On the histories of relativity: The propagation and elaboration of relativity theory in participant histories in Germany, 1905-1911

ISIS

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 263-299

  Staley, Richard ^a  

^a University of Chicago   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042815161     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/384001     Document Type: Review

References (211)

1. Stanley Goldberg's and Lewis Pyenson's important studies of Max Planck's reasons for taking up relativity, and his activities in propagating the theory, have long provided the most sensitive and wide-ranging accounts of another physicist's approach to relativity. See Stanley Goldberg, "Max Planck's Philosophy of Nature and His Elaboration of the Special Theory of Relativity," Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1976, 7:125-160;
2. Lewis Pyenson, "Physical Sense in Relativity: Max Planck Edits the Annalen der Physik, 1906-1918," in The Young Einstein: The Advent of Relativity (Bristol/Boston: Adam Hilger, 1985), pp. 194-214;
3. and Pyenson, "The Relativity Revolution in Germany," in The Comparative Reception of Relativity, ed. Thomas Glick (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 103) (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1987), pp. 59-111, esp. pp. 96-101.
4. For the 1905 paper see Albert Einstein, "Zur Electrodynamik bewegter Körper," Annalen der Physik, 1905, 17:891-921.
5. For my own attempt to pursue a program of this kind in relation to Max Born see Richard Staley, "Max Born and the German Physics Community: The Education of a Physicist" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Cambridge, 1992). A number of recent studies by Andrew Warwick, Olivier Darrigol, and Leo Corry have criticized the Einstein-focused methodology of previous work on, respectively, British responses to relativity, Henri Poincaré and German electrodynamics, and Hermann Minkowski.
6. See A. C. Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Cunningham, Campbell, and Einstein's Relativity, 1905-1911, Pt. 1: The Uses of Theory," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1992, 23:625-656,
7. "Pt. 2: Comparing Traditions in Cambridge Physics," Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, ibid., 1993, 24:1-25;
8. Olivier Darrigol, "Henri Poincaré's Criticism of Fin-De-Siècle Electrodynamics," Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modem Physics, 1995, 26:1-44, on p. 2;
9. Darrigol, "The Electrodynamic Origins of Relativity Theory," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1996, 26:241-312;
10. and Leo Corry, "Hermann Minkowski and the Postulate of Relativity" (Max-Planck-Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Preprint 40), Archive for History of Exact Sciences, 1997, 51:273-314.
11. Two examples of such inconsistencies, which I will discuss in detail, concern historians' selective use of the term "Lorentz-Einstein" as an indication of physicists' (mis)understanding of relativity and historians' neglect of Einstein's 1907 review of relativity as a source for understandings of the theory and its past. Note that my argument is not against inception and reception studies as such, but against some of the assumptions that can limit their approach. Given my focus on histories of relativity alone, the account that follows is itself a reception study. I discuss some of its limitations in the Conclusion.
12. On the nature of retrospective reportage and participant histories see Thomas S. Kuhn, "Revisiting Planck," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1983, 14:231-251;
13. G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, "Experiments Are the Key: Participants' Histories and Historians' Histories of Science," Isis, 1984, 75:105-125;
14. and Steven Shapin, "Talking History: Reflections on Discourse Analysis," ibid., pp. 125-128 (a response to Gilbert and Mulkay).
15. On the important genre of discovery accounts see S. W. Woolgar, "Writing an Intellectual History of Scientific Development: The Use of Discovery Accounts," Social Studies of Science, 1976, 6:359-422;
16. and Augustine Brannigan, The Social Basis of Scientific Discoveries (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981).
17. For disciplinary histories see, in particular, Loren Graham, Wolf Lepenies, and Peter Weingart, eds., Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories (Dordrecht/Boston/Lancaster: Reidel, 1983);
18. Shapin, "Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate," History of Science, 1992, 50:333-369;
19. and Rachel Laudan, "Histories of the Sciences and Their Uses: A Review to 1913," History of Science, ibid., 1993, 31:1-34.
20. For a recent historical study of disciplinary histories of physical chemistry see Diana Kormos Barkan, "A Usable Past: Creating Disciplinary Space for Physical Chemistry," in The Invention of Physical Science: Intersections of Mathematics, Theology, and Natural Philosophy since the Seventeenth Century: Essays in Honor of Erwin N. Hiebert, ed. Mary Jo Nye, Joan L. Richards, and Roger Stuewer (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 139) (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1992), pp. 175-202.
21. Peter Galison used this expression to describe the process by which Maxwell's equations have been successively reinterpreted from the point of view of relativity and grand unified field theories: Peter Galison, "Rereading the Past from the End of Physics: Maxwell's Equations in Retrospect," "in Functions and Uses of Disciplinary Histories, ed. Graham et al., pp. 35-51.
22. For a study that pays attention to a form of historical discussion in physics see Darrigol's treatment of Bohr's use of an analogy with classical physics in the development of quantum theory: Olivier Darrigol, From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory (Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. California Press, 1992). It is possible that the work discussed here provided some kind of model for Bohr's research through its establishment of a productive contrast between classical and relativistic physics.
23. See Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Pts. 1 and 2" (cit. n. 2).
24. For sociological studies see, e.g., Woolgar, "Writing an Intellectual History" (cit. n. 4);
25. and Michael Lynch, Art and Artifact in Laboratory Science: A Study of Shop Work and Shop Talk in a Research Laboratory (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985).
26. While it does not play a large role in this essay, a (flexible) distinction of some kind between practices and meaning or beliefs (here described variously as interpretations, understandings, or readings) is one that has particular point in the case of relativity, where physicists such as Lorentz and Einstein ascribed different interpretations to sets of equations that were regarded as formally equivalent and also developed distinctively different approaches to the solution of problems (thus exhibiting a complex relation between beliefs, formalism, and practices). For an example of one physicist's approach to these issues, discussed below, see Lorentz's 1910 distinction between the "epistemological" and "physical" sides to relativity, in which he regarded himself as differing from Einstein and Minkowski and as having offered an equivalent system. My use of the terms "interpretation," "understanding," and "reading" incorporates but is somewhat wider than the epistemological dimension Lorentz referred to. With "interpretation" I refer mostly to views on physical content and physical implications, while I sometimes use "understanding" or "reading" in a broader sense to include also assessments of the relations between particular approaches and other areas of physics such as electron theory and views on the disciplinary implications of approaches. What I have in mind as practices are more differentiated subsets of what Lorentz describes as the "physical" side of relativity, in order to take account of the level of techniques and procedures at which Lorentz and others recognized that, despite a formal equivalence, Lorentz's, Einstein's, and Minkowski's approaches each involved significantly different ways of solving problems.
27. It is clear that historical accounts often reflect specific research concerns of the author. Two examples considered below include the emphasis on a mathematical pathway in Minkowski's discussions and Planck's 1910 account relating relativity to the principle of least action. In the penultimate section I also suggest two instances, in the work of Max Laue and Max Born, in which particular historical (and conceptual) understandings of relativity shaped the formation of research goals and strategies.
28. It should be remarked that in spite of my observation on the comparative emphasis placed on the inception of Einstein's work, much valuable, detailed work has been undertaken on relativity in Germany after 1905; this has constituted an important point of departure for my own approach. The most important studies include Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity: Emergence (1905) and Early Interpretation (1905-1911) (Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1981)
29. (hereafter cited as Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity),
30. and works by Pyenson (see in particular his "Relativity Revolution" [cit. n. 1]) and Goldberg.
31. For the latter authors, in addition to the studies cited in note 1, above, see Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston/Basel/Stuttgart: Birkhäuser, 1984);
32. and Pyenson, Young Einstein (cit. n. 1), more generally.
33. For a helpful review see David C. Cassidy, "Understanding the History of Special Relativity," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1986, 16:177-195.
34. For a recent overview see John Stachel, "History of Relativity," in Twentieth Century Physics, Vol. 1, ed. Laurie M. Brown, Abraham Pais, and Brian Pippard (Bristol/Philadelphia/New York: Institute of Physics/American Institute of Physics, 1995), pp. 251-356.
35. See, e.g., Gerald Holton's discussion of the voices of different physicists embedded in Einstein's text; these are often represented without being named but are nevertheless partially recognizable: Gerald Holton, "Quanta, Relativity, and Rhetoric," in Science and Anti-Science (Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard Univ. Press, 1993), pp. 74-108, on pp. 90-93, esp. pp. 91-92.
36. Miller's study, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, presents the most detailed account of this kind.
37. See also the critical apparatus of The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein and, in particular, both the editorial note "Einstein on the Theory of Relativity" and footnotes provided in association with the reprinting of the 1905 paper,
38. in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 2: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900-1909, ed. John Stachel (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), pp. 253-310.
39. Important earlier studies include Gerald Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1988);
40. Stanley Goldberg, "The Lorentz Theory of Electrons and Einstein's Theory of Relativity," American Journal of Physics, 1969, 35:982-994;
41. Goldberg, "Poincaré's Silence and Einstein's Relativity: The Role of Theory and Experiment in Poincaré's Physics," British Journal for the History of Science, 1970, 5:73-84;
42. Goldberg, "Henri Poincaré and Einstein's Theory of Relativity," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1979, 10:85-121;
43. Tetu Hirosige, "Origins of Lorentz' Theory of Electrons and the Concept of the Electromagnetic Field," Stud. Phys. Sci., ibid., 1969, 1:151-209;
44. Hirosige, "The Ether Problem, the Mechanistic Worldview, and the Origins of the Theory of Relativity," Stud. Phys. Sci., ibid., 1976, 7:3-82;
45. Russell McCormmach, "H. A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature," Isis, 1970, 61:459-497;
46. and McCormmach, "Einstein, Lorentz, and the Electron Theory," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1970, 2:41-87.
47. Darrigol argues that previous work in this field has been teleologically concerned with Einstein; see Darrigol, "Electrodynamic Origins of Relativity Theory" (cit. n. 2).
48. See esp. Gerald Holton, "Einstein, Michelson, and the 'Crucial' Experiment," in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, pp. 279-370, and the postscript on pp. 477-480;
49. and Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 391-392,
50. referring to the papers published in H. A. Lorentz, Albert Einstein, Hermann Minkowski, and Hermann Weyl, Das Relativilätsprinzip: Eine Sammlung von Abhandlungen (1913), 7th ed. (Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner, 1974);
51. this edition has notes by Arnold Sommerfeld and a foreword by Otto Blumenthal. An English version was published as Lorentz, Einstein, Minkowski, and Weyl, The Principle of Relativity, trans. W. Perret and G. B. Jeffrey (New York: Dover, n.d.).
52. Walter Kaufmann, "Über die Konstitution des Elektrons," Ann. Phys., 1906, 19:487-553;
53. and Kaufmann, "Nachtrag zu der Abhandlungen: Über die Konstitution des Elektrons," ibid., 20:639-640.
54. Kaufmann cited Max Abraham's argument that Lorentz's theory required the assumption of a nonelectromagnetic internal potential energy in order to comply with the energy law; see Kaufmann, "Konstitution des Elektrons," pp. 493-494.
55. For a detailed discussion of Kaufmann's experiments and the way in which Poincaré, Einstein, and Lorentz responded to them see Giora Hon, "Is the Identification of Experimental Error Contextually Dependent? The Case of Kaufmann's Experiment and Its Varied Reception," in Scientific Practice: Theories and Stories of Doing Physics, ed. Jed Z. Buchwald (Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press, 1995), pp. 170-223.
56. Kaufmann, "Konstitution des Elektrons," pp. 490-491 (quotation), 491-493.
57. He is discussing H. A. Lorentz, "On Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less Than That of Light," Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam: Section of Sciences: Proceedings, 1904, 6:809-831 (a reprint in translation of a paper published in Dutch).
58. The themes of equivalence and conceptual distinction would both be important in later discussions of relativity, in common with other episodes in the history of science and mathematics. See, e.g., Skuli Sigurdsson, "Equivalence, Pragmatic Platonism, and Discovery of Calculus," in Invention of Physical Science, ed. Nye et al. (cit. n. 4), pp. 97-116.
59. A footnote added to the reprint of Einstein's "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," in Lorentz et al., Relativitätsprinzip (cit. n. 13), p. 26 n 2, states that this work was not known to Einstein before he wrote the 1905 paper. The importance of Lorentz's paper in particular makes the restriction of this study to works published after 1905 somewhat artificial. However, it will suffice to observe that Lorentz began this paper with a discussion of the Michelson-Morley and Trouton-Noble (1903) second-order experiments and that he builds his argument by entering into explicit dialogue with the earlier work of a number of physicists and mathematicians, including his own and that of Poincaré. In this sense its presentation is far more clearly historical in nature than that of Einstein's 1905 paper.
60. See the references cited in note 12, above, for discussions of the place of electron theory and the electromagnetic worldview in contemporary physics. See Hon, "Identification of Error?" (cit. n. 14);
61. and Holton, "Quanta, Relativity, and Rhetoric" (cit. n. 11), pp. 94-100, for examples of discussions of the reception of Kaufmann's experiment.
62. Max Planck, "Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik," Verhandlungen der Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, 1906, 8:136-141, esp. pp. 136, 137;
63. and Planck, "Die Kaufmannschen Messungen der Ablenkbarkeit der β-Strahlen in ihren Bedeutung für die Dynamik der Elektronen," Physikalische Zeitschrift, 1906, 7:753-761 (the discussion following Planck's paper to the Naturforscherversammlung is reported on pp. 759-761).
64. For Planck's reasons for accepting relativity, and his role in the development of the theory more generally, see the essays by Goldberg and Pyenson cited in note 1, above. For his philosophy and disciplinary role in Germany see J. L. Heilbron, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German Science (Berkeley: Univ. California Press, 1986).
65. McCormmach, "Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature" (cit. n. 12), p. 489;
66. and Holton, "Quanta, Relativity, and Rhetoric" (cit. n. 11), p. 93.
67. Darrigol suggests the possibility that German physicists took a selective ("active, filtering") approach in their reading of Einstein's work in "Electrodynamic Origins of Relativity Theory" (cit. n. 2), pp. 311-312.
68. The point has been strongly argued in regard to British work in Warwick, "Cambridge Mathematics and Cavendish Physics: Pts. 1 and 2" (cit. n. 2),
69. and in relation to German physics between 1905 and 1914 in Staley, "Born and the German Physics Community" (cit. n. 2).
70. Note that in 1908 Planck referred to "Einstein's theory of relativity" in the singular: Max Planck, "Bemerkungen zum Prinzip der Aktion und Reaktion der allgemeinen Dynamik," Verhand. Deut. Phys. Gesell., 1908, 10:728-732, on p. 729. But see my discussion of the inclusive nature of his 1910 historical account of relativity, below.
71. For Planck's correspondence with Einstein on this issue see Max Planck to Albert Einstein, 6 July 1907, in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Vol. 5: The Swiss Years: Correspondence, 1902-1914, ed. Martin J. Klein, A. J. Kox, and Robert Schulmann (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1993)
72. (hereafter cited as Einstein, Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al.), pp. 49-50.
73. This letter is quoted in more detail below (see note 40). On the correspondence between Planck and Ehrenfest see Thomas S. Kuhn, Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912 (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1987), pp. 131-134;
74. on that between Planck and Lorentz see Goldberg, "Planck's Philosophy of Nature" (cit. n. 1), pp. 155-157.
75. On the connections between views on quantum theory, the theory of the electron, and relativity see Staley, "Born and the German Physics Community" (cit. n. 2), pp. 161-162, 217-221.
76. Planck repeated substantially the same views outlined in his letter of 6 July 1907 in the public discussion following Albert Einstein, "Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die Konstitution der Strahlung," Phys. Z., 1909, 10:817-826, on p. 825.
77. Albert Einstein, "Über eine Methode zur Bestimmung des Verhältnisses der transversalen und longitudinalen Masse des Elektrons," Ann. Phys., 1906, 21:583-586, on p. 586;
78. and Einstein, "Über die Möglichkeit einer neuen Prüfung des Relativitätsprinzips," Ann. Phys., ibid., 1907, 25:197-198.
79. Holton, "Quanta, Relativity, and Rhetoric" (cit. n. 11), pp. 107-108 n 49.
80. Stark was one of the few physicists to take Einstein's work on quantum theory seriously at this time, publishing in December 1907 a paper in which the quantum hypothesis was used to explain the Doppler effect of light emitted by canal rays. See the correspondence between Stark and Einstein regarding the survey article, which indicates that at the time he accepted the task Einstein knew of Lorentz's 1904 paper, papers by Emil Cohn and Kurd von Mosengeil, and two of Planck's publications - but of no other theoretical works related to the subject: Einstein to Johannes Stark, 25 Sept. 1907, and Stark to Einstein, 4 Oct. 1907, in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 74-75, 76.
81. Einstein to Stark, 1 Nov. 1907, Collected Papers of Einstein, ibid., pp. 77-78.
82. (Here and elsewhere, all translations into English are mine unless otherwise indicated.) The paper itself is Albert Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen," Jahrbuch die Radioaktivität und Elektronik, 1907, 4:411-462. For Einstein's correspondence relating to requests for reprints of or comments on this paper see, e.g., Einstein to Arnold Sommerfeld, 5 Jan. 1908;
83. Jakob Laub to Einstein, 2 Feb. 1908; Arthur Schoenflies to Einstein, 15 Jan. 1909 (in which Schoenflies indicates that he had a particular wish to have his own copies of Einstein's papers, especially this one); and George Searle to Einstein, 20 May 1909 (thanking Einstein for sending a copy of his paper on the principle of relativity at the request of Bucherer), in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 85-86, 94-95, 153, 190-191.
84. In his study of Einstein and Michelson, Holton refers to this paper but does not consider it in detail, regarding the account Einstein gives as implicit history, in contrast to the explicit histories he uses (together with evidence from the prehistory to the 1905 paper) to evaluate whether the Michelson-Morley experiment was important in the genesis of relativity. See Holton, "Einstein, Michelson, and the 'Crucial' Experiment" (cit. n. 13), p. 352 n 29. It seems to be the fact that the account is followed by a research review (in which Einstein's concern is to draw the results of previous studies into a coherent whole) that leads Holton to describe it as implicit history. This feature increases its interest for my study of the relations between history and research and, in my view, does little to diminish its importance as a history. I also differ from Holton in that I regard Einstein's discussion as an explicit history of Lorentz's theory and the principle of relativity, which also gives (in a number of brief and ambiguous phrases) some implicit indications of Einstein's own role and the path he took to relativity.
85. Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip" (cit. n. 27), pp. 411-412, 413.
86. His initial references are to H.A. Lorentz, Versuch einer Theorie der elektrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (1895; rpt., Leipzig, 1906). Einstein cited Lorentz's 1904 paper and his own work as foundations for his 1907 treatment.
87. "Es bedurfte nur der Erkenntnis, daß man eine von H. A. Lorentz engeführte Hilfsgröße, welche er 'Ortszeit' nannte, als 'Zeit' schlechthin definieren kann": Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip," p. 413.
88. Galison, "Re-reading the Past" (cit. n. 5).
89. See Darrigol's discussion of the principle of relativity in Poincaré's work in "Poincaré's Criticism of Fin-de-Siècle Electrodynamics" (cit. n. 2), pp. 16-17.
90. For a discussion of Minkowski's omission of any reference to Poincaré in his "Space and Time" lecture see Scott Walter, "Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity," in The Expanding Worlds of General Relativity, ed. Hubert Goenner, Jürgen Renn, Jim Ritter, and Tilman Sauer (Einstein Studies, 7) (Boston: Birkhäuser, forthcoming).
91. Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip" (cit. n. 27), pp. 412-413. John Stachel discusses Einstein's reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment in the context of justification in order to surmise its role in the context of discovery, pointing out that the experiment was commonly cited as evidence for the principle of relativity (not the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light) and arguing that once Einstein took the principle of relativity to be valid for all phenomena (and particularly electrodynamic and not just mechanical phenomena), it was a reformulation of the concept of time that enabled him to see a way of squaring the principle with all of electrodynamics. This account of Einstein's own path accords well with the temporal order of his 1907 historical overview.
92. See John Stachel, "Einstein and Michelson: The Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification," Astronomische Nachrichten, 1982, 505:47-53.
93. Gilbert and Mulkay contrast empiricist genres locating the driving force of scientific change in the compelling findings of specific experiments with contingent repertoires, which focus on social and personal bases for scientific action and belief. See Gilbert and Mulkay, "Experiments Are the Key" (cit. n. 4).
94. For a sensitive study of Einstein's relation to experiment that argues against the theoreticist orientation common to many accounts see Klaus Hentschel, "Einstein's Attitude towards Experiments: Testing Relativity Theory, 1907-1927," Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 1992, 25:593-624.
95. In a study of Einstein's changing philosophical orientation, Holton cites Einstein's discussion of Kaufmann's experiment in the 1907 paper (see below) as early evidence of Einstein's hardening against the epistemological priority of experiment characteristic of his initial approach to physics, on a journey toward a rational realism for which his experience in the development of general relativity was central. See Gerald Holton, "Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality," in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (cit. n. 12), pp. 237-277 (on Kaufmann see pp. 252-254).
96. Lorentz et al., Relativitätsprinzip (cit. n. 13). The chronology of development suggested by the extracts reflects the importance of the Michelson-Morley experiment as portrayed by Einstein's narrative, while the editorial footnotes (added with the consultation of the different authors concerned, with Sommerfeld responsible for those on Minkowski's "Space and Time" lecture) reflect a view of the relations between the work of Lorentz, Einstein, and Minkowski that we will see emerges strongly in Germany only after about 1910-1911. In addition to the evidence of readership of this paper in particular discussed in note 27, above, I have only indirect evidence - persuasive, but not conclusive - for the significance of Einstein's account for later histories of relativity. By 1913 there were numerous sources stressing the importance of the Michelson-Morley experiment in the formation of relativity, including in particular the accounts of Laub and Laue - physicists who were certainly well aware of Einstein's 1907 paper - referred to below.
97. Max Planck, "Zur Dynamik bewegter Systeme," Königliche Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin): Sitzungsberichte, 1907, 29:542-570, on p. 546;
98. and Einstein to Sommerfeld, 14 Jan. 1908, in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 86-89.
99. In 1910 Lorentz argued that the negative result could be explained only by the principle of relativity: H. A. Lorentz, "Alte und neue Fragen der Physik," Phys. Z., 1910, 11:1234-1257, on p. 1244.
100. Einstein to Sommerfeld, 14 Jan. 1908, pp. 86-87. See also Einstein, Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., p. 485 n 10.
101. The paper Laue sent Einstein was Max Laue, "Die Mitführung des Lichtes durch bewegte Körper nach dem Relativitätsprinzip," Arm. Phys., 1907, 23:989-990.
102. In a similar vein, shortly after writing to Sommerfeld Einstein received a letter in which Jakob Laub stated that he concerned himself greatly with the "relativity physics" Einstein had introduced: Laub to Einstein, 2 Feb. 1908, in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 94-95. The phrase "relativity physics" usefully points to Einstein's introduction of a way of working theoretically, not just a principle.
103. Einstein to Sommerfeld, 14 Jan. 1908, p. 87. These views were followed by Einstein's statement on the importance of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
104. See, e.g., the exchange between Einstein and Ehrenfest on this point: Paul Ehrenfest, "Die Translation deformierbarer Elektronen und der Flächensatz," Ann. Phys., 1907, 25:204;
105. and Albert Einstein, "Bemerkungen zu der Notiz von Hrn. Paul Ehrenfest: 'Die Translation deformierbarer Elektronen und der Flächensatz,'" Ann. Phys., ibid., pp. 206-208.
106. These papers are discussed in detail in Richard Staley, "Relativity, Rigidity, and Rotation" (unpublished MS). Einstein wrote that the two principles of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light should not be conceived as a system and in themselves only make statements about rigid bodies, clocks, and light signals. Relativity theory only provided additional statemems by requiring relations between otherwise seemingly unrelated laws. Further information on the motion of the electron in relativity could be attained without arbitrariness only if the dynamics of the rigid body were known with sufficient accuracy, a goal that lay far ahead. Sommerfeld's query may be taken to imply that Einstein's published answer and other work on the topic had not satisfied him (and my unpublished paper draws on manuscript sources to argue that it had also not satisfied Ehrenfest).
107. Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip" (cit. n. 27), p. 439.
108. Planck to Einstein, 6 July 1907 (cit. n. 22), quoted in Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, p. 235.
109. See also Christa Jungnickel and Russell McCormmach, Intellectual Mastery of Nature, 2 vols., Vol. 2: The Now Mighty Theoretical Physics, 1870-1925 (Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press, 1986), p. 251.
110. Max Laue to Einstein, 4 Sept. 1907, in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 72-73 (Laub had interchanged group and phase velocity);
111. and Einstein, "Über das Relativitätsprinzip" (cit. n. 27), p. 414.
112. On Laub's collaboration with Einstein see Lewis Pyenson, "Einstein's Early Scientific Collaboration," in Young Einstein (cit. n. 1), pp. 215-246, on pp. 220-225.
113. Hermann Minkowski, "Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern," Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse: Nachrichten, 1908, pp. 53-111, on pp. 55 (quotation), 54; the historical survey is on pp. 53-56.
114. Tetu Hirosige argues for the historical importance of Minkowski's work in promoting the development of relativity: Hirosige, "Ether Problem" (cit. n. 12).
115. Many authors have tended to discount Minkowski's significance owing to the view that Minkowski himself did not fully understand the nature of Einstein's contribution (and hence, the assumption is made, could not lead others to a clear appreciation of Einstein's work). Leo Corry argues that the roots and motivations of both Hilbert's and Minkowski's contributions to relativity have remained only partially analyzed because the histories of special and general relativity have most often been told from the perspective of Einstein's work: Corry, "Minkowski and the Postulate of Relativity" (cit. n. 2).
116. For earlier approaches to Minkowski see Stanley Goldberg, "The Early Response to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, 1905-1911: A Case Study in National Differences" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard Univ., 1969), pp. 111-147;
117. Goldberg, Understanding Relativity (cit. n. 10), pp. 162-168;
118. Lewis Pyenson, "The Göttingen Reception of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity" (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins Univ., 1973);
119. and Pyenson, "Hermann Minkowski and Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity,"
120. "Physics in the Shadow of Mathematics: The Göttingen Electron-Theory Seminar of 1905,"
121. "Relativity in Late Wilhelmian Germany: The Appeal to a Pre-established Harmony between Mathematics and Physics,"
122. and "Mathematics, Education, and the Göttingen Approach to Physical Reality, 1890-1914," in Young Einstein, pp. 80-100, 101-136, 137-157, 158-193.
123. These authors take as a primary task the delineation of Minkowski's approach from Einstein's, with the former being characterized as "formalist" and "mathematical" and the latter as "physical." See also Peter Louis Galison, "Minkowski's Space-Time: From Visual Thinking to the Absolute World," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1979, 10:85-121, which draws on manuscript sources to discuss the development over time of Minkowski's geometric formulation of relativity; and Walter, "Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (cit. n. 31), which discusses Minkowski's changing attributions (or suppressions) of authorship to Lorentz, Poincaré, and Einstein.
124. Minkowski, "Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge," p. 55. In a section on the concept of time, Minkowski also described Einstein's 1905 paper as meeting the wish to bring home the physical meaning of the nature of the Lorentz transformations;
125. see Minkowski, "Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge," ibid., pp. 68-70, esp. p. 70.
126. Minkowski's use of the expression "sharpest" recalls Einstein's 1907 terminology. However, while the publication dates make it possible that Minkowski drew on the 1907 paper, "Fundamental Equations" was first presented to the Mathematical and Physical Section of the Göttingen Society for the Sciences at a meeting of 21 December 1907, before the Jahrbuch volume appeared in January 1908.
127. Hermann Minkowski, "Raum und Zeit," in Lorentz et al., Relativitätsprinzip (cit. n. 13), pp. 54-71,
128. trans. as "Space and Time" in Lorentz et al., Principle of Relativity, trans. Perret and Jeffrey (cit. n. 13), pp. 75-91, on pp. 82-83, 75, 79.
129. For a study of the evolution of Minkowski's views over time see Galison, "Minkowski's Space-Time" (cit. n. 42).
130. Minkowski, "Space and Time," pp. 79, 91.
131. On Minkowski's appeal to preestablished harmony see, e.g., Pyenson, "Relativity in Late Wilhelmian Germany" (cit. n. 42).
132. Minkowski, "Grandgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge" (cit. n. 42), p. 55.
133. Minkowski, "Grandgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge" (p. 55. Ibid.;
134. see also Sect. 9, "Die Grundgleichungen in der Theorie von Lorentz," pp. 76-77, esp. p. 76;
135. and Minkowski, "Space and Time" (cit. n. 45), pp. 82-83.
136. John Stachel discusses the distinction between the microscopic theory of the electron and its application to the macroscopic equations of material media, and different approaches to the macroscopic equations, in his editorial note "Einstein and Laub on the Electrodynamics of Moving Media," in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 2, ed. Stachel (cit. n. 12), pp. 503-507.
137. Einstein and Laub took up Minkowski's argument for a distinction between Lorentz's theory and relativity in the treatment of magnetized bodies by proposing an experimental arrangement capable of detecting a difference between the two approaches: Albert Einstein and Jakob Laub, "Über die elektromagnetischen Grandgleichungen für bewegte Körper," Ann. Phys., 1908, 26:532-540, on pp. 536-540.
138. However, many authors accepted that Lorentz's approach, consistently extended, was equivalent to relativity. As has often been noted, Einstein and Laub also reacted critically to the techniques (and some physical arguments) Minkowski had developed, showing how Minkowski's results could be achieved using the mathematical apparatus Einstein had employed in 1905. See Albert Einstein and Jakob Laub, "Ann. Phys., 1908, 26:532-540, on pp. 536-540. ibid.;
139. and Einstein and Laub, "Über die elektromagnetischen Grundgleichungen für bewegte Körper," Ann. Phys., 1908, 26:541-550.
140. Their response indicates that they saw a close connection between mathematical techniques and interpretation more broadly and at this stage wished "relativistic physics" to retain the cast Einstein had given it. Laub wrote to Einstein: "I am now still more skeptical towards Minkowski's paper; if your work weren't available, with Minkowski's transformation equation for time we would still at best be at the same standpoint (as far as physical interpretation is concerned) as with Lorentzian 'Local Time.'" Jakob Laub to Einstein, 18 May 1908, in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 119-121.
141. Their stance in regard to Minkowski's formalism was not followed by most physicists, and there is evidence that by 1910 Einstein had begun to appreciate the four-dimensional approach (Collected Papers of Einstein, ibid., p. 121, editorial footnote 12).
142. Planck, "Bemerkungen zum Prinzip der Aktion und Reaktion" (cit. n. 21), p. 729.
143. Bucherer's work was first published in the Physikalische Zeitschrift: Alfred Bucherer, "Messungen an Becquerelstrahlen: Die experimentalle Bestätigung der Lorentz-Einsteinschen Theorie," Phys. Z., 1908, 9:755-762.
144. Then followed Bucherer, "Die experimentalle Bestätigung des Relativitätsprinzips," Ann. Phys., 1909, 28:513-536;
145. and, in response to Bestel-meyer, Bucherer, "Antwort auf die Kritik des Hrn. A. Bestelmeyer bezüglich meiner experimentalle Bestätigung des Relativitätsprinzips," Ann. Phys., ibid., 50:974-986;
146. and Bucherer, "Erwiderung auf die Bemerkungen des Hrn. A. Bestelmeyer," Ann. Phys., ibid., 1910, 33:853-856.
147. Bestelmeyer's papers were Adolf Bestelmeyer, "Bemerkungen zu der Abhandlung Hrn. A. H. Bucherers, 'Die experimentalle Bestätigung des Relativitätsprinzips,'" Ann. Phys., ibid., 1909, 30:166-174;
148. and Bestelmeyer, "Erwiderung auf die Antwort des Hrn. A. H. Bucherer," Ann. Phys., ibid., 1910, 32:231-235.
149. It should be noted that throughout the period discussed in this essay, controversy attended each experimental proclamation on the confirmation or refutation of relativity; none could be taken as definitive. Further, distinguishing between the contributions of Lorentz and Einstein was not in general a high priority for the experimentalists concerned. Most commonly their work was posed as a test between the Abraham rigid-body electron and the "Relativitätstheorie" or "Relativtheorie" of Lorentz and Einstein. Typically the identity of the theories of Lorentz and Einstein was assumed - certainly as far as their experimental consequences were concerned - and the Lorentz theory of the electron often formed the basis for any discussion of the Relativtheorie. Nevertheless it is significant that the tests were regarded as of high importance at least as much for their test of the principle of relativity as for making a decision between different theories of the electron. See, e.g., the exchanges between Erich Hupka and Wilhelm Heil discussed in Pyenson, "Physical Sense in Relativity" (cit. n. 1), pp. 202-203.
150. A consensus that Kaufmann's results were in error seems to have emerged around the experiments of C. Schaefer and G. Neumann of 1914-1916. However, subsequent reviews have upheld Bestelmeyer's criticisms and concluded that while they were consistent with relativity, none of the previous electron experiments was in fact precise enough to distinguish between the different theories. See C. T. Zahn and A. H. Sprees, "A Critical Analysis of the Classical Experiments on the Relativistic Variation of Electron Mass," Physical Review, 1938, 53:511-521;
151. and P. S. Farago and L. Janossy, "Review of the Experimental Evidence for the Law of Variation of the Electron Mass with Velocity," Nuovo Cimento, 1957, 5:1411-1436.
152. H. A. Lorentz, The Theory of Electrons (Leipzig: Teubner, 1909), p. 329.
153. For a discussion of Bucherer's experiment and responses to it see Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 345-351.
154. Bucherer, "Experimentalle Bestätigung des Relativitätsprinzips" (cit. n. 49), pp. 531-534, on pp. 531 (quotation), 533, 534.
155. Max Planck, "Die Stellung der neueren Physik zur mechanischen Naturanschauung," Phys. Z., 1910, 11:922-932, on pp. 928-929,
156. trans. as "The Place of Modern Physics in the Mechanical View of Nature," in Planck, A Survey of Physical Theory, trans. R. Jones and D. H. Williams (New York: Dover, 1960), pp. 27-44, on pp. 38-39.
157. A Survey of Physical Theory, Ibid., p. 923 (my translation);
158. cf. "Place of Modern Physics," p. 28.
159. In a statement incorporated in the commission report (of April 1910) that nominated Einstein for his professorship in Prague, Planck expressed himself in a similar way: "the extent and profundity of the revolution in the scope of the physical world view evoked by this principle can only be compared with that brought about through the introduction of the Copernican world-system." Quoted in Einstein, Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. xxxvi, xxxviii, in n. 16 (my translation).
160. Planck, "Stellung der neueren Physik," p. 929
161. ("Place of Modern Physics," p. 39);
162. and John Earman and Clark Glymour, "Relativity and Eclipses: The British Expeditions of 1919 and Their Predecessors," Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci., 1980, 11:49-85.
163. "It was Planck . . . who in 1910 elevated Einstein to the status of the new Copernicus": Pyenson, "Relativity Revolution" (cit. n. 1), p. 77 (see also p. 66).
164. For the reference to "Einstein's theory" see Planck, "Bemerkungen zum Prinzip der Aktion und Reaktion" (cit. n. 21), p. 729.
165. For the quotation see Planck, "Stellung der neueren Physik," p. 929
166. (cf. "Place of Modem Physics," pp. 39-40).
167. Planck, "Stellung der neueren Physik," pp. 929-930
168. (cf. "Place of Modern Physics," p. 40).
169. On Minkowski as the source for a "mathematical" theory of relativity see Walter, "Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (cit. n. 31).
170. Amongst such "mathematicians" Planck may have included Dimitri Mirimanoff and Philipp Frank, who published papers in the Annalen exploring the relationships between the principle of relativity and Lorentz's electron theory based on Minkowski's formalism, and Max Born, whose work on a rigid-body model of the electron gave rise to considerable discussion on the concept of rigidity and the relationship between relativity and electron theory. Frank was responsible for introducing the term "Galilean transformations" to describe the transformation equations approbate to Newtonian mechanics: Philipp Frank, "Das Relativitätsprinzip der Mechanik und die Gleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern," Ann. Phys., 1908, 27:897-902.
171. Born's papers were Max Born, "Die träge Masse und das Relativitätsprinzip," Ann. Phys., ibid., 1909, 25:571-584;
172. Born, "Die Theorie des starren Elektrons in der Kinematik des Relativitätsprinzip," Ann. Phys., ibid., 30:1-56;
173. and Born, "Über die Dynamik des Elektrons in der Kinematik des Relativitätsprinzip," Phys. Z., 1909, 10:814-817.
174. See Staley, "Born and the German Physics Community" (cit. n. 2), Chs. 4, 5.
175. He wrote that it was a particular pleasure to speak of Einstein's principle of relativity in the town in which Minkowski had worked: Lorentz, "Alte und neue Fragen" (cit. n. 35), p. 1236.
176. Lorentz had also discussed Einstein's work in his major study of electron theory in 1909, describing it as a "very interesting interpretation" of his own results (which Lorentz had developed using "effective coordinates" and "effective time"). He wrote that "the chief difference [is] that Einstein simply postulates what we have deduced, with some difficulty and not altogether satisfactorily, from the fundamental equations of the electromagnetic field. By doing so, he may certainly take credit for making us see in the negative result of experiments like those of Michelson, Rayleigh and Brace, not a fortuitous compensation of opposing effects, but the manifestation of a general and fundamental principle": Lorentz, Theory of Electrons (cit. n. 50), pp. 223-230, on pp. 223, 230. Here he also noted that his own approach had the virtue of endowing the ether with a certain degree of substantiality (see below).
177. Lorentz began by outlining the transformation equations, pointing backward in time to show that in one form they had already been employed by Woldemar Voigt in an 1887 discussion of the Doppler effect (Minkowski had pointed this out in "Raum und Zeit" [cit. n. 45], p. 58).
178. He then went on to discuss the ways in which the equations of motion of the electron (and other fields of research) could be brought into accord with the principle. Here Lorentz described Minkowski's introduction of the concept of proper time as one of his more beautiful discoveries and cast his own discussion in terms suggested by Minkowski's work (comparing "Newtonian" with "Minkowskian" force, for example). See Lorentz, "Alte und neue Fragen," pp. 1236-1244; Lorentz makes his own preferences clear on p. 1236.
179. Planck wrote that from the principle of least action four equally important principles radiate in four directions - corresponding to the four universal dimensions of the new theory of relativity. The threefold principle of momentum corresponds to the three space dimensions, while the principle of energy corresponds to the time dimension. It had never before been possible to follow these principles back to their common origin. See Planck, "Stellung der neueren Physik" (cit. n. 52), p. 930
180. ("Place of Modern Physics," p. 41).
181. have noted Planck's early interest in the fact that the principle of least action proved to be invariant against the Lorentz transformations. Minkowski's unification of the Lorentz force and the energy conservation law for electromagnetic processes made possible a far more concise treatment of the principle of least action than Planck had been able to provide in 1907. See Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, pp. 368-369.
182. Gilbert and Mulkay, "Experiments Are the Key" (cit. n. 4); see also note 33, above.
183. In contrast, Sommerfeld described quantum theory as a field still subject to controversy and conceptual change. See Arnold Sommerfeld, "Das Plancksche Wirkungsquanten und seine allgemeine Bedeutung für die Molekularphysik," Phys. Z., 1912, 11:1057-1068, on p. 1057.
184. The argument advanced here draws on a detailed study of electron theory and relativity in this period in Staley, "Relativity, Rigidity, and Rotation" (cit. n. 38);
185. and Staley, "Born and the German Physics Community" (cit. n. 2), Chs. 5, 6. An important feature of this process was gradual disengagement from the aims of the electromagnetic worldview.
186. For Sommerfeld's response see the discussion following Planck, "Prinzip der Relativität" (cit. n. 18), pp. 759-761;
187. for examples of discussions of Sommerfeld's stance see Holton, "Quanta, Relativity, and Rhetoric" (cit. n. 11), pp. 98-99;
188. and Miller, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, p. 234.
189. Arnold Sommerfeld to H. A. Lorentz, 26 Dec. 1907, quoted in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 88-89 n 1;
190. and Sommerfeld to Lorentz, 16 Nov. 1908, 9 Jan. 1909, quoted in Walter, "Minkowski, Mathematicians, and the Mathematical Theory of Relativity" (cit. n. 31).
191. Sommerfeld made contact with Einstein in early 1908 because of their common concern with the propagation of effects with superluminal velocity, but it would be interesting to know whether the character of his correspondence was also shaped in part by prior knowledge of Minkowski's "Fundamental Equations" paper (which was delivered in Göttingen in late 1907 but did not appear in print until April 1908). Both Sommerfeld and Einstein were in dialogue with Wien on the question of superluminal signal velocities. See the editorial note "Einstein on Superluminal Signal Velocities," in Collected Papers of Einstein, Vol. 5, ed. Klein et al., pp. 56-60.
192. Einstein emphasized particular theoretical and conceptual difficulties in his publications; see note 38, above. For a discussion of Einstein's unpublished work toward a theory of the electron in 1909 see McCormmach, "Einstein, Lorentz, and the Electron Theory" (cit. n. 12).
193. Sommerfeld's 1909 warning to Born can be found in discussion to Born, "Über die Dynamik des Elektrons" (cit. n. 56), p. 817.
194. Arnold Sommerfeld, "Zur Relativitätstheorie, I: Vierdimensionale Vektoralgebra," Ann. Phys., 1910, 32:749-776;
195. and Sommerfeld, "Zur Relativitätstheorie, II: Vierdimensionale Vektoralgebra," Ann. Phys., ibid., 33:649-689. In contrast, in his collaborative papers with Laub, Einstein had argued that while Minkowski's methods in the main agreed with his own, they were mathematically rather forbidding - and had then provided a treatment on the basis of the formal approach Einstein himself had used in 1905. (Perhaps Sommerfeld would have seen that as dogmatic also.)
196. Given the importance of Minkowski's work in persuading Sommerfeld of the value of relativity, and his ongoing development of Minkowskian techniques, it is interesting that despite Minkowski's emphasis on the radical and original nature of his concern with space, Sommerfeld did not see the Göttingen mathematician as having put relativity on a fundamentally new footing. A similarly appreciative but selective approach to Minkowski was taken by convinced relativists close to Einstein, such as Planck and Laue, and by those physicists closest to Minkowski himself, such as Max Born, who used Minkowski's formalism in his development of a rigid-body model of the electron but did not propagate Minkowski's use of the term "world postulate" for the principle of relativity, for example.
197. Max Laue, Das Relativitätsprinzip (Braunschweig: Teubner, 1911), pp. v-vi.
198. Laue built on an important earlier review by Jakob Laub, "Über die experimentellen Grundlagen des Relativitätsprinzips," Jahrb. Radioak. Elek., 1910, 7:405-463.
199. He described the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment as having pushed Lorentz to a new hypothesis already leading toward the theory of relativity. For this reason, he wrote, "the experiment became the fundamental experiment for the theory of relativity; as one also attained the derivation of the 'Lorentz transformation' almost directly from it." This justified Laue in giving a more detailed discussion of Michelson-Morley than the other experiments reviewed (although he recognized that even then he had made several idealizing simplifications). See Laue, Relativitätsprinzip, p. 13.
200. Laue, Relativitätsprinzip, p. 18. In the third chapter he discussed first the derivation of the Lorentz transformations and Einstein's kinematics, before considering Minkowski's geometric interpretation of the transformations and setting up the mathematical apparatus Minkowski had made available as a prelude to treating the electrodynamics of empty space and ponderable bodies - and dynamics - in accordance with the principle.
201. "Nun kann natürlich jede physikalische Theorie ihre eigentliche Stütze nur in sich selbst und in der Bezugnahme auf die Tatsachen finden. Immerhin gibt es auch auf diesem Gebiet eine Art historische Notwendigkeit, die in dem Fehlschlagen aller anderen Versuche liegt, zu einem befriedigenden Verständnis der Tatsachen zu gelangen." Relativitätsprinzip, Ibid., pp. 18-19; see p. 19 for the purposefulness of his choices.
202. Admissions regarding the lack of proof for the theory are made in the foreword: Relativitätsprinzip, ibid., p. v .
203. Relativitätsprinzip, Ibid., p. 19. Here Laue might have been thinking of Einstein's reinterpretation of "local time" as time in general as an example. However, his own papers also show very clearly how the presence of Lorentz's earlier work could be utilized to rapidly advance research in relativity. In a paper of 1907, for example, Laue stated that the electrodynamics Einstein derived from the principle of relativity corresponded to Lorentz's (old) theory up to the first order of v/c. This implied that Fresnel's dragging coefficients could be correctly derived from the principle of relativity, as had already been achieved for Lorentz's theory. Laue's purpose in his two-page article was to show how much more easily the problem could be solved using the principle than through the other theory, even with the simplifications Lorentz had recently introduced. Thus, recognizing particular historical and conceptual relations with Lorentz's work allowed Laue to demonstrate practical differences of technique and hence to extend research in relativity.
204. See Laue, "Mitführung des Lichtes" (cit. n. 36).
205. A similar strategy was followed in Max Laue, "Die Wellenstrahlung einer bewegten Punktladung nach dem Relativitätsprinzip," Ann. Phys., 1909, 28:436-442. While Laue used the relations with Lorentzian theory, Max Born utilized those between Newtonian mechanics and relativity as a guideline for more speculative work. His rigid-body model of the electron employed relativistic analogues of concepts important in classical mechanics as a means of extending research in electron theory and relativity. The attempt was in part unsuccessful, but the work of both Laue and Born indicates a close and productive relationship between a historical understanding of relativity and the formation of research strategies. The articulation of particular historical and conceptual relations was thus by no means merely a matter of pedagogy and justification.
206. The preeminence of relativity lay in the fact that as close as the Lorentzian theory came, "it still lacks the great, simple, general principle" that bestowed something so imposing on relativity: Laue, Relativitätsprinzip, pp. 19-20.
207. Laue, Relativitätsprinzip, Ibid., pp. 33, 46.
208. For example, Warwick writes: "British mathematical physicists did not see Einstein's work of 1905 as a self-contained or self-evident 'theory,' but rather as a modest extension of work due mainly to Larmor and Lorentz. It was not until Minkowski's work of 1909 that these mathematicians became concerned that there might be alternative physical interpretations of the status of the principle of relativity, and only after 1911 that they began to respond to the claim that the 'theory of relativity' denied the existence of the ether." A. C. Warwick, "The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and the Principle of Relativity in British Physics, 1894-1919" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Cambridge, 1989), pp. 179-180.
209. Edmund Whittaker, A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, 2 vols., Vol. 2: The Modern Theories (1953; New York: Harper, 1960), Ch. 2: "The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz."
210. See also Gerald Holton, "On the Origins of the Special Theory of Relativity," in Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (cit. n. 12), pp. 191-236, on pp. 196-202.
211. This limitation also means that while my approach has addressed the temporal asymmetry of concern with Einstein and relativity, I have not here undertaken the detailed analysis required to provide a treatment of Einstein's contemporaries that is as sensitive to their background and motivations as studies of the better-known physicist. However, my suspension of evaluative contrasts with Einstein's work provides an important first step in the direction of addressing this asymmetry, and my dissertation on Max Born attempted to establish such a treatment of that physicist.