![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009, and June 30, 2010. |
How about the links between Henri Poincaré's work and special relativity? David.Monniaux 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)
Also, Poincare's book Science and Hypothesis mentions all three topics as open problems. I've read that Einstein was inspired by that book (though admittedly the book is written for a popular audience, and does not have deep scientific content suitable for referencing in a scientific article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscitizenjason ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few". According to Jürgen Neffe: Einstein (2005), ISBN 3498046853, the role of his friend and colleague Michele Besso has to be considered very important; Einstein and Besso talking through the problems on their daily walk to work and back again. Also Besso was one of the first to be informed when Einstein finally had found the clue to these problems. Shouldn't he be mentioned? Alpine-helmut 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the text that I did for a simple reason: It is fine to reference the controversy about Mileva's role in the creation of the 1905 papers. However, the removed text rules on aspects of that controversy, and that violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. -- EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
I was wondering why Mileva didn't publish separately and independently after she and her husband parted. If she had the abilities that are attributed to her, she could have easily demonstrated them. Lestrade 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I have restored the article so that the contested paragraph is of my last version. Here are my reasons:
I understand that 204.56.7.1 is quite passionate about this. That in and of itself should be a warning here, along with this editor wishing to remain anonymous. About the only thing more egregious is an editor promoting their own work here.
I am not interested in an edit war here. However, any treatment of this question must be brief and balanced. Perhaps an article on the controversy itself may be in order? I invite "anon" to start one, just as long as it is realized that others will cover the other side of the issue there, in accord with the NPOV. -- EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
I endorse EMS's views William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:15:01 (UTC).
William, why do you insist on phrasing the sentence saying her influence is both highly controversial and a debated question? If a subject is controversial, it implies debate. In this instance, I hardly think the subject is "highly controversial", rarely is it ever even mentioned. -- D. Estenson II 14:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I restored the words "is a debated question", replacing "is uncertain". There seems to be some active debate and question in this regard, as shown by the footnotes. William's wording so watered down the sense of controversy that it seemed to me to be trying to sweep the issue "under the rug".
The Mileva issue, as best I can tell, is a legitimate question. I myself don't care that much about it either, but in my mind the issue now is "either you do or you don't". Either it gets mentioned and is treated appropriately, or it is dropped completely from this article. Since it seems legit and of current scolarly interest, I feel obliged to support the cuurent status quo. -- EMS | Talk 21:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Is this a recent term, invented near the 100 year anniversary? Or earlier? E4mmacro 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
When I read this I had firmly in my mind that there were 5 papers in 1905, not 4. Checking out the AIP website Einstein Chronology for 1905 seemed to confirm this. 6 submissions in 1905, one of which is his doctorial dissertation which is still referred to as a paper, and one of which is not published until February 1906 - so I make that five papers published in 1905, not four. Zebedee1971 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't read well. Papers doesn't get Nobel Prizes, and you don't "win" them. I think the section should be removed. The introduction already makes it clear that the papers where important. Zarniwoot 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"changed Man's view on space and time"? I guess everything is relative, even where gender is concerned?
I have added an improve tag to this article. The content is largely fine, but the writing style is very rough. Michaelbusch 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm substantially opposed to this idea. This article is on the various papers, not one in particular. If one is merged, all should be, and I don't believe that to be a good idea. If anything should be done, the article on Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen should be improved upon, and if any other related articles are stubs, improve those as well. Tiny.ian 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Was not his often quoted doctoral dissertation on "A new determination of molecular dimensions" also published in 1905? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zginder ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
The link to "Relativity - How to explain Einstein's theory? " seems inappropriate here. If you follow the link it is mostly about General Relativity - bowling balls dropped on mattresses, etc. I'll let someone closer to the editing of this page make any change thought necessary.
I understand that the year 1905 is remembered for Einstein's revolutionary contributions he made to physics that year. Despite the fact that his doctoral dissertation was published in the Annalen der Physik in 1906, he completed it on April 30, 1905 and submitted it to the University of Zurich who accepted it in August 1905. The Annalen der Physik received a copy of the dissertation the same month, in 1905. I therefore consider that it belongs to these annus mirabilis papers and there should be a section describing this Ph. D. thesis since it is as important as the 4 other papers that were published in the Annalen der Physik. Jean Fex ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Even in the biography written by Walter Isaacson, the title of the section is ′Doctoral Dissertation on the Size of Molecules,
April 1905′, and there is a line which says - ′...he was working on, titled “A New
Determination of Molecular Dimensions,” which he completed on April 30
and submitted to the University of Zurich in July...′, which is referenced from ′Completed Apr. 30, 1905, submitted to the University of Zurich on July 20, 1905, submitted to Annalen der Physik in revised form on Aug. 19, 1905, and published by Annalen der Physik Jan.1906. See Norton 2006c and www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_stat_1905/′. I think the Doctoral Dissertation should be mentioned in Annus Mirabillis Wikipedia article as well as Albert Einstein's Wikipedia Article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rakaar (
talk •
contribs) 10:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC) (
Rakaar (
talk)
06:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
I have removed the citation needed tag for the sentence "Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few." This is correct, no citation necessary. While Einstein had colleagues with whom he could discuss general principles of phyics in 1905, he had no one to discuss the real meat of his own theories, as no one else in his circle in Bern understood them, Mileva included. Even after he published the annus mirabilis papers, the reaction in the European physics community was either dismissal or puzzlement, and it wasn't until Max Planck summoned Einstein to meet that he received validation, and was able to discuss his ideas with someone who could grasp them. PJtP ( talk) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a personal observation, though it is one anyone else can verify. If you go into a large, university library and look at the old, dusty bound journal volumes of Annalen der Physik, one always stands out. Volume 17, 1905, is always cleaner, brighter, and newer-looking than the ones around it. And with good reason. Apparently in most libraries, given the content of that volume, it is often stolen by Einstein "fans." The libraries keep having to order new copies. I suspect that volume has been reprinted more than any other single volume of the journal, because of these articles. Bigmac31 ( talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the current version:
The Nobel committee had waited patiently for experimental confirmation of special relativity; however none was forthcoming until the time dilation experiments of Ives and Stilwell (1938) [1], (1941) [2] and Rossi and Hall (1941). [3]
References
Schafly has questioned the accuracy of this and I tend to agree. I've read that he didn't win the Nobel for SR because of the conflicting opinions about priority. Also, it seems inconsistent with the fact that Einstein's theory is experimentally indistinguishable from Lorentz's or Poincaré's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinality ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"The theory, now called the special theory of relativity, distinguishes it from his later general theory of relativity, which considers all observers to be equivalent." ??
This sentence makes no sense. The theory distinguishes WHAT???
Perhaps "is distinguished from" is meant, I don't know. What I DO know is that GR does NOT consider "all observers to be equivalent"!! (all inertial observers, sure. The same Laws of Physics apply to any frame of reference (whether inertial, accelerating, or in a gravitational field), sure; but all observers are NOT equivalent (pseudo-forces).) So, this sentence not only suffers from grammatical issues, but fails in describing GR correctly.
173.189.74.162 (
talk)
20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that "Annus Mirabilis" means "wonderful year", I would like to know why this article is titled "Annus Mirabilis papers" and not something like "Annus Mirabilis 1905" or "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis" since it is for the revolutionary contribution Einstein made to physics in 1905. Jean Fex ( talk) 19:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the title of this article capitalizes both Annus and Mirabilis while the first sentence capitalizes Annus but not mirabilits, and the last sentence of the introductory paragraph capitalizes neither word. This should be cleared up.
Since neither word is capitalized in Latin, I see no reason to capitalize either one in English. Maybe in German, "Annus" would be capitalized as a noun but there's no reason to do so in English.
Thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is worthy of being included in the actual article, but i would've liked to be able to see something like:
I'm just going to leave it here, in case anyone else would similarly enjoy a quick overview. -- 86.121.67.127 ( talk) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There's always a judgement call in which words to hyperlink in an article, but as a general rule less is more, because linked words make sentences harder to read and to understand. In particular, WP:Overlinking says not to link "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". A judgement call here is whether to link "time" which is a very common and easily understood word, in the introductory sentence talking about space, time, energy and mass. I unlinked it, but I think thats a very close call. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I've always seen the Wuderjahr
refer to 5 papers, not just four, and the University of Zurich dissertation A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions
is arguably more important than Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?
. The dissertation was significant in advancing the atomic theory of matter, while was basically a throwaway; der Alte had already done all the heavy lifting in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 30, 2007, June 30, 2008, June 30, 2009, and June 30, 2010. |
How about the links between Henri Poincaré's work and special relativity? David.Monniaux 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)
Also, Poincare's book Science and Hypothesis mentions all three topics as open problems. I've read that Einstein was inspired by that book (though admittedly the book is written for a popular audience, and does not have deep scientific content suitable for referencing in a scientific article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uscitizenjason ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few". According to Jürgen Neffe: Einstein (2005), ISBN 3498046853, the role of his friend and colleague Michele Besso has to be considered very important; Einstein and Besso talking through the problems on their daily walk to work and back again. Also Besso was one of the first to be informed when Einstein finally had found the clue to these problems. Shouldn't he be mentioned? Alpine-helmut 10:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the text that I did for a simple reason: It is fine to reference the controversy about Mileva's role in the creation of the 1905 papers. However, the removed text rules on aspects of that controversy, and that violates the Wikipedia NPOV policy. -- EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)
I was wondering why Mileva didn't publish separately and independently after she and her husband parted. If she had the abilities that are attributed to her, she could have easily demonstrated them. Lestrade 16:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
I have restored the article so that the contested paragraph is of my last version. Here are my reasons:
I understand that 204.56.7.1 is quite passionate about this. That in and of itself should be a warning here, along with this editor wishing to remain anonymous. About the only thing more egregious is an editor promoting their own work here.
I am not interested in an edit war here. However, any treatment of this question must be brief and balanced. Perhaps an article on the controversy itself may be in order? I invite "anon" to start one, just as long as it is realized that others will cover the other side of the issue there, in accord with the NPOV. -- EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
I endorse EMS's views William M. Connolley 2005-07-06 22:15:01 (UTC).
William, why do you insist on phrasing the sentence saying her influence is both highly controversial and a debated question? If a subject is controversial, it implies debate. In this instance, I hardly think the subject is "highly controversial", rarely is it ever even mentioned. -- D. Estenson II 14:16, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I restored the words "is a debated question", replacing "is uncertain". There seems to be some active debate and question in this regard, as shown by the footnotes. William's wording so watered down the sense of controversy that it seemed to me to be trying to sweep the issue "under the rug".
The Mileva issue, as best I can tell, is a legitimate question. I myself don't care that much about it either, but in my mind the issue now is "either you do or you don't". Either it gets mentioned and is treated appropriately, or it is dropped completely from this article. Since it seems legit and of current scolarly interest, I feel obliged to support the cuurent status quo. -- EMS | Talk 21:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Is this a recent term, invented near the 100 year anniversary? Or earlier? E4mmacro 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
When I read this I had firmly in my mind that there were 5 papers in 1905, not 4. Checking out the AIP website Einstein Chronology for 1905 seemed to confirm this. 6 submissions in 1905, one of which is his doctorial dissertation which is still referred to as a paper, and one of which is not published until February 1906 - so I make that five papers published in 1905, not four. Zebedee1971 10:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't read well. Papers doesn't get Nobel Prizes, and you don't "win" them. I think the section should be removed. The introduction already makes it clear that the papers where important. Zarniwoot 01:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"changed Man's view on space and time"? I guess everything is relative, even where gender is concerned?
I have added an improve tag to this article. The content is largely fine, but the writing style is very rough. Michaelbusch 16:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm substantially opposed to this idea. This article is on the various papers, not one in particular. If one is merged, all should be, and I don't believe that to be a good idea. If anything should be done, the article on Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen should be improved upon, and if any other related articles are stubs, improve those as well. Tiny.ian 17:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Was not his often quoted doctoral dissertation on "A new determination of molecular dimensions" also published in 1905? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zginder ( talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
The link to "Relativity - How to explain Einstein's theory? " seems inappropriate here. If you follow the link it is mostly about General Relativity - bowling balls dropped on mattresses, etc. I'll let someone closer to the editing of this page make any change thought necessary.
I understand that the year 1905 is remembered for Einstein's revolutionary contributions he made to physics that year. Despite the fact that his doctoral dissertation was published in the Annalen der Physik in 1906, he completed it on April 30, 1905 and submitted it to the University of Zurich who accepted it in August 1905. The Annalen der Physik received a copy of the dissertation the same month, in 1905. I therefore consider that it belongs to these annus mirabilis papers and there should be a section describing this Ph. D. thesis since it is as important as the 4 other papers that were published in the Annalen der Physik. Jean Fex ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Even in the biography written by Walter Isaacson, the title of the section is ′Doctoral Dissertation on the Size of Molecules,
April 1905′, and there is a line which says - ′...he was working on, titled “A New
Determination of Molecular Dimensions,” which he completed on April 30
and submitted to the University of Zurich in July...′, which is referenced from ′Completed Apr. 30, 1905, submitted to the University of Zurich on July 20, 1905, submitted to Annalen der Physik in revised form on Aug. 19, 1905, and published by Annalen der Physik Jan.1906. See Norton 2006c and www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_stat_1905/′. I think the Doctoral Dissertation should be mentioned in Annus Mirabillis Wikipedia article as well as Albert Einstein's Wikipedia Article. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rakaar (
talk •
contribs) 10:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC) (
Rakaar (
talk)
06:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC))
I have removed the citation needed tag for the sentence "Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few." This is correct, no citation necessary. While Einstein had colleagues with whom he could discuss general principles of phyics in 1905, he had no one to discuss the real meat of his own theories, as no one else in his circle in Bern understood them, Mileva included. Even after he published the annus mirabilis papers, the reaction in the European physics community was either dismissal or puzzlement, and it wasn't until Max Planck summoned Einstein to meet that he received validation, and was able to discuss his ideas with someone who could grasp them. PJtP ( talk) 15:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I am thinking of adding a personal observation, though it is one anyone else can verify. If you go into a large, university library and look at the old, dusty bound journal volumes of Annalen der Physik, one always stands out. Volume 17, 1905, is always cleaner, brighter, and newer-looking than the ones around it. And with good reason. Apparently in most libraries, given the content of that volume, it is often stolen by Einstein "fans." The libraries keep having to order new copies. I suspect that volume has been reprinted more than any other single volume of the journal, because of these articles. Bigmac31 ( talk) 21:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the current version:
The Nobel committee had waited patiently for experimental confirmation of special relativity; however none was forthcoming until the time dilation experiments of Ives and Stilwell (1938) [1], (1941) [2] and Rossi and Hall (1941). [3]
References
Schafly has questioned the accuracy of this and I tend to agree. I've read that he didn't win the Nobel for SR because of the conflicting opinions about priority. Also, it seems inconsistent with the fact that Einstein's theory is experimentally indistinguishable from Lorentz's or Poincaré's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinality ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"The theory, now called the special theory of relativity, distinguishes it from his later general theory of relativity, which considers all observers to be equivalent." ??
This sentence makes no sense. The theory distinguishes WHAT???
Perhaps "is distinguished from" is meant, I don't know. What I DO know is that GR does NOT consider "all observers to be equivalent"!! (all inertial observers, sure. The same Laws of Physics apply to any frame of reference (whether inertial, accelerating, or in a gravitational field), sure; but all observers are NOT equivalent (pseudo-forces).) So, this sentence not only suffers from grammatical issues, but fails in describing GR correctly.
173.189.74.162 (
talk)
20:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that "Annus Mirabilis" means "wonderful year", I would like to know why this article is titled "Annus Mirabilis papers" and not something like "Annus Mirabilis 1905" or "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis" since it is for the revolutionary contribution Einstein made to physics in 1905. Jean Fex ( talk) 19:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
As it currently stands, the title of this article capitalizes both Annus and Mirabilis while the first sentence capitalizes Annus but not mirabilits, and the last sentence of the introductory paragraph capitalizes neither word. This should be cleared up.
Since neither word is capitalized in Latin, I see no reason to capitalize either one in English. Maybe in German, "Annus" would be capitalized as a noun but there's no reason to do so in English.
Thoughts? - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 19:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is worthy of being included in the actual article, but i would've liked to be able to see something like:
I'm just going to leave it here, in case anyone else would similarly enjoy a quick overview. -- 86.121.67.127 ( talk) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
There's always a judgement call in which words to hyperlink in an article, but as a general rule less is more, because linked words make sentences harder to read and to understand. In particular, WP:Overlinking says not to link "Everyday words understood by most readers in context". A judgement call here is whether to link "time" which is a very common and easily understood word, in the introductory sentence talking about space, time, energy and mass. I unlinked it, but I think thats a very close call. - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 14:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I've always seen the Wuderjahr
refer to 5 papers, not just four, and the University of Zurich dissertation A New Determination of Molecular Dimensions
is arguably more important than Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on its Energy Content?
. The dissertation was significant in advancing the atomic theory of matter, while was basically a throwaway; der Alte had already done all the heavy lifting in On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies
. --
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (
talk)
00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)