Talk:Annus Mirabilis papers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Poincaré[edit]

How about the links between Henri Poincaré's work and special relativity? David.Monniaux 30 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Poincaré anticipated SR, and was working on it at about the same time as Einstein. However, Einstein was unaware of Poincaré's work and published first. It is interesting to note that Einstein's paper was at first dismissed because most scientists wanted to see what Poincaré came up with. When Poincaré finally published several months later, he had devised the full set of coordinate tranformations for SR (which is now called the Poincaré group), but otherwise did little more than reiterate what Einstein had already published. So Poincaré's findings were a major coup for Einstein, and helped to validate SR.
As for mentioning all that in this article: I do not see much need. This is about Einstein's miraculous year. Let Einstein and his achievements be the focus here. If you want that role discussed, I would suggest covering it in the history of special relativity page, which currently fails to describe how SR came to be accepted over time, and is therefore in need of editting to cover that. --EMS | Talk 1 July 2005 04:20 (UTC)
Hmm didn't see this before I corrected and expanded some comments about FitzGerald. Well someone else can delete it. And does anyone know this reference to Lorentz 1903, said to contain the Lorentz transformations? There could be one, since Lorentz first wrote the LT in 1899 (with an undetermined pre-multiplier on the RHS) but the final form Lorentz wrote was in 1904, not 1903, as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E4mmacro (talkcontribs) 00:32, 15 February 2006 (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 (talkcontribs) 15:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Michele Besso[edit]

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)

Mileva's role[edit]

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)

The PBS website and the book (an almanac on Einsteins's life) both discuss the so-called "controversy". The info is asserting the facts, with sources (eg., reputable scholars argue). Go get the book, it clearly states Mileva's role was suggesting improvements, proofreading the papers, and indicating if there were inconsistencies. If ppl did that today, they would get credit for authorship. -Anon [204...]
Anon, please sign your edits (note to other editors: 204... has hundreds of edits, and is not a newbie, she's just impolite). Then everyone will know you're the same on pushing your tesla-philia at Nikola Tesla and subpages. Puffing up Mrics roles doesn't help either. Asserting that marginal sources trump all other refs doesn't make sense. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 16:19:43 (UTC).
WMC, I'll sign with Anon.
Go focus on the greenhouse pages as you have no idea about history.
Marics role is a fact and asserting the accepted sources lends to this. The Almanac references is a 2005 publication (brand new!); older sources would not have this (as it has been a left out historically).
-Anon (PS., having so-callled tesla-philia is the same as holding the views of Lord Kelvin [contributed more to electrical science than any man up to his time], Ernest Rutherford [all scientific men will be delighted to extend their warmest congratulations to Tesla and to express their appreciation of his great contributions to science], and Arthur Compton [Tesla is entitled to the enduring gratitude of mankind] (among others) then that's ok, I'd rather be that than a erronous debunker.)
If you want to be deliberately impolite, you can. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 19:35:14 (UTC).
I seem to know it rather better than you.
Maric role is pure speculation. You seem to be boosting her because of some vague connectin to Tesla. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 19:35:14 (UTC).
I'm not being impolite, it's perfectly acceptable to edit wikipedia as an anonomous user.
You do know about ecological topics (don't doubt that; your edits there seem respectable), but your logic and histrocal knowledge of science (in particular physics) is lacking (to say the least).
Maric role is NOT speculation. Read a bit, you might learn something. Goto your nearest library and see it they have the "Einstein almanac (2005). Some authors state that Maric was important to his work (like doing the math for him). I am stating facts, unlike your actions which are not malice nor ignorance, just stupidity (because you are ignoring facts). -Anon
Those tasks don't generally earn authorship (you should see the input some reviewers make into papers, often without even being thanked as "and two anonymous reviewers" in the acknowledgements). Authorship is supposed to go for "substantial contributions". Granted, it sometimes goes for political purposes, but generally reading a paper and suggesting improvements/pointing out inconsistencies does not earn one authorship. If it did I'd have another dozen pubs to my name by now :) Guettarda 5 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
"substantial contributions"? A large degree of Einstein's work was done with Mileva input, she made improvements and made efforts in the common endeavor. He may have drove it, but she helped accomplish it. Einstein stated that it was their work on relativity. She just didn't get the credit in the end (as is commmon, women in history have historically been left out of acknowledgements in progess (with a few exceptions)).
-Anon (PS., just to note: Einstein didn't like the statistical work, so she did the math for him; that's pretty substantial)
Hey, I was just going by what you said. Guettarda 5 July 2005 20:02 (UTC)
She did the math for him. -Anon
Maybe. It is not impossible that this is so. However, it is not well documented that this is the case. That is the reason for my stand on this issue. --EMS | Talk 5 July 2005 23:19 (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

Mileva (again)[edit]

I have restored the article so that the contested paragraph is of my last version. Here are my reasons:

  1. I do want this controversy mentioned. I find William Connelly's outright removal of all reference from the background section to be inappropriate. However
  2. I do not consider it to be a fact the Mileva actively helped Albert with the papers. Certainly his only acknowledgement being of his colleauge M. Besso in the SR paper argues against her having a substantial role there. I would also point out to the Mileva-philes that the footnote to the PBS show "Einstein's Wife" is preserved. I repeat what I wrote above: The added text that myself and William dislike rules on aspects of this controversy. The sentence about the papers being effectively co-authored by both of them is especially egregious in terms of the NPOV.

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)


The controversy should be mentioned.
It is a fact the Mileva actively helped (the degree is more of the question; should it be enough for authorship credit? [as discussed above]).
I just want the information to be known (because of credible sources and various reference to it in reputable works on Einstein). It should not be dismissed outright, as some would like to do.
As to an editor wishing to remain anonymous, that is perfectly acceptable to wikipedia policies (eg. "You don't have to log in even to edit articles on Wikipedia"); it may be nice, but not necessary. Also, I am not an author promoting a work here or have any connection to the publishing industry. I'll add reputable and credible sources, books, articles, and journals from wherever.
An article on the controversy itself may be helpful, but then it could be a flamewar/editwar waiting to happen. Something to ponder, though, thanks.
-Anon
I am on your side to the extent that I agree that the controversy should be mentioned and not dismissed or swept under the rug. However, I draw that line in this article at its being mentioned. It may be quite likely that Mileva helped Albert with these papers, but as you note above the extent of that aid is unknown. Also do be advised that were it not for the credible sources that you cite I would not consider this worth mentioning.
In any case, I stand by the view that this controversy cannot be ruled on in a Wikipedia article.
I don't see that an article on the controversy has to be a flame war. However, not having it be a war means that both sides respect the other side. You will present your side in that article, followed by the refuting arguments of the other side. Note that there are rules that need to be followed:
  1. The write-up cannot state as a fact the Mileva either helped Albert or that she did not. Instead it must make statements "source X indicates that ...".
  2. The write-up cannot pre-judge an argument. "It is obvious that ..." is not acceptable. Instead "This indicates that ..." is better.
  3. The initial draft should mention the obvious counter-arguments. You do not need for these to be complete or forceful since it is not your job to fight for the other side. Instead it is your job to be fair to the readers until the other side has had a fair chance to flesh that part of the article out.
  4. Be willing to discuss issues of format and content with the other side in the talk page.
  5. Finally, please do announce the new page here as well as placing a link to it in the background section of this article. That way people can go to it to get a better understanding of the controversy, and of course the other side can add in their two-cents on it.
Note that what I am proposing is a soapbox for both you and the other side. You can present the totality of the evidence there, and the other side can present its counter-arguments. Since the scope of the proposed article is the controversy itself, the flame war should be avoidable since everyone gets their say. By contrast, this article is where the flame war has been fought because both sides are fighting for the limited bandwidth found here.
Do be aware that I am not planning to moderate the "Did Mileva Marić help write Albert Einstein's articles?" article. That is not where my interest lies.
I have nothing against your being anonymous per se, but what you seem to achieve at times is to have an entire library banned from being a source of anonymous Wikipedia edits. It would be fair to others if the one being disciplined when needed is yourself and not others. Besides, you don't need to place your life history or even your name into your user space once you have an account. Think of it as your "handle". At the least, it is a better way of being identified than by a string of 4 numbers. [Suggestion: "Anon" or "Anonymous" or "Anon42" (If Anon is taken) as your ID.] --EMS | Talk 6 July 2005 21:10 (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 endorse toning the editted sentense down (to just saying that this "is a debated question"). As long as the controversy is mentioned and the footnotes relating to it are preserved, I will consider the subject to be appropriately covered. I too do not see this as being "highly controversial", but rather an almost secondary issue related to the development of these marvelous papers. --EMS | Talk 14:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
OK... my basic attitude is that Mileva is over-mentioned. Any influence she might have is entirely speculative, and barely deserved space on the page. I think that Einstein's wife during that time, was also an intellectual partner, goes too far. Partner rather implies equality, or close to it. There's no evidence for that. However, DEII's point, that it hardly counts as highly controversial since its rarely mentioned, is about in agreement with what I think, so I've rephrased it yet again to may have had some influence on Einstein's work but how much is uncertain. William M. Connolley 20:11:09, 2005-07-14 (UTC).
Sounds good. --D. Estenson II 20:47, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Restored some wording[edit]

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)

When did the term "Annus Mirabilis" first appear?[edit]

Is this a recent term, invented near the 100 year anniversary? Or earlier? E4mmacro 00:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at at this. It's a list of references, many dated before 2005. It seems that it was before the 100th anniversary. Tiny.ian 17:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Were there not five publications in 1905?[edit]

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)

  • His doctoral dissertation wasn't published until 1906. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-3 11:00
  • Current link is now this one. For clearness, i would like to mention that it does (now and did then) mention that both doctoral papers were published in 1906, even though the earlier one was "approved unanimously" on July 27, 1905. -- 86.121.67.127 (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Papers[edit]

Three of those papers (on Brownian motion, the photoelectric effect, and special relativity) deserved Nobel Prizes according to some physicists[citation needed]. Only the paper on the photoelectric effect would win one.

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)

  • It's commonly said that he received the prize for all of his contributions, but they only specified the photoelectric effect. They may have wanted to avoid giving out multiple prizes to the same person. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-04-5 01:53

"changed Man's view on space and time"[edit]

"changed Man's view on space and time"? I guess everything is relative, even where gender is concerned?

I'm gonna change this mankind's or humankind's to "the world's". Anyone object? Tiny.ian 17:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Improve tag[edit]

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 agree. If anything, the fact that the quotes and referencing of these papers being past tense should be a tip off enough. Tiny.ian 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've gone through much of the text, basically only correcting tenses. (I might have misspelled some words) Someone else, please go through it and correct anything I may have missed. I'd like to see some sources, but dont have time to look for them. Tiny.ian 21:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC) Ian

Merging brownian motion[edit]

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)

  • Support Merge - That article says less on the topic than this article does. Unless a good article can be written on the topic, I see only dusplication in its existance. I also ask the question of "Is it reasonable to expect someone to come to Wikipedia seeking information on that topic"? I can't see that for the article itself, but do see it for a number of related articles. A secondary question is whether someone who came to a related article would be interested in an srticle on that topic, and for that my answer is "Yes, but only for a longer article". --EMS | Talk 17:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctoral dissertation[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

"I therefore consider" WP:OR. Are there reliable sources grouping his dissertation with the other papers? Paradoctor (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes. Here are some references to support this: - The book (in the bibliography) "Einstein's Miraculous Year" by John Stachel with a foreword by Roger Penrose; - The article "The Year Of Albert Einstein" in the Smithsonian Magazine; - The Library of Congress Science Ref. Guide, The Annus Mirabilis of Albert Einstein : [1]; - And a poster in Einstein's House museum in Bern Jean Fex (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The poster is not a reliable source, IMHO. Not a publication in the sense of WP:IRS, and author is unknown anyway.
The LoC page talks of "four important papers, plus his dissertation", doesn't list the dissertation among "The 1905 papers". Reliability WRT the reception of the dissertation is also at issue here.
The Smithsonian article merely claims that the dissertation is a mirabilis paper, at the same time leaving out mass-energy equivalence, which puts doubt on the author's expertise.
The Stachel book looks good to me. Seeing as it makes up half of the bibliography for the article, I say the dissertation should at least be mentioned. Generally speaking, the article does not have enough sources on the reception of these papers. There must be lots more. IIRC, the Fölsing Einstein biography should contain something of value here. Paradoctor (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The Smithsonian article includes the mass-energy equivalence article which is mentioned in the first paragraph: "Einstein pointed out in a fifth paper that matter and energy can be interchangeable at the atomic level...".
Here's another reference from Cornell University of including the dissertation with the four other papers: Einstein: His Annus Mirabilis 1905.
And reference: 11 how-general-relativity-changed-our-universe used for the Annus mirabilis # 1905 – Albert Einstein article section.
I will find a way to mention the dissertation in this article. Jean Fex (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Removing citation needed[edit]

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)

Yet, despite " truthiness ", wikipedia requires[see 1] WP:Verifiability... -- 86.121.67.127 (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
---
  1. ^ And this requirement has been in place since December 2004.

Shiny new journal volume[edit]

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)


Why didn't Einstein get Nobel for SR?[edit]

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

  1. ^ Ives, Herbert E.; Stilwell, G. R. (1938). "An experimental study of the rate of a moving clock". Journal of the Optical Society of America. 28: 215–226. doi:10.1364/JOSA.28.000215.
  2. ^ Ives, Herbert E.; Stilwell, G. R. (1941). "An experimental study of the rate of a moving clock II". Journal of the Optical Society of America. 31: 359–374.
  3. ^ Rossi, Bruno; Hall, David B. (February 1, 1941). "Variation of the Rate of Decay of Mesotrons with Momentum". Physical Review. 59 (3): 223–228. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.59.223. Retrieved 2006-10-01.

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 (talkcontribs) 22:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I have heard several theories. Some say that the Nobel committee did not want to give a prize for pure theory; some say that there was a priority dispute; some say that they did not believe relativity; there may be other theories as well. There is certainly no consensus that the committee was waiting patiently for time dilation experiments, and I very much doubt it. Roger (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The method for resolving this question about content is clear under Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines: Report what the reliable sources say about why Einstein didn't get a Nobel for SR (or, alternatively, why he did get the Nobel for the photoelectric effect only). If the reliable sources differ, give proportionate weight to each view. Above all, report only what the reliable sources say, not Wikipedians' conclusions (even if a consensus) derived from what the sources say; the latter is prohibited as original research. Finell (Talk) 00:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing needed[edit]

"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)

Why Annus Mirabilis "papers"?[edit]

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)

Because the article is about the papers he wrote in that year, not about the year in which he wrote the papers Face-smile.svg. - DVdm (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. Good point! Thanks for your quick reply :-) However, I thought that the title could be more specific since other wonderful years involve papers and here, it is about Einstein's papers of 1905. That's why I thought "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis" would be more appropriate. Jean Fex (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC) - OOPS! I meant "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers". Jean Fex (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Renaming to Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers would be fine with me. - DVdm (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, I will move this page to this new name unless someone is against it in the coming week. Jean Fex (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I would leave it as is. Appending "papers' distinguishes the article from Annus Mirabilis, so it does not need any more restriction. Furthermore, it was a miracle year for physics -- not just Einstein. Failing that, I'd go for AM (1905) or AM (physics). Glrx (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The reason for having a more specific title is that there were papers (as well as physics) involved in other Mirabilis years ; it is not to make it more restrictive. Also, this article is about the Einstein papers, not the year; the 1st sentence of this article specifies it. And 1905 is a Mirabilis year because of Einstein's work and of no other physicist. That's the reason we proposed the "Einstein's" qualifier. Jean Fex (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
The goal is restriction/DAB. See WP:NCDAB.
My understanding is naturalness and simplicity is desired; being too restrictive (too many modifiers) is not desired.
In the physic's context, Annus Mirabilis means 1905 and Einstein's tour de force and a new direction in physics. That is the natural phrase, but it is already taken, so we need a dab. That's why I'd leave it be or go for Annus Mirabilis (1905) or Annus Mirabilis (physics).
A web search for "Annus Mirabilis papers" provides links to Einstein (rather than other AM papers). I don't think it is the natural phrase, but WP's used it for a while. A phrase like "Einstein's papers" is not specific enough.
A web search for "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis" will hit and provide transliterations ("Einstein's Miracle Year"), so that would be a natural DAB. As I said above, I dislike making it Einstein's year; yes, he wrote the papers that started the balls rolling, but it was a miracle year for physics. The impact did not end in 1905. Others contributed. The second sentence of the lede says, "These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, mass, and energy."
A web search for "Einstein's Annus Mirabilis papers" looks like overkill to me. If I search for "Dicke's Annus Mirabilis papers", Einstein is the top hit. If I search for "Hubble's Annus Mirabilis", Einstein is the second hit.
Glrx (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with having a simple natural title. If the current scope of this article remains "the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905", the current title would remain too. However, it differs from the scope of the Annus mirabilis # 1905 – Albert Einstein article section: "this year that Albert Einstein made important discoveries". Yet, it is coherent with the Albert_Einstein#1905 – Annus Mirabilis papers article section.
This article and the related sections of the 2 other articles should be totally coherent. I first thought that this article was about "the revolutionary contribution Einstein made to physics in 1905" but DVdm mentioned otherwise. Shouldn't the scope of this article be modified to "Einstein's 1905 revolutionary contribution to physics" which would enrich it? Glrx proposed simple titles would fit.
Jean Fex (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

why is it capitalized?[edit]

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)

Timeline[edit]

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)

Hyperlinks[edit]

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)