The Formative Years of Relativity and a Prejudice on Poincaré’s Conventionalism

The purpose of this piece is to review Hanoch Gutfreund’s and Jürgen Renn’s new book The Formative Years of Relativity: The History and Meaning of Einstein’s Princeton Lectures, Princeton University Press and Oxford University Press. I find two problems in the book the first of which is Poincaré’s influence on Einstein. This is the first part of the review which deals with Poincaré’s influence on Einstein. Since the book has mistakes and also errors in English and Jürgen Renn is considered a notable scholar, I assume that Gutfreund is probably responsible for the mistakes and for the errors in English.

Let us begin with page 26 of the book The Formative Years of Relativity. Gutfreund is apparently much attracted by “the painstaking analysis by the philosopher of science Yemima Ben-Menachem” in her book Conventionalism: From Poincaré to Quine. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006):

Yemima 1921

Gutfreund writes that “Until 1921, Einstein did not mention Poincaré explicitly”.

Einstein obviously mentioned Poincaré before 1921. For instance, after the first Solvay congress in 1911, Einstein wrote to Heinrich Zangger (see the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, CPAE):

Zangger1

……

Zangger2

Einstein says that Poincaré was in general simply antagonistic and for all his acuity showed little understanding of the situation.

There was then great excitement among philosophers and historians of science when they discovered, as Gutfreund writes on page 26 above that “We know that he [Einstein] read Science and Hypothesis with his friends in the Akademie Olympia in 1902″.

Poincaré’s publisher Flammarion published La science et l’hypothèse (Science and Hypothesis) in Paris in 1902. How do we know that Einstein read this book in 1902 and not in 1903 or 1904? Take a look at Gutfreund’s words: “We know that he [Einstein] read Science and Hypothesis with his friends in the Akademie Olympia in 1902″. It means that Einstein rushed to the local bookstore in Bern the day the book was out, dodged people in the crowd waiting outside the bookstore and found the first French edition of Poincaré’s book. But maybe Einstein read the 1904 German translation of Poincaré’s 1902 book? This could be quite different from the original 1902 French edition.

Subsequently,  on page 26 Gutfreund writes: “Einstein’s biographer Abraham Pais quotes one of the members, Maurice Solovine, as saying: ‘This book profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for weeks on end'”:

Pais

Gutfreund simply takes the Pais paragraph from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism, see footnote 80 below (page 134):

134

This is a mistake: We cannot cite Einstein’s biographer Abraham Pais quoting one of the members of the Akademie Olympia (Olympia Academy). The biography of Pais is not a primary source. We have to check a primary source and see whether Maurice Solovine himself said: “This book profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for weeks on end”.

Here is the original primary source:

soloving

Lettres à Maurice Solovine. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1956.

Here luck plays an important role because in the above book Solovine writes in French that Poincaré’s book “profoundly impressed us and kept us breathless for many weeks”. One should, however, check the original quote in French.

On page 30 Gutfreund tells the story of Einstein who explored “a famous example that goes back Poincaré”. There are several typos in the book.

Poincare typo

It is interesting, however, to look at the following sentence, several sentences below the above one on page 30:

He typo

“Without the distinction between axiomatic Euclidean geometry and practical rigid-body geometry, we arrive at the view advanced by Poincaré”. And then Gutfreund adds an end-note 15: “For an extensive analysis of Poincaré’s conventionalism, see Yemima Ben-Menachem, […]” Her book Conventionalism.

Yemima 1921-2

You might, of course, be tempted to suppose that Ben-Menahem has said the above words in her book. But this is by no means the case. Einstein says this in his 1921 talk, “Geometry and Experience” (see CPAE):

geometry and experience

After the words: “Without the distinction between axiomatic […]” Gutfreund writes: “He suggested that […]”

He typo

Who is “He”? Einstein or Poincaré?

Let us then examine Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism.

I am quoting from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book Conventionalism, page 84:

“… as both GR [general relativity] and the special theory of relativity originated in insights about equivalence, an element of conventionality might seem to be built right into the theory.  It is important to recognize, however, that Einstein’s use of equivalence arguments differs fundamentally from that of the conventionalist”.

And on page 134 Ben-Menahem writes: “The preceding discussion should alert us to the traces of Poincaré’s equivalence argument in Einstein’s work on GR as well. […] The centrality of equivalence arguments and their geometric implications is too obvious in Science and Hypothesis to be missed by a reader such as Einstein, who, we know, was familiar with the book. Beginning with the hypothesis of equivalence in 1907, Einstein makes use not only of the general idea of equivalent descriptions, but also of the types of examples Poincaré used”.

page_134

and on page 135, Yemima Ben Menahem argues that “Einstein was deeply influenced by the idea of equivalence, and to that extent could concede that Poincaré was right”:

page 135

I have found no historical evidence (primary documents, i.e. correspondence of Einstein with others, manuscripts, and also interviews with Einstein) supporting the claim that Einstein makes use of Poincaré’s equivalent descriptions.

In the 1920 unpublished draft of a paper for Nature magazine, “Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of Relativity, Presented in Their Development”, Einstein explained how he arrived at the principle of equivalence (see CPAE):

happiest happiest2

(Original in German). “When I (in Y. 1907) [in Bern] was busy with a comprehensive summary of my work on the special theory relativity for the ‘Jahrbuch für Radioaktivität und Elektronik’, I also had to try to modify Newton’s theory of gravitation in such a way that its laws fitted into the theory. Attempts in this direction showed the feasibility of this enterprise, but did not satisfy me, because they had to be based upon unfounded physical hypotheses. Then there came to me the happiest thought of my life in the following form:

The gravitational field is considered in the same way and has only a relative existence like the electric field generated by magneto-electric induction. Because for an observer freely falling from the roof of a house there is during the fall – at least in his immediate vicinity – no gravitational field. Namely, if the observer lets go of any bodies, they remain relative to him, in a state of rest or uniform motion, regardless of their particular chemical and physical nature. The observer is therefore justified in interpreting his state as being ‘at rest’.

The extremely strange experimental law that all bodies fall in the same gravitational field with the same acceleration, immediately receives through this idea a deep physical meaning. If there were just one single thing that fell differently in a gravitational field from the others, the observer could recognize with its help that he was in a gravitational field and that he was falling in the latter. But if such a thing does not exist – as experience has shown with great precision – then there is no objective reason for the observer to regard himself as falling in a gravitational field. Rather, he has the right to consider his state at rest with respect to gravitation, and his environment as field-free.

The experimental fact of independence of the material of acceleration, therefore, is a powerful argument for the extension of the relativity postulate to coordinate systems moving nonuniformly relative to each other”.

Isaac Newton had already recognized that Galileo’s law of free fall was connected with the equality of the inertial and gravitational mass. In approximately 1685, Newton realized that there was an (empirical) equality between inertial and gravitational mass (Newton 1726, Book I, 9). For Newton, however, this connection was accidental. Einstein, on the other hand, said that Galileo’s law of free fall could be viewed as Newton’s equality between inertial and gravitational mass, but for him the connection was not accidental.

Hence, Einstein made use of Newton’s equality (accidental equivalence) between inertial and gravitational mass and Galileo’s law of free fall and in his 1907 paper, “On the Relativity Principle and the Conclusions Drawn from It”, he invoked a new principle, the equivalence principle or hypothesis. He assumed the complete physical equivalence of a homogeneous gravitational field and a corresponding (uniform) acceleration of the reference system. Acceleration in a space free of homogeneous gravitational fields is equivalent to being at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field.

Ernst Mach criticized Newton’s bucket experiment. He said that we cannot know which of the two, the water or the sky, are rotating; both cases produce the same centrifugal force. Mach thus expressed a kind of equivalence principle: Both explanations lead to the same observable effect. Einstein could have been influenced by Mach’s idea that we cannot know which of the two, the water or the sky, are rotating. Indeed Charles Nordmann interviewed Einstein and wrote: “Perhaps even more than Poincaré, Einstein admits to have been influenced by the famous Viennese physicist Mach”.

On page 31, Gutfreund writes in his book:

disk

“Had he [Einstein] instead accepted the conventionalist position […]” and then Gutfreund writes: “This in fact is exactly the situation in which Einstein introduced the mental model of a rotating disk, which he used as early as 1912 to show that the new theory of ravitation requires a new framework for space and time”.

Another typo: it should be the new theory of gravitation.

The rotating disk story starts with a problem in special relativity, with Max Born’s notion of rigidity and not with Poincaré! Einstein never mentioned any influence Poincaré had had on him when inventing the disk thought experiment.

At the annual eighty-first meeting of the German Society of Scientists and Physicians in Salzburg on 21-25 September 1909, Born first analyzed the rigid body problem and showed the existence of a class of rigid motions in special relativity.

John Stachel describes this state of affairs in his seminal paper of 1980: “The Rigidly Rotating Disk as a ‘Missing Link’ in the History of General Relativity”. It seems that Gutfreund is unacquainted with Stachel’s paper.

On September 29, 1909 the Physikalische Zeitschrift received a short note from Paul Ehrenfest. In his note Ehrenfest demonstrated that according to Born’s notion of rigidity, one cannot bring a rigid body from a state of rest into uniform rotation about a fixed axis. Ehrenfest had pointed out that a uniformly rotating rigid disk would be a paradoxical object in special relativity; since, on setting it into motion its circumference would undergo a contraction whereas its radius would remain uncontracted.

Born noted: “Mr. Ehrenfest shows that the rigid body at rest can never be brought into uniform rotation; I have discussed the same fact with Mr. Einstein in the meeting of natural scientists in Salzburg”. Born discussed the subject with Einstein and they were puzzled about how the rigid body at rest could never be brought into uniform motion. Born and Einstein discovered in that discussion that setting a rigid disk into rotation would give rise to a paradox: the rim becomes Lorenz-contracted, whereas the radius remains invariant. This problem was discussed almost simultaneously by Ehrenfest in the above short note.

Later in 1919, Einstein explained to Joseph Petzoldt why it was impossible for a rigid disk in a state of rest to gradually set into rotation around its axis:

PetoltzPetoltz2

On page 32 Gutfreund mentions the 10th German edition of Einstein’s popular book Relativity the Special and General Theory. He says that in a copy of this book there is a sheet of paper in the handwriting of Einstein’s stepdaughter containing a remark:

disk2

As you can see this remark is quite similar to Einstein’s letter to Petzoldt. Thus, it is preferable to quote Einstein’s own words, his letter to Petzhold. It seems that Gutfreund is unacquainted with the history of the rotating disk, because according to his book he is unaware of Stachel’s paper and the letter to Petzhold.

At the end of October 1909 Born submitted an extended version of his Salzburg talk to Physikalische Zeitschrift. In December 1909 Gustav Herglotz published a paper in which he noted that according to Born’s notion of rigidity, a “rigid” body with a fixed point can only rotate uniformly about an axis that goes through it, like an ordinary rigid body. Several months later, Einstein mentioned Born’s and Herglotz’s papers in a letter from March 1910 to Jakob Laub, in which he said that he was very much interested in their then recent investigations on the rigid body and the theory of relativity.  A month later, in conversations with Vladimir Varičak Einstein explained that the great difficulty lies in bringing the “rigid” body from a state of rest into rotation. In this case, each material element of the rotating body must Lorentz contract. See my new book Einstein’s Pathway to the Special Theory of Relativity 2Ed for full details.

In his paper from February 1912, Einstein considered a system K with coordinates x, y, z in a state of uniform rotation (disk) in the direction of its x-coordinate and referred to it from a non-accelerated system. Einstein wrote that K‘s uniform rotation is uniform “in Born’s sense”, namely, he considered a rotating disk already in a state of uniform rotation observed from an inertial system and reproduced his conversations with Varičak. Einstein then extended the 1907–1911 equivalence principle to uniformly rotating systems as promised in conversations with Sommerfeld in 1909.

All we know according to primary sources is that the origin of the rotating disk story is in a problem in special relativity, Max Born’s notion of rigidity and Ehrenfest’s paradox, which Einstein mentioned many times before 1912. Einstein never mentioned any influence Poincaré had had on him when inventing the disk thought experiment. Writing that Einstein was influenced by Poincaré’s conventionalism and equivalent arguments is speculating about the influence of the later on the former.

Gutfreund’s mistake about Poincaré’s influence on Einstein and Einstein’s so-called failure to acknowledge Poincaré’s work in connection with the equivalence principle and the rotating disk thought experiment in general relativity comes from Yemima Ben-Menahem’s book, Conventionalism. However, this misconception or prejudice on the part of Ben-Menahem comes from my PhD thesis which was submitted to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem back in 1998. I was a PhD student in the program for the history and philosophy of science and Yemima Ben-Menahem was a professor there. Here for example are several paragraphs from my PhD thesis:

thesis2

thesis

thesis3.jpg

And Poincaré’s disk thought experiment:

thesis4

…..

thesis5

……

thesis6

…..

thesis7

I have thus written in my thesis about Poincaré’s disk thought experiment and the equivalence of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. I then mentioned Einstein’s rotating disk thought experiment and said that we eliminate absolute motion of the disk by assuming the equivalence of gravity and inertia. I then spoke about conventionalism and Einstein’s equivalence principle.

After the PhD I corrected and edited my PhD but then I was horrified to discover what looked like a magnification of the prejudice of Poincaré’s conventionalism and equivalence argument and his disk thought experiment influencing Einstein when creating general relativity: In 2006 Yemima Ben-Menahem said exactly the same thing in her book, Conventionalism. You might say that it is even a more unfortunate instance to write about Poincaré’s influence on Einstein in connection with the equivalence principle and the disk thought experiment in general relativity over and over again in a single book… (see now for instance her book, pages 64-65):

diskyemima

…….

diskyemima2

……

diskyemima3

Going on to Hanoch Gutfreund, in his new book of 2017, The Formative Years of Relativity, he has simply brought this incidence to the surface when he told the whole story of this prejudice all over again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Review: The Cambridge Companion to Einstein

I recommend this recent publication, The Cambridge Companion to Einstein, edited by Michel Janssen and Christoph Lehner.
cam0

It is a real good book: The scholarly and academic papers contained in this volume are authored by eminent scholars within the field of Einstein studies.

The first paper introduces the term “Copernican process”, a term invented by scholars to study scientists’ and Einstein’s achievements. The Copernican process describes a complex revolutionary narrative and the book’s side of the divide.

First, Einstein did not consider the relativity paper a revolutionary paper, but rather a natural development of classical electrodynamics and optics; he did regard the light quantum paper a revolutionary paper.

Carl Seelig wrote, “As opposed to several interpreters, Einstein would not agree that the relativity theory was a revolutionary event. He used to say: ‘In the [special] relativity theory it is no question of a revolutionary act but of a natural development of lines which have been followed for centuries'”.

Why did Einstein not consider special relativity a revolutionary event? The answer was related to Euclidean geometry and to measuring rods and clocks. In his special theory of relativity Einstein gave a definition of a physical frame of reference. He defined it in terms of a network of measuring rods and a set of suitable-synchronized clocks, all at rest in an inertial system.

The light quantum paper was the only one of his 1905 papers Einstein considered truly revolutionary. Indeed Einstein wrote Conrad Habicht in May 1905 about this paper, “It deals with the radiation and energy characteristics of light and is very revolutionary”.

A few years ago Jürgen Renn introduced a new term “Copernicus process”: […] “reorganization of a system of knowledge in which previously marginal elements take on a key role and serve as a starting point for a reinterpretation of the body of knowledge; typically much of the technical apparatus is kept, inference structures are reversed, and the previous conceptual foundation is discarded. Einstein’s achievements during his miracle year of 1905 can be described in terms of such Copernican process” (p. 38).

For instance, the transformation of the preclassical mechanics of Galileo and contemporaries (still based on Aristotelian foundations) to the classical mechanics of the Newtonian era can be understood in terms of a Copernican process. Like Moses, Galileo did not reach the promised land, or better perhaps, like Columbus, did not recognize it as such. Galileo arrived at the derivation of results such as the law of free fall and projectile motion by exploring the limits of the systems of knowledge of preclassical mechanics (p. 41).

Einstein preserved the technical framework of the results in the works of Lorentz and Planck, but profoundly changed their conceptual meaning, thus creating the new kinematics of the theory of special relativity and introducing the revolutionary idea of light quanta. Copernicus as well had largely kept the Ptolemaic machinery of traditional astronomy when changing its basic conceptual structure.

Although Einstein did not consider his relativity paper a revolutionary paper, he explained the new feature of his theory just before his death: “the realization of the fact that the bearing of the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell‘s equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general. A further new result was that the ‘Lorentz invariance’ is a general condition for any theory. This was for me of particular importance because I had already previously recognized that Maxwell‘s theory did not represent the microstructure of radiation and could therefore have no general validity”.

Planck assumed that oscillators interacting with the electromagnetic field could only emit and/or absorb energy in discrete units, which he called quanta of energy. The energy of these quanta was proportional to the frequency of the oscillator.

Planck believed, in accord with Maxwell’s theory that, the energy of the electromagnetic field itself could change continuously. Einstein first recognized that Maxwell’s theory did not represent the microstructure of radiation and could have no general validity. He realized that a number of phenomena involving interactions between matter and radiation could be simply explained with the help of light quanta.

Using Renn and Rynasiewicz phraseology, Planck “did not reach the promised land”, the light quanta. Moreover, he even disliked this idea. Einstein later wrote about Planck, “He has, however, one fault: that he is clumsy in finding his way about in foreign trains of thought. It is therefore understandable when he makes quite faulty objections to my latest work on radiation”.

In an essay on Johannes Kepler Einstein explained Copernicus’ discovery (revolutionary process): Copernicus understood that if the planets moved uniformly in a circle round the stationary sun (one frame of reference), then the planets would also move round all other frames of reference (the earth and all other planets): “Copernicus had opened the eyes of the most intelligent to the fact that the best way to get a clear group of the apparent movements of the planets in the heavens was to regard them as movements round the sun conceived as stationary. If the planets moved uniformly in a circle round the sun, it would have been comparatively easy to discover how these movements must look from the earth”.

Therefore Einstein’s revolutionary process was the following: Einstein was at work on his light quanta paper, but he was busily working on the electrodynamics of moving bodies too. Einstein understood that if the equation E = hf holds in one inertial frame of reference, it would hold in all others. Einstein realized that the ‘Lorentz invariance’ is a general condition for any theory, and then he understood that the Lorentz transformation transcended its connection with Maxwell’s equations and was concerned with the nature of space and time in general.

 

 

 

 

איינשטיין ותורת היחסות הפרטית: איינשטיין במשרד הפטנטים Einstein and Relativity: Patent Office

Einstein’s business card, Princeton  כרטיס ביקור

In the Patent Office Einstein hatched his most beautiful ideas, and there he spent his “Happy Bern Years”. These wonderful ideas led to his miraculous year works of 1905. Einstein was not an expert in academic matters, and he was out of academic world. Neither did he meet influential professors, or attend academic meetings. He discussed his ideas with his close friends and colleagues from the Patent Office. In 1907 he finally got his foot into the academic doorway; Einstein became a privatdozent and gave lectures at the University of Bern. However, his first students consisted again of his two close friends and another colleague from the Patent Office. Read my papers in the link below

Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

Helge Kragh Writes in his paper “A Sense of Crisis: Physics in the fin-de-siecle Era”:

If mass is of electromagnetic origin it will increase with the speed or kinetic energy of the body in question, such as shown by Abraham, Lorentz and other electron theorists in the early twentieth century. It followed that the concepts of mass and energy could not be strictly separate, but that they must be connected by an equivalence relation of the same kind that Einstein famously proposed in 1905 (namely, E = mc2). According to this point of view, matter was not really dead, it had merely metamorphosed into energy. Proposals of a mass-energy relationship predated Einstein’s theory of relativity, and they added to the feeling that the entire foundation of physics had to be reconsidered. Young Einstein agreed, but for very different reasons. He saw no merit in the fashionable electromagnetic research program”. x

I don’t agree with Kragh. Einstein was the first to propose the inertial mass-energy equivalence (namely, E0 = m0c2). Abraham, Lorentz, and Poincaré (fin-de-siecle scientists) did not explore the inertial mass-energy equivalence, “an equivalence relation of the same kind that Einstein famously proposed in 1905”. In 1908 Einstein wrote the German physicist Johannes Stark: “I was a little surprised to see that you did not acknowledge my priority regarding the relationship between inertial mass and energy”. See my paper. x

איינשטיין פקיד במשרד פטנטים.

נתחיל בשתי תובנות קלאסיות של חבריו של איינשטיין, שהן אופייניות מאוד לעולם האינטיליגנציה:

מקס תלמוד כתב ב-1932: “מצאתי את חברי [איינשטיין בברן]. סביבתו העידה על מידה רבה של עוני. הוא גר בחדר קטן ומרוהט בעוני. למדתי שהיה לו מאבק חיים קשה עם משכורת דחוקה של פקיד במשרד הפטנטים. קשייו הועצמו בגלל אנשים שקינאו בו והניחו בדרכו מכשולים. כבונוס חברי נתן לי עותק של פרסומו הראשון [על קפילאריות]”.

פרידריך אדלר [חברו של איינשטיין לספסל הלימודים בפוליטכניון] כתב לאביו ב-19 ליוני 1908 לאחר שזכה בתחרות מול איינשטיין על משרת פרופסורה באוניברסיטת ציריך ובסוף ויתר לאיינשטיין על המשרה: “איש בשם איינשטיין, שלמד באותו הזמן בו אני למדתי. אפילו שמענו כמה הרצאות יחד. התפתחותנו נראתה מקבילה: הוא התחתן עם סטודנטית בערך באותו הזמן כמוני ויש לו ילדים. אבל אף אחד לא תמך בו ולמשך זמן הוא כמעט גווע ברעב. כסטודנט הפרופסורים התייחסו אליו בבוז, הספרייה פעמים רבות הייתה סגורה בפניו, ועוד. לא הייתה לו כל הבנה כיצד להסתדר עם האנשים החשובים… לבסוף, הוא מצא משרה במשרד הפטנטים בברן, ובמהלך כל התקופה הוא המשיך בעבודתו התיאורטית למרות כל ההפרעות”.

איינשטיין במשרד הפטנטים

ב-23 ליוני 1902, בשמונה בבוקר בדיוק איינשטיין התייצב לעבודה במשרד הפטנטים הפדראלי השווצרי. הוא עלה למשרדו בבנין הדואר והטלגרף שליד מגדל השעון המפורסם מעל שער העיר ברן. תפקידו היה עורך פטנטים; מומחה טכני זמני בדרגה 3 והוא הרוויח משכורת של 3500 פרנקים לשנה. הוא העריך פניות פטנטים, כתב שוב את הפניות שהתקבלו במשרד, כדי להגן על הממציא כנגד השגות גבול אפשריות. הוא בדק המצאות מקוריות והשלמות להמצאות שהוגשו למשרד; ניסח בבהירות את מהותן והיה צריך לבדוק בזהירות רבה האם הן מקוריות או לא. העבודה דרשה ידיעה של חוק הפטנטים ויכולת לקרוא ספציפיקציות טכניות, וידע בהנדסה ובפיזיקה, למעשה פיזיקה מאוד מעשית. בסירובו לפניות פטנטים מסוימות לא פעם הוא כתב: “פניית פטנט זו היא בלתי נכונה, בלתי מדויקת וכתובה לא ברור”. כאשר שאלו את איינשטיין כיצד פועל משרד הפטנטים? הוא הסביר, שיותר מכל, צריך להיות מסוגל לבטא בבהירות ונכון את הפטנט המקורי מתוך התיאור של התגלית והטיעונים של מגיש הפטנט.

אינשטיין הרגיש בבית במשרד הפטנטים ובין ערימות הפטנטים. כילד הוא הביט בדודו יעקב המהנדס והממציא במפעל המשפחתי, שהגיש ששה פטנטים על המצאותיו. במעבדה של פרופסור הינריך פרידריך וובר הוא לבטח גם כן בא במגע עם המצאות חדשות עליהן הוגשו פטנטים. חרף ניסיונות אלה, נדרשה מאיינשטיין רמת דיוק ואובייקטיביות, שהרי הקריטריונים לפיהם נבדקו הפטנטים לא פעם יכלו להיות נדונים בבית המשפט. איינשטיין היה פיסיקאי והיה לו מעט ניסיון בקריאה ובפירוש של איורים טכניים ובטח היה חסר ניסיון הנדסי, ולכן מנהל משרד הפטנטים פרידריך האלר הדריכו בקפדנות.

באקדמיה לעומת זאת, המקוריות והיצירתיות לא היו הקריטריון הראשי לטיפוס בסולם האקדמי, בייחוד בעולם דובר הגרמנית. לו איינשטיין היה מתקבל לאקדמיה הוא היה חש לחץ להתאים עצמו לדעות הקדומות או לממסד ולדעה המקובלת של פטרוניו, להתקבל כאסיסטנט לפרופסור, “קריירה אקדמית שבה אדם מאולץ ליצור כתבים מדעיים בכמויות עצומות יוצרת סכנה של שטחיות אינטלקטואלית”, אינשטיין אמר פעם מאחור יותר. כתוצאה יד המקרה שהביאה לו את משרד הפטנטים בברן, במקום משרה באקדמיה היוקרתית, כנראה שעודדה כמה מהתכונות שנועדו לגרום לו להיות מוצלח: עצמאות חשיבה יצירתית ושיפוט שאפשרו לו לערער על הנחות היסוד הבסיסיות. לא היה לחץ ודחיפה מצד בוחני הפטנטים להתנהג אחרת.

העבודה במשרד הפטנטים הייתה יצירתית למדי וכנראה שסיפקה לאיינשטיין חומר למחשבה בכיוונים חדשים בפיסיקה. הוא קיבל שכר קבוע ולכן הוא היה פטור מהדאגות החומריות. כעבור שלוש שנים במשרד הפטנטים, האלר הודיע לאיינשטיין בסוף שנת 1905 על העלאתו בדרגה. ומה הייתה תגובתו של אינשטיין? “אבל מה אני אעשה עם כל הכסף הזה?”

בזאת הצליח אינשטיין להתפנות לעבודה האמיתית – העבודה היצירתית המדעית הפיסיקאלית. כך החלה תקופת ברן במשרד הפטנטים של אינשטיין מ-1902 ועד 1909, שבמהלכה אינשטיין השתחרר מדאגות היומיום כדי להפיק את עבודתו היוצרת הטובה ביותר שלו. אינשטיין אהב לתאר את משרד הפטנטים לחבריו כ”מנזר החילוני” שלו.

ניתן ללמוד על תקופת שהותו של אינשטיין במשרד הפטנטים ממכתבו לחברו הטוב קונרד הביכט מספטמבר 1905. אינשטיין כותב להביכט, “אם תצוץ הזדמנות אתן לך דחיפה אצל האלר. אולי נצליח להבריח אותך בין נערי הפטנט. תגלה עדיין שזה נעים למדי. האם למעשה תהיה מוכן לבוא? תחשוב שמלבד שמונה שעות עבודה כל יום, בכל יום ישנן שמונה שעות של שעשועים, ואחר כך ישנו גם יום ראשון. אני מאוד אשמח אם תהיה כאן […] אינך צריך להיות מוטרד מזמני היקר, לא תמיד ישנו נושא רגיש להרהר עליו. לפחות לא כזה מרגש”.

במשרד פטנטים זה איינשטיין בילה את שבע השנים היצירתיות ביותר של חייו – אפילו אחרי שכתב את המאמרים ששינו את פני הפיזיקה. הוא היה מגיע כל יום בשמונה בבוקר, ששה ימים בשבוע ובודק בקשות לפטנטים. הוא בילה שמונה שעות במשרד ולפחות שעה אחת בשעורים פרטיים. אחר כך, בנוסף, הוא עשה עבודה מדעית כלשהי. אבל בדיקת בקשות לפטנטים לא הייתה עבודת פרך. איינשטיין עד מהרה למד שהוא יכול לעבוד על בקשות פטנטים כה מהר שזה הותיר לו זמן לחשוב על המדע במהלך היום.

אנטון רייזר, חתנו של אינשטיין מספר בביוגרפיה שלו, “הוא מהר מאוד גילה שהוא יכל למצוא זמן כדי להקדיש למחקריו המדעיים של עצמו במידה ועשה את עבודתו בפחות זמן. אבל שיקול דעת היה נחוץ, כי למרות שהממונים יכלו להיות מרוצים מהעבודה האיטית, החיסכון בזמן לעיסוקים אישיים היה אסור רשמית. אינשטיין המודאג הקפיד, שגיליונות הנייר הקטנים עליהם כתב ושרטט, ייעלמו לתוך מגירת שולחנו מיד כאשר הוא שמע צעדים מתקרבים מאחורי הדלת. אילו היו מגלים אותו, היו לועגים לו וגם פוגעים בו; המנהל היה צוחק בנוסף לכך שהיה כועס. הוא היה יותר מידי פוזיטיביסט מכדי שיחשוב על מדע ספקולטיבי”.

חמישים שנה אחרי משרד הפטנטים – פרינסטון תמונות של LIFE Ralph Morse

 fifty years after the patent Office – Einstein’s desk

בזמן שגיליונות ניירות מחקריו הזעירים היו נעלמים לתוך מגירת שולחן עבודתו במשרד הפטנטים בעת שהאלר היה מסתובב ושומר, איינשטיין כתב את מאמריו הגדולים ביותר של שנת 1905 ואלה גרמו בסוף למהפכה במאה ה-20.

האם יש לחוש צער על זה שאיינשטיין עבד בהתגנבות, בעודו מנודה מהאכסדרות של האקדמיה? אינשטיין עצמו האמין להפך, שמצב זה היה דווקא יתרון למדע שלו. שם במשרד הפטנטים הרעיונות הטובים ביותר שלו נבטו, כפי שהעיד בפני חברו מיקל’ה בסו מאוחר יותר.