IMG50

Ernst Mach

Gcralcl Holton has dcscribed Machs conspicuous influence on Einstein^ spccial rclativity paper of 1905:

The Machist componcnt oi the 1505 papers shows up promincntly in two respeets: First, by F.instcin’s insistcncc front the heginning that the funda-mental problcms of physics cannot be understood umil an epistcmological analysis is carricd out, most particularly with rcspcct to the mcaning of the conccptions of spacc and timc. And sccondly, Einstcin‘s First rclativity paper dearly has a Machist componcnt bccause hc cąuatcs rcality with the givens, the “cvcnts", and docs not, as latcr, place rcality on a piane beyond or bc-hind sensc cxpericncc.

To be surę, rcading Einstcin’s (1905) paper with the wisdom of hind-sight, we can find in it also vcry different trends that indicate the possibility that “rcality" in the end is not going to be lcft idcntical with "evcnts", i.e. that sensory cxpericnces will in Einstein’s latcr work not be regarded as the chief building blocks of the world.

. . . But taking the carly papers as a wholc, and remembering the set-ting of the timc, we rcalize that Einstcin's pilgrimagc did start on this historie ground of positivism.'⁴

IV

Thosc physicists who rcadily accepted Einstcins spccial theory of rela-tivitv divided naturaUy into two different philosophical groups. On the one hand, many rcprcscntational realists and Kantians, led by Planck and latcr by Max Born, empKasized the importance of the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light and how most of the startling fcaturcs of Einstein’s theory were simply logical conse-c|uences of it.¹" Thcsc men eonsidered the “relativistic" implications of the theory as sccondary and withóilt cpistemologicnl significancc.¹⁰ Einstcin's great merit was adding a new constant to physics, not mak-ing things morę “rclativc.”

On the other hand, many positivists and prescntational realists, led by Philipp Frank, Joseph Pctzoldt, and Anton Lampa, rcverscd priori-ties and accepted Einstcins special theory prcciscly bccause of its cm-phasis on rclativity, and particularly, its compatibility or sccming com-p.uibility with epistcmological relativity.¹⁷ These men regarded Ein-stcin’s theory as a positivc continuation and fulfillmcnt of Mach’s criticism of Newton’$ idcas of ‘‘absolute" spacc, time, and motion. Einstein had rcvolutionizcd physics and bascd it on Machs phenome-

nalistic cpistcmology.^,H Physics and po$itivism werc now inscparablc.¹⁹ To complctc the picturc, both Frank and Pctzoldt wcrc disturbed by Einstcin’s principlc of the constancy of light in a vacuum, and tried in different ways to climinatc, modify, or triviali'/.c this inappropriatc “absolute" out of his theory.™ (Many nonphcnomenalists wcrc also , troubled by light constancy, but their objections wcrc physical, whercas thosc of Frank, Pctzoldt, and other Machists wcrc primarily epistemo-} logical.)

v

The brilliancc of F.instcin’s 1905 papers, which was evidcnt evcn to the numerous physicists who had trouble understanding them, soon rcsultcd in his appointment as a privatdozent at the Uniyersity of Bern and in 1909 as an extraordinarius professor at Ziirich (not at the Tcch-nical Ilochschule but at the regular University). This last promotion was madę possible by Machs socialist ally, Friedrich Adler.

At that timc the professorship of thcorctical physics at the Univcr$ity of Ziirich bccamc vacant. hut the board of cducation of the Canion of Ziirich, which was in charge of the univcr$ity, had its own plans for this position. The majority of the board of cducation bclonged to the Social Democratic Party, and tlicy had in Ziirich a party comradc who appeared to be a suit-ahle candidatc from hoth the political and the scicntific vicwpoint. This man was Friedrich Adler, Einstcin’s former fcllow student at the Ziirich Polytcchnic, who was then a privatdozcnt at the Univerity of Ziirich. As the son of the leader of the Austrian Social Dcmocrats, hc was hcld in high estccm by the party members in Ziirich. Friedrich Adler was a man imbucd with a fanatical love of truth and was interested in physics chicfly bccause of its philosophical asjnrcts. Hc was in cvcry rcspcct a man who would not shrink from uttering what hc regarded as the truth cven if it was to his own disadvantagc. Lcarning that it was pOSsihlc to obtain F.instcin for the univcrsity, hc told the board of cducation: "If it is j>o.ssihle to obtain a man like Einstein for our univcrsity, it would hc absurd to appoitu mc. I must quitc frankly say that my ability as a rcsearch physicist does not bcar cvcn the slightest comparison to Einstein’s. Such an opportunity to obtain a man who can henefit us so much hy raising the generał !cvcl of the univcrsity should not hc lost bccause of political sympathics.³¹

Two other Machists, Anton Lampa and Georg Pick, as members of a faculty sclcction board, wcrc cqually instntmcnt.il in bringing Einstein less than two ycars latcr to the German Univcrsity of Pragtte.

k.k

251