Mistaken Identity and Mirror Images: Albert and Carl Einstein, Leiden and Berlin, Relativity and Revolution

Albert Einstein accepted a 'special' visiting professorship at the University of Leiden in the Netherlands in February 1920. Although his appointment should have been a mere formality, it took until October of that year before Einstein could occupy his special chair. Why the delay? The explanation involves a case of mistaken identity with Carl Einstein, Dadaist art, and a particular Dutch fear of revolutions. But what revolution was one afraid of? The story of Einstein's Leiden chair throws new light on the reception of relativity and its creator in the Netherlands and in Germany

Reactionaries and Einstein's Fame: "German Scientists for the Preservation of Pure Science," Relativity, and the Bad Nauheim Meeting

Two important and unpleasant events occurred in Albert Einstein's life in 1920: That August an antirelativity rally was held in the large auditorium of the Berlin Philharmonic, and a few weeks later Einstein was drawn into a tense and highly publicized debate with Philipp Lenard on the merits of relativity at a meeting in Bad Nauheim, Germany. I review these events and discuss how they affected Einstein in light of new documentary evidence that has become available through the publication of Volume 10 of the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.Comment: 18 page

The reception of relativity in the Netherlands

This article reviews the early academic and public reception of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity in the Netherlands, particularly after Arthur Eddington's eclipse experiments of 1919. Initially, not much attention was given to relativity, as it did not seem an improvement over Hendrik A. Lorentz' work. This changed after the arrival in Leiden of Paul Ehrenfest. Soon relativity was much studied and lead to controversy among a number of conservative intellectuals, as elsewhere in Europe. The tone of Dutch critics was much more mild, however. This can be understood when one considers Dutch neutrality during World War I. Einstein's political positions were generally positively perceived in Holland, which Dutch academics put to use in their efforts at international reconciliation abroad, and the presentation of theoretical physics at home

The Epistemic Virtues of the Virtuous Theorist: On Albert Einstein and His Autobiography

Albert Einstein’s practice in physics and his philosophical positions gradually reoriented themselves from more empiricist towards rationalist viewpoints. This change accompanied his turn towards unified field theory and different presentations of himself, eventually leading to his highly programmatic Autobiographical Notes in 1949. Einstein enlisted his own history and professional stature to mold an ideal of a theoretical physicist who represented particular epistemic virtues and moral qualities. These in turn reflected the theoretical ideas of his strongly mathematical unification program and professed Spinozist beliefs

The interpretation of the Einstein-Rupp experiments and their influence on the history of quantum mechanics

The Einstein-Rupp experiments were proposed in 1926 by Albert Einstein to study the wave versus particle nature of light. Einstein presented a theoretical analysis of these experiments to the Berlin Academy together with results of Emil Rupp, who claimed to have successfully carried them out. However, as the preceding paper has claimed (HSPS 37 Suppl. (2007), 73-121), Rupp's success was the result of scientific fraud. This paper will argue, after exploring their interpretation, that the experiments were a relevant part of the background to such celebrated contributions to quantum mechanics as Born's statistical interpretation of the wave function and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Yet, the Einstein-Rupp experiments have hardly received attention in the history of quantum mechanics literature. In part, this is a consequence of self-censorship in the physics community, enforced in the wake of the Rupp affair. Self-censorship among historians of physics may however also have played a role

String theory, Einstein, and the identity of physics: Theory assessment in absence of the empirical

String theorists are certain that they are practicing physicists. Yet, some of their recent critics deny this. This paper argues that this conflict is really about who holds authority in making rational judgment in theoretical physics. At bottom, the conflict centers on the question: who is a proper physicist? To illustrate and understand the differing opinions about proper practice and identity, we discuss different appreciations of epistemic virtues and explanation among string theorists and their critics, and how these have been sourced in accounts of Einstein's biography. Just as Einstein is claimed by both sides, historiography offers examples of both successful and unsuccessful non-empirical science. History of science also teaches that times of conflict are often times of innovation, in which novel scholarly identities may come into being. At the same time, since the contributions of Thomas Kuhn historians have developed a critical attitude towards formal attempts and methodological recipes for epistemic demarcation and justification of scientific practice. These are now, however, being considered in the debate on non-empirical physics.Comment: To appear in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, special issue on "Non-Empirical Physics from a Historical Perspective

Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the canal ray experiments on wave-particle duality: Scientific fraud and theoretical bias

In 1926 Emil Rupp published a number of papers on the interference properties of light emitted by canal ray sources. These articles, particularly one paper that came into being in collaboration with Albert Einstein, drew quite some attention as they probed the wave versus particle nature of light. They also significantly propelled Rupp's career, even though that from the outset they were highly controversial. This article will review this episode, and in particular Rupp's collaboration with Einstein. Evidence that Rupp forged his results is presented and their critical reception in the socially and politically divided German physics community is discussed. These divisions fail to explain the full dynamic; the latter is attempted by turning to the role that theoretical bias on occasion has in assessing experiment. Einstein's responses in particular are analyzed in this context

Communicating the Heisenberg uncertainty relations: Niels Bohr, Complementarity and the Einstein-Rupp experiments

The Einstein-Rupp experiments have been unduly neglected in the history of quantum mechanics. While this is to be explained by the fact that Emil Rupp was later exposed as a fraud and had fabricated the results, it is not justified, due to the importance attached to the experiments at the time. This paper discusses Rupp's fraud, the relation between Albert Einstein and Rupp, and the Einstein-Rupp experiments, and argues that these experiments were an influence on Niels Bohr's development of complementarity and Werner Heisenberg's formulation of the uncertainty relations.Comment: One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom, 1913-2013. Conference at the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen, 11-14 June 2013. Published as Scientia Danica. Series M, Mathematica et physica, 1: One Hundred Years of the Bohr Atom, Proceedings, 2015, pp. 310-34

In Europe

As the History of Science Society, which is based in America, holds its annual meeting in Utrecht, one of the key academic centers on the European continent, one may surmise that the field has returned home. Yet, this hardly reflects how today's world of scholarship is constituted: in the historiography of science, 'provincializing Europe' has become an important theme, while the field itself, as is the case across the world of academia, is centered around a predominantly American literature. At the same time, ever since historians of science have emancipated themselves from the sciences a long time ago, they often have appeared, in the public eye, to question rather than to seek to bolster the authority of the sciences. How has this situation come about, and what does it tell us about the world we live in today? What insight is sought and what public benefit is gained by the historical study of science? As we try to answer these questions, we will follow a number of key mid-twentieth century historians--Eduard Dijksterhuis, Thomas Kuhn and Martin Klein--in their Atlantic crossings. Their answers to debates on the constitution of the early modern scientific revolution or the novelty of the work of Max Planck will illustrate how notions of 'center' and 'periphery' have shifted--and what that may tell us about being 'in Europe' today.Comment: Elizabeth Paris Lecture, History of Science Society meeting, Utrecht, 23-27 July 201