Misplaced Pages

This is an archive of past discussions about Émilie du Châtelet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Formatting issues and potential plagiarism?

This needs some wiki links and paragraph breaks, but the page numbers in the text make me wonder if it is copied from a book, and if so: is it in the public domain? Could the creator of this page confirm please? -- Tarquin, Saturday, July 6, 2002

Copyright violation

It looks like this entire article is just a rip from another website . Did the author of that article give permission to do this? WoodenTaco 21:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

A History of Western Society

This page is definitely taken from pg. 603 of HMCO's "A History of Western Society" I have marked this page for requiring cleanup. Xiamcitizen 06:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the first paragraph (in two stages – see History) in response to the complaint at "Physicist?", below, that there wasn't enough in the page about her scientific contributions. It is my own work. I don't argue in support of the rest of it (which could perhaps do with a bit of pruning anyway). Old Moonraker 08:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To assist, some of my sources for para 1: Online essay from Public Broadcast Service ; Encylopædia Britannica 1998 edition; The scientist that history forgot ; The scientist whom history forgot. There were others. Old Moonraker 09:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph does not appear to be taken from the text, thanks for the clarification, Moon. This section, however, does. Xiamcitizen 07:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've given the section you were complaining of a copyedit and broadened its sources. I don't know the work you believe to be the original source, so I can't say for certain whether or not this will satisfy your concerns. --Old Moonraker 14:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Languages

The article says :" by the age of twelve she was fluent in Latin, Italian, French, Greek, and German." I find it unremarkable that someone French is reasonably fluent in French by age 12. Is this a typo for another language? Tonywalton  | Talk 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

It needs to be included, whether or not you think it is remarkable. Gene Nygaard 22:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

For "remarkable", read "notable". Or are you of the opinion that every native speaker of a language is notable in WP terms, so should have the fact noted in their article, for being able to speak it? Tonywalton  | Talk 22:25, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point Tony :) Maybe the original author meant to say English -- anyway I should check it but pretty sure she was fluent in English. Lisa 13:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Châtelet's name

Is it correct to refer to the subject of this article throughout as Émilie. For comparison, her father is refered to as Breteuil rather than Louis-Auguste. It seems a little sexist that Châtelet is refered to by her personal name. Now, one problem with calling her Châtelet is that she was only known as such from the time of her marriage. However, I think it is possible to describe her as Breteuil (or Émilie de Breteuil, to distinguish her from her father) in the section on her early life. --Gareth Hughes 20:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that she be called "Émilie" before her marriage, and "De Châtelet" after.123.255.28.22 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Emilie's father

There is either an error in this article or in the article for Louis-Charles-Auguste le Tonnelier de Breteuil, listed here as her father; if you follow the link to his article you find that he was born in 1730 while his "daughter" was born in 1706. Do we have the wrong Louis-Charles-Auguste?

There is evidence to suggest that her mother not only approved of her education in the sciences, but was actually the parent that taught and most encouraged her in the sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.94.211 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Physicist?

The beginning of this article mentions that she was a physicist, yet the only two sections about her focus on her early life and her social life. Perhaps somebody could say something about her translation + interpretation of Newton and her other work. And maybe something about the limitations for women philosophes in the Enlightenment (not allowed in the Paris Academy of Science, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitwitpicker (talk • contribs)

Agree. I think today her role as a scientist is more important than her marriages and love affairs. She was a notable scholar way ahead of her time. ←Humus sapiens 08:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I had the same reaction. Although the introduction lists her notable accomplishments, the only sections within this article are regarding her personal life. Much has been written about her scientific dedications, so it seems a gross omission to not embellish upon the bullet points mentioned at the beginning. Also, the context in which she lived made her unique in that she flew in the face of a pervasive misogyny in France and succeeded. I will try to find some concrete information to add.

"What she was famous for" now moved up the page. Old Moonraker 07:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if the Voltaire Foundation in Oxford has any useful information?

User: Calibanu 12.48, 03 August 2006

If she was able to really understand the Principia well enough to give a good translation, that makes her one of the top physicists of her time (there really weren't many, and a lot of so called physicists didn't want to understand the mathematics and didn't go that deep). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.27.82 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

To Anon poster above (28Nov07), fwiw I think you are correct - most people back then who we now classify as Physicists were probably more interested in the mechanics aspect than straight mathematical science....Along that line, were scientists actually divided into fields (Physics, Chem. & Bio) in Chatelet's time? I am thinking the 'divisions' and modern categorization of the sciences didn't happen until perhaps the very early 1800s...In Chatelet's time, at least, science was not so much a profession as a pasttime for the wealthy (nobility). Particularly in France...But then again, I guess Chatelet has to be classified somehow today...Engr105th (talk) 01:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

De Chatelet is an unsung glory of continental Europe. The term "physics" did not exist in her day, which employed "natural philosophy." She was as much a physicist as any her contemporaries. The entry should tell us much more about her accomplishments. We are all becoming much more aware of this remarkable woman thanks to David Bodanis's recent book. De Chatelet was no salon-tending woman "philosophe"; she had a lab in her castle, made substantial money as a card-counting gambler, and was genuinely well-read. It appears that we are dealing with the first woman physicist of all time. The next one I can think of was the Emmy Noether who proved Noether's theorem.

I am a little sceptical that she had to fight an uphill battle all her life. It is true that her election to the French equivalent of the Royal Society would have been very unlikely. On the other hand, her parents encouraged her to develop her very unusual talent. She had a decent amount of money at her disposal. In her day, there was no worthwhile formal education in France, beyond convent high schools, where the emphasis would have been on Latin classics. The brilliant Frenchmen of the 18th century were largely self-educated. The serious French university system of today was created by Napoleon.

Incidentally, the Principia used geometry to reach its conclusions, even though Newton used the calculus to convince himself of their truth. Therefore her translating the Principia did not require a mathematical sophistication that was rare even among the learned men of her day. Newton did not publish his calculus until 1704, about 20 years after Leibniz did so. BTW, during his lifetime, Leibniz had quite a following among continental aristocratic women. Mechanics and calculus did not go mainstream until Lagrange and Laplace wrote their treatises 1-2 generations later. Did she have a scientific correspondence with men other than Voltaire (who could not keep up with her)?123.255.62.209 (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New biography

There's supposed to be a new book (in English) out about her; I heard an interview with the author, who claimed that she fought a duel at Versailles when she was a teenager... AnonMoos 07:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if the author might be David Bodanis? He seems to have "rediscovered" her during his research for his book on Einstein "E=mc2". Also, she is positively portrayed in the PBS NOVA dvd documentary of the book. title is "Einstein's Big Idea". Engr105th (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet (magazine) link

User WinstonWinston placed this link to an article from the not-for-profit Cabinet (magazine). This was reverted, with an automatically-generated summary. This seems to be a worthwhile item, free from advertising (albeit when reading the posting history there is suggestion that the magazine may be promoting itself) and I would like to reinstate the link, subject to other editors' views. --Old Moonraker 17:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it as this user is clearly spamming — adding numerous links to one website with no other contribution is considered spam. However, if anyone feels the article is useful, and it falls within the guidelines for external links, it could be re-added. Re-adding multiple links to this magazine's website would, though, be considered spamming. — Gareth Hughes 17:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The original poster's intention may well be self-promotion, but the article's good, and it's from a not-for-profit source. Reistated. --Old Moonraker 10:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct to first order

Whoever put in the comment up to a factor of 1/2 is obviously not a physicist. Kinetic energy is equal to mv^2/2 to first order. (e.g. When the v is much less than c.) In Emilie's time, mass was considered a constant. So her equation should really be stated as m_0v^2/2 (where m_0 is rest mass) in modern notation. Einstien's equations tell us the amount of energy required approaches infinity as v approaches the speed of light. Émilie equation tell us the amount of kenetic energy to go the speed of light is finite. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence Docbillnet (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Émilie du Châtelet/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 18:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 16:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)