A highlight of Albert Einstein’s work was the theory of special relativity, which greatly modified the classical mechanics of Isaac Newton. Einstein’s work is considered one of the pillars of modern physics, but some scientists rejected Einstein’s work for decades. Their refusal to accept Einstein’s work has been well documented, including in the book Hundred Authors against Einstein.

Introduction

Albert Einstein is widely considered one of the greatest scientists of all time. The early breakthrough giving rise to his multi-decade plethora of outstanding contributions is his assembly of the special relativity theory. This profoundly important piece of work was later augmented through the introduction of the general relativity theory. Special relativity is relevant at speeds that are non-negligible compared to the speed of light; in that respect, the special relativity is a significant generalization of the previous work by Isaac Newton and others. Most notably, special relativity employs a fundamentally new concept, space-time. Consequences of this new concept include the revision of the addition theorem for velocities and the acceptance of the relativity of simultaneity.

Both special relativity and general relativity are integral parts of modern-day physics. Historically, a key motivation for the development of special relativity was the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment (Michelson and Morley 1887; see also, e.g., Eisele et al. 2009 for follow-up research). It was an attempt to detect the existence of the luminiferous ether. Yet the ether turned out to be nonexistent, and the speed of light was identified as identical in all directions, a heavy blow for classical physics and strong support for special relativity. However, time dilation and Lorentz contraction, both key features of special relativity, are too small to be measurable at regular speeds. A subsequent example providing confirmation of the time dilation as predicted by special relativity theory includes the Hafele-Keating experiment, which studied the behavior of cesium-beam clocks on commercial airliners flying around the world (Hafele and Keating 1972a; Hafele and Keating 1972b).

Another important aspect of the special relativity theory is the equivalence between mass and energy, epitomized by the famous equation E = mc². The underlying process of energy generation based on the conversion of mass readily operates inside of stars, including the sun (e.g., Wallerstein et al. 1997). In modern times, this process is also utilized by nuclear power plants to supply energy for millions of people around the globe. Recent examples for the success of the general relativity theory include the detection of gravitational waves (Abbott et al. 2016) and the detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of a star near the galactic center supermassive black hole (Abuter et al. 2020).

However, the acceptance of Einstein’s work was fundamentally different ninety years ago. At the time, some leading members of academia emphatically opposed his special relativity theory. They published numerous articles and statements. In 1931, a booklet was published titled Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (Hundred Authors against Einstein, Israel et al. 1931) featuring many of those ill-informed contributions.

 

Criticism Gone Wrong

In total, 121 authors are identified as opponents to the special relativity theory. Hundred Authors against Einstein contains contributions from twenty-eight authors that greatly vary in length and are the main focus of this article. A further ninety-three authors are listed as also having rejected the special relativity theory—with some also having publications. The geographical distribution of the authors’ affiliations shows that eighteen contributions originated from Germany and two from Austria. There were eight contributions from other countries—Czechoslovakia, Finland, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Almost all contributions were written in German except two, which were written in English and French, respectively, and those have subsequently been translated. The contributions vastly differ in length, ranging from just one paragraph to several pages.

An assessment of the contributions given in Hundred Authors against Einstein shows that no one thoroughly applied the scientific method, as otherwise they would have found the mistakes in their arguments and consequently would have positively acknowledged Einstein’s work. However, most of those authors used some mathematical or physical reasoning in the broad sense of those terms that ultimately felt short in seriously countering Einstein, mostly because of ignorance or denial. In six cases, the authors rejected special relativity mostly or entirely on philosophical or religious grounds or they got engaged in quibbling. For example, general objections based on ethics, philosophy, and religion have been voiced by De Hartog (Amsterdam). In those cases, there is no attempt of applying the scientific method at all.

To obtain further insight into the failures and shortcomings of recognizing special relativity, I focused on four key aspects: (1) the new concept of space-time; (2) the speed of light as a constant regardless of the motion of the source or observer (as well as the implied nonexistence of the ether); (3) the revised addition of velocities, replacing the customary formula of Newton’s mechanics (thus ensuring that any resulting speed cannot surpass the speed of light); and (4) the relativity of simultaneity. The latter stipulates that whether or not two events occur at the same time is not absolute but depends on the observer’s reference frame.

Results are given in Table 1. It shows that the largest objections against special relativity were to the concept of space-time, with the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity as follow-ups, with the number counts given as 22, 15, and 10, respectively. Moreover, a total of eleven and six articles rejected the special relativity theory because of two or three of those aspects, respectively, whereas one article was in denial of all four aspects. More than once, the significance of the Michelson-Morley experiment was disputed in addition to making the allegation that Einstein does not understand physics.

Notable Examples

The Most Trivial

A trivial and superficial attack on Einstein’s special relativity theory was made by G. Richter (Bozen, South Tyrol, Italy). For the most part, Richter shies away from listing the various features of the special relativity theory or aspects arising from considering the scientific method. Richter’s criticism is mostly highly general; he repeatedly summons plausibility arguments. This approach is also reflected in the title of his contribution, which (in translation) reads: “The Relativism of the Special-Temporal Scale Can Only Be Identified with the Help of an Absolute Scale.” Richter repeatedly refers to Einstein’s work as trivial or nonsense. Particularly, he does not mention Einstein’s success (e.g., the correct description of the precession of Mercury’s perihelion). Additionally, Richter does not discuss any experiments or observations that support the special relativity theory; surely, he also does not propose experiments himself. Richter’s general credo is that Einstein must be wrong because his work is in stark contrast to what people already know to be valid.

The Most Comprehensive

Arguably, the most comprehensive attack on the special relativity theory may have been the contribution by G. Wendel (Liebstadt, East Prussia, now renamed Milakowo and situated in Poland). Wendel lists a total of thirty-five counterpoints with respect to most of Einstein’s work available at the time. Wendel’s list is very extensive, and he argues that Einstein was confusing numerous terms in physics. Examples of Wendel’s allegations include that Einstein is confusing measured space with real space and space with mass. Wendel states that Einstein’s concept of curved space is an unbelievable mistake in thinking. He also criticizes that Einstein does not accept the ether in consideration of the fact that (according to Wendel and others, of course) the ether is definitely needed to assure the propagation of light. Additionally, following Wendel, “relative motion” is nonsense considering that any relative motion is based on an absolute frame. Thus, Wendel even seems to disagree with concepts of Newton’s mechanics. Finally, he is concerned that the special relativity theory will result in the dissolution of the entire world because basic terms such as space, time, force, and causality are being canceled.

The Most Embarrassing

Another effort to disprove Einstein’s special relativity theory was by A. Reuterdahl (St. Paul, Minnesota, United States). He provides a list of eleven fundamental mistakes by Einstein and furthermore lists four deceits, including allegations of plagiarism. The list of the so-called mistakes follows the pattern also pointed out by other authors who have criticized Einstein’s work. It includes the assertion that there is an absolute speed of light and complains that the new concept of space-time is in error. Reutendahl claims that he himself had used the latter term already in two previous talks; however, he did so in a much broader sense, encompassing other processes as well, including gravity(!) and electrical, thermal, and mechanical effects. Reutendahl also argues that the formulae about the aberration of light and the one describing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury had been published before. Of the latter, it is known that the lion’s share of the precession is due to planet-planet gravitational interaction, but Einstein’s work provided another term needed to explain the observation; Reutendahl may have been confused here.

The Most Cynical

There are several contributions that are highly ignorant, but the text by W. Rauschenberger (Frankfurt), titled “Anti-Einstein,” clearly deserves the label “most cynical.” Most of the text deals with listing various aspects of the special relativity theory in an effort to make it appear highly illogical. Key points include the author’s refusal to accept the modified formulism of adding velocities and the relativity of simultaneity. He uses the German term Grundsinnlosigkeit (i.e., complete absence of basic sense), but this term is very rarely used in German—it may even have been invented by Rauschenberger to get his points across. Finally, he laments that special relativity was steadily gaining popularity. He surmises that “logic and reason are apparently too simplistic and boring to satisfy people,” which he identifies as one of the causes for the increased recognition of the special relativity theory. He continues to argue that “from time to time set-backs and catastrophes are supposed to happen (such as wars) in order to elevate the status of reason and to enlighten mankind.” Note that this text was written a few years prior to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the start of World War II—perhaps a premonition of the evil ahead.

The Most Obnoxious

There are various contributions that could be regarded as highly obnoxious. However, in my opinion this attribute best applies to the text by L. Goldschmidt (Jena), titled “Ignorance and Arbitrariness.” It attacks both Einstein and Hermann Weyl, a famous mathematician and theoretical physicist contemporary of Einstein. Goldschmidt argues that Einstein’s work does not deserve to be called a “theory” due to its failures as well as Einstein’s lack of philosophical understanding. He also says that Einstein’s work is in part ancient. In conclusion, Goldschmidt recommends that for Einstein and Weyl to obtain insight into the ignorance and arbitrariness of their work, a long-term university-based education would be required.

Attacking the Special Relativity Theory through Language

Efforts to overcome and replace special relativity theory must be based on advanced theoretical work, novel observations, or both. However, some previous authors whose contributions appear in Hundred Authors against Einstein did so through the virtue of language and advanced quibbling. Examples include the contributions by W. Kuntz (Spandau, now a suburb of Berlin) and Strehl (Hof, Bavaria). Kuntz argues that progress means to replace subjectivity and relativity of human conceptions by objective validity. He also asserts that liberation from relativity is the standard for new findings. Therefore, in Kuntz’s opinion, Einstein failed. Moreover, Strehl states: “The theory of Einstein is in my opinion a functional transformation of reality. His system of reference: Variable space and time metric, constant speed of light (despite a nonconstant index of refraction) is not my taste.” Thus, in Strehl’s view, science is a matter of seasoning.

Lessons for Today

Contributions from Hundred Authors against Einstein carry important lessons for today. The lines of attack against Einstein stem from arrogance, ignorance, denial, and prejudice. Regarding the latter, detailed analyses have been forwarded (e.g., Goenner 1993) and references therein have pointed out that one of the driving forces against Einstein’s work was Einstein’s Jewish heritage. These prejudices were further amplified by the right-wing political climate in Germany and other countries at the time.

Nevertheless, the contributions in Hundred Authors against Einstein appear in general to be shaped by scientific incompetence. In fact, many of the contributions in Hundred Authors against Einstein do not bother with scientific reasoning at all. Most of the texts notably shy away from seriously attempting to apply scientific methods; others are even further off and thus do not remotely meet established scientific standards. Some of the criticism is just plain funny, whereas some other criticism is pitiful at best. For others, the saying “Don’t confuse me with facts, I already have made up my mind” would accurately describe the author’s approach.¹ And for others, especially those who attempt to disprove the special relativity theory through twists of language, philosophy, or religion, the quote by Wolfgang E. Pauli applies: “That is not only not right; it is not even wrong” (as translated from Pauli’s native German).² The essence of this quote is, of course, that any scientific statement must satisfy the criterion of falsifiability; i.e., a scientific statement must be testable and therefore could potentially be found false. In principle, this approach also defines the border between science and pseudoscience.

During his time, Einstein apparently was not overly concerned with this kind of criticism. He has been quoted saying, “It would not have required one hundred authors to prove me wrong; one would have been enough.”³ Clearly, the validity of scientific results is not decided by a majority vote, even though in today’s environment support by colleagues and peers always helps. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that sometimes a single voice can be louder than the rumbling of a crowd.

 

---

Notes

1. Anectodal evidence indicates that this type of phrasing has been used multiple times in the past. Examples include Roy S. Durstine (an advertising specialist), George D. Aiken (acting chairman of the Senate agricultural committee in 1947), and Earl Landgrebe (former member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974, in conjunction with the impeachment of Richard Nixon); see https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/02/13 for background information and references.
2. Jung et al. (2001) reports that this phrase can be attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, an (originally) Austrian theoretical physicist known for his numerous contributions to quantum mechanics. It is conveyed that Pauli said in his native German, “Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!”
3. Due to the lack of a primary source, it is unclear if Einstein made this kind of statement. Hawking (1988), a secondary source, claimed that Einstein said (or might have said), “If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!”

References

• Abbott, B.P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration). 2016. Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical Review Letters 116: 061102.
• Abuter, R., et al. (GRAVITY Collaboration). 2020. Detection of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the star S2 near the galactic centre massive black hole. Astronomy and Astrophysics 636: id. L5.
• Eisele, C., et al. 2009. Laboratory test of the isotropy of light propagation at the 10^-17 level. Physical Review Letters 103: 090401.
• Goenner, H. 1993. The reaction to relativity theory I: The Anti-Einstein campaign in Germany in 1920. Science in Context 6(1)(Spring): 107–33.
• Hafele, J.C., and R.E. Keating. 1972a. Around-the-world atomic clocks: Predicted relativistic time gains. Science, New Series 177(4044): 166–68.
• ———. 1972b. Around-the-world atomic clocks: Observed relativistic time gains. Science, New Series 177(4044): 168–170.
• Hawking, S.W. 1988. A Brief History of Time. Bantam Dell Publishing Group, London.
• Israel, H., et al. (eds.). 1931. Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (Hundred Authors against Einstein) (in German). R. Voigtlaender’s Verlag, Leipzig, available through Austrian Literature Online.
• Jung, C.G., et al. 2001. Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters, 1932–1958. Princeton University Press, originally published in German by Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
• Michelson, A.A., and E.W. Morley. 1887. On the relative motion of the earth and the luminiferous ether. American Journal of Science 34(203): 333–45.
• Wallerstein, G., et al. 1997. Synthesis of the elements in stars: Forty years of progress. Reviews of Modern Physics 69(4): 995–1084.

 

---

Table 1:

Reasons Given for Rejection of Special Relativity Theory

Space-Time: 22 articles

Light-Speed Constant: 15 articles

Addition of Velocities: 5 articles

Relativity of Simultaneity: 10 articles

Space-Time and Light-Speed Constant: 7 articles

Space-Time and Addition of Velocities: 1 article

Space-Time and Relativity of Simultaneity: 3 articles

Three items: 6 articles

Four items: 1 article