can be wrong as my English is limited ).And any ways -any solution should be on the open paragraph only and should be widely accepted .--Gilisa 07:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
People can make there own judgments on ethnicity and nationality this way Epson291 07:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Which way? (and I fixed my last comment here-please read it a gain...:-)--Gilisa 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Epson291 , forgot about my last comment (which is now striked) I think that we better live the status quo as it is .It get to my knowledge that this is the best way to obtein Einstein Jewishness along with his German history in a very balanced way , not ideal , but there is nothing better for now.--Gilisa 07:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

== Archived all the Einstein ethnic entry discussions ==

The debate about Einstein's ethnic entry have last too long. A poll, which was first suggested by TEB728 , is already ended with a clear results: 5-6 opposed mentioning Einstein as an ethnic German (Geeman is possibly the 6, but he is against any other decision than his suggestion about re-formulating the intro, asuggestion which under different circumstances than those I would support), 4 (3 actually , since it include Epson291 which already voted at the poll), including me, think that it was better if such a poll wouldn’t been done- (for many reasons, here is part of mine: facts are not for a democratic vote , the German link of Einstein is truly already mentioned at least 3 times in the info box, a poll is an open invitation for hostile arguments and opinions against minorities and different ethnic groups and etc) .only 2 voted for including Einstein as having both German and Jewish ethnicities ,'the third' one shouldn’t be counted since : 1. And this is the only reason for which I didn’t count his/her voice (I don’t really need to explain, didn’t I?): he/she didn’t sign, counting his/her voice will allow for any other user which already signed to vote again and again (and any way, but less important, if we follow the Einstein article-only users which are active enough time to have the right for editing his article ) 2.And I didn’t used this reason for excluding his/her voice: arguments which are not to the point, and easily could sound as provoking, manipulating and/or offensive, even tough not with bad intention, like that the Jews are not an ethnic group while the Germans do, and that Einstein didn’t truly was a Jew since he was only of a German of Jewish belief (but realy belived only in the God of Spinoza). Whether this kind of claims came from an ignorance about the Jewish people/ Jewish history/ethnic identities and etc , or whether they came out of an agenda calling to Germanize any Jewish scientist (including Jewish scientist which born outside Germany but their parents primary language was German-as Michelson which born in Poland (and so did his parents) in a city that was under Prussian occupation or Szilard which born to a Jewish family in Hungary and etc) or just from a racist/ ante Semitic views(*)–I don’t know, nor does it make any difference –Wikipedia have its own quality standards and when someone giving explanations which are extremely controversial / offensive/ without any evidential base to support it and etc- than his/her voice shouldn't be counted. Before you all attack me for saying so, let me to explain it with an example: if someone would claim that Einstein should be mentioned as only one of a two scientists team (i.e. him and mileva) which came up with the relativity – no matter how many users would vote in favor of such a bad idea, at any given poll, still it wouldn’t make such an argument for being more than a merely an extremely speculative bad statement / pseudo biography –and this would defiantly be bad for the Wikipedia quality standards. For conclusions: the debate have already last too long and already having with results-Einstein entry status quo will remain the same as it is: i.e. only Jewish. Every comment on the talk page that have to do with it would be archived soon.Case closed.Best--Gilisa 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (*)option which I exclude of course and you all should, as we assuming only good faith.

  1. ^ "Theology: Albert Einstein".
  2. ^ Bhagavad Gita and Management
  3. ^ In Praise of the Gita
  4. ^ "Einstein the greatest". BBC. November 29, 1999.
  5. ^ "Einstein tops physicist pop chart". Institute Of Physics. Retrieved 2006-09-28.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Albert_Einstein/Archive_index&oldid=1191238653"