With warmest greetings from all of us.
Your
A. Einstein
July 30, 1951
Dear Solovine,
I received your delightful card of July 16. The two innocent printing mistakes are insignificant in contrast with the diabolical machinations of men.
I must transmit to you the sad news that my dear sister was delivered from her horrible suffering by a gentle death four weeks ago. An acute aggravation of the arteriosclerosis of the brain was responsible for a slight fall resulting in a compound fracture of the right arm. This necessitated complete rest, which brought about an attack of pneumonia accompanied by a high fever and loss of consciousness. Death came in about ten days. Up until the accident, I used to read to her every evening, so long as her intellectual stamina— with the exception of remembrance of new impressions—was relatively unimpaired. I am sure that you will remember the good soul kindly.
We bear many afflictions unflinchingly, but Spinoza’s precarious God has made our task more difficult than our forefathers suspected.
With cordial regards,
Your
A. Einstein
March 30, 1952
Dear Solovoine,
As always, I was delighted by your last letter. As for the changes proposed by you, I am in complete agreement.
Carl Seelig is a good man. But he takes the task that he has undertaken far too seriously, alas, with the result that he bothers everyone. Tell him whatever you think best and pass over whatever you wish in silence. For it is not always good to be presented to the public nude—or rather neuter. Make your decisions but do not communicate them to me, for I do not wish to be mixed up, even indirectly, in this affair. I did of course answer a few positive requests.
Now I come to the most interesting point in your letter. You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the “miracle” which is being constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands.
There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” Oddly enough, we must be satisfied to acknowledge the “miracle” without there being any legitimate way for us to approach it. I am forced to add that just to keep you from thinking that—weakened by age—I have fallen pray to the parsons.
All of us here are well, including Margot who, thanks to her operation, has developed more resistance. In the elaboration of the nonsymmetrical field theory I have found an important complement which determines the general equations of the field a priori just as the simple principle of relativity determined the equations of gravitation.
With warmest regards to you both.
Your
A. E.
I do not intend to go to Europe again in order to avoid being the central figure in a monkey farce. Besides, everything today is so close to each of us that there is less justification than ever for chasing after it.
May 7, 1952
Dear Solovine,
In your letter you blame me for having committed two sins. First, for having taken an uncritical attitude regarding the plan for a world government. You always look upon it, not as undesirable, but as something that cannot be realized in the near future. You give good reasons to prove that it can not be realized. You might have added as still another good reason the fear that the world government would be more unbearable and especially more unjust that the present state of anarchy. Just think of the benefits brought to Korea by the United Nations! But on the other hand, humanity faces the danger of self-annihilation, something which should weigh down on us. For that reason we should withdraw (though hesitantly) the “undesirable.”
As for the “impossible,” this much can be said: it becomes “possible” if men seriously will it, even if this is brought about solely by their fear of living in an unbearable state of insecurity. We must exert every effort to create this desire. The effort will be worthwhile even if the aim is not achieved, for it will certainly have some educational merit in that it will be directed against stupid, heinous nationalism.
You say that we should start by training the young people to examine historical events objectively. Only in this way could we hope to realize anything in politics. But this is a chicken-and-egg relationship or a vicious circle. The chicken is the political situation and the egg is rational training. Since the skein offers no loose end to enable us to unravel it, we simply have to make every possible attempt and not lose our courage.
But if every effort fails and men end by destroying themselves, the universe will not shed a single tear for them. It would still be good, however, if the book could at least appear first and be placed on sale.
As for the epistemological question, you completely misunderstood me; I probably expressed myself badly. I see the matter schematically in this way:
(1) The E’s (immediate experiences) are our data.
(2) The axioms from which we draw our conclusions are indicated by A. Psychologically the A’s depend on the E’s. But there is no logical route leading from the E’s to the A’s, but only an intuitive connection (psychological), which is always “re-turning.”
(3) Logically, specific statements S, S′, S″ are deduced from A; these statements can lay claim to exactness.
(4) The A’s are connected to the E’s (verification through experience). Closer examination shows that this procedure also belongs to the extralogical (intuitive) sphere, for the relation between the notions show up in S and the immediate experiences are not logical in nature.
But the relation between S’s and E’s is (pragmatically) much less certain than the relation between the A’s and the E’s. (Take the notion “dog” and the corresponding immediate experiences.) If such a relationship could not be set up with a high degree of certainty (though it may be beyond the reach of logic), logical machinery would have no value in the “comprehension of reality” (example: theology).
What this all boils down to is the eternally problematical connection between the world of ideas and that which can be experienced (immediate experiences of the senses).
The work for the de Broglie anniversary volume will be translated into French by scholars there. But its contents will be a heresy of the worst order for the people. I can not send it to you until it is printed.
We are all well, but my capacity for work has lessened perceptibly; even that has its good side.
Warmest regards to you.
Your
A. E.
Seelig is a likeable man, to judge by his behavior and without knowing him personally.
November 17, 1952
Dear Solovine,
I did not take the translation of the book of collected essays half so seriously as you. Your English expression for conductors of electricity is probably better than the one used on page 234. The word “report” on p. 111 means “communicate.” It is possible that the English expression is not adequate, but I think that its meaning will be understood.
Dr. Lowe is fine. He is now in Europe (Switzerland) and will certainly visit you when he is in Paris.
You must not complain about the imbecilities and mistakes of your compatriots. It would be too much to expect them to be an exception to all the others. Mine are getting a workout in philosophy by asking themselves why they a
re not especially loved in Europe. Everything would really be comical if we were not altogether at the mercy of the rabble.
I myself have just gotten rid of phlebitis, which normally shows up in pregnant women. Now we are all, until something new develops, in good health.
Our academic “Olympia” was glorified and escorted to immortality by good old Seelig, as it deserved to be. But the master could not bring our high-spirited evenings back to life—alas!
In the meantime warmest greetings to you and your wife.
Your
A. Einstein
To the immortal Olympia academy,
In your short active existence you took a childish delight in all that was clear and reasonable. Your members created you to amuse themselves at the expense of your big sisters who were older and puffed up with pride. I learned fully to appreciate just how far they had hit upon the true through careful observations lasting for many long years.
We three members, all of us at least remained steadfast. Though somewhat decrepit, we still follow the solitary path of our life by your pure and inspiring light; for you did not grow old and shapeless along with your members like a plant that goes to seed.
To you I swear fidelity and devotion until my last learned breath! From one who hereafter will be only a corresponding member,
A. E.
Princeton, April 3, 1953
April 23, 1953
Dear Solovine,
First let me thank you for your grandiloquent answer to my academic message. Your answer would have done honor to the court of Frederick II.
If Gauthier-Villars wants to put the three publications mentioned into one volume for republication, I have no objection. Nor am I opposed to the publication of the popular book. I am sending you my only copy of the original German edition (which I wish you would return as soon as you can). Second, I am sending you a press copy of the last edition, which contains some additions; and third, a copy of an Appendix which I wrote, in German of course, for the new English edition, which is to appear soon. Please return the German text after you have finished the translation, assuming, naturally, that you like this treatise.
I was duly pleased by the newspaper reports. I was deeply moved by your having taken the trouble to copy one of them for me. In one of the articles the sad feeling of loneliness is attributed, amusingly enough, to old age instead of to youth.
With my cordial greetings
Your
A. Einstein
May 28, 1953
Dear Solo,
I had to laugh on learning that we sent you such a sadly incomplete copy of my old book. I have no copy at all now, so that I could not fully appreciate your corrections. That you propose to saw for me the steps which conscientious teachers make their pupils run up and down is disconcerting, though the picture is amusing. I cannot approve of the remark on the subject of the pole in space. There I want to replace abstract and nebulous “space,” as directly and also as simply as possible (fixed bodies), with something which has meaning, from the point of view of experience, and that is why one should not use an optical expedient.
Strictly speaking, one cannot reduce geometry to “fixed” bodies which, actually, do not exist—without taking into account the fact that fixed bodies should not be looked upon as being divisible ad infinitum. Similarly, the supposition that bodies used as standards do not influence objects (supposition which cannot be given a fixed meaning) is itself unjustified. Concepts can never be derived logically from experience and be above criticism. But for didactic and also heuristic purposes such a procedure is inevitable. Moral: Unless one sins against logic, one generally gets nowhere; or, one cannot build a house or construct a bridge without using a scaffold which is really not one of its basic parts.
I am going to send you the new edition of the book Meaning of Relativity, which contains the new revision of the theory of gravitation. It is of course an attempt at a theory of the whole field; but I did not wish to give it such a pretentious title, for I am not yet sure that physical truth is at the bottom of it. But from the point of view of a deductive theory, it may be perfect (economy of independent notions and hypotheses). That no one can make a definite statement about its confirmation or non-confirmation results from the fact that there are no methods of affirming anything with respect to solutions that do not yield to the peculiarities of such a complicated non-linear system of equations. It is even possible that no one will ever know. Theories that have gradually developed around what can be observed, however, have led to an intolerable accumulation of independent suppositions. In his last popular book, de Broglie gave a very good description of the situation. I recently received the English edition; the French edition is certainly even better.
Warmest wishes
Your
A. E.
August 15, 1953
Dear Solovine,
It seems that, under pressure of correspondence, I forgot to answer your letter of June 15. I can answer your first question by saying that, with respect to an accelerated system, the coordinates can not be interpreted in such a way as to make the differences in the coordinates equal the differences in length corresponding to differences in time as measured by rulers and clocks. This becomes clear in the cases where the system of coordinates is uniformly accelerated with respect a system of inertia, or rotates uniformly. That is why, in conformity with the theory of relativity, the field of gravitation is at the same time a term for the metrical structure of space-time.
When Riemann’s condition is “satisfied,” then the equations for gravitation must also be “satisfied.” In other words, the equations for the field of gravitation are a specialization of Riemann’s condition.
You may keep the German manuscript of the Memoir as long as you need it. Naturally, I agree with your proposals concerning revision.
It seems to me that you are not only my only faithful translator, but also my only truly observant reader.
With my cordial greetings
Your
A. Einstein
P.S. I am glad that the French people have not neglected to show their thick-headed leaders where God sits.
October 14, 1953
Dear Solovine,
Bravo! I thank you for your valiant intercession in favor of my pocketbook. Now you can say with Caesar: Veni, vidi, vici!
In answer to your first question: “Disappears” seems to me to be an exact translation of the expression verloren geht. The other expressions, sich nicht eignet and nicht angebracht, are contradictory. Nicht möglich ist would not be clear enough; it would have to be nicht mehr möglich ist. But verloren geht seems better to me.
Your remarks about the notion of physikalischer Inhalt, which you correctly translate as “physical content” seem conclusive to me. The only question that arises is whether a more detailed exposition would not make comprehension more difficult rather than easier. On the one hand, Euclidian geometry is manifestly the expression of primitive experiences with sticks, strings, and rays of light. On the other hand, these objects fail to correspond exactly to geometric concepts. For reasons of simplicity, I left out the last consideration in the place mentioned by you. Now, can this lack of precision be justified by the the didactic advantages gained in that passage? Opinions can be different on this point. I think it can.
In reply to you inquiry, I can state that, considering my advanced age, I am fine, as is Margot, considering her congenital bad luck. Miss Dukas is enjoying the best of health, with no reservations.
Hoping that the same holds true for both of you, I am with cordial greetings,
Your,
A. E.
November 25, 1953
Dear Solo,
I am extremely sorry that you have had to go to so much trouble. Lowe sent a note to you, as he told me recently, but the notice obviously went astray. Perhaps the old carrier pigeon confused your address with another.
It is hard for me to pass on the corrections since I do not know the context. This mig
ht be it:
“…that electrostatics correctly accounts for electrical effects only when the electrical masses are at rest with respect to a system of inertia.”
As for the first passage mentioned by you, it is even more difficult for me to decide. In speaking of geometry, “content” or “capacity” are more correct than “origin,” for the reference is not to the history but to the nature of the thing, which is independent of time.
My sincere apologies for the regrettable mistake. Let us know soon that everything is again in order.
My very best to both of you.
Your
A. E.
February 27, 1955
Dear Solovine,
The exorbitant price now attached to my life’s work on many occasions also has its more pleasant aspects. A certain sum of money, for instance, has been placed at the disposal of a committee set up here to help refugee scholars; this money is not subject to the same restrictions as other emergency funds but is spent at my discretion. I know that you are tormented by an eye ailment, very common at our age, which makes it difficult for you to work and which can be eliminated by an operation that is frequently performed. I can think of no more worthy use of the funds than to offer them to a man who like you, has grown pallid under the stress of constant intellectual labor, in order to preserve his capacity for work.
Letters to Solovine: 1906-1955 Page 5