The argument that Mr. Einstein's work is credited incorrectly to him and not to her, and ignoring the arguments of plagiarism from other physicists of the day - a whole OTHER flamewar topic - is based on some documentary and some circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately the verbose paper I wrote on this, based on the research of others was written some 20-or-so years ago, so the exact facts are fuzzy to me, but the argument goes like this:
1) Letters from him to her mention "our" work, in the context of his and hers, especially preceding and during 1905, the year when "his" most important physics is published. 2) The work that earned the Nobel in Physics was all done while they were him & her. As we all know, that was for the experimental corroboration of Planck's Photoelectric Effect (the mathematical hypothesis from Planck and Einstein's experimental work = Quantam Mechanics). Indeed, all five spectacular papers that "he" wrote were in 1905. 3) After their bitter divorce, his work meanders all over the place and accomplishes nothing. One may also argue that after 1905 he doesn't accomplish anything, but that is a different horse. 4) After 1905, she goes on to continue to publish interesting Physics, although nothing as spectacular as the five pillars of modern Physics. 5) It appears based on style and grammar (and good spelling) that she actually did the writing. Was she acting as his secretary? Maybe, but she was older than he and significantly further along in her graduate work at the time. That's the crux of what I remember. Hey, at least I got an "A" from a Ph.D. who was an Einstein "Nut". _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
