On Einstein's distrust of the electromagnetic theory: …€™ s 1904 paper was not on STR as understood after Einstein. He used the nonrelativistic addition law for velocities (v

SEIYA ABIKO*

On Einstein’s distrust of the electromagnetic theory: The origin of the light-velocity postulate

HSPS, Volume 33, Part 2, pages 193-215. ISSN 0890-9997. ©2003 by The Regents of the Universityof California. All rights reserved. Send requests for permission to reprint to Rights and Permissions,University of California Press, 2000 Center St., Ste. 303, Berkeley, CA 94704-1223.

* Seirei Christopher College, 3453 Mikatahara-Town Hamamatsu-City, 433-8558, Japan;[email protected]. I am grateful to the Albert Einstein Archives, Jewish National and University Library,Jerusalem, for funishing materials and information and to J.L. Heilbron for valuable edito-rial advice. The following abbreviations are used: AEPS, P.A. Schilpp ed., Albert Einstein, philoso-pher-scientist (Evanston, 1949; New York, 1951; La Salle, 1969); AJP, American journal ofphysics; AP, Annalen der Physik; BJPS, British journal for philosophy of science; CPEE,The collected papers of Albert Einstein, English translation (Princeton, 1987-); LCP, HendrikA. Lorentz, Collected papers (9 vols., The Hague, 1934-1939); Letters, Jürgen Renn andRobert Schulmann, eds., Albert Einstein-Mileva Maric, love letters (Princeton, 1992); Ori-gins, Gerald Holton, Thematic origins of scientific thought (Cambridge, 1973); PR, Theprinciples of relativity (London, 1923, reprint New York, 1952); PS, Philosophy of science;VPG, Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, Verhandlungen.

CONTROVERSY OVER THE history of the special theory of relativity (STR) hasstimulated fruitful discussions in the philosophy of science. Section 1 below re-views some of them. Section 2 reconsiders why Albert Einstein felt it necessary toset up independently the light-velocity postulate (LVP), which constitutes the es-sential difference between STR and the theory of Lorentz and Poincaré. Then, insection 3, I indicate a crucial mistake in Einstein’s “Autobiographical Notes” intheir first and second editions, and discuss some consequences of the error; and insection 4, I infer Einstein’s research program (ERP) from his letters and researchesin his early years; and in section 5, I bring ERP into the wider research tradition towhich Einstein belonged. I hope that the considerations proposed here might con-tribute to settling the longstanding controversies.

The following additional abbreviations are used: CLV (the constancy of light-velocity), LFC (Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction), LRP (Lorentz’s research program),“Notes” (“Autobiographical Notes”), and PR (the principle of relativity).

194 ABIKO

1. SOME CONTROVERSIAL POSITIONS ON THE HISTORY OF STRWhittaker’s

In 1953, the distinguished mathematician Sir Edmond T. Whittaker publisheda chapter “The relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz” in his History of etherand electricity, modern theories 1900-1926.1 Even before its publication, MaxBorn, a friend both of Whittaker and Einstein, tried to dissuade Whittaker placingEinstein’s theory as a postscript to that of Poincaré-Lorentz, but in vain.2 Bornsoon found an occasion to criticize Whittaker’s account in public. He stressed twopoints:3

1. Hendrik A. Lorentz himself regarded Einstein as the discoverer of the prin-ciple of relativity and held to the ideas of absolute space and time to the end ofhis life.2. The exciting feature of Einstein’s treatment of 1905 was his audacity inchallenging Newton’s established philosophy, the traditional concepts of spaceand time.

In 1960 the Japanese historian Tetsu Hirosige developed Born’s criticismthrough an analysis of the works of Henri Poincaré.4 He dealt with Poincaré’slectures of 1899, his address to the International Congress of Physics of 1900, hisbook Science and hypothesis (1902), and his speech at the Columbian Interna-tional Exposition in Saint Louis in 1904. Hirosige stressed that:

1. In contrast to Einstein, Poincaré lacked the concept of electromagneticfield as an independent and dynamical physical entity, as is shown by his con-cern over the “crisis” in the action-reaction principle.2. Although he stated that space and time need not be absolute, he did notattempt to reconsider the meaning of space and time.

Contemporaneously with Hirosige, Gerald Holton criticized Whittaker from ahistorical point of view:5

1. Edmond Whittaker, A history of aether and electricity, Vol. 2. The modern theories 1900-1926 (London, 1953), 27-77.2. The Born-Einstein letters (London, 1971), 197-198.3. Max Born, “Physics and relativity,” in A. Mercier and M. Kervaire eds., Fünfzig JahreRelativitätstheorie (Basel, 1956), 244-260, on 247 and 250, and in Born, Physics in mygeneration (2nd edn., New York, 1969), 100-115, on 103 and 105.4. Tetsu Hirosige, “Factors of the special theory of relativity,” Kagakusi kenkyu, 55 (1960),14-19, and in Sigeko Nisio, ed., The formation of relativity theory (Tokyo, 1980), 76-87, on79, in Japanese.5. Gerald Holton, “On the origins of the special theory of relativity,” AJP, 28 (1960), 627-636, on 633-636, and Origins, 165-183, on 175-179.

EINSTEIN’S LIGHT-VELOCITY POSTULATE 195

6. Henri Poincaré, “The principles of mathematical physics,” The monist, 15 (1905), 1-24;the original in Bulletin des sciences et mathématiques, 28 (1904), 302-324.7. Hendrik A. Lorentz, “Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocityless than that of light” (1904), LCP, 5, 172-197, and PR, 9-34.8. Stanley Goldberg, “Henri Poincare and Einstein’s theory of relativity,” AJP, 35 (1967),934-944.9. According to “Taketani’s three stage theory,” Planck’s radiation formula corresponds tothe phenomenological stage, the light-quantum theory to the substantial stage, and STR tothe essential stage. Mitsuo Taketani, The formation and the logic of the quantum mechan-ics, Vol. 1 (Tokyo, 1948; reprint Tokyo, 1972), 62, in Japanese.10. Hirosige (ref. 4), in Nisio (ref. 4), 77.

1. Poincaré’s address of 1904,6 which Whittaker cited, did not enunciate thenew PR, but summarized the difficulties that contemporary physics opposedto six classical laws or principles, including the Galilean-Newtonian PR.2. Lorentz’s paper of 1903, which Whittaker cited as containing most of thebasic results of Einstein’s paper of 1905, was in fact published in 1904 inHolland.7 Einstein could not have seen it. Moreover, he did not need to knowit, because Einstein derived the transformation equations that Lorentz assumeda priori.3. Lorentz’s 1904 paper was not on STR as understood after Einstein. Heused the nonrelativistic addition law for velocities (v = V+u), and, contrary towhat Whittaker wrote, his theory of 1904 applied only to small values of v/c.

Holton’s position was developed further by his former student Stanley Goldberg.8

My purpose also is to specify and sharpen the essential difference between thetheory of Lorentz-Poincaré and that of Einstein.

Taketani’s

Another pertinent controversy involved Hirosige and the Japanese physicist-philosopher Mitsuo Taketani. Taketani, a former student and colleague of HidekiYukawa, wrote in a book on the history of quantum mechanics published in 1948:9

Einstein’s paper on the light-quantum theory dates from March 1905, that on the“Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” which introduced STR, from June. This tem-poral order should not be regarded as an accident. Indeed, Einstein rejected the ethernot only because of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but also because of the re-quirements of the light-quantum theory....Einstein pointed out in the former paperthat classical electromagnetism contradicts the light-quantum theory. In other words,light was not considered as ether vibrations in that paper. Therefore, Einstein did notreject the ether for the first time in his paper on relativity theory, but in his paper onthe light-quantum. Having rejected the ether, he had to set up a kinematics that didnot rely upon it.

Hirosige severely criticized Taketani’s history:10

196 ABIKO

11. Gary Gutting, “Einstein’s discovery of special relativity,” PS, 39 (1972), 51-67; MichaelPolanyi, Personal knowledge (Chicago, 1958), 9-15; Gerald Holton, “Einstein, Michelsonand the “crucial” experiment,” Isis, 60 (1969), 133-197, and Origins, 261-351 on 275-280,327-329; Adolf Grünbaum, “The genesis of the special theory of relativity,” in HerbertFeigel and G. Maxwell, eds., Current issues in the philosophy of science (New York, 1961),43-53.12. Max Wertheimer, Productive thinking (New York, 1959), 213-233.

In itself, the light-quantum formally contradicted the theory of relativity becauseSTR, viewed from its physical content, was the kinematics of the “continuous” elec-tromagnetic field....Whether regarded logically or historically, the key point in theformation of STR did not lie in the question whether or not to reject the ether. Twofactors interacted to bring forth STR: clarification of the physical content of theelectromagnetic field, and reconsideration of the meaning of space and time.

In my opinion, Taketani’s view cannot be disposed of so easily.

Gutting’s

In 1972, Gary Gutting joined a debate among Michael Polanyi, Holton, andAdolf Grünbaum.11 The point at issue was about whether or not STR arose fromEinstein’s private and ingenious intuition alone.

First, he adjudicates the question whether the Michelson-Morley experimentplayed a decisive role in Einstein’s thought and finds for Holton: The influence ofexperimental results was secondary or even neglible in Einstein’s discovery ofSTR. Next he examines the philosophical claim by Polanyi and Holton that thisfact shows the private and trans-empirical character of scientific discovery. Heconcludes that, viewed as a whole, Einstein’s work does not support the claim.

Gutting relies heavily on Max Wertheimer’s account based on a conversationwith Einstein in 1916.12 Wertheimer reported that Einstein had taken for grantedthat Maxwell’s equations are valid and that all laws of nature must have the sameform in all inertial systems. The latter proposition seemed inconsistent with theclassical additivity of velocities, which required that the light-velocity in vacuo cshould depend on the velocity of the observer. Einstein tried keeping Maxwell’sequations valid for all inertial systems while allowing c to vary, but in vain. At thispoint he became aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which implied theconclusion to which Einstein’s thinking had already led him: that c is constant forall observers. Gradually, he focused on the meaning of the measurement of thevelocity of a moving body and, finally, on the meaning of simultaneity. Thus,Einstein arrived at his famous operational definition of distant simultaneity byusing the presumed constancy of the light-velocity (CLV). Einstein’s seeminglyinnocuous requirement that simultaneity be operationally defined led to rejectionof the concept of an absolute time valid in all coordinate systems.

Gutting rejects the private science asserted by Polanyi and Holton in favor ofthe primacy of public science asserted by Grünbaum for three reasons:


13. Hendrik A. Lorentz, “The relative motion of the earth and the ether”(1892), LCP, 4,219-223; Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegtenKörpern (Leiden, 1895), LCP, 5, 1-138.14. Henri Poincaré, Électricité et optique (Paris, 1901), 536.15. Origins, 304-316.16. Elie Zahar, “Why did Einstein’s program supersede Lorentz’s?” BJPS, 24 (1973), 95-

1. Each step Einstein took was guided by the internal logic of his inquiry,which, as a whole, is quite intelligible intersubjectively.2. This logic in turn was guided by PR and the principle of operational defini-tion. Since PR offers so much elegance and simplicity in our physical theoryand agrees with an indefinitely wide range of physical laws, little or no pre-liminary empirical confirmation is needed to try it as a methodological prin-ciple. On the other hand, in view of Einstein’s lack of sympathy with opera-tionalism as a fundamental methodology, his use of it in defining distant si-multaneity is best regarded as a heuristic device.3. A number of rational arguments (as opposed to private intuitions) exists onwhich a provisional acceptance of PR can be based, and some of them oc-curred to Einstein during the course of his discovery of STR.

Gutting’s appraisal, though correct as far as it goes, lacks the concept of “re-search tradition,” to which I will soon turn. Although, as he says, Einstein’s logi-cal development was intelligible intersubjectively, many scientists did not acceptSTR. Einstein’s science was public at first only within his research tradition. More-over, his intuition and sense for PR and his cause for setting up CLV as LVP werenatural developments within this tradition.

Zahar’s

Lorentz’s electron theory, built on the concepts of stationary ether and chargedparticles, explained successfully various optical phenomena by means of Maxwell’selectromagnetic theory. After the announcement of the Michelson-Morley experi-ment in 1887, however, Lorentz introduced the so-called Lorentz-Fitzgerald con-traction (LFC) for the second order of v/c (1892), the concept of “local time,” andthe “theorem of corresponding states” (1895) in order to explain those kind ofexperiments.13 Poincaré criticized this way of theory reconstruction in his lecturesof 1899 as a coup de pouce.14 Also, philosopher Karl Popper, in his Logik derForschung, pointed to LFC as an example of an insufficient and ad hoc auxiliaryhypothesis; in his view, only Einstein’s theory of relativity achieved an advancebecause it predicted new consequences and thereby opened up new possibilitiesfor falsification. Holton later elaborated this point.15

Elie Zahar, on the other hand, applied to the question of ad hocness the meth-odology of scientific research programs developed by his friend Imré Lakatos, andinsisted that Lorentz’s research program (LRP) was not stagnating but progres-sive.16 He argued that Lorentz’s electron theory contained the theory of intermo-

198 ABIKO

123, 223-262.17. Paul K. Feyerabend, “Zahar on Einstein,” BJPS, 25 (1974), 25-28.18. A.B. Wood, G.A. Tomlinson, and L. Essen, “The effect of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz con-traction on the frequency of longitudinal vibration of a rod,” Royal Society of London,Proceedings, 158 (1937), 606-633.19. Arther I. Miller, “On Lorentz’s methodology,” BJPS, 25 (1974), 29-45, and in Miller,Frontiers of physics: 1900-1911 (Boston, 1986), 219-235; Kenneth F. Schaffner, “Einsteinversus Lorentz: Research programs and the logic of comparative theory evaluation,” BJPS,25 (1974), 45-78.

lecular forces and LFC was a result deduced from the latter theory. Zahar’s argu-ment was summarized by Popper’s student Paul Feyerabend under four points:17

1. LRP progressed up to 1905.2. It was rational for Lorentz to pursue it after the publication of Einstein’s paperof STR.3. LRP was superseded by the relativity theory in 1915 with the explanation ofthe precession of the perihelion of Mercury.4. Those who joined Einstein after 1905 and before 1915 had objective reasonsfor doing so.

Feyerabend accepted Zahar’s theses 1 and 2 but rejected 3 and 4. The thirdthesis failed because Lorentz designed LRP to explain electromagnetic phenom-ena in matter; only part of LRP was superseded by the relativity theory in 1915;the remainder of LRP fell to quantum theory. Although Zahar seems to compre-hend the hard core of Einstein’s program as consisting of some principles of therelativity theory, the three papers of 1905 and the other statistical papers are sup-posed to have been part of a single and unspecified ERP. LRP may have beensuperseded by ERP, but ERP is an unknown entity.

Against 4, Feyerabend observed that it was impossible to judge whether therelativity program was progressive or not during its developmental period from1905 to1915. Zahar’s assumption that the ether had become superfluous by 1905is not correct. Nor does his assumption that LRP and STR were observationallyequivalent hold. While in LRP any change of velocity of a rod relative to the etherwill lead to its longitudinal oscillations, STR knows of no such oscillations. Notuntil 1936 was this consequence of LRP tested and refuted.18 Feyerabend’s argu-ments against 3 and 4 may be regarded as admitting an incommensurability be-tween LRP and the relativity program.

In contrast to Feyerabend, Arthur I. Miller and Kenneth F. Schaffner opposealmost all Zahar’s theses.19 Both criticize Zahar’s redefinition of “ad hoc” and“novel” as a contrivance to support his contention that the LFC hypothesis is notad hoc. Both also reject as unhistorical Zahar’s theses that Lorentz deduced LFCfrom the theory of intermolecular forces and that the theory arose from consider-ations that had nothing to do with Michelson’s experiment.


20. Schaffner (ibid.), 56.

Like Feyerabend, Miller objected to Zahar that STR is not observationallyequivalent to Lorentz’s theory of 1904. A theory of light like Lorentz’s with astationary ether cannot account exactly for the optical Doppler effect or for stellaraberration. The lack of symmetry in Lorentz’s theory between the ether-fixedreference system and other inertial systems results in a lack of symmetry in theirpredictions.

Schaffner, took on Zahar’s account of the second postulate of Einstein’s theory(LVP). According to Zahar, LVP had no justification whatever and was at least asad hoc as LRP with LFC. Schaffner rejoined that Zahar conflated two interpreta-tions of LVP—a weak one classically supported by the Maxwell and Lorentz theo-ries (i.e., CLV) and a strong one rationalizable only in the context of Einstein’sradical reanalysis of the concept of time. Whereas Zahar conceived LVP only inthe strong sense, Schaffner held that Einstein accepted LVP at first in its weaksense CLV, which he needed to generate the Lorentz transformations for space andtime.

From my point of view, the importance of Schaffner’s account lies in the fol-lowing:20

{LVP} is a universal consequence of the Maxwell and Lorentz theories even in thoseareas in which the theories begin to break down because of quantum mechanicalconsiderations. There is good historical evidence that this fact was paramount inEinstein’s mind at the time of the genesis of {STR}. Einstein had already written hispaper on light quanta and had defined certain limits of applicability of the Maxwelland Lorentz theories prior to developing his {STR}.

Schaffner observed against Zahar’s thesis 3 that many scientists became con-vinced of the superiority of Einstein’s theory well before 1915, and that they did sofrom trans-empirical considerations. The latter included the simplicity of Einstein’stheory shown by the small number of hypotheses it required; the fruitfulness of thetheory as exemplified by its giving birth to the concept of the “inertia of energy”;and an inter-theoretical consideration, the fact that quantum mechanics cast seri-ous doubt on the general foundations of Lorentz’s approach. The existence oflight quanta did not trouble Einstein’s theory.

Darrigol’s

Olivier Darrigol places the history of STR in the intricate evolution of electro-dynamics at the turn of the century. Thus, he makes a detailed account of contem-porary German electrodynamics, especially of German Maxwellians and electrontheorists. His position may be summarized under three points:

200 ABIKO

21. Olivier Darrigol, “The electrodynamic origins of relativity theory,” HSPS, 26:2 (1996),241-312, on 247, 311, 312, on 311.22. “Notes,” AEPS, 1, 52-53. I have omitted, in the last sentence of the quoted part inSchilpp’s translation, the word “otherwise,” which has no German counterpart in Einstein’soriginal text and seems a mis-translation.

1. The distance between Einstein’s and other contemporary reflectionsand methods is not as great as often claimed. The unquestionable superi-ority of Einstein’s approach results from a retrospective construction.2. Einstein’s theory, and Lorentz’s theory as improved by Poincaré wereempirically equivalent.3. Physicists universally regard Erwin Schrödinger as one inventor ofquantum mechanics, although his original interpretation of the wave-func-tion has not survived. They have as strong a reason to acknowledgeLorentz’s and Poincaré’s shares in the creation of relativity theory. Butthe Einstein myth, or just the blinding radiance of Einstein’s thought,prevents them from doing so.

Although I cannot accept this account, I find Darrigol’s methodological posi-tion interesting and valuable:21

The physicist-historian and the philosopher-historian usually argue that Einstein’s newkinematics was an extremely important innovation that overthrew previous physicaland philosophical concepts of time; and they tend to interpret Poincaré’s, Lorentz’s,and others’ fidelity to the ether as a failure to understand Einstein’s superior point ofview. On the contrary, the social historian would argue that in 1905 Einstein’s relativ-ity had no stabilized meaning, that it could be read and used in various manners de-pending on the receiving local culture, and that it acquired a precise meaning only atthe end of a complex, social structuring process.

2. ORIGINS OF THE LIGHT-VELOCITY POSTULATE (LVP)

In his “Autobiographical Notes,” Einstein described a paradox, which he hitupon at the age of 16, and which contained the germ of PR and LVP. He imaginedhimself pursuing a ray of light with the velocity c and seeing a spatially periodicalelectromagnetic field at rest. He stated:22

From the very beginning it appeared to me intuitively clear that, judged from thestandpoint of such an observer, everything would have to happen according to thesame law as for an observer, who, relative to the earth, was at rest. For howshould the first observer know, i.e., be able to determine, that he is in a state offast uniform motion?


23. Darrigol (ref. 21), 289.24. Albert Einstein, “On an investigation of the state of the ether in a magnetic field,”CPEE, 1, 4-6, on 5.25. Seiya Abiko, “On the chemico-thermal origins of special relativity,” HSPS, 22:1 (1991),1-24, on 22; Albert Einstein, “A new determination of molecular dimensions,” in R. Fürth,ed., Investigations on the theory of the brownian movement (London, 1926; reprint NewYork, 1956), 36-62, and CPEE, 2, 104-122.26. Gustav Kirchhoff, Vorlesungen über Mechanik (Leiptzig, 1987), cited by Einstein inhis dissertation. “The balance of time {at the ETH} I used in the main in order to study athome the works of Kirchhoff, Helmholtz, Hertz, etc.,” “Notes,” AEPS, 1, 14-15.27. Seiya Abiko, “Einstein’s Kyoto Address: ‘How I created the theory of relativity,’”HSPS, 31:1 (2000), 1-35.

The last sentence above can be interpreted as a justification of Einstein’s conjec-ture that, according to PR, there would be no way of determining whether one is ina state of fast uniform motion or not.

Darrigol comments on this passage:23

There are reasons to believe that Einstein’s reminiscence was either false or mis-dated. As long as he believed in the existence of the ether—until at least 1901—he could not expect that a moving observer should perceive the same phenomenaas one at rest.

To support his conclusion Darrigol quotes Einstein’s brief essay, also written whenhe was around sixteen, on the state of the ether in a magnetic field. However,Einstein did not assume the ether to be altogether stationary in that esssay, butconsidered “the motion of the ether produced by an electric current” and “the de-formation produced by the motion of the ether.”24 Insofar as Einstein viewed theether as a movable (draggable) mechanical entity, he had no reason to doubt thevalidity of PR, which was known to be valid then for mechanical phenomena.

I have pointed out another possible origin of PR buried in the doctoral thesisEinstein published in 1905.25 There he solved the viscous hydrodynamic equationin the coordinate system of a suspended solute particle at rest. He employed theGalilean transformation from the rest frame of the solvent to the moving coordi-nate of the solute at rest. Likewise, in his first paper on STR, he treated the coor-dinate transformation of the electromagnetic equations from the rest to the movingframe. He later used the result to solve the electromagnetic equation in the coordi-nate system of a small mirror suspended in a cavity filled with blackbody radia-tion. Therefore, the first step leading to PR may have been the application of theGalilean transformation in a continuous medium. Though he did not submit hisdissertation until 1905, it is certain that he knew this method from his studentyears.26

Einstein’s Kyoto address tells almost the same story for the construction ofSTR as that given by Wertheimer.27 In addition, the Kyoto address testifies to theimportant role played in the revision of the concept of time by his friend Michel

202 ABIKO

Besso who had introduced Einstein to Ernst Mach’s Mechanik, and to whom Einsteinacknowledged his debt for “many a valuable suggestion” in his STR paper of 1905.

If the accomplishment of Einstein’s STR were no more than what has beenpresented so far, Darrigol’s assertion that “The distance between Einstein’s andother contemporary reflections and method is not as great as often claimed” wouldhave to be admitted. But in fact Einstein and only he elevated the CLV (the con-stancy of the light velocity) to the status of LVP (the light-velocity postulate).

Lorentz’s electron theory rested on the concept of the stationary ether, to whichLorentz clung throughout his life. Poincaré, who persuaded Lorentz to make thetheory conform to PR and who revised it himself in his papers of 1905 and 1906,held much the same position.28 Their theory was built on Maxwell’s equationsvalid in the stationary ether and on PR, which permitted them to deduce CLV asone of the consequences. They felt no need to set up LVP.

As for Einstein, contrary to Darrigol’s dating of his acceptance of the etheruntil 1901 or later, he had expressed his doubt about its existence as early as 1899:29

I’m convinced more and more that the electrodynamics of moving bodies as it ispresented today doesn’t correspond to reality, and that it will be possible to presentit in a simpler way. The introduction of the term “ether” into theories of electric-ity has led to the concept of a medium whose motion we can describe, without, Ibelieve, being able to ascribe physical meaning to it. I think that electrical forcescan be directly defined only for empty space, something also emphasized by{Heinrich R.} Hertz. Further, electrical currents will have to be thought of not as“the disappearance of electrical polarization over time,” but as the motion of trueelectrical masses whose physical reality appears to be confirmed by electrochemicalequivalents.

Evidently by 1899 Einstein questioned, if he had not already rejected, the exist-ence of the ether, and the interpretation of Maxwell’s electrodynamics that deniedthe “physical reality” of “true electrical masses.” We should regard Einstein’sSTR as a theory constructed upon these doubts from the start.

A further piece of evidence may be found in Einstein’s response to a questionfrom Carl Seelig:30

The new feature of {STR} was the realization of the fact that the bearing of theLorentz-transformations transcended their connection with Maxwell’s equationsand was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. A further newresult was that the “Lorentz invariance” is a general condition for any physical

28. Henri Poincaré, “Sur la dynamique de l’électron,” Académie des Sciences, Paris, Comptesrendus, 140 (1905), 1504-1508; Circolo Mathematico, Palermo, Rendiconti, 21 (1906), 129-176.29. Letters, 10-11.30. Quoted in Born, “Physics” (ref. 3), 248-249; Born, Physics (ref. 3), 104, orignally inTechnische rundschan (Bern, 6 May 1955).


theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previ-ously found that Maxwell’s theory did not account for the micro-structure of ra-diation and could therefore have no general validity.

Born judged that this statement settled the question of origins. “The last sen-tence of this letter is of particular importance. For it shows that Einstein’s papersof 1905 on relativity and on the light quantum were not disconnected.” We mustnot disregard Taketani’s view so easily as Hirosige has done. A late letter fromEinstein to Max von Laue concerning Laue’s book on STR reaffirms the accountin the letter to Seelig:31 “Looking over your collection of proofs of {STR}, thereader concludes that Maxwell’s theory is unquestionable. But in 1905 I alreadyknew for certain that Maxwell’s theory leads to false fluctuations of radiation pres-sure and hence to an incorrect Brownian motion in a Planck cavity.”

Einstein’s paper on STR consists of a kinematical part and an electrodynamicalpart.32 Contrary to Lorentz’s treatment of 1904, Einstein’s kinematics containsneither Maxwell’s equations nor the Lorentz force.33 Instead, it starts with Einstein’sfamous comment, “It is well-known that Maxwell’s electrodynamics—as usuallyunderstood at present—when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries thatdo not seem attached to the phenomena.” Despite its title “On the electrodynamicsof moving bodies,” Einstein’s paper does not premise Maxwell’s electrodynamics,but aims at transcending the latter.

To derive the Lorentz transformation equations, however, Einstein needed CLV,the validity of which had already led him to the revision of the concept of time.Therefore, in order to transcend Maxwell’s electrodynamics, he had no choice butto elevate CLV to the status of LVP.34 Einstein’s theory differs from that of Lorentz-Poincaré in raising LVP into an independent postulate. The Lorentz-Poincaré theorylacks the kinematical part essential for STR. Hence Hirosige’s and Darrigol’saccounts do not hold.

3. EINSTEIN’S AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ERROR

The reason that so many excellent students of the history of STR overlookedthe obvious fact presented in the preceding section might lie in a crucial errorcontained in “Notes” in the first and the second editions of Albert Einstein—Phi-losopher-scientist (1949 and 1951). The problem comes in these lines:35

31. Max Laue, Das Relativitätstheorie (Vieweg, 1911); Gerald Holton, “Influences onEinstein’s early work,” The American scholar, 37 (1967-1968), 59-79; and Origins, 197-217, on 201-202.32. Albert Einstein, “On the electrodynamics of moving bodies,” PR, 35-55; CPEE, 2, 140-171.33. Lorentz (ref. 7).34. Abiko (ref. 25), 21.35. “Notes,” AEPS, 50-53.

204 ABIKO

Reflections of this type made it clear to me as long ago as shortly after 1900, i.e.,shortly after {Max} Planck’s trailblazing work, that neither mechanics nor ther-modynamics (except in limiting cases) claim exact validity. By and by I despairedof the possibility of discovering the true laws by means of constructive effortsbased on known facts {italics added}.

Einstein intended to write “electrodynamics” rather than “thermodynamics.”This passage hides the fact that the correct version appeared first in the Germanedition published in Stuttgart in 1955, the year of Einstein’s death.36 This editionidentifies itself as “the only authorized transcription of the volume published in1949.” Einstein himself approved the correction.

I asked The Albert Einstein Archives in Jerusalem how the error and the cor-rection took place. The archivist Barbara Wolff replied:

When “Autobiographisches” was published in 1949, someone found several er-rors in the printed version (we do not know who) and Helen Dukas {Einstein’ssecretary} marked the corrections in Einstein’s copy of the book. We not onlyrecognize her handwriting, but also have a letter in which she explains that shecorrected the errors in Einstein’s copy of the book....In addition, she typed a “listof errata” (undated, supposedly just after the 1949 edition)....One copy of the listwas given to Peter Bergmann {Einstein’s assistant} and we were convinced thatthe first additions to the list were his.

Dukas’ errata list is reproduced in figure 1; the relevant passages in the manuscriptand the correction on the printed version in figures 2a and 2b.

The necessity of the correction is evident from three other passages in the“Notes.”

� A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises is, themore different kinds of things it relates, and the more extended is its area ofapplicability. Therefore the deep impression which classical thermodynamicsmade upon me. It is the only physical theory of universal content concerningwhich I am convinced that, within the framework of the applicability of its basicconcepts, it will never be overthrown {italics added}.37

� This form of reasoning {in Planck’s derivation of his radiation-formula} doesnot make obvious the fact that it contradicts the mechanical and electrodynamicalbasis, upon which the derivation otherwise depends. Actually, however, the deri-vation presupposes implicitly that energy can be absorbed and emitted by the

36. Einstein, “Autobiographisches,” in Paul A. Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein als Philosophund Naturforscher (Stuttgart, 1955), 1-36, on 19. I am indebted to Professor MasakatsuYamazaki of the Tokyo Institute of Technology for having notified me the existence of thisGerman edition.37. “Notes,” English, 33, German, 32.


(a)

FIG. 2 (a) Einstein’s manuscript with the incorrect “thermodynamik” in the third line; (b) The correc-tion on the printed version. Courtesy of the Albert Einstein Archives, The Jewish National and Univer-sity Library, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

FIG. 1 “List of errata” for Einstein’s “Autobiographical Notes.” The relevant mistake is on p. 19 ofEinstein’s manuscript (figure 2a) and on p. 52 of the printed version of the first 1949 and the second(1951) editions (figure 2b). Courtesy of the Albert Einstein Archives, The Jewish National and Univer-sity Library, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.

(b)

206 ABIKO

individual resonator only in “quanta” of hv...in contradiction to the laws of me-chanics and electrodynamics {italics added}.38

� The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the convictionthat only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead us to assuredresults. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics {italics added}.39

The correction was indispensable to make the text consistent.One of those stymied by Einstein’s mistake was Miller. He wrote “Planck’s

radiation law shocked Einstein. For not only did it violate classical electromagne-tism and mechanics, but Einstein could not even adapt classical physics to it, as herecalled.” {italics added} Here Miller refers to “Notes.”40 Again:41

Of this paper on Brownian motion, Einstein wrote (1907d) that its results con-vinced him of the insufficiency of mechanics and of thermodynamics to accountfor properties of all systems of matter in motion. Moreover, Einstein continued,this state of affairs should be enough to convince everyone of the necessity formaking fundamental changes in the basis of theoretical physics {italics added}.

The italicized part recalls the wording of the mistake in “Notes.” Indeed, thestatement that Miller quotes agrees with “Notes” but not with Einstein’s paper of1907:42

Let us imagine that the molecular-kinetic theory of heat has not yet been pro-pounded, and that it has been demonstrated with complete certainty, however,that Brownian motion is not only caused by any external supply of energy, butalso it is clearly recognized that these motions cannot be explained with the helpof mechanics and thermodynamics. In such a situation one would rightly con-clude that a radical change of theoretical foundations must take place.

Einstein meant that only in the absence of “the molecular-kinetic theory ofheat,” that is, “the statistical thermodynamics” of Einstein’s papers of 1902-0443

would “a radical change” have been required.Because of misinterpretation of Einstein’s text of 1907, Miller obscures the

nature of STR:44

38. “Notes,” English, 45, German 44.39. “Notes,” English, 53, German, 52.40. Miller, Frontiers (ref. 19), 386.41. Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity (Reading, 1981; reprintNew York, 1998), 128.42. Albert Einstein, “On the inertia of energy required by the relativity principle,” CPEE, 2,238-251, on 239.43. Abiko (ref. 25), 11.44. Miller (ref. 41), 128.


Nevertheless, as long as one was not studying the instantaneous state of a system,in regions of space small enough so that fluctuation phenomena must be takeninto account, then “equations of mechanics and thermodynamics can be employed,”and with this restriction in mind one could also make use of Maxwell’s equations.This Einstein did in...the relativity paper {STR of 1905}. Here Einstein resolvedthe tension, or incompatibility, between the laws of mechanics and electromagne-tism by proposing a principle of relativity applicable to both.

The above passage shows that Miller regards STR as a theory strictly restrictedwithin the realm of classical physics applicable only to the macroscopic domain.If one takes this position, however, one can explain neither the necessity of settingup LVP as an independent postulate nor the difference between the theories ofLorentz-Poincaré and Einstein.

4. EINSTEIN’S RESEARCH PROGRAM (ERP)

The “Notes” make clear that of the three theories of classical physics (mechan-ics, electromagnetism, and thermodynamics), Einstein regarded thermodynamicsas the only one of universal content that would never be overthrown within itssphere of applicability. On the other hand, “shortly after Planck’s trailblazingwork” he realized that neither mechanics nor electromagnetism could claim such astatus. The first core ingredient of ERP was thermodynamics.

The range of applicability of the basic concepts of thermodynamics is veryrestricted. We can get a glimpse of the direction of Einstein’s efforts to broadenthe range from his letters to his fiancée, Mileva Maric:45

� {I} have completed my deliberations on the fundamental laws of thermoelectric-ity. I have also come up with a very simple method of determining whether thelatent heat of metals can be reduced to the motion of ponderable matter of elec-tricity.

� It seems to me that it is not out of the question that latent kinetic energy of heatin solids and fluids can be thought of as the energy of electric resonators. If thisis the case, then the specific heat and the absorption spectrum of solids wouldhave to be related....On the question of specific heat, which at the same timeconcerns the relationship between temperature and radiation process, I’ve comeup with some very simple conclusions.

� I’ve begun to have reservations of a fundamental nature about Max Planck’sstudies on radiation, so much so that I’m reading his paper with mixed feelings....Iwas recently struck with an idea that when light is generated, a direct transforma-tion of the energy of motion into light might occur because of the parallel: the

45. Letters, 17-18 (10 Oct 1899); ibid., 37, 40 (23 and 27 Mar 1901); ibid., 41, 47 (30 Apr1901); ibid., 54 (28 May 1901).

208 ABIKO

kinetic energy of the molecules—absolute temperature—spectrum (spatial radia-tion energy in the state of equilibrium).

� I just read a wonderful paper by {Philipp} Lenard on the generation of cathoderays by ultraviolet light. Under the influence of this beautiful piece I am filledwith such happiness and joy.

Evidently, Einstein was attending closely to the microscopic mechanisms of en-ergy transformation. The excerpts from Einstein’s letters correspond to the fol-lowing description in his “Notes”:46

All of this {i.e., insufficiency of mechanics and electromagnetism} was quite clearto me shortly after the appearance of Planck’s fundamental work; so that, withouthaving a substitute for classical mechanics, I could nevertheless see to what kindof consequences this law of temperature-radiation leads for the photo-electriceffect and for other related phenomena of the transformation of radiation-energy,as well as for the specific heat of (especially) solid bodies. All my attempts,however, to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this {new type of} knowl-edge failed completely.…My own interest in these years was less concerned withthe detailed consequences of Planck’s results....My major question was: Whatgeneral conclusions can be drawn from the radiation-formula concerning the struc-ture of radiation and even more generally concerning the electro-magnetic foun-dation of physics?

This paragraph may be taken as a specification of ERP.Confirmation of this assertion may be found in additional passages from

Einstein’s correspondence with Maric:47

� The Boltzmann is absolutely magnificent. I’m almost finished with it. He’s amasterful writer. I am firmly convinced of the correctness of the principles of histheory, i.e., I am convinced that in the case of gases, we are really dealing withdiscrete mass points of definite size which move according to certainconditions....This is a step forward in the dynamic explanation of physical phe-nomenon.

� I’m rather well versed in physical chemistry now....The most wonderful of all isthe ion theory, which has proved itself magnificently in the most diverse areas.The results on capillarity I recently obtained in Zurich seem to be entirely newdespite their simplicity.

� I came up with a wonderful idea that allows one to apply our theory of molecularforces to gases as well. You will remember, of course, that the force appearsexplicitly in the integrals that have to be calculated for determining diffusion,thermal conductivity and viscosity.

46. “Notes,” AEPS, 1, 44-47.47. Letters, 32 (13 Sep 1900); ibid., 35-36 (3 Oct 1900); ibid., 45 (15 Apr 1901).


Einstein was much attracted to Boltzmann’s kinetic theory of gases, the ionic theoryin physical chemistry (which conflicted with Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory),and the influence of intermolecular forces on the dissipative processes. Thesethemes recur in his five papers written before 1905.

In the first two of these papers, Einstein tried to apply his theory of intermo-lecular force, modeled on the law of universal gravitation, to capillarity and thecontact potential. The third paper, the first of the “statistical trio,” attempted toclose the gap in Boltzmann’s kinetic theory of heat between the law of thermalequilibrium and the second law of thermodynamics, on the one hand, and equa-tions of mechanics and the probability calculus on the other. The fourth and fifthpapers do not rely on mechanics. They treat a generalized thermodynamical sys-tem expressed by state-variables, and, therefore, the theory they presented shouldproperly be called as “statistical thermodynamics” rather than “statistical mechan-ics.”48 Leaving the realm of mechanics, Einstein could safely apply his theory toblackbody radiation in the last part of the fifth paper.49

Returning to the question how Einstein built out thermodynamics into his re-search program, I find the answer in his introduction of the probability calculusand the inverse use of the Boltzmann principle S = k log w (E), i.e., the deductionof the state-density w (E) by the combined use of the probability calculus and thethermodynamical relationship ¶S/¶E=1/T. With these ingredients he constructedthe theory of fluctuations, which he first employed in the last part of the fifthpaper. The resultant statistical thermodynamics underlay his doctoral dissertation,his theory of Brownian movement, and his theory of light-quantum (all of 1905),and his theory of specific heat (1907). Moreover, the statistical thermodynamicsgave rise to the first quantum theory of matter in his paper of 1906, for which, aswell as for the theory of the light-quantum, he received the Nobel Prize in 1921.50

How then did STR emerge from EPR? After referring to “the structure ofradiation” and “the electro-magnetic foundation of physics” in “Notes,” Einsteindescribes Brownian motion of a small mirror suspended in a cavity filled withthermal radiation. On Maxwell’s theory the fluctuation of the radiation pressurewould not be enough to impart to the mirror the average kinetic energy kT/2 re-quired by the equipartition law of statistical thermodynamics. To investigate moreprecisely the structure of radiation, Einstein needed Maxwell’s equations in thecoordinate system of the mirror at rest. At this point he set the basis of STR.51 We

48. Albert Einstein, “Kinetic theory of thermal equilibrium and of the second law of ther-modynamics,” CPEE, 2, 30-47, on 30; “A theory of the foundation of thermodynamics”and Seiya Abiko, “On the general molecular theory of heat,” CPEE, 2, 48-77; cf. Abiko(ref. 25), 10-11, and “Einstein’s theories of the fluctuation and the thermal radiation: Thefirst quantum theory through statistical thermodynamics,” Historia scientiarum, 10 (2000),130-147, on 135.49. Einstein, CPEE, 2, on 75-77.50. Abiko (ref. 48), 139-141; Albert Einstein, “On the theory of light production and lightabsorption,” CPEE, 2, 192-199.51. “Notes,” AEPS, 1, 50-51; Abiko (ref. 25), 18-21.

210 ABIKO

know, of course, that he had been interested in the “electrodynamics of movingbodies” from his adolescence. But, from the viewpoint of ERP, the more urgentpurpose of the construction of STR seems to have been the investigation of “thestructure of radiation” and, more generally, of “the electro-magnetic foundation ofphysics.”

The detailed calculations he needed appear in papers published in 1909 and1910.52 They showed that, assuming radiation described by Planck’s radiation for-mula, the fluctuations would be a combination of those in a collection of gas mol-ecules each having energy of hv and of those derivable from Maxwell’s equations.Later, in 1916, he redid the calculation using his then new quantum theory ofradiation instead of Maxwell’s.53 A further result from the new theory was that thelight quantum possesses not only energy hv but also momentum hv/c. He endedwith the remark, “a theory can only be viewed as justified if it shows that themomenta that are transferred from radiation to matter lead to motions demandedby the theory of heat.

In this re-calculation, Einstein employed the transformation equations for theoptical Doppler effect and stellar aberration, which he had deduced from Maxwell’sequations in his STR paper of 1905:54

One could object that {these} equations...are based upon Maxwell’s theory of theelectromagnetic field, a theory that is incompatible with quantum theory. But,this objection touches the form more than the essence of the matter. Because, inwhichever way the theory of electromagnetic processes may develop, it will cer-tainly retain Doppler’s principle and the law of abberation....{A}ccording to thetheory of relativity, the transformation law applies, for example, also to the en-ergy density of a mass that moves with the (quasi) speed of light.

This retrospective remark suggests that STR was constructed as a theory appli-cable beyond the realm of the applicability of Maxwell’s theory so as to clarify theelectromagnetic foundation of physics.

5. THE RESEARCH TRADITIONS AND THE RECEPTIVE PROCESS

Lakatos’ methodology of the research program has been criticized by LarryLaudan from the following viewpoints:55

52. Albert Einstein, “On the present status of the radiation problem,” CPEE, 2, 357-375;Einstein and Ludwig Hopf, “Statistical investigation of a resonator’s motion in a radiationfield,” CPEE, 3, 220-230.53. Albert Einstein, “On the quantum theory of radiation,” CPEE, 6, 220-233; Abiko (ref.48), 141-143.54. Einstein, CPEE, 6, 228-229.55. Larry Laudan, Progress and its problems (Berkeley, 1977), 76-78.


1. As with Kuhn, Lakatos’ conception of progress is exclusively empirical, and doesnot take the conceptual problems into account.2. All Lakatos’ measures of progress require a comparison of the empirical content ofevery member of a series of theories, which is extremely problematic if not literallyimpossible.3. On account that Lakatos views the acceptance of theories as irrational, there cannever be a connection between a theory of progress and a theory of rational acceptabil-ity.4. Lakatos’ research programs, like Kuhn’s paradigms, are rigid in their hard-corestructure and admit of no fundamental changes.

For these reasons, Laudan recommends the notion of “research tradition” insteadof Lakatos’ research program. Research traditions have the following commontraits:56

1. Every research tradition has a number of specific theories that exemplify and par-tially constitute it.2. Every research tradition exhibits certain metaphysical and methodological commit-ments that, as an ensemble, individuate the research tradition and distinguish it fromothers.3. Each research tradition goes through a number of different, detailed formulationsand generally has a long history extending through a significant period of time.

It seems preferable to view the rise and the reception of STR from the broaderscope of “research traditions.”

We can identify two research traditions in physics in Western Europe aroundthe turn of the century.57 The “chemico-thermal tradition” consisted mainly ofGerman speaking physicists, like Gustav Kirchhoff, Hermann von Helmholtz, Hertz,Wilhelm Wien, Boltzmann, Wilhelm Ostwald, Mach and Planck. The “particle-dynamical tradition” consisted mainly of John Rayleigh, James Jeans, Lorentz,Pieter Zeeman, Joseph Larmor, J.J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford and Poincaré.The first tradition attached greater importance to the concept of entropy than thesecond. They also differed with respect to the relation between theoretical and theexperimental physics. Theoretical physicists in the chemico-thermal tradition en-tered into problems of former experimental areas, whereas in the particle-dynami-cal traditon the experimental physicists infused their methods into the problems offormer theoretical areas. Einstein stood within the chemico-thermal tradition. Incontrast Niels Bohr can be regarded as a member of the particle-dynamical tradi-tion.

Einstein assimilated much from the chemico-thermal tradition within whichphysicists thought practically and concretely. For them, the basic concepts of phys-

56. Laudan (ibid.), 78-79.57. Abiko (ref. 25), 5-7.

212 ABIKO

ics (aside from the atoms and molecules) were energy and entropy rather thanether, the basic concept for physicists of the partical-dynamical tradition. Einsteinfound it easier to reject the concept of ether and thus to strip electromagnetism ofits absolute character than a physicist of the other tradition would have done. Thechemico-thermal tradition made PR and LVP accessible to him.

The chemico-thermal tradition was also important in the reception of STR.Einstein’s younger sister Maja wrote:58

His publication {of STR} was followed by an icy silence. The next few issues ofthe journal did not mention his paper at all. The professional circle took an atti-tude of wait and see. Some time after the appearance of the paper, Albert Einsteinreceived a letter from Berlin. It was sent by the well-known Professor Planck,who asked for clarification of some points that were obscure to him. After thelong wait this was the first sign that his paper had been read at all. The joy of theyoung scientist was especially great because the recognition of his activities camefrom one of the greatest physicists of that time.

Planck, who based his own work on principles of general validity drawn fromthermodynamics, recognized the implications of Einstein’s theory for the founda-tions of physics. The year after Einstein published STR, Planck published a paperentitled “The principle of relativity and the fundamental equations of mechan-ics.”59 Planck’s few students then took up the subject: Kurd von Mosengeil com-pleted a dissertation in 1907 on the application of the relativity principle to theradiation of a moving blackbody, and Max von Laue began his work on relativitythat culminated in the first monograph on STR (1911).60 Planck’s interest stimu-lated more distant members of the chemico-thermal tradition, for example, PaulEhrenfest, who wrote a paper on STR in 1907.61

At the meeting of the German Physical Society held in the fall of 1906, Planckgave a talk concerning Kaufmann’s measurements of the relativistic change ofmass of high-velocity electrons.62 The electron theorists present, members of theparticle-dynamical tradition, did not like Planack’s message. Arnold Sommerfeldsmirked that, “the gentlemen under forty will prefer the electrodynamic postulate,those over forty the mechanical-relativistic postulate.”63 Sommerfeld associatedPR with the older and outmoded mechanical viewpoint.

58. Unpublished biography of Einstein quoted in Abraham Pais, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’(Oxford, 1982), 150.59. Max Planck, “Das prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik,”VPG, 8 (1906), 136-141.60. Kurd Mosengeil, “Theorie der stationären Strahlung in einem gleichförmigenbewegtenHohlraum,” AP, 22 (1907), 867-904; Laue (ref. 40).61. Paul Ehrenfest, “Die Translation deformierbarer Elektronen und der Flächensatz,” AP,23 (1907), 204-205.62. Max Planck, “Die Kauffmanschen Messungen der Ablenkbarkeit der ‚-Strahlen in ihrerBedeutung für die Dynamik der Elektronen,” VPG, 8 (1906), 418-32.63. Quoted in Christa Jungnickel and Russell MacCormmach, The intellectual mastery of


Planck repeated his message at successive meetings of the society and devel-oped a “general dynamics” encompassing mechanics, electrodynamics, and ther-modynamics. In his talk in 1908, he recalled that in Lorentz’s electron theory,denial of Newton’s action-reaction principle resulted in violation of the law ofmomentum conservation and observed that the introduction of the electromag-netic momentum removed the difficulty.64

The power demonstrated by the chemico-thermal tradition in the reception ofSTR is also evident from the names of the scientists who nominated Einstein forthe Nobel Prize:65

The first to propose Einstein was the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald, to whomEinstein had unsuccessfully applied for an assistantship in the spring of 1901.Ostwald, winner of the chemistry prize for 1909, the only one to propose Einsteinfor 1910, repeated his nominations for the 1912 and 1913 awards. In all in-stances, his sole motivation was {STR}. In 1910 he wrote that relativity was themost far-reaching new concept since the discovery of the energy principle. In hissecond nomination, he stressed that relativity frees man from bonds many thou-sands year old. On the third occasion, he emphasized that the issues were ofphysical rather than of philosophical principle (as others had suggested) and lik-ened Einstein’s contribution to the work of Copernicus and Darwin. For the 1912Einstein nomination, Ostwald was joined by E{rnst} Pringsheim, C{lemens}Schaefer, and W. Wien; for 1913 again by Wien and by Bernhard Naunyn, a Ger-man professor of medicine. All these nominations were for relativity only, thoughNaunyn added a remark on the quantum theory. Pringsheim wrote, “I believe thatthe Nobel committee will rarely have the opportunity of awarding a prize forworks of similar significance.”

It is true, as Darrigol wrote, “that in 1905 Einstein’s relativity had no stabilizedmeaning, that it could be read and used in various manners depending on the re-ceiving local culture.” But the meaning quickly stabilized:66

Around 1910 the relativity postulate began to be recognized as a universal lawand not merely an elaboration of Lorentz’s electron theory. The relativity postu-late yielded a mass-velocity dependence that applied to all bodies, whatever theirform and nature. Because it stood above assumptions about the structure of theelectron, the relativity postulate weakened the electromagnetic argument.

STR had “acquired precise meaning” five years or so after its announcement, atleast in Germany.

nature, Vol. 2 (Chicago, 1986), 250.64. Max Planck, “Bemerkungen zum Prinzip der Aktion und Reaktion in der allgemeinenDynamik,” VPG, 10 (1908), 728-732.65. Pais (ref. 76), 506; and Einstein lived here (Oxford, 1994), 70.66. Russell MacCormmach, “H.A. Lorentz and the electromagnetic view of nature,” Isis,61 (1970), 459-497, on 490.

214 ABIKO

In 1910, Planck wrote a popular article on “Relations of modern physics to themechanical interpretation of nature.” It raised relativity to a revolution:67

Now, however, a final decision {as to the validity of the mechanical theory ofnature} appears to be promised as the result of a new movement in the theoreticalphysics—a movement of so radical and revolutionary a character that its influ-ence extends far beyond the confines of the science of physics into the neighbor-ing realms of chemistry and astronomy, and even into the theory of cognition, andthat it threatens to provoke a controversy compatible only with that which waswaged over the Copernican theory of cosmogony.

Although the acceptance of STR traced a meandering path, its revolutionary char-acter was evident by 1910.68

Darrigol insists that physicists who regard Schrödinger as an inventor of quan-tum mechanics should acknowledge Lorentz’s and Poincaré’s shares in the cre-ation of relativity theory. Though Schrödinger’s original interpretation of the wave-function did not prevail, he proved the mathematical equivalence between his for-mulation of quantum mechanics and that of Heisenberg.69 Moreover, wave me-chanics is far more tractable mathematically than matrix mechanics. In the case ofLorentz and Poincaré, however, their formulation did not yield results empiricallyequivalent to those by Einstein’s STR. What is more, their theory involved a non-empirical problem in that they premised Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory alongwith the stationary ether, and, therefore, could not apply their theory to problemsinvolving the light-quantum. Darrigol’s account fall on this point as well as on hisclaims that relativity theory was neither superior to, nor emperically different fromLorentz-Poincaré theory.

67. Max Planck, “The mechanical theory of nature: Relations of modern physics to themechanical interpretation of nature,” Scientific American suppl. no. 1824 (17 Dec 1910),387; the original in Physikalische Zeitschrift, 11 (1910), 922-932, on 923.68. Lewis Pyenson, “The relativity revolution in Germany,” in T.F. Glick, ed., The com-parative reception of relativity (Dordrecht, 1987), 59-111, on 69-84.69. Erwin Schrödinger, “On the relation between the quantum mechanics of Heisenberg,Born, and Jordan, and that of Schrödinger,” in Schrödinger, Collected papers on wave me-chanics (London, 1928), and AP, 79 (1926), 734-756.


SEIYA ABIKOOn Einstein’s distrust of the electromagnetic theory: The origin of the light-velocity postulateABSTRACT:The constancy of light velocity is a consequence derivable from the application of the rela-tivity postulate to Maxwell’s equations. Therefore, Lorentz and Poincaré felt no necessityfor introducing the light-velocity postulate independently of the relativity postulate. On theother hand, Einstein, who had already developed the theory of light quantum, knew theinadequacy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory in the microscopic sphere. Therefore, hefelt it necessary to set up the light-velocity postulate independently in order to make theelectromagnetic foundation of physics compatible with Planck’s radiation formula. Thispoint constitutes the essential difference between the theories of Lorentz-Poincaré andEinstein. In other words, the Lorentz-Poincaré theory lacks the kinematical part essentialfor the special theory of relativity. The reason that students of the history of the specialtheory of relativity hitherto overlooked this obvious fact might lie in a crucial error con-tained in Einstein’s “Autobiographical notes” in their first and second editions. The correc-tion, introduced for the first time in the German edition of 1955, the year of Einstein’sdeath, revealed that the first core ingredient of Einstein’s research program was thermody-namics. His letters to his fiancée as well as his works in his early years permit us to moreabout his research program. This program conformed to the chemico-thermal researchtradition to which he belonged. The latter tradition made postulates of the relativity and thelight-velocity accessible to him, and was also important in the receptive process of thespecial theory of relativity.

Documents

On Einstein's distrust of the electromagnetic theory: …€™ s 1904 paper was not on STR as understood after Einstein. He used the nonrelativistic addition law for velocities (v