Authors: Philipp Frank
“There has been a tendency, not uncommon in the case of a new scientific theory, for every philosopher to interpret the work of Einstein in accordance with his own metaphysical system and to suggest that the outcome is a great accession of strength to the views which the philosopher in question previously held.”
This ambiguity arises from the fact that it is not the physical content of a theory that is responsible for its philosophical interpretations. Frequently it is rather the language in which the theory is formulated, its images and analogies that are interpreted.
The interpretation of Einstein’s Relativity is usually connected with two characteristics of the language in which he and his followers clothed his theory. The first characteristic is the abandonment of mechanical analogies. There is no mention of any mechanism in the sense in which this word is used in daily life; for instance, there is no mechanism for the shortening of a body by rapid motion. Instead, a
logical-empirical
mode of expression is employed; that is, a system of mathematical formulae is given and the operations are described by which the magnitudes in these formulæ can be measured empirically. The second characteristic is the use of the expression “relative to a certain body.” The use of this mode of expression gives rise to a comparison with the language of so-called “relativism”; for example,
ethical relativism
, which asserts that any human action can be called good or bad only “relative to a certain ethnical group and historical period,” and so forth.
By abandoning the mechanical analogy Einstein’s theory harmonized
to a certain extent with all the currents of thought that opposed the mechanistic conception of the world and the materialistic philosophy connected with it. The second characteristic of his mode of expression brought him close to those who were called ethical skeptics and who were frequently linked to a materialistic philosophy.
Thus Einstein’s theories could be used equally well as propaganda for materialism or against it. And since words such as “materialism,” “idealism,” “relativism,” and so forth, are frequently used as the catchwords of political ideologies, we can understand that Einstein’s theories were very often used as a weapon in the struggle of political parties.
The fascist groups always have asserted that the Communist philosophy is materialistic, while theirs is anti-materialistic, or idealistic. Consequently Einstein’s theories could be used as weapons for fascism if they were interpreted as arguments against materialism and for idealism.
As early as 1927 — that is, before the seizure of power by the Nazis — Joseph Goebbels had shown how the language of German idealistic philosophy could be employed in the service of his party. First of all he presented an interpretation of the Kantian expression “thing-in-itself” (
Ding an sich
), the characteristic concept of German idealism. Goebbels said: “The folk is a constituent of humanity. Humanity is not a thing-in-itself, nor is the individual a thing-in-itself. The folk is the thing-in-itself.…”
“The materialist,” Goebbels continued, “regards the folk only as an instrument and does not want to concede that it is an independent objective reality. For him the folk is an intermediate thing between man and humanity, and mankind is for him the ultimate.… Therefore the materialist is necessarily a democrat. The idealist sees in the word ‘humanity’ only a concept. Humanity is only something imagined, not a fact.…”
By emphasizing its anti-mechanistic aspects it was, indeed, possible to employ Einstein’s relativity theory as a weapon in the fight against “materialistic” democracy. German physicists who considered it desirable to teach Einstein’s theories even in National Socialist Germany occasionally made use of this possibility.
Pascual Jordan, for instance, in his book
The Physics of the Twentieth Century
, recommended Einstein’s theory of relativity to National Socialists as a weapon in the fight against materialistic philosophy. Jordan said that the eradication of this philosophy is an “integral aspect of the unfolding new world of the twentieth century that has already begun, especially in Italy and Germany.” The “new world” is that of Fascism and National Socialism.
Since many opponents of Einstein’s theories wanted to make use of the political power of the National Socialist Party in their fight against Einstein, they were very much upset by efforts such as that of Jordan. Thus, for instance, Hugo Dingler, who had already agitated against Einstein without any great success long before National Socialism, remarked with indignation about Jordan’s book: “To hang this destructive Einstein philosophy on the skirts of the national movements in Germany and Italy is really a little too much.”
With the adjective “destructive” Dingler touched directly upon the other feature in the language of the theory of relativity, the use of the expression “relative.” He connected Einstein’s theories with the English philosophy of enlightenment of David Hume, which according to popular conception is only a variant of materialism, and which the National Socialist Party felt obliged to oppose.
If the theory of relativity had been advanced by someone other than Einstein, it is entirely possible that it would not have been unanimously condemned by the National Socialist Party. The relativity theory would very possibly have remained a constant object of controversy in these circles like various other philosophies. Einstein’s Jewish ancestry, however, and his political attitude as a pacifist made the condemnation of his theory inevitable.
In general, National Socialist writers regarded two groups of characteristics as typical of Jewish thinking. In the first place, it was said, the Jew prefers pure speculation to experimental observations of nature. Secondly, it was asserted that the Jew does not recognize purely mental concepts, but believes only in
truths that can be discovered by sensory experience of material things. Obviously it is not difficult to find one of these characteristics in any physicist.
Among those who attacked Einstein on the ground that his theories were purely speculative, the most ardent was Philipp Lenard, who has been mentioned several times already. In his book German Physics he said:
“Jewish physics can best and most justly be characterized by recalling the activity of one who is probably its most prominent representative, the pure-blooded Jew Albert Einstein. His relativity theory was to transform and dominate all physics; but when faced with reality, it no longer has a leg to stand on. Nor was it intended to be true. In contrast to the equally intractable and solicitous desire for truth of the Aryan scientist, the Jew lacks to a striking degree any comprehension of truth — that is, of anything more than an apparent agreement with a reality that occurs independently of human thought.”
In a lecture delivered at Munich in 1937 before the association of provincial teachers and students (
Gaudozentenbund und Gaustudentenbund
), the origin and development of this “Jewish” way of looking at nature was related to political conditions after the first World War. It was said:
“The entire development of natural science is a communal effort of Aryan scientists, among whom the Germans are numerically foremost. The period of Heinrich Hertz coincides with the gradual development of a Jewish natural science, which took advantage of the obscure situation in the physics of the ether and branched off from the course of development of Aryan physics. By systematically filling academic positions with Jews and by assuming an increasingly dictatorial attitude, this Jewish natural science tried to deprive Aryan physics of its foundations, to dogmatize, and to oppress all thinking about nature. Ultimately it replaced these foundations by a deceptive imaginary structure known as the relativity theory, above which it simultaneously inscribed the typically Jewish taboo — that is, ‘not to be touched.’ This development was temporarily and causally coincident with the victory of Jewry in other fields during the postwar period.”
In 1938 the
Zeitschrift für die gesamte Naturwissenschaft
(
Journal for General Science
) was founded for the specific purpose of propagating the National Socialist conception in science. In an article: “Racial Dependence of Mathematics and Physics,” we read the following:
“The influence of the Jews on the development of natural science is due first of all to a difference in their attitude toward the fundamental relation between experiment and theory in favor of the latter. Theories were constructed without regard for the forms of human thought and perception and without any rigorous methodology of reasoning.… Einstein’s theory of relativity offers us the clearest example of a dogmatic Jewish type of theory. It is headed by a dogma, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. In a vacuum the velocity of light is supposed to have constant magnitude independent of the state of motion of the light sources and the observer. It is falsely asserted that this is a fact of experience.”
Actually Einstein’s principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is just as much and just as little a fact of experience and a dogma as any other of the basic hypotheses of a physical theory. It is only because of erroneous and defective presentations of Einstein’s theory that many persons believe the relation between theory and experience to be different here from what it was in the older theories.
This alleged preference of the Jews for theoretical deliberations was contrasted with the striving of the Aryan German for concrete action. The same contrast was seen in politics: the eternal pondering and indecision of the democratic states; and the firm action of National Socialist Germany.
But by the average spokesmen of Nazi philosophy Einstein’s theories were branded as materialistic and thus linked with Marxism. In 1936 a lecture was given at the camp of the Natural Scientific Professional Group of the National Socialist Student Association, in which it was said:
“Einstein’s theories could only have been greeted so joyfully by a generation that had already been raised and trained in materialistic modes of thought. On this account it would likewise have been unable to flourish in this way anywhere else but in the soil of Marxism, of which it is the scientific expression, just as this is true of cubism in the plastic arts and of the melodic and rhythmic barrenness of music in recent years.”
The speaker summarized his views in the statement: “The formulation of general relativity as a principle of nature cannot be anything but the expression of a thoroughly materialistic mental and spiritual attitude.”
Comparisons can certainly be drawn between the expressions of a period in different fields. But that Einstein’s theories had developed on the basis of Marxism has certainly not been evident to the Marxists, as we shall soon see.
The same speaker later (1937) commented on his remarks, saying:
“Under the influence of the philosophy of enlightenment the nineteenth century was a period that was excessively attached to the surface of things and valued material things beyond all measure. Hence, the majority of scientists were unable to grasp and to develop the concept of the ether which by its very nature obeys other laws than those of matter. Only a few, among them Philipp Lenard, had the breadth of soul and mind that was necessary for such a step. The others fell into the hand of the Jew, who instinctively grasped and exploited the situation.”
In order to be able to judge these arguments, one must remember that the ether was introduced into physics only to explain phenomena by analogy with mechanics. Einstein was the first to recognize the impossibility of a mechanical explanation of optical phenomena, and therefore got rid of the ether. This was the consistent action of a man who recognized the untenableness of the mechanistic conception of nature. The scientific supporters of the National Socialist Party did not want to take this step. They did not want to give up the mechanistic conception of physics, since it somehow fitted into their philosophy of unsophisticated approach to nature. But as they were simultaneously opposed to materialism, their position became a rather difficult one. They introduced an ether that was not material, and thus had none of the properties for the sake of which it was introduced.
Later Lenard also proposed this compromise solution. Since the seizure of power by the Nazis, he attacked Einstein from a new standpoint. Previously he had opposed Einstein because the latter had given up mechanistic explanations in physics; now he accused Einstein of materialism and failing to recognize an immaterial ether. Einstein, however, introduced no mechanical basis whatever for optical phenomena and was farther removed than Lenard from materialism in this mechanistic sense.
Another reason for the opposition to Einstein came from the circumstance that the word “force” is a term that was used with particular favor by the National Socialists. They considered it a great misfortune that this word should disappear from physics. The fight for this word reveals very clearly the manner in which physics and politics are connected.
The Austrian Ernst Mach and the German Gustav Kirchhoff were the first among the physicists to construct a system of
mechanics in which the word “force” did not occur in the laws of motion. This word was introduced only as an auxiliary concept to abbreviate the mode of expression. Since the National Socialists characterized everything that they did not like as “Jewish,” they regarded the elimination of the word “force” as the work of the Jews, even though, as we have seen, it was undoubtedly first carried out by German physicists. In his
Mechanics
Heinrich Hertz, the discoverer of electrical waves, followed Mach and Kirchhoff in seeking a new way to eliminate the word “force” from the fundamental laws of motion. National Socialist authors ascribed this striving to Hertz’s Jewish blood. One of them writes: “If we recall that the Jewish physicist Einstein also wanted to remove the concept of force from physics, we must raise the question at this point whether an inner, racially determined relationship does not appear here.” In Einstein’s theory of gravitation the concept of force does not appear as a basic concept. Bodies move in paths that are represented by the “shortest” possible curves.