Talk:Albert Einstein/Archive 12

message: Although I remain skeptical of mentioning Einstein’s Jewish nationality in the first paragraph and quite opposed to mentioning his Swiss and American citizenships there, I think it might be a good thing to list his Jewish nationality in the Nationality field of the infobox. I wonder if Geeman and Epson291 would be content with that. The difference between the infobox and the first paragraph is that the infobox is a list: As such it doesn’t need to be good prose and it is easy to skip over information that one is not interested in. I am thinking of a Nationality entry like this:
:Ethnic identity:
:*Jewish
:*German
:Citizenship:
:*German (1879-96, 1914-33)
:*Swiss (1901-death)
:*American (1940-death)
An archived poll here voted to include only citizenship in this field, but perhaps that issue might be reopened. --teb728 22:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is possible, but I wonder if some users may object to it. (the Jewish nation being referred to as a nation (as lets say a "people"), for the reason that they might take "nation" in the most common definition of the word, (being a "country"), rather then, as the article nation or a dictionary would say, "A nation is a group of humans who are assumed to share a common identity, and to share a common language, religion, ideology, culture, and/or history. They are usually assumed to have a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent."  So while I would be personally content with that (but still prefer it to be in the opening paragraph because as a Jew, his contributions were great to the Jewish people), but I do wonder if wikiusers would find issues with this because of confusion (or ambiguity) over the term "nation" Epson291 07:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality field of infobox 

message: To user, user:DAGwyn, as for your comment about people wanting to claim him as his own, I would think so, concidering his contributions, if it was say, Émile Durkheim or one of the many famous Europeans (who just happened to be Jewish), and whose being a Jew had nothing to do with their life or notability , I would definitely argue for it not to be in the opening paragrah (rather in their biography of growing up).  However, Einstein is notable for his continued contributions to the Jewish people, which was a big part of what he did later in his life. The word "Jew" would give proper respect to that. I object to "German-born" being the only mention in the opening paragraph, since it is not simply that he was just "German-born" and then moved around a lot. I would not object to "German-born" or just German, if other mentions were made. (Are there any quotes to how he felt about his "Germaness" after his German citizenship was taken from him, or later in his life?) I object to it being the only mention since it disorts the picture of reality.  As for the German pronounciation, a confused reader, would find out later in the article the reason for that.  It is not different from a user getting confused by the singular German mention. (An American English pronounciation, should likely be included as well, since he became an English speaking naturalized American citizen for the rest of his life) Epson291 07:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: National labels in opening paragraph

message: Should we move the quotes to wikiquote and provide a link at the relevent point? It would help 'streamline' the article Jnb 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be a good idea, although it is probably worth retaining the one about a personal god vs. Spinoza's god in the main article, just so it doesn't leave the reader who doesn't follow the links completely in the dark.  After all, Einstein was not really a religious leader; the only reason anybody would really care about his opinions outside his area of expertise would be to hear what the "smartest man in the world" had to say on the matter. — DAGwyn 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking out the big block quotes and replacing them with a link to other Einstein-relevant articles is one of the things I'm doing while I copy edit. Reassignment and organization of them into the other articles is NOT something I'm doing though, does anyone want to pick that up so they don't just vanish forever? ~ Otterpops 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion an encyclopedia article is no place for a string of miscellaneous quotes. The place for these quotes is (if anywhere) Wikiquote:Albert Einstein. --teb728 07:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Einstein article is primarily a biography of Einstein, and religion played a negligible role in his life.  I think the very minimal remaining coverage of this in the current article is just about right, for this article.  If it matters for some other article, the extra text (quotes etc.) should go there. — DAGwyn 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "By his own definition, Einstein himself was, of coruse, a deeply relgious person." (Pais, 1982 p 319) I have a big problem with this because  in fact this give a totally false impression. This is what Pais claims about Einstein ie ("deeply religious") and not what Einstein says about himself, which is the impression that the editor is trying to give. The whole religious views section is distorted and contains none of Einsteins criticisms of "believers" 68.60.68.203 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Quotes 

message: It seems to me that User:Epson291 is adding more photos than are needed, particularly since some of them are questionable in the fair use department. In particularly the pictures of Einstein playing the violin, with Eban, and with Ben-Gurion do not contribute significantly to the article, as required by the Wikipedia fair use policy. (In contrast a plausible fair-use rationale can be made for the use of the Time cover and the picture of the Einstein memorial, for example, in that they illustrate the mentions in the text of the Person of the Century award and the memorial.) --teb728 23:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photographs do contribute significantly to the article, and I hope their attributions can be sorted out satisfactorily.  The problem is that, as it is now, the main article is far too long.  Several massive sections should be stand-alone articles with summaries and pointers in much more brief sections in the main article.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  02:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos seem great to me, even though some of them are in funky places. They add intriguing teaser and modifying detail that really adds to the text. I especially like the one with Einstein and the future first president of Israel in New York the year Einstein accepted the Nobel, and the one of "combatants" Einstein and Bohr sitting around together smoking with messy hair. Photos! Photos! ~ Otterpops 19:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: Urban legend says that Einstein was a lowly patent office drone when he wrote the A.M. Papers that eventually got him the Nobel, but putting the chronology together I'm starting to understand that he was actually a PhD student (ABD at that) when he published them in a very prestigious journal where he had published before. (This is plenty remarkable, as any ABD will tell you.)
I'm getting the impression that Einstein couldn't get TA-ships because he annoyed professors but had to keep supporting his family while he was in grad school so he got the job at the patent office while doing the PhD, it was an after-school job (also plenty remarkable). As it reads now the article implies that as soon as he published those four papers in 1905 (as if Annalin der Physic took manuscripts over the transom) he was boom granted a PhD by the University of Zurich.
Anyone have good info from one of the bios that talks about what PhD programs he applied to, when he applied to them, in what subjects, and how he ended up at Universitait Zurich? I did find a quick note in the article on his advisor that mentions Einstein quarreling with his first advisor and changing horses midstream.
Reality checking... ~ Otterpops 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the article on Einstein's doctoral advisor Alfred Kleiner. --teb728 08:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I didn't read your first post carefully enough: Apparently you did see the Kleiner article but missed its explanation of why Einstein's PhD was technically from the University of Zurich. Also when you call the patent office an "after-school job," is it your impression that he commuted daily between ETH in Zurich and the patent office in Bern? I always understood that the patent office was a full-time day job and that he visited Zurich off hours as needed. --teb728 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Otterpops, do you really know enough about Einstein to do such extensive copyedits? He was at the patent office when he wrote the papers. It was not a minor job, it was a major preoccupation and had direct connections to his special relativity work. He was not commuting, he was an outsider to the physics community completely at that point. And the European system of education bears little resemblance, especially in 1905, to the modern US educational system. --24.147.86.187 03:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annis Mirabilis Papers & Einstein as a PhD student 

message: Mostly organization today, coming back to work on Dangerous Politics section more tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: The EPR Paradox not only has an article of its own, it's covered in-depth in the Bohr-Einstein Debates article (which links to the EPR article). EPR Paradox has virtually no meaning (let alone significance) to a person with an ordinay college education and because its importance is apparent only in the context of the debate (the intricacies of and explanations for which there is no room for in the "Albert Einstein" biography article) I had to take this newly introduced section out. I'm so sorry, please don't be hurt, your contribution was and is valuable. Could you maybe go to work on the "Bohr-Einstein Debates"? I think that one needs an educated eye.
Please understand that this article is much too large, and was becoming incomprehensible to the everyday reader. A newspaper article is written at a 6th grade reading level, and I'm attempting to edit this Albert Einstein bio to a Liberal Arts BA level.
Thanks for the offered help. Say...if you have any Einstein books laying around the house, could you check some of these "fact"-tagged dates and quotes? That would be a huge help.
~ Otterpops 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons I added it in the first place were (a) to continue the Bohr-Einstein explanation in a more useful direction than what had previously been there, and (b) to provide a hook for the link to the main EPR article, which definitely belongs in an Einstein biography, being one of the main things his name is associated with (much more so than the refrigerator!)  EPR is of considerable importance in the history of ideas, being often cited in connection with quantum entanglement, for example.  A reader should not be expected to read the linked Bohr-Einstein article in order to even see a reference to EPR.  Further, I dispute the notion that the article should be dumbed down to the extent of omitting references to anything requiring more than trivial thought; the main thing about Einstein was that his ideas were nontrivial.  Note that the text I inserted should be intelligible enough to anybody who has a decent general English vocabulary; the linked article(s) go into greater depth.  I'm putting the text back, however as a paragraph rather than a section, to help clarify the Bohr-Einstein issue and also to make a reference to EPR visible to anybody looking for it in the logical place. — DAGwyn 00:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: EPR paradox could be explained in plain language quite easily, but in any case I think it should not be overstated how much it represented Einstein's views: it was primarily written by Rosen, not Einstein, and Einstein himself later expressed discontent with the argumentation. --24.147.86.187 03:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EPR Paradox section removed (sorry!)

message: I can't intuit how to put it back in after the section about Einstein being offered the presidency of Israel in "Dangerous Politics". I can look up how to do it, but is there anyone more on the ball than me who can just pop it back in?
~ Otterpops 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I frankly doubt it adds much to the article, but if you really want it, add  ahead of the paragraph you want even with the top of the image. --teb728 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That’s my point, sort of: It shows him as a kind of founding father of Israel, but he was not any kind of founding father. Undoubtedly the Israeli government put his picture on the money because he was a pop hero who was also a Zionist (but not kind who would emigrate to Israel). Maybe the place for the image is in the “Honors” section. --teb728 21:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accidentally dropped the picture of the Einstein 5-lira note from Israel 

message: Organization, language, globalization, historical clarification for "Dangerous Politics". Have not checked links, will do tomorrow. ~ Otterpops 22:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: When comparing the Einstein page to the Carl Gauss page its very apparent that this needs a lot of work.  There is no discussion about the subjects of his 1905 papers nor its impact on the field of physics.  Nor is there any discussion about the problems that he worked on in any serious matter.  All in all you dont really get a feel for why Einsten is considered to be one of the greatest physicists of all time from this write up. unsigned comment was added by Zaidkhalil (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subjects of his 1905 papers are discussed in Annus Mirabilis Papers; the biography links to that sub-page. When the Gauss biography gets overly long like this one, the editors there will move details into subpages. --teb728 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting Einstein's most important work into a subpage is a ridiculous approach. I think people are losing sight of what an encyclopedia article is meant to look like; Wikipedia articles are meant to be articles, after all, not just a maze of links to subpages. To call the 1905 papers "details" shows either a painful ignorance of the subject or a willful desire to have a bad article. --24.147.86.187 00:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. If it were it would be necessary and practical to put everything on a subject on one article. The fact that Wikipedia is a web encyclopædia means on the one hand that it is easy to link to subpages, and on the other hand it is necessary to have guidelines on article size. If Annus Mirabilis Papers were folded into the main article, the result would be about 100 KB long—a very long article by Wikipedia standards. I would agree, however, that the main article should have a better summary of the 1905 papers—one that entices interested readers to look at the subpage. --teb728 09:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to express the scope of what Einstein did by attribution of the various theories - if we say he reworked "Newton's" principle instead of just "the" principle it will help show how world-changing his work was. ~ Otterpops 22:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except you keep getting it wrong.  I suggest that you leave all explanation of physics to the physicists, who evidently care more than you about the ideas involved. — DAGwyn 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The summary of the 1905 articles that I think should go in this article would emphasise their importance, avoiding as much as possible the details of what they say (leaving that for the subpage). That importance as I see it is: He wrote 4 papers in one year--any one of which would have made him an important physicist. The 1st paper led to his Nobel prize and revolutionized physics--leading ultimately to quantum mechanics. The SR papers also revolutionized physics--replacing Newtonian mechanics in theoretical physics. Actually writing this may be beyond what Otterpops can do; does someone else want to take a crack at it? --teb728 09:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual influence of Einstein's ideas/discoveries/inventions goes much deeper than that; they affected the entire framework within which theoretical physics is done.  For example, special relativity is a principle, not just a theory of mechanics, and it is now so entrenched that relativistic invariance is taken for granted as a requirement when developing any fundamental physical theory, including quantum theories.  (For example, Dirac's equation for the electron, which unexpectedly predicted positrons, arose from trying to meet this requirement.)  Elementary particle theories these days are almost always gauge theories, the essential ideas of which hark back to unified field theory work by Weyl, Eddington, and others that probably would not have progressed as far without Einstein's involvement.  Some areas of mathematics, such as fiber bundles, received more attention due to their connection with Einstein's theoretical work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DAGwyn (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This Page Needs Serious Editing and Additional Content

message: Copy edit turned into writing a section, this may duplicate linked articles but I'm out of energy and will have to check and pare it down tomorrow. Dont proofread yet, please. ~ Otterpops 21:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit 

message: What's the reasoning behind linking each date and year? Once the info is added to the The Timetables of History-style articles, does it need to stay linked? Curious readers can look for a year or a date in the Search: "Hmm, but what else was going on that year...was that before or after the explosion of the Hindenburg?"
~ Otterpops 06:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the full date is given, one should link it so that it is displayed in accordance with the user's set preference.  Otherwise, one should probably not link it unless it adds to the article and the reader's understanding of the topic.  --ElKevbo 03:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking every date and year

message: Writing by Einstein himself on General and Special Relativity (two articles) is available at the Gutenburg Project website, his own words. Doesn't seem like it should be just a footnote (External Link, actually) but I'm not sure of the best place to either mention it, see-also, or link it. Suggestions? This would be the best explanation of all for the physicists around here.
~ Otterpops 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the link is fine.  Einstein's own writings (in German!) are not the best way to describe these subjects to somebody who isn't a contemporary (early 1900s) physicist, and after all the Wikipedia does have articles on these topics.  — DAGwyn 19:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General and Special Relativity texts 

message: While cleaning up 'External Links' links, I found sources for some uncited assertions, also looks like one user was clipping sentences right out of the pages listed there. If anyone feels like learning ALL ABOUT Albert Einstein, it would be a worthy project to spend some time with those articles and then add attributions, paraphrase and/or quote marks, and citations for the information we stole from them.
~ Otterpops 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations and Copyright Violations 

message: 6 is not the highest possible mark.  It is the lowest on a scale of 1-6 commonly used in German, Austrian and Swiss grading systems, from what I learned in German class.
Nesbittk 14:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the Switzerland today, but in 1896 the highest mark in Switzerland was 6. In Germany the highest mark was 1 as you say. The matura image seems to have been separated from explanatory text to that effect. --teb728 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matura 

message: There is available a pretty good obit on the greatest physicist of all time at the NYT... if someone with edit rights on the locked article deems to include it under External Links:
Obituary, NY Times, April 19, 1955, Dr. Albert Einstein Dies in Sleep at 76; World Mourns Loss of Great Scientist68.228.70.223 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein's Obit, NY Times, 4/19/1955 

message: Okay! I am outa here! Good luck, and many thanks to my quiet supporters (you know who you are). Please pardon the mess and disruption, and thank you all for all I've learned through the Albert Einstein ordeal. ~ Otterpops 23:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit

message: Why isn't Cornelius Lanczos included? And according to Dover Press's bio Peter G. Bergmann was one of his students, too.
So when you all are quite through generating more heat than light with discussions confusing ethnicity with nationality, please consider updating the list of his famous students (near the bottom of the article) with these students/coworkers/assistants of Einstein.
For that matter, if you want to broaden the category to famous coworkers/associates, you should include Paul Ehrenfest, too.
204.119.233.210 22:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cornelius Lanczos did his PhD at the University of Budapest. Einstein was never there. Lanczos was an assistant to Einstein. The box would have to be broadened to co-workers to include this. In my opinion that is too much work. It would be better to just add a section to the article on notable co-workers. That is interesting in the case of Einstein...but totally boring in the case of a lesser known scientist. In the case of Peter Gabriel Bergmann, unfortunately Philipp Frank was his PhD advisor and not Einstein . Just because the Dover book says he was a 'student' means nothing. I am said to be a 'student of Aristotle', if I study the works of Aristotle. This box is talking about a close PhD-advisor type relationship not some general 'student' relationship. To broaden it to that would be way too wide and it would get out of control. Schlammer 13:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur, and there is another problem with trying to fairly mention notable coworkers even in the main text: to say what they were working on, which seems like a minimum requirement, would in many cases be "too technical" for this general biography.  For example Einstein and Infeld produced a wonderful result concerning Einstein's version of the unified field theory (actually, just one of its more or less similar versions), namely that true singularities in solutions to the field equations would obey particle-like geodesic laws.  Try explaining that to the general public within our space constraints! — DAGwyn 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Students of Einstein 

message: Hi, just dropped back in to tell you guys this: I had a very distinct memory of my Physics 2010 (CU Boulder 1995) describing (and answering a student question on) the use of stimulated emmission (which produces a photon from the nucleus while the introduced photon is fully accounted for) in overcoming binding energy to initiate the chain reaction in nuclear fission. So many of you said "Huh?" that I looked up my old professor to double check. He's gone from CU Physics now, so I sent an e-mail to the two others teaching 2010 nowadays (an adjunct and an associate prof) to ask them if I remembered correctly. Only one answered, Michael Dubson, and he says nope, it's not the case. So I apologize and I bow to your objections, not because you wanted it that way but because you were right! Here's what Dubson had to say on the matter:No, Einstein's work on stimulated emission had 
no direct effect on the development of the A-bomb.  Stimulated emission 
has nothing to do with the A-bomb chain reaction (which involved neutrons).
Actually, none of Einstein's work had any *direct* bearing on the 
design and development of the A-bomb. Contrary to popular opinion, the 
formula
E=mc^2  had no more influence on the design of the A-bomb than it did 
on the design of refrigerators. Einstein's influence is almost 
everywhere in modern science, but it is often indirect. Einstein's work 
laid the foundations for 20th century physics, which produced  lasers, 
transistors, and A-bombs. Einstein worked on none of these things 
directly, but all of them can all be traced back to Einstein's work.  
It is as if Einstein invented bricks, concrete, and steel.  Other 
people went on to design and build cities.
Feel free to quote me.  -cheerio, Mike
 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Otterpops (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eating my hat

message: What was Albert Einstein's middle name?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LILLYofTHEsouth (talk • contribs).
:According to an except from the official birth register printed in Jürgen Neffe's "Einstein - Eine Biographie", he had just one given name. That is in no way unusual in Germany. --Stephan Schulz 15:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Anyone Know This... 

message: One wonders about some of the huge list of "Books about Einstein".  In particular, does the Hawking & Mlodinow book really talk about Einstein as such, or is it like Hawking's other books and merely contains a different interpretation of relativity theory.  If the latter, then it doesn't belong in this list (although it may be appropriate for one of the technical articles). — DAGwyn 08:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For whatever it may be worth, that book was added here. --teb728 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The current article's "General relativity" section first of all discusses things other than general relativity, but more importantly, it doesn't seem to anywhere state that in 1915 Einstein published his theory of general relativity in essentially final form. — DAGwyn 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the missing statement the other day. — DAGwyn 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  General relativity section 

message: I've just run into this article claiming that in his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein essentially represents work already developed by Poincare, Lorenz and others as his own; that his paper of 1905 lists no references to earlier work in which the famous formula E = mc^2 appears, nor any references to prior work at all.
If someone can verify these assertions, they may be worth incorporating into the Wikipedia article.
Best regards, Duality Rules 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims of the article to which you refer and similar claims are already discussed in the Wikipedia article Relativity priority dispute. --teb728 02:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference. Regards, Duality Rules 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Poincaré did not have any problem "getting over it" because he just didn't recognize Einstein's work as that important. For him it was a clever trick to derive the Lorentz contraction from the idea of a constant velocity of the speed of light; he didn't really consider the hypothetical ramifications of that to have a lot of concrete physical meaning. And as for the ether, Poincaré found it useful but not indispensible. Galison's book on Einstein and Poincaré is essentially about the differences between the two; he argues quite coherently that it shouldn't be seen as a modern guy versus an unmodern guy, but as two different types of modern guys with two very different agendas. --140.247.249.200 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Einstein's major contribution, viewed with 20/20 hindsight, was in appreciating that the form of physical laws had to be related to symmetry, space-time invariance in the case of relativity.  This general principle has been exploited ever since, including at the foundations of QED and QCD. — DAGwyn 05:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusations and Evidence of Plagiarism