Talk:Annus Mirabilis Papers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.
Help with this template Comments: edit – history – watch – refresh Since this is one of the pieces of Einsteins papers then I believe it should be included in this section but then I also believe that you should have a section devoted to General Relativity. Although the idea of General Relativity is a hard concept to grasp it still plays a significant role in relativity. I made a stab at rating the importance/class of the article. I think the article qualifies as "high" importance since the Annus Mirabilis is not only a significant historical event, but also significant for the development of physics. (Not to mention a great deal of "lore" surrounding the publication of these papers). I put it as "B-class" since it seemed things were a bit unstable (eg, the merge suggestions) but it seemed that the article was in pretty good shape, well referenced and written, etc. If I could weigh in on the suggestion of GR inclusion. Not sure what the poster intended to mean, exactly. Certainly a link to an explanation of GR or the description of the GR page would be warranted. But GR wasn't published in the Annus Mirabilis... Wesino 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

This page has been cited as a source by a media organization. See the 2005 press source article for details. The citation is in: "100 Years of Special Relativity", Slashdot, June 30, 2005.

Contents 1 Poincaré 2 Michele Besso 3 Mileva's role 4 Mileva (again) 4.1 Restored some wording 5 When did the term "Annus Mirabilis" first appear? 6 Were there not five publications in 1905? 7 Papers 8 "changed Man's view on space and time" 9 Improve tag 10 Merging brownian motion

[edit] Poincaré

How about the links between Henri Poincaré's work and special relativity? David.Monniaux 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Poincaré anticipated SR, and was working on it at about the same time as Einstein. However, Einstein was unaware of Poincaré's work and published first. It is interesting to note that Einstein's paper was at first dismissed because most scientists wanted to see what Poincaré came up with. When Poincaré finally published several months later, he had devised the full set of coordinate tranformations for SR (which is now called the Poincaré group), but otherwise did little more than reiterate what Einstein had already published. So Poincaré's findings were a major coup for Einstein, and helped to validate SR.

As for mentioning all that in this article: I do not see much need. This is about Einstein's miraculous year. Let Einstein and his acievements be the focus here. If you want that role discussed, I would suggest covering it in the history of special relativity page, which currently fails to describe how SR came to be accepted over time, and is therefore in need of editting to cover that. --EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)

Hmm didn't see this before I corrected and expanded some comments about FitzGerald. Well someone else can delete it. And does anyone know this reference to Lorentz 1903, said to contain the Lorentz transformations? There could be one, since Lorentz first wrote the LT in 1899 (with an undetermined pre-multiplier on the RHS) but the final form Lorentz wrote was in 1904, not 1903, as far as I know.

[edit] Michele Besso

The article states that "scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few". According to Jürgen Neffe: Einstein (2005), ISBN 3498046853, the role of his friend and colleague Michele Besso has to be considered very important; Einstein and Besso talking through the problems on their daily walk to work and back again. Also Besso was one of the first to be informed when Einstein finally had found the clue to these problems. Shouldn't he be mentioned? Alpine-helmut 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mileva's role

I have removed the text that I did for a simple reason: It is fine to reference the controversy about Mileva's role in the creation of the 1905 papers. However, the removed text rules on aspects of that controversy, and that violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. --EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

The PBS website and the book (an almanac on Einsteins's life) both discuss the so-called "controversy". The info is asserting the facts, with sources (eg., reputable scholars argue). Go get the book, it clearly states Mileva's role was suggesting improvements, proofreading the papers, and indicating if there were inconsistencies. If ppl did that today, they would get credit for authorship. -Anon [204...]

Anon, please sign your edits (note to other editors: 204... has hundreds of edits, and is not a newbie, she's just impolite). Then everyone will know you're the same on pushing your tesla-philia at Nikola Tesla and subpages. Puffing up Mrics roles doesn't help either. Asserting that marginal sources trump all other refs doesn't make sense. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 16:19:43 (UTC).

WMC, I'll sign with Anon.

Go focus on the greenhouse pages as you have no idea about history.

Marics role is a fact and asserting the accepted sources lends to this. The Almanac references is a 2005 publication (brand new!); older sources would not have this (as it has been a left out historically).

-Anon (PS., having so-callled tesla-philia is the same as holding the views of Lord Kelvin [contributed more to electrical science than any man up to his time], Ernest Rutherford [all scientific men will be delighted to extend their warmest congratulations to Tesla and to express their appreciation of his great contributions to science], and Arthur Compton [Tesla is entitled to the enduring gratitude of mankind] (among others) then that's ok, I'd rather be that than a erronous debunker.)

If you want to be deliberately impolite, you can. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 19:35:14 (UTC).

I seem to know it rather better than you.

Maric role is pure speculation. You seem to be boosting her because of some vague connectin to Tesla. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 19:35:14 (UTC).

I'm not being impolite, it's perfectly acceptable to edit wikipedia as an anonomous user.

You do know about ecological topics (don't doubt that; your edits there seem respectable), but your logic and histrocal knowledge of science (in particular physics) is lacking (to say the least).

Maric role is NOT speculation. Read a bit, you might learn something. Goto your nearest library and see it they have the "Einstein almanac (2005). Some authors state that Maric was important to his work (like doing the math for him). I am stating facts, unlike your actions which are not malice nor ignorance, just stupidity (because you are ignoring facts). -Anon

Those tasks don't generally earn authorship (you should see the input some reviewers make into papers, often without even being thanked as "and two anonymous reviewers" in the acknowledgements). Authorship is supposed to go for "substantial contributions". Granted, it sometimes goes for political purposes, but generally reading a paper and suggesting improvements/pointing out inconsistencies does not earn one authorship. If it did I'd have another dozen pubs to my name by now :) Guettarda 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

"substantial contributions"? A large degree of Einstein's work was done with Mileva input, she made improvements and made efforts in the common endeavor. He may have drove it, but she helped accomplish it. Einstein stated that it was their work on relativity. She just didn't get the credit in the end (as is commmon, women in history have historically been left out of acknowledgements in progess (with a few exceptions)).

-Anon (PS., just to note: Einstein didn't like the statistical work, so she did the math for him; that's pretty substantial)

Hey, I was just going by what you said. Guettarda 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)

She did the math for him. -Anon

Maybe. It is not impossible that this is so. However, it is not well documented that this is the case. That is the reason for my stand on this issue. --EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 23:19 (UTC)

I was wondering why Mileva didn't publish separately and independently after she and her husband parted. If she had the abilities that are attributed to her, she could have easily demonstrated them.Lestrade 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Mileva (again)

I have restored the article so that the contested paragraph is of my last version. Here are my reasons:

1. I do want this controversy mentioned. I find William Connelly's outright removal of all reference from the background section to be inappropriate. However
2. I do not consider it to be a fact the Mileva actively helped Albert with the papers. Certainly his only acknowledgement being of his colleauge M. Besso in the SR paper argues against her having a substantial role there. I would also point out to the Mileva-philes that the footnote to the PBS show "Einstein's Wife" is preserved. I repeat what I wrote above: The added text that myself and William dislike rules on aspects of this controversy. The sentence about the papers being effectively co-authored by both of them is especially egregious in terms of the NPOV.

I understand that 204.56.7.1 is quite passionate about this. That in and of itself should be a warning here, along with this editor wishing to remain anonymous. About the only thing more egregious is an editor promoting their own work here.

I am not interested in an edit war here. However, any treatment of this question must be brief and balanced. Perhaps an article on the controversy itself may be in order? I invite "anon" to start one, just as long as it is realized that others will cover the other side of the issue there, in accord with the NPOV. --EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)

The controversy should be mentioned.

It is a fact the Mileva actively helped (the degree is more of the question; should it be enough for authorship credit? [as discussed above]).

I just want the information to be known (because of credible sources and various reference to it in reputable works on Einstein). It should not be dismissed outright, as some would like to do.

As to an editor wishing to remain anonymous, that is perfectly acceptable to wikipedia policies (eg. "You don't have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia"); it may be nice, but not necessary. Also, I am not an author promoting a work here or have any connection to the publishing industry. I'll add reputable and credible sources, books, articles, and journals from wherever.

An article on the controversy itself may be helpful, but then it could be a flamewar/editwar waiting to happen. Something to ponder, though, thanks.

-Anon

I am on your side to the extent that I agree that the controversy should be mentioned and not dismissed or swept under the rug. However, I draw that line in this article at its being mentioned. It may be quite likely that Mileva helped Albert with these papers, but as you note above the extent of that aid is unknown. Also do be advised that were it not for the credible sources that you cite I would not consider this worth mentioning.

In any case, I stand by the view that this controversy cannot be ruled on in a Wikipedia article.

I don't see that an article on the controversy has to be a flame war. However, not having it be a war means that both sides respect the other side. You will present your side in that article, followed by the refuting arguments of the other side. Note that there are rules that need to be followed:

1. The write-up cannot state as a fact the Mileva either helped Albert or that she did not. Instead it must make statements "source X indicates that ...".
2. The write-up cannot pre-judge an argument. "It is obvious that ..." is not acceptable. Instead "This indicates that ..." is better.
3. The initial draft should mention the obvious counter-arguments. You do not need for these to be complete or forceful since it is not your job to fight for the other side. Instead it is your job to be fair to the readers until the other side has had a fair chance to flesh that part of the article out.
4. Be willing to discuss issues of format and content with the other side in the talk page.
5. Finally, please do announce the new page here as well as placing a link to it in the background section of this article. That way people can go to it to get a better understanding of the controversy, and of course the other side can add in their two-cents on it.

Note that what I am proposing is a soapbox for both you and the other side. You can present the totality of the evidence there, and the other side can present its counter-arguments. Since the scope of the proposed article is the controversy itself, the flame war should be avoidable since everyone gets their say. By contrast, this article is where the flame war has been fought because both sides are fighting for the limited bandwidth found here.

Do be aware that I am not planning to moderate the "Did Mileva Marić help write Albert Einstein's articles?" article. That is not where my interest lies.

I have nothing against your being anonymous per se, but what you seem to achieve at times is to have an entire library banned from being a source of anonymous Wikipedia edits. It would be fair to others if the one being disciplined when needed is yourself and not others. Besides, you don't need to place your life history or even your name into your user space once you have an account. Think of it as your "handle". At the least, it is a better way of being identified than by a string of 4 numbers. [Suggestion: "Anon" or "Anonymous" or "Anon42" (If Anon is taken) as your ID.] --EMS | Talk 6 July 2005 21:10 (UTC)

I endorse EMS's views William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:15:01 (UTC).

---

William, why do you insist on phrasing the sentence saying her influence is both highly controversial and a debated question? If a subject is controversial, it implies debate. In this instance, I hardly think the subject is "highly controversial", rarely is it ever even mentioned. --D. Estenson II 14:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I endorse toning the editted sentense down (to just saying that this "is a debated question"). As long as the controversy is mentioned and the footnotes relating to it are preserved, I will consider the subject to be appropriately covered. I too do not see this as being "highly controversial", but rather an almost secondary issue related to the development of these marvelous papers. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

OK... my basic attitude is that Mileva is over-mentioned. Any influence she might have is entirely speculative, and barely deserved space on the page. I think that Einstein's wife during that time, was also an intellectual partner, goes too far. Partner rather implies equality, or close to it. There's no evidence for that. However, DEII's point, that it hardly counts as highly controversial since its rarely mentioned, is about in agreement with what I think, so I've rephrased it yet again to may have had some influence on Einstein's work but how much is uncertain. William M. Connolley 20:11:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

Sounds good. --D. Estenson II 20:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restored some wording

I restored the words "is a debated question", replacing "is uncertain". There seems to be some active debate and question in this regard, as shown by the footnotes. William's wording so watered down the sense of controversy that it seemed to me to be trying to sweep the issue "under the rug".

The Mileva issue, as best I can tell, is a legitimate question. I myself don't care that much about it either, but in my mind the issue now is "either you do or you don't". Either it gets mentioned and is treated appropriately, or it is dropped completely from this article. Since it seems legit and of current scolarly interest, I feel obliged to support the cuurent status quo. --EMS | Talk 21:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When did the term "Annus Mirabilis" first appear?

Is this a recent term, invented near the 100 year anniversary? Or earlier? E4mmacro 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at at this. It's a list of references, many dated before 2005. It seems that it was before the 100th anniversary. Tiny.ian 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Were there not five publications in 1905?

When I read this I had firmly in my mind that there were 5 papers in 1905, not 4. Checking out the AIP website Einstein Chronology for 1905 seemed to confirm this. 6 submissions in 1905, one of which is his doctorial dissertation which is still referred to as a paper, and one of which is not published until February 1906 - so I make that five papers published in 1905, not four. Zebedee1971 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• His doctoral dissertation wasn't published until 1906. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-3 11:00

[edit] Papers

Three of those papers (on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and special relativity) deserved Nobel Prizes according to some physicists^{[citation needed]}. Only the paper on the photoelectric effect would win one.

This doesn't read well. Papers doesn't get Nobel Prizes, and you don't "win" them. I think the section should be removed. The introduction already makes it clear that the papers where important. Zarniwoot 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's commonly said that he received the prize for all of his contributions, but they only specified the photoelectric effect. They may have wanted to avoid giving out multiple prizes to the same person. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-5 01:53

[edit] "changed Man's view on space and time"

"changed Man's view on space and time"? I guess everything is relative, even where gender is concerned?

I'm gonna change this mankind's or humankind's to "the world's". Anyone object? Tiny.ian 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Idiot

[edit] Improve tag

I have added an improve tag to this article. The content is largely fine, but the writing style is very rough. Michaelbusch 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the fact that the quotes and referencing of these papers being past tense should be a tip off enough. Tiny.ian 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through much of the text, basically only correcting tenses. (I might have misspelled some words) Someone else, please go through it and correct anything I may have missed. I'd like to see some sources, but dont have time to look for them. Tiny.ian 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Ian

[edit] Merging brownian motion

I'm substantially opposed to this idea. This article is on the various papers, not one in particular. If one is merged, all should be, and I don't believe that to be a good idea. If anything should be done, the article on Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen should be improved upon, and if any other related articles are stubs, improve those as well.Tiny.ian 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Merge - That article says less on the topic than this article does. Unless a good article can be written on the topic, I see only dusplication in its existance. I also ask the question of "Is it reasonable to expect someone to come to Wikipedia seeking information on that topic"? I can't see that for the article itself, but do see it for a number of related articles. A secondary question is whether someone who came to a related article would be interested in an srticle on that topic, and for that my answer is "Yes, but only for a longer article". --EMS | Talk 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)