Of Twins and Time Canales

7/31/2019 Of Twins and Time Canales

1/42

T&F Proos: Not For Distribution

Neutrality in Twentieth-Century Europe

Lettevall 1st pages.indd i 2/8/2012 4:04:31 PM


2/42


Routledge Studies in Cultural History

1 The Politics of Information in

Early Modern Europe

Edited by Brendan Dooley and

Sabrina Baron

2 The Insanity of Place/ The Placeof Insanity

Essays on the History of

Psychiatry

Andrew Scull

3 Film, History, and Cultural

Citizenship

Sites of Production

Edited by Tina Mai Chen and

David S. Churchill

4 Genre and Cinema

Ireland and Transnationalism

Edited by Brian McIlroy

5 Histories of Postmodernism

Edited by Mark Bevir, Jill Hargis,

and Sara Rushing

6 Africa after Modernism

Transitions in Literature, Media,and Philosophy

Michael Janis

7 Rethinking Race, Politics, and

Poetics

C. L. R. James Critique of

ModernityBrett St Louis

8 Making British Culture

English Readers and the Scottish

Enlightenment, 1740-1830David Allan

9 Empires and BoundariesRethinking Race, Class, and

Gender in Colonial Settings

Edited by Harald Fischer-Tin

and Susanne Gehrmann

10 Tobacco in Russian History and

Culture

From the Seventeenth Century to

the Present

Edited by Matthew P. Romanielloand Tricia Starks

11 History of Islam in German

Thought

From Leibniz to Nietzsche

Ian Almond

12 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict in the

Francophone World

Edited by Nathalie Debrauwere-

Miller

13 History of Participatory Media

Politics and Publics, 1750-2000

Edited by Anders Ekstrm Solveig

Jlich, Frans Lundgren and Per

Wisselgren

14 Living in the City

Urban Institutions in the Low

Countries, 1200-2010

Leo Lucassen and Wim Willems

Lettevall 1st pages.indd ii 2/8/2012 4:04:57 PM


3/42


15 Historical Disasters in Context

Science, Religion, and Politics

Edited by Andrea Janku, Gerrit J.

Schenk and Franz Mauelshagen

16 Migration, Ethnicity, and

Mental Health

International Perspectives, 1840-

2010

Edited by Angela McCarthy and

Catharine Coleborne

17 Politics of Memory

Making Slavery Visible in the

Public SpaceEdited by Ana Lucia Araujo

18 Neutrality in Twentieth-Century

Europe

Intersections of Science, Culture,

and Politics after the First World

War

Edited by Rebecka Lettevall, Geert

Somsen, and Sven Widmalm

Lettevall 1st pages.indd iii 2/8/2012 4:04:57 PM


4/42

T&F Proos: Not For DistributionLettevall 1st pages.indd iv 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


5/42


Neutrality in

Twentieth-Century EuropeIntersections of Science, Culture, andPolitics after the First World War

Edited by Rebecka Lettevall,

Geert Somsen and Sven Widmalm

NEW YORK LONDON

Lettevall 1st pages.indd v 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


6/42


First published 2012by Routledge711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group,an informa business

2012 Taylor & Francis

The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorialmaterial, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been assertedin accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs andPatents Act 1988.

Typeset in Sabon by IBT Global.Printed and bound in the United States of America on acid-free paper by

IBT Global.All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced orutilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, nowknown or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or inany information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writingfrom the publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks orregistered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanationwithout intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record has been requested for this book.

ISBN: 978-0-415-89377-0 (hbk)ISBN: 978-0-203-11679-1 (ebk)

Lettevall 1st pages.indd vi 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


7/42


Contents

List o Figures xiAcknowledgements xiii

1 Introduction 1REBECKA LETTEVALL, GEERT SOMSEN, AND SVEN WIDMALM

PART IPoints o Departure:The Breakdown o Internationalismin Science and Culture and Its Efects

2 Probing the Master Narrative o Scientific Internationalism:Nationals and Neutrals in the 1920s 19BRIGITTE SCHROEDER

PART IIInternational Collaborations: Neutrality in Science

3 Hollands Calling: Dutch Scientists

Sel-ashioning as International Mediators 45GEERT SOMSEN

4 A superior type o universal civilisation:Science as Politics in Sweden, 19171926 65SVEN WIDMALM

5 Has the Swedish Academy o Sciences . . . seen nothing, heardnothing, and understood nothing? The First World War,

Biased Neutrality, and the Nobel Prizes in Science 90ROBERT MARC FRIEDMAN

Lettevall 1st pages.indd vii 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


8/42

viii Contents


6 Pursuing Common Cultural Ideals: Niels Bohr, Neutrality, andInternational Scientific Collaboration during the Interwar Period 115HENRIK KNUDSEN AND HENRY NIELSEN

7 Caught-up by Politics? The Solvay Councilson Physics and the Trials o Neutrality 140KENNETH BERTRAMS

8 The Scientific Construction o Swiss Neutrality 159DANIEL SPEICH CHASS

PART IIIIntellectual Positions: Neutrality and Culture

9 A Castle in the Center: The First CzechoslovakRepublic and European Cooperation (19181938) 181CARLOS REIJNEN

10 Prague Zionism, the Czechoslovak State,

and the Rise o German National Socialism:The Figure o Max Brod (19141933) 207GALLE VASSOGNE

11 Legitimacy through Neutrality: Resources o Journalismin the International Press Visit to Sweden in 1923 226PATRIK LUNDELL

12 O Twins and Time: Scientists, Intellectual

Cooperation, and the League o Nations 243JIMENA CANALES

PART IVPolitical Visions: Neutrality and Peace

13 Eye-deep in Hell: Heinrich Lammasch, the Conederationo Neutral States, and Austrian Neutrality, 18991920 273

GEORG CAVALLAR

Lettevall 1st pages.indd viii 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


9/42

Contents ix


14 Nobel Science o Peace: Norwegian Neutrality,Internationalism, and the Nobel Peace Prize 295VIDAR ENEBAKK

15 Neutrality and Humanitarianism:Fridtjo Nansen and the Nansen Passports 316REBECKA LETTEVALL

List o Contributors 337Index 343

Lettevall 1st pages.indd ix 2/8/2012 4:04:58 PM


10/42

T&F Proos: Not For DistributionLettevall 1st pages.indd x 2/8/2012 4:04:59 PM


11/42


Figures

1.1 Google Ngram neutrality. 3

H.A. Lorentz uneral procession through Haarlem. 461.1Eijkmans World Capital plan. 501.2

7.1 1911 Solvay Council on Physics. 1459.1 Conversations with Masaryk. 1849.2 Bene, Masaryk, Svehla, Benesova, and apek. 1949.3 apek, diligent writer. 1969.4 Friday aternoon session at apeks with himsel in the

middle, and Masaryk to the right. 19812.1 Einstein with members o the International Committee

or Intellectual Cooperation including Marie Curie(second rom let) and Hendrik Lorentz (third rom let),July-August 1924. 259

14.1 Lvland splitting the Peace Prize in 1921 between Langeand Branting. 297

14.2 The Norwegian Stortings Nobel Institute in 1905. 30014.3 Logo rom the publications o the Institute or Comparative

Research in Human Culture. 30514.4 The tree o germ plasm. 309

15.1 Fridtjo Nansen as High Commissioner o the League oNations, in Sofia, Bulgaria in 1922. 31915.2 The Nansen Passport 327

Lettevall 1st pages.indd xi 2/8/2012 4:04:59 PM


12/42

T&F Proos: Not For DistributionLettevall 1st pages.indd xii 2/8/2012 4:04:59 PM


13/42


Acknowledgements

This book started lie as a collection o papers presented at a symposium

at the Nobel Museum, Stockholm, in 2008. We wish to express our deepgratitude to the Nobel Museum, to the Swedish Research Council, to Riks-bankens jubileumsond, and to Sdertrn University, who sponsored thesymposium. Last but not lot least we are very grateul to Charlotte Biggwho commented on the papers and gave valuable input regarding the bookproject as a whole.

Lettevall 1st pages.indd xiii 2/8/2012 4:04:59 PM


14/42

T&F Proos: Not For DistributionLettevall 1st pages.indd xiv 2/8/2012 4:04:59 PM


15/42


12 O Twins and Time

Scientists, Intellectual Cooperation,and the League o Nations

Jimena Canales

In 1932, Ernst Krieck, a devout member o the National Socialist party in

Germany and one o its most influential pedagogues, claimed that sciencewas never, in the end, neutral: In the uture, one will no more adopt thefiction o an eneebled neutrality in science than in law, economy, the Stateor public lie generally. The method o science is indeed only a reflection othe method o government, he explained. Krieck held views which wereexactly the contrary o those o the majority o scientists and intellectualsaround him. Most scientists working ater the First World War believedinstead that science was not and should never be political andor thatvery reasonthat it should be neutral and international.

Kriecks views could be simply labeled anti-scientific. For Robert K.Merton, the influential sociologist o science, they represented the muchwider repudiation o science (and rationality) that was extending right inront o his eyes and throughout Nazi Germany.1 But the relation o scienceand politics (as that o the history o science in totalitarian regimes) is morecomplex than either Krieck or Merton allow.

During times o intense conflict, there is oten rampant disagreementabout what is considered neutral versus partisan, and the dream o find-ing a view rom nowhere gives way to a more modest goal o producingknowledge rom a multitude o situated and partial perspectives.2 Even thenotion that science is (or should be) neutral has a complicated history initsel. The historian o science Robert Proctor has traced the roots o this

idea to the Socratic separation between theory and practice, arguing that itis impossible to consider science in itsel as always and everywhere neu-tral.3 Furthermore, some o the most cherished values o science requentlyassociated with neutrality, such as objectivity, precision, and imper-sonality have had fluctuating relations to politics and values.4 Politics, orimplications or the culture at large, simply cannot be read out rom scien-tific theories, equations, or technologies.5

How, then, can we understand the relation o science to the ideals o neu-trality which oten accompanied it? Did Einstein, who considered science to beboth impersonal and international, hold these ideals? Science, according

to him, was a paradise beyond the personala paradise which whetheryou like it or not was and would always be international.6 This aspect o

Lettevall 1st pages.indd 243 2/8/2012 4:05:22 PM


16/42

244 Jimena Canales


Einsteins view o science fit with the broader belie, orceully promulgatedby many members o the Vienna Circle and dominating much o science andphilosophy well into the last decades o the century, that in science politics

and values were to be checked at the door.7 But where, precisely, did thisdoor lie? How ar did debates about neutrality reach? Neutrality was notjust a political ideal oten held by scientists; it constituted, at their very core,some o the central scientific tenets o twentieth-century science.

To understand the complex nature o time and space in the universe,scientistsparadoxicallyoten turned to much simpler scenarios. Thusin 1905 in his amous theory o relativity paper, Einstein enticed the worldto think about time in terms o how it was measured by clocks, and o spaceas it was defined by rigid measuring rods. By doing so, Einstein started arevolution in physics that had not been seen since the time o Newton, split-

ting the intellectual community or or against his theory. It soon becameevident, however, that his apparently simple conception was much morecomplicated, and numerous commentators started to point out the manyquestions and paradoxes it entailed. The Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentzsaw that the equations he had developed beore Einstein were now beingused by the younger physicist and given a particular interpretation to whichhe was unwilling to subscribe; Henri Bergson, renowned French philoso-pher and the authority on the nature o time during this period, saw his liework under attack, protesting that an outdated metaphysics was once againuncritically parading as ultimate truth.

One particularly controversial aspect o Einsteins theory pertainedto the time marked by two clocks rapidly moving away rom each other.To understand this eect, Einsteins theory was described in even simplerterms. The physicist Paul Langevin illustrated it using an example involv-ing only two individuals, one a voyager and another one who remainedon earth. Despite Langevins best eorts, his example was still considerednot simple enough and hardly uncontroversial, so in urther attempts tosimpliy it, others proposed to eliminate possible dif culties associatedwith the examples o a voyager and an earth-bound individual by thinkingabout it in terms o individuals o identical genetic constitution: twins. Thissimple fictional scenario, commonly reerred to as the twin paradox, was

reerred to again and again throughout the century.Einstein, Lorentz, and Bergsoncontemporaries in a world which was

being torn apart by disagreements between individuals, oten rom dier-ent nationalities, belonging to distinct cultures, and holding dierent viewsabout the significance o race and creedreerred to the paradox at thesame time that they tried to mitigate the potential harmul consequencesarising rom these dierences as members o an elite commission o theLeague o Nations. But reaching agreement about intellectual cooperationin the early decades o the twentieth century was as complex as reachingagreement about the nature o time in the simple fictional twin paradox

case. Debates about the nature o the universe, the meaning o time inrelativity theory, and how to best advance international causes all took



17/42

O Twins and Time 245


place in the same context as discussions o a most simple case: two persons(sometimes twins) disagreeing with each other about the nature o time.With this example, scientists and philosophers hoped that politics and val-

ues could be finally let out. But by looking careully at its history, we see(instead o a door) a space were the categories o politics versus scienceare grossly inadequate, and where the most literal, denuded, and simplescenarios remain the richest, the most complex, and the most literary.8

In the late nineteenth century, the question o time intersected directlywith that o neutrality in discussions about where to place the primemeridianthe degree zero o longitudethat could serve as a point oreerence to all other measurements o time and longitude. A neutralsystem o longitude, argued an expert, is a myth, a ancy, a piece opoetry, but other scientists believed that a neutral place o reerence

could indeed be ound. The equator or the stars above the earth, arguedsome, were neutral enough.9

In the twentieth century, discussions o time and neutrality were morecomplicated, and much less evidently geopolitical than those that led to theestablishment o the prime meridian at the Greenwich Royal Observatory.Scientists argued about how to account or the dierence in time markedby a stationary clock and a clock in uniorm motion. Should one clock,the stationary one, be privileged, or should scientists and philosophersremain neutral in assessing the dierences between the two clocks andconsider them interchangeable and simply in movement by reerence toeach other? Questions o neutrality in this context now incorporated dis-cussions about parity, congruence, transmission, the possibilities and limitso communication, and how it related to ways o ostering or preventingagreement. Discussions no longer ocused on the task ofindinga neutralstandpoint (either on earth or in the heavens), but rather on how (and underwhat conditions) it could be made possible.

ANINTERNATIONAL SCIENCE

Einsteins theory o relativity, according to many observers at the time, could

not have been proved without international cooperation between scientistso dierent nations. The success o international cooperation in science wasoten exemplified with the ollowing case: The Theory o Einstein, the Ger-man Jew, was put to the test by British astronomers, who in 1919 led theamous eclipse expeditions that largely confirmed the theory.10 Contempo-rary descriptions o the test o Relativity Theory requently stressed thesame aspects. Einstein was almost always explicitly described as Germanand the scientists who confirmed it, British. Thus Ernest Rutherord, oneo the ounders o atomic physics, explained why it was so extraordinaryin precisely these terms: an astronomical prediction by a German scientist

had been confirmed by expeditions . . . by British astronomers.11 Anotherellow physicist similarly explained: The act that a theory ormulated by a



18/42

246 Jimena Canales


German has been confirmed by observations on the part oEnglishmen hasbrought the possibility o co-operation between these scientifically-mindednations much closer.12 Einstein was a two-old hero: Quite apart rom the

great scientific value o his brilliant theory, Einstein has done mankind anincalculable service, in proving the value o international cooperation.13During this time, the goal o advancing science and international coopera-tion oten blurred together.14 It was hardly a coincidence that Arthur S.Eddington, the astronomer in charge o the expeditions that largely provedthe theory, was (like Einstein) a pacifist, a critic o the First World War, andan ardent deender o political and scientific internationalism.

Einstein himsel requently underlined that the confirmation o his the-ory came rom English astronomers and physicists in the proud tradi-tion o English science by English scientific men backed by English

institutions. He even argued that, given the political situation at the timeo the First World War, objective judgment could only come rom the Eng-lish: In Germany, or the most part, a newspapers political orientationdictated its judgment o my theory; the attitude o English scientists, on theother hand demonstrated that their sense o objectivity is not clouded by apolitical point o view.15

The importance o these national associations in the context o scienceseemed at times paradoxical or even humorous. Einstein explicitly reerredto the complex connotations that his newound ame brought on by reer-ence to his complicated German, Swiss, and Jewish background:

By an application o the theory o relativity [ . . . ], to-day in GermanyI am called a German man o science, and in England I am representeda Swiss Jew. I I come to be represented as a bte noir, the descriptionwill be reversed, and I shall become a Swiss Jew or the Germans and aGerman man o science or the English.16

The astrophysicist Willem Julius, who looked or additional proos orEinsteins theory, but was ailing to find any, mockingly claimed that the sunwas not cooperating as well with the British Empire, as it had previouslydone during the eclipse expeditions. The evidence he ound was unortunately

even less likely as a consequences o a repulsive orce that the Earth specifi-cally, or the British Empire, were exerting upon the solar gases.17 Althoughhe always noted and was thankul or the particular role played by the Britishscientists, Einstein always firmly believed that behind these complex politicslay a purely objective matter.18 But others disagreed.

BEYOND EINSTEIN ON POLITICS

Einsteins involvement with politics started with his pacifist stance dur-

ing the First World War and his participation in the New Fatherland



19/42



Association. Einstein began to actively support international collaborationsin science ater the First World War. During these years he started pub-licly insisting that internationalism and science went hand-in-hand because

scientific creations [ . . . ] elevate the human spirit above personal andselfish nationalistic aims.19 Scientists, according to Einstein, had to play asingular role in promoting international relations: Scientists [ . . . ] mustbe pioneers in this work o restoring internationalism.20 Internationalismwas a prerequisite or pure objectivity to prevail. In support o this idea,he cited a comment by his colleague Emil Fischer: Whether you like it ornot, gentlemen, science is and always will be international.21

Ater his 1919 launch to stardom, much o his (and his new wies) energywas directed toward a cultural Zionist cause, advocating unrestricted Jew-ish immigration or large-scale Jewish colonization o Palestine along

with the creation o a university in Jerusalem.22

In the spring o 1920 hestarted oering accredited university courses to Jewish students who wereunable to register at German universities because o quota limits. Duringthat summer, he was vigorously attacked in a series o anti-relativity lec-tures at the Berlin Philharmonic Hall, marking the beginning o painulanti-Semitic tirades against him.23

Ater those attacks, Einstein increasingly claimed that anyone whoopposed his theories did it or political reasons.24 By 1921 he publicly statedthat he did not consider the possibility oany legitimate critique: No man oculture, o knowledge, has any animosity toward my theories. Even the physi-cists opposed to the theory are animated by political motives.25 When askedto elaborate about political motives, Einstein reerred to anti-Semitism.

Einstein was hardly alone in his political involvement as a scientist. He waspart o a generation o many prominent scientists who were also politicallyengaged and very influential outside o scientific orums. His own engage-ment with politics spanned almost hal a century marked by two world warsand covering topics ranging rom the use o nuclear weapons to the civil rightsmovement in the United States.26 But a ocus on Einsteins political involve-ment (already the topic o numerous books and essays) can miss aspects o hiswork that cannot be easily classed as either political or scientific. Einsteinsinterpretation o the twin paradox, and his dissent rom the interpretation

advanced by two o his contemporaries, the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentzand French philosopher Henri Bergson, alls in this nether land.

THE TWIN PARADOX

In 1911 Einsteins theory o relativity gained a renewed interest or physi-cists, philosophers, and the general public in a new ormulation proposedby Paul Langevin.27 In a congress or philosophers in Bologna, in whichBergson was the undisputable star, Langevin discussed a paradox that was

subsequently named the twin paradox. Langevins original publication



20/42

248 Jimena Canales


did not talk about twins, or use the common names later given to the twinso Peter and Paul, but simply described a single voyager taking o romearth in an imaginary rocket. Yet eventually, the paradox obtained a stan-

dard orm that has been repeated over and over.The common ormulation o the paradox can be summarized as ollows.

According to the theory o relativity, two twins (one who traveled in outerspace at speeds close to the speed o light, and another one who remainedon earth) would come back together to find that time had slowed downor the twin who had traveled. The twin who stayed on earth would haveaged more rapidly; the traveling twin would be younger. Their clocks andcalendars would show disagreeing dates and times. Although initially or-mulated as a thought experiment, many scientists claimed that variouseects described and predicted by Einsteins theory showed that the para-

dox would indeed take place. A stunning confirmation took place in 1972when scientists tested their theory by transporting an atomic clock east-ward around the world and comparing it with one transported westward.To their amazement, they ound that the ar-east traveler lost 59 nanosec-onds, while the one transported westward gained 273 nanoseconds.28

The paradox took time to reach its traditional, oten-repeated orm. Atfirst its ull implications escaped even Einstein, who in 1905 (when he firstormulated the theory o relativity), did not even see a paradox. Einsteinlater believed that the thing is at its unniest when it was considered interms o its eects on organisms, starting to ask i the dilation o timeas marked by a clock would also aect biologicaland not only physi-calprocesses.29 Soon thereater Einstein started to consider time dilationas much more than the delay o particular clocks, claiming that relativityaected the temporal course o no matter which process.30

The twin paradox became particularly important or Einstein andhis interlocutors because it aptly illustrated aspects o his interpretation orelativity theory that dierentiated his position (and his particular contri-bution) rom others. It was an important example or Einsteins particularinterpretation o relativity theory by separating it rom the contributionso Henri Poincar and Lorentz, two o his contemporaries, and which wasused to demonstrate the relevance o some o his most arcane claims or the

common understanding o time in general.Years beore Einstein, both Poincar and Lorentz had already worked

on a theory that was very close to Einsteins yet diered in essential ways.First, Lorentz developed the amous equations later used by Einstein. Then,in 1900, Poincar brought Lorentzs research to a dierent level by givinga physical interpretation o the equations in terms o the slowing downo clocks.31 Yet there was something essential and unique about Einsteinswork that was not present or oreseen by the others: Einsteins particularinterpretation o the notion o time. His interpretation o the twin para-dox exemplified this particular interpretation.



21/42



His main dierence with Lorentz and Poincar, and the reason orwhich Einstein eventually received credit or revolutionizing physics, wasthat neither o the other two men thought that these relativity eects

shouldrevolutionize physics. Neither o them thought that concepts otime and space shouldbe overhauled. Neither man thought that thesevariations in time and length should be considered real in the sameterms that Einstein did.

Lorentz and Poincar both realized that in cases where clocks moved athigh velocities the time shown by the ast-moving clock would be delayedvis--vis the slow-moving clock. They both used the same ormula to cal-culate the exact amount o each clocks delay as it varied according to itsspeed. The amous ormula related a time variable (usually written as t

2) in

terms o another time value (usually written as t1): t

2= t

1[1/(1- v2/c2). But

Einstein diered with Lorentz and Poincar about the meaning they gave tot1

and t2and how these variables related to our notion o time in general.

Einstein at first considered the theory o relativity to belong equally toLorentz. In 1906 he reerred to relativity as the theory o Lorentz andEinstein.32 Lorentz called one o the changed magnitudes local time(and in the similar length equations he called it apparent length), butEinstein eventually came to believe that there was nothing unique, letalone local or apparent about it. He increasingly separated himselrom Lorentzs position, starting in 1907, when he reerred separatelyto the H.A. Lorentz theory and the principle o relativity.33 Einsteinstated his dierence with Lorentz clearly and in detail, claiming that heunderstood Lorentzs local time as time in general: Surprisingly, how-ever, it turned out that a suf ciently sharpened conception o time was allthat was needed to overcome the dif culty discussed.34 Einsteins newinterpretation o time and his dierence with Lorentzs was supported byHermann Minkowski in a amous September 1908 lecture. It would soonbecome the main mark o Einsteins priority.

What is more interesting is Einsteins next claim: that his redefinition olocal time as time in general was right, and that Lorentzs was wrong.Although in his amous 1905 publication Einstein already explained thathe was talking about time, his claim was initially much more modest.

Then, it was closely associated with clock time, and did not even include allclocks. He was careul to say that his theory applied mostly to a balance-wheel clock and in later editions he added a ootnote saying it wouldnot apply to a pendulum clock, which is physically a system to whichthe Earth belongs. This case had to be excluded.35 Even ater he expandedthe importance o relativity beyond clock time, Einstein initially did notclaim that his theory was the only explanation o the observed eects, butthat it was one possible explanation among many others. He did howeverinsist that it was the better one, because in contrast to Lorentzs, (he argued)it was not ad hoc or artificial.36



22/42

250 Jimena Canales


By October 1909 Lorentz was ready to concede that Einstein shouldtake credit or the maniestation o a general and undamental prin-ciple o relativitysomething he had not done. But in that same Gt-

tingen lecture, Lorentz also said that Einstein simply postulates whatwe have deduced, with some dif culty and not altogether satisactorily.And that Einsteins ormulas were rather complicated and look somewhatartificial.37 While Einstein ramed Lorentzs theory as artificial-looking,Lorentz ramed Einsteins in the same way. In his 1910 lectures Lorentzused the term Einsteins Relativittsprinzip, clearly attributing it to Ein-stein.38 Lorentzs clear acknowledgement o Einsteins credit was hardly anendorsement. Einstein (and Minkowski), Lorentz argued, denied the exis-tence o one true universal time. He wanted to keep it.

In 1914, in a book titled Das Relativittsprinzip collecting some o the

most important documents on the relativity theory by various authors,Lorentzs contribution showed clear disagreements with Einstein: Einsteinsays, in short, that all the questions just mentioned have no meaning. Thecrux o their dierence resided in the exceptional importance Lorentz gaveto epistemology (specifically, in relativity theory and more generally, in sci-ence): The evaluation o these concepts (relativity, time) belong mainlywithin epistemology, and the verdict can also be let to this field. ForLorentz epistemology was central to the meaning o the theory.39

Einstein became even clearer about his dierence with Lorentz in anarticle published or a general audience in a multivolume Encyclopediao the Present commissioned to promote Germany. The article includeda clear criticism o Lorentzs interpretation.40 Ater reading the article,Lorentz complained about it in a private letter to Einstein: In your articleo the Kultur der Gegenwart I find in the discussion [ . . . ] the remark:This manner o thinking up ad hoc hypotheses to cope with experiments[ . . . ] is very unsatisactory, noticing that it reerred directly to him.41 Hestrongly chastised Einstein or presenting a personal view as sel-evidentin his claim that there could be no distinguishing actor or preerring onetime over the other. Lorentz then proceeded to describe all that was wrongwith Einsteins interpretation, settling largely on two main points.

The first issue had to do with the equivalence o time and space. Space

and time were not simply interchangeable: an unmistakable dierenceexists between spatial and temporal concepts, a dierence which youalso certainly cannot remove entirely. You cannot view the time coordi-nates as totally equal in status with the space coordinates. The secondissue had to do with the equivalency o the status o the dierent times.Lorentz was ready to concede that imperect spirits could not give moreimportance to one time over the other, but a universal spirit would.But, what is more, Lorentz argued that we, humble human beings, werenonetheless similar to this spirit: surely we are not so vastly dierentto it, he argued. The idea o a universal spirits conception o time had

a long history going back to medieval times and still appearing orceullyin Newtons work. To Lorentz the question o a universal spirit and



23/42



the ability to disentangle the equivalency o the status o t1

and t2

wentbeyond the bounds o physics.42

By January 1915 it was clear that Lorentz and Einstein disagreed in

their interpretation o relativity theory; they disagreed about the status ot1

and t2

vis--vis time in general; they disagreed about what they elt con-stituted the bounds o physics; they disagreed about the role o episte-mology in science; they disagreed about what was artificial in scientifichypotheses; they disagreed about what should be considered as a personalview instead o being sel-evident. Lorentz considered Einsteins theoryo relativity as one o many other possible options. Yes, special and generalrelativity were correct: I do not mention that, also in my opinion, not onlythe theory o relativity but also your gravitation theory can remain valid intheir entirety. But they were not the only way to see things: They will just

not impose themselves on us so much as the only possible ones.43

Lorentz and Einstein nonetheless agreed about many other things anddeeply admired each other as individuals. They became increasingly alignedin their opposition to the First World War and in their deense o interna-tional cooperation. In 1919 Lorentz was among the first physicists who con-tributed to bringing Einsteins theory to the wider public. His short, popularbook The Einstein Theory o Relativity called it a monument o scienceand extolled the indeatigable exertions and perseverance o the man.44

In the 1920s Lorentz continued to support Einstein as an individual,despite their dierences. His support peaked ater Einstein suered anti-Semitic attacks at the Philharmonic Hall. Nonetheless dierences remained.In 1922 he still insisted that one may, in all modesty, call true time thetime measured by clocks which are fixed [ . . . ] and consider simultaneityas a primary concept.45

ENTER BERGSON

Disagreement about the meaning o t1, t

2, and time in general became a

much wider problem ater Bergson published his controversial Durationand Simultaneity. The book recounted in detail the amous twin para-

dox, and interpreted it in a manner that diered sharply rom Einsteins.Einstein and Bergson had met months beore on 6 April 1922 when thebook had not yet appeared but was already in press, in a widely publicizedmeeting in Paris widely considered a sensation that the intellectual snob-bery o the capital could not pass up.46

Bergson at that time was an established figure both as a public intel-lectual and philosopher, hobnobbing in the morning with heads o state,filling lecture rooms in the aternoon, and providing bedtime reading ormany at night; Einstein was only then a rising star in science and startingto find his voice outside o scientific circles.

The two men largely dominated the intellectual landscape o the firsthal o the twentieth century, representing two competing sides o modern



24/42

252 Jimena Canales


times. Bergsons work became associated with metaphysics, anti-rational-ism, and vitalism (the idea that lie permeates everything). Einsteins withtheir opposites: with physics, rationality, and the idea that the universe (and

our knowledge o it) could are just as well without us. Both men were enviedby many o their contemporaries. Even Sigmund Freud once described him-sel as having little claim to be named besides Bergson and Einstein as oneo the intellectual sovereigns o his era.47 The debate between Bergson andEinstein was described as a controversy that presently separates the twomost renowned men o our times.48

Einsteins visit was highly symbolic or the two countries, coming at atime o extreme tension between France and Germany. 49 A German ultra-nationalist opponent o Einstein complained that this was simply not theproper time, or Einstein to go to France:

Since the end o the war the French have suppressed the German peoplein the most brutal manner. They have torn away piece ater piece otheir body, have engaged in one act o extortions ater another, theyhave placed colored troops to watch over the Rhineland, and they havemade insuerable demands on the German people through the repara-tion commission. And just at this very time Mr. Einstein travels to Paristo deliver lectures.50

Others held exactly the opposite view, optimistically believing thatit would help reduce the strain between the two countries. Einstein wasinvited with the express purpose that his visit would serve to restore rela-tions between German and French scholars. He quoted the letter o invi-tation rom Langevin in his travel notification to the Prussian Academy oSciences: The interests o science demand that relations between Germanscientists and us be reestablished. Langevin argued that Einstein willcontribute to this better than anyone else.51

Ater receiving three invitations (the last one rom the Collge deFrance), Einstein declined all o them. He had second thoughts, however,about the last one. These doubts intensified ater a conversation with theForeign Minister (and amateur science-fiction writer) Walther Rathenau

who worked to improve relations between these two countries, and whourged him to attend.52 Shortly thereater Einstein withdrew his declination,notified the Prussian Academy o Sciences, and prepared his trip.53 Politicaltensions only escalated when Einstein returned, and Rathenau, who hadbeen responsible or convincing him to go to Paris, was assassinated.

WE SHALL HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER WAY OF NOT AGING.

Bergsons Duration o Simultaneity set o a chain reaction o responses

rom various scientists and intellectuals who took sides or or against. The



25/42



debate was particularly shocking because many o those involved believedthat the two men should reach some sort o agreement. Intellectuals wereall well accustomed to endless discussion without resolution over the best

structure to give a government, or over the most perect orm o art, or overa certain problem o metaphysics or ethics, but this shouldnothappen ina case dealing only with logical deductions based onacts that none o theadversaries even dream o contesting.54 This was a disconcerting thing,and perhaps, without precedent.55 There needed to be an end to some-thing that could only be explained as a colossal misunderstanding or amonstrous mistake. Something radical had to happen in order to haveeveryone to agree.56

Readers oten cite a particular sentence in Duration and Simultaneitywhere Bergson wrote about the twin paradox. Bergson claimed that once

re-entering [Earth], it [the clock o one o the twins] marks the same timeas the others.57 This single statement about clocks discredited him in theeyes o most scientists. Many claimed that Bergson was not suf cientlyconversant with the outlook and problems o mathematics and physics.58Since then, most readers insist that Bergson denied the act that the timeso the twins would dier.

Bergson responded to some critics in a second 1923 edition o his book,where he included three new appendices. But even in the second edition,Bergson categorically stated that the traveling clock does not present adelay when it finds the real clock, upon its return.59 In the preace, heclaimed to explicitly prove that there is no reerence, in what concernsTime, between a system in motion and a system in uniorm translation.

Bergson, in the years that ollowed, ocused even more intently on theimplications o having the twins clock times dier. This correction wasmost clearly stated two years ater his first encounter with Einstein in LesTemps fictis et les temps rel (May 1924). There he insisted that even ithe twins clocks diered, his major philosophical point still held. Whatwas this point? Although complex, one aspect o it remained clearly tied tohis interpretation o the twin paradox.

So how did Bergson dier with Einstein? When Bergson entered into theray in 1922 he first insisted that one o the twins time was real while

the others was fictional. His philosophical project consisted in deter-mining how these boundariesbetween the real and the fictionalwereestablished more generally. When he admitted that the times would dier,he still insisted that the discrepancy between the twins times did not nec-essarily imply that they should both be unequivocally considered in equalterms. So what i one o the twins clocks showed a dierent time thanthe others? One did not have to comply with Einsteins particular answer,argued Bergson.

Dierences in clock times proved that something in one o the twinsscenarios was dierent rom the others. Their experiences o time were

thus not entirely equal. Which o the twins clocks time was correct? For



26/42

254 Jimena Canales


Einstein, both were equally correct. Physics,his physics, showed that. Berg-son disagreed. When the twins met back on earth, and compared theirdiering clocks it was not immediately clear to him which o these times

would be taken as correct. Althoughphysically they could arguably haveequal privileges,philosophically dierences would remain between the twotwins. Whose time would prevail back on earth would depend on howtheir disagreement was negotiatedpsychologically, socially, politically,and philosophically. Mockingly comparing the sensational conclusionso Einsteins interpretation o relativity to the antastical searches or theountain o youth, Bergson concluded: We shall have to find another wayo not aging.

Bergson at first ocused on dierences in the twins experiences o eortand memory, and then (ater criticisms were launched at him claiming that

he did not understand Einsteins science) he ocused on acceleration, a clearphysical dierence. He argued that acceleration was the essential dierencethat produced a dierence in times. Acceleration created a dissymmetry,which in turn proved that the twins times were not equal in every sense

So, i one wants to deal with Real Times then acceleration should notcreate a dissymmetry, and i one wants or the acceleration o one othese two systems to eectively create a dissymmetry between them,then we are no longer dealing with Real Times.60

Acceleration was an inescapable mark o a dierence in the twins travelitineraries. Since a dierence existed, one that resulted in a dierence intimes, then their times were not equal inevery respect.

Einstein insisted that the issues that so ascinated Bergson were irrelevantor physics. Both twins experienced Real Timesequally realaccord-ing to Einstein. In addition, on many occasions Einstein and a number ohis deenders claimed that the dierences in times appeared even i therewas no acceleration. The twin paradox should hold even under the specialtheory (that did not account or acceleration eects) alone. To prove this,they devised new scenarios. One o the most popular involved the intro-duction o a third twin, usually called the triplet, who would accelerate to

compare her clock against that o the un-accelerated travelling twin andattest to the time dierence. Or they had the two twins exchange timesignals every step o the journey. Or they laced the path o each twin withcoordinated clocks. These new scenarios solved some problems, but openedothers. The plot thickened and the debate intensified.

The philosopher Andr Lalande, one o the ounders o the Socitranaise de philosophie, considered Bergsons arguments as a wholeand across all o his publications. Unlike most o those who ollowedthe debate between the two men, he did not limit himsel to citing theusual out-o-context quotes. Unlike most other readers, he understood

that Bergson dideventually acknowledge that the times would dier. He



27/42



also understood that even then the disagreement between the two menremained, which he summarized as ollows: The chie question here, ocourse, is to know what sort oreality should be accorded to the various

opposed observers who disagree in their measurement o time.61 Anotherollower o the debate drew a similar conclusion: Bergson admits all othe results o relativity, but only reuses to accord them the same realvalue.62 Many other commentators accepted Einsteins theory and itsconsequences, but were similarly loathe to ascribe an equal reality to thedierent times o the theory. An author o a book on relativity simplysaid that Einstein treated the discord between clocks as real. But thatit would no doubt be better to qualiy this by saying that these casesshould be treated as i they were real.63

The question ohow reality was bestowedto certain things and not to

others was indeed at the crux o Bergsons philosophy. For Bergson, the linebetween reality and fiction was raught. For Einstein, it was not.

FIGHTING TWINS

A suf ciently uncooperative twin could still claim that onlyhis clock showedthe real time. The role o power and will to dominate could not be kept outo interpretations o the twin paradox. Even in 1911, at the very momentwhen the paradox was first introduced, the perspicacious philosopher LonBrunschvicg underlined the issue o domination when he remarked thatphysicists should not orget that every observer described in the relativ-ity theory was potentially also a maker o clocks, and could potentiallywant to dominate the diverse groups o observers, incapable o bringingthe clocks into agreement, instead o being conused among them.64 Whatwould a dominant twin do?

Eddington, who also understood Einsteins theory as one that assignedequal reality to the dierent times measured by dierent observers,described Einsteins position in clearly value-laden terms. He consideredEinsteins interpretation o relativity as a airer position than alternativeones, all o which he understood in juridical, political (and even slightly

comical) terms. Einsteins theory was radically democratizing, and itwas also a way to avoid conflict through the reconciliation o conflict-ing points o view. When discussing the question o what was the di-erence between a stationary observer (a twin that stayed on Earth) anda moving one (the one who travelled), Eddington used the example o aalling drunken man who explained that the paving-stone got up andhit him and who dismiss[ed] the policemans account o the incident.According to Eddington, the story in which the paving-stone overtookhim and came in contact with his head should be validated. Both his andthe policemans account were true: Einsteins position is that whilst this

is a perectly legitimate way o looking at the incident, the more usual



28/42

256 Jimena Canales


account given by the policeman is also legitimate. Einstein endeavorslike a good magistrate to reconcile them both.65 To think otherwise wasterribly ego-centric since Nature provides no indication that one o

these rames is to be preerred to the others.66Disagreements among the twins were requently considered in the same

way as more pressing and present orms o disagreements, such as those cur-rently acing nations and, within them, scientists. Scientists oten worked inboth o these contexts. Only five days beore he met Einstein in Paris, Berg-son was voted unanimously to become the president o the InternationalCommittee or Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC) o the League o Nations.Einstein would join as a member.

The ICIC was ounded on the hope that i intellectuals could learn tocooperate then nations might ollow. It initiated a wide range o activities,

pertaining to elementary and secondary education, the creation o biblio-graphic databases, aculty and student exchanges, intellectual property,nomenclature, scientific organization, dissemination, and access to knowl-edge, among others. The leadership o Bergson was essential, since he wasone o the most politically committed intellectuals o his time. Einsteinsparticipation in the Committee was also important. Bergson needed him,since he was well aware that the power o the ICIC depended on the pres-tige and strength o its members. Knowing that the ICIC will only succeed,will only impose itsel by the prestige and the authority o its members,Bergson worked hard to include Einstein.67 But disagreements between thetwo men plagued the Committee, which finally ailed in 1939 in the aceo imminent war.

Ater the First World War, German scientists were oten excluded rominternational scientific and academic orums (such as the Solvay Congresses),just as German nationals were excluded rom many governmental orums(such as the League o Nations).68 At the start o the First World War, Berg-son, who was then president o the Acadmie des sciences morales et poli-tiques, was pressured by a group o members o the Institut de France whodemanded the expulsion o oreign associates o German nationality.69 Thephilosophers o the Institut, as a group, condemned this initiative. Bergson,during his tenure as president, drated a declaration that condemned the

war but did not go to the extreme o expelling German nationals.70 Thesepolitics o exclusion aected Einsteins Paris visit. In 1922 the Acadmiedes sciences reused to allow him to lecture on the grounds that Germanydid not belong to the League o Nations. A critical newspaper questionedtheir logic: I a German were to discover a remedy or cancer or tubercu-losis, would these thirty academicians have to wait or the application othe remedy until Germany joined the League?71

A ew days ater his meeting with Bergson, the two men were supposed tomeet again in Geneva at the inaugural meeting o the ICIC. Einstein missedits first meeting (15 August 1922). He then thought o resigning because

o the prevailing anti-German sentiments o many o its members.72 He did



29/42



not eel he could adequately represent Germany because o his conditionas Israeli, on the one hand, and on the other because o his anti-chauvinisticeelings rom the German point o view do not permit him to truly repre-

sent the intellectual milieu and the Universities o Germany.73 Nonethe-less, Einstein was invited as a representative o German science. Einsteinwas in a dif cult position; Marie Curie and others pleaded with him, andhe chose to remain.

By the second meeting he had resigned in earnest (March 1923), pub-lishing a sharply worded statement against the ICIC.74 Einstein protestedthat the League o Nations had watched helplessly as the French, reusingto send the problem o Germanys war-reparations to arbitration, occupiedthe German Ruhr region. The government o Raymond Poincar, HenriPoincar cousin, had sent the troops to the Ruhr industrial area to seize

control o production. The League o Nations, argued Einstein, ails notonly to embody the ideal o an international organization, but actually dis-credits it.75 His highly public resignation only made the work o the Leagueo Nations and the ICIC more dif cult. His behavior appeared paradoxi-cal to many o his colleagues.76 How could a scientist who preached aboutinternationalism reuse to take place in these outreach activities? Ater all,he was being invited (they had indeed pleaded) as a German-born member.Had not Einstein repeatedly protested the exclusion o German scientists?

His colleague Max Born wrote to him ater hearing the news o Ein-steins resignation. Could it be true?

The papers report that you have turned your back on the League oNations. I would like to know i this is true. It is, indeed, almost impos-sible to arrive at any rational opinion about political matters, as thetruth is systematically being distorted during wartime.77

During this tumultuous period Einstein considered his theory o relativ-ity in ways that can neither be considered exclusively inpoliticalor sci-entific terms. In a letter to his riend Maurice Solovine, he connected hisdecision to resign directly to Bergsons reception o relativity:

I resigned rom a commission o the League o Nations, or I no longerhave any confidence in this institution. That provoked some animosity,but I am glad that I did it. One must shy away rom deceptive under-takings, even when they bear a high-sounding name. Bergson, on hisbook on the theory o relativity, made some serious blunders; may Godorgive him.78

Forced to explain his decision to resign rom the ICIC and to combatviews that he was being pro-German, he stated that his position was con-sistent with the theory o relativity. In a letter to Marie Curie, he explained:

Do not think or a moment that I consider my own ellow countrymen



30/42

258 Jimena Canales


superior and that I misunderstand the othersthat would scarcely be con-sistent with the Theory o Relativity.79 Relativity, in those years, wentbeyond his amous Annalen der Physik papers.

Although Einstein had repeatedly protested the exclusion o German sci-entists rom international orums, in 1923 he boycotted themdespite beinginvited. He explained to Marie Curie: I have requested, urthermore, thatI not be invited to Brussels [to attend the Solvay Congress].80 Einsteinsclaims that they were excluding Germans provoked Lorentz to write a let-ter (on 15 September 1923) explaining to Einstein that it was not true thatGerman scientists were excluded on principle. But Einstein had lost hopein the League. In a private letter sent to his close riend Michele Besso, heexplained how he elt proud not to have been duped by the League oNations. That would have been a complete waste o time and energy,

due to the complete hypocrisy o the institution.81

COFFEE BREAK

On 6 March 1924 crisis hit the ICIC. Gilbert Murray, scholar o ancientGreek literature, world peace advocate, and vice-president o the organiza-tion, sent a letter to the Times accusing the Committee o being anti-Ger-man. The ICIC responded by publishing numerous invitations o Germanscientists and institutions and evidence o how they, German scientists,had turned down these invitations. Bergson, who could not disguise hisanger towards Murray, needed Einstein more than ever.82 When askedhow they should best respond to the crisis and to the accusations, Bergsonresponded: It would be extremely useul i Pro. Einstein joined the Com-mittee again.83

All o this happened at the very moment that the debate between thetheory o relativity and Bergsons philosophy was reopened in the July 1924issue o the Revue de philosophie. The equality o the dierent times in thetwin paradox was again discussed. Meanwhile, the position o France wasbeing weakened because o its widely rejected occupation o the Ruhr areaand the concurrent devaluation o the ranc. The British thought that they

could profit rom this situation. Murray asked Einstein i he would join,and he accepted.84

The philosopher Isaac Benrubi, amongst others, decided to attend theICICs meeting in Geneva (25 July 1924) only ater learning that both Ein-stein and Bergson would attend.85 The ate o the Committee was now coloredby the infighting between Bergson and Einstein. For its participants, the Ein-stein-Bergson debate was at least as important as the Committees meetings.

For the meeting proper Bergson reintroduced Einstein with a flatteringeulogy, but during the meeting break their dierences once again becameevident. Benrubi, who attended the conerence because o Einsteins and

Bergsons presence, precipitated himsel towards Einstein to ask him what



31/42


32/42

260 Jimena Canales


He then added a key line that told how their arguments were almost thesame: and or that reason mine remains correct [juste].90

Einstein and Bergson did not learn to work together at the ICIC. Pas-

sions again flared when the French government oered the ICIC the optiono building an International Institute or Intellectual Cooperation (IIIC)in Paris. Einstein (and others) expressed his concern that the ICIC wasinternational only nominally, and in eect nationalistically French. ButBergson thought he should not turn down the governments generous oer.When Bergson accepted, Einstein became more and more suspicious o theICICs underhand nationalism. He did not attend the next meeting, whichwas held in Paris instead o in Geneva.91 Bergson, in turn, did not supportEinsteins Zionist causes. When Einstein invited Bergson to participate inthe inauguration o the Jerusalem University, Bergson declined politely (in

February 1925) saying he was too busy.92

In 1925 Bergson resigned, citing an illness.93 This resignation marked theend o Bergsons political involvement. Ater that date he completely retiredrom public lie. Lorentz assumed the presidencythe second leader o theICIC who held a view o time that could not be reconciled with Einsteins.

Einstein did not increase his attendance. During the meeting o 28 July1925, Einstein decided to write to Besso a letter on his recent work on aunified theory, explaining to his riend: This letter was written during aboring meeting o the League o Nations.94 Later he described the ICIC asa keen disappointment and a weak and imperect instrument that hasby no means ulfilled all the expectations which accompanied its ound-ing.95 He supported the League only au aute de mieux.

In 1928, prompted by new experimental results, Lorentz again stated hisposition on relativity theory, giving Einstein ull credit or it. While he hadintroduced the concept o local time, he had

never thought that this had anything to do with the real time. Thereal time or me was still represented by the old classical notion o anabsolute time, which is independent o any reerence to special rameso co-ordinates. There existed or me only this one true time.96

Einstein could take ull responsibility:

So the theory o relativity is really solely Einsteins work. And therecan be no doubt that he would have conceived it even i the work o allhis predecessors in the theory o this field had not been done at all. Hiswork is in this respect independent o the previous theories.97

He granted Einstein a lot: To the experimental evidence which wealready had, the charm o a beautiul and sel-consistent theory was thenadded.98 Nonetheless Lorentz continued to believe in his interpretation:

Asked i I consider [my interpretation] [ . . . ] a real one, I should answer



33/42



yes. It is as real as anything we observe.99 And he continued to believethat Einstein simply postulated his own theory.100

By 1929 Einstein still deeply believed that the domination o the Insti-

tute by the French was a act which is not conducive [ . . . ] to internationalsolidarity.101 To the mathematician Jacques Hadamard he described theLeague as impotent.102 He told the New York Times that he had beenrarely enthusiastic about what the League o Nations has done or has notdone.103 From 19261930 Einstein attended only three meetings.104 Heexplained to the scientist and politician Paul Painlev that I have alwaysregretted the act that the institute was established in Paris and financedexclusively by French unds.105 He argued to move the institute in tototo Geneva and have all countries contribute to its financial support undera quota system.106 In July 1930 he again criticized the Committee, and

resigned or the second time. Murray wrote about the woes that replacingEinstein imposed on the institution, and pointed his finger to a quick fix:The best solution o all these dif culties is obvious! It is that you shouldremain with us, but perhaps that is too much to hope or.107

Einstein decided to participate once again in the Solvay Congresses,which started to be dominated by an alternative physical theory: quantummechanics. At the Solvay Congress o 1927, Einstein expressed [ . . . ] a deepconcern over physicists disagreement about causality in physics, utteringhis amous argument that God did not play dice with the universe.108 Atthe ollowing meeting physicists could not yet come to agreement amongstthemselves about undamental aspects o physics. Einstein locked hornswith Niels Bohr on topics which would be debated in later years. The dis-agreement at the meeting prooundly aected Einstein, who expressed aeeling o disquietude as regards the apparent lack o firmly laid out prin-ciples or the explanation o nature, in which all could agree.109

Bohr described how the Solvay Congresses took quite a dramatic turnater they became plagued by important disagreements pertaining to therelation between the theory o relativity and quantum mechanics.110 Someprominent advocates o quantum mechanics, such as Louis de Broglie, sawBergsons philosophy as revindicated by the new science. At the time o Berg-sons death in 1941 the literary critic Andr Rousseaux insisted that it was

not Bergson who had been wrong on science, it wasthe science that had beenwrong. Bergson had been wrong merely when judged by the science o histime which was one that was soon being marked by caducity.111

The Nazis rose to power early in 1933. The physicists continued to dis-agree, but meeting together became increasingly hard. Einstein was unableto attend the Solvay Congress o 1933. What was worse, their discussionsduring those years seemed to many unfit or scientists, but internationalreunions were unable to muster consensus. In 1936, the Second Interna-tional Congress or the Unity o Science was another display o disunity.

In 1938 the ICIC held it necessary to orge consensus in the physical

sciences (mainly on the Quantum-Relativity debate), while still under the



34/42

262 Jimena Canales


auspices o the League o Nations.112 These aspects o the situation wereespecially discussed at a meeting in Warsaw in 1938, arranged by the Inter-national Institute o Intellectual Co-operation o the League o Nations,

recalled Bohr.113 But the ICICs eorts ailed, and did not produce one oits much hoped or result: agreement, either political, or scientific, or o anyother kind. One year later, the ICIC lost so much momentum that it had itslast meeting on July.114

Einstein completely and publicly abandoned his pacifist stance. Hopingthat another institution diering rom the present League o Nations inGeneva, would have at its disposal the means or enorcing its decisions,he started to advocate an international standing army and police orce.115In August 1939 he sent a letter to President Roosevelt urging nuclearweapons research.

TWINS RETURN

Late in his lie, Einstein was asked to write an article or the Library oLiving Philosophers which he jokingly described as an obituary. It wasfilled by articles about Einstein that touched on the topic o how scientistsreached, or ailed to reach, agreement on his theories. Bohr pessimisticallyrecalled in his essay how it has been dif cult to reach mutual understand-ing not only between philosophers and physicists but even between physi-cists o dierent schools.116

The question o what kind o reality should be given to the times markedby the two clocks once again resuraced. Arthur O. Lovejoy, who wouldbecome amous or ounding the history o ideas movement, disagreed withEinsteins interpretation o the diering time assessments by the twins inrelativity, siding with Bergson. The two times should not be given the sig-nificance that Einstein gave to them: the act that two observers disagreeconcerning the simultaneity o a pair o distant events [ . . . ] is no more sig-nificant than would be a disagreement between two illiterate persons overthe question o whether a whale is a fish. He considered the dierences intimes described in relativity theory not as reerring to real temporal dier-

ences but simply as dierences arising rom disagreements over terminol-ogy. One o the persons could mean by fish any ree-swimming animalthat lives in the water while or the other one it could mean gill-breathingand cold-blooded animals.117

The philosopher Andrew Paul Ushenko, author o the Philosophy oRelativity and Proessor at Princeton University, tried to bring some clar-ity into these debates, noticing that philosophers and even scientists werestill reading too much into the dierences between the two clock times.He traced the problem to one o Einsteins popular examples o relativitytheory, which illustrated time dilation in terms o the time o one person

on an embankment and another travelling on a train. Ushenko oered to



35/42



undertake a slight modification o Einsteins example in order to removethe cause o misunderstanding by philosophers.118 It would be better totalk about two trains instead o using the romantic illustration where

one person remained on a railroad embankment while the other took oon the train. Two trains would serve better the purpose o illustrating theparity o alternative reerence systems because o a common experience.Denuding the dierences amongst the observers in Einsteins examples, heargued, was necessary to properly understand Einsteins theories. Other-wise, precisely the issues onegotiatingthese dierences would come backto haunt him and his science.

In another important essay, the Harvard physicist Percy Bridgman onceagain argued that the philosophical problem o reaching agreement aboutmatters o time had not disappeared. He insisted that or Einsteins theory

to hold, the two amous observers o the twin paradox still had to come toan agreement about their dierences and its meaning. They had to be sim-ilar in some sense and they had to be able to communicate. Bridgmanpointed out the dif culties: Even the inhabitants o this planet with di-erent cultural backgrounds do not find it always easy to communicate.119Why would it be dierent or the twins in the amous paradox?

To understand some o the most metaphysical o questionsthe natureo timesome o Einsteins interlocutors brought us down to the most in-raphysical o scenarios: two imaginary individuals who disagreed aboutthe meaning o very simple observations. These scenarios were illustratedin various ways. Bridgman reerred to inhabitants o this planet with di-erent cultural backgrounds; Lovejoy wrote about disagreement betweentwo illiterate persons over the question o whether a whale is a fish;Brunschvicg wrote about an observer who would want to dominate thediverse groups o observers; Bergson used the most common o names,which were also the holiest: Peter and Paul.120

What i living observers were completely eliminated? Would that solvethe debate? Langevin boldly stated that We are ourselves clocks, deend-ing the astounding conclusion that the slow clocks meant slow time, bio-logically and physically.121 But some critics thought that defining time interms o clocks was a scientific monstrosity.122 Clocks requently ran late,

and this did not mean that time was slowing down. Bergson consideredthe case where the comparison o times could be completely automated,and where the dierences between the clock times would be automaticallyrecorded. Under these conditions, he was ready to concede to Einstein: onecould naturally say that [clocks travelling at dierent speeds] cannot runin synchronicity [ . . . ] in eect Time slows down when speed increases.But as soon as conscious beings were reintroduced, Bergson elt justified tocontinue to claim that the times described by Einstein were not all equallyreal. But what is this time that slows down? What are these clocks that arenot in synchronicity? They were, according to him, always fictional and

represented. The question o completely eliminating observers and seeing



36/42

264 Jimena Canales


how this elimination would aect current views o the universe, Bergsonknew well, would be equivalent to opening Pandoras box.

Simple examples invoked complicated questions: would our view o the

universe remain valid even i all living observers were eliminated rom it?Could observation be completely automated? How was agreement possi-ble? How did consensus depend on communication? How did dierencesin experience aect consensus? What is parity and what is congruence?The examples used by scientists quickly escaped rom the strict categorieso either science or politics. All the tales o passing trains which signalan observer standing in a station, o aviators who smoke cigars in length-ened or contracted periods o timeto what purpose are they?or, moreprecisely, or whom are they designed? asked the philosopher GastonBachelard.123 Lessons about science or politics could not be simply read out

rom these tales.Finally, what is neutral? Neutrality, o course may mean severalthings, answered Ushenko, one o Einsteins interlocutors, arguing in thesame text or a slight modification o Einsteins example to serve bet-ter the purpose o illustrating the parity o alternative reerence systems.Examples aimed to illustrate this parity prolierated beore and aterUshenko wrote these lines (the train and the embankment, two trains onparallel tracks, an earth-bound observer and a voyager, Peter and Paul, twotwins, and perhaps a third triplet). Failing in all senses to be neutral, theseattempts remained at the same time both too literal and too literary.

Ushenko, remaining anxious about the abundance o allegories andmetaphors in the work o physicists, asked i physics is neutral withregard to philosophy concluding that science must rely on [ . . . ] extra-scientific considerations, which proves that science is biased in avoro, and not neutral, with regard to, the latter.124 Could there be neutral-ity between physics and philosophy, between science and extra-science,between science and a theory o knowledge?Yes and no. Scientists andphilosophers took sides. But, by no longer earing the abundance o alle-gories and metaphors in scientific writing, we can see that the problemo neutrality across fields (politics, science, ethics) lay in the boundaries othese fields themselves.

NOTES

1. I would like to thank Gerald Holton, Al Martinez, Sam Schweber, JohnStachel, Richard Staley, and Matthew Stanley or their help and suggestions.Robert K. Merton, Science and the Social Order, Philosophy o Science 5(3) (1938), 321337.

2. The term view rom nowhere is rom Thomas Nagel. The term situatedknowledges reers to the work o Donna Haraway.

3. Robert Proctor, Value-Free Science?: Purity and Power in Modern Knowl-

edge (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991).



37/42



4. For precision, see: M. Norton Wise (ed.), The Values o Precision (Prince-ton: Princeton University Press, 1995). For objectivity see Lorraine Dastonand Peter Galison, Objectivity (New York: Zone Books, 2007). For imper-sonality see Jimena Canales, A Tenth o a Second: A History (Chicago:Chicago University Press, 2009).

5. For a caution against acile readings o politics rom technology see KenAlder, Engineering the Revolution: Arms and Enlightenment in France,17631815 (Princeton: Princeton University, 1997), 293. For the claim thatpolitical philosophy cannot be simply read out o science see Peter Gali-son, Judgment Against Objectivity, in Caroline A. Jones and Peter Galison(eds.), Picturing Science, Producing Art(New York: Routledge, 1998), 355.For a warning against the uncritical extension o the cultural implications oscientific theories see Gerald Holton, Einsteins Influence on the Culture oOur Time, in Gerald Holton, Einstein, History and Other Passions (Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996).

6. Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.),

Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist(La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1949). Cit-ing Emil Fischer.

7. Daston and Galison, Objectivity, 293.8. By ocusing on the literality and literary aspects o this example, this essay

goes beyond the interchange and its cultural contexts model character-izing most work on literature and science, such as Gillian Beer, Science andLiterature, in R.C. Olby, et al. (eds.), Companion to the History o ModernScience (London: Routledge, 1990), 783798.

9. Peter Galison, Einsteins Clocks, Poincars Maps: Empires o Time (NewYork: W.W. Norton and Company, 2003), 150.

10. Quotations: International Scientific Organization, Science 53 (15 April1921), 364367. The essay contains a quotation rom the London Times and

a commentary.11. Cited in Matthew Stanley, An Expedition to Heal the Wounds o War: 1919Eclipse and Eddington as Quaker Adventurer, Isis 94 (2003), 58.

12. Robert W. Lawson cited in Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden (eds.), Einsteinon Peace (New York: Avenel, 1960), 2729.

13. Robert W. Lawson cited in ibid.14. Einstein and relativity became a ocal point through which Eddington could

advance both science and international understanding. In practice, these twogoals blurred together, as he truly elt that astronomy could not progress ina world wracked by hatred and war. Stanley, An Expedition to Heal theWounds o War, 58.

15. Albert Einstein, How I Became a Zionist, Jdische Rundschau (1921).

This article was not written by Einstein, but was written rom an interviewapproved by him.16. Albert Einstein, Time, Space and Gravitation, The Times, 28 November

1919.17. Willem H. Julius to Einstein, [Utrecht], 8 May 1920.18. Although investigation o the influence o the solar gravitational field on

rays o light is purely an objective matter, I am none the less very glad toexpress my personal thanks to my English colleagues in this branch o sci-ence. Einstein, Time, Space and Gravitation.

19. Einstein, On the Contribution o Intellectuals to International Reconcilia-tion, written ater 29 September 1920.

20. Albert Einstein, On Internationalism, New York Evening Post, 26 March1921.

21.



38/42


39/42



44. Hendrik A. Lorentz, The Einstein Theory o Relativity: A Concise State-ment(1919; New York: Brentanos, 1920), 62. Lorentz commented on Ein-steins denial o the existence o the ether (another point o disagreementamongst them), but cautioned: in my opinion it is not impossible that in theuture this road [research on the ether], indeed abandoned at present, willonce more be ollowed with good results. Lorentz, The Einstein Theory oRelativity: A Concise Statement, 6162.

45. Hendrik A. Lorentz, The Principle o Relativity o Uniorm Translation,in A.D. Fokker (ed.), Lectures on Theoretical Physics (1922; London: 1931).Cited in Holton, On the Origins o the Special Theory o Relativity, 200.

46. German Ambassador in Paris, Report to the Foreign Ministry. Cited in Sieg-ried Grundmann, Einsteins Akte (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1998), 212. Themeeting was recounted in the Bulletin de la Socit ranaise de Philosophie,22 (3) (July 1922), 102113. It was reprinted in crits et Paroles, Vol. 3,497, and in Henri Bergson, Discussion avec Einstein, in Mlanges (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 1972).

47. Cited in Walter Arnold Kaumann, From Shakespeare to Existentialism:Studies in Poetry, Religion, and Philosophy (Boston: Beacon Press, 1959),326.

48. Charles Nordmann, Notre matre le temps, Le Roman de la science (Paris:Hachette, 1924), 6.

49. On this topic see Michel Biezunski, Einstein Paris: le temps nest plus . . .(Vincennes: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes, 1991).

50. Johannes Stark, Deutsche Tageszeitung, 4 April 1922. Cited in Rowe andSchulmann (eds.), Einstein on Politics: His Private Thoughts and PublicStands on Nationalism, Zionism, War, Peace and the Bomb, 1314.

51. Langevin, cited in Einstein to the Prussian Academy o Sciences, 13 March1922.

52. For Rathenaus science fiction writings see Frederich Kittler.53. For Einsteins decision to go to Paris see Nathan and Norden (eds.), Einsteinon Peace, 4254.

54. Nordmann, Notre matre le temps, 160.55. Ibid., 161.56. Ibid.57. Alan D. Sokal and J. Bricmont, Impostures intellectuelles (Paris: O. Jacob,

1997), 176.58. Thomas Hanna, Introduction, in Thomas Hanna (ed.), The Bergsonian

Heritage (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 23.59. Appendix III in Dure et Simultanit, Henri Bergson, Mlanges (Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France, 1972), 238.

60. Henri Bergson, Les Temps fictis et les temps rel, in Mlanges (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 1972), 1444.61. Andr Lalande, Philosophy in France, 19221923, The Philosophical

Review 33 (6) (1924), 543.62. Rose-Marie Moss-Bastide, Bergson ducateur (Paris: Presses Universitaires

de France, 1955), 126.63. G. Fonten, La Relativit restreinte (Vuibert, 1922), 132.64. Intervention o Brunschvicg in Paul Langevin, Le temps, lespace et la cau-

salit dans la physique moderne, Bulletin de la Socit ranaise de philoso-phie 12 (1912).

65. Arthur Eddington, The Nature o the Physical World, Ernest Rhys (ed.),Everymans Library: Science (1928; London: J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1935),135.

66. Ibid., 69.



40/42

268 Jimena Canales


67. Bergson cited in Jean-Jacques Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit desNations et la coopration intellectuelle (19191946) (Paris: Publications dela Sorbonne, 1999), 31.

68. Germany joined in 1926 ater Locarno (1925).69. For the banning o the Germans rom various international unions ater the

war see Daniel J. Kevles, Into Hostile Political Camps: The Reorganiza-tion o International Science in World War I, Isis 62 (1971). In 1926 theInternational Research Council decided to stop the exclusion and invitedGerman scientists to join as members. The Germans, however, declined.

70. This incident is described in Bergson, Mlanges, 1104. And in the Introduc-tion to Angelo Genovesi, Henry Bergson: Lettere a Einstein, Filosofia 49(1) (1998): 12 n. 2.

71. Cited in Philipp Frank, Einstein: His Lie and Times (New York: AlredKnop, 1947), 197.

72. Einstein was named by the Commission, as everyone else, without havingasked or it. Commission Internationale de Coopration Intellectuelle, in

Mlanges (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1924). On Einsteins vac-illations about his membership see Nathan and Norden (eds.), Einstein onPeace, 59. This is rom an original letter in the Algemeen Rijksarchiein theHague, Holland.

73. Cited in Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit des Nations et la coo-pration intellectuelle (19191946), 27.

74. Commission Internationale de Coopration Intellectuelle, in Mlanges (Paris:Presses Universitaires de France, 1922), 1353.

75. Albert Einstein, Die Friedens-Warte, (June 1923), 23.76. See Max Born on Einsteins resignation in the Born-Einstein

correspondence.77. Born to Einstein, Gttingen, 7 April 1923, in The Born-Einstein Letters:

Friendship, Politics and Physics in Uncertain Times (New York: Macmillan,2005).78. Einstein to Solovine, Pentecost 1923 (20 May 1923) in Albert Einstein, Let-

ters to Solovine (New York: Philosophical Library, 1987), 5859: 59. Theoriginal reads: Bergson hat in seinem Buch ber Rel. Theorie schwere Bckegeschossen; The last sentence o the letter is cited as God orgive him inAbraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here (Oxord: Clarendon Press, 1994), 75.

79. Einstein to Marie Curie, 25 December 1923. The letter appears in Carl See-lig, ed. Albert Einstein: eine dokumentarische Biographie (Zrich: EuropaVerlag,1954), 210. It is also cited in Nathan and Norden (eds.), Einstein onPeace, 6465.

80. Einstein to Marie Curie, 25 December 1923.

81. Einstein to Besso, [Berlin], 5 January 1924.82. Moss-Bastide, Bergson ducateur, 123.83. Ibid., 125.84. Documents on Einsteins reacceptance are located in Ministre des Aaires

trangres, Socit des Nations: Section des Bureaux internationaux et de laCoopration intellectuelle du Secrtariat de Genve, UNESCO: Correspon-dence de lIICI 1837 (Correspondence 30 May17 June 1924)/SDN, R 1029(Correspondence 16 April16 June 1924)/UNESCO, CICI, CICI. 106, b.568. See Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit des Nations et la coo-

pration intellectuelle (19191946), 37 n. 79.85. Isaac Benrubi, Souvenirs sur Henri Bergson (Neuchtel: Delachaux &

Niestl, 1942).86. Ibid., 10708. Cited in the Introduction o Genovesi, Henry Bergson: Let-

tere a Einstein, 89. And in Moss-Bastide, Bergson ducateur, 126.



41/42



87. Es wird Gras darber wachsen, und dann wird man mit mehr Objectivittdarber urteilen. Cited in Benrubi, Souvenirs sur Henri Bergson, 108. Alsoin Moss-Bastide, Bergson ducateur, 126.

88. Albert Einstein, Report on Meeting o the Committee on Intellectual Coop-eration, Frankurter Zeitung, 29 August 1924.

89. EA 28037. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden, Einstein on Peace (New York:Avenel Books, 1960), 7778.

90. Bergson to H. A. Lorentz, 28 November 1924, in Henri Bergson, Correspon-dances, Andr Robinet (ed.) (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2002),1126.

91. Moss-Bastide, Bergson ducateur, 145.92. Bergson to Einstein, 5 February 1925, No. 342600, Box 14, Einstein

Archives.93. Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit des Nations et la coopration

intellectuelle (19191946), 72.94. Einstein to Besso, Geneva, 28 July 1925.

95. The first quote is rom Albert Einstein, Berliner Tageblatt(1927); the secondand third rom Interview, Neue Zricher Zeitung, 20 November 1927.

96. Hendrik Lorentz, Report, The Astrophysical Journal68 (5) (1928), 350.97. Ibid.98. Ibid., 349.99. Ibid., 351.

100. Ibid., 349. Lorentz died that year and Einstein traveled to Holland to give agenerous uneral speech.

101. Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace, 98.102. Einstein to Jacques Hadamard, 24 September 1929.103. Albert Einstein, New York Times, 22 December 1930.104. Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit des Nations et la coopration

intellectuelle (19191946), 93.105. Einstein to Painlev, 9 April 1930.106. Einstein to Painlev, 9 April 1930.107. Murray to Einstein, Document No. 34 892, 21 June 1932, on p. 2 o 2, Ein-

stein Archives.108. Cited in Niels Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems

in Atomic Physics, in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philoso-pher-Scientist, ed. (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1949), 224

109. Ibid., 228.110. Ibid., 224.111. Andr Rousseaux, De Bergson a Louis de Broglie, in Albert Bguin and

Pierre Thvenaz (eds.), Henri Bergson: Essais et tmoingnages indits

(Neuchatel: 1941), 280.112. For the Warsaw Conerence o 1938 see S.S. Schweber, QED and the MenWho Made It : Dyson, Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomonaga, Princetonseries in physics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 93104.

113. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in AtomicPhysics, 236.

114. Renoliet, LUNESCO oublie: La Socit des Nations et la cooprationintellectuelle (19191946), 7.

115. Albert Einstein, A Re-examination o Pacifism, Polity 3 (1) (January 1935),45.

116. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in AtomicPhysics.

117. Arthur O. Lovejoy, The Dialectical Argument against Absolute Simultane-ity. II, The Journal o Philosophy 27 (24) (20 November 1930), 651652.



42/42

270 Jimena Canales

118. Paul Andrew Ushenko, Einsteins Influence on Contemporary Philosophy,in Paul Arthur Schilpp (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist(La Salle,IL: Open Court, 1949), 619, 607645.

119. Percy W. Bridgman, Einsteins Theories and the Operational Point o View,ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp, Vol. 7,

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jimenacanales
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times