Talk:Max Born/Archive 1

Max Born converted to Lutheranism at some point in his youth; much later, if I am not mistaken, he joined the Quakers, together with his wife, Hedi. Neither fact matters much as far as his science is concerned, though I suppose the latter may be seen as having something to do with his pacifist activities in the postwar period. In any case, it is hard to see the use of classifying him emphatically as Jewish; as far as I know, he was raised in an assimilated family, and Judaism most likely tells us less about his personality and beliefs than either of the faiths he chose. His "race" in Nazi eyes is relevant in so far as it was one of his reasons for emigrating; other than that, it is hard to see what useful purpose the labelling serves. 132.204.53.60 22:08, 16 April 2006

Unfortunately, his Jewish background is relevant. In 1933, after the Nazis came to power, all scientists with a Jewish background were forced out of their job, and a large number of them left the country. The same is true for Lise Meitner who had also converted to become a Lutheran. The importance of it is that Germany at that point in time lost a lot of its top scientists, and with that its leading position in the area of science and technology. The US took over as leader in science and technology, and kept that position to this very day. It was one of the factors that transformed the US from the secondary power it was before WWII to the superpower it is today, if not the most important one. JdH 08:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

My point precisely. That he was a refugee from Nazi Germany is relevant; that one of the reasons for his emigration was his racial status in Nazi eyes may be of interest. Neither fact allows us to presume what he was in his own eyes. See the categories at the bottom of the page.

Incidentally, a fair number of scientists emigrated from Germany for purely political reasons. It is hard to see how the *reason* for somebody's emigration from Germany to the US (or the UK) could be of great importance to his contribution to science in the US (or the UK). It is the fact of emigration itself that mattered. 132.204.53.75 21:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Germany lost nothing, Germany still has the most scientific output in all of Europe. More than both France & Britain. Germany is still at the forefront of Engineering, who's making your cars? Jews flooding the US is NOT the reason it became a power. The reason it became a power was because of the Brain drain. The U.S inviting Germans, Russians, various other scientist and sometimes STEALING the work of others (Nikola Tesla) and claiming it as "American". Americans had almost zero to do with the nuke, it was German & Jewish scientist who formed the basis. Germans sent Americans to Space. Took its Auto industry off the ground. The Russians that were invited to California practicaly made Silicon Valley. America became a "Power" because it slapped citizenship on Europeans so fast without even giving them a proper trial (as what it was with the Nazi Scientist at NASA). America became a world power because it became the "Land of oppurtunity". However that time seems to be over, with each and every passing year.

Today the United States is drowned in debt. Today the immigrants flooding the country are NOT European entrepeneurs or scientist, they're poor folks from the 3rd world looking for a better life. Today the United States consumes and imports more than it Exports (The US is x10 the size of Germany, with x3 the population, yet Germany is tagging right behind the United States tale, the difference is Germany exports just as much as it imports). The US is on the verge of collapse. Your country is only stable if it keeps spending more & more money. This does nothing to help the problem, it may prolong the inevitable but it also digs the hole deeper.

And also for the record? if you look at the graph of human contribution? The US (or North America for the matter) has not surpassed either Germany, France, Scotland or England in terms of inventions. All 4 countries on the graph completely dwarf the contributions from America. America is "The land of big corporations", like Japan America doesn't do much inventing. What America does is take already existing inventions and mass market them. Most of the so called "American inventions" on the list, weren't invented by Americans.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4EA:CA0:6462:1628:77FE:1ACA (talk) 09:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Max Born is my great grandfather, olivia NJ is my aunt, i am from australia & a musician & photographer like his daughter Irene Newton -John. this web site has opened my eyes to many of my grandfathers talents, I have many letters from the 30's - 50 between him & Einstien thats all. Brett goldsith

I moved this comment of 12:33, 6 July 2006 from 203.214.75.172 to here. Brett, thank you for your remark, that is very nice. What I was wondering is: would you and your family consider to make copies of those letters and other historical documents available to the Niels Bohr Library or other approppriate institution to make them accessible to historians? JdH 12:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's begin the discussion per the protocol. --Ancheta Wis 05:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not. There is no protocol, there is only a nowhere-near-consensus proposal. Cynical 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis does not consider this article stable, having just deleted a category (although I reverted - see below).--Poetlister 16:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of a [stable tag] is to lessen work, not to stop progress. According to Brion Vibber at Wikimania 2006 (day two), a stable tag will simply mark a version. In that case, someone who is unfamiliar with the subject can view a tagged version with the understanding that some agency has vouched for the content.

My entire motivation, as noted by Ghosh at Wikimania, is that Wikipedia progresses by the action of individuals. Consensus comes after this.

When I chose this article as a prototype for the stable version process, it was because the article is reasonably non-controversial and complete enough that even a descendant of Max Born found it useful.

In other words, the article was a low-risk candidate. We need to work out this process here or elsewhere. Jimbo has stated that we really ought to work this out in the next twelve months. --Ancheta Wis 09:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There is not the slightest doubt tHat Born was born Jewish (inevitable pun); there are plenty of references to that effect. He was therefore a Jewish scientist. The fact that he ceased to practise is irrelevant; so did Einstein.--Poetlister 16:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I take an interest in this business of identity as I look Jewish though I am not I wonder if those Jews who ceaselessly 'reclaim' Jews ever realise they are doing exactly what Hitler and the Nazis did-and were the cause of Born leaving Germany in the first place People like Born were totally assimlilated into Germany.They had cut their religious connections,had proud German names,often didnt-like Freud ,have their children circumcised.Their language (which is considered to be responsible for structuring the brain) was German The education that made them and their cultural loves and entire outlook was German. And of course ,they fought and died bravely for their country Germany in World War One fighting the British and French There suddenly arose a party that believed that anyone tainted by a singe drop of 'Jewish blood' was stamped remorselessly as Jewish.Such people if sensible got out of Germany quickly.This Nazi period lasted merely twelve years -less than Mrs Thatchers Premiership Today its interesting that Jews now endlessly search out the Jewishness of anyone they think may be Jewish irrespective of the persons wishes or desires. YOU ARE A JEW! they scream -as fiercely as any fanatical Nazi. I am always surprised that modern Germany does not reclaim these Jewish scientists as their own.Born and Einstein were NOT Jewish scientists -they were patriotic loyal German loving GERMAN scientists-Einstein rushed back to become a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1916-in the middle of WW1-when Germany was the most hated country in the world. I suppose German guilt over the Hitler years prevents this I doubt if Born -or Einstein- ever seriously considered themselves Jewish only patriotic Germans Indeed they probably regarded the Jewish religion as something middle eastern and primitive that they wanted nothing to do with. In fact -I would ask the question-is it possible for any Jew to stop being classed as Jewish?-or are they despite their protests branded forever by Jews as Jewish? .Now that IS racism!!! Incidentally can we get off this boring Nobel Prize stuff-Born will go down in history surely as being the grandfather of Olivia Newton John. Now thats really something-incidentaly one of the most beautiful desirable heavenly women in the world actually looks a bit like him-did she meet him?

P.S. I dont like Germans

I came across this outdated comment in a Wikipedia discussion the other day when I was studying something else (physics). You may not find this relevant anymore, and your main point (emotive generalizations about cultures/ ethnic groups) is not that important to me.

However, there are so many factual errors in this (basically, every single point is the exact opposite of the truth) that I can't help but try to lear things up a bit for you

...They had cut their religious connections,had proud German names…

German Jews who continued to identify as Jews also had and have German names…

...Their language (which is considered to be responsible for structuring the brain) was German. The education that made them and their cultural loves and entire outlook was German….

Many Jews assimilated out of true love of German Kultur, or rejection of "outdated primitive" Judaism, but there was also an element of trying to escape anti-Jewish prejudice as far back as the late 19th century. The spectacular failure of this tactic is one of the causes of the defiant and vocal mode that has been widespread since that failure.

And of course, they fought and died bravely for their country Germany in World War One fighting the British and French…

Does that mean that Jews who continued to identify as Jews didn't fight and die for Germany during World War One?

There suddenly arose a party that believed that anyone tainted by a singe drop of 'Jewish blood' was stamped remorselessly as Jewish. Such people if sensible got out of Germany quickly.This Nazi period lasted merely twelve years

Suddenly? Anti-Jewish feeling and behaviour "suddenly" appeared in 1932 and "suddenly" disappeared in 1945? What about the writings of Lanz von Liebenfals, and the politics of Georg Ritter von Schoenerer and Karl Lueger? Theodor Herzl founded the Zionist movement as a reaction to anti-Semitism in Germany, Austria and other places as far back as 1882.

I am always surprised that modern Germany does not reclaim these Jewish scientists as their own

But they do. Of course it was awkward on all sides for Germany to "claim" Einstein as one of them after chasing him away for not being one of them, but it is not accurate that they don't. Einstein has a memorial in the Wallhala Hall of Fame and Honor, where the "Greatest Germans" are honored.

Born and Einstein were NOT Jewish scientists -they were patriotic loyal German loving GERMAN scientists-Einstein rushed back to become a professor at the Berlin Academy of Sciences in 1916-in the middle of WW1-when Germany was the most hated country in the world.

He went back to Germany before the war broke out. He refused to sign the Manifesto of 93 Intellectuals and according to the Wikipedai was almost imprisoned for his pacifist views. After 1932 he never returned to Germany. If the Nazi regime was just a passing fluke and he loved Germany so much, wouldn't he have gone there at least once between 1945 and 1955?

I suppose German guilt over the Hitler years prevents this I doubt if Born -or Einstein- ever seriously considered themselves Jewish

This quote from the Wikipedia itself should help here

"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."

That is, he "gladly belonged" to the "Jewish People" (when that was not in fashion) but rejected the hyper-nationalism and the traditional religion. That would probably explain why he supported the creation of Israel and lectured there, and supported the new Hebrew University of Jerusalem, but harshly criticised the early manifestations of militarism and prejudice there.

Here is another qoute which is pretty clear: "I am by heritage a Jew, by citizenship a Swiss, and by makeup a human being, and only a human being, without any special attachment to any state or national entity whatsoever."

Well, like I say, you can believe and judge whatever you want but you might want to learn a little more about the topic at hand first--

--Sukkoth 06:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just two comments on that:

Many Jews assimilated out of true love of German Kultur, or rejection of "outdated primitive" Judaism, but there was also an element of trying to escape anti-Jewish prejudice as far back as the late 19th century. The spectacular failure of this tactic is one of the causes of the defiant and vocal mode that has been widespread since that failure.

Assimilation did not lead to survival. Neither did the relative lack of assimilation (or rather its slow pace) in some provinces of Poland, say. This does not mean that assimilation was not a fact.

You are probably right when you imply that the Holocaust made Zionism (and anti-integrationist positions) more popular, at least for a while; this would not seem to be relevant for the biographies of individuals who lived most of their lives before the war, however. (It would not seem to be relevant when it comes to many post-war biographies, for that matter.)

As far as is Einstein is concerned - you are right, but that does not really concern the subject of this biography. Einstein was clearly a Zionist, if one of a somewhat romantic mold; as far as any of us know, Born was not a Zionist, or dreamed of being one, any more than he was a Confucianist. Feketekave (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It amazes me to see how history is covered up by the ignorants. Here in the article it says that Max Born was "instrumental" in the development of quantum mechanics I'm sorry, but he was much more than that. Plain and simple, the face of modern quantum mechanics was chieseled out by two men, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born, I know Born was Jewish I'm not sure if Heisenberg was, but regardless, it was Heisenbergs brilliant insight to formulate a full quantum theory in his mind, and it was the brilliance of Born to recognize its mathematical form. Without this serendipitous symbiosis, without either man, I wonder how long it would have taken to come up with quantum theory. Modern books with their mention of Schroedinger's equation make it look like Schroedinger invented quantum mechanics. Two facts are well known: 1) Schroedinger came out with his version of QM 1 year after the Heisenberg-Born version. 2) He came up with it in response to Heisenberg's theory because "he did not like Heisenberg matrix formalism". Finally, it is also known that, to the end of his life, Schroedinger never understood quantum mechanics as we presently understand it and that its Max Born's interpretation of the wavefunction as a probability that we use today. Maybe people just like his cat (Schroedingers) and that's why he's so predominant in the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.41.41 (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The following infobox has been removed from the page. Please discuss to reach consensus for its inclusion or removal.bunix 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The final sentence of the second paragraph under "Career" currently reads thusly: Based on this, one could say the Nobel Prize in Physics awarded to Heisenberg in 1932 should have been jointly awarded to Born.

This seems fairly subjective, really, and might be re-worded. As I am not intimately familiar with the details of this particular Nobel Prize and the extent of Born's contribution to the work, but a more neutral wording might be something along the lines of "Born's contributions were important in laying the foundation of Quantum Mechanics, for which Heisenberg won the 1932 Nobel Prize."

             -0x0077BE (added anonymously because I am not at home)

It is a reflection of the complexity and subtlety of the Nobel-level contribution. I have a reference on this from Born himself, I recall ( maybe Born-Einstein letters? ) but online is certainly more accessible than paper and I would have to dig this one up. I can see the page in my head, now to find it. On a related note, Walter Bothe's contribution on the AND gate came in 1954 as well. These both took about 25-30 years. And in 5 years, they were building AND gates in hardware. So it was timely for both of them. --Ancheta Wis 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt his contribution to the process, but it seems like speculating on whether or not he deserved a nobel prize which was given to someone doesn't seem very neutral. It seems like making a statement about the extent of his contribution to the work that earned a Nobel prize allows readers to draw their own conclusions without making a statement about the incompetence of the 1932 Nobel Prize comittee.

         --0x0077BE

This article says that Principles of Optics is a translation of Born's German-language Optik, but in the preface to Principles of Optics Born and Wolf explicitly say that it is not a translation, but an entirely new book: "In consequence it was felt that a translation was hardly appropriate; instead a substantially new book was prepared..."

24.250.23.48 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Anonymous

Max Born seems to have had a mental break-down in about 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See a biography of Max Born, of 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "ethnicity" and "religious stance" fields are odd; I have not seen them in other articles. Feketekave (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

They also appear in the article on Einstein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They have now vanished.

This page, especially the career sections, needs to be divided up with more structure (sections, subsections, etc.). The big blocks of text are not inviting to read. Njerseyguy (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This segment from Early life and education seems awkwardly, and perhaps inaccurately, worded: "...during which time Hilbert’s intellectual largesse benefited Born’s fertile mind." Inaccurate, because largesse has a connotation that is not convincingly read from Hilbert's page. 146.153.144.35 (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The article reads "stripped of his professorship". A new exhibition displays what appears to be the letter of dismissal: <http://theconversation.edu.au/hitlers-letter-to-the-father-of-quantum-mechanics-3772?utm> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/cambridgeuniversity/sets/72157627823325704/with/6214061676>. As I translate it:

IN THE NAME OF THE REICH

At your request, I relieve you with effect from the end of March 1935 of your official duties in the Faculty of Science and Mathematics of the University of Göttingen.

I acknowledge your academic achievements and thank you for the services that you have provided to the Reich.

Berchtesgaden, 23 July 1935.

Führer and Reich Chancellor [signed "A. Hitler" and witnessed]

Certificate of retirement for ordinarius Professor Dr Max Born in Göttingen

As I read it, he was required to retire. It also looks like the date of emigration from Germany should be 1935, not 1933. --Wikiain (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

After Heisenberg arrived at the idea that the elementary particles are to be seen as different manifestations, different quantum states, of one and the same “primordial substance,” Born recalled 6th century BC Anaximander in calling this substance apeiron.^[1]

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the source:

Nancy Thorndike Greenspan (2005). The End of the Certain World: The Life and Science of Max Born : the Nobel Physicist who Ignited the Quantum Revolution. Basic Books. pp. 58–62. ISBN 9780738206936. "Max later traced his reluctance to his father, who had taught him not to believe in a God who punished, rewarded, or performed miracles. Like his father, he based his morality on his "own conscience and on an understanding of human life within a framework of natural law." ...Born, in fact, was no longer Jewish. His mother-in-law had worn him down. In March 1914, after a few religion lessons in Berlin, he was baptized a Lutheran by the pastor who had married him to Hedi. As he later explained, "there were...forces pulling in the opposite direction [to my own feelings]. The strongest of these was the necessity of defending my position again and again, and the feeling of futility produced by these discussions [with Hedi and her mother]. In the end I made up my mind that a rational being as I wished to be, ought to regard religious professions and churches as a matter of no importance.... It has not changed me, yet I never regretted it. I did not want to live in a Jewish world, and one cannot live in a Christian world as an outsider. However, I made up my mind never to conceal my Jewish origin.""

You can find this source in Google Books: The End of the Certain World: The Life and Science of Max Born Ninmacer20 (talk) 03:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't need Google Books; I have the book on my shelf. I've tweaked you change for grammar. Still not sure though, why anyone cases. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7's "cases" might be a mistake for "cares".

Thank you, Hawkeye7. I appreciate the grammatical corrections in my edit to this article. I'm admit that I'm not very good with my Grammar/syntax in English. The reason why I posted this source was because of other users that thought that my additions to this article were speculative (despite the citation being there). The source/link was just to show other users that my additions are cited in a reliable resource. Anyway, the reason why I included this information in the first place was because I thought it would be better to state the reasons for Born's conversion to Lutheranism (despite resisting it) in the first place. Ninmacer20 (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Brin Newton-John is said to be English in the text but could be viewed as Welsh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

How much Welsh Brin knew, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 09:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Me neither. I know he was fluent in French and German. And he was indeed Welsh. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

"British", not English, BTW. That's a way to be unpopular in Wales. --Wikiain (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

User 190.74.252.196 has removed "magna cum laude" without explanation. It may have looked like an error, but in Germany PhDs have been awarded magna cum laude and summa cum laude. Someone with access to the source please confirm either way.--Wikiain (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

 Y Confirmed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7. While you're at it, can you check Greenspan for "will flourished" near the end of section "Berlin and Frankfurt"? --Wikiain (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

 Y Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The Early Life section says "At Göttingen he found three renowned mathematicians: David Hilbert, Felix Klein and Hermann Minkowski. Very soon after his arrival, Born formed close ties to the latter two men." However, the rest of the section describes what might be called close ties only with Hilbert and Minkowski, and little but contention with Klein. Perhaps the mathematicians' names appear in the wrong order, or perhaps the section is otherwise misleading. I cannot resolve this inconsistency myself, but perhaps resolving it would interest someone more qualified. Ornithikos (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Max Born. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113202504/http://do.nw.schule.de/mbr/schule/maxbornengl.htm to http://do.nw.schule.de/mbr/schule/maxbornengl.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004232115/http://www.cond-mat.physik.uni-mainz.de/~oettel/ws10/born_jordan_ZPhys_34_858_1925.pdf to http://www.cond-mat.physik.uni-mainz.de/~oettel/ws10/born_jordan_ZPhys_34_858_1925.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402141755/http://www.aip.org/servlet/plainHistory?collection=HISTORY&queryText=Max+Born to http://www.aip.org/servlet/plainHistory?collection=HISTORY&queryText=Max+Born
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/64z19j5CV?url=http://archiveshub.ac.uk/features/0412born.html to http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/0412born.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004192028/http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/guides/ahqp/index.htm to http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/guides/ahqp/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

In 1882, Breslau was a town in the German Empire, not in Germany. --84.152.8.20 (talk) 14:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Interesting note: Germans still call the town Breslau, in Poland the name is Wroclaw. Czech name is Vratislav. --217.226.48.37 (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

And the German-language article is so named. I think it is better known in the English-speaking world by its German name, but if anyone wants to know about it, they can click on the blue link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Born-Haber cycle's page claims it was developed in 1916, whereas Born page says they first met on 1918 but doesn't give an actual year. Which one is it? 187.225.228.18 (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(Looks it up in the source.) It was 1918. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Born is famous for asking Einstein something like "in your theory, what is the speed of gravity?" I'd like to know when this question was asked and especially, WHAT was Einstein's answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.61.186.157 (talk • contribs)

With hindsight, we know it is c: (See Roberto Torretti (1983) Relativity and Geometry: Foundations and Philosophy of Science p.181. ) Einstein answered Born in 1913 in Vienna. This was before Einstein published his field equations for General Relativity. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC), 09:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

More commentary

JÜRGEN RENN (2015) Einstein’s 1913 Vienna Lecture: Modeling Gravitational Theory on Electrodynamics

THANK YOU SO MUCH Ancheta (err, the links are not giving the answer rightaway....)

Try this one [1] I'll update the article in s few days' time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops sorry, I see the page 181 now. Well, Einstein's answer to this VERY IMPORTANT question seems extraordinarily SHY : "...in case the disturbance... are infinitely small..." !!!! As you know, in Cosmology, the 'disturbances' (i.e. masses) are not infinitely small....

Thanks Hawkeye7 for the new link. I see the beginning of the same answer on the end the first page of chapter 3 only. The following pages are not displayed. Now the title of this chapter is about Gravitationnal Waves. I don't think Born's question was about GW but about GRAVITY, different things. Having this question put in this chapter suggests me Galina Weinstein is confusing the two things. I am also aware that Einstein's answer is actually confusing.

The field equations are functional equations. They can be solved, for example, by the methods of differential equations. Meaning they apply to the scale of the universe as well as to the infinitesimal. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In my reading, Born was exactly in tune with Einstein's thinking, 1913 to 1915. They corresponded over their lifetimes: see the book publishing the Born-Einstein letters which document this friendship. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are indeed the same thing. When we talk of the speed of light, that is the frequency times the wavelength of light. So when Einstein said that gravity also has wave properties, then the idea of the speed of gravity naturally arose in Born's mind. Galina Weinstein is the expert on Einstein, and she goes on to describe how Einstein, and then others, tackled the problem, and derived the answer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

NO sorry, there are not (indeed) the same thing. Gravity keeps you on Earth surface. Do gravitational waves keep you on your feet? Other example: Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves. Right? Einstein predicted the existence of gravity? still right? LIGO and Virgo are GW detectors, are they gravity detectors? I understand Born and Einstein were good friends and in permanent contact. I'd like to know what they were exactly discussing on that day.

A last word: I think Born's question is about Gravity. Anyway, one would wait for an answer in the form: "In my theory, the speed of gravity is /infinite/c/larger than c/smaller than c/whatever" and it is really surprising that Einstein's answer clearly looks like a way-out/subterfuge (?). Especially because Einstein is famous for SEEING things first and putting them in mathematical form second. Maybe I will read Weinstein's (W-Einstein ? lol) book but I'm not sure I will learn something about this curious event in it. stefjourdan

Under Newton's theory of gravity, the force of gravity was instantaneous. Born noticed that under Einstein's proposed theory of general relativity gravitational effects propagate as gravitational waves, with a finite speed. Einstein was subsequently able to show theoretically that the speed was the speed of light. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 12:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

¡Hi guys, hello girls! Quote from "Later life" section:

In his Nobel lecture he reflected on the philosophical implications of his work:

I am confused, this is the Born's Nobel lecture and I can not find that text! (or maybe I am wrong)--Jimmy Olano (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Quotation from Born's Nobel lecture:

The matter concerns the borderland between physics and philosophy, and so my physics lecture will partake of both history and philosophy [...]

--P.wormer (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jimmy Olano See I am considering more the logical and epistemological problems posed by nuclear physics.—his Nobel lecture --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reword lead to: "Max Born (...) was a widely influential German physicist and mathematician who was awarded the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics for his pivotal role in the development of quantum mechanics. Born won the prize primarily for his contributions to the statistical interpretation of the wave function, though he is known for his work in several areas of quantum mechanics as well as solid-state physics, optics, and special relativity. He is also known for supervising the work of several notable physicists in the 1920s and 1930s."

Or something similar. I request this for multiple reasons. There shouldn't be links inside of quotes, it is odd to begin and end talking about his contributions to QM and leave a stubby middle sentence for other contributions, and I think it flows better. Also we should mention relativity as he has relativistic concepts named after him and it is mentioned elsewhere in the lead. I also think the paragraph could be expanded a tiny amount, but that's not really necessary. Footlessmouse (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! What an interesting article. I have noticed that in the lede it says "First World War" relating to his service in that war, and then says "World War II" when saying about his nationalization. Shouldn't it be either "Second World War" or in the first place "World War I" as style?. Thanks. And I hope to be understood :-) CoryGlee (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Born served in the German Army in WWI, and emigrated to Scotland on the eve of WWII (in the days before the invasion of Poland -- so he just barely escaped), eventually becoming a UK citizen. Born then retired to Bad Pyrmont, to his heimat. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

  Done --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:19, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Not only does it read like a poor translation, but it doesn't actually say WHOM he married - we have to guess ... Why is it important that he is remotely related to some 3rd-rate 'comedian' called Ben Elton??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)