Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 9

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Religion vs sci philosophy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  WW II - the atomic bomb 

message: 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)
thread_title: Archives

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm happy with that. --Fastfission 13:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of papers

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

text: In any case, calling him an agnostic flattens him quite a bit, I think we can agree. --Fastfission 02:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Agnostics]] ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Einstein's  ''Major'' Contribution ?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Religious views redux

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Nobelprize 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Never Learned Hebrew? 

message: 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)
replies: text: *Yes please, while you are at it you can include your own diatribes against myself, Desdinova and Wiki in general. --TWake 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title: Scientific/Religious Perspectives

message: 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:
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
* User:A. B./To do list#Abusers
Thanks for your help.--A. B. 03:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help wanted for an Einstein spammer 

message: 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)
thread_title: Second proposed infobox

message: 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:
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)
thread_title:  Was Einstein autistic? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Henri Poincaré

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Debate 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I heard that, although my source is the film "The Fly"...  --Michael C. Price talk 20:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What is trivia is subjective and POVish.  Einstein's sock habits have been noted by notable people (including Einstein himself) -- thus it is itself notable.  --Michael C. Price talk 10:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Another Rumor 

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposed content on cosmology etc

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I will continue this debate below in "Jewishness" Gordon Freeman 18:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Line: Jewish-German-Swiss-American scientist? 

message: 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://en.wikipedia.org/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)
thread_title:  Deir Yassin link please?