PBS Theory and Practice: The Case of
“Einstein’s Wife”
Theory
PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE
EDITORIAL STANDARDS AND POLICIES
IV. Editorial Standards
B. Accuracy
The honesty and integrity of informational content depends
heavily upon its factual accuracy. Every effort must be made to assure that
content is presented accurately and in context. Programs, Web sites, and other
content containing editorials, analysis, commentary, and points of view must be
held to the same standards of factual accuracy as news reports. A commitment to
accuracy includes a willingness to correct the record if persuasive new
information that warrants a correction comes to light, and to respond to
feedback and questions from audiences.
PBS may undertake independent verification of the accuracy of content submitted
to it. Producers of informational content must exercise extreme care in
verifying information, especially as it may relate to accusations of
wrongdoing, and be prepared to correct material errors. PBS will reject content
that, in its judgment, fails to meet PBS’s standard of accuracy.
http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/aboutpbs_standards.html
Practice
The errors and misleading statements in the
material on the PBS
“Einstein’s Wife” website are enumerated below:
1. “Why was she [Mileva Marić]
erased from Einstein’s life story?”
Marić has been alluded to in virtually
all biographies of Einstein.
2. “Einstein’s autobiographies never mentioned his first
wife.”
This
is both misleading and false. Misleading, because Einstein didn’t write
an autobiography in the usual sense. The
essay with the title “Autobiographical Notes” that he wrote for the
volume Albert Einstein: Philosopher
Scientist (ed. P. S. Schilpp, Open Court, 1949) is an account of his
scientific development, and contains no personal information other than that
pertaining to science and philosophy.
False, because in the eight-page biographical sketch
(“Autobiographische Skizze”) which appeared in Heile Zeit – Dunkle Zeit, in Memoriam Albert Einstein (ed.
Carl Selig, 1956) he did mention Marić (p. 10).
3.
“The world only learned of her [Marić’s] existence through the first
release of Einstein’s private letters in 1987.”
This
is completely false. All biographies of Einstein from that of Anton Reiser
(1930) to Abraham Pais (1982) mention Marić, sometimes
providing considerable details. [1]
4.
“The debate [over the contention that Marić
was “Einstein’s intellectual partner”] remains open,
in part because it appears that Einstein's executrix systematically destroyed
potential evidence.”
There
is no evidence that any documents pertaining to this issue were deliberately
destroyed, systematically or otherwise, and none is provided.[2]
5. “But she starts her second year with a semester in
There
is a single letter from Marić to Einstein in this period
in which, at the very end of a five-paragraph letter she gives a half-paragraph
account in rather jocular fashion of one lecture on the kinetic theory of
gases. (Renn and Schulmann [1992], p. 4)
6. “He demands all her time [in their
latter period at Zurich Polytechnic]. She sacrifices her studies as well as her
friends.”
The letters from Marić to Einstein show
that she was as keen to spend time with Einstein as he with her.
Einstein’s letters show that he strongly encouraged Marić in her
studies (letters 10 Sept 1899, 13 Sept 1900, 23 March 1901, 28 May 1901, Renn
and Schulmann [1992], pp. 13, 32, 38, 54.)
7. “In the summer of 1900, they both
fail their final exams. He somehow gets a diploma…”
This is false. In July 1900 five candidates,
including Einstein, were awarded the diploma by the Conference of Examiners of
Zurich Polytechnic (Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein Volume 1, ed. J.
Stachel et al [1987], p. 247). Marić was not awarded the diploma.
8. “Unlike Mileva, Einstein
doesn’t like dealing with statistics. But the work of 1905 has given
Albert a mantle of leadership in the new field of relativity theory. He is
revolted by the statistical nature of the work that others are producing on the
basis of his discoveries. He doesn’t like the randomness of it all and
expresses his feelings with the pronouncement, ‘The good God does not
play dice with the universe’.”
There is no evidence that Marić liked
“dealing with statistics”, or indeed any evidence whatsoever of her
capabilities in this area of mathematics. On the other hand Einstein made
several major contributions to statistical physics. (The quotation provided has
nothing to do with immediate developments from Einstein’s 1905 papers,
but relates to his views on the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics
developed some two decades later.)
See “Einstein on the Foundations of
Statistical Physics”, Collected
Papers Vol. 1, ed. J. Stachel et al (1987), pp. 41-55; also
“Statistical Physics”, in A. Pais (1982), pp. 53-107.
9. In 1912 “Albert has a new math
collaborator, Marcel Grossman.”
The implication here is that prior to that
time Marić had been his collaborator in mathematics. There is no evidence
that this is the case. In fact it was Marić’s weakness in
mathematics that was the main reason she failed her diploma exam: In 1900 her
grade for the mathematics component of the exam was less than half that of the
other four candidates. (Collected Papers
Vol. 1, ed. J. Stachel et al, 1987, p. 247)
10. “There are several credible
scientists who believe Mileva may have collaborated on at least some of the
1905 papers. Among her supporters is Abram Joffe (Ioffe), a respected member of
the Soviet Academy of Sciences… Unfortunately, Joffe died in 1960, before
anyone had much interest in Mileva. But there is at least one printed report in
which Joffe declared that he personally saw the names of two authors on the
1905 papers: Einstein and Marity (a Hungarianized form of Marić).”
The statement refers to “several
credible scientists”, but the only one cited is Joffe. The contention
that “Joffe declared that he personally saw the names of two authors on
the 1905 papers” is false. What Joffe actually wrote, in an obituary of
Einstein, was the following:
“In the year 1905, in Annals of Physics, there appeared three
articles, thereupon beginning three most important, relevant directions in the
physics of the 20th century… Their author – unknown until that
time, a bureaucrat at the Patent Office in
(i) Joffe
does not state that he personally saw
the original manuscripts. (ii) Joffe is not one of Marić’s
“supporters”. He states unambiguously that he is referring to one author, a “bureaucrat at the
Patent Office in
See Martínez, A. A. (2005): Handling
Evidence in History: The Case of Einstein’s Wife
Had Joffe intended to indicate that the papers
were co-authored he would have referred to “the authors” (in the
plural) and given two separate names.
11. “There are also tantalizing clues in
the letters Mileva exchanges with Albert, and with their friends. On the other
hand, Mileva never demanded any public credit for the work of 1905, and never
claimed she was Einstein’s collaborator.”
The only “tantalising clues” in
letters to their friends occur in Marić’s letters to her
friend Helene Kaufler in which she unequivocally assigns the authorship of
papers of Einstein’s to him alone, e.g.:
“Albert wrote
a paper in physics that will probably soon be published in the Annalen der Physik” (20 Dec.
1900). “Albert has written a magnificent study, which he has submitted as
his dissertation…I have read this work with great joy and real admiration
for my darling, who has such a clever head” (December 1901).
“…the papers he has written are already mounting quite high”
(December 1906). (Popović [2003], pp. 70, 79-80, 88.)
Marić’s letters to Einstein
(from the years when they were students at Zurich Polytechnic and immediately
after) are almost entirely devoted to personal matters, other than the
occasional reference to material related to her diploma course and dissertations.
There is not a single letter in which Marić
provides any personal contribution to Einstein’s extra-curricular physics
interests to which he frequently alludes in his letters to her. (Renn and
Schulmann [1992]; see Stachel [2002], pp. 33-37; 44-48. See also the section
headed “The Einstein/Marić
correspondence and related claims” at http://www.esterson.org/milevamaric.htm.)
12. “In the midst of the debate, the editors of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein
have claimed neutral territory, noting, "We have found no documentary
evidence that would demonstrate her active participation in his scientific
work, but we do not endorse the view that she took no part in it. We simply do
not know."
No
source is given for the quotation (which is hardly neutral, as it states that
no evidence has been found to support the claims that Marić
collaborated on Einstein’s scientific work, while implicitly
acknowledging that it is not possible to prove a negative in such a case). The
assertion that “editors” of the Collected
Papers have taken a neutral stance is certainly false. The founding editor,
John Stachel, has published articles strongly disputing the claims: “The
available evidence does not support such claims, as I have argued elsewhere
[Stachel 2002 (1990), pp. 21-38] and will argue here.” (Stachel
1996) Another editor, Robert Schulmann, has stated (with Gerald Holton)
that “All serious Einstein scholarship has shown that the scientific
collaboration between the couple was slight and one-sided” (Letter,
New York Times, 8 October 1995).
PBS Classroom
Lessons
13. “Encourage students to understand that she was a gifted scholar and scientist prior to meeting Albert Einstein.”
Prior to meeting Einstein Marić had
only just graduated from high school. (Her record in the Zurich Polytechnic
diploma examinations was mediocre: in the
intermediate exam she was fifth out of the six students in her group, and she
twice failed the final diploma examination.)
14. “She is excited and intrigued by the
research of the professors [at
In the single letter that Marić wrote to
Einstein in that period there is a rather naively expressed half-paragraph
reporting a lecture by Philipp Lenard on the kinetic theory of gases. There is
nothing about Lenard’s research, which at that time was on cathode rays.
(Lenard’s four-hour course was on Heat Theory and Electrodynamics [Collected Papers Vol. 1, ed. J. Stachel
et al, 1987, p. 59, n.7].)
15. “In the end, Albert receives his
diploma, but Mileva is denied hers because of marks slightly below
Albert’s.”
On a grading scale 1-6, Einstein’s
overall average grade was 4.91 (approximating to 78%). Marić’s
overall average grade was 4.00 (approximating to 60%). The difference of 18% is
appreciable. (Einstein’s grade was approximately 5% below the candidate
immediately above him, and 11% below that of the top candidate.) (Collected Papers Vol. I, p. 247)
16. “[Marić] collaborated with
Albert Einstein for years as a student and then as his wife.”
There is no document that demonstrates that
Marić collaborated with Einstein on any of his published papers. (Stachel
[2002], pp. 26-38; 44-48) In letters to her close friend Helene Kaufler,
Marić attributed Einstein’s papers solely to him; for instance, on
the very first paper published by Einstein in 1901 Marić wrote:
“Albert wrote a paper in physics that will probably soon be published in Annalen der Physik. You can imagine how
proud I am of my darling.” (Popović [2003], p. 70)
Letters in their student days do indicate
collaboration on topics relating to their diploma studies, notably on heat
conduction, the subject that both of them chose for their diploma
dissertations, and for their (discontinued) Ph.D. theses in 1900-1901. (Renn
& Schulmann [1992], pp. 30, 32.)
Marić evidently also assisted Einstein in looking up data in this
period.
17. “She decides to specialize in theoretical
physics.”
The
diploma course taken by Einstein and Marić at
18. “They published some early works
together and conducted research together. They shared information through their
writing. She brought back information [from
There are no “early works”
published jointly by Einstein and Marić. The only documented research that
they did together was in relation to heat conduction, the topic they both chose
for their diploma dissertations. The “information” in their letters
in this period, insofar as it relates to extra-curricular topics in physics,
comes entirely from Einstein. The statement that Marić brought back from
her studies in
19. “[Marić] had the education and
the ability to conduct the research. They worked closely together for years,
but she is not always listed on the papers.”
In addition to the fact that she failed her
diploma examination, there is not a single item of evidence to show that
Marić had the ability to emulate Einstein’s work which resulted in
the publication of the 1905 papers.
20. “Mileva Einstein-Marić was, in
many ways, a pioneering woman in the world of physics. She and her husband,
Albert Einstein, studied and contributed to the then developing field of
Quantum Physics.”
There is not a single piece of evidence that
Marić made any contribution whatever to quantum physics.
21. “She
studied with Philipp Lenard [at
Marić
attended a short course on Heat Theory and Electrodynamics given by Lenard at
22. “[Marić] and Albert focused on
studying the more cutting edge physics that she had learned with Lennard [sic], and they began skipping
classes.”
There is no evidence that the material in the
short course of Lenard’s that Marić attended at
23. “They both failed their exams, but Albert’s
grades were rounded up to a passing mark and Mileva’s grades were
not.”
This is false. There is no evidence that
Einstein’s grades were “rounded up” to enable him to pass.
24. “Mileva agrees to a divorce, on the
condition that any future Nobel Prize money will be hers. Oddly, Albert
agrees.” Again: “Mileva denies him the divorce until he agrees to a specific
agreement…Ask students to what the requirement was (Any future proceeds from a Nobel Prize would be
given to her…) Ask students to predict why he would have agreed to give
up that money.”
Contrary to these statements, it was Einstein
who, to overcome Marić’s opposition, made the proposal about the
Nobel Prize money (among other financial inducements), in order “to do
everything to make this step [a divorce] possible” (letter, 31 January
1918: Collected Papers Volume 8,
English trans. A. M. Hentschel, 1998, p. 456). In fact the capital was to be
held in safe keeping in
25. “Any future proceeds from a Nobel Prize
would be given to her. Albert even tried to keep it a secret, through a series
of financial transactions to hide the transfer.”
No evidence is
provided for the claim that Einstein tried to hide the fact that he had agreed
to cede the Nobel Prize money to Marić. It was clearly
stated in one of the clauses in the Divorce Agreement, submitted to the judge at the divorce
proceedings, that the capital should be deposited in
See
http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife2.htm for a more detailed examination
of the contents of the PBS “Einstein’s Wife” website
material.
For a
critical examination of the “Einstein’s Wife” documentary
promoted by PBS, see http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife1.htm
NOTES
1. Biographies that mention Mileva
Marić include:
Reiner,
A. (1930). Albert Einstein: A
Biographical Portrait.
Frank,
P. (1948). Einstein: His Life and Times.
Seelig,
C. (1956). Albert Einstein: A Documentary
Biography.
Michelmore,
P. (1962). Einstein: Profile of the
Forsee, A. (1963). Albert Einstein: Theoretical Physicist.
Clark, R. (1971). Einstein:
The Life and Times.
Hoffman,
B. and Dukas, H. (1973). Albert Einstein,
Creator and Rebel.
Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein.
2. On
the question of missing documents: When, in accordance with
Einstein’s will, the Einstein Archive was transferred to the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Robert Schulmann, one of the Associate Editors of the
project, discovered that six letters from Einstein to his cousin (and later
second wife) Elsa dating from 1912-1915 were missing. It is not known what
happened to these letters. (It is possible that Helen Dukas, one of the two
Trustees of the Einstein estate, may have destroyed the letters, which contain
passages denigrating Marić and revealing of his relationship with Elsa
when he was still married to Marić.) However, copies had already been
made, and have been published in volume 5 of the Collected Papers. In any case, this has no bearing on the
question of Marić’s alleged contributions to Einstein’s work,
and there is no evidence whatever to support the PBS website suggestion that
documents were “systematically destroyed” to conceal
“potential evidence” on this issue. The correspondence between
Einstein and Marić was in the possession of the family of Hans Albert
Einstein, the deceased elder son of Einstein and Marić. After its
existence was discovered by Schulmann, the family gave permission for its
publication. (Highfield and Carter [1993], pp. 279-282)
References
Einstein, A. (1987). The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein:
Volume 1.
Ed. J. Stachel et al.
Einstein, A. (1987). The Collected Papers of
Albert Einstein: Volume 1 (English trans.) (Beck & Havas.
Einstein, A.
(1949). “Autobiographical Notes.” In Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. P. A. Schilpp,
Einstein, A. (1956 [1954]). “Autobiographische Skizze.” In C. Seelig
(ed.), Helle Zeit – Dunkle Zeit: In
memoriam Albert Einstein,
Esterson, A.
(2006a). A critical examination of the “Einstein’s Wife”
documentary: http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife1.htm
Esterson, A.
(2006b). A critical examination of the PBS “Einstein’s Wife”
website material: http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife2.htm
Highfield, R. and Carter, P.
(1993). The Private Lives of Albert
Einstein.
Holton, G.
(2000). Einstein, History, and Other
Passions: The Rebellion Against Science at the End of the Twentieth Century.
Joffe, A. F. (1955). Pamiati
Martínez,
A. A. (2005). Handling
Evidence in History: The Case of Einstein’s Wife. School Science Review, March 2005, 86
(316).
Pais, A. (1982). Subtle is the Lord…: The Science and
the Life of Albert Einstein.
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.
September 2006
Allen Esterson’s Home Page:
http://www.esterson.org/