78. Quoted in Trbuhović-Gjurić, Im Schatten Albert Einsteins, 99.
79. Mileva and Albert Einstein to Helene Savić, [December 1912], reproduced in Milan Popović, ed., In Albert’s Shadow: The Life and Letters of Mileva Marić, Einstein’s First Wife (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 107.
80. Einstein to Zangger, [after 27 December 1914], CPAE 8:41a, in vol. 10, on 26.
81. Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, 2 April 1914, CPAE 8:1, on 11.
82. Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, [15 May 1915], CPAE 8:83, on 128–129. See also Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, [27 January 1915], CPAE 8:49, on 86; Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, [1 March 1915], CPAE 8:58, on 93.
83. Einstein to Mileva Einstein-Marić, 6 February 1916, CPAE 8:200, on 270.
84. “Divorce Agreement,” 12 June 1918, CPAE 8:562, on 795.
85. Thomas de Padova, Allein gegen die Schwerkraft: Einstein 1914–1918 (Munich: Hanser, 2015), 29–30.
86. Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest, postcard dated 1 January 1912, AEDA 9–318, Box 10, Folder “P. Ehrenfest 1911–1916.” The card was sent to Leipzig, where Ehrenfest was visiting G. Herglotz.
87. Einstein to Ehrenfest, [26 January 1912], CPAE 5:342, on 393.
88. Einstein to Ehrenfest, 12 February 1912, CPAE 5:357, on 408.
89. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest: The Making of a Theoretical Physicist (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1970), 175–177.
90. Einstein to Alfred and Clara Stern, 2 February 1912, CPAE 5:352, on 402.
91. Einstein to Robert Gnehm, 12 February [19]12, CPAE 5:358, on 409.
92. Ludwig Hopf to Einstein, 20 February 1912, CPAE 5:363, on 416.
93. “Statement of Reasons for Leaving Prague,” [3 August 1912], CPAE 5:414, on 499.
94. Die feierliche Inauguration des Rektors der k.k. Deutschen Karl-Ferdinands-Universität in Prag für das Studienjahr 1912/13 (Prague: K.k. deutschen Karl-Ferdinands-Universität, 1912), 9–10.
CHAPTER 4: EINSTEIN POSITIVE AND EINSTEIN NEGATIVE
1. William James to Carl Stumpf, 26 November 1882, reproduced in Joachim Thiele, Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation: Die Korrespondenz Ernst Machs (Kastellaun: Henn, 1978), 169.
2. Philipp Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times, tr. George Rosen, ed. and rev. Shuichi Kusaka (Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press, 2002 [1947]), 170.
3. Einstein to Elsa Einstein, [7 January 1921], CPAE 12:11, on 31–32. On Einstein’s delight at Frank’s makeshift residence and his bride, see Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest, 20 January 1921, CPAE 12:24, on 46.
4. Quoted in “Einstein über seine Theorie: Vortrag in der ‘Urania,’ ” Prager Tagblatt, no. 6 (8 January 1921): 3. For a complementary (and complimentary) account of Einstein’s visit from another local newspaper, see “Prof. Einstein über seine Theorie: Der erste Vortrag; 7. Jänner,” Deutsche Zeitung Bohemia 94, no. 7 (9 January 1921): 2–3.
5. Einstein to Elsa Einstein, 8 January [1921], CPAE 12:12, on 32.
6. Einstein to Ehrenfest, 20 January 1921, CPAE 12:24, on 46.
7. Einstein to Elsa Einstein, 8 January [1921], CPAE 12:12, on 32.
8. Josef Petráň, Nástin dějin filozofické fakulty Univerzity Karlovy v Praze (do roku 1948) (Prague: Univerzita Karlova, 1983), 273.
9. G. Kowalewski, Bestand und Wandel: Meine Lebenserinnerungen zugleich ein Beitrag zur neueren Geschichte der Mathematik (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1950), 260.
10. Ibid., 260–261.
11. Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times, 172.
12. J. C. Nyíri, “The Austrian Element in the Philosophy of Science,” in Nyíri, ed., Von Bolzano zu Wittgenstein: Zur Tradition der österreichischen Philosophie (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1986), 141–146; Barry Smith, Austrian Philosophy: The Legacy of Franz Brentano (Chicago: Open Court, 1994).
13. Frank tends to be sidelined in the philosophical literature about Austrian logical empiricism in favor of Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, and others. For example, he is essentially ignored except for one page in the otherwise excellent Michael Friedman, Reconsidering Logical Positivism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
14. Philipp Frank, “Oral History Transcript,” interview with Thomas Kuhn, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 16 July 1962, available at http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4610.html, on 16, accessed 30 August 2013.
15. “Report to the Philosophical Faculty of the German University on a Successor to the Chair of Theoretical Physics,” [before 23 May 1912], CPAE 5:400, on 470.
16. Philipp Frank, “Das Relativitätsprinzip und die Darstellung der physikalischen Erscheinungen im vierdimensionalen Raum,” Annalen der Naturphilosophie 10 (1911): 129–161; Philipp Frank and Hermann Rothe, “Über die Transformation der Raumzeitkoordinaten von ruhenden auf bewegte Systeme,” Annalen der Physik 34, no. 5 (1911): 825–855. On p. 827 of the latter, the authors note that the constancy of the speed of light might be an unnecessary principle, thus directly engaging with Einstein’s recent pronouncements on the static theory, as described in chapter 2.
17. “Report to the Philosophical Faculty,” 472.
18. Frank, “Oral History Transcript,” 10. The article in question is Philipp Frank, “Kausalgesetz und Erfahrung,” Annalen der Naturphilosophie 6 (1907): 443–450.
19. Idem, The Law of Causality and Its Limits, ed., Robert S. Cohen, tr. Marie Neurath and Robert S. Cohen (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1998 [1932]), 196, see also 268. On the Bergson–Einstein debates, see Jimena Canales, The Physicist and the Philosopher: Einstein, Bergson, and the Debate that Changed Our Understanding of Time (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015).
20. R. Fürth, “Reminiscences of Philipp Frank at Prague,” in Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky, eds., In Honor of Philipp Frank, vol. 2 of Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (New York: Humanities Press, 1965), xiii–xvi, on xiii. On the beard, see also Kurt Sitte, “To Philipp Frank,” in Cohen and Wartofsky, In Honor of Philipp Frank, xxix–xxx, on xxix.
21. Rudolf Haller and Friedrich Stadler, “The First Vienna Circle,” in Thomas E. Uebel, ed., Rediscovering the Forgotten Vienna Circle: Austrian Studies on Otto Neurath and the Vienna Circle (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1991), 95–108. See also the autobiographical introduction in Philipp Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy (New York: George Braziller, 1955), 1. This volume consists of English translations or originals of Frank essays produced over a period just shy of 40 years.
22. Biographical information is drawn from Josef Sajner, “Ernst Machs Beziehungen zu seinem Heimatort Chirlitz (Chrlice) und zu Mähren,” Bohemia 24 (1983): 358–368; John T. Blackmore, Ryoichi Itagaki, and Setsuko Tanaka, eds., Ernst Mach’s Science: Its Character and Influence on Einstein and Others (Kanagawa: Tokai University Press, 2006); and Ivan Úlehla, “One Hundred and Fifty Years since the Birth of Ernst Mach,” in Václav Prosser and Jaroslav Folta, eds., Ernst Mach and the Development of Physics (Conference Papers) (Prague: Karolinum, 1991), 25–65. This volume was published in 1991 but contains the proceedings from a conference in Prague held on 14–16 September 1988, before the Velvet Revolution. Given Lenin’s hostile attitude toward Mach, the conference was a sign of change.
23. Some of his more influential publications were Ernst Mach, “Neue Versuche zur Prüfung der Doppler’schen Theorie der Ton- und Farbenänderung durch Bewegung,” Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Classe 77 (1878): 299–310; and idem, “Ueber die Controverse zwischen Doppler und Petzval, bezüglich der Aenderung des Tones und der Farbe durch Bewegung,” Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik 6 (1861): 120–126. On Doppler and especially his time in Prague, see Jan Seidler and Irena Seidlerová, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Dopplerschen Prinzips,” tr. Josef Poláček, Centaurus 35 (1992): 259–304; The Phenomenon of Doppler (Prague: Czech Technical University, Faculty of Nuclear Sciences and Physical Engineering, 1992); Alec Eden, The Search for Christian Doppler (Vienna: Springer-Verlag, 1992); Peter Maria Schuster, Moving the Stars: Christian Dopple
r, His Life, His Works and Principle, and the World After, tr. Lily Wilmes (Pöllauberg: Living Edition, 2005); Joachim Thiele, “Zur Wirkungsgeschichte des Dopplerprinzips im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert,” Annals of Science 27, no. 4 (1971): 393–407; Jan Klepl, “Christian Doppler a Praha,” Dějiny a současnost, no. 9 (1959): 10–12; and Luboš Nový, ed., Dějiny exaktních věd v českých zemích do konce 19. století (Prague: Nakl. ČSAV, 1961), 171–182.
24. Philipp Frank also emphasizes the importance of Prague for Mach’s scholarship: Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, 99. For secondary accounts, see Dieter Hoffmann, “Ernst Mach in Prag,” in Hoffmann and Hubert Laitko, eds., Ernst Mach: Studien und Dokumente zu Leben und Werk (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1991), 141–178, on 147; idem, “Ernst Mach and the Conflict of Nations,” in John Blackmore, ed., Ernst Mach—A Deeper Look: Documents and New Perspectives (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 1992), 29–55; Friedrich Stadler, “Ernst Mach—Zu Leben, Werk und Wirkung,” in Rudolf Haller and Friedrich Stadler, eds., Ernst Mach—Werk und Wirkung (Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1988), 11–63, on 20, 24; Blackmore, Itagaki, and Tanaka, Ernst Mach’s Science, 126.
25. The stature of the book on mechanics is such that it remains in print (in multiple languages) and contains valuable supplementary material framing Mach’s philosophy: Ernst Mach, The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, 6th ed., tr. Thomas J. McCormack (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1960 [1893]).
26. Ernst Mach, “The Analysis of Sensations: Antimetaphysical,” Monist 1, no. 1 (October 1890): 48–68, on 58.
27. William James to his wife, 2 November 1882, reproduced in Thiele, Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation, 169.
28. For detailed discussions of which parts of Mach’s work Einstein accepted and rejected, and when, see Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988 [1973]), chs. 7–8.
29. Einstein to Ernst Mach, [9 August 1909], CPAE 5:174, on 204.
30. Einstein to Mach, 17 August 1909, CPAE 5:175, on 205.
31. Georg Pick to Ernst Mach, 2 August 1912, reproduced in Thiele, Wissenschaftliche Kommunikation, 224.
32. Friedrich Herneck, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Einstein und Mach, dokumentarisch dargestellt,” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena 15 (1966): 1–14.
33. On the undated letter, see Friedrich Herneck, “Zum Briefwechsel Albert Einsteins mit Ernst Mach (Mit zwei unveröffentlichten Einstein-Briefen),” Forschungen und Fortschritte 37, no. 8 (August 1963): 239–243, on 242. On the Society for Positivist Philosophy, see “Aufruf der Gesellschaft für positivistische Philosophie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 13 (1912): 735–736.
34. “Ernst Mach,” reproduced in CPAE 6:29. For his praise of Frank’s essay, see Einstein to Kathia Adler [wife of Friedrich Adler], 20 February [1917], CPAE 8:301, on 394; Einstein to Zangger, 1 February 1917, CPAE 8:291a, in vol. 10, on 68.
35. Philipp Frank, “Einsteins Stellung zur Philosophie,” Deutsche Beiträge 2 (1949): 146–157, on 151. See also Gerald Holton, “Ernst Mach in America,” in Prosser and Folta, Ernst Mach, 357–380.
36. This is an extremely contentious issue in the scholarly literature, and I have deferred to the consensus view. Gereon Wolters has forcefully argued that Mach never reneged on his support of relativity theory and that the offending preface was actually a forgery by Mach’s son Ludwig, acting under the influence of conservative philosopher of science Hugo Dingler: Gereon Wolters, Mach I, Mach II, Einstein und die Relativitätstheorie: Eine Fälschung und ihre Folgen (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987); idem, “Ernst Mach and the Theory of Relativity,” tr. Steven Gilles, Philosophia Naturalis 21 (1984): 630–641; idem, “Mach and Einstein, or, Clearing Troubled Waters in the History of Science,” in Christoph Lehner, Jürgen Renn, and Matthias Schemmel, eds., Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics (New York: Springer, 2012), 39–57. Wolters’s claims rest very heavily on a controversial ordering of the undated Einstein–Mach correspondence and a sense that it would have been irrational for Mach—who was increasingly incapacitated and irrelevant to mainstream physics—to reject the relativity theory that had brought him back to prominence. The detailed criticisms of this view by other historians and philosophers strike me as convincing: Gerald Holton, “More on Mach and Einstein: Investigation of an Important Phase in the Rise of Logical Positivism/Empiricism,” Methodology and Science 22, no. 2 (1989): 67–81; John Blackmore, “Ernst Mach Leaves ‘the Church of Physics,’ ” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 40, no. 4 (December 1989): 519–540; Ryoichi Itagaki, “Three Batches of Reasons for Mach’s Rejection of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity,” in Blackmore, Ernst Mach, 277–295. Dingler always maintained that Mach rejected relativity in his final years, though this is consistent with both the pro- and anti-Wolters positions: Hugo Dingler, Die Grundgedanken der Machschen Philosophie (Leipzig: J. A. Barth, 1924), ch. 5.
37. Anton Lampa, Ernst Mach (Prague: Deutsche Arbeit, 1918), 59.
38. Ibid., 33. The credit to Frank is on 34n1.
39. See, for example, the homage he wrote on the occasion of Mach’s centenary: Philipp Frank, “Ernst Mach—The Centenary of His Birth,” Erkenntnis 7 (1937): 247–256.
40. Einstein to Besso, [29 April 1917], CPAE 8:331, on 441. For more in this vein, see Besso to Einstein, 5 May 1917, CPAE 8:334, on 444; Einstein to Besso, 13 May 1917, CPAE 8:339, on 451; and Friedrich Adler to Einstein, 9 March 1917, CPAE 8:307, on 403.
41. Einstein to Arnold Sommerfeld, 13 July 1921, CPAE 12:175, on 218.
42. “Zur Enthüllung von Ernst Machs Denkmal,” Neue Freie Presse (12 June 1926): 11, reproduced in CPAE 15:303, on 500.
43. Albert Einstein, “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge,” in Paul Arthur Schilpp, ed., The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston, IL: Library of Living Philosophers, 1946), 277–291, on 287.
44. Albert Einstein, “Autobiographical Notes,” tr. Paul Arthur Schilpp, in Schilpp, ed., Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Row, 1951 [1949]), 1:1–95, on 1:21.
45. See especially the very rich Einstein to Besso, 6 January 1948, in Albert Einstein and Michele Besso, Correspondance 1903–1955, ed. and tr. Pierre Speziali (Paris: Hermann, 1972), 391. On occasion Frank would grant this interpretation some credence—see his “Einsteins Stellung zur Philosophie,” 147–148—but in later writings he backtracked to a focus on Mach.
46. This is not to say that Frank was the most doctrinaire or dogmatic defender of a Machian reading of relativity; his own position was subtle and adapted over time. For more rigid contemporary interpretations, see Friedrich Adler to Einstein, 9 March 1917, CPAE 8:307 (see note 40); and the works of Joseph Petzoldt: Die Stellung der Relativitätstheorie in der geistigen Entwicklung der Menschheit, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth, 1923); “Das Verhältnis der Machschen Gedankenwelt zur Relativitätstheorie,” in Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, 5th ed. (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1921), 490–517. Petzoldt’s basic position was also articulated in H. E. Hering, “Mach als Vorläufer des physikalischen Relativitätsprinzip,” Kölner Universitäts-Zeitung 17, no. 1 (1920): 3–4.
47. Frank, “Oral History Transcript,” 7. See also idem, “Einstein’s Philosophy of Science,” Reviews of Modern Physics 21, no. 2 (July 1949): 349–355, on 350.
48. Idem, “Die Bedeutung der physikalischen Erkenntnistheorie Machs für das Geistesleben der Gegenwart,” Die Naturwissenschaften 5, no. 5 (2 February 1917): 65–72, on 68.
49. Idem, “Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism,” in Schilpp, Albert Einstein, 1:269–286, on 1:279. For similar essays in the same volume, see Hans Reichenbach, “The Philosophical Significance of the Theory of Relativity” (287–311); and P. W. Bridgman, “Einstein’s Theories and the Operational Point of View” (333–354).
50. Frank, “Einstein, Mach, and Logical Positivism,”
1:282.
51. Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, 18–19. Philosopher of science Don Howard remarks that Frank’s interpretations of relativity were often more astute than the mainstream views of the Vienna Circle logical positivists: Howard, “Einstein and the Development of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science,” in Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner, eds., The Cambridge Companion to Einstein (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 354–376, on 354.
52. Philipp Frank, Interpretations and Misinterpretations of Modern Physics, tr. Olaf Helmer and Milton B. Singer (Paris: Hermann et Cie, 1938), 34–35.
53. Idem, Relativity: A Richer Truth (Boston: Beacon, 1950). Two years later, this work appeared in a German translation: idem, Wahrheit—relativ oder absolut?, tr. Gertrud Deuel (Zurich: Pan-Verlag, 1952).
54. Josef Winternitz, Relativitätstheorie und Erkenntnislehre: Eine Untersuchung über die erkenntnistheoretischen Grundlagen der Einsteinschen Theorie und die Bedeutung ihrer Ergebnisse für die allgemeinen Probleme des Naturerkennens (Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, 1923); Albert Einstein, Review of J. Winternitz, Relativitätstheorie und Erkenntnislehre, Deutsche Literaturzeitung für Kritik der internationalen Wissenschaft 45 (n.s. 1) (1924): 20–22. It seems likely that Josef Winternitz was the Prague philosopher whom Leopold Infeld encountered outside Einstein’s home in Berlin on his first visit. Infeld, Quest: An Autobiography (Providence, RI: AMS Chelsea, 1980 [1941]), 91–92.
Einstein in Bohemia Page 37