5.2.2 Einstein's “Annus Mirabilis”

It Was Only 'Mirabilis' With Benefit of Hindsight

Nov 27, 2024

Thanks to my now 2000 subscribers for helping Fields & Energy reach yet another milestone!
If your email server truncates this post, click on the headline to view online.

Einstein’s submission on the electrodynamics of moving bodies was just one of four remarkable papers he published in 1905, his “annus mirabilis” or miraculous year. How certain metals emit electrons when exposed to light remained a mystery. Einstein explained the photoelectric effect by arguing that the energy in light came in discrete quantized chunks that would later be dubbed “photons” [[i]]. He explained Brownian motion – the quivering of small particles – in terms of atomic theory and statistical mechanics [[ii]]. This provided solid evidence in support of the then controversial atomic theory. Finally, he presented his formula for the equivalence of mass (m) and energy (E), equivalent to “E = mc²,” as previously noted [[iii]].

Einstein’s annus was only mirabilis, however, with the benefit of hindsight. The initial response was “an icy silence” [[iv]]. As an associate editor at Annalen der Physik, the leading German physics journal, Max Planck (1858–1947), accepted Einstein’s articles without any additional input, as was customary in the days before peer review. Planck was an early adopter and enthusiast for Einstein’s ideas, and with his patronage, within a couple of years, interest in relativity began to grow in German scientific circles [[v]]. One historian quipped, “Planck made two great discoveries in his lifetime: the energy quantum and Einstein” [[vi]].

Outside Germany recognition was slower.

In 1907, Einstein sent one of his papers on relativity to George Frederick Charles Searle (1864–1954), then at Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge. Two years later in 1909, Searle replied:

I am sorry that I have so long delayed to write to thank you for sending me … a copy of your paper on the principle of relativity. I have not been able so far to gain any really clear idea as to the principles involved or as to their meaning and those to whom I have spoken in England about the subject seem to have the same feeling [[vii]].

Searle also wrote to his friend, Oliver Heaviside (1850–1925), that he had “no idea” what the “principle [of relativity]” was [[viii]]. One historian of science notes:

Searle is the only British physicist to the best of my knowledge to have corresponded with Einstein before 1919… Given the radical and revolutionary status subsequently bestowed upon Einstein’s work of 1905, one might assume that it made quite a stir among his peers at the time. Yet if Searle’s remarks are anything to go by, it was greeted, at least in Britain, with a mixture of indifference and incomprehension [[x]].

Figure 5.16: George Frederick Charles Searle (1864–1954), left, courtesy of the Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge [**[ix]**], and headline from the New York Times, September 8, 1913, right, the first time “Prof. Einstein” was mentioned in the paper.

Perhaps British scientists weren’t corresponding with Einstein, but there was enough awareness of relativity in Britain by 1913 for relativity to be the topic of incoming British Association President Oliver Lodge’s Presidential Address. The New York Times reported (in its very first mention of Einstein):

The school of British physicists has heretofore built up its theories and explanations of the transmission of light through space, and the attraction of heavenly bodies for each other on the theory of the existence of ether which transmits light waves and the force of gravity or energy of any kind.
Ether has failed to respond to the subtlest efforts made to detect its objective existence, and a new school, led by Prof. Einstein of the University of Zurich and Prof. Max Planck, Rector of Berlin University, has come forward with an attempt to predicate a universe without ether, their theory being known as the theory of relativity [[xi]].

German physicist Wilhelm Wien (1864–1928) explained to New Zealand physicist Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) that Newton was wrong about relativity and added, “But no Anglo-Saxon can understand relativity.”

“No,” Rutherford agreed. “They have too much sense” [[xii]].

“Rutherford treated it as a joke” [[xiii]], but perhaps the most influential critique of Einstein’s priority was from mathematician and historian, Edmund Whittaker (1873–1956). In the initial 1910 edition of History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity, Whittaker only mentions Einstein in a couple of footnotes [[xiv]]. Even writing the second volume of this history in 1953, with the benefit of hindsight, Whittaker dismissively states, “In the autumn of [1905]… Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory of Poincaré and Lorentz with some amplifications, and which attracted much attention” [[xv]]. He added:

It is clear, from the history set forth in the present chapter, that the theory of relativity had its origin in the theory of aether and electrons. When relativity had become recognised as a doctrine covering the whole operation of physical nature, efforts were made to present it in a form free from any special association with electromagnetic theory, and deducible logically from a definite set of axioms of greater or less plausibility [[xvi]].

Others disputed Whittaker’s casual dismissal of Einstein’s contributions [[xvii], [xviii], [xix]]. Whittaker’s friend and colleague at Edinburgh University, the émigré German-Jewish physicist Max Born (1882–1970) who was also a longtime friend of Einstein, tried to persuade him of the epistemological significance of Einstein’s contribution and was “grieved” Whittaker should question Einstein’s merit [[xx]]. Still others claimed any criticism of Einstein was evidence of antisemitism and bigotry [[xxi]].

Clifford Truesdell (1919–2000) observed “Whittaker … aroused colossal antagonism by trying to set the record of relativity straight on the basis of print and record rather than recollection and folklore and professional propaganda…” [[xxii]].

Born offered a balanced take on the controversy in his review of History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity:

…relativity appears in Whittaker's presentation not as a surprising discovery of a single mind, but a slow and painful development due to the labours of a number of men. The current idea is that these efforts culminated in Einstein’s work, whose name has been attached to the notion of relativity. In opposition to this popular view Whittaker sees the crowning of the relativistic work in the discoveries of H. A. Lorentz and Henri Poincaré, while he regards Einstein's papers as only secondary contributions. In fact, there is much to be said in favour of Whittaker’s judgment. From the mathematical standpoint the Lorentz transformations contain the whole of special relativity, and there seems to be no doubt that Poincaré was, perhaps a little ahead of Einstein…
But why has Einstein made such a great impression that the others are forgotten by all but the specialists? It is because Einstein showed, in a very simple language, the conceptual absurdity of the idea of absolute simultaneity of distant events and succeeded not only to propose a reasonable definition of relative simultaneity with the help of light signals but also to derive, from this abstract construction, the Lorentz transformations and all their physical consequences. The reviewer is inclined, without disregarding the great contributions of Lorentz and Poincaré to side with the general use in naming relativity after Einstein, if a name is desired at all. It may be added that there is of course in the book not the slightest bias or animosity against Einstein to be found, his name is quoted innumerable times in connection with other discoveries, mainly in quantum mechanics [[xxiii]].

Einstein’s immense fame did not spring from special relativity or any other achievement of his annus mirabilis, however, but rather on his theory of curved spacetime called “general relativity.”

Next time: 5.2.3 The Search for Vulcan: And What Was Going On With Uranus?

Enjoyed the article, but maybe not quite enough to spring for a paid subscription?
Then click on the button below to buy me a coffee. Thanks!

Full Table of Contents [click here]

Follow Online:

You may follow me online in other places as well:

References

[[i]] Einstein, Albert, “Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt,” (“On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”), Annalen der Physik, vol. 17 no. 6, 1905, pp. 132–148.

[[ii]] Einstein, Albert, “Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen,” (“Investigations on the theory of Brownian Movement”), Annalen der Physik, vol. 17 no. 8, 1905, pp. 549–560.

[[iii]] Einstein, Albert, “Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seinem Energieinhalt abhängig?,” (“Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?”), Annalen der Physik, vol. 18 no. 13, 1905, pp. 639–641.

[[iv]] Pais, Abraham, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 150.

[[v]] Pais, Abraham, ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and Life of Albert Einstein, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982, p. 150.

[[vi]] Miller, Arthur I., Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911), Springer, Paperback, 1997, p. 239.

[[vii]] Warwick, Andrew, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 399-400.

[[viii]] Warwick, Andrew, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 399-400.

[[ix]] Photograph of George F.C. Searle (P1229), Cavendish Lab, University of Cambridge; used with their permission. George Frederick Charles Searle joined the Cavendish Laboratory in 1888 and worked there for 55 years. His is most notable research concerned the velocity dependence of electromagnetic mass. He is most famous as a dedicated and brilliant director of undergraduate practical classes for Part I Physics students. He invented many demonstrations on fundamental aspects of basic physics. See: https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PH-CAVENDISH-P-01229/1

[[x]] Warwick, Andrew, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003, pp. 399-400.

[[xi]] Anon., “British Association Meets Wednesday – Sir Oliver Lodge, in Presidential Address, Will Combat the “Theory of Relativity – EXISTENCE WITHOUT MATTER – Celebrated Scientist to Argue Against the Idea That What Is Not Palpable Is Non-Existent,” New York Times, September 8, 1913. See: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/09/18/1913-arguing-with-einstein/

[[xii]] Essen, Louis, The Special Theory of Relativity A Critical Analysis, Oxford Science Research Papers 6, Clarendon Press Oxford, 1971, p. 2. See: https://od.lk/f/OV80NjcxMTI1NV9rMkJwZQ The citation reads: “Blackett, P.M.S. (1955). Yb. Phys. Soc.” I was unable to track that down further.

[[xiii]] Essen, Louis, “Relativity: Joke or Swindle?” Wireless World, February, 1988, pp. 126-127. See: https://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm

[[xiv]] Whittaker, Edmund, A History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity From the Age of Descartes to the Close of the Nineteenth Century, London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910, pp. 440, 447.

*Lorentz' work was completed in respect to the formulae which connect pi, vi, with p, v, by Einstein, Ann. d. Phys., xvii (1905), p. 891. It should be added that the transformation in question had been applied to the equation of vibratory motions many years before by Voigt, Gott. Nach. 1887, p. 41 [p. 440].

* This [the lack of an absolute relation to the æther] was first clearly expressed by Einstein, Ann. d. Phys. xvii (1905), p. 891 [p. 447].

[[xv]] Whittaker, Edmund, A History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity, vol. 2, (New Tork: Harper and Brothers, 1960). Originally published 1953.

[[xvi]] Whittaker, Edmund, A History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity, vol. 2, (New Tork: Harper and Brothers, 1960), pp. 42-43. Originally published 1953.

[[xvii]] Torretti, Roberto, Relativity and Geometry, Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1983, pp. 83-87.

[[xviii]] Holton, Gerald, “On the Origins of the Special Theory of Relativity,” American Journal of Physics, 28(7), 1960, pp. 627–636. doi:10.1119/1.1935922. Holton adds quite aptly, “…to say that Einstein’s paper “attracted much attention” is correct only if one neglects the first few years after publication. For the early period, a more characteristic reaction was, in fact, either total silence or the response to be found in the first paper in the Annalen der Physik that mentioned Einstein’s work on the RT. It was a categorical experimental disproof of Einstein’s theory by the eminent physicist W. Kaufmann, who concluded: ‘I anticipate right here the general result of the measurements to be described in the following: The measurement results are not compatible with the Lorentz-Einsteinian fundamental assumption.’” Quoting W. Kaufmann, Ann. Physik 19, 495 (1906). Italics in original.

[[xix]] Ohanian, Hans, Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius, New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008, p. 162.

[[xx]] Navarro, Jaume, “Whittaker, Einstein, and the History of the Æther: Alternative interpretation, blunder, or bigotry?” History of Science 1-28, 2020, ps://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320968408

[[xxi]] Navarro, Jaume, “Whittaker, Einstein, and the History of the Æther: Alternative interpretation, blunder, or bigotry?” History of Science 1-28, 2020, ps://doi.org/10.1177/0073275320968408

[[xxii]] Truesdell, Clifford, “Genius and the Establishment at a Polite Standstill in the Modern University: Bateman (1976, 1981),” collected in An Idiot’s Fugitive Essays on Science, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1984, p. 432.

[[xxiii]] Born, Max, “Review: A History of the Theories of Æther and Electricity, The Modern Theories,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, V(19), 1954, pp. 261–263. See p. 262. Doi:10.1093/bjps/V.19.261.