A critical appraisal of “Einstein’s Wife” Study Guide
(See note [1])
By Allen Esterson
The school
students Study Guide for the documentary “Einstein’s Wife”, sponsored by
Australian Broadcasting Corporation,[2]
is written as a companion commentary to the film, and implicitly takes as given
that its factual basis is historically accurate. That this is far from being the case is shown by my point-by-point
examination of the documentary.[3]
In this article I undertake a similar point-by point examination of the
Study Guide.
Introduction
Referring to
Einstein’s first wife Mileva Marić, the
authors state that “Mileva’s existence came to light in a biography published
in 1983…” That this assertion is manifestly false can be ascertained merely by
examining any of the several biographies of Einstein published before this
date, some of which provide considerable information about Marić.[4]
Mileva Marić (1875-1948)
“Mileva and Albert were the only two students to enroll and specialize
in theoretical physics and she was the only woman studying for the Maths and
Physics degree.”
The four-year course at Zurich Polytechnic was actually for a diploma
for teaching mathematics and physics in high school.
“While studying briefly in
There is only one
letter from Marić to Einstein from
It really was too enjoyable in Professor Lenard’s lecture yesterday; now he’s talking about the kinetic theory of gases. It seems that oxygen molecules travel at a speed of over 400 m per second, and after calculating and calculating, the good professor set up equations, differentiated, integrated, substituted, and finally showed that the molecules in question actually do move at such a velocity, but that they only travel the distance of 1/100 of a hair’s breadth.[5]
The notion that
this information played a role in Einstein’s eventual publication of his 1905
Brownian motion paper is scientifically absurd.
“So heavily
involved in their own private research, Mileva neglected her studies in her
final year and fell pregnant with Albert’s child.”
There is no evidence
that Marić engaged in her own private research
beyond her coursework for the
“After their marriage Mileva continued to work alongside Albert.”
There is no evidence that Marić engaged
in any work of her own relating to Einstein’s researches.
“At the turn of the last century women generally published under a
male pseudonym or used their husband’s names. Mileva had no choice but to
publish under Albert’s name…”
No evidence is provided for the statement that at the turn of the last century women generally published under a pseudonym. That it is erroneous to asert that Marić would have had to publish under Einstein’s name is evident from the fact that in 1898 Marie Curie co-authored articles with her husband Pierre on their joint research on radioactivity, and she continued to publish under her own name in the succeeding years. She was joint winner of the Nobel Prize for physics in 1903, i.e., before Einstein celebrated 1905 papers were published.
“Several notable
scientists believe that Mileva may have collaborated on at least some of the
1905 publications… Some maintain many of the basic ideas came from Mileva,
while others believe she was responsible for the mathematics.”
Neither the
authors, nor the writer/producer of the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary, cite a
single “notable scientist” who believes that many of the basic ideas in the
1905 papers came from Marić, or that she was
responsible for the mathematics.[6]
“Physicist and biographer, Abram Joffe (1880-1960) claims to have
personally seen an original manuscript for the theory of relativity, which was
signed Einstein-Marity, where Marity
is a Hungarian form of Maric.”
This is erroneous. Joffe did not claim to have personally seen an
original manuscript for this or any other Einstein 1905 paper. The contention
misrepresents what Joffe wrote, as has been documented by both John Stachel and
Alberto Martinez.[7]
“Much support for Mileva as Albert’s collaborator comes from personal
letters where their work is discussed from a collaborative prospective.”
These letters do not extend beyond 1902, and the only ideas outside of
their diploma coursework come exclusively from Einstein. They do not provide
any evidence of input by Marić into
papers published by Einstein in 1905.
“Mileva did say to one of her maths students that she ‘missed the days
when Albert and her worked together on science’.”
No citation is supplied for the quotation, which is evidently not
directly from Marić. That it is suspect is
evident from the fact that biographies of Marić
do not mention any time that she taught any students.
“We do know that Helen Dukas, Einstein’s personal secretary, destroyed
documentation.”
There is no evidence that Dukas destroyed any documentation relating to alleged non-diploma scientific collaboration between Einstein and Marić.
“Also,
interestingly, the editors of The
Collected Papers of Albert Einstein maintain neutrality on the subject…”
This is
erroneous. The founding editor of The Collected
Papers of Albert Einstein, John Stachel, has published detailed refutations
of the claims that Marić contributed to Einstein’s
1905 papers.[8] He has described the “Einstein’s Wife” film as “whole series
of entangled falsehoods”.[9] The historian and associate editor for the early volumes of
the Collected Papers, Robert
Schulmann, is in full agreement with Stachel, and dissociates
himself completely from the claims made by the most prominent proponents of the
claims for Marić’s
contributions to Einstein’s scientific achievements, Evan Harris Walker and
Senta Troemel-Ploetz, describing their contentions as “claptrap”.[10] Again, the physicist and historian of science Gerald Holton,
who played a major role in the inauguration of the Einstein Archive, has written
that Marić “left no evidence of
originality as a future major scientist”.[11] His view of the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary is that “if
such a false product were published by a scientist, he or she would be deprived
of eligibility of further funding, and (in the
After Watching the
Video
In section 3 listing women scientists of whom one is to be
chosen for students to provide a profile, the most famous name is missing:
Marie Curie. Had any students been given the opportunity to profile her life
they would have discovered that Marie Curie had published scientific papers
under her own name before Einstein had published any of his papers, thereby
putting in question the authors’ earlier contention that “Mileva had no choice
but to publish under Albert’s name”.
The authors write:
“The attitudes and values of an author inform their
creation of a text. An author’s
understanding of situations varies according to his/her own attitudes and
values; similarly in what they want an audience to feel as they read or view
their text.
“How do you think the director of Einstein’s Wife wanted to make the viewers feel towards Mileva? Use
specific scenes/pictures/dialogue to back up your response.”
These comments at first sight would seem to be an
excellent suggestion for a critical reading of the documentary. Unfortunately
they are inadequate in two respects. (1) They make no mention of the role of
accurate citing and documentation in the assessment of historical claims, nor
of the necessity of subjecting such claims to close critical examination.[13] (2) The Study Guide indicates that the authors record as
historical fact several erroneous and unsubstantiated assertions made in the
“Einstein’s Wife” documentary. Furthermore, it is evident that they have they
made no attempt to undertake checks on numerous other claims in the “Einstein’s
Wife” documentary that are either contradicted by the documentary evidence or
lack credible substantiation.[14]
Allen Esterson
August 2006
Bibliography
Esterson A. (2006).
Mileva Marić 1: http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife1.htm
Esterson, A. (2006). Mileva Marić 1: http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm
Esterson, A. (2006). http://www.esterson.org/Walker_Physics_Today.htm
Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, History,
and Other Passions: The Rebellion Against Science at the End of the Twentieth
Century.
Martínez (2004).
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/4/2/1
Martínez,
A. A. (2005). “Handling Evidence in History:
The Case of Einstein’s Wife.” School
Science Review, March 2005, 86 (316):
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=183
Popović, M. (2003). In Albert's Shadow The
Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein’s First Wife.
Renn, J. and
Schulmann, R. (eds.) (1992). Albert Einstein and Mileva Maric: The Love Letters.
Trans. by S. Smith.
Stachel, J. (1989). Letter, Physics Today,
February 1989, pp. 11-13.
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf
Stachel, J. (1996). “Albert Einstein and Mileva Marić: A
Collaboration that Failed to Develop.” In H. M. Pycior, N. G. Slack, and P. G.
Abir-Am (eds.), Creative Couples in the
Sciences, Rutgers University Press. Reprinted in Stachel, J. (2002), Einstein
from ‘B’ to ‘Z’,
Boston/Basel/Berlin: Birkhauser, pp. 39–55.
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Stachel1966.pdf
Stachel, J. (2002). Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’.
Boston/Basel/
Stachel, J. (ed.) (2005). Einstein’s
Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics.
Troemel-Ploetz, S. (1990). “Mileva
Einstein-Marić: The Woman Who Did Einstein’s Mathematics.” Women’s Studies International Forum,
Vol. 13, No. 5, p. 419.
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf
http://philoscience.unibe.ch/lehre/winter99/einstein/Walker_Stachel.pdf
NOTES
[1] “Einstein’s Wife” Study Guide. Rebecca Carter and Amber
Lorych. Issue 33 Australian Screen Education. Produced by Australian Teachers
of Media: http://abc.net.au/programsales/studyguide/StGd_Einsteins_Wife.pdf.pdf
[4] For
example: Frank, P. (1948). Einstein: His
Life and Times.
[5] Renn, J. and Schulmann, R. (1992),
Albert Einstein, Mileva Marić: The Love Letters. (Trans. S. Smith),
[6] The only named scientist who takes
such a position (and who is hardly “notable”) is Evan Harris Walker. For
critical analyses of his doubtful contentions see:
Stachel, J.
(2002). Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’.
Also Esterson, A. (2006): http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm
http://www.esterson.org/Walker_Physics_Today.htm
[7] Martínez,
A. A. (2005). "Handling Evidence in History:
The Case of Einstein's Wife"
School
Science Review, March 2005, 86 (316), pp. 50-51.
Stachel, J.
(ed.) (2005). Einstein’s Miraculous Year:
Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. Princeton University
Press, pp. liv-lxxiv.
[8] Stachel, J.
(2002). Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’.
Stachel,
J. (ed.) (2005). Einstein’s Miraculous
Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. Princeton
University Press, pp. liv-lxxiv.
[9] Personal communication., 18 March
2006.
[10] Personal communication, 30 January
2006.
[11] Holton, G. (1996). Einstein, History, and Other Passions.
[13] See
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=183
[14] See Esterson (2006): http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm