Einstein (33 page)

For his part, Poincaré seems never to have fully understood Einstein’s breakthrough. Even in 1909, he was still insisting that relativity theory required a third postulate, which was that “a body in motion suffers a deformation in the direction in which it was displaced.” In fact, the contraction of rods is not, as Einstein showed, some separate hypothesis involving a real deformation, but rather the consequence of accepting Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Until his death in 1912, Poincaré never fully gave up the concept of the ether or the notion of absolute rest. Instead, he spoke of the adoption of “the principle of relativity according to Lorentz.” He never fully understood or accepted the basis of Einstein’s theory. “Poincaré stood steadfast and held to his position that in the world of perceptions there was an absoluteness of simultaneity,” notes the science historian Arthur I. Miller.
⁷²

“How happy and proud I will be when the two of us together will have brought our work on the relative motion to a conclusion!” Einstein had written his lover Mileva Mari
back in 1901.
⁷³
Now it had been brought to that conclusion, and Einstein was so exhausted when he finished a draft in June that “his body buckled and he went to bed for two weeks,” while Mari
“checked the article again and again.”
⁷⁴

Then they did something unusual: they celebrated together. As soon as he finished all four of the papers that he had promised in his memorable letter to Conrad Habicht, he sent his old colleague from the Olympia Academy another missive, this one a postcard signed by his wife as well. It read in full: “Both of us, alas, dead drunk under the table.”
⁷⁵

All of which raises a question more subtle and contentious than that posed by the influences of Lorentz and Poincaré: What was Mileva Mari
’s role?

That August, they took a vacation together in Serbia to see her friends and family. While there, Mari
was proud and also willing to accept part of the credit. “Not long ago we finished a very significant work that will make my husband world famous,” she told her father, according to stories later recorded there. Their relationship seemed restored, for the time being, and Einstein happily praised his wife’s help. “I need my wife,” he told her friends in Serbia.“She solves all the mathematical problems for me.”
⁷⁶

Some have contended that Mari
was a full-fledged collaborator, and there was even a report, later discredited,
⁷⁷
that an early draft version of his relativity paper had her name on it as well. At a 1990 conference in New Orleans, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a panel on the issue at which Evan Walker, a physicist and cancer researcher from Maryland, debated John Stachel, the leader of the Einstein Papers Project. Walker presented the various letters referring to “our work,” and Stachel replied that such phrases were clearly romantic politeness and that there was “no evidence at all that she contributed any ideas of her own.”

The controversy, understandably, fascinated both scientists and the press. Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote a wry commentary in the
Boston Globe,
in which she judiciously laid out the evidence, and the
Economist
did a story headlined “The Relative Importance of Mrs. Einstein.” Another conference followed in 1994 at the University of Novi Sad, where organizer Professor Rastko Magli
contended that it was time “to emphasize Mileva’s merit in order to ensure a deserved place in the history of science for her.” The public discussion culminated with a PBS documentary,
Einstein’s Wife,
in 2003, that was generally balanced, although it gave unwarranted credence to the report that her name had been on the original manuscript.
⁷⁸

From all the evidence, Mari
was a sounding board, though not as important in that role as Besso. She also helped check his math, although there is no evidence that she came up with any of the mathematical concepts. In addition, she encouraged him and (what at times was more difficult) put up with him.

For both the sake of colorful history and the emotional resonance it would have, it would be fun if we could go even further than this. But
instead, we must follow the less exciting course of being confined to the evidence. None of their many letters, to each other or to friends, mentions a single instance of an idea or creative concept relating to relativity that came from Mari
.

Nor did she ever—even to her family and close friends while in the throes of their bitter divorce—claim to have made any substantive contributions to Einstein’s theories. Her son Hans Albert, who remained devoted to her and lived with her during the divorce, gave his own version that was reflected in a book by Peter Michelmore, and it seems to reflect what Mari
told her son: “Mileva helped him solve certain mathematical problems, but no one could assist with the creative work, the flow of ideas.”
⁷⁹

There is, in fact, no need to exaggerate Mari
’s contributions in order to admire, honor, and sympathize with her as a pioneer. To give her credit beyond what she ever claimed, says the science historian Gerald Holton, “only detracts both from her real and significant place in history and from the tragic unfulfillment of her early hopes and promise.”