1 2 6 D O C U M E N T 1 7 8 J U L Y 1 9 2 1
177. From Solomon Ginzberg
[London, 13 July 1921]
[Not selected for translation.]
178. From Ludwik Silberstein
Chicago, Illinois, 13 July 1921
Dear Professor Einstein,
First of all, I would like to send you my warmest regards in the hope that you
and your wife disembarked in Europe in good health and after a short detour to
England arrived safely back home in
Berlin.[1]
In explanation of the above
address[2]
I would like to say that I am staying here
for the summer quarter (20 June until 2 Sept.), where I have been appointed by the
univ. to hold a “major course for graduates.” 4 h[ours] a week. As I was granted
complete freedom in selecting the subject, I am lecturing about “Relativity Theory,
Gravitation, and Electromagnetism.” Circa 50 auditors, well prepared, & very stim-
ulating. In connection with this I also saw some consequences of your spec. theory
of rel., among which one is in flagrant contradiction to observation, and I would
like to ask for your elucidation. I shall contact you about this in a couple of days,
since I am still expecting certain data to strengthen my
arguments.[3]
Now, however, I am writing you about another matter that lies very close to my
heart, simply because I took such a liking to you in Princeton (pardon my
sincerity).[4]
It is this:—A few days ago there appeared here in the papers from Chi-
cago and New York “correspondence” from Berlin (from 7 July [19]21), an excerpt
of which I enclose
herewith.[5] Michelson[6]
& many others felt very much affected
by it. Others, however, (I among them) defended you by saying that they were cer-
tain that these views and words could not have originated with you and that the
whole thing was rather an invention by the newspaper
correspondent.[7]
Along
these lines we also spoke a moment ago with
Millikan,[8]
who has the greatest sym-
pathy & best respect for you and shared my opinion that the content of the “corre-
spondence” did not come from you. So I am writing you now (spontaneously
following my instinct) and ask you please to tell me whether this “correspondence”
originates with you (I mean, whether what you said has been correctly reproduced)
or is instead an invention by the newspaperman and therefore the whole or a part
of it is false.
My inquiry surely has the appearance of an impertinence. I can assure you,
though, that I am guided by the best motives. Nor is this an idle question since the