Einsteins Wife - The Controversy - Essay Example

Introduction In 2003, PBS aired a documentary about Einsteins first wife, Mileva Maric, which s that Mileva was the hidden collaborator behind Einsteins theories, including the theory of relativity. The documentary made public an allegation that had circulated for years – that Maric was the real scientist in the family, and that she did not get credit because of the prejudice against women scientists. This seems rather unfair, to say the least. But is it true? The evidence put forth by this documentary, and by other historians, would suggest that it is. But a closer examination of these articles, as well as an examination of the letters of Mileva herself, would suggest that it is not. This article will examine all the evidence about this allegation and concludes that the theory that Mileva was Einsteins equal partner are, most likely, patently false, as they rely upon erroneous and incomplete information. Discussion The scholarly theory is that Mileva was Einsteins hidden collaborator on his theories. The question would become why did not get the credit that she deserved, is this is true? Rossiter (1993) might provide the answer. She writes of the “Matthew Effect,” so named for a passage in Matthew in The Bible which states that individuals may be under-recognized for their achievements. In the case of science, according to Rossiter, it is a matter of politics whether certain scientists, such as Albert Einstein, get international recognition over other scientists, such as Marian Smoluchowski, who was working on Brownian motion at the same time as Einstein. The Matthew Effect states that politics is the reason why some scientists get recognition over other scientists – these scientists have prestigious posts at universities and acolytes who are willing to extol their virtues to the public. The other scientists, who might be doing just as important work, have less prestigious posts and fewer cheerleaders for them. Because of this, these scientists struggle for recognition, even though their work may be just as important, while other scientists get all the recognition.1 Rossiter suggests that this effect particularly effects women in the field. This marginalization of women has extended to the cases of women who were married to important scientists and have not gotten recognition for their work, as the recognition has completely gone to their husbands. It is in this category, suggests Rossiter, that the case of Mileva Maric might fall.2 Troemel-Ploetz (1990) also points to the insidious practice of not according recognition to women scientists as one reason why Mileva Marics name was dropped from the history books. She also points out, as evidence that Maric was important to Einsteins work, that Einstein had originally submitted Marics name on an article about a machine which measured small electrical current, which Maric worked on with a scientist by the name of Paul Habicht. They left it to Einstein to make description of the machine for the patent office, where Einstein worked at the time. Einstein acquired a patent in the name of Einstein-Habicht. The “Einstein” in this case really meant Mileva, as the Swiss law at the time forced her to put her husbands name first, before her own. The patent was applied for in the name of Einstein-Habicht, and this made it easy for Einstein to publish articles in his name about the machine, thus taking credit for Milevas work.3 Bjerknes (2002) used similar logic in his book Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. He states that the fact that Abram Joffe, a respected physicist, recounted that Albert Einstein signed the articles regarding the theory of relativity as “Einstein-Marity” is proof that these articles were co-authored by Maric.4 Walker (1990) provides further proof that Maric and Einstein collaborated. He states that Einstein sent letters to Maric that spoke of projects that they were doing together, such as a letter that states that “I am also looking forward very much to our work. You must continue with your investigation.”5 Walker further states that the period that Einstein and Maric were together were his most productive and that, after they divorced, he did not publish anything that came close to his theories put forth during this time. He also states that Einstein by himself did not have knowledge of the Mitchelson-Morley experiment, which formed the basis for Einsteins theory of relativity, stating that only Einstein and Maric between them had this knowledge, not Einstein himself.6 It was this evidence, among other evidence, that formed the basis for the film about Einsteins wife that made its debut on PBS in October, 2003.7 While there is some evidence that Mileva did collaborate with Einstein on his important theories, including the theory of relativity, there is also evidence to the contrary. Such evidence is provided by Martinez (2005). He refutes the statement made by Dord Krstic (1991) who stated that Einstein and Maric worked side by side at the table, daily, by pointing out that, from 1900 to 1902, the two of them lived in different countries. He likewise refutes the evidence used by Bjerknes, that Abram Joffe used the name Einstein-Marity when he wrote about Einstein authoring articles written by Einstein on the theory of relativity, the photon theory of light and the theory of Brownian motion. Martinez points out that Joffe never made a claim that Einstein had signed these articles in the name Einstein-Marity, contrary to what subsequent historians claimed. Martinez also refutes the claims that Maric was an outstanding physicist in her own right, stating that the claims made otherwise were greatly exaggerated - “we know that she failed college examinations twice. She then abandoned her plan to obtain a teaching degree. We also know that she abandoned her effort to do a PhD thesis.” 8 Martinez also relies on some eyewitness account that Maric was not interested in Einsteins work - “when [Einstein] wanted to tell her, as a fellow specialist, his ideas, which overflowed from him, her reaction was so scant anf faint, that often he just did not know whether she as interested or not.”9 Pyenson (1989) offers further evidence that Einstein and Maric were not collaborators. He states that the letters that were published by Einstein to Maric were intimate letters, about love, sex and desire for certain things like positions. They also expressed emotions such as elation about finding new theories, contempt about contemporaries, and self-deprecation. Einsteins only theory expounded to Maric in these letters was that everything in life can be reduced down to two things – hunger and love.10 Therefore, these letters do not contain any indication that Maric and Einstein were working together, rather, these husbands are simply letters about everyday events in life and everyday emotions. The absence of this information suggests that Einstein was not interested in discussing his theories with her in letters, thus providing additional refutation to the theory that Mileva was his co-author. Esterson (2011) adds that the letters where Einstein refers to “our” and “we” when talking about his projects is nothing more then optimism on Einsteins part that Mileva would be a co-producer for his work, which did not actually come true.11 Perhaps most damning to the allegations that Maric was Einsteins silent partner is the book written by Milan Popovic, whose grandmother, Helene Savic, was one of Milevas closest friends and confidantes. The letters from Mileva to Helene show a portrait of a desperate and lonely woman, whose husband preferred science to spending time with her. An example of a letter to Helene is the letter in December, 1912, which was after Einstein and Marics son, Hans Albert, was born: “My big Albert has become a famous physicist who is highly esteemed by the professionals enthusing about him. He is tirelessly working on his problems; one can say that he lives only for them. I must confess with a bit of shame that we are unimportant to him and take second place.”12 Her other letters strike a similar tone, as she becomes increasingly desperate and unhappy about Einsteins lack of love and attention for her, and his increasing absence from the home, due to his tireless pursuit of science. The Maric of these letters was not the independent physicist working side by side with her husband, but, rather, of a woman who pines away from her increasingly absent husband and her despair of his lack of attention to her. Moreover, after Einstein left Maric in 1916, so that he could marry his cousin, Elsa Loewenthal, Maric became incapacitated for a period of three years, to where she literally could not get out of bed. Her condition was so serious that Helene had to take Milevas children with Helene for the summer.13 In short, these are not the letters of a strong, confident woman, but a very depressed, weak woman. It is difficult to imagine the Mileva of those letters collaborating on anything of note with Einstein. Conclusion The evidence that Mileva was Einsteins collaborator on his major theories is porous at best, and appears to be based upon incomplete or erroneous information. One bit of evidence was that Einsteins creativity was at his highest while he was with Mileva. But this is an classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc – which states that something came after, therefore must have been caused. The theory is that Einstein was creative, therefore he must have had help. But there could be any number of alternative theories for this - perhaps Einstein was creative because he was unhappy with his marriage, therefore he threw himself into his work instead of dealing with the problems at home. Perhaps, after his re-marriage, he was happy and wanted to make his wife happy, which would necessary take him away from his scientific pursuits. Further, it seems that the articles that were signed “Einstein-Marity” were not necessarily signed that way, as nobody actually saw this signature on these articles. The letters that he wrote that spoke of “our work” were possibly nothing more than wishful thinking that Maric would be his collaborator, but this did not come to fruition. In short, the evidence upon which the theory that Maric was Einsteins collaborator is specious and misleading. On the other hand, the evidence that she was not a collaborator was concrete, namely her letters to her friend Helene. These letters are not the letters of a scientist, working side by side with her husband, but, rather, a lonely woman who was constantly waiting for said husband to come home, and despaired that said husband put science in front of her needs. These letters provide concrete proof that the allegations made about Einsteins wife are probably patently false. Bibliography Bjerknes, Christopher Jon. Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist. Downers Grove: XTX, Inc. Esterson, Allen. “ Mileva Marics: Einsteins Wife” (2011), 1-3. Available at: http://www.esterson.org/einsteinwife.htm. Getler, Michael. “Einsteins Wife: The Relative Motion of Facts” PBS Ombudsman (2006), 1-9. Martinez, Alberto. “ Handling Evidence in History: the Case of Einsteins Wife” School Science Review, 86, no. 316 (2005) 49-56. Martinez, Alberto. Science Secrets: The Truth About Darwins Finches, Einsteins Wife, And Other Myths. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Popovic, Milan. In Alberts Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Maric, Einsteins First Wife. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pyenson, Lewis. “Just the Facts” History of Science Society, 80, no. 1 (1989) 129-135. Rossiter, Margaret.“The Matthew Matilda Effect in Science” Social Studies in Science, 23, no. 2 (1993), 325-341. Troemel-Ploetz, Senta. “Mileva Einstein-Maric: The Woman Who Did Einsteins Mathematics” Womens Studies International Forum, 13, no. 5 (1990), 415-432. Walker, Evan.“Mileva Marics Relativistic Role” Physics Today (1991), 122-124. Read More