Tipos de incidentes

As one of the most famous expatriates to settle on American soil, Albert Einstein represents a quintessential part of what it is—or was, especially in the first few decades of the twentieth century—to be ―American.‖ His American-ness was transnational, bridging European and U. S. cultures. Before we explore why and how musicians and composers, many of whom were European emigrants, were drawn to Einstein in America, it is necessary to understand who Einstein was in Europe and how he was received there.

Though Einstein‘s annus mirabilis—the year he published four of his most

important papers on physics—took place in 1905, he achieved world renown much later, beginning in 1919 and reaching its culmination in 1922. Einstein, who was born in Germany, but became a Swiss citizen as a young adult, lived largely in public and even professional anonymity after he finished his schooling at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. While he was publishing some of his (later) well-known work, Einstein was working as a patent officer at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property in Bern. The physicist went largely unknown in the world of science between 1905 and

1911, despite his four papers and his appointments at the universities in Bern and Zurich. During this time, he continued to work on his ideas in theoretical physics, including his General Theory of Relativity, but this remained under the public radar. In 1911, Einstein published a paper on the effects of gravity on light, one which—if proved—would confirm his as yet unpublished General Theory of Relativity. In the 1911 paper, Einstein issued a challenge to astronomers to measure the bending of light around large celestial bodies, but it went unanswered in spite of the urging of Einstein‘s colleague Edwin Findlay-Freundlich. Einstein finally published the General Theory in 1915, after

wavering on certain ideas, affirming his contention that gravity was a distortion of space- time by matter and that the bending of light at a certain angle would prove this. Einstein‘s indecision and the resulting delay in publication did not postpone any potential progress made towards answering Einstein‘s 1911 challenge—but the First World War did. It was not until 1917 that any astronomers took up Freundlich‘s call to prove his physicist- colleague‘s theoretical ideas.3

To prove—or disprove—Einstein‘s newly published General Theory of Relativity, astronomers would have to observe the degree to which light was distorted when it passed through a strong gravitational field. This would demonstrate Einstein‘s prediction that what we perceived as gravitation was really a curvature of space itself around a massive body. Since Newton‘s time, astronomers had known that the light from a distant star would appear shifted slightly from its true coordinates because, it was thought, the gravity of large astronomical bodies pulled the light toward the body and

3

A total eclipse of the sun did occur before 1917, in August of 1914, and it would have been visible from Crimea. Much to Einstein‘s dismay (and Freundlich‘s—as he had been dispatched to Eastern Europe by Einstein to observe it), war broke out in the region and the eclipse could not be observed.

bent it. But if as Einstein predicted, the shift (a phenomenon known as gravitational redshift) was greater than that acknowledged by Newton, Einstein‘s theory would be given experimental confirmation. This redshift can be observed during a total solar eclipse using specific astronomical instruments, thus narrowing the window of

opportunity for astronomers. In 1917, the first of two American efforts took place in the United States. Astronomers at the Mount Wilson Observatory, located outside of Los Angeles, performed experiments that actually disproved Einstein‘s claims. Undeterred, the Lick Observatory, also in California, attempted to measure for gravitational redshift one year later in 1918 and again found that nothing unusual could be detected. On a hunch, the astronomers at the Lick Observatory held off on the publication of these findings, believing (irrespective of their data) that Einstein was correct.

In 1919 Arthur Eddington of Great Britain set off on an astronomical expedition to photograph a total eclipse of the sun from two vantage points, Principe, off the western coast of Africa, and Sobral, Brazil, on 29 May 1919.4 Eddington‘s team of astronomers had photographed Eddington himself worked at the location in Africa and was

disappointed with the partially cloudy skies; in Brazil his team had trouble with some of the equipment meant to produce photographs of the eclipse—those that would

photograph, more importantly, the tiny specks of starlight seen next to the darkened sun. Eddington‘s teams returned to England and began processing their findings, calculating the shift of the stars with respect to their normal locations. In his General Theory of

4

Though it seems surprising that a British team would be dispatched to help prove a German‘s scientific theory in the midst of war, it was actually part of Eddington‘s remedy for his pacifist leanings. Rather than be jailed for his conscientious objection to the First World War, Eddington served as part of this expedition that would bring international prestige to Britain through scientific achievement. This being said, the expedition actually departed in March of 1919, shortly after the war ended.

Relativity, Einstein had asserted that light would be deflected as it passed next to the sun by a number double to Newton‘s assumption of .85 arc-seconds (a unit of angular

measurement). Einstein stated that the gravitational redshift observed during an eclipse ―stars ought to appear to be displaced outwards from the sun by 1.7 seconds of arc, as compared with their apparent position in the sky when the sun is situated at another part of the heavens.‖5

The African cloudy-sky slides revealed a redshift of about 1.6 arc- seconds; on the slides from Brazil Eddington saw conflicting accounts: one had a

deflection of 1.98 arc-seconds and the other—blurred because of the heat—showed only a 0.86 deflection. Despite the mixed messages Eddington made an announcement to the scientific community: Einstein was right; the world according to Newton needed to be radically reconsidered. After Eddington presented his research to the British Royal

Society on the 6 November 1919, the London Times produced an article with the headline ―Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.‖6

Word of this new theory of the universe spread quickly to the general public in Europe and it soon made its way to America as well. Einstein himself learned of the data collected from the Eddington expedition at least a month before the Royal Society‘s meeting, as did scientific professionals in Germany, France, and of course Britain. But when the London Times announced a ―revolution in science‖—and newspapers around the globe echoed this statement—the general public was introduced to the theories of relativity and to Einstein.

5

Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (1916), Chapter 22. Available online at www.Bartleby.com/173. [accessed 1 March 2009]

6

―Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown,‖ London Times (7 November 1919), 12.

British Reception

Because Eddington‘s British expeditions to South America and Africa were first to publicly prove Einstein‘s General Theory of Relativity correct, it was the British press that had the greatest impact on how the news was received. The British press was quick to report on Eddington‘s (and by extension Britain‘s) success. The British reception of Einstein established a number of trends used to describe the man and his theories. The three I would like to discuss were connected to themes of British national pride, but they also shaped the way that the American public understood Einstein the man. The first trend was the idea that Einstein was a popular figure, the second was that he was a revolutionary, and, finally, that he was—at least as far as relativity was concerned—a philosopher in addition to a physicist.

One day after Eddington announced his findings at the meeting of the Royal Society (6 November 1919), the Times published an article that brought the news to the public. It documented the general agreement that Einstein‘s discovery was ―the most remarkable scientific event since the discovery of the planet Neptune‖7

and president of the Royal Society Sir Joseph Thomson‘s observation that it was ―one of the most momentous, if not the most momentous, pronouncements of human thought.‖8 These statements established the idea that Einstein was a revolutionary by virtue of his theory. The title of this story focuses on the idea of scientific revolution (Figure 2.1):

7

Neptune was discovered by mathematical calculation, based on an anomaly in Uranus‘ orbit, in September 1846.

8

―Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown,‖ The London Times (7 November 1919), 12.

Figure 2.1 - London Times (7 November 1919)

The following day‘s article of 8 November reiterated this idea of a ―Revolution in

Science,‖ but extends the revolution to the physicist. It specifically pitted Einstein against Isaac Newton—not their ideas (as in 7 November‘s title), but the men themselves (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2 - London Times (8 November 1919)

As one learns within the latter article, Einstein won. But for England, the idea of

revolution was not simply a combative one. It was also interested in a revolution as newly reworked worldview (as in the ―Scientific Revolution‖ or the ―Industrial Revolution‖) based on Einstein‘s ideas—and pride in Eddington‘s achievements at proving them. We can see these two meanings in the two similar titles. These two notions of revolution needed to be brought together, however, as British citizens wanted to claim Eddington‘s expedition and Einstein‘s discoveries, in turn, but without disavowing their national scientific hero, Newton. Eddington‘s victory in the race to prove Einstein‘s theories seems to have mediated the fact that Einstein, a German Jew, had toppled Newton‘s principles. We can see this concern in the careful portrayal of Einstein in the first article, which helped to diminish the foreign (or more specifically German) aspects of his

biography and allowed for an easier adoption of the physicist by British citizens. He was billed as a Swiss Jew, a professor at the University of Prague, and an anti-German revolutionary of sorts:

During the war, as a man of liberal tendencies, he was one of the signatories of the protest against the German manifesto of the men of science who declared themselves in favor of Germany‘s part in the war, and at the time of the Armistice he signed an appeal in favor of the German revolution.9

Despite Einstein‘s having grown up in Munich and his current residence in Berlin, the article plainly assigns him a non-German identity. This fact must have helped resolve any potential tension related to Einstein‘s ―triumph‖ over Newton.

As the reception of Einstein in Britain unfolded in the press each day, a second trend became clear: Einstein was popular. The 8 November Times article begins:

Wide interest in popular as well as in scientific circles has been created by the discussion which took place at the rooms of the Royal Society on Thursday afternoon on the results of the British expedition to Brazil to observe the eclipse of the sun on May 29.10

This Times author is already able to note the ―wide interest‖ among a diverse audience— from the general public to the members of the Royal Astronomical Society—just two days after Eddington‘s announcement had been made. This unlikely, near instant fame is the result not of some superior scientific knowledge on the part of the British public, rather it was developed from what we would call ―hype.‖ In his 2002 article

―Constructing a ‗Revolution in Science‘: The Campaign to Promote a Favorable Reception for the 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiments,‖ science historian Alistair Sponsel

9

―The Revolution in Science – Einstein v. Newton – Views of Eminent Physicists‖ The Times (8 November 1919), 12.

10

―The Revolution in Science – Einstein v. Newton – Views of Eminent Physicists‖ The Times (8 November 1919), 12.

points out that by the time the results of Eddington‘s experiments were announced, any

Times reader would have already been familiar with the experiments and their

implications.11 The coming eclipse was announced in the Times as early as January 1919, and, in a later article, its author restated (expedition member) A. C. D. Crommelin‘s assertion from Nature that

There are three possibilities: no shift, the half shift [the amount predicted by Newton‘s theories], or the full Einstein shift. The definite establishment of any one of the three as the truth would be an important addition to our knowledge of physics.12

This ―false trichotomy‖ (as Sponsel puts it), familiar early-on to readers of the Times and

Nature, allowed both lay and professional audiences to process Eddington‘s November

announcement immediately and positively. In the 8 November article, the author‘s remark about ―wide interest‖ documents this background reception, but it also

undoubtedly had the effect of generating a great deal of further interest in the theories of relativity and in Einstein. This tactic—overstating the public interest to increase the popular intrigue, or hype—would also be used in the American press.

One of the ways that this trend was picked up was through the Times‘ publication

of editorials. Prominent scholars‘ opinions of relativity were expressed, often focusing on the ways in which it has been discussed in print—and in the pubs. In the British press, popular interest was effectively maintained by ―reporting‖ on popular interest. The editorials contained phrases like ―the great interest that has been aroused by the recent

11

Sponsel‘s assertion is based on an exhaustive survey of the British press. See Alistair Sponsel,

―Constructing a ‗Revolution in Science‘: The Campaign to Promote a Favourable Reception for the 1919 Solar Eclipse Experiments,‖ The British Journal for the History of Science 35 (December 2002), 439–467.

12

verification of Einstein‘s prediction‖13

and ―he [Einstein] is famous just now.‖14

Strangely, Einstein‘s immediate personal fame in Britain had only a subtle impact on the way that Americans received him. Although the American press immediately picked up on the news of Eddington and relativity in November 1919, Einstein himself did not become truly ―famous‖ in America until 1921. This delayed celebrity was most likely due to Einstein‘s status as foreigner, changed only with the physicist‘s first steps on American soil. Yet when that time came, with the preparation of his theories‘ fame (to be discussed further below) and his celebrity status in Britain, Einstein was able to achieve notoriety in the United States of America almost immediately.

Beyond Einstein‘s portrayal as a revolutionary and popular figure, he was also often dubbed a philosopher, by virtue of the fact that many believed relativity had more metaphysical ramifications for the average person than physical or scientific ones. On 7 November 1919, when the Royal Society‘s meeting was first discussed in the Times, the newspaper also published an editorial titled ―The Fabric of the Universe,‖ in which the author discusses how Einstein‘s theory might necessitate a reappraisal of the way humans think about the world around them. This statement set the stage for many more

discussions of Einstein‘s theory with respect to philosophy.

...it is confidently believed by the greatest experts that enough has been done to overthrow the certainty of ages and to require a new philosophy of the universe, a philosophy that will sweep away nearly all that has hitherto been accepted as the axiomatic basis of physical thought.15

13

―Newton and Einstein – Historical Theories of Space – To the Editor of the Times,‖ The Times (25 November 1919), 8.

14

―Dr. Einstein‘s Theory,‖ The Times (28 November 1919), 13.

15

In an editorial published on 25 November 1919, H. Wildon Carr (a professor at King‘s College London and author of books on Einstein and relativity) hypothesized about the curious surprise of scientific specialists at the philosophical interest in Einstein and his theories, bringing back the familiar figure of Newton to do so.16

...general surprise has been expressed at the discovery that the real interest of the problem is not mathematical, but philosophical. It is difficult to imagine, however, that any interest would be shown in the matter at all, outside the narrowest specialist circles, were the interest not philosophical. But the reason it calls forth surprise on all sides, including the

mathematicians and physicists and even philosophers themselves, is really that so few people now are able to think of Newton as his contemporaries thought of him, that is, as the founder of a new philosophy.17

Thus both Einstein and Newton were presented not as abstract scientists but as thinkers who engaged with the nature of the universe. Both were presented as foundational philosophers. Although Einstein did not engage in a debate with a modern philosophical opponent in England (as with Bergson in France), the idea that his thoughts (in addition to his scientific theories) carried philosophical weight took root here, and would continue to shape how Einstein was perceived for many decades both in England and abroad.

German Reception

Einstein learned from colleagues that Eddington‘s expedition to Brazil and Africa had been a successful one—as far as he was concerned—by late September 1919. The German-speaking public was also made aware of the news well before the British announcement triggered by the November meeting of the Royal Society. In early

16

H[erbert] Wildon Carr was the author of The General Principle of Relativity in its Philosophical and Historical Aspect (London: Macmillan and Co, Limited, 1920) and A Theory of Monads; Outlines of the Philosophy of the Principle of Relativity (London: Macmillan and Co, Limited, 1922). In addition to this, he translated many of Bergson‘s books into English and published a monograph entitled Henri Bergson: The Philosophy of Change (London: T. C. and E. C. Jack, 1911).

17

H. Wildon Carr, ―Newton and Einstein – Historical Theories of Space – To the Editor of the Times,‖ The Times (25 November 1919), 8.

October, the news of the validity of Einstein‘s General Theory of Relativity hit the

presses in two key documents: first, an article explaining the Eddington expedition and its impact on the veracity of Einstein‘s prediction; second, a brief letter from Einstein

himself, reaffirming the success of the expedition‘s findings.18

Alexander Moszkowski, who later published a popular book on Einstein, wrote in an 8 October 1919 article published in the Berliner Tageblatt that:

The apparent distance between the measured stars corresponds, within experimental error, to the magnitude predicted by Einstein. Which is only