The Man Who Stalked Einstein (10 page)

• Was mathematically deduced but did not actually exist in the physical realm.
  

• Was supported by only scant experimental evidence; what evidence did exist was explainable
  by error in observer measurements.
  

• Rejected the idea of there being an ether to explain how electromagnetic radiation,
  like light and X-rays, were propagated through space; the theory of relativity did
  not sufficiently address the mechanism of how this occurred to replace what its detractors
  claimed had worked well for centuries.
  

• Contradicted conventional notions of space and time; these conventions, dependent
  on Euclidian geometry, had served science well and should not be replaced by relativistic
  artifices.
  

Moreover, Lenard intended to introduce a new wrinkle to these longstanding critiques.
Specifically, given the abstract nature of the theory of relativity and the absence
of supporting physical evidence, at Bad Nauheim and for years afterward, he would
attack Einstein’s ideas on the grounds that they went against the principle of “sound
common sense.” In Lenard’s mind, they lacked believability.

Sessions featuring presentations on relativity occurring on September 23 and early
in the morning on September 24 set the stage for the open discussion that would conclude
the conference. Following the lectures on relativity of September 24, a single door
opened to Bath House number 8, guarded on one side by a burly member of the German
Mathematical Society and on the other by one from the German Physical Society. The
members of these societies were given preferential admission. In all, six hundred
scientists jammed into the capacious, richly decorated bath house waiting room; proceeded
into the
Schmuckhof
, a monastery-like ornamental court; and lined the gallery. Afterward, what space
remained was opened to a waiting line of members of the press and interested onlookers.
Paul Weyland was among them. The crowd was restive; a softly murmured expectancy hung
in the air. There was the expectation there would be blood.

In such a charged atmosphere, it was a given that only one man could chair the session.
Although Max Planck was generally known to be a supporter of Einstein, he had expressed
concerns of his own on the subject of relativity. Most importantly, his gentility
and sense of fairness were widely respected. On this occasion, the courtly physicist
responsible for quantum theory appeared to onlookers to be unusually agitated. Planck
had encouraged Einstein to stay in Germany in the face of Einstein’s mounting concerns
about the bellicose posturing of extremist elements. So far, Einstein had stayed put,
but Planck worried that events occurring during the session might cause Einstein to
reconsider emigration.

As it turned out, Planck need not have worried. Writing well after the debate, Einstein
made it clear that he had no intention to abandon Germany at this time, noting, “It
also would be an injurious act when in this time of stress and humiliation I would
turn my back on Germany, given the great kindness that I have constantly experienced
from the side of my German colleagues and authorities.” He concluded, “I therefore
consider it my duty to endure in my position until outside circumstances render it
practically impossible.”

However, Planck was not privy to these sentiments as he prepared to open the session
at Bad Nauheim. His major concern was Lenard, who it was rumored would take the lead
among the reactionaries wishing to discredit Einstein. The intense dislike of Einstein
and Lenard for one another now embroiled Planck and pushed him into the unwanted role
of mediator.

In principle, the session was to provide a forum for an open discussion of Einstein’s
theories. However, it quickly devolved into a
mano y mano
confrontation between Lenard and Einstein. Although the tone was academic, and only
intellectual blows were exchanged, it was apparent to all that the combatants were
bitter foes who each bore a serious grudge against the other.

Lenard soon got to his main points of disagreement with Einstein. Einstein’s work
disdained the conventional explanation of ether as the medium of transit for electromagnetic
radiation and the supportive element for gravitation. Lenard was not alone. Scientific
conservatives frequently expressed concern over the abandonment of ether, despite
the fact that two centuries of experimentation had failed to yield any indication
of ether’s mass or energy.

Lenard also disagreed with Einstein’s extension of the principle of relativity to
all movements in space rather than just those in steady state. Lenard had earlier
written that the theory of general relativity “must give up its universality and no
longer claim the ‘relativity of all movements’ but restrict itself to those movements
which proceed under the influence of mass proportional forces, such as gravitation.”
Indeed, it was over the specific issue of gravitation that Lenard grew exercised.

As reported in the journal
Physikalische Zeitschrift
, the exchange between the two physicists swung from the serious to the contemptuous
to outright mocking.

Lenard
: I was delighted to have heard talks on the theory of gravitation through the ether
today. I have to admit, however, that the simple mind of a natural scientist resents
the theory [of relativity] as soon as one goes from gravitational theory to forces
other than the mass proportional ones. I relate the example of a braking train. To
make the relativity principal work, you add gravitational fields in the absence of
mass proportional forces. I would first like to ask you, why is it that it is not
differentiable whether the train itself brakes or the world around it slows down?

Einstein
: It is certain that we observe effects relative to the train, and we could interpret
these as forces of inertia. The relativity theory could just as well interpret these
as effects of the gravitational field. . . . You are convinced that this is the invention
of the relativity theory people. However, this is no invention as it fulfills the
same differential laws of physics as the effects of masses that we are used to understanding.
It is correct that some parts of the solution remain arbitrary when one only looks
at a limited scope of the world. I would like to briefly summarize that this field
was not arbitrarily invented since it fulfills the general differential equations
and since it can be deduced from the effects of all masses.

Lenard
: Mr. Einstein’s explanations did not reveal anything new to me. I am convinced that
the gravitational fields that are added need to correspond to occurrences and that
these experiences have not been experienced or observed.

Einstein
: I would like to emphasize that what mankind considers clear or apparently valid
has changed. The perspective on clarity and apparent validity is somewhat a function
of time. I am convinced that physics should be conceptual rather than just apparently
valid.

Lenard
: I have summarized my views in my printed publication,
Relativity Theory, Ether, and Gravitation
. I understand the usefulness of the relativity principle so long as it is only used
with respect to gravitational forces. I view it as invalid when all forces are not
proportional to mass.

Einstein
: It is in the nature of things that the validity of the relativity principle can
only be postulated if it is valid for all laws of nature.

Lenard
: Only when you invent additional fields.

What became known in scientific circles as the “Einsteindebatte” continued in this
vein for some time, surely appearing to many in the audience as though two infants
were bickering over a favorite toy. In the end, each man bore even greater resentment
for his interlocutor than had been the case before the session began. There was no
resolution, no tidy tying up of loose ends, no common ground to promote a better understanding
of the utility of Einstein’s theories. Sensing the bad feelings, a number of physicists,
including Einstein’s friends Walther Nernst and Max von Laue, tried to comfort Lenard.
Von Laue made an effort at humor, exclaiming, “Einstein, after all, is only a child!”
To which Lenard responded, “Children do not write in the
Berliner Tageblatt
.”

As the crowd dispersed, Einstein attempted to speak with Lenard in the cloakroom.
Lenard would have none of it, saying, “It is now too late,” while brusquely brushing
off Einstein’s advance and leaving quickly. Gehrcke chased after him but arrived at
the train station platform too late. He reported seeing Einstein through one of the
departing train’s windows. There was no sign of Lenard.

Who knows what Einstein might have intended to say to Lenard following their intense
public exchange? Had Lenard been willing to listen, what outcomes, if any, might have
changed for both of them? Perhaps, none at all. Scientifically speaking, both Lenard
and Einstein were set in their beliefs. But perhaps the bad personal feelings between
the two could have been assuaged to some extent, and the distant repercussions might
not have been so severe.

The confrontation imparted to Einstein a new resolve never again to allow his opponents
to upset him so thoroughly. “I absolutely cannot understand,” he wrote, “that because
of bad company I could lose myself in such deep humorlessness.” A few weeks later,
Einstein made light of the Bad Nauheim episode in a letter to Paul Ehrenfest: “At
Bad Nauheim, there was a cockfight, of sorts, about relativity. Lenard, in particular,
figured as my opponent. To my knowledge, it didn’t come to any kind of manifestations
of the sort you expected.”

By the phrase “any kind of manifestations of the sort you expected,” Einstein was
specifically referencing anti-Semitism. However, that neither Einstein nor the lay
press nor the
Physikalische Zeitschrift
, which covered the proceedings, made any reference to racist remarks does not mean
that Lenard was free of prejudicial thinking. Lenard’s involvement in right-wing,
nationalistic organizations, where such rhetoric was common, was already far advanced.
Much later, in 1938, Lenard recalled his considerations during the Einsteindebatte:

I treated and judged the Jew as a proper Aryan person in this discussion according
to the view of the time, and that was wrong. . . . It would not have been of use at
the meeting of professors [to point out the flaws in Jewish thinking about science]
because the men are also today still blind. Planck had presided over the discussion,
which was preceded by three tedious presentations in favor of Einstein.

Lenard retreated to lick his wounds. He wrote of his sense of hurt and isolation in
his perception that the majority of scientists in attendance had sided with Einstein.
“The abolition of the ether is again proclaimed as a result of Nauheim. . . . Not
one has laughed at this. I don’t know whether it would have been different had the
abolition of air been proclaimed.” Among Lenard’s keepsakes commemorating the event
was a clipping from the weekly newspaper
Die Umschau
, which focused on science and technology. An article attributed to a Mr. W. Weyl,
by whose name Lenard had written the word “Jew,” reads, “One simply has to state,
that Lenard has not understood the very meaning of the Einsteinian doctrine. Consequently,
the adversaries did not find each other. The fight remained a fake fight without result.”

Despite what Lenard saw as an abandonment by many of his Aryan colleagues, the encounter
with Einstein bolstered his resolve to persevere in his efforts to expose the fallacious
nature of Einstein’s ideas. Lenard wrote, “My letters of this summer have brought
together twelve gentlemen who are German enough to tackle the project to turn the
miserable Berlin Institute of Physics [meaning Berlin’s Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of
Physics where Einstein was the director] into a German Institute of Physics.” Lenard’s
meaning was clear. The academic facility that employed, housed, and protected the
hated Einstein had adopted an un-German attitude. That would have to change. Among
the twelve scientists listed by Lenard were Johannes Stark, to whom Lenard would eventually
pass the mantle of
Deutsche Physik
; Wilhelm Wien; and the spectroscopist Gehrcke, who had followed Weyland on stage
at the Philharmonic.

The “twelve gentlemen” had met during the conference and agreed that Einstein must
be forced to revoke the statements he had made in the
Berliner Tageblatt
, which had been extremely insulting. They intended to press their case in public.
They would embarrass Einstein in one of two ways: either by extracting a suitable
apology or showing that his failure to acknowledge his error proved he lacked the
breeding and nobility of the true German scientist.

What Einstein did next threw Lenard’s plans into disarray. On September 25, just
a day after the session at Bad Nauheim, he issued an apology, of sorts, in the
Berliner Tageblatt
, the same despised “Jew paper” in which he had published his notorious “My Response.”
The apology was by proxy, authored by Max Planck and Franz Himstedt, a well-known
physicist from the University of Freiburg. Briefly, Planck recounted the conditions
leading up to the stresses Einstein had experienced at the Philharmonic. A misunderstanding
caused by Weyland’s remarks had led Einstein to lash out at Lenard, whom he erroneously
believed to have been involved. The brief article continued, “Through the occasion
of the recent meeting of sciences in Bad Nauheim, we have found that Mr. Lenard was
put on the list of speakers [at the Philharmonic] without his will. Due to this fact,
Mr. Einstein has authorized us to express his active regret that he directed his accusations
in his article against his highly valued colleague, Mr. Lenard.”

Far from satisfying Lenard, the brief statement issued not by Einstein, himself,
but by others on his behalf, only inflamed his resentment. The business with Einstein
wasn’t over. He would bide his time. There would be other opportunities.