Site Section Links
The Third Story
The Nature of Time
Nature of Time video
The Nature of Space
The Neutrino Aether
Nature of Force Fields
Origin of Modern
Niagara Falls Issues
Climate Change Model
Climate Change Questions
Modern Mythology Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium
Pensee Journals TOC
Velikovskian Journals TOC
Selected Velikovskian Article
State of Religious Diversity
PDF Download Files
Open letter to science editors
KRONOS Vol. I, Issue 4
THE PERSONAL TRAGEDY OF ALBERT EINSTEIN[* This article is one of the chapters of prof. Dudley's forthcoming book The Morality of
nuclear Planning?? See THE BOOK CASE
elsewhere in this issue for further details. Copyright © 1976 by H. C. Dudley.]
H. C. DUDLEY
Relativity is consequently now accepted as a faith. It is inadvisable to devote attention to its
-- R. A. Houstoun, Treatise on Light (1938)
Students of the physical sciences, and of mathematics, have for the past 30-40 years been so
busy mastering the basics of their chosen field, that there has been little time or inclination to study
the history of their field in order to learn how the assumptions and logic of the early workers in the
field established the basic framework, now quite rigid as the result of long usage. Today's scientists
and mathematicians assume that all that has gone before is flawless and they can therefore proceed
safely without a backward glance. They and most of their teachers remain unaware of the hidden,
unstated assumptions which are an inherent part of every scientific field.
This is dangerous business since technical training is no insurance that in days gone by very
human frailties have not crept in, blurring judgments and providing the basis for rationalizations which
show so clearly why some young upstart's fresh viewpoint or new method of evaluating data must
be in error.
If one takes as a reference point the date 1875, and examines the rather unusual state of the
sciences of that period, it will be found that physics was making rapid strides as the result of the
discovery of stable sources of unseen electric current; of unseen electromagnetic radiations; of visible
effects in unseen gases produced by this electric current. No longer were the experimenters working
with easily observed and measured phenomena. To explain unseen phenomena one must rely on the
imagination, on mental images, on conceptual models.
About 1875 there began the application of the rather new, exciting and untried systems of
mathematics to these unseen phenomena. These mathematical manipulations often predicted
phenomena which the experimenter could not duplicate at the laboratory bench. This did not deter
the mathematical theorist in the least, for his limits were of the mind, of his imagination. The straight
line was assumed not to be the shortest distance between two points. The unidirectional flow of time,
as observed in our everyday lives, was reversed simply by changing +t to -t. To aid in other
problems, the insoluble, imaginary expression SQRT(-1) was used in the calculations involving unseen
electric currents. Increasingly as the years went on, I assume! Therefore it is! began to take on more
and more respectability.
There was a meld of philosophical methods with the abstractions of metaphysical
mathematics, such that the methods of the experimenters, i.e. Faraday, Kelvin, Fizeau, Hertz, Fresnel,
Cavendish et al., were looked upon as of secondary importance by an ever increasing number of those
who considered themselves scientists, rather than philosophers and/or mathematicians.
Some scientists at that time recognized the dangers of such a trend and the effects such mental
gymnastics were having on scientific thought. The following was a most timely warning that
unfortunately went unheeded:
"To the followers of Pythagoras the world and its phenomena were all illusion. Centuries
later the Egyptian [?] mystic Plotinus taught the same doctrine, that the external world is a
mere phantom, and the mystical schools of Christianity took it up in turn. In every age the
mystically inclined have delighted in dreaming that everything is a dream, the mere visible
reflection of an invisible reality. In truth the delusion lies in the mind of the mystic, not in the
things seen. The alleged untrustworthiness of our senses we flatly deny. We frequently
misinterpret the messages they bring, it is true, but that is no fault of the senses. The
interpretation of sense impressions is something to be learned; we never team it fully; we are
liable to blunder through all our days, but that gives us no right to call our senses liars. It is
our judgment, not the sense of sight, that is occasionally deceived. We not only wrong our
honest senses but also lose our grip upon this most substantial world when we let mistaken
metaphysics persuade us to doubt the testimony they bear."
Reprinted: July, 1975, p. 10B.
To an experimentalist the above paragraph may be summarized as advising all scientists to
adhere religiously to the spirit and letter of the SCIENTIFIC METHOD that we all were required to
learn as beginning students of the physical and biological sciences. And the experimenter should
always keep in mind that our apparatus and measuring instruments, no matter how sophisticated, are
but extensions of our senses, thus liable to "let mistaken metaphysics persuade us to doubt the
testimony they bear. "
It was at Ulm, Germany that Albert Einstein was born, 1879, to become the most widely
publicized scientist ever to have lived. And it was into this milieu of science-mathematics-philosophy
that the young man, seemingly of no particular promise, grew into manhood. This scientific climate
of opinion was at that time essentially limited to Western Europe, receiving its greatest impetus from
the deluge of discoveries made in this same area 1895-1900.
Between the ages of 16 and 25 Einstein learned of such discoveries as x- and gamma rays, of
the electron, of spontaneous transmutation of the atom, of radium that continuously gave off heat
without any apparent reduction in weight. Here was another host of unseen phenomena which could
be evaluated by the use of metaphysical mathematics! Names which were to become famous in the
next decades were utilizing the metaphysical methods of 1875 to explain this host of new phenomena.
Why? The phenomena which were being observed and quantified were so foreign to any which had
been observed prior to 1895 that the theories and conceptual "models" which sufficed to explain
pre-1895 "classical" physics were certainly unable to account for this mass of new data. In effect there
was a "theoretical vacuum." As an obscure, almost unknown patent clerk in Switzerland, young
Einstein had the time and opportunity to pour over the scientific papers appearing in the journals that
came to the nearby library. He studied. He thought. He was a mystic. And in 1905 he wrote five
papers on various aspects of these new phenomena. All were accepted for publication -which, by the
way, contrasts the treatment accorded the young unknowns of today who take unorthodox
approaches to science. The present peer review systems are so stifling that any manuscript so
iconoclastic as Einstein's initial papers would now have little chance of appearing in any ranking
journal. This is particularly true in physics, and especially so in the United States. More on this later.
Of the five papers published by young Einstein in 1905, three were destined to bring him fame.
These three papers would by 1940 be recognized as basic to the physical sciences.
A theoretical study of the only visible manifestation of perpetual motion, termed "Brownian
Movement," was completed by Einstein. This was an extension of the existing knowledge concerning
the incessant, random motion imparted by atomic collisions to finely divided solid particles when
suspended in a liquid. An example of this is carbon particles in India ink. By special microscopic
techniques it is possible to show that these particles can be visualized as constantly dancing points
of light. This theoretical study was a mathematical treatment of observable events and was one of
the two studies which won for Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics, 1921.
The second paper which provided the basis for the Prize was the extension of the theoretical
studies of Max Planck, who in 1900 proposed that light was not necessarily a continuous wave train
but reacted as if it were a series of bundles of energy (E=hf) which he termed "quanta." For this work
Planck received the Prize just three years before Einstein.
In this aspect of his historic work Einstein combined the experimental findings of J.J.
Thompson (Nobelist, 1906), which demonstrated the existence of the electron (e-), with the
theoretical approach of Planck. By this method Einstein provided the basis for explaining the
experimental results of others, which had shown that the kinetic energy of an electron emitted by a
metallic surface, was dependent on the wave length (i.e. color) of the light falling on the surface.
This is termed the "Photoelectric Effect," and is the basis for the operation of many modern
electronic units. These studies led others to apply the concept of the photoelectric effect in clarifying
the complex processes of x-ray adsorption in solid materials.
These two theoretical papers are the reason for Einstein's receiving the richly deserved Nobel
Prize in 1921, although many historians of science have led our students to believe that it was the
much more publicized Theory of Relativity that earned for him this coveted honor. For this reason
it is here emphasized that the papers on Brownian movement and the photoelectric effect, based on
directly observable phenomena, are just as valid now as when written 70 years ago. Also it is of
utmost importance to note that these theoretical developments required little or no use of the
metaphysical mathematics and philosophical assumptions which were becoming so popular in Western
Europe at that time.
Let us turn now to that third 1905 paper, usually called the "Theory of Special Relativity,"
which together with a more generalized version, General Relativity (1915), have generated mountains
of papers and correspondence every generation since 1905. In these one finds controversy, ridicule,
"proofs," "disproofs," and all too often the most unscientific of attitudes imaginable. In those who
support the theories there is so often evidence of a quasi-religious, unquestioning faith. Equally as
vehement, pre- 1930, were those who were most critical of methods which made use of systems of
metaphysical mathematics and free-wheeling philosophies.
As with all controversies, and especially when unquestioned faith is an armament, there is a
middle ground wherein stands TRUTH, which will be unveiled when additional information is
obtained by observation and experiment. Such has always been the course of every field of
experimental and applied sciences. Such is the history of science!
CAN NATURE DECEIVE?
The scientists, in playing their game with Nature, are meeting an opponent on her own
ground, who has not only made the rules of the game to suit herself, but may have even
queered the pitch, or cast a spell over the visiting team. If space possesses properties which
distort our vision, deform our measuring-rods, and tamper with our clocks, is there any means
of detecting the fact? Can we feel hopeful that eventually cross-examination will break the
disguise? . . .
Ultimately, we can only rely on the evidence of our senses, checked and clarified of course
by artificial apparatus, repeated experiment, and exhaustive inquiry. Observations can often
be interpreted unwisely, as an anecdote told by Sir George Greenhill illustrates:
At the end of a session at the Engineering College, Coopers' Hill, a reception was held and
the science departments were on view. A young lady, entering the physical laboratory and
seeing an inverted image of herself in a large concave mirror, naively remarked to her
companion: "They have hung that looking glass upside down. " Had the lady advanced past
the focus of the mirror, she would have seen that the workmen were not to blame. If nature
deceived her it was deception which further experiment would have unmasked.
-Clement V. Durell, Readable Relativity (1938)
In contrast to the theoretical methods which he had utilized in treating Brownian movement
and the photoelectric effect, Einstein in developing Relativity allowed himself to become an integral
part, in fact a leading disciple, of the "school" which made use of metaphysical mathematics. This
group assumed time to be an independent variable, combinable with three coordinates of space
(Minkowski's space-time). He assumed as true the following unproved attributes of the physical
A. That there exists no "ether," no generalized subquantic medium by which absolute
motion could be determined.
B. That mass and energy are interconvertable (E=mc')
C. Reversability of time
With these unsupported hypotheses Einstein flew in the face of the majority opinion then held
by professional scientists, and particularly experimentalists. He embarked on a course that brought
It is proposed to present here a biographical sketch giving aspects of his scientific career
which have only been lightly touched on by his contemporaries, and largely ignored by his
Einstein made use of a system of computation developed in Germany (1850 - 1875) which
assumes that a line projected in space curves, that parallel lines converge. This was basic in
developing what has become known as the General Theory of Relativity. Using these methods he
predicted that a beam of light as it passed close to the sun would be deflected 1.75 seconds of arc,
as the result of the gigantic gravitational field. Note particularly that he specified only gravitational
effects. Such a phenomenon had been qualitatively predicted by Isaac Newton before 1700.
The observed weighted deflection was 1.98 arc seconds, providing the initial impetus of one
of the most unusual chapters in all of man's history, not just scientific history.
An obvious question: Why should a rather obscure mathematical theorist, whose prediction
of an obscure astronomic event generate such world-wide interest, producing a ticker-tape parade
down New York's Wall Street in 1921? 1 asked myself this question as a teenager and college
student, observing the outpourings of publicity in Sunday newspaper supplements, in the Rotogravure
sections, news reels, and "educational" movies. I again asked myself this question in 1957 when a
study was begun of the historical background of the various systems of physical theory which were
then being taught as the fundamentals of atomic and nuclear science. As will be shown below the
final pieces of the puzzle fell into place in mid-1975.
If one wishes to study the thinking of those who early opposed the relativistic theories (and
there were many!) it-becomes a major research project even to learn of the authors of such heresy.
The usual abstracting services are strangely silent. Between the years 1905 and 1930 the doctrines
of relativity and of n-dimensional and non-Euclidean geometries had a "good press." The theory was
publicized by the most astute, adroit application of subtle "soft sell" techniques ever to be devised.
Modern day advertising executives could learn much of psychology in studying the showmanship by
which persons in high and influential places were favorably impressed, how the general public was
"educated," how scientists were swayed by the "fads" of the day.
Relativity, the New Science, became the rage of the intelligentsia, the "smart" drawing-room
set. Further, to bolster the claims of this "new" and "different" science, data were culled, and that
which upheld the theory was praised and publicized, while more valid information was ignored.
There were some men who lived during the development of the basic postulates of modern
theories who doubted the logic on which they rest. Moreover, these men resented the use of the
promotional methods of the market place, which were blatantly used to fasten on the minds of men,
at all levels of culture, what many considered to be a false scientific doctrine. Certain of these men,
having the courage of their convictions, published books reporting on various aspects of the situation
as they saw it at first hand.
To attempt to dismiss all such publications as the work of crackpots, as the railings of "cranks
rebelling against the father-image of established authority," is to belittle the work of technically
trained men of high renown, respected in their fields of specialization. In order that students of the
physical sciences may know that there were (and are now!) other views in fundamental physical
theories than are presented in recent physics texts, there follow reviews of the more pertinent of these
One of the first,(1) also one of the most scholarly, works to point out the fallacies in logic was
by Charles L. Poor, who obtained his Doctorate in mathematics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins
University, 1892. He served as professor of astronomy at Hopkins, 1900-1910, and as professor of
celestial mechanics at Columbia University, 1910-1944. In his volume, Dr. Poor clearly indicates the
false premises of n-dimensional and non-Euclidean geometries, and of the dual frames of reference
used by Lorentz and later theorizers. His greatest contribution is the pinpointing of the manner in
which the proponents of relativity selected and culled astronomic data, no doubt unconsciously, to
uphold their own preconceived ideas. In this evaluation of the "scientific advertising" used so
effectively in promoting "The Theory," Dr. Poor gives a calm, dignified appraisal of a field of
knowledge in which he has few equals.
Another writer to question seriously the basis of relativity was Arthur Lynch, a most
remarkable man of unusual courage and breadth of interest. He was a graduate engineer, a linguist;
he studied physics in Berlin, took his medical degree in London, and later an electrical engineering
diploma in Paris. He served in the British Parliament for 10 years, and practiced medicine in London
for twenty-six years. In 1927 he published his first volume on scientific fallacies, and in 1931 his
second. He shows clearly that relativity is an unhappy union of philosophy, metaphysical
mathematics, and science .(2)
In these two little-known works Dr. Lynch takes on the character of the iconoclast, the rebel,
against many of the scientific beliefs of the 1920's. In this respect he weakens his arguments and
somewhat obscures flashes of keen insight into many of the errors of logic in science, some of which
still exist in our thinking today. The great service Lynch renders is to give an on-the-spot observer's
biting account of the causes (cultural, political, mathematical, and philosophical) which resulted in
the rapid rise in popularity of the Theory of Relativity. He clearly outlines the well-managed
showmanship that "sold" this theory to those in influential places who could not understand the
language in which it was presented, much less the abstractions of metaphysical mathematics on which
the theory rests for its development.
The third writer to publish in English a volume critically discussing at length the Einstein
theories was J. J. Callahan.(3) He was a Catholic priest and educator, having received his training
in rigorous logic and reasoning at Duquesne University and at the Gregorian University at Rome.
In this volume Dr. Callahan discusses the illogical character of neo-geometries and the multiple
frames of reference used in the mathematical development of the fundamental ideas of relativity by
Lorentz, Poincare, Einstein, Minkowski and others.
Another scientifically trained writer to tilt with Einstein's theories, and a contemporary of all
those mentioned above, was a Russian-born electrical and aeronautical engineer, George de Bothezat.
He secured his electrical-engineering degree in Liège, 1907, a Doctorate in Paris, 1911. He was an
aeronautical leader in Russia before 1918 and later in the United States. He patented many inventions
and organized and directed a sizeable commercial enterprise. In 1959 his name survived and appeared
in the Manhattan telephone directory: de Bothezat Division, American Machine and Metals Company.
This unusual man took the battle to the enemy's camp, lecturing at Princeton University during the
1930's, questioning Einstein's doctrine of isochronous time.
The volume by de Bothezat makes difficult reading, as the author' meaning is not clear in
many cases.(4) But certainly it is clear in one important aspect. Because he was a mathematician,
de Bothezat saw that by the mathematical processes utilized by Einstein, Grossman, and Minkowski
all manner of hypotheses could be proved. This observation of course was not original with de
Bothezat, as it was shown earlier by many French mathematicians, particularly Painleve.
No doubt some will object to the use of the terms "sell" and "promotion" to describe the
methods by which the Theory of Relativity was so quickly popularized. Perhaps some others feel that
such methods are not suitable or ethical in the world of science. It all depends on the viewpoint. In
the present era, nearly every laboratory of any size, be it academic, commercial, or governmental, has
as part of its organization a publicity or public relations department. This is staffed by persons whose
livelihood depends on getting the laboratory's findings, reports, papers, and accomplishments into as
many news outlets as possible.
Being convinced that many of the mathematical systems responsible for modem physical
theories contain illogical, erroneous assumptions, this writer has attempted to determine the processes
through which this type of mathematics, and the Theory of Relativity, have taken such a hold on the
minds of countless millions. It is believed that four volumes published some few years ago explain
how and why these ideas have gained such a following. These books are not erudite, scholarly,
studies in psychology, mathematics, or physics. They are popularly, well written blueprints of the
way men's minds en masse are influenced and the individual's supposed free-will actions channeled
into a pattern set by those who apply subtle pressures.
A summary of the new techniques of advertising are discussed in Vance Packard's The Hidden
Persuaders. No doubt there will be many who will scoff at the statements in this volume;
nevertheless, advertising budgets in the millions of dollars are risked on these principles of mass
psychology. The effectiveness of this type of pressure is quickly evidenced by the sales volume of
the goods and the services being publicized .(5)
In a second volume, Science Is a Sacred Cow, A. Stander gives us a glimpse into the manner
by which scientists delude themselves and apply the same subtle suasions to the members of the
learned professions as are used by the men who guide modern-day advertising. This book will make
many scientists cringe as they see some of their most treasured illusions trampled upon by another
With regard to the subject which we are considering, Mr. Stander has this to say:
And yet Einstein did not destroy the Absolute. There is always an Absolute in science. In
the nineteenth century it was the ether, but when the ether fell to pieces and disintegrated,
there was no Absolute left at all--a condition intolerable to scientists, although they don't
know it. Einstein made space and time relative, but in order to do this he had to take
something else, which was the velocity of light, and make it absolute. The velocity of light
occupies an extraordinary place in modern physics. It is lèse majesté to make any criticism
of the velocity of light. it is a sacred cow within a sacred cow, and it is just about the
Absolutest Absolute in the history of human thought. There is a textbook on physics which
openly says, "Relativity is now accepted as a faith." This statement, although utterly
astounding in what purports to be a science, is unfortunately only too true.
The third volume for studying the methods by which men's minds are influenced is C. D.
MacDougall's Hoaxes.(7) This also shows very graphically that any explanation, even if it is grossly
incorrect, is considered better than none at all. This is not to imply that the mathematicians,
philosophers, theoreticians, and physicists who developed modern physical theories were consciously
engaged in perpetrating hoaxes. They were not, for each in his own field sincerely believed that he
was completely justified in his basic assumptions, and accurate in his reasoning and mathematical
The reasons "Why We Don't Disbelieve" and "Incentives to Believe" are clear-cut discussions
of the underlying pattern of mass acceptance of the things which appear on the printed page, be they
truth, half-truth, or complete falsehood. The following list of "Incentives to Believe" explains in one
or more important instances the motivation which caused many to embrace, champion, and popularize
the Theory of Relativity during its all-important formative period, 1905-30; also to continue as a
quasi-religious dogma to 1975:
The means whereby health, wealth, and happiness may be obtained;
The essential evidence that one's church, political party, race, city, state and nation is superior,
The fragments of knowledge to establish a scientific, literary, artistic, historical or other hypothesis;
The spectacular incidents to give sanctions to prejudices, attitudes and opinions;
The heroes to worship and the vicarious thrills by which to escape an otherwise dull and routine existence.
The fourth volume in this group, Caplow and Reece's The Academic Marketplace, is a report
of a sociological study of ten of the larger universities of the United States, giving the results of an
investigation of the personnel practices, basic problems, and motivations of the faculties of these
eminent centers of learning.(8) The findings were a revelation, for in the areas of study which are
discussed here, mathematics and physics, the following statements stand out: "Today, a scholar's
orientation to his institution is apt to disorient him to his discipline and to affect his professional
prestige unfavorably. Conversely, an orientation to his discipline will disorient him to his institution,
which he will regard as a temporary shelter where he can pursue his career as a member of the
discipline .... Several respondents referred to the 'guild aspect' of certain disciplines -especially
mathematics and physics. Their comments seem to assert that, in these fields at least, for the
successful professor the institutional orientation has entirely disappeared."
Thus it would seem that indeed these two disciplines form two guilds, which owe their first
loyalty to the other members of the craft, not to the school where they are, for the time being, doing
their work. This well may explain why criticism and questioning of modern physical theories based
on mathematical constructs are so often received in stony silence as ranks close.
In the four volumes cited above appears to be the answer to the puzzle posed by Professor
Bridgeman in 1936: ". . . but it seems to me that the arguments which have led up to the theory
(Relativity), and the whole state of mind of most physicists with regard to it, may some day become
one of the puzzles of history. "I And so we see how men of science can be influenced in their
thinking and in their judgment by suasions and pressures, often self-imposed, but in recent years,
through indoctrination during their formative undergraduate days.
The scientist who has received his training during the past 40 years has received scant
introduction to other alternative hypotheses, for in all present-day general physics and nuclear texts,
classical physics is limited to the material world of direct observation. In these texts the "laws" that
govern the microcosm, together with the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments (1887), show
clearly that there can be no "ether"-that matter and energy in small packages are governed by special
rules not applicable to the observable world. Three centuries of laboratory data are summarized in
a relatively few paragraphs.
Two rather recent reports by distinguished contemporaries of Einstein give a most illuminating
overview of the events which resulted in his being catapulted to fame, or more correctly, notoriety.
For such was the result of a public relations campaign comparable to that generated for a budding
The first of these reports was by Nobelist P.A.M. Dirac who, when in his acceptance speech
for the Oppenheimer Award (1969), made the following statement regarding his own work:
This work was done in the 1920's when the whole idea of relativity was still quite young. It
did not make a splash in the scientific world until after the end of the first world war and then
it made a very big splash. Everyone was talking about relativity, not only the scientists, but
the philosophers and the writers of columns in the newspapers. I do not think there has been
any other occasion in the history of science when an idea has so much caught the public
interest as relativity did in those early days, starting from the relaxation which occurred with
the ending of a very serious war.(10)
The second of the recent reports came to this writer's attention in June 1975, and did in fact
provide the missing pieces in the puzzle as to why a young, essentially unknown scientist should be
so quickly smothered in honors. This report, in the form of an article(11) by Professor S. Chandrasekhar, makes such stimulating and enlightening reading that this writer highly recommends it to
every student of the sciences at all levels of training. It is in these paragraphs that the following
(Ernest) Rutherford turned to Eddington and said, "You are responsible for Einstein's fame."
And more seriously he continued:
The war had just ended; and the complacency of the Victorian and the Edwardian times had
been shattered. The people felt that all their values and all their ideals had lost their bearings.
Now, suddenly, they learnt that an astronomical prediction by a German scientist had been
confirmed by expeditions to Brazil and West Africa and, indeed, prepared for already during
the war, by British astronomers. Astronomy had always appealed to public imagination; and
an astronomical discovery, transcending worldly strife, struck a responsive cord. The meeting
of the Royal Society, at which the results of the British expeditions were reported, was
headlined in all the British papers; and the typhoon of publicity crossed the Atlantic. From
that point on, the American press played Einstein to the maximum.
Dr. Chandrasekhar continues:
Let me go back a little to tell you about the circumstances which gave rise to the planning of
the British expeditions (of 1919). 1 learned of the circumstances from Eddington (in 1935)
when I expressed to him my admiration of his scientific sensibility in planning the expeditions
during the 'darkest days of the war.' To my surprise, Eddington disclaimed any credit on that
account--indeed he said that, left to himself, he would not have planned the expeditions since
he was fully convinced of the truth of the general theory of relativity!--In any event,
Eddington clearly realized the importance of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the
deflection of the light from the distant stars as it grazed the solar disc during an eclipse.
Examine carefully the above paragraphs for in these will be found certain key phrases:
Rutherford to Arthur Eddington--
"You are responsible for Einstein's fame."
"Eddington . . . indeed said that left to himself he would not have planned the expedition,
since he was fully convinced of the truth of the general theory of Relativity."
Here can be seen the underlying reason why Professor Poor in 1922, and Professor Freundlich
in 1931, both professional astronomers, reported that the astronomic data obtained by the Eddington
expeditions had been culled and selected in order to uphold preconceived conclusions.
At the peak of the campaign to popularize Einstein and his works, there occurred a most
surprising and important development. At a meeting of the most eminent physicists and theoreticians
(Solvay Congress) in 1927, Niels Bohr adroitly furthered his own brand of theory, since known as
Bohr-Heisenberg Quantum Mechanics of the "Copenhagen School." At this meeting Bohr in effect
ridiculed Einstein's basic assumption of causality, which requires that Event A be preceded by some
prior event. Bohr, on the other hand, espoused the concept of "acausality" which assumes that Event
A may arise spontaneously, requiring no initiating event. At this Congress the young theoretician
Louis deBroglie, who two years later was to receive the Nobel Prize, was won over to the
Copenhagen School which he supported until the mid-1950's.
Although Einstein's popular image was untarnished, younger scientists followed Bohr, and
Einstein was effectively isolated from the main stream of theoretical physics for the remainder of his
It is indeed ironic that in the teaching of physics for more than 40 years, there have been
courses which have stressed Relativity, while in the next classroom the theories of Bohr are given
overriding priority. However, at no time is it pointed out to students that the basic philosophies
which underlie these two systems are mutually exclusive. If Bohr is correct, then Einstein cannot be
correct; and vice versa. Interestingly, both systems require the absence of an "ether" or "subquantic
medium." For if such a medium or substrate does exist, both systems of theory are untenable.
Following the failure of his efforts after 1931 to modify the General Theory of Relativity in
order to take into account magnetic and electrostatic forces, coupled with his decreasing stature in
the rapidly developing theoretical areas, Einstein received another very personal blow. This was as
the result of his famous letter of 1939 written to President Franklin Roosevelt in which he
recommended that research be initiated on nuclear explosives.
Einstein was a gentle man, a true internationalist, and above all a pacifist. The use of two
fission bombs against Japan in 1945 was for him a personal tragedy, as it was for many of the other
scientists who were actively engaged in the Manhattan Project. In the press Einstein was then lauded
as the Father of the Bomb, a title which he most certainly detested. And as fusion devices became
realities before he died, we can only speculate as to his inner feelings.
The personal tragedy of Albert Einstein was that he was beguiled by the fame and notoriety
generated as the result of a most improbable sequence of events. Thus he, scientists and the general
public were led to overlook the good, solid work based on experimental results, which won for him
the Nobel Prize in 1921.
Philosophically, looking back on his life at age 70, Einstein gave a clear evaluation of what
he believed were his accomplishments. This was in a letter made public many years after his passing:
Personal Letter to Professor Solovine, dated 28 March 1949-
You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby
it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will
stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track.(12)
The tragedy of Einstein, translated to the entire scientific community, is that of the failure
of the open, self-corrective long-term processes which are normal to all science, or at least should
be. In Chemistry, Biology, Astronomy, the Medical Sciences, Geology, and Engineering in all
branches, there have since 1930 been many and varied competing alternative hypotheses and
theories. These rose, were modified and often fell before the evidence of new data and innovative
In nuclear science and theory, however, the assumptions which developed pre-1930 have
taken on the aura of self-evident truths, in the nature of a quasi-religious dogma which cannot,
must not, be questioned. In fact since about 1940, those who did cast doubts were looked upon
as clearly lacking in common sense.
In 1959, a letter to the writer from a scientist then employed at the Oak Ridge
Most of us who share your general viewpoint tend to be 'gun shy' (or job shy, or what
have you) in such matters because we are aware of our minority position and the ridicule
normally to be expected from highly respected and firmly entrenched theoreticians.
Professor Herbert Dingle (University of London) 13 in 1972 questioned the morality of
continued unquestioned acceptance of the basic postulates of Relativity. This produced published
The crux of the problem which is being discussed here is the scientific morality of those
who insist that there shall be no alternative hypotheses permitted in nuclear science which
question present dogma. Just why is physical theory so sacrosanct, when all other areas of
science are subject to the very healthy stimulation and discipline of competing viewpoints and
1. Charles L. Poor, Gravity Versus Relativity
(New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1922).
2. Arthur Lynch, Science: Leading and Misleading
(London: John Murray, 1927).
-, The Case Against Einstein
(London: Phillip Allan, 1932; New York: Dodd-Mead, 1933).
3. J.J. Callahan, Euclid or Einstein? (New York: Devin-Adair Co., 1931).
4. George de Bothezat, Back to Newton (New York: G.E. Stechert & Company, 1936).
5. Vance Packard, The Hidden Persuaders (New York: David McKay, 1957).
6. A. Stander, Science Is a Sacred Cow
(New York: E.P. Dutton, Everyman Edition,
7. C.D. MacDougall, Hoaxes
(Rev. ed . ; New York: Dover Books, 1958).
8. Theodore Caplow and R.J. Reece, The Academic Marketplace
(New York: Basic
9. P.W. Bridgeman, Nature of Physical Theory
10. P.A.M. Dirac, Development of Quantum Theory
(N.Y.: Gordon and Breach, 1971).
11. S. Chandrasekhar, "Verifying the Theory of Relativity," The Bulletin of The Atomic
12. Solovine Letter. Quoted in B. Hoffman, Albert Einstein -- Creator and Rebel
Viking Press, 1972).
13. Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads
(London: Martin Brian & O'Keefe, 1972).