History Incidents in the history of SR

  • Thread starter Thread starter tade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    History Sr
AI Thread Summary
Einstein's 1905 papers, including "Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt," lacked citations, which is unusual compared to modern academic standards. This absence may be attributed to the well-known nature of the theories he discussed, making citations seem unnecessary. In his subsequent papers, he referenced established theories and acknowledged contributions from colleagues, indicating a familiarity with existing knowledge in the physics community. Additionally, Einstein willed part of his Nobel Prize money to his ex-wife, Mileva Maric, as part of their divorce settlement, which was not unexpected given his eventual recognition as a Nobel laureate.
tade
Messages
720
Reaction score
26
I'm curious about two things. Why did Einstein's 1905 paper contain no citations? Nowadays most papers have one or two pages full of citations, I don't know about back then but he must have had a few.

Secondly, Einstein willed some of his Nobel money to his wife Maric. But that was a year or two before he received the prize. Somewhat strange.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
In his paper, "Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt", der Physik 17 (6): 132–148, Einstein cited Planck, Lenard and Stark.

In his third ("Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper", Annalen der Physik 17 (10): 891–921.) and fourth ( "Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?", Annalen der Physik 18 (13): 639–641.) papers of 1905, Einstein refers to the Maxwell-Hertz equations, and in the third refers to Lorentz's theory of electrodynamics. Perhaps since the equations were so well known to the readers, it is not necessary to provide a citation. Otherwise, the work is radically new, original and unprecedented, and there is no additional references.

Also in the third paper, Einstein acknowledges help and contribution from a colleague, M. Besso, although the specifics are not mentioned.
 
I guess Lorentz's theories must've been pretty well-known for Einstein to mention but not cite it.

Or maybe he just forgot. :blushing:
 
tade said:
I'm curious about two things. Why did Einstein's 1905 paper contain no citations? Nowadays most papers have one or two pages full of citations, I don't know about back then but he must have had a few.

Secondly, Einstein willed some of his Nobel money to his wife Maric. But that was a year or two before he received the prize. Somewhat strange.

No citations. You'd have to ask him why. Everything he discussed was pretty well known, so I guess he felt they were unnecessary.

Einstein had two children and divorced. Part of the settlement was that his wife would get the Nobel money. It was no surprise when he was awarded it.
 
ImaLooser said:
No citations. You'd have to ask him why. Everything he discussed was pretty well known, so I guess he felt they were unnecessary.

Yeah, I mentioned that in the previous post.


ImaLooser said:
Einstein had two children and divorced. Part of the settlement was that his wife would get the Nobel money. It was no surprise when he was awarded it.

No surprise when he was awarded.

But he managed to predict when quite accurately. 'twas probably a close-knit phys community at that time.
 
There is a neighboring thread Cover songs versus the original track, which ones are better? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cover-songs-versus-the-original-track-which-ones-are-better.1050205/ which is an endless subject and as colorful are the posts there. I came across a Buddy Holly cover by Eva Cassidy only to find out that the Buddy Holly song was already a Paul Anka cover. Anyway, both artists who had covered the song have passed far too early in their lives. That gave me the...
The piece came-up from the "Lame Jokes" section of the forum. Someobody carried a step from one of the posts and I became curious and tried a brief web search. A web page gives some justification of sorts why we can use goose(s)-geese(p), but not moose(s)-meese(p). Look for the part of the page headed with "Why isn't "meese" the correct plural?" https://languagetool.org/insights/post/plural-of-moose/
Back
Top