Talk:Mileva Marić

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Incidentally, in a passage in his book Begegnungen mit Physikern Joffe describes his experience as a graduate student with Wilhelm Röntgen, and reports that the latter suggested to him that when he defended his doctoral dissertation in May 1905 he should discuss what one could describe as the prehistory of the theory of special relativity (Joffe 1967, p. 23). Significantly, there is no mention of Röntgen showing him Einstein's 1905 relativity paper shortly afterwards. Had he had the opportunity to see Einstein's original manuscript at this time it is inconceivable that he would not have mentioned such a momentous experience in this context. Esterson (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick reply. Since you seem to be more of an expert than me, who's only an amateur in comparison, I'll have to take your word for it. And in the end, it doesn't matter whether Mileva was cheated out of a co-credit for Albert's scientific papers or not, because she would become treated badly by him either way. And whether she gave up her own scientific ambitions completely, or if she simply got obscured by male scientists (both scenarios were common for female scientists back then), hers is really a sad story. When you think about the prejudices against female scientists in that era, you have to wonder how far even Marie Curie could have gone, if she hadn't had the support of her fellow scientist husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 11:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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

The Einstein/Maric correspondence during the period when they were students and just after shows that Einstein strongly encouraged Maric in her studies and envisaged a life together jointly working on science. But she (twice) failed the Zurich Polytechnic final teaching diploma examinations, and there is no authenticated post-Polytechnic work by her, so it is a misnomer to describe her as a scientist (or mathematician). It wasn't Einstein's fault that Maric's academic failures led to her having to give up her scientific ambitions. It is also worth pointing out that the senior professor of physics, Heinrich Weber, offered an assistantship to Maric prior to her first final diploma exam failure in 1900, so the opportunity would have been there had she passed the exam. Incidentally, she told her close friend Helene Kaufler that she did not wish to accept it, as she would rather apply for a position as librarian at the Polytechnic. (Milan Popović [ed.] In Albert's Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein's First Wife, 2003, pp. 60-61.) Esterson (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again! I should have replied almost two months ago, but I'll do it now instead. Fine, Mileva failed her exams. But so did a majority of the the female students at the Polytechnic back then. Do you really think that was a coincidence? As a matter of fact, Mileva didn't give up as quickly as many others did. And until she entered the Polytechnic, she had always been described as brilliant, and she only was the fifth woman to be accepted to ETH. And even if it wasn't Albert's fault, that she didn't pass her exams, it was his fault that the last (at least) thirtyfive years of her life was a nightmare. Would you want to be financially dependent on an ex-husband, who had treated you like crap, left you for another woman, called you "uncommonly ugly" and "a zero, who should keep your mouth shut" and never cared about your schizophrenic son? I wonder if the woman had a happy day in her life after she left Albert in 1914, while he would marry another woman (whom he also treated like crap) and rise into superstardom. Mileva Maric deserves so much better than this "she was a nobody/failure" treatment. Even if she doesn't deserve co-credit for the theory of relativity, her story deserves to be told. And I would like you Einsteinists to acknowledge that his worst side wasn't some cute little quirks, but that he actually was a terrible husband and father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.52.87 (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Just in case it's not already on the refs, this strikes me as relevant, but obscure:
Regarding, Inter Alia, Albert Einstein and Mileva Marich Einstein (Stefan, V. Alexander) strikes me as an essential but obscure witness (tho hopefully old news to the old-hands in this discussion). :) --Jerzy•t 16:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mileva Marić. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203005611/http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Stachel1966.pdf to http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/WS99/Stachel1966.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate Over Collaboration with Einstein
“Debate Over Collaboration with Einstein” section

Currently we have the following:

>That Abram Fedorovich Joffe, a member of the Soviet academy of Sciences and an assistant to Röntgen from 1902 until 1906, saw the original manuscript of the relativity paper, Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper, and that this manuscript was signed “Einstein-Marity." And “Marity” is a Hungarian variant of the Serbian “Marić,” Mileva's maiden name. So, the claim goes, Mileva Marić Einstein's name was on the original manuscript, but was then left out of the published article, where Albert Einstein's name appears alone. That on March 27, 1901 Einstein wrote a letter to Marić that included the clause “… bringing our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion." Note the “our,” which implies that the work was done in collaboration. >In 1905, three articles appeared in the 'Annalen der Physik', which began three very important branches of 20th century physics. Those were the theory of Brownian motion, the photon theory of light, and the theory of relativity. The author of these articles – an unknown person at that time, was a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in Bern, Einstein-Marity (Marity the maiden name of his wife, which by Swiss custom is added to the husband's family name) >This is indeed what Einstein wrote in a letter to Marić. Let’s look at the context. "Right now Michele [Besso] is staying in Trieste at his parents with his wife and child and only returns here [Milan] in about 10 days. You need have no fear that I will say a word to him or anyone else about you. You are and will remain a holy shrine to me into which no one may enter; I also know that of all people you love me most deeply and understand me best. I also assure you that no one here either dares to or wants to say anything bad about you. How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on relative motion to a successful conclusion! When I look at other people, then I truly realize what you are!" (27 March 1901, Vol. 1, p. 282).<

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

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

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

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

I propose to add directly after this:

On the other hand, against this one unspecific instance Einstein wrote several letters that indicate that it was he who was the one undertaking the research on relative motion in their student days, e.g.: “I also wrote to Professor Wien in Aachen about my paper on the relative motion of the luminiferous ether against ponderable matter…” (28 September 1899); “I’m busily at work on an electrodynamics of moving bodies…” (17 December 1901); “I spent all afternoon at [Professor] Kleiner’s in Zurich telling him my ideas about the electrodynamics of moving bodies… He advised me to publish my ideas…” (19 December 1901); “I want to get down to business now and read what Lorentz and Drude have written about the electrodynamics of moving bodies….” (28 December 1901).

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

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


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

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


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

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

I’ve just registered that previously you wrote (above): “The significance of the March 1901 discovery with relative motion is clearly explained in the opening paragraph of Einstein's 1905 paper.” On what basis do you conclude that the context-free March 1901 sentence relates to any “discovery”, rather than to his earlier thoughts on motion relative to the ether?Esterson (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Just counting letters and matching up phrases like-"relative motion" is not enough. You need to look at the chronological sequence of the letters plus have some knowledge of the history plus use common sense. The letters you quote fall into two groups - those before 1900 and those near the end of 1901 which are almost a year apart. In the letters before 1900 Einstein was ill at ease with the electromagnetic theory as it was at that time which was the 1880 Herz theory based on the ether. This had two forms for electromagnetic theory, one for systems at rest in the ether and the other for systems moving relative to the ether. Now if you look at the other group of letters written towards the end of 1901 you will find Einstein confident that he is on the way to solving the difficulty. The intermediate letter of March 1901 talks with confidence of "our work with relative motion". This must have been Maric's idea because if it was Einstein's he would just have gone ahead by himself wouldn't he?. So my conclusion is that it was the March letter which showed the right way to go and that it marks the initial form of the theory of relativity. This can actually be identified from Einstein's 1905 paper because the introductory section is quite different to the rest of the paper and talks of the unsatisfactory Herz theory the need for relative motions the non-existence of the ether and the assumption the the stationary form of the laws of electromagnetism hold in any frame of reference for which the laws of mechanics hold. This looks very much like an initial form of the theory of relativity (which also takes its name in that section) JFB80 (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

Since this conclusion is based on an evidence-free assertion (see above), it is suspect from the start. Moreover, given there is absolutely nothing specific in the context-free single sentence in the March letter, how could it have shown “the right way to go”? As for the rest, the content and structure of the special relativity paper written four years later provides no support for the *specific* assertions I have challenged above.

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

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

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

Protection requested
Due to vandalism, I've made this protection request. Mathglot (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Protected for one week. Mathglot (talk) 06:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Physicist and mathematician?
It is a grotesque distortion of (historic) facts, and an insult to physicists and mathematicians dead and alive, not to mention to mathematics and physics students who are working hard, to call Mileva Marić a “Serbian physicist and mathematician” when the record (in the very same article) states that she failed her diploma exam twice, and in particular the mathematics part with grade 2.5 (that was and is between “Poor” and “Insufficient”), and also considering that she has never actually worked as a physicist or mathematician or even published any scientific work under her name. PointedEars (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * As there has been no (negative) reaction, I have now removed the corresponding claims and references. --PointedEars (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)