China and Albert Einstein: The Reception of the Physicist and His Theory in China, 1917–1979 9780674038882

Citation preview

China and Albert Einstein

China and Albert Einstein the reception of the p h y s i c i s t a n d h i s t h e o ry i n c h i n a 1917–1979

Danian Hu

h a rva r d u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England

2005

Copyright © 2005 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hu, Danian, 1962– China and Albert Einstein : the reception of the physicist and his theory in China 1917–1979 / Danian Hu. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-01538-X (alk. paper) 1. Einstein, Albert, 1879–1955—Influence. 2. Einstein, Albert, 1879–1955—Travel—China. 3. Relativity (Physics) 4. China—History— May Fourth Movement, 1919. I. Title. QC16.E5H79 2005 530.11'0951—dc22

2004059690

To my mother and father and my wife

Contents

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

ix xiii

Prologue

1

1

Western Physics Comes to China

5

2

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

47

3

Six Pioneers of Relativity

86

4

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

130

5

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

152

Epilogue

182

Notes

191

Index

247

Acknowledgments

My interest in Albert Einstein began in 1979 when I was a student at Qinghua High School in Beijing. With the centennial anniversary of Einstein’s birth in that year, many commemorative publications appeared in China. One book, A Collection of Translated Papers in Commemoration of Einstein, in particular deeply impressed me and kindled in me a passion to understand Einstein’s life and works. One of the two editors of the book was Professor Xu Liangying, with whom I had the good fortune of studying while a graduate student. I am deeply grateful to Professors Xu and Dong Guangbi at the Chinese Academy of Sciences for introducing me to the historical studies of modern physics and for their continuous direction since 1987. Carroll Pursell and Alan Rocke offered me an opportunity to study with them in 1989 at Case Western Reserve University, where I also learned much from Kenneth Ledford, Miriam Levin, and Katherine Lynch. It was under Alan’s direction that I began to explore Einstein and his relativity in China, a subject that was originally suggested to me by Professor Horst Melcher in Potsdam, Germany. I offer my deep gratitude to Alan for his inspiring advice and generous support, and to Professor Melcher for his stimulating suggestion. For many years it had been my dream to study with famous Einstein scholars in the United States. That dream came true when I became a graduate student of Professor Martin J. Klein, the senior editor of The

x

Acknowledgments

Collected Papers of Albert Einstein and an internationally renowned historian of science at Yale University. Martin’s comments and advice were very helpful at every stage of this book’s research and writing, for which I owe Martin the deepest gratitude. This work has demonstrated how much I have learned from two of the best Sinologists, Beatrice S. Bartlett and Jonathan D. Spence. I was originally trained as an engineer, and my knowledge of Chinese history had been superficial and scanty. It is from them that I have learned more about and understood more deeply my own motherland. At Yale, I benefited from numerous scholars’ generous advice and support. In particular, I wish to thank Frederic L. Holmes, Daniel Kevles, John L. Heilbron, William Summers, Henry Turner, John Warner, Alan Chodos, Jack Sandweiss, Charles Sommerfield, Helen Siu, and Maria Trumpler. It is indispensable to have the assistance from the following university staff: Pat Johnson, Gina Canali, Pat DeMeola, Joanna Gorman, Ramona Moore, Susan Smith-Kemp, and the staff at Yale’s libraries (especially Clara Chen, Calvin Hsu, and Mary Holder). I thank Professor Erwin Hiebert of Harvard University, Dr. Daniel J. Kennefick of Einstein Papers, and two anonymous referees for their comments on an early manuscript. I am deeply grateful to Brett Berliner, Liu Xiwen, Yang Jian, Zhang Baichun, Randy Kidd, Chen Shunle, Qu Jing-cheng, Zhu Yuelin, Hu Mingjie, Duan Zhiyong, Wang Qirong, and Dai Wusan for their invaluable assistance. We i Yi l i n g , daughter of the mathematician Wei Siluan, granted me an interview in Chengdu, Sichuan, and provided me many invaluable materials. Professors Yao Zhijian and Bai Suhua, two colleagues of Wei Siluan, also accepted requests for interviews. Dr. Ru-Ling Chou, daughter of the theoretical physicist Peiyuan Chou, kindly answered questions and provided many materials. Professor Tsao Chang told me much of his personal experience during the Cultural Revolution. I also thank the following individuals for their generous assistance: Tu Tingquan of Tongji University Archives in Shanghai; D. Seemel at the University Archives, Humboldt–University of Berlin; Zhang Baosheng at Beijing University Library; Cui Zongfu in Chengdu; Wang Qian and Xu Zhengbang in Wuhan; and Yan Jiazhen, Wang Yuyao, Yin Yongqing, Wang Bing and Liu Bing in Beijing.

Acknowledgments

xi

I thank the following libraries and archives for making their materials available: in Israel, Albert Einstein Archives in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem; in China, National Beijing Library, Beijing University Libraries, the Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, Shanghai Municipal Library, Tongji University Library and Archives in Shanghai, Sichuan University Library and Archives in Chengdu; in Germany, the University Archives, Humboldt–University of Berlin; in the United States, the Duplicated Einstein’s Archives in the Special Collections at Boston University, the Library of Congress, Niels Bohr Library at the American Institute of Physics, Yale University Libraries and Archives, Harvard-Yenching Library at Harvard University, Cornell University Libraries and Archives, California Institute of Technology Libraries and Archives, and the East-Asian Library at the University of California–Los Angeles. Financial support from the following enabled me to complete this project: John Clarke Slater Fellowship from American Philosophical Society, Enders Fellowship and Research Grant from the Graduate School, Cheng-Lee dissertation research fellowship and grant from the Council for East Asian Studies, Sigerist Funds from the Program of History of Medicine and Science, John Perry Miller Research Fund from the Graduate School, the University Dissertation Fellowship from Yale University, the Pacific Cultural Foundation, and the Center for History of Physics of American Institute of Physics. I am grateful to James F. Watts, Dean of the Division of Humanities and the Arts, and to the History Department and the Asian Studies Program at the City College of New York for reducing my teaching load so that I could finish revising the manuscript. I also acknowledge the warm interest and support of Michael Fisher and his assistant Sara Davis at Harvard University Press. Last, but not least, I thank Tonnya Norwood and Diane Riley for their careful and effective editorial work. I dedicate this book to my parents, Zou Wan and Hu Ding, whose love and support made this accomplishment possible. I thank my elder brother Dayuan for his dedicated support. I thank my parents-in-law, Ren Qiuping and Zou Pei, for their teaching and for their faith in me. I thank my children, Victor and Agnes, for the tremendous joy they gave me during the years working on this project. My wife, Ying Zou, has supported me in pursuing my personal interest in the history of science for nearly twenty years. We struggled to-

xii

Acknowledgments

gether in Beijing, Cleveland, Los Angeles, New Haven, Baltimore, and now New York City. With heroic patience and resolution, she not only helped me make steady progress in my study, but also raised two wonderful children. No words can fully express my deep gratitude to her, to whom this book is dedicated as well.

Abbreviations

AEP BDRK CB CBFK CHOC DFZZ DSB FDXB-ZKB GZ HSPS HSPBS KX MGRB RMRB SNZG Wuli XY ZBTX ZBYT ZBZZ ZJXS

Albert Einstein Papers, Special Collections, Mugar Library, Boston University. Photocopy Beijing daxue rikan ( Peking University Daily), Beijing Chen bao (Chenbao Daily), Beijing Chen bao fukan (Chenbao Daily Supplement), Beijing The Cambridge History of China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) Dongfang zazhi (The Eastern Miscellany) Charles C. Gillispie, ed., The Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 15 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970–1980) Fudan xuebao: ziran kexue ban ( Journal of Fudan: Natural Science Edition), Shanghai Gaizao (La Rekonstruo), Beijing Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences Kexue (Science), Shanghai Minguo ribao (Republic of China Daily), Shanghai Renmin ribao (People’s Daily), Beijing Shaonian zhongguo ( Young China), Shanghai Wuli (Physics), Beijing Xueyi (Science and Arts), Shanghai Ziran bianzhengfa tongxun ( Journal of Dialectics of Nature), Beijing Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu tongxun (Bulletin for the Study of Natural Dialectics), Beijing Ziran bianzhengfa zazhi ( Journal of Natural Dialectics), Shanghai Zhongguo jindai xuezhi shiliao (Historical Materials of Modern Chinese School System)

xiv ZJKJS

ZKS ZKY ZXKZ

Abbreviations Dong Guangbi, ed., Zhongguo jinxiandai kexue jishu shi (A History of Modern Chinese Science and Technology) (Changsha, Hunan: Hunan Education Press, 1997) Zhongguo keji shiliao (China Historical Materials of Science and Technology), Beijing Ziran kexueshi yanjiu (Studies in the History of Natural Sciences), Beijing Zhongguo xiandai kexuejia zhuanji (Biographies of Modern Chinese Scientists), 6 vols., ed. Zhongguo xiandai kexue jia zhuan ji bianji zu (Biographies of Modern Chinese Scientists Editorial Group) (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe [Science Press], 1991–94)

Prologue

It was one o’clock in the afternoon on August 18, 2002. Outside the Beijing International Conference Center, hundreds of fans were waiting in a line about three hundred meters long, so long that it snaked around the building. What were they waiting for? A popular concert? An exciting sports game? Neither. They were there two hours early to grab better seats for a scientific speech on the “M Theory,” a new space-time theory about the universe. The speaker was Stephen W. Hawking, the brilliant British theoretical physicist and expert in the general theory of relativity, who is often called the contemporary or “live” Albert Einstein. Hawking had come to Beijing to attend an international string theory conference. His visit set off a “science storm” in the capital city: more than 2,200 people crowded into the conference hall to listen to his speech, “Brane New World.” More than two thousand free tickets for the speech were handed out within a week; some ticket holders attempted to make a profit by selling tickets for one thousand yuan each. There was a special display in the city’s largest bookstore selling eight books by or about Hawking, and more than two hundred copies were sold each day. The Chinese president met with Hawking and lauded his great contribution to science and mankind. Before coming to Beijing, Hawking visited Hangzhou, a beautiful southern Chinese city near Shanghai, where he also aroused intense public interest!1

2

Prologue

The “Hawking craze” cannot but remind us of the “relativity craze” eighty years before when the Chinese prepared for Einstein’s visit. Since Hawking’s fame rests on his success in further developing Einstein’s theory of relativity and his greatness is often measured in terms of Einstein’s, it is not surprising that there are many striking similarities between the two events. In fact, it is necessary to view the Hawking phenomenon as part of the Chinese reception of Einstein and the theory of relativity, which is the subject of this book. The theory of relativity was introduced into China at the beginning of the May Fourth movement (1917–1921), a period of great intellectual revolution in Chinese history. The movement generated widespread enthusiasm for Western science, creating favorable conditions for the theory’s reception. As a result, the theory of relativity was quickly accepted and widely disseminated, and Einstein became well known as a great scientific hero and revolutionary. The acceptance of relativity was a milestone in the history of modern Chinese physics, an achievement based on the successful institutionalization and professionalization of physics education and research in the 1920s and 1930s. Einstein and relativity largely disappeared from the view of average Chinese in the 1940s. When both returned to public attention in the 1950s, after war and revolution, the man and his theory were surrounded by a hostile political atmosphere as a result of imported Soviet criticism. Such political and ideological hostility intensified in the mid-1960s and climaxed in the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). It was not until 1979 that the Chinese government officially and fully embraced this great physicist and his work. This book investigates how and why relativity was introduced to China; it explores characteristics of the Chinese assimilation of relativity in a series of biographical studies of Chinese physicists; and it examines Chinese public reactions to Einstein and the theory of relativity between 1919 and 1979. Based on both published and unpublished primary source materials, the book demonstrates a significant Japanese influence on the introduction of relativity to China. Moreover, it argues that the absence in China of a tradition of research and education in classical physics was crucial in the reception of the relativity theory: it helped lead to a quick and unanimously positive reception in the 1920s and 1930s. Finally, it shows that political and ideological interference in the name of dialectical materialism led to increasingly disparaging pub-

Prologue

3

lic opinion on Einstein and relativity and eventually resulted in an organized criticism movement during the Cultural Revolution. Although this story focuses on one branch of theoretical physics, it exemplifies the survival struggle of basic theoretical science and the violent conflict between natural science and Marxist philosophy in twentiethcentury China. The book has five chapters. Chapter 1 surveys the gradual introduction of Western physics during the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries, which formed the basis and conditions for China’s reception of the theory of relativity. Chapter 2 investigates how and why Einstein’s theory of relativity was introduced into China and the relationship between this introduction and broader Chinese intellectual developments. The third chapter examines the careers of six representative physicists to identify the characteristics of the Chinese assimilation of relativity. The fourth discusses the changing representation of Einstein in the decades between his introduction and the eve of the Cultural Revolution, which mirrored the capricious social status of Chinese science and scientists. The last chapter explores the criticism movement during the Cultural Revolution to illustrate how China’s scientific development was affected by the “guidance” of dialectical materialism.



1 Western Physics Comes to China

In spring 1953 , a graduate student in history wrote Albert Einstein from California to request his opinion “on the question of science or no science in China.” Einstein replied: Development of Western Science is based on two great achievements: the invention of the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry) by the Greek philosophers, and the discovery of the possibility to find out causal relationship by systematic experiment (Renaissance). In my opinion one has [sic] not to be astonished that the Chinese sages have not made these steps. The astonishing thing is that these discoveries were made at all.1 Einstein stressed the fundamental significance of the “formal logical system” in Euclidean geometry for the development of modern science, a system that was absent in traditional Chinese mathematics. It was not until the beginning of the seventeenth century that Matteo Ricci, the Italian Jesuit, and his Chinese collaborator, Xu Guangqi, introduced such a system into China. Other Jesuit scientists followed Ricci’s lead and brought Western achievements in physical sciences to China through translations. But this flourishing conduit of scientific transmission was destroyed in the early eighteenth century, because of

6

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

the controversy over the Chinese rites of ancestor worship and public homage to Confucius. It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that Protestant missionaries resumed the teaching of Western science in China, a practice that was supported and expanded by the Chinese government in the name of “self-strengthening.” Never before in China had so many scientific books been translated and widely distributed as in the late nineteenth century. Nevertheless, the humiliating defeat in the Sino-Japanese War in 1894 clearly demonstrated the deficiency of China’s reforms during the second half of the nineteenth century. Chinese intellectuals therefore demanded thorough reforms and students went overseas seeking effective ways to restore the wealth and power of their motherland. In Japan, the United States, and Europe, these students studied various subjects, many of them choosing science and technology. When they returned home, they replaced foreign missionaries as scientific teachers, translators, textbook writers, editors, and researchers. Only then did modern Western science firmly take root in China: physics became part of the regular school curriculum and China’s first generation of physicists began to emerge. This chapter surveys the gradual introduction of Western physics in China during the scientific enlightenment period between the late sixteenth and early twentieth centuries. It explores the contents, scope, and the impacts of such an introduction, which formed the basis and conditions for China’s reception of the theory of relativity in the early twentieth century.

The Jesuit Introduction Ricci and the Introduction of Western Science On May 11, 1610, Matteo Ricci died of influenza in Beijing. At the request of Jesuit Father Pantoja, Emperor Wanli allowed Ricci to be buried in the capital city, which was an exceptional honor for a foreigner.2 Some Chinese officials, however, protested to Ye Xianggao of the Ministry of Rites, who had helped to arrange the honorific imperial burial. “Since ancient times,” they argued, “no foreigner has ever been granted burial by any Chinese emperor. Why should only Matteo Ricci be treated more kindly?” Ye stood his ground: “Do you know any foreigner as virtuous and knowledgeable as Ricci?” he countered. “His

Western Physics Comes to China

7

Jihe yuan ben (A First Textbook of Geometry) taught us much that was never even mentioned by our ancestors. He thus rendered one of the greatest contributions of all ages. If he had done nothing else, the mere translation of Elements itself merits his royal burial.3 Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) arrived in China in 1582. As one of the earliest Western missionaries in this East Asian Empire, Ricci struggled to find the most effective way to carry out his work. Gradually he realized that teaching Western science and technology could greatly enhance his prestige and thus help propagate Christianity. Then Ricci and one of his Christian converts, noted Chinese scholar Xu Guangqi, decided to translate a Western scientific book to show Chinese scholars the solid foundations of Western scholarship, and through that, they sought to attract the Chinese to Christianity. Out of several choices, Xu and Ricci decided that, “for the time being, it would be best to translate the books of the Elements of Euclid.”4 They made the decision because the great clarity of demonstrations in the Elements contrasted sharply with traditional Chinese mathematics texts where everything “was stated without proof.”5 In 1607, the Chinese translation of the first six books of Euclid’s Elements was published, and the translation won Ricci great respect in China.6 Ricci and Xu’s decision to translate Elements of Geometry turned out to be an excellent one, because geometry played a significant role in the birth of modern science in general and the rise of “new physics” in particular. Geometry is the language with which one can understand the universe. As Galileo Galilei stated: Philosophy is written in this grand book—I mean the universe— which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangle, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.7 Geometry is also closely connected with mechanics; as Issac Newton put it in his Principia, “geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics.”8 In Albert Einstein’s

8

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

opinion, “the formal logical system (in Euclidean geometry)” was one of the two foundations of Western science.9 In China, as in the West, Elements served as a crucial foundation for more advanced developments in astronomy and mechanics.10 Ricci and Xu’s approach to the translation became the model for later generations of missionaries. They translated Elements in a process which was similar to that developed by Buddhist scholars in the fifth century c.e., though on a smaller scale.11 First, Ricci gave direct oral translations into Chinese, while Xu wrote out a first draft in literary Chinese. Then Xu elaborated and polished the Chinese translation by comparing it with the originals, again, through Ricci’s oral translations.12 In addition to Euclidean geometry, Ricci introduced other Western learning, such as optics and mechanics. His most important contribution, however, was his academic preaching strategy, which inspired many generations of Catholic and Protestant missionaries. Ricci’s contribution to China’s scientific development was so significant that historians regard his arrival in China as the beginning of China’s scientific modernization.13 Since 1595 Ricci had been asking his superiors in Rome to send to Beijing “a great mathematician” or, better yet, “an authentic astronomer,” because he was repeatedly asked by his Chinese friends in the government to rectify the Chinese calendar. If the Jesuits could correct the Chinese calendar, argued Ricci, it “would enhance our reputation, give us freer entry into China and secure us greater security and liberty.”14 It took much longer than he expected to satisfy his request. Nonetheless, more missionary-scientists did come to China in the seventeenth century. Among them were two Germans, Johann Terrentius (1576–1630) and Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592–1666), both of whom arrived at Macau in July 1619 and later played leading roles in China’s calendrical reform project.15 The arrival of Terrentius, Schall, and other Jesuit scientists was a turning point in the introduction of Western scientific ideas in China. “In the history of intercourse between civilizations,” wrote Joseph Needham, “there seems no parallel to the arrival in China in the 17th century of a group of Europeans so inspired by religious fervor as were the Jesuits, and at the same time so expert in most of those sciences which had developed with the Renaissance and the rise of capitalism.”16

Western Physics Comes to China

9

Following Ricci’s lead, Jesuit missionaries in China translated and compiled 437 works between 1584 and 1790. Among the works produced, 131, or 30 percent, dealt with scientific subjects, including mathematics, astronomy, physics, geology, biology, medicine, and military science. Works in astronomy and mathematics weighed heavily in these translations, many of which were part of the Chinese calendrical reform project of the 1630s. Of the scientific texts, eighty-nine—or 68 percent—were astronomical works and twenty—or 15 percent—were mathematical works.17 During this two-hundred-year period, however, only a few physics works were translated; all of those were published in the seventeenth century, and most dealt with optics and mechanics.18

Optical Instruments and Knowledge In 1601, Ricci was finally granted admission to Beijing to present tributes to the emperor. Among his thirty-six presents were two prisms, which he called in Chinese ying wucai boli shi (glass stones that make chromatic dispersion).19 This gift marked the beginning of the dissemination of Western optics in China.20 The most important knowledge of optics introduced in the seventeenth century involved the telescope. Galileo made his first telescope in 1609. Six years later, Father P. Emmanuel Diaz (1574–1659) described Galileo’s telescopic discoveries in Chinese.21 Diaz did not, however, mention Galileo’s name, nor did he offer any description of the telescope itself. It was thus left to Adam Schall and his Chinese work, Yuanjing shuo (The Telescope), to provide the Chinese with a full description of the marvelous Galilean instrument and to show how to construct one.22 Schall received his education in Rome, where he entered the Jesuit order in 1611. He arrived in Macau in July 1619 but did not enter China until the late summer of 1622.23 Schall wrote Yuanjing shuo in 1626, with the assistance of Li Zubai, a Chinese official at the Imperial Astronomy Bureau.24 The treatise, which demonstrated knowledge of optics unparalleled in contemporary Chinese literature, described the telescope’s functions, working principles, structure, and applications.25 Schall also discussed eyeglasses, lenses of various shapes, the principles and nature of their image formations, the refraction of light in water, lens making, and the use of optical equipment.26 Yuanjing shuo brought mixed results in China: whereas the new knowledge in the treatise

10

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

helped the Chinese to advance their own study in optics and to construct their own telescopes, the erroneous diagrams of light paths in the explanation and instruction left many unsolved puzzles and misled the Chinese for many years. In this sense, it also hindered the progress of optical studies in China.27 It was not until the nineteenth century that Chinese scientists Zheng Fuguang (1780–c. 1853) and Zou Boqi (1819–1869) corrected the omissions and errors in Yuanjing shuo through their own studies on optics. The telescope, nevertheless, soon became widely known and was creatively used in mid-seventeenth-century China. Three years after the publication of Schall’s treatise, the Chinese attempted to make their own instrument. By 1631, Chinese astronomers had used a telescope to observe a solar eclipse, and a Chinese technician, Bo Jue, had installed one onto a cannon.28 By 1660 knowledge of the telescope must have been widely circulated partly as a result of the dramatic role it played in Li Yu’s (1611–1679) popular novel Shi er lou ( The Twelve Mansions). In Li’s comedic story, the telescope helped a talented young man to find his ideal girl in the backyard of a wealthy official’s family mansion and won her father’s consent to the proposed marriage. Li also described other optical instruments, such as a microscope and eyeglasses.29 Father Ferdinand Verbiest (1623–1688), who succeeded Schall at the Imperial Astronomical Bureau, introduced Western quantitative studies on refraction in his Chinese work, Xinzhi lingtai yi xiang zhi (On the Newly-Made Astronomical Instruments of Observatory), published in 1674. However, he did not introduce the law of refraction. The sources for Verbiest’s book were theoretical and experimental works on optics by Claudius Ptolemy (c. 100–170), Ibn al-Haytham (c. 965–1040), and Witelo (c. 1230–1275).30

Western Mechanics Of all the gifts from Ricci in 1601, Emperor Wanli valued two mechanical clocks the most. To keep these prized possessions working well, Ricci was asked to teach court officials how to care for them. This was China’s introduction to the West’s knowledge of mechanics.31 A more substantial introduction of Western mechanics, however, began in 1627 when Terrentius and Wang Zheng (1571–1644) published Yuanxi qiqi tushuo ( Illustrated Description of European Mechanical Con-

Western Physics Comes to China

11

trivances). Terrentius was a brilliant scientist with expertise in astronomy and mathematics. He had connections with two of the best contemporary scientists in Europe, namely Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) and Johannes Kepler (1571–1630). Terrentius was elected as the seventh academician of the Accademia dei Lincei, only eight days after Galileo, and he maintained regular correspondence with Kepler even after he arrived in China.32 Wang Zheng, a native of Shannxi Province, was a distinguished scholar and a Christian convert. Wang earned his Juren and Jinshi degrees at the age of twenty-four and fifty-two respectively, and was fond of and had an aptitude for designing and producing mechanical devices even before his acquaintance with Jesuit missionaries.33 Terrentius and Wang’s book was probably the first important Chinese translation of Western theories of mechanics. The book was a compilation based on four originals: Galileo’s Discourse on Bodies in Water (1612) and On Mechanics (1600), and works by Simon Stevin (1548–1620) and Agostino Ramelli (1531–1590).34 Despite its misleading title, two-thirds of the book focused on elementary treatises on mechanical powers; it also introduced the history and advantages of the mechanical science.35 The book contained four parts. Part I was about basic principles of mechanics and their applications. In this section, Terrentius discussed terrestrial gravity, centers of gravity, the calculation of centers of gravity for various geometric figures, the relation between stability and the center of gravity, specific weight, and buoyancy. Part II described the principles and calculations for treating simple machines, such as the balance, steelyard, lever, pulley, screw, inclined plane, and so on. If the first two parts involved theories of mechanics, the third part dealt with the applications of these theories. To this end, Terrentius and Wang discussed and illustrated fifty-four mechanical devices. The fourth part of the text contained illustrated descriptions of machines invented or made by Wang.36 In short, the volumes assembled Western knowledge of mechanics and machinery from Archimedes to Galileo.37 In the 1670s, Ferdinand Verbiest translated Yan qi tushuo ( Illustrated Explanations of the Air-Thermometer) (1671) and Xinzhi lingtai yixiang zhi (On the Newly-Made Astronomical Instruments of Observatory) (1674). The former described the construction and application of the airthermometer and was the first work in China discussing European quantitative thermometers. The latter described, in sixteen volumes, the

12

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

manufacture, installation, and use of six new astronomical instruments. In fact, Xinzhi lingtai yixiang zhi (Yixiang zhi hereafter) included Yan qi tushuo as one section in its fourth book. The first four volumes of Yixiang zhi discussed physics, such as the strength of materials, specific weight, centers of gravity and stability, simple machines (levers, pulleys, wheels and axles, and screws), the pendulum, the quantitative thermometer, and the hygrometer. Here the discussions of the pendulum and the quantitative thermometer made their first appearance in Chinese literature.38 The sources of the physics in Yixiang zhi included Galileo’s On Mechanics and Two New Sciences (1638), as well as works by Santorio Santorre (1561–1636) on the use of the thermometer.39

Jesuits and China’s Calendrical Reform The most significant work the Jesuits conducted in China during the seventeenth century was to help reform the traditional calendar and to compile the Chongzhen Lishu (Eternal Calendar of Emperor Chongzhen). The compilation of Chongzhen Lishu was completed in 1635 and was the largest scientific project in seventeenth-century China. Chongzhen Lishu was not just a new calendar; it was “a monumental compendium of the scientific knowledge of the time,” containing 137 volumes, onethird of which dealt with astronomical theories.40 This is why astronomy dominated in the translated works by Jesuits during this period: 89 astronomical texts out of 131 scientific translations. These translated works contained much about the theories and methods of Western astronomy, emphasizing the works of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe, which were among the principal sources of the European scientific revolution, and which eventually led to the birth of the “New Physics,” the Newtonian mechanical system.41 In the Lishu Tycho was one of the two most frequently mentioned Western astronomers (the other was Ptolemy). In fact, the new calendrical system was based on the Tychonic system,42 even though that system had never been very popular in the West. The Lishu also briefly referred to Copernicus’s heliocentric system and included eleven translated chapters from Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus and quoted seventeen out of twenty-seven of his observation records. However, only the Tychonic system was considered correct.43 The Lishu even introduced Kepler’s ideas on the mechanism of the astronomical motions. It de-

Western Physics Comes to China

13

scribed how the Sun acts upon the planets like a magnet acts upon iron. The Lishu also referred to Kepler’s book, The New Astronomy, but did not adopt the most important aspect of Kepler’s work, the first and second laws of planetary motion. The absence of the two laws clearly indicated that the compilers did not want to choose the heliocentric system as the foundation for the Chinese calendar. Kepler’s laws were eventually introduced into China by Ignatius Kogler (1680–1746) only after 1742 in an ingenious but incorrect form. According to Kepler’s first law, planets move around the Sun in elliptic orbits and the Sun sits in one focus of each ellipse. Because Kogler and his Chinese collaborators did not want to break with the imperially approved Tychonic system, they changed Kepler’s first law and put the Earth instead of the Sun at the focus and let the Sun orbit around the Earth. Despite its mathematical equivalence to Kepler’s original law, this upside-down version of Kepler’s first law cannot be applied to planetary motions at all, because the Earth is not a common focus for the planetary ellipses.44 Since what concerned the Chinese were the Sun and the Moon’s motions and their eclipses, rather than general planetary motions, they either did not realize or ignored the consequences of Kogler’s mistake.

An Interruption Among the 131 scientific works rendered into Chinese by Jesuits between 1584 and 1790, 120 (92 percent) were completed in the seventeenth century. Only ten (four for mathematics and six for astronomy) were translated in the eighteenth century. Not only were fewer scientific works published in the eighteenth century, but the total number of Jesuit publications also declined from 369 in the seventeenth century to 55 in the eighteenth century.45 This dramatic drop in publications was largely a consequence of the so-called “controversy of rites.” Although Emperor Kangxi issued an edict in 1692 granting toleration to the Christian religion, he also insisted that Chinese converts be able to continue to practice the Chinese rites of ancestor worship and public homage to Confucius. When Pope Clement XI and his emissary in China bitterly disagreed with the emperor’s stipulation and forbade Catholic missionaries to acquiesce, the emperor ordered the expulsion of all missionaries who refused to accept his position. Both sides suffered in the controversy.

14

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

This mutual hard line wrecked the power base of the missions in China and effectively prevented the spread of Western teaching and science. Had either side been more flexible, then later in the eighteenth century, when the Catholic church accepted the findings of Galileo and the missionaries started to introduce up-todate Western astronomy to the Chinese, the new knowledge and techniques might have led to significant changes in Chinese attitudes about thought and nature.46 After Kangxi died in 1722, his son Emperor Yongzheng (r. 1723– 1735) and grandson Emperor Qianlong (r. 1736–1795) carried on an even sterner policy toward Catholic missionaries. According to Emperor Yongzheng’s edict, all missionaries in China, except for the few on duty at the court in Beijing, were ordered to stay in Canton or Macao.47 Thus from the 1720s to the 1840s, Western missionaries were virtually banned from most areas of China.48 Only after the first Opium War (1839–42) could missionaries, supported by Western military powers, set foot once again in mainland China. This time, however, it was Protestants, not Jesuits, who would play the key role in disseminating Western science in China.

Scientific Translations in the 1800s Robert Morrison (1782–1834) was the first Protestant missionary to China, arriving in 1807; however, the Protestants did not contribute to the cause of scientific translation until forty years later. Protestant missionaries initially made few contributions to science in China, because there were almost no scientific works among the Protestant publications.49 In fact, Protestants had little influence on mainland Chinese in general because of the ban on foreign missionaries at this time. Protestants were thus forced to concentrate their missionary work among the overseas Chinese on Southeast Asian islands such as Malacca, Singapore, and Batavia. Meanwhile Protestants attempted to contact the Chinese in Guangzhou, Macao, and Hong Kong, but the occasional distribution of religious publications by a few missionaries in limited areas made little impression on Chinese literati.50 The situation for Protestants and other foreign missionaries in China changed sharply in the 1840s. Defeated in the first Opium War

Western Physics Comes to China

15

(1840–1842), the Qing court was forced to sign a series of humiliating treaties with the British, the Americans, and the French in the following years. These treaties forced China to give up its control of vital elements of China’s commercial, social, and foreign policies. In particular, China was forced, mostly because of U.S. pressure, to change dramatically its policy toward Christian missionaries. By 1845 Emperor Yongzheng’s edicts against missionaries had been reversed and full toleration was granted to both Catholics and Protestants.51 With the protection of a series of unequal treaties, Protestant missionaries were able to enter mainland China freely to preach, practice medicine, set up schools, and build printing houses. Among the Protestant printing houses in China, the London Mission Press (LMP) in Shanghai stood out by pioneering the translation and publication of Western science books. It was these scientific translations that revived the introduction of Western science in China, more than a century after the Jesuits had been required to halt their efforts.

Translating Science to Spread the Gospel The first Protestant publications of scientific writings in Chinese appeared in the late 1840s. Most of these works conveyed popular knowledge of astronomy52 with serious translations of Western academic works beginning only after 1850. Almost all significant scientific translations during the 1850s were completed at one place: the London Mission Press (LMP). The LMP was first established in Southeast Asia after 1810. In 1843, after the first Opium War, Walter H. Medhurst (1796–1857), founder of the LMP, moved the press to Shanghai, one of the five newly opened treaty ports, where it became better known under the Chinese name Mohai Shuguan. In 1847, Alexander Wylie (1815–1887) arrived from London to take charge of the LMP. Under his supervision, the publishing house produced the first academic translations of scientific subjects in the nineteenth century. The translations involved subjects such as mathematics, physical sciences, and biology, and included remarkable works such as Euclid’s Elements (Books 7–15) (1857),53 Whewell’s An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics (1859), De Morgan’s Elements of Algebra (1859), Loomis’s Elements of Analytical Geometry and of Differential and Integral Calculus (1859), Herschel’s The Outlines of Astronomy (1859), and Lindley’s Ele-

16

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ments of Botany (1859). The LMP also reprinted Hobson’s Natural Philosophy (1855) soon after its first publication in Guangzhou.54 As the supervisor of the LMP and an enthusiastic translator himself, Wylie contributed a great deal to the renewed effort to bring Western scientific thought to China. Wylie, son of a Scottish businessman, was born in London. He left school young and was apprenticed to a cabinetmaker. Even though he had little formal education, Wylie eventually became one of the most erudite scholars among the missionaries in China, and for the most part was self-taught. At the age of about thirty, Wylie taught himself Chinese in London using only a Latin book on Chinese and a copy of a Chinese translation of the Bible, but he first had to teach himself Latin in order to read the book on Chinese. Within a year Wylie had mastered basic Chinese well enough to read the gospels with tolerable accuracy, an achievement that greatly surprised a member of the London Missionary Society who had just returned from China. Looking for a supervisor for the LMP in Shanghai, the London Missionary Society chose Wylie. After a six-month training in printing, Wylie was dispatched to Shanghai, arriving in August 1847.55 During the 1850s, Wylie translated at least six works in mathematics and the physical sciences.56 It was a tremendous challenge for Wylie to make these translations because of his lack of formal scientific training. Fortunately, Li Shanlan, who became his collaborator, was one of the leading Chinese mathematicians in the nineteenth century and taught Wylie a great deal. For several years, Wylie took mathematics lessons from Li.57 Li Shanlan (1811–1882), a native of Hailing, Zhejiang province, was largely a self-taught mathematician. Like most gifted mathematicians, Li showed his talent at a very early stage, and by the mid-1840s, he had become a well-versed mathematician.58 In the summer of 1852, Li Shanlan moved to Shanghai, where he met Wylie. Within a month or so, Wylie and Li started to collaborate on the translation of Western scientific works.59 The first project Wylie and Li chose to carry out was to translate the last nine books of Euclid’s Elements of Geometry. It was very likely that Li took the initiative to choose Euclid’s Elements.60 Li Shanlan read Ricci and Xu’s translation of Elements (Books 1–6) at the age of thirteen and had ever since regretted that the translation was not complete. Li had longed to read the rest of the work.61 Wylie and Li started the

Western Physics Comes to China

17

translation in 1852 and completed it in 1856.62 The translation was first published in 1857, and in 1865 it was reprinted, together with the first six books translated by Ricci and Xu, under the sponsorship of the governor-general, Zeng Guofan (1811–1872).63 Chinese mathematicians had long had a strong interest in astronomy, perhaps because calendar calculation was part of traditional Chinese mathematics. It was no surprise, therefore, that Wylie and Li agreed that their next project would be to translate an expanded edition of Outline of Astronomy. This work, by John F. W. Herschel (1792–1871), was first published in 1851, but its Chinese translation, Tan Tian (1859), was based on the fifth edition of 1858.64 Tan Tian played a definitive role in China’s reception of both the Copernican heliocentric system and the post-Newtonian cosmology. The translation was very popular and was reprinted and updated many times in various editions.65 Wylie and Li translated several other important mathematical works. Dai shu xue (Elements of Algebra, 1859), by English mathematician Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871), was the first translation into Chinese of modern Western algebra; Dai wei ji shi ji (Elements of Analytical Geometry and of Differential and Integral Calculus, 1859), by U.S. mathematics educator Elias Loomis (1811–1889), was the first Chinese translation of an analytical geometry and calculus text. Loomis’s book was used in China as a textbook in analytical geometry and differential and integral calculus for several decades.66 Both texts were well chosen. De Morgan was a well-known mathematician and an influential teacher in the nineteenth century. De Morgan’s Elements of Algebra was “characterized by meticulous attention to detail, enunciation of fundamental principles, and clear logical presentation.”67 Loomis, a mathematics professor at Yale University, was a popular textbook writer in nineteenthcentury America.68 Since calculus is known as “the language of physics,” Loomis’s textbook had a far-reaching impact on the development of physics in China.69 Why did Wylie, a missionary, want to translate these scientific works into Chinese? An answer is indicated in the preface to Tan Tian, where he stated: [The astronomical phenomena] cannot fail to awaken in inquisitive minds of a certain order, a desire to become better acquainted with those and kindred facts in nature, which is calculated to exer-

18

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

cise a healthful influence on the intellectual character. That such facts may lead to juster and more exalted conceptions of “Him who hath created these orbs,—who bringeth forth their host by number and calleth them all by their names;—who hath made the earth by His power, established the world by His wisdom, and stretched out the heavens by His understanding,” is the sincere desire of the translator.70 In other words, Wylie’s sincere desire in translating the astronomical work was to “awaken” Chinese intellectuals and to lead them to the Christian God. Wylie also declared his wishes to glorify the Creator in other scientific translations of his, even in mathematical works. For example, in the preface to Dai shu xue (Elements of Algebra), Wylie wrote, “The reason that I worked so hard in translating this book is that God gave intelligence to human beings so that we can use it. As a Christian, we should think really hard to find exquisite principles set forth by God. . . . The translation of this book aims to help readers realize their intelligence, and, as a result, to feel the mercy from God.”71 Therefore, just as his Supplementary Elements of Geometry followed Ricci’s translation, Wylie’s idea of using Western scientific works to help spread the gospel was also in line with Ricci’s approach of academic preaching. By 1859, Joseph Edkins (1823–1905), Alexander Williamson (1829– 1890), Wang Tao (1828–1897), and Zhang Fuxi (d. 1862) had also joined the translation project at LMP. In 1853, Edkins and Zhang translated Guang lun (On Optics), the earliest systematic study on optics in China. However, the text was not published until near the end of the century.72 In 1858, a booklet titled Zhongxue qianshuo (Popular Treatise on Mechanics), translated by Wylie and Wang Tao, was published.73 The most important physics work among the LMP’s translations during the 1850s was Zhong xue (An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics, 1858) by William Whewell. The text was translated by Li and Edkins.74 Li’s interest in mechanics probably came from two sources. First, as a mathematician, Li might well have a natural interest in the “applied mathematics,” which was how Wylie regarded mechanics.75 Second, and more important, Li’s translation of Herschel’s astronomical work required Li to have some knowledge of mechanics. As Edkins told him, one had to start with mechanics in order to study astronomy.76 Li

Western Physics Comes to China

19

started to work on the translation of Whewell’s Treatise while he was translating Euclid’s Elements with Wylie. Li worked on Elements in the morning and on the Treatise in the afternoon. In two years, both translations were completed.77 Zhong xue was the first treatise on the Western theory of mechanics translated in China since 1627, when Johann Terrentius and Wang Zheng translated the Qiqi tushuo. By the 1850s, the Qiqi tushuo had been left far behind, because of the great advances in the theory of mechanics and mathematics.78 Therefore, the translation of Whewell’s treatise introduced these Western advances to the Chinese. In other words, Zhong xue was the first introduction of Newtonian mechanics as a whole new scientific system.79 One of the significant features of Zhong xue was the application of calculus in solving mechanical problems, a result of reforms in England’s scientific education early in the nineteenth century. Zhong xue had three main parts: statics, dynamics, and fluid mechanics.80 The third part was added by the translators and was not translated from Whewell’s Treatise. The whole work was divided into twenty chapters ( juans). The first seven chapters belonged to statics, which provided detailed discussion on the composition and resolution of forces, machines, centers of gravity, and other problems in statics. Some of the contents in the first seven chapters had been discussed in the earlier works translated by Terrentius and Verbiest. From the eighth to the seventeenth chapter, Zhong xue addressed problems of dynamics, such as uniform motion, uniformly accelerated motion, collisions, the motion of projectiles, motion upon a curve, motion of translation, motion of rotation, friction, and work and energy. Here Zhong xue introduced into China for the first time Newton’s three fundamental laws of motion, the study of collisions using the concept of momentum, and the work-energy theorem.81 In the last three chapters, Zhong xue introduced general features of fluid mechanics, such as pressure, buoyant force, resistance, and velocity. It also included Archimedes’ buoyancy principle, Boyle’s law, and Torricelli’s experiment.82 Zhong xue was reprinted twice within ten years after its first publication. As soon as Li and Edkins completed the translation of the Treatise, Qian Dingqing, a wealthy businessman at Songjiang, had the manuscript cut on wood at his own expense. When the wooden blocks were finished in 1859, “insurrectionary disturbances supervened,” and all the

20

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

blocks were destroyed before ten copies were printed; thus perished the first edition of Zhong xue. After the suppression of the Taiping Rebellion, the second edition of Zhong xue was printed in Nanjing in 1866 at the expense and under the direction of the governor-general, Li Hongzhang. Then, in 1867, the third edition was published in Shanghai “through the liberality of a gentlemen, who has distinguished himself by the interest he takes in the civilization and intellectual improvement of the Chinese.” These repeated reprints in the 1860s attested to the popularity of Zhong xue. Wylie himself testified to this, claiming that there was “a class of natives, who eagerly devote themselves to kindred subjects [like the Treatise].”83 Qian Dingqing encouraged Li Shanlan to translate Pierre-Simon Laplace’s works and promised to support the publication. Qian had heard of Laplace’s great achievements in astronomy and mechanics and believed Laplace’s works to be more advanced than Whewell’s.84 What Qian heard about Laplace was certainly true, but no evidence has been found to indicate that Laplace’s works were translated into Chinese during the nineteenth century. Before the impact of Zhong xue in China can be understood, a discussion of the author and the original is necessary. William Whewell (1794– 1866) was one of the central figures in Victorian science, well known for his admirable intelligence and breadth of scholarship. Whewell graduated from Trinity College, and his first publication was the Treatise on Mechanics. The first edition of the Treatise was issued in 1819, when Whewell was enthusiastically engaged in the reform of science education in Britain. Together with a group of reformers led by John Herschel, Whewell intended to “convert Cambridge from its Newtonian slumbers to the modern methods of French analysts, notably Lagrange and Laplace.”85 Whewell’s Treatise was a powerful weapon for these reformers. “The Elementary Treatise gradually and progressively used the calculus in solving problems, in the hope of tempting the student (and his tutor) by the ease and elegance of such methods of solution into becoming interested in the new approach.” The reform succeeded and Whewell made a significant contribution to the development of physics not only at Cambridge, but also in Britain. Through translations, Whewell’s reform effort was also introduced to his Chinese readers.86 The experience of translating Whewell’s Treatise on Mechanics and

Western Physics Comes to China

21

Herschel’s Outline of Astronomy aroused Li’s admiration for Issac Newton. Thus, beginning probably in 1859, Li and Wylie started to translate the Principia.87 But the translation was interrupted in 1860 when Wylie returned to England. It was not until 1868 that Li resumed the work, this time in collaboration with John Fryer at the Jiangnan Arsenal’s Translation Bureau. However, at the government’s call, Li soon left Shanghai for Beijing to become a professor of mathematics at the Tong Wen Guan, the first modern government school where foreign languages and Western science were taught. Consequently the translation of Principia stopped there and remained uncompleted.88 How much of the Principia had been translated is still in question. According to Fryer, the unfinished Chinese manuscript, which was titled Shuli gezhi, contained a complete translation of Book I (fourteen sections).89 However, the manuscript recently discovered by Han Qi, a Chinese historian, contains only “Definitions,” “Axioms, or Laws of Motion,” and the first four sections of Book I.90 The unfinished manuscript was never published because the Chinese translation had never been elaborated. Li did not get a chance to do it and, before he died, he sent the manuscript to his mathematician friend Hua Hengfang and asked him to proofread it. Hua, however, found the task beyond his capability and thus shelved it after several attempts. The unfinished translation of Principia was eventually lost in 1898.91 The LMP occasionally also reprinted scientific works. One remarkable reprint was Benjamin Hobson’s Natural Philosophy, which was first published in Guangzhou in 1855 and reprinted at the LMP in the same year. Natural Philosophy contains three books dealing respectively with physics and chemistry, astronomy, and natural history.92 Book I presented various physics topics, such as atmospheric pressure and its application; the principle and structure of the air pump; acoustic transmission through air; the three states of matter and their interchanges; the principles and structure of steam engines; light transmission, lens images, and prism chromatic dispersion; and the electric generator and accumulator, the telegram, electromagnet, and finally the lightening rod.93 The scientific translations at the LMP significantly helped China’s scientific development in the nineteenth century. First, these translations resumed the spread of Western scientific ideas that was begun by the Jesuits in the seventeenth century but was interrupted between the

22

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

early eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries. Second, the LMP translations in the 1850s greatly enriched Chinese scientific terminology, which was going to be needed for the Chinese to understand and to disseminate modern science, especially the physical sciences. The new technical terms created at the LMP were widely adopted by translators in the following generations, and many of those terms are still used today.94 Third, many of these LMP translations were reprinted repeatedly and widely distributed during the late Qing period.95 The golden time for the LMP was over by 1860, after a series of departures and deaths.96 Wylie was on leave and left Shanghai for England in November 1860. When he returned to China in 1863, he worked for the Bible Society instead of the LMP.97 Li also left the LMP in 1860; Wang Tao left in 1862. In 1860 the Taiping Rebellion reached the Suzhou and Shanghai areas. Zhang Fuxi and Guan Sifu, the other two Chinese scholars working at the LMP, were killed by the Taiping rebels in 1862.98 The rise of the American Presbyterian Mission Press in Shanghai in 1860 likely also contributed to the decline of the LMP.99 The year 1860 was a turning point not only for the LMP, but also for the general introduction of science into nineteenth-century China. Before 1860, Protestant missionaries played a major role in scientific translations. Although missionary presses and societies continued to make contributions after 1860, the Chinese government played an increasingly active role in producing and distributing scientific translations in the name of self-strengthening.

A Nation Translates to Self-Strengthen During the 1850s and the 1860s, the Qing rulers found themselves threatened from within and without. On the one hand, prolonged fightings with the Taiping (1851–1864), the Nian (1853–1868), and other rebels had resulted in “gigantic human catastrophes in the interior” and seriously crippled the Qing state.100 On the other hand, China’s international position had further deteriorated by 1860. In 1858, the British imposed on the Qing government the Treaty of Tianjin that had extraordinarily strict terms regarding preaching of Christianity, travel, and opening more treaty ports in China. To enforce the treaty, the British marched into Beijing and burnt to the ground the exquisite royal summer palace, Yuan Ming Yuan, in the suburbs of the Chinese

Western Physics Comes to China

23

capital.101 Humiliating defeats by Western forces and the eventual suppression of domestic revolts using imported western weapons prompted the rise of the self-strengthening movement, which aimed to maintain domestic order and defend China against foreign aggression. To achieve this, the “self-strengtheners” considered it their primary task to learn military technology from the West, which in turn propelled foreign language studies and scientific translations. tong wen guan The defeat in the second Opium War (1856–1860) by the AngloFrench allied forces once again created an urgent need of the Qing government for competent interpreters in order to cope with increasing numbers of negotiations with foreign powers. In 1862, the Tong Wen Guan (TWG), a new government school, was established in Beijing.102 Although it was originally set up as a language school to train competent personnel and translators for government services, the TWG soon expanded its curriculum to include mathematics and science. W. A. P. Martin, an American professor at the TWG, thus compiled and translated into Chinese a remarkable textbook of physics and chemistry. The book, first printed in 1866, was titled Gewu rumen (Natural Philosophy).103 Martin (1827–1916) was a son of a Presbyterian minister in Indiana. In 1846, Martin graduated from Indiana University, where he had completed a liberal arts curriculum with a heavy emphasis on “mathematics, chemistry, descriptive geometry, heat, electricity, optics, astronomy, and mechanics.”104 Martin sailed for China at the age of twenty-two. When he arrived in Ningbo, China, he immediately began to learn Chinese. Martin’s great aptitude for languages served him well. In only a few years, Martin had mastered both spoken and written Chinese. In 1865, Martin succeeded John Fryer of England as the English professor at the TWG.105 Gewu rumen (Rumen hereafter) was a serious attempt to explain a broad range of Western science, mainly physics and chemistry, to lay Chinese readers.106 Rumen consisted of seven books. The first five books dealt with elementary physics and included studies on water (hydraulics), air, sound, heat, optics, electricity, telegraphy, magnetism, mechanics, and simple machines.107 What is remarkable about Rumen is that it introduced to Chinese literature both undulatory optics and

24

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

its fundamental physical hypothesis: the luminiferous ether. Both are physical concepts crucial to the understanding of the theory of relativity.108 Rumen employed a question-and-answer format. Basic physical principles and laws were explained through problem solutions, and beautiful illustrations helped readers to understand the text. These features may explain why it was a popular textbook for many years in both China and Japan. Rumen or its individual books were later reprinted many times. A revised and enlarged edition of Rumen was in print as late as 1899.109 Nevertheless, Rumen had a serious drawback: it did not discuss mechanics until the fifth book. Since mechanics has been the foundation for all other physical theories, the illogical arrangement in Rumen made it difficult for readers to understand many physics phenomena discussed in the first four books.110 Moreover, the Chinese text of Rumen was poor and sometimes hardly understandable.111 the jiangnan arsenal The suppression of domestic rebellions saw the rise to power of two Confucian-educated scholars: Zeng Guofan (1811–1872) and Li Hongzhang (1823–1901). Successful personal experience in suppressing Taiping and Nian rebels using Western weaponry convinced Zeng and Li Hongzhang of the effectiveness of Western technology. Repeated defeats by Western powers only strengthened their determination to learn and adopt Western military technology to build China’s own strong ships and powerful cannons. Both Zeng and Li thus became leading advocates of the self-strengthening movement and helped to found the Jiangnan Arsenal in Shanghai in 1865.112 Prompted by Xu Shou and other advisers, Zeng Guofan agreed to establish the Translation Bureau at the Jiangnan Arsenal (hereafter the TBJA) in 1868. The core staff at the bureau included three Chinese and one Englishman—Xu Shou, Xu Jianyin, Hua Hengfang, and John Fryer. Later, many other people—such as Li Shanlan, Wang Dejun, Li Baofeng, Jia Buwei, Alexander Wylie, Carl Kreyer, and Young Allen— also participated in the translation work at the bureau.113 The TBJA remained active up to the beginning of the twentieth century, but it was most productive during its first ten years. After the 1880s, especially after the death of Xu Shou, the TBJA declined, despite a short revival in 1895.114 During the TBJA’s most productive

Western Physics Comes to China

25

years, Xu Shou, Xu Jianyin, and John Fryer were the three main contributors to the scientific translations. The following more detailed discussion of these remarkable figures will focus on how Chinese intellectuals reacted to Western science and technology, and the roles played by the Qing government and foreign missionaries in the dissemination of Western science. Xu Shou (1818–1884)115 was a native of Wuxi in southern Jiangsu province, an area of wealth, increased commercialization, and dense population in mid-nineteenth century China. The area was also well known for its great contributions to traditional Chinese scholarship and culture. In addition, because of its easy traffic and proximity to Shanghai and other treaty ports, it became one of the first regions in China that was open to the world after the middle of the nineteenth century. Xu’s father died when Xu was age five, and his mother died when he was seventeen. The early loss of his parents prevented him from having enough resources to support his pursuit of an official degree by passing the traditional civil service examinations. The family misfortune might have contributed to Xu’s independence of character, however. Like most boys in the area, Xu took the traditional civil service exams at an early age. After failing several times to pass even the entry-level examination, he denounced the whole exercise as impractical and gave up any further attempts to pursue academic titles and official ranks through this route.116 It was probably relatively easier for Xu to reject the traditional route for Chinese intellectuals to wealth and power because his family had not produced an official degree-holder for several generations.117 Xu Shou was free to pursue his natural interest in Gezhi or natural sciences like physics, chemistry, mining, and so on. In the early 1850s, Xu, his son Jianyin, and his friend Hua Hengfang visited Shanghai,118 where they became acquainted with Li Shanlan and purchased some newly published books on science and some apparatus for conducting electrical experiments. Among the books they obtained was Benjamin Hobson’s Bowu xinbian (1855), a general introduction to the then-current knowledge on all major branches of science. Following instructions in Hobson’s book and using the apparatus they purchased in Shanghai, Xu and his friends conducted many scientific experiments. Xu’s talent and knowledge of Western science and technology became so widely known that he was recruited by Zeng Guofan in the early 1860s to work on building a steamship. Within three years, Xu Shou,

26

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

assisted by Hua Hengfang and Xu Jianyin, successfully built China’s first steamship in Anqing, Anhui province, based merely on some illustrations in Hobson’s Bowu xinbian. From the creation of the TBJA in 1868 to the end of his life in 1884, Xu Shou stayed in Shanghai translating scientific works in collaboration with Fryer. Xu Shou translated at least thirty-six works, thirty of which were published.119 Among his published translations, eight works dealt directly with chemistry, marking the beginning of modern chemical study in China. Xu thus became regarded as the father of modern Chinese chemistry. Xu Jianyin (1845–1901) was the second son of Xu Shou. Jianyin accompanied his father to Shanghai when he was only seven years old.120 The father’s enthusiasm for Western science and technology deeply influenced the son. In the early 1860s, Xu Jianyin followed his father and moved to Anqing, Anhui province, where Xu Shou served Zeng Guofan as his personal adviser. In Anqing, Xu Jianyin, although still a teenager, demonstrated his talent by offering many creative ideas to overcome difficulties in building China’s first steamship. In 1867, Xu Jianyin moved to Shanghai with his father and was appointed to the official staff at the TBJA. At the TBJA, Xu Jianyin met his colleague John Fryer, and soon the two built a very close, fraternal relationship, which lasted until the mid-1880s.121 Over the years of the collaboration with Fryer, Xu Jianyin produced thirty-four translated works, among which twenty-two were published. On behalf of his father, Xu Jianyin later traveled around the country to disseminate the experience obtained in building the Jiangnan Arsenal. He was therefore credited with the successful establishment of many other government arsenals. In early 1879, Xu Jianyin was sent to Europe to inspect and purchase warships and to investigate European factories of all kinds. In March 1901, Xu Jianyin died in an explosion during the experimental production of smokeless gunpowder, or nitrocellulose, under his direction.122 Among the Protestant missionaries in nineteenth-century China, John Fryer (1839–1928) made the most significant contributions not only to the TBJA translations but also to the propagation of science in general. Fryer was the eldest son of a poor English family.123 His father was an itinerant lay preacher, a fact that probably affected Fryer’s later career as a lay Christian missionary in China. Both Fryer’s parents were strongly interested in China, which must have influenced the young

Western Physics Comes to China

27

Fryer because at school he always chose to write about China whenever he could.124 Fryer graduated as a teacher in 1861 from Highbury Training College, London. That same year, after he was offered a teaching position in Hong Kong, Fryer traveled to China. In 1863, Fryer was appointed as an English professor at Tong Wen Guan in Beijing, where he perfected his command of Mandarin Chinese. Fryer left Beijing for Shanghai in 1865, where he worked as an editor of the Shanghai Xinbao (Shanghai Gazette) before he joined the TBJA in 1868. At the TBJA, Fryer worked as a scientific translator for twenty-eight years. His contributions at the TBJA can be summarized as follows: First, Fryer was the single most productive translator among all Protestant missionaries. He translated seventy-seven books, or more than one-third of the translations at the TBJA. Second, he made great contributions to the translation project through his role in selecting and ordering books from England. He was also responsible for promoting the translated works. Third, he established a series of regulations for translating scientific terminology, which had a far-reaching influence on the later scientific transmission in China. Finally, many of Fryer’s translations had relatively high academic value.125 Fryer translated more than a dozen physics books, but most of them could be described as scientific popularizations. This resulted from his lack of training in science and, especially, mathematics. In fact, only after he was appointed translator at the TBJA did Fryer start to teach himself the various scientific subjects needed for his work. Shortly after his appointment, he wrote, I have always loved science but have never had the time or opportunity to cultivate it. Now it is my duty and a very pleasant duty it is too. I go at it in real earnest and although I shall never be a scientific man I yet aspire to becoming familiar with several of its branches. I have begun by studying and translating three subjects at once. In the morning I take coal and coal-mining in all its details, in the afternoon I dig into chemistry and in the evening acoustics.126 As a result of his lack of scientific training, Fryer “often avoided subjects such as aspects of physics or astronomy, where the contemporary mathematical treatments had become very sophisticated, and preferred

28

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

to deal with subjects such as chemistry, which were still to a large extent descriptive.”127 This also explains why Fryer translated several introductory pamphlets on electromagnetism but never touched James C. Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. Nevertheless, Fryer was one of the most important contributors to the introduction of science into China during the last third of the nineteenth century.128 Thanks to the hard work of Xu Shou, Xu Jianyin, Fryer, and other Chinese and foreign staff members, the TBJA translated more scientific and technological works than any other government agency.129 Most of these translations were produced before 1880. By June 1879, 156 works had been translated, of which 98 had been published. “The number of copies of [translated] works sold up to the end of June [1879], amounts to 31,111, representing 83,454 volumes.”130 During the TBJA’s forty-five years in existence from 1868 to 1913,131 it produced at least 178 translated works.132 Seventy-eight percent of the TBJA’s translations dealt with subjects in natural science (sixty-six), military science (thirty-eight), and engineering (thirty-five). Among the sixty-six books on natural science, twenty-six were on astronomy and mathematics, seventeen on geology and mining, fourteen on physics, and nine on chemistry.133 Among the fourteen physics translations,134 two works by British physicist John Tyndall were particularly remarkable, because they offered more advanced physics than the others and because they triggered a brief scientific exchange between British and Chinese scholars. John Tyndall (1820–1893), son of an ardent Orangeman, grew up in Carlow, Ireland. Educated at a national school, Tyndall gained a vision of science shaped by his private reading. After working as a draftsman, civil engineer, and college instructor in the 1840s, he went to Germany and studied at the University of Marburg in 1848. He earned his doctorate in mathematics at Marburg and then undertook his first scientific research, involving experimental physics. After 1851, Tyndall became a researcher, educator, and popularizer in British science. With Michael Faraday’s patronage, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1852. The following year, his reputation rising, Tyndall became professor of natural philosophy at the Royal Institution, where he developed his natural talents for lecturing and research under Faraday’s guidance. In 1867 he succeeded Faraday as superintendent of the Royal Institution, a position that “gave him a central vantage point in British science” for the next twenty years or so.135

Western Physics Comes to China

29

Between 1853 and 1874, Tyndall pursued research that was in “a steady progression within physics.” Both his works, Sound and Light, were published during this period. Sound was first published in 1867 and was reprinted many times in the next thirty years.136 Its Chinese translation, Sheng xue, which was based on the second edition, was first printed in Shanghai in 1874.137 Sound138 was designed for lay readers. Tyndall wished “to render the science of acoustics interesting to all intelligent persons, including those who do not possess any special scientific culture.” Tyndall treated the subject “experimentally throughout” in order to “place each experiment before the reader, that he should realise it as an actual operation.” He desired “to give distinct images of the various phenomena of acoustics, and to cause them to be seen mentally in their true relations.”139 When Sound was first published in 1867, a scientific movement was taking place in British schools and universities, and Tyndall had a “direct and profound” influence on the movement, which, he trusted, would “end in the recognition of its claims, both as a source of knowledge and as a means of discipline.”140 Part of Tyndall’s intention in publishing Sound was to “aid those engaged in the movement” by showing “the features and the mien of physical science to men of influence who derive their culture from another source.” The book was based on his eight lectures at the Royal Institution of Great Britain.141 One of the institution’s functions was to promote science by presenting series of popular scientific lectures.142 In the lectures, a speaker was supposed to demonstrate and explain scientific discoveries to an audience who were interested in science but might not have any systematic training in a scientific subject. Consequently, it is not surprising that a book based on lectures by a talented speaker such as Tyndall would be not only easily understandable, but also popular. After the Chinese translation Sheng xue was published, Fryer, one of the translators, sent Tyndall a copy with a letter, in which Fryer wrote that “his Chinese friend had no difficulty in grasping every idea in the book.”143 Sheng xue consists of eight chapters ( juan), which were titled, respectively “A General Theory of Production and Propagation of Sound,” “Principles of Sound Production,” “On Sound out of Strings,” “On Sound out of Bells and Disks,” “On Sound out of Pipes,” “On Sound Produced by Mo-Dang” (friction and vibrations), “On Interference and Coincidence of Sonorous Waves,” and “On Combination of Musi-

30

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

cal Sound.” Each juan in Sheng xue corresponds to a lecture in Tyndall’s Sound. Sheng xue introduced many new physical concepts and was the first work that provided detailed and systematic discussions of acoustic theories and experiments.144 In the following thirty years Sheng xue, which remained the most influential acoustic work in China, was reprinted several times by different publishers and widely distributed because of its inexpensive price (only one shilling and eightpence per copy).145 Until the beginning of the twentieth century, much of the acoustic knowledge in Sheng xue was still considered “quite penetrating,” and translations of later works were hard to find in China.146 The translation of Tyndall’s Sound not only introduced recent Western acoustic knowledge into China; it also generated perhaps the earliest scientific exchange in modern times between British scientists and their Chinese counterparts. The story of how Sound came to be chosen for translation is also very interesting, revealing, among other things, how the TBJA operated. In 1875, when Fryer sent a copy of the Chinese translation of Sound to Tyndall, he described how it was decided to translate the book, a story that showed how this book fascinated its Chinese readers: One day, soon after the first copy of your work on Sound reached Shanghai, I was reading it in my study, when an intelligent official, named Hsü-chung-hu [i.e. Xu Jianyin], noticed some of the engravings and asked me to explain them to him. He became so deeply interested in the subject of Acoustics, that nothing would satisfy him but to make a translation. Since, however, engineering and other works were then considered to be of more practical importance by the higher authorities, we agreed to translate your work during our leisure time every evening, and publish it separately ourselves. Our translation, however, when completed, and shown to the higher officials, so much interested them, and pleased them, that they at once ordered it to be published at the expense of the Government, and sold at cost price.147 The Chinese translation of Sound greatly interested Xu Shou and prompted him to make his own experiments and to exchange opinions with British scientists. As a young man, Xu Shou was particularly fond

Western Physics Comes to China

31

of and good at making replicas of ancient musical instruments and scientific apparatuses, such as magnetic compasses and quadrants, an interest that led him into a creative study of acoustics.148 Because of his interest in and familiarity with ancient Chinese studies of harmonics, Xu Shou was naturally very interested in Fryer and Xu Jianyin’s translation. Xu Shou not only compared the traditional Chinese results with Tyndall’s, but also did some experiments himself, which eventually led to the publication of his own experimental results in Nature, the first known publication of a Chinese scientist’s work appearing in a major Western scientific journal:149 In ancient Chinese works on music it is stated that strings or pipes produce an octave or twelve semitones higher or lower by halving or doubling their length. In a work written during the Ming dynasty by Chen-toai-yoh it is stated that this rule will only hold good with strings, but not with open pipes such as the flute or flageolet. Some years ago I tried to investigate the cause of this difference and its exact amount. A round open brass tube, say nine inches long, gave a certain note by pressing the end of it against the upper lip and blowing through an embouchure made there. Cutting off half the tube, the remaining four and a half inches would not sound the octave; but by cutting off half an inch more, thus leaving four inches in length, the octave was sounded accurately. This experiment was tried on tubes of various lengths and diameters with a similar result, viz. that four-ninths of the length always sounded the octave more or less exactly. Looking at a foreign keyed flute I noticed the same principle carried out in the arrangements for producing octaves. I could not however see the reason why open pipes should not follow the same rule as strings and closed pipes. When I read the translation of Prof. Tyndall’s treatise “On Sound,” I was surprised to find the old Chinese idea strictly maintained. It says (p. 214): “In both stopped and open pipes the number of vibrations executed in a given time is inversely proportional to the length of the pipe.” According to this, as the octave of any note has to execute exactly double the number of vibrations in a

32

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

given time, an open pipe ought to be exactly halved to make it sound an octave higher. This I have shown to be erroneous by my experiments. Fearing that I have misunderstood the English professor’s meaning, I beg that he may be written to on this subject, and that my doubts may be thereby cleared up. What I want to know is the exact proportion in length that exists between any open pipe and a pipe of similar diameter sounding its octave higher. Also the exact proportions in length for each of the open pipes sounding the twelve semitones which form a scale of one octave. If the length forming the octave in open pipes does not agree with the length for strings or closed pipes, then the lengths of all the pipes giving intermediate notes must also differ. How are these lengths to be calculated? Can they be expressed by any mathematical curve or formula? Why does not the same rule hold good for open pipes as for strings or stopped pipes? I have a theory of my own, but I do not feel sufficient confidence in myself to make it public until I have bestowed more thought and attention upon it. In the meantime I shall be glad if any foreign scientists can enable me to understand this interesting and important subject. The theory and practice of music in China has gradually become vitiated through errors in the construction of musical instruments, and I am therefore desirous of having a scientific basis upon which a reformation may be effected.150 Fryer reported Xu Shou’s experimental results and questions in his letter to both Tyndall and Nature in June 1880. Tyndall did not reply,151 but Nature published the letter with an editorial remark, regarding Xu Shou’s observation as “a really scientific modern correction of an old law [that] has most singularly turned up from China, and has been substantiated with the most primitive apparatus.” A referee of the letter, Dr. W. H. Stone, pointed out that Xu Shou “is perfectly correct in his observations.” After introducing the solutions obtained by European scientists to Xu Shou’s questions, Stone concluded, “It is not a little interesting that a confirmation of this little-known fact should have come from so far off, and have been obtained by such simple experimental means.”152 The publication of Sheng xue helped prepare the Chinese for another remarkable book, Tyndall’s Light. Similar to Sound, Light, published in

Western Physics Comes to China

33

1870, was a collection of Tyndall’s lecture notes delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in spring 1869. The Chinese translation, Guang xue, was published in 1876. Sheng xue was helpful for Chinese readers because in Light Tyndall drew analogies between light and sound when he discussed the wave or undulatory theory of light. Guang xue was translated by Zhao Yuanyi (1840–1902) and the American missionary Carl T. Kreyer.153 The content of the book can be divided into two parts: geometrical optics and undulatory optics. Little was new for the Chinese as far as geometrical optics went.154 But the undulatory theory of light, which was a major part of the book, was completely new for the Chinese.155 Tyndall introduced both the corpuscular theory and the wave theory of light, but clearly he was in favor of the wave theory, claiming, “This theory must for the future occupy much of our attention.” Tyndall pointed out that the corpuscular theory of light was proposed by Newton and supported by Laplace, Malus, Biot, and Brewster. Tyndall went on, however, arguing that the corpuscular theory of light “was first opposed by the celebrated astronomer Huygens and the no less celebrated mathematician Euler, both of whom held that light, like sound, was a product of wave motion,” and finally it was “overthrown by the labours of Thomas Young and Augustin Fresnel.”156 In addition, in the second half of the book, Tyndall discussed experiments, principles, and applications of interference, diffraction, and polarization of light, which included invisible rays and fluorescence, spectrum analysis, solar chemistry, and measurement of the waves of light.157 To introduce the wave theory of light, one had to discuss the fundamental hypothesis of the theory, the concept of the luminiferous ether. Einstein abandoned the concept of ether in his special theory of relativity published in 1905; this was a significant obstacle to many Western physicists in accepting the theory. Thus it is of particular interest to see when the concept of the luminiferous ether was introduced in China and what was said about it then. Ten years before the publication of Guang xue, W. A. P. Martin had introduced the hypothetical luminiferous ether in his Gewu rumen (1866),158 where he wrote, There is a finest air, which is different from atmospheric air and fills space. Not only can it penetrate atmospheric air, but also wa-

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

34

ter and all other transparent matters. When the air is at rest, it is concealed; when the air is in motion, it becomes light . . . [light] depends on the finest air to be transmitted, which is different from water’s flowing away, but is similar to the transmission of water waves.159 Guang xue, however, presented a more systematic introduction to the concept of the luminiferous ether. Tyndall had relied on drawing the parallels between sound and light: In the case of sound, the velocity depends upon the relation of elasticity to density in the body which transmits the sound. The greater the elasticity the greater the velocity, and the less the density the greater is the velocity. To account for the enormous velocity of propagation in the case of light, the substance which transmits it is assumed to be of both extreme elasticity and of extreme tenuity. This substance is called the Luminiferous ether. It fills space; it surrounds the atoms of bodies; it extends, without solution of continuity, through the humors of the eye. The molecules of luminous bodies are in a state of vibration. The vibrations are taken up by the ether, and transmitted through it in waves. These waves impinging on the retina excite the sensation of light. In the case of sound, the air-particles oscillate to and fro in the direction in which the sound is transmitted; in the case of light, the ether particles oscillated to and fro across the direction in which the light is propagated. In scientific language the vibrations of sound are longitudinal, while the vibrations of light are transversal. In fact, the mechanical properties of the ether are rather those of a solid than of an air.160 Even though there were several other works on optics published before and after Guang xue, the text remained the best work on optics in terms of the breadth and depth of its content until the end of the nineteenth century.161 the end of the tbja Sheng xue and Guang xue were two of the best-translated works in physics, produced during the golden period of the TBJA (1867–1880). After 1880, the bureau was clearly in decline, despite attempts to revive

Western Physics Comes to China

35

it after 1895.162 Although it was never restored to its full strength, the TBJA did produce a few more remarkable translations at the end of the century. Tong wu dian guang (The X-Rays), translated by John Fryer and Wang Jilie,163 was published in 1899. The original is X-rays, or Photography of the Invisible and Its Value in Surgery, by William J. Morton and Edward W. Hammer.164 German physicist Wilhelm C. Röntgen discovered X-rays in 1895; his discovery was published in early 1896. Within two years, X-rays had been introduced in Guang xue jie yao (An Essential Introduction of Optics). Although Tong wu dian guang was not the first to introduce X-rays in China, it provided a more detailed and systematic introduction to the topic. In 1900, Wuxian dianbao (Wireless Telegraph) was published. The book was translated from a work by John Kerr (1824 –1907), and described in detail the experiments and applications of wireless telegraphy up to 1898.165 Between 1900 and 1903, the TBJA also published an important physics textbook, Wulixue (Physics) edited by the Japanese physicist Iimori Teizo (1851–1916). Physics was translated into Chinese by the Japanese sinologist Fujita Toyohachi (1870–1929) and edited by Wang Jilie (1873–1952).166 Wulixue was considered the most important physics textbook before 1920.167 The TBJA was eventually closed in 1913. Its decline stemmed from many reasons but an important one was that the translation model had become obsolete. With this model, foreigners orally translated and Chinese collaborators recorded and edited. It was developed by Matteo Ricci and had been widely used all over China before the twentieth century. The approach had serious drawbacks, because foreign missionaries had played decisive roles in planning translation projects, whereas Chinese scholars who were completely illiterate in foreign languages had to accept, in most cases passively, their foreign partners’ choice of subjects and scope of translation. For example, when Ricci did not wish to go on, Xu Guangqi had to be satisfied with translating only the first six of the fifteen books of Euclid’s Elements. In the nineteenth century the limited scientific training on the part of Protestant missionaries and lack of knowledge of foreign languages on the part of Chinese intellectuals might well explain the failure of the complete translation of Newton’s Principia by Li Shanlan, Wylie, and Fryer.168 Despite many of its shortcomings, the TBJA was a major contributor in the effort to spread scientific knowledge in China during the last third of the nineteenth century. The scientific translations produced at

36

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

the TBJA also had wide-spread influence among Chinese intellectuals. As Liang Qichao, who was deeply influenced by the translations, recalled in 1922: The most memorable thing during [the self-strengthening movement] was the translation of scientific books at the Jiangnan Arsenal. Although these books look outmoded and superficial today, several gentlemen in that group of translators were faithful to learning. It was very fortunate to have them so that such translations could be produced in those days. This was so because at the time, scholars did not speak any foreign language and those who spoke foreign languages were not scholars.169 The bureau’s impact can also be seen in the cultivation of the first generation of scientists in modern China—such as Xu Shou, Hua Hengfang, and Xu Jianyin—and the fact that the books were used in schools for many years and studied by many of China’s leading scholars and political reformers.170 After 1900, the introduction of science in China increasingly depended on Chinese scholars’ own translations. Foreigners no longer dominated the translating process; with the rise of Western-style schools in China, and with the increase in the number of students who went to study abroad, more and more Chinese became qualified translators, well versed in both the languages and the subjects they translated. All these developments were, however, part of the consequence of educational reforms in the late Qing China.

The Beginning of Physics Education The establishment of the Tong Wen Guan (TWG) in 1862 was the beginning of the late Qing Chinese effort in education reform.171 Although it was set up as a language school to train interpreters for the government, the TWG soon introduced mathematics and other scientific subjects into its curriculum. For example, in 1866 Li Shanlan taught mathematics and W. A. P. Martin lectured in science. In 1879, Charles H. Oliver from England began to teach physical sciences at the TWG. This is considered the starting point of physics education in modern China.172

Western Physics Comes to China

37

During the self-strengthening movement, the Qing government set up many other new schools to teach foreign languages and military and industrial technology. The new schools included in their curricula such subjects as mathematics, physics, chemistry, machine building, astronomy, geology, mineralogy, and foreign languages. In general, physics as a whole or in the form of one or more of its individual branches (such as mechanics, optics, or electricity) was taught at all new military and vocational schools, as physical knowledge was necessary to understand current technologies.173 During the Chinese educational reform in the late nineteenth century, foreign missionaries again played positive roles. Under the unequal treaties signed with Western powers in the mid-nineteenth century, the Qing government was forced to allow missionaries, mainly Protestants, to open their own schools in China. Some missionaries had realized the significance of mission schools and the scientific education taught there. Their hard work and achievements in introducing Westernschool education provided working models and human resources for the Chinese reforms. An outstanding example was Calvin W. Mateer (1836–1908) and his Tengchow Boy’s High School in Shandong province in the 1870s. The school evolved into Tengchow College in the 1880s, the first Christian college in China.174 Mateer was the first child of a Pennsylvanian couple of Scottish descent. The family was devoutly Christian; six of its seven children took holy orders as adults. Mateer graduated from college in 1857 at the top of his class. He was strongly interested and earned excellent grades in mathematics, physics, and chemistry, which created a foundation for his future educational work in China.175 Realizing that missionaries could use Western science to build their reputation and influence in China, Mateer established his school with a strong scientific curriculum, and it was regarded as one of the best among mission schools by the end of the nineteenth century.176 At Tengchow School, one-third of the curriculum consisted of natural science. Mathematics was a required subject for all nine years at the school. Physics and chemistry were taught during the last four years. Mateer himself compiled several mathematics textbooks, which were popular not only among the mission schools but also in many newly established government schools. When teaching physics and chemistry, Mateer required students to learn and remember the principles and laws, and encouraged them to

38

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

conduct experiments using their own hands. For that purpose, Mateer built one of the best school laboratories in China. By the end of the nineteenth century, Tengchow College enjoyed a great reputation. With more and more new schools emerging in China, teachers with knowledge of Western learning, especially Western scientific learning, were in great demand. Not surprisingly, Tengchow College graduates were among the most sought after teacher candidates.177

Studying Abroad The most significant development in the late Qing educational reforms was the government’s decision to send students overseas. This development can be divided into two stages: before and after the Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Prompted by Yung Wing, the first Chinese student to graduate from a U.S. university (Yale University, 1854), the Qing government sent 120 boys to the United States in the early 1870s. They attended local schools and were expected to enter colleges and to master one or more military or engineering techniques that the self-strengtheners desired. This first overseas Chinese educational mission, however, came to a premature end in 1881 and students were brought home, most having not finished college. Conservative opposition back in China certainly contributed to the recall, but U.S. hostility to Chinese nationals was the main reason for the mission’s failure.178 Beginning in 1875, students from the Fuzhou shipyards were sent to Europe to study military strategy, manufacture, and other military techniques. Because of its narrow focus on military techniques, the first educational mission to Europe did little to help China’s educational reform and scientific education. Even though the U.S. mission was abandoned halfway and the mission to Europe had too narrow a perspective, positive consequences demonstrated the value of studying abroad. For example, among the students who returned from the United States emerged many outstanding politicians, diplomats, industrial leaders, engineers, educational administrators, and military officers; among the returned naval students from Europe was Yan Fu (1854–1921), who later translated many influential Western works and introduced social Darwinism in China. Yan was instrumental in arousing a sense of crisis among the Chinese and promoting reforms at the end of the century.179 All the reform programs

Western Physics Comes to China

39

during the self-strengthening movement, however, proved inadequate. Two major blows—the 1894 defeat by Japan and the Boxer Protocol in 1900—forced the Qing government to further its reform in new ways.

The Turning Points In 1894, China was badly defeated in the war against Japan and was forced to sign the humiliating Treaty of Shimonoseki. The defeat and humiliation of imperial China by a small island country shocked the nation. Chinese scholars and officials, shamed and disheartened by the defeat and tragic losses, realized how much Japan had achieved in westernization and reform. In response, many of China’s young scholars, led by Kang Youwei (1858–1927) and Liang Qichao (1873–1929), called for reform. With the support of Emperor Guangxu, Kang, Liang, and other reformists initiated a coherent body of ideas. Education was one of the main areas in which they called for changes, both in the examination system and in school curricula. The reform, however, lasted only 103 days and ended in disaster after a coup led by Empress Dowager Cixi, aunt of Emperor Guangxu.180 Foreign legations in Beijing were disappointed by Empress Dowager Cixi’s coup in the summer of 1898. On her side, Cixi was angry at the foreign legations for their support of Emperor Guangxu and his reform programs. This increasingly intense mutual antipathy coincided with the Boxer Uprising in the areas surrounding Beijing and Tianjin.181 Cixi was happy about the Boxers’ attack on foreigners and later even publicly supported it as revenge. In the early summer of 1900, a large crowd of Boxers—mostly poor peasants who were anti-Christian and antiforeign and practiced a type of martial art—entered Beijing and laid siege to the foreign-legation areas. The uprising was ruthlessly suppressed in August by a joint expeditionary force of eight foreign powers. When the foreign troops marched into Beijing from the east, Cixi and her court fled to the west and did not return until another humiliating treaty, the Boxer Protocol, was signed in 1901.182 The domestic and international political pressure after the Boxer Protocol eventually forced the court of Empress Dowager Cixi not only to reinstate many of the 1898 reform programs, but also to expand them.

40

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

The First National Education System In 1904, the Chinese imperial government promulgated the first modern educational system, Gui mao xue zhi (1904 School System), which was implemented nationwide, remained effective until 1911, and therefore laid a foundation for China’s modern education, including the teaching of physics. To support and popularize school education, the Qing court ordered in 1905 the abolition of the traditional Confucian examination system, which had by then existed in China for more than 1,300 years.183 According to the new regulations, physics was one of eleven required courses in the middle-school curriculum. The content of the physics course included mechanics, acoustics, thermodynamics (Re xue), optics, and electromagnetism.184 Since it required that each of the 185 prefectures have at least one middle school, this system, if fully implemented, would provide a great number of students access to physics education. Moreover, the system also required setting up in the capital of each of twenty-two provinces a three-year high school (Gao deng xue tang), each of which had three kinds of curriculum to prepare students for further study at Imperial University. Students majoring in natural science, engineering, and agriculture were required to take physics three hours a week in the second and third years.185 Only one university, Imperial University in the capital, was listed in the new school system, but it was hoped that each province would have its own university in the future. The university consisted of eight colleges, one of which was the threeyear college of science, which in turn had six departments: mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and geology. Students in the physics program were expected to take twenty-two courses in physics, mathematics, and chemistry (see Table 1.1). The two elective courses for physics students were seismology and geodesy. At the end of the third year, students were required to submit their graduation projects.186 The new school system was a blueprint to develop modern physics education in China.187 Because of a lack of resources in China, however, the system could not be fully implemented and its objectives could not be achieved. The goals of the 1904 proclamation thus “reflect more wishful thinking than real results.”188 Nevertheless, the new system was a significant turning point, because it broke new ground in the development of the Chinese scientific education system. It was the ambitious requirements from the new system that challenged the contemporary

Western Physics Comes to China

41

Table 1.1 Planned physics curriculum at the Imperial University of Beijing (1903)a Primary courses Physics Mechanics Astronomy Physics experiment Mathematical crystallography Physical chemistry Applied mechanics Method of least squares in physics experiment Chemistry experiment Theory of gas Theory of capillarity Acoustics Theory of electromagnetism and optics Theoretical physics exercise Applied electricity Astronomical experiment (observation) Physical astronomy

First year

Hours per week Second year

Third year

0 4 3 Varyingb

5 3 0 Varying

5 3 0 Varying

0 0 0

1 3 3

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

0 Varying 2 1 1

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 Varying 3

0 0

0 0

Varying 1

5 4

0 0

0 0

0 0 0

3 1 0

0 0 3

16

21

20

Supplementary courses Differential and integral calculus Geometry Theories of differential equation and elliptical function Spherical function Theory of function Total hours

Source: Translated by the author from Shu Xincheng, ed., Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao (Historical Materials of Chinese Modern Education), 3 vols. (Beijing: Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe, 1979), 2: 602–603. a. It is not clear whether this curriculum was actually implemented. b. Hours for experiments and problem-solving exercises depended on how soon the students could obtain appropriate results.

42

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Chinese society and prompted further reforms and the revival of studying abroad.

The Return of Studying Abroad The pressure for reforms at the beginning of the century compelled the government to seek actively for new administrators with Western learning. Such demands, however, could not be met by the contemporary Chinese educational system, which was under renovation itself and needed many qualified new teachers. Since these personnel could not be trained quickly enough in China, the government took active measures to support and encourage young people to study in Japan, Europe, and the United States.189 s t u dy i n g i n j a p a n Japan had become an attractive model of successful modernization, ironically, after its victory over China in 1894.190 Japan further appealed to Chinese students, especially those self-supported ones, because it was closer and less expensive than the United States or Europe. Also, China and Japan share a common script and many other cultural similarities. The Qing government enthusiastically supported the idea of learning from Japan because of “the means by which the Japanese had managed to graft a constitutional structure onto the existing imperial system.”191 The Qing dispatched thirteen Chinese students to Japan in 1896, only one year after signing the humiliating Shimonoseki treaty.192 The number of Chinese students in Japan increased steadily in subsequent years. After Japan’s shattering defeat of Russian forces at Lüshun in 1904, Japan became an even more enticing place for Chinese students. In addition, the official abolition of the traditional civil examinations in China in 1905 helped to trigger a great exodus of Chinese students to Japan. The number of Chinese students going to Japan in 1905 jumped to eight thousand, nearly four times as many as in the previous year. In 1906, some data indicated that the number could have reached as high as twenty thousand.193 Although the number decreased later on, there remained a significant number of Chinese studying in Japan before the 1930s. The changing attitude in China toward Japan, from disdain to reverence, at this time was also evident in the translation of Japanese

Western Physics Comes to China

43

books. Before the Sino-Japanese War, almost all translated books were from Western languages, especially English. This situation dramatically changed after the war. For instance, between 1902 and 1904, 321 Japanese books were translated, representing 60 percent of the total translations from all foreign languages.194 Between 1660 and 1895, more than three hundred thirty years, only twelve Japanese books were translated into Chinese. But in the next fifteen years (1896–1911), the number of translated Japanese books increased sharply to 958. In natural science, no Japanese books had been translated in China between 1660 and 1895. In the following fifteen years, however, about one hundred Japanese scientific books, most of which were textbooks, were translated into Chinese.195 In fact, “almost all the scientific textbooks in late Qing were translated from Japanese.”196 More than a dozen of these translations were physics textbooks.197 These Japanese scientific textbooks were well translated and very popular. A Chinese scholar commented on the book translations at the beginning of the twentieth century: “as for the translated books, the best were still those scientific books re-translated from Japanese translations.”198 Physics works translated from Japanese sources began to appear in China in 1900, almost all of which were textbooks before 1910. Thirty-three translated physics textbooks were published between 1900 and 1910, and at least sixteen of them were from Japanese sources.199 The best-known physics textbook among these Japanese translations was Wulixue (Physics). Physics was edited by a Japanese physicist, Iimori Teizo (1854–1952), and was translated into Chinese by the Japanese sinologist Fujita Toyohachi (1870–1929) and edited by Wang Jilie.200 Physics consisted of three parts; the first and second parts were published in 1900 and the third in 1903.201 Physics included sections on rigid-body mechanics, hydraulics, pneumatics, general theory of undulatory motions, acoustics, optics, heat, magnetism, electrostatics, electrokinetics, and climatology.202 Physics was the first comprehensive and systematic work in China dealing with physics and was regarded as the most important physics textbook in China before the 1920s.203 It was this Chinese translation of Physics that gave birth to the modern Chinese term for “the science of physics”: wulixue.204 Besides wulixue, many other Chinese physics terms were originally adopted from their Japanese counterparts, further evidence of Japanese influence on China in the early twentieth century. In 1908 China’s first

44

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

dictionary of physics terms, Wulixue yuhui (Vocabulary of Physics) (hereafter Yuhui ), was published.205 The book was edited by the Ministry of Education and had a relatively complete collection of Chinese physics terms at the time. Unlike similar books previously published by Western missionaries, Yuhui listed its Chinese terms comparatively, not only with their English counterparts, but also with their Japanese ones. According to Chinese historian Wang Bing’s study, more than two-thirds of the Chinese terms listed in Yuhui are the same as their Japanese counterparts.206 Unlike students who studied in the West, most Chinese students in Japan neither entered college nor studied natural science and engineering; most of them returned home before attending high school, and their most popular subjects were political sciences, law, and military affairs.207 The government was concerned about many problems exposed in the mass study in Japan and in 1906 took measures to ensure the quality of graduates and encourage more students to study science and engineering.208 Still, only a small number of students attended colleges or universities in Japan and even fewer studied science there and actually graduated. Nevertheless, among this small group of students emerged two pioneers in the introduction of the theory of relativity, whom we will meet in Chapter 2. s t u dy i n g i n e u r o p e At the beginning of the twentieth century, the imperial government continued to dispatch students to Europe. Between 1908 and 1910, about five hundred Chinese students were in Europe—roughly 140 were in France, 124 in Britain, 77 in Germany, 23 in Russia, and the rest in Belgium and other countries.209 During this period, the government emphasized study in industry and business instead of military technology, as it did in the 1870s. A few students in Europe, however, chose to study natural sciences. For example, Li Fuji (also written in Fo-Ki Li) was sent to King’s College in London in 1901. After completing his studies in London, Li went to the Royal University at Bonn, Germany, in 1906, where he conducted research in spectroscopy under the guidance of H. Kayser (1853–1940), a well-known German physicist and the discover of atmospheric helium. In January 1907, Li earned his doctorate in physics—the very first among Chinese students overseas.210 Another remarkable example was He Yujie, a student from Imperial

Western Physics Comes to China

45

University of Beijing. He was sent to Britain in 1903211 and studied physics with Arthur Schuster (1851–1934) in Manchester. Upon He’s return in 1909, he became a physics professor at Imperial University, a position he retained, except for a brief interruption around 1911–1912, until 1927.212 As early as in 1918, the curriculum of the physics department of Beijing University, where He taught, already included subjects such as the principle of relativity and quantum theory. 213 In the following years, He became well known in China for his publications and lectures on relativity and quantum theory.214 s t u dy i n g i n t h e u n i t e d s t at e s Some Americans worried that the exodus of Chinese students to Japan in 1905–1906 would result in waning U.S. influence in China. Early in 1906, Edmund J. James, president of the University of Illinois, sent a memorandum to the president of the United States, urging him “to send an educational commission to China” to invite the Chinese to study at U.S. institutions. James saw it as critical for the United States because, as he argued in his memorandum: The nation which succeeds in educating the young Chinese of the present generation will be the nation which for a given expenditure of effort will reap the largest possible returns in moral, intellectual, and commercial influence. If the United States had succeeded thirty-five years ago . . . in turning the current of Chinese students to this country, and had succeeded in keeping that current large, we should to-day be controlling the development of China in that most satisfactory and subtle of all ways—through the intellectual and spiritual domination of its leaders.215 To achieve the goal, Arthur H. Smith, a long-time U.S. missionary in China, met President Theodore Roosevelt in the White House in March. Smith proposed that the U.S. government remit half the money “due by the terms of the Boxer indemnity, and to apply the balance to a scholarship fund for Chinese to study in American universities.”216 President Roosevelt accepted Smith’s proposal. After Congress approved the proposal in 1908, the Boxer Scholarship began the following year. In 1909, the Chinese government set up a special office in Beijing to administer the selection and examination of Chinese students who

46

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

wished to study in the United States on the Boxer Scholarship. In the first year, forty-seven students were selected through a special examination, and thirty-nine, or 83 percent, studied natural sciences and engineering; the following year, seventy students were selected and sixty-one, or 87 percent, majored in natural sciences and engineering. In 1910, the administration not only admitted seventy students to be sent to the United States, but also chose 143 candidates on the waiting list to be trained for future missions. This led to the establishment in 1911 of the Qinghua School, a preparatory school for students who wanted to study in the United States. The school later evolved into the prestigious Qinghua University. A total of 1,279 Qinghua graduates, including 53 female students, were sent to the United States between 1912 and 1929. Because the school administration, curriculum, textbooks, teaching methods, and extracurricular programs at Qinghua School were all adopted from the United States, its graduates could directly enter the corresponding class at U.S. colleges. About 10 percent of Qinghua graduates specialized in the study of natural sciences, among whom many leading Chinese physicists would emerge in the following decades.217 I n g e n e r a l , the introduction of Western physics before 1910 was sporadic and incomplete. None of the major works by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Maxwell were ever translated into Chinese. There was no systematic teaching or research in classical physics in China. Consequently, despite the discrete introductions of the subject in previous centuries, the conceptual systems of classical physics never became a significant component in Chinese thought before the introduction of the theory of relativity. This absence of a tradition of research and education in classical physics would have significant consequences in China’s reception of relativity.



2 China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

Two Chinese scholars educated in Japan—Xu Chongqing and Li Fangbai—first introduced Einstein’s theory of relativity to China. The Japanese connection is not surprising if we consider the number of Chinese students studying in Japan between 1905 and 1915 (see Chapter 1), and Japanese physicists’ early interest in the theory. Japanese physicists were interested in Einstein’s theory by 1907. Ayao Kuwaki (1878–1945), a Japanese graduate student in physics, published an article introducing the relativity theory in a Japanese newspaper in early 1907.1 Ishiwara Jun (1881–1947), one of the first Japanese theoretical physicists, published his first paper on the principle of relativity in 1909 and finished eight more papers on the subject in the next three years.2 The Japanese interest in modern physics had obviously influenced Chinese students studying in Japan. By 1917, even students not majoring in the sciences had been aware of Einstein’s principle of relativity, Planck’s quantum theory, and the electromagnetic view of nature. In addition to introducing the two Chinese pioneers, this chapter will explain why the introduction coincided with the beginning of the May Fourth movement, the most important intellectual campaign in modern China; demonstrate how the intellectual movement created a favorable environment that helped the introduction and dissemination of the theory of relativity; and discuss the often ignored impact of Japanese scientific scholarship.

48

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

The Theory’s First Appearance in China Einstein’s theory of relativity first appeared in China in 1917. In the September issue of Xueyi, Xu Chongqing (1888–1969), then a student at Tokyo Imperial University, published an essay in which he cited Einstein’s theory as supporting evidence for his argument.3 Xu Chongqing, a native of Guangdong province, was born to a family of scholars.4 His father, who was an official degree holder and a candidate prefecture magistrate, died when Chongqing was only eight years old. Unable to support four boys and three girls, Xu’s mother sent twelve-year-old Chongqing to live with his uncle in Wuchang, Hubei province, five hundred miles north of Xu’s hometown. Wuchang was a major city along the Yangtze River and a treaty port with many Western missionaries. In Wuchang, Xu attended a Western missionary school, and in 1905 he won a government scholarship to study in Japan.5 Xu began his studies at the Seventh High School in Tokyo and graduated from Tokyo Imperial University in 1918. He then completed two years of graduate studies before he returned to China in August 1920. At the university he was first interested in neo-Kantian philosophy, then Comtian sociology. Finally he decided to study Herbartian education. A nonscience major, Xu nonetheless paid close attention to developments in physics, probably because of his philosophical interests. He knew the following books well enough to recommend them to others: Scientific Ideas of Today by Charles R. Gibson; The Progress of Physics by Arthur Schuster; Dernières Pensées by Henri Poincaré; and Neue Bahnen der physikalischen Erkenntnis by Max Planck.6 That these books were written in three different languages indicates Xu’s linguistic talents. Because of his multilingual capability, Xu was well informed about new ideas in the West. The journal Xueyi, in which Xu Chongqing published his essay, is the official organ of the “Bingchen Society,”7 a group founded in Tokyo by Chinese students, including Xu. The society’s main goal was to promote the study of natural sciences in China,8 and Xueyi became the principle instrument for that purpose. Through Xueyi, many overseas Chinese students introduced modern scientific ideas into China. Xu’s introduction of Einstein’s theory was one example.

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

49

Xu’s article was triggered by Cai Yuanpei’s address in 1917 on the issues of religion and faith Cai claimed: After science is developed, it should be able to provide solutions to all questions of learning and morality. Religion has nothing to do [with finding these solutions]. Questions that cannot be answered by [natural] science, such as the infinite universe, endless time, the smallest particle in the universe, the shape of the universe, etc., are studied in philosophy.9 Disagreeing with Cai, Xu pointed out that what Cai called philosophical problems were in fact not what contemporary philosophers were studying, and that questions involving time and the universe that Cai considered scientifically insolvable had already been solved by Einstein in his principle of relativity. There Xu presented the very first account in Chinese of the special theory of relativity (hereafter STR): As for the studies on time-space (i.e. yu and zhou) in today’s natural science, there is Einstein’s “Principle of Relativity” published in 1905. The theory has two presuppositions: first, “the principle of relativity,” second, “the constancy of the speed of light.” Based on these presuppositions, Einstein defined the relativity of time. Consequently the absolute space and absolute time assumed in Newtonian mechanics become almost untenable.10 Xu named the two postulates of the STR but did not bother to provide any explanation of them or to elaborate the theory because he felt that the mathematical calculations and reasoning in Einstein’s theory were too “complex” to explain in his essay. He did, however, present one of the unusual results of the STR, namely “the speed of light is the maximum speed of any moving matter.” To elaborate this point, he quoted from Poincaré an interesting thought experiment, the socalled “Lumen experiment”: “From this experiment,” continued Xu, “one can learn that the time-order in our experience is completely determined by the contrast between the speed we are moving with and the speed of light. If the former speed were equal to or greater

50

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

than the speed of light, the time-order of the events would be all reversed.”11 It was also remarkable that Xu noted in the article the impact of the STR and some popular trends in physical research: Minkowski also endorsed the idea of uniting time and space. Minkowski’s speech on time-space (speech entitled Raum und Zeit) shook European academic circles. Physicists of old schools were greatly amazed and puzzled. The electrodynamic view of nature and quantum theory are also new ways of studying modern physics. As a result, the applicability of Newton’s three laws of motion is limited. In theory . . . [even] the law of universal gravitation is no longer considered absolutely correct and has to be revised on the basis of electrodynamics.12 In these remarks, Xu brought up two important subjects other than relativity: the electrodynamic view of nature and quantum theory. Although he recognized them as new ways to study modern physics, he did not elaborate them. To summarize, Xu Chongqing had introduced some terms in the STR but little of its contents. He realized the significance of the STR largely through his philosophical understanding of the theory. Therefore, Xu’s introduction of the STR was of little help to anyone in China who wanted to learn about the theory. However, the Chinese did not have to wait long. Only two months after the publication of Xu’s essay, a speaker at a college in central China provided a more detailed introduction to the STR.

The First Speech on Relativity in China On November 3, 1917, members of the newly founded Mathematical and Physical Society at the National Wuchang Higher Normal School (WHN) in Wuchang, Hubei province, gathered to hear a speech on recent progress in physics.13 Although the speech was titled “Newtonian Dynamics and Non-Newtonian Dynamics,” Einstein’s principle of relativity was, in fact, the main subject. The speaker was Li Fangbai (1890–1959), a physics professor at the college. Li Fangbai was a native of Chaozhou, Guangdong province.

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

51

After he graduated from a middle school in Guangzhou, Li won a government scholarship to study in Japan in 1910. Li majored in physics and chemistry at the Tokyo School of Physics, a school founded in 1881 to train secondary-school science teachers.14 After completing his studies in Japan, Li returned to China in 1917 and was appointed physics professor at the WHN, where he later became the chairman of the department of physics and chemistry.15 According to Li, the non-Newtonian dynamics was “a new dynamics being created based on the theory of electrons.” He claimed that nonNewtonian dynamics was replacing the traditional Newtonian dynamics, at least in theory, even though the Newtonian dynamics was still indispensable in daily life. He spoke on the subject that day with the intention to arouse research interest in China.16 Six months later, Li published his speech in the college’s Journal of the Mathematical and Physical Society. The printed speech was divided into four sections. In the introduction, Li brought up fundamental challenges facing traditional Newtonian dynamics. He pointed out that the fundamental assumption for the Newtonian dynamics is “the existence of absolutely invariant mass, time, and space.” However, these assumptions had been seriously challenged by recent discoveries in physics. First, “due to the recent development of electron theories it has become a reality that mass does change”; second, “both time and space are not necessarily absolutely invariant according to renowned physicists. Consequently Newtonian dynamics can not be held absolutely true.”17 In the subsequent sections Li spelled out where these challenges had come from and what they had led to. In the second section, titled “Electromagnetic Mass,” Li presented an experimentally confirmed fact: mass changes with velocity. Since J. J. Thomson discovered the electron in 1897, physicists had conducted intense studies on the properties of this subatomic particle. One of the most interesting and important questions concerned the electron’s mass. Because of its own charge, an electron has an electrostatic field surrounding it. Hence, when the electron is set in motion, the entire electrostatic field of the electron must also move. The moving electrostatic field produces a magnetic field, according to James Clerk Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. Because of the laws of induction, this surrounding magnetic field is always so directed as to oppose the force acting to accelerate the electron. Therefore, the electron behaves as though it were

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

52

more massive when it is set moving than when it is at rest. At the time when Walter Kaufmann (1871–1947) undertook his experiments, physicists maintained that the mass of the electron had two components: true mass and apparent mass. The true mass referred to the mass of the electron while at rest. The apparent mass, or electromagnetic mass, referred to the mass of the electron when in motion.18 In 1881, J. J. Thomson (1856–1940) proposed a theory as described above in which he indicated that the mass of a moving charge should depend on its velocity, and that the electromagnetic mass should increase with velocity.19 In 1901, Kaufmann confirmed in his experiments that the electron’s mass increases with its velocity. Max Abraham in 1902 developed an electron theory in which he suggested that the entire mass of the electron be electromagnetic mass, which consists of two components: longitudinal mass and transverse mass.20 Although Li Fangbai cited all three physicists’ contributions, he took Kaufmann’s experiments as the key evidence to show that the electron’s mass increases with its velocity. Rearranging Kaufmann’s data of 1901, Li presented a table to show the correlation between the mass of the electron and its velocity (see Table 2.1). Since one fundamental principle of Newtonian dynamics was that mass was invariant with velocity, Li thus concluded, “It is an incontestable fact that the Newtonian dynamics can no longer be held true.”21 It is interesting that Li Fangbai chose to discuss side by side the two important issues: the variable mass of electron and Einstein’s principle of relativity. However, it is not clear from his speech whether he realized the significant connection between the research on these two is-

Table 2.1 Table in Li Fangbai’s speech u (cm/s)

e/m C.G.S.

2.36 ⫻ 1010 2.48 ⫻ 1010 2.59 ⫻ 1010 2.72 ⫻ 1010 2.85 ⫻ 1010

1.31 ⫻ 107 1.17 ⫻ 107 0.97 ⫻ 107 0.77 ⫻ 107 0.63 ⫻ 107

u—Velocity of the electron m—mass of the electron

e—charge of the electron

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

53

sues. In fact, research on the velocity dependence of the electron mass, an issue most actively discussed by both experimental and theoretical physicists at the time, brought more attention to the STR.22 At the end of his 1905 paper, Einstein applied his new principle of relativity to “the slowly accelerated electron” and derived its longitudinal and transverse masses.23 Later that same year, Kaufmann compared his experimental results with theoretical predictions made by three theoretical physicists: Hendrik A. Lorentz, Einstein, and Max Abraham; and he concluded that his measurement of electron mass “definitely” rejected the theory of Lorentz and Einstein and favored Abraham’s.24 Max Planck soon challenged Kaufmann’s conclusion,25 and further experiments finally proved that Kaufmann’s conclusion was wrong. Nevertheless, Kaufmann’s paper gave the very first citation to Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper.26 After the introduction of the recent experimental evidence of the variable mass of electron, Li turned his attention to some new theoretical discoveries. The third section of Li’s talk, titled “The Principle of Relativity,” is the longest and most significant part of the speech. Li began this section by introducing Lorentz’s famous contraction hypothesis, which stated, “any matter that is in absolute motion with respect to Ether will contract in the direction of motion by a fixed factor depending on the speed.”27 As a result of this kind of contraction, Li argued, “we have no way to learn absolute shapes and sizes studied in geometry” because the scale used to measure the length in a moving system and the body that is being measured are subjected to the same factor of contraction. The results obtained from the measurement are only the relative shape and size of the body in the system comparing with the scale we have used. Since we do not know any absolute geometric shape and size, we will be unable to learn absolute space. Li then discussed Lorentz’s difficulty in finding true time, or absolute time. If the measurement of absolute space is not available, Li argued, neither is the measurement of absolute time, as defined in Newtonian dynamics. To measure absolute time, one has to have accurate clocks and know the speed of the moving clocks with respect to the ether.28 In general, time measuring involves clocks at different locations in space. To make sure that clocks at different locations are accurate or synchronized, one has to have a way to synchronize them. Li believed that the only way to achieve the synchronization of two clocks at different loca-

54

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

tions is to exchange light signals and measure their transmission time between the two locations. However, this requires that both clocks be at rest with respect to the ether so that the transmission time of light signals between the two locations is the same in both directions. If clocks are not at rest with respect to the ether, the absolute synchronization cannot be obtained in this way because the transmission times in different directions are different. For example, suppose that observers A and B are moving uniformly in the direction from A to B. The time for light signals traveling from A to B will be longer than that from B to A. “Since neither observer at each location knows its own relative motion with respect to the ether, and we have no way to determine either observer’s relative motion with respect to light, there is no way to synchronize [the clocks]. As a result, clocks at neither location can represent the true time; what each of them represents is merely time at its location, which Lorentz called Ortzeit, or local time.”29 Then Li stated: Lorentz failed to accomplish his theory of electrons based on the “local time” and “moving body’s contraction.” Therefore in 1905 Einstein proposed hypotheses different from Lorentz’s. Based on the idea of relativity, [Einstein] proposed the following principle and obtained the same results as above. This principle is Einstein’s principle of relativity, which has two parts: (1) all laws that govern physical phenomena in a stationary system can be applied to any other system that is in a uniform motion with respect to the stationary system; (2) the speed of light is constant regardless of the motion of the light source and observers.30 Next, Li Fangbai demonstrated how length contraction and time dilation—two of relativity theory’s striking paradoxes—could be inferred mathematically from the above postulates.31 Assuming that the speed of light is v and the relative speed between the two systems is u, Li summarized the results: (1) Judging from a stationary system, the time interval in a moving system is longer; i.e. one second in a moving system is longer than that in the stationary system. More specifically, one second in a 1 moving system corresponds to 31 ⫺ 1 uv 2 2 4 ⫺ 2 seconds in a stationary system.

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

55

(2) Judging from a stationary system, the length in a moving system contracts in the direction of its motion, i.e., one centimeter in a moving system is shorter than that in a stationary system. To be more specific, the length of one centimeter in a moving system in 1 its moving direction equals to 3 1 ⫺ 1 uv 2 2 4 2 centimeter in a stationary system.32 It appears that Li Fangbai adopted this mathematical inference from U.S. physical chemists Gilbert N. Lewis and Richard C. Tolman in their paper published in Philosophical Magazine in 1909.33 Lewis and Tolman’s paper was first presented to the December 1908 meeting of the American Physical Society, which was, in fact, the first exposition of Einstein’s special theory of relativity in the United States.34 Therefore, the paper that introduced the STR to the United States also fostered the theory’s introduction in China ten years later. Finally, Li came to the thesis of his speech in the concluding section: As described in the previous two sections, mass is not absolutely invariant and according to the principle of relativity the values of space and time are different depending on whether the observer is at rest or in motion. Consequently the three fundamental laws of motion in the Newtonian dynamics cannot be held absolutely true either.35 In order to elaborate this point and to show the uniqueness of the “NonNewtonian Dynamics,” Li then discussed in detail how the theory of electrons and the principle of relativity posed challenges to each of the three laws.36 In Li’s words, Newton’s first law of motion reads, “Whenever a body is not subjected to any action of external forces, it continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line.” According to Li, this law is still applicable in the non-Newtonian dynamics. “However, both ‘at rest’ and ‘in motion’ are no longer absolute concepts because of the principle of relativity. Moreover, since mass is not absolutely invariant, its pertinent principle of ‘the conservation of mass’ is no longer applicable.”37 According to Li, Newton’s second law of motion states, “The change of motion is proportional to the impulse; and is made in the direction

56

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

in which that force is impressed.” Li argued that the above statement of Newton’s second law is equivalent to that “the rate of the change of motion is proportional to the force impressed,” or that “acceleration is proportional to the force impressed.” According to the theory of electrons and the principle of relativity, however, the greater the body’s velocity, the more its inertial mass and hence the less its acceleration. As a result, the greater a body’s current velocity, the less the acceleration gained under the same force. “Therefore,” Li concluded, “in nonNewtonian dynamics, the second law completely fails.”38 Li Fangbai’s arguement above is not accurate. In the mechanics of special relativity, as in classical mechanics, force can still be defined as the rate of change of momentum,39 F⫽

d1mu2 . dt

In relativistic mechanics, different from classical mechanics, mass is dependent on velocity: m⫽

m0 31 ⫺

. 1 uc 2 2

Thus, the definition of force cannot be written in the form of F ⫽ ma. Therefore, acceleration is not proportional to the force impressed, as Li claimed in his reasoning.40 Li’s conclusion was correct, however, in the sense that in relativity force and acceleration are, in general, not parallel vectors as stipulated by Newton’s second law. It is worth noting that momentum and energy, rather than force, provide the foundation of relativistic dynamics.41 According to the third law of motion, “The mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to contrary parts.”42 Li bears citing here at length: This law can only apply to the motion of average [macroscopic] bodies. It seems not appropriate to apply it to phenomena involving electrons. When an electron is in [accelerated] motion, it disturbs its surrounding Ether and thus radiates electromagnetic waves in all di-

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

57

rections. When the electromagnetic wave reaches the stationary electron, it starts to move upon the impact of the electromagnetic wave. Since we do not know the Ether’s state of motion, how can we ascertain that there are equal action and reaction between the two electrons? Moreover, the action and reaction stated in this law are simultaneous phenomena. Therefore, even if the Ether’s state of motion is known, the Ether could also pass total energy of the first electron to the second electron and make sure the reaction from the second electron equals the action from the first electron, it still can not explain the simultaneous action and reaction because the transmitting velocity of electromagnetic waves is finite. Since the second electron starts to move only after the electromagnetic wave affects it, the reaction ought to occur some time later than the action. However, the electromagnetic wave radiated by the electron is energy. It is meaningless in Newtonian dynamics to say that energy could show action and reaction. Hence it can be said with certainty that Newton’s third law of motion cannot be held absolutely true.43 Li was right to point out the limited applicability of Newton’s third law of motion. Newton’s assertion on the equality of action and reaction has almost no place in relativistic mechanics.44 He correctly identified the relativity of simultaneity as a key reason to reject Newton’s third law in relativistic mechanics. His arguments in terms of ether, although incorrect in retrospect, indicated how he understood the problems. Li Fangbai ended his speech by telling the audience that Newtonian dynamics was less valuable than before: “neither the three fundamental quantities: mass, space, and time are absolutely invariable, nor its three fundamental laws of motion can be held absolutely true.” Nevertheless, Li insisted that Newtonian dynamics not be completely abandoned because it “is simple and clear in explaining average natural phenomena. This kind of concise explanation can not be achieved by the nonNewtonian dynamics despite the fact that the latter is theoretically better developed than the former.”45

Comparing Xu’s and Li’s Introductions Li Fangbai’s speech, although made two months later than the publication of Xu Chongqing’s essay, was in fact a more significant introduction

58

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

than the latter. First, Li’s speech was specifically prepared to introduce “non-Newtonian dynamics,” which was essentially about Einstein’s theory of relativity. Xu’s essay brought up the principle of relativity only as one of his minor arguments in a philosophical debate. Second, Li addressed an audience in central China, while Xu’s essay in Xueyi was first published in Japan.46 Third, most members of Li’s audience were would-be middle-school teachers. Teachers’ reception of a theory is particularly significant because “they can have a major influence on what is considered established knowledge by the next generation of scientists.”47 In addition, Li extensively introduced new physics concepts and contents, such as electromagnetic mass, the velocity dependence of electron’s mass, Lorentz’s true time and local time, Einstein’s special theory of relativity and its two postulates, and the relativity of length and time. Xu’s essay was incomparable in this regard. Consequently, the scope, depth, and effectiveness of Li Fangbai’s introduction were all much more significant. Li Fangbai had wished that his speech would prompt more research in China on Einstein’s special theory of relativity and other aspects of the “non-Newtonian Dynamics.”48 In reality, however, neither Xu’s essay nor Li’s speech made an immediate impact on the Chinese academic world. Before 1920 there was virtually no academic publication on Einstein or his theory other than the works by Xu and Li (see Figure 2.1), and yet by the end of 1922 Einstein’s theory of relativity had been widely disseminated in China. To understand why this dramatic change happened, we have to examine the broader intellectual developments between 1919 and 1922, which helped incite great interest in Einstein’s relativity theory among Chinese intellectuals and create a favorable environment in China for its dissemination.

The May Fourth Movement The first important development during this period was the May Fourth movement. Although it was named after the May 4, 1919, student protest and demonstration in Beijing, the May Fourth movement was in fact a complex phenomenon that spanned roughly from 1917 to 1921. It is no doubt one of the most important intellectual movements in Chinese history. Terms such as “new thought tide” and “new cultural movement” were often used to describe the developments during the

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

59

Figure 2.1 Number of publications on relativity, 1917–1926

May Fourth period. The students and the new intellectuals involved in it hoped to promote “a vast modernization movement to build a new China through intellectual and social reforms. They stressed primarily Western ideas of science and democracy.” Consequently, while the authority of Confucianism and traditional ethics suffered a fundamental and devastating stroke, new Western ideas, scientific as well as social and political ones, were exalted.49 The May Fourth movement helped create an encouraging environment for the introduction of Western ideas, and promoted a greater awareness among Chinese intellectuals of the massive scientific advances in the West. This was particularly true for Einstein’s theory of relativity, especially after the sensational news from London in 1919 about its observational confirmation and after promotions by lecturers such as Bertrand Russell. As a result of the great enthusiasm for Western ideas during this period, China saw a rapid growth in the number of new periodicals and academic groups that devoted themselves to modern Western learning. The Chinese press was clearly affected by the May Fourth movement. After May 1919, Chinese publishing underwent a remarkable development that not only led to the sharp increase in the number of new periodicals, newspapers, books, and translations, but also promoted the

60

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

reforms of many old magazines and newspapers. For example, “the Commercial Press, the largest firm of its kind in China, published 407 books in 1912, 552 in 1915, 602 in 1919, but 1,284 in 1920.” Between 1920 and 1923, the Commercial Press was the publishing house that printed most Chinese literature introducing Einstein and his relativity. Further evidence of the rapid expansion of Chinese publication can be found in the dramatic increase of the amount of imported paper, on which almost all new Chinese publications were then printed. The imports more than doubled from 1918 to 1921.50 The enthusiasm for organizations was as great as that for publications, and appeared throughout Chinese cities. Chinese students and intellectuals had established numerous organizations for political, educational, cultural, social, and scientific purposes. Among the most active new organizations, for example, were the Society for the Study of Russell, the Society for Lectures on the New Learning (or the Chinese Lecture Association, Jiang-xue she), the Aspiration Society (Shang-zhi xue-hui), and the Young China Association.51 The lecture association not only sponsored John Dewey’s and Bertrand Russell’s extended lecture tours in China, but also supported the plan to invite Einstein to China in 1922. Both the Aspiration Society and the Young China Association had sponsored publications on Einstein and his relativity.

Einstein as a Revolutionary in Science Another development that helped spur the Chinese interest in relativity was A. S. Eddington’s sensational confirmation of Einstein’s prediction that the path of light is deflected by a gravitational force. In May 1919 two British expeditions had measured the bending of light during a total solar eclipse. The results were formally announced on November 6 to a joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in London. They confirmed Einstein’s prediction based on his general theory of relativity. Sir J. J. Thomson, the president of the Royal Society, declared: “This is the most important result obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since Newton’s day . . . The result [is] one of the highest achievements of human thought.”52 The Times of London called it a “revolution in science.” Overnight, Albert Einstein became a heroic figure in the West. Three months later the

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

61

great success of his theory was reported in China, where Einstein also became a hero.53 The revolutionary nature of Einstein’s theory had certainly caught the attention of leftist May Fourth intellectuals in China, which was another reason why many Chinese were interested in the theory. Although Einstein himself never regarded his relativity theory (special or general) as truly revolutionary, his theory did destroy “the old regime of the Newtonian world view” and revolutionized the fundamental concepts of time, space, and matter.54 Having realized its revolutionary features, Planck, with great admiration, compared Einstein’s work with Copernicus’s Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres.55 Leftist Chinese intellectuals quickly took over Planck’s revolutionary rhetoric and hailed the dramatic changes Einstein had introduced. In March 1920, Zhang Songnian (1893–1986)56 published an essay, titled “A Revolution in Science,” in the monthly, Shaonian Shijie ( The Young World).57 At the very beginning of his essay, Zhang called Einstein’s relativity “a revolutionary new physical theory.” Zhang was one of the founders of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). He was a graduate of Beijing University and later a colleague of Li Dazhao, director of the university’s library and a founder of the CCP. It was Zhang who introduced Zhou Enlai (1898–1976), later the world-renowned premier of the People’s Republic of China, into the CCP. In the early 1920s Zhou Enlai, a former student leader during the May Fourth movement and a new CCP member, was deeply impressed by the scientific revolution brought by Einstein and his theory of relativity. To refute the criticism from some Chinese students studying in France who compared communism to religious superstition, Zhou published an essay, titled “Religious Spirit and Communism,” in August 1922. He attempted to defend communism by drawing parallels between the scientific revolution that resulted from Einstein’s theory of relativity and the social and political revolution proposed by Marxists; between physicists’ belief in Einstein’s theories and communists’ adherence to Marxism; and between scientists’ enthusiasm to apply the theory of relativity and communists’ ardor to implement and experiment with Marxism in their social practice. The article clearly demonstrated Zhou’s admiration and endorsement for Einstein and his relativity.58

62

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

It is worth noting that at about the same time, Marxist philosophers in Soviet Russia began their attacks on Einstein’s relativity, condemning it as being “reactionary in nature, furnishing support of counterrevolutionary ideas” and “the product of the bourgeois class in decomposition.”59 Zhou, who had officially joined a Chinese communist group in Paris the previous year,60 clearly differed from the orthodox Marxist philosophers in Moscow at this time. It is not clear, however, whether Zhou learned about the Soviet criticism; if yes, when, and how he responded to the Marxist critique of the theory of relativity. Bertrand Russell’s remarks encouraged Chinese intellectuals to consider Einstein as a revolutionary in science comparable with Lenin in social politics. During his widely reported lecture tour in Japan in 1920–1921, Russell repeatedly acclaimed Lenin and Einstein as two greatest men in the world. Considering Russell’s popularity in China in the early 1920s, it is not surprising that Chinese intellectuals tended to take his words more seriously and to regard both Lenin and Einstein as “revolutionaries in the world of ideas.” While Lenin’s ideas were still undergoing tests and their fate could not yet be decided, Einstein’s relativity theory not only was derived mathematically, but also had been confirmed by astronomical observations. Some Chinese therefore perceived that Einstein’s “revolution in the world of science is a complete success.”61

Russell’s Lectures in China Before he traveled to Japan, Bertrand Russell made an extensive trip in China (October 1920 through July 1921), which caused the first wave of “the Einstein boom” in China. Russell was invited by Beijing University and sponsored by the Chinese Lecture Association, and arrived in Shanghai on October 12. He immediately began giving lectures and interviews to Chinese academics and the press in Shanghai. On October 21, Russell visited Nanjing, where, at the invitation of the Science Society of China, he gave a speech titled “Einstein’s New Theory of Gravitation.” Next, Russell was invited to lecture in Hangzhou and Changsha before heading north to Beijing. On October 31 Russell finally arrived in Beijing, where he was to live for the next eight months.62 Between November 1920 and March 1921, Russell delivered five series of lectures in Beijing: Problems of Philosophy, Analysis of Mind,

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

63

Analysis of Matter, Structure of Society, and Mathematical Logic. Chinese intellectuals had anxiously awaited Russell’s talks. Indeed, when the first lecture series was delivered on Sunday, November 7, an audience of about fifteen hundred showed up, an unusually large number for a speech on philosophy.63 In his very first speech in Beijing, Russell again talked about the theory of relativity to elucidate his points on the question, “What is matter?” He emphasized that one must comprehend the concrete world from the viewpoints of modern physics, mathematics, and logic.64 Russell gave the Chinese a more elaborate and systematic introduction of relativity in his third series, “Analysis of Matter.” The series was delivered in six speeches between January 11 and February 22, 1921. Each Tuesday evening, Russell gave a two-hour speech at Beijing University.65 In the first five talks, Russell introduced more details on both the special and general theories of relativity, particularly the law of separation (both timelike and spacelike), the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the Lorentz transformations in the special theory. In his last speech, he discussed the philosophical significance of the theory.66 Russell’s purpose in this lecture series was not to present to his audience the physical content of relativity; rather, it was to show the rich philosophical content behind the theory. He attempted to convince the Chinese that because of Einstein’s relativity theory it was necessary for philosophers to reinterpret the physical world according to the new timespace concepts and to replace the concept of “matter” with “event.”67 Russell’s lectures had significant impacts on Chinese intellectuals for a number of reasons. First, Russell’s reputation as “an erudite scholar, radical thinker, and upright spokesman of the people” had already been well known to Chinese intellectuals even before he was invited to China. Between 1919 and the beginning of 1920, Zhang Songnian and others published several essays introducing Russell and more than a dozen of his works. Many of these essays were published in popular journals such as New Youth, New Tide, and Dongfang zazhi.68 Russell’s prestige in China rose even higher after John Dewey, who also lived in China between 1919 and 1921, named him as one of the “three modern philosophers.”69 Since Dewey himself enjoyed popularity among contemporary Chinese intellectuals, his words carried weight. Second, because of his great reputation, Russell had a massive audience in

64

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Figure 2.2 Number of publications about the theory of relativity, 1921

China. Third, Russell’s lectures had been quickly translated and published, and the publications were widely circulated.70 Fourth, the main theme of Russell’s lectures was that problems of philosophy had to be explored with reference to modern science and modern scientific methods. This theme struck a chord with May-Fourth Chinese intellectuals, who already held science in high esteem. Russell’s lectures were particularly influential in spreading Einstein’s relativity theory. As indicated in Figure 2.2, articles on the theory of relativity appeared in an increased number of Chinese publications in the four months after Russell’s “Analysis of Matter” lecture series. Although several Chinese scholars had published more than a dozen articles on the theory before Russell’s visit, only after his lectures on the subject did the average educated Chinese learn about Einstein and his theory.71 Some even went so far as to claim that “after Russell’s lectures, no-one [in China] does not know the word, relativity.”72 It is no surprise that Russell played such a pivotal role in spreading Einstein’s relativity theory in China. Russell had been aware of the theory of relativity as early as the autumn of 1913.73 By the spring of 1919,

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

65

he had familiarized himself with Einstein’s papers on both the special and the general theories. He took intense interest in attempts by Eddington and others to verify the theory of general relativity in May. With special assistance from his friend, John E. Littlewood, the Cambridge mathematician, Russell learned the likely observational outcome before its official announcement in November. This special arrangement helped him to prepare his first essay on relativity theory, which he published only eight days after the formal announcement of the lightbending observation in November.74 Russell volunteered himself as an expounder of the theory of relativity because he wished to increase awareness of the new physics theory. He also “had the gift, not given to many, of hitting upon homely illustrations of recondite points.”75 In the 1920s Einstein’s relativity was being misconceived in various ways. Well aware of this, Russell used his expository gifts to dispel any misconceptions. Before he traveled to China, Russell had already published two papers on the theory of relativity. His third paper on the theory was published in a Japanese journal, The Kaizo, in October 1922, and was regarded as “the most accessible to the general reader.”76 Russell’s accuracy and clarity in these expositions was widely appreciated in the 1920s. For instance, his book The ABC of Relativity (1925) was described as “extremely readable and lucid,” of “substantial accuracy,” and one of “the best popular accounts of relativity which have appeared.”77 The fact that Russell was invited to write an article on relativity for the Encyclopaedia Britannica in 1926, despite his amateur status, represented a major tribute to him in these respects as well.78 One should be careful, however, not to overestimate Russell’s role in China’s reception of the theory of relativity. Although Russell’s lectures helped to spread the name of Einstein and the term relativity, they were neither easily accessible for amateurs without some knowledge of mathematical physics, nor were they helpful for physicists to study the physics of relativity. For example, Russell started his lectures with the concept of “separation,” which was drawn from Hermann Minkowski’s formal mathematical treatment of the STR using a four-dimensional geometry. Without first introducing the relativity of simultaneity and the Lorentz transformations, Russell might well have confused his audience with the discussion of “separation.” As Wei Siluan, a Chinese student studying mathematics in Germany, pointed out, “it was like trying to teach a person how to run without first teaching him how to

66

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

walk.” As a result, “the audience who could truly understand [Russell’s speeches] must have been few in number.”79 Moreover, since Russell’s intention was not to teach physics in the theory but rather to show its philosophical implications, Chinese physicists could not benefit as much as they wished from his lectures.

Einstein’s Promised Visit to Beijing On the morning of November 13, 1922, Albert Einstein and his wife, Elsa, arrived in Shanghai en route to Japan from Hong Kong on the Japanese liner Kitano Maru. The very next day, the Beijing University Daily made an exciting announcement: Albert Einstein, the world-renowned father of the theory of relativity, would “come to China around New Year’s Day”; he was expected to stay in Beijing and to present lectures at Beijing University for at least two weeks.80 In his article “The Preparation for Dr. Einstein’s Visit to China,” Cai Yuanpei, president of Beijing University, provided a synopsis of how Einstein accepted the invitation from him. Cai Yuanpei sent his first invitation to Albert Einstein via Yuan Guanlan in the fall of 1920. Yuan Guanlan, a former acting-minister of education, met Einstein on a visit to Germany not long before.81 Having probably noted the anti-relativity rally in Berlin on August 24 and the subsequent newspaper reports that exposed Einstein’s intention to leave Germany, Yuan telegraphed Cai in China, “Einstein is considering leaving Germany and perhaps would be able to go to the Far East.”82 Yuan asked Cai if Beijing University would like to host the great physicist. Cai replied immediately, “Beijing welcomes Professor Einstein.”83 Yuan then passed on the invitation to Einstein on September 11.84 Einstein, however, did not accept the invitation. After the anti-relativity rally, Einstein indeed thought about leaving Germany, but only “for two days.”85 By early September, Einstein had calmed down and it was clear that he would not leave Berlin easily at that time. As Einstein wrote three days earlier to Konrad Haenisch, the Prussian minister of culture, “Berlin is the place to which I am most closely tied by human and scientific connections.” He further announced that he would respond to a call from abroad only if external circumstances forced him to do so.86 In the spring of 1921, Cai traveled to Europe to inspect institutions

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

67

of higher education and academic research, and to invite distinguished Western scholars to visit China. On March 13, he arrived in Berlin. Three days later, Cai visited Einstein at his home. Xia Yuanli, a Beijing University physics professor then studying with Einstein in Berlin, accompanied Cai to the meeting, where Cai again expressed his sincere hope that Einstein could lecture in China. Einstein told Cai that he would not be able to go to Asia that year because he had been invited to the United States by U.S. scholars and was on a mission to raise funds for the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Refusing to give up his hope, Cai asked whether Einstein could come to China from the United States. Einstein rejected the idea, stressing that the Germans did not want him to be away from Berlin for long. But he assured Cai that he would love to visit China in the near future and he asked in what language he should give lectures there. Cai replied that he could speak in German, which would be translated into Chinese by someone such as Xia Yuanli. Xia suggested that Einstein could also lecture in English, but Einstein immediately dismissed the suggestion, claiming that his English was too poor.87 One year later, in March 1922, Wei Chenzu, the Chinese envoy to Germany, sent a telegram to Cai Yuanpei: “The Japanese government will invite Dr. Einstein to take a lecture tour to Japan this fall. He wishes to lecture in China for half a month on the same trip and is [therefore] asking for the financial terms. Please cable your reply.” On March 21, 1922, Zhu Jia-hua (1893–1963), a visiting professor in Berlin from Beijing University, wrote Einstein as soon as he heard from the Chinese Embassy about Einstein’s travel plans. Zhu met Einstein several times, presumably as a representative of the university, to discuss his lecture trip to Beijing University. Zhu explained in the letter that Ambassador Wei did not have any knowledge of their previous conversations because he had come to Berlin only recently. Zhu told Einstein that “the National University of Peking really desires to have you there for one year” and wondered why he now “[had] only two weeks left for Peking” as stated in his message to the ambassador. Zhu was also very disappointed with the fact that Einstein planned to visit Japan before China. He reminded Einstein that he had told Zhu that “China should be the first in line” in his travel schedule after his obligatory trip to the United States. In the letter, Zhu wished that Einstein “would [eventually] conclude that it is natural and self-evident to go to China first” and

68

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

hoped he could stay longer.88 Four days later, Einstein replied to Zhu Jiahua: I thank you for the letter on the 21st of this month. Meanwhile I am taking this opportunity to inform you of my travel plan to East Asia this fall. Please regard this information as confidential, that is, I don’t want everyone to learn my plan in advance because otherwise it would be difficult for me to deal with other invitations. I remember clearly our discussions. I had to temporarily put aside the trip to China because it was in conflict with my other responsibilities, and moreover because the proposed financial compensation was insufficient for me to make the trip. Now the situation is different in this respect since I have received an invitation from Japan, which, with ample compensation, will allow me to stay in Japan for four weeks, in fact two weeks in Tokyo, and two weeks in other university cities. It would be suitable with that plan that I also go to Beijing for two weeks. I don’t know whether the Japanese demand that I go to Japan before China under the current situation. I myself, however, have resolved to travel to Japan first, because I think that the winter in China is warmer than that in Japan and the available time for my China–Japan visit will be from the middle of November to the beginning of January. I cannot understand at all in what way the sequence of these two visits should matter. As for the right of priority, you did invite me first. However, in certain sense, the Japanese also have a moral right of priority by first making a decent offer to me (2,000 pounds sterling and free lodging for me and my wife). I eagerly hope that we will be able to reach an agreement to your full satisfaction so that I will see with my own eyes the cradle of the East Asian civilization.89 As soon as Cai Yuanpei received the telegram from the Chinese Embassy in Germany, he cabled his reply, which reached Berlin on April 8 and was immediately passed on to Einstein by the ambassador. In his reply, Cai Yuanpei enthusiastically welcomed Einstein and promised that the university would pay the cost of hotel rooms and food during his stay in Beijing, in addition to a monthly royalty of one thousand Chinese dollars.90 It is unclear why Cai listed a monthly payment in his reply after

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

69

Einstein had proposed a two-week stay in China. Perhaps Cai still hoped that Einstein could stay for a longer period, as John Dewey and Bertrand Russell had done in previous years. Dewey, for example, stayed in China more than a year, while Russell signed a one-year contract but left for home after staying in China for nine months. Three weeks later, on May 3, 1922, Einstein replied to the Chinese Embassy in Berlin: Referring to your pleasant letter on April 8 this year, it is my honor to inform you that I am quite willing to give several lectures at Beijing University over two weeks in this [coming] winter. I think, however, that I have to suggest some changes regarding the proposed compensation. I would quite like to accept your terms as they are. But [recently] other countries have offered me incomparably higher remuneration and some universities in the United States have already presented part of the payment. Consequently I feel obliged to take this step in order not to discriminate against other countries. Under these circumstances, I want to make the following suggestions on my remuneration: 1. [Change 1,000 Chinese Dollars to] 1,000 American Dollars. 2. Coverage of the traveling expenses from Tokyo to Beijing, and from Beijing to Hong Kong, as well as the hotel expenses in Beijing. All the expenses are to be covered both for me and for my wife. I hope you will understand and approve my proposed changes.91 When Cai Yuanpei received this letter via the Chinese Embassy, it was already in late June. But Cai could not make the decision by himself, presumably due to the strained financial situation at Beijing University. Taking the opportunity of an annual meeting of the Chinese Society for Educational Reform in Shandong, Cai carried Einstein’s letter to the meeting, where he discussed this matter with Liang Qichao. According to Cai, Liang was “very supportive” and promised that his Lecture Association “would cover part of the expenses.”92 Having secured Liang’s support, Cai then sent a telegram to the Chinese ambassador in Germany, Wei Chenzu, late in June: “Requests granted, please make a contract on our behalf.”93 On July 22, 1922, Wei Chenzu wrote Einstein to inform him that Beijing University “has happily accepted your conditions [regarding

70

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

the remuneration] and the university authorities are hoping to welcome you in Peking.”94 Einstein replied two days later, “I think that I can go to Beijing around New Year’s Day.” Cai Yuanpei received the message in August.95 There were at least two other invitations from China. One was from an acquaintance of Einstein’s and the lecturer for internal medicine at the Tung Chi Medical School, Dr. Maximilian Pfister, in Shanghai;96 the other was written by Pfister’s American friend, C. H. Robertson.97 These two letters are of special significance. After learning of Einstein’s planned trip to Japan, both Pfister and Robertson invited Einstein to give one or more lectures in Shanghai and, if possible, in other Chinese cities. Part of Pfister’s intention was to promote German culture in postwar China. Pfister also made some special requests to Einstein, which unfortunately seemed to be a key factor that led to Einstein’s cancellation of his planned visit. Robertson was a secretary of the National Committee of the Young Men’s Christian Associations of China98 and was responsible for the science section of its lecture department. Robertson’s letter testified the widespread Chinese interest in Einstein’s theory, especially since 1920: We have just heard the delightful news that you are planning to visit the Orient this Fall, and there are many of us here in the East who want you to know how heartily you will be welcomed. I am writing to express the hope also that since you are coming you will consent to give some considerable time to China. You have, I presume, already had an invitation from the many Chinese organizations which are greatly interested in this possibility. I am taking the liberty to make inquiry and to urge forward the achieving of such an end. The theories of relativity have been extensively published in Chinese and during the last two or three years especially, I have found intense interest in the subject in widely separated parts of the country. In fact, relativity has been one of the most appreciated subjects that I have been presenting during the last two years of travel among the principal large cities of the country.99 It seemed that the interest in relativity was so intense in Shanghai that Robertson preferred Einstein to give a lecture in “the Town Hall which will seat some thousands of people.”100

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

71

Einstein Arrives in Shanghai At ten o’clock on the morning of November 13, 1922, Albert Einstein and his wife arrived in Shanghai, the biggest city in China. At the dock the Einsteins were welcomed by the Chinese, by Japanese representatives, and by local Jewish residents. It was there that Einstein received the official notice of his newly awarded Nobel Prize for physics. Although he had heard the news over the radio on the ship two days before, Einstein was still very delighted to accept the official notice from the Swedish consul-general in Shanghai.101 Proceeding into the city, the Einsteins lunched in a well-known restaurant, Yi Pin Xiang, then enjoyed the Kunqu opera, one of the most popular traditional dramatic arts in south China, at a theater named Little World. Later they also took a tour to the famous park of Yuyuan Temple. All these arrangements were made to let Einstein “experience some of the best Chinese cooking, dramatic arts, and gardens.”102 That evening, a banquet was held at Wang Yiting’s residence to entertain the Einsteins. Wang Yiting (1867–1938) was a well-known contemporary Chinese painter and calligrapher. His residence was chosen because it represented a typical Chinese family dwelling and because there were many famous Chinese paintings that Einstein could enjoy. A dozen Chinese, German, and Japanese scholars and celebrities attended the banquet. Among the Chinese present were the president of Shanghai University, Yu Youren (1879–1964), and former Beijing University professor, Zhang Junmai (Carsun Chang, 1886–1969).103 At the Wang residence, the Einsteins inspected several bronze and stone inscriptions and works of calligraphy and painting before they took their seats. After the guests were seated, Yu Youren addressed the crowd: Today I join with the Japanese Gaizo magazine to hold this welcome banquet in honor of Dr. Einstein. I can only briefly express the admiration and respect on behalf of Chinese youths. Dr. Einstein is the pride of the contemporary human being because of his great scientific discoveries and contributions. Chinese youths respect learning and hence extremely revere Dr. Einstein. I only feel so sorry that Dr. Einstein can only stay for such a short time that we can not do more as hosts and especially that we can not hear more about his great theory. [We] only hope that Dr. Einstein will

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

72

come back to favor Chinese youths with his advice as soon as he finishes his lectures in Japan.104 Einstein then replied: Today I enjoy very much the sight of many famous Chinese paintings. I especially appreciate the works by Mr. Wang Yiting. As for Chinese youths, I believe that they are bound to make great contributions to science in the future. I am in a hurry traveling to Japan at the moment, but I will be very much delighted to present what I know to Chinese youths when I come back.105 The banquet ended at nine in the evening. The next morning (November 14), the Einsteins boarded their ship for Japan.106

The Unfortunate Cancellation After Einstein left Shanghai for Japan, Cai Yuanpei busied himself collecting signatures in Beijing for a welcome letter to show Einstein the sincerity and seriousness of Chinese intellectuals. The letter was sent out on December 8, three weeks after Einstein left Shanghai: Dear Herr Professor Einstein: The news of your journey and work in Japan is followed here with great interest and the whole China is ready to welcome you with open arms. You certainly still remember the agreement you reached with us through the mediation of the Chinese ambassador in Berlin. We are happily looking forward to your fulfillment of the agreement. We would be [very] glad if you [could] tell us your arrival date in China. We will make [any] necessary arrangements in order to make the trip as little laborious as possible for you.107 Unfortunately this letter, so important in retrospect, reached Einstein on December 22, too late to achieve the intended effect. To the great disappointment of both Cai Yuanpei and Einstein himself, Einstein had called off his trip to Beijing. With a heavy heart, Einstein wrote Cai on the same day,

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

73

Mr. President: Although I was extremely willing to come to China and solemnly agreed to do so, now I cannot, which greatly saddens me. After waiting for five weeks in Japan I still had not heard from Peking, so I thought that perhaps Peking University did not intend to keep the agreement any more. I therefore did not think it appropriate for me to inquire from you [either]. Moreover, Dr. Pfister in Shanghai—who was supposedly authorized by you—had made requests to me about the visit, requests that were not in accord with our previous agreement. Consequently, I also had to conclude that you did not wish to keep the agreement. Because of these reasons, I agreed to spend the time I had planned for the China visit in Japan. I have also changed all my travel schedules based on the assumption that I would not visit China. [Only] upon receiving your letter today, do I realize that all of these were [simply] misunderstandings. However, it is impossible for me to make a further change in my arrangements. I hope you will understand what I did, because you can imagine how much interest I would have if I were in Peking right now. I certainly hope that there will be another opportunity in the future to make up for this omission, which resulted from the unfortunate misunderstanding. Yours faithfully, A. E.108 A Chinese translation of Einstein’s letter was published in the Beijing University Daily on January 4, 1923. The letter was followed by a postscript by President Cai Yuanpei. Disappointed and confused by the unexpected cancellation, Cai nonetheless attempted to comfort and encourage his colleagues and students with the following statements: There are many things in this letter, which I cannot understand: Dr. Einstein was due to visit China at the beginning of this year, which was previously arranged with him through the Chinese Embassy in Germany. It was not necessary to reconfirm the arrangement in the first place. [However,] in order to express our sincerity and seriousness, we sent a welcome letter jointly signed with other academic organizations. The letter was late in reaching him because first, it was sent out a bit late due to our waiting for replies

74

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

from each of the organizations; and second, he was traveling in Japan and had no fixed abode. How could we know that he was still waiting there for our message from Beijing to decide his travel schedule! In his letter Dr. Pfister seemed to be fully entrusted by me making requests about his visit to China and so on and so forth, a situation of which I had no idea and am rather surprised to learn. However, all of these are over and do not matter any more. Now we already have organizations like the Lecture Society and the Research Society for Relativity Theory. I only wish that in one or two years, our Chinese scholars could make some contributions to this important theory and draw the attention of great scholars in the world. Some of us are able to appreciate the significance of a presence of such a scholar [as Einstein], who is ten or even a hundred times as important as famous politicians or military strategists. We are also willing to welcome him at a price of more than £2,000 per month. I don’t think that Dr. Einstein is necessarily unwilling to make a special trip to our country. Let’s encourage each other and not be dejected! [Signed] Cai Yuanpei, January 3, twelfth year of the Republic of China.109 On his way home from Japan, Einstein again stopped in Shanghai. He arrived on New Year’s Eve and left Shanghai for Jerusalem on January 2, 1923. Despite the short stay, Einstein gave a speech on the relativity theory in a lecture hall in the foreign concession on New Year’s Day. The lecture was held at the joint invitation of the Shanghai Young Jewish Association and the Academic Research Society. Einstein spoke in German and an engineer from the concession’s department of public works translated his speech into English. Out of the three hundred to four hundred people who attended the lecture, only four or five were Chinese, among whom was Zhang Junmai, a former Beijing University professor who also attended the Chinese banquet in honor of Einstein in November. At the end of the lecture, Zhang stood up and asked Einstein for his opinions on British physicist O. J. Lodge’s psychic research. Einstein replied in French, “ce n’est pas sérieux (That is not serious).”110 Th e c a n c e l l at i o n of the planned visit by Albert Einstein was certainly a great disappointment to his Chinese hosts. A major newspaper

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

75

in Shanghai deplored, “It is extremely regrettable for us to miss Einstein at such close range.” The reporter cited public ignorance of science as a partial reason for the cancellation: People in our country love speeches on philosophy. Therefore, when Dewey and Russell came to our country, everyone went to listen to them with all sincerity and full reverence. They are, however, indifferent about Einstein’s new principles that have led to a great scientific revolution. In fact, one cannot really understand philosophy unless he has had good scientific training.111 For Einstein himself, the cancellation was also a painful decision. Five days before he wrote Cai Yuanpei, Einstein sent a letter to Xia Yuanli, a Beijing University professor, in which he wrote, “Beijing is so close and yet I cannot fulfill my long-cherished wish [to visit it], you can imagine how frustrated I am.”112 When he once again arrived in Shanghai en route to Jerusalem from Japan, he also told newspaper reporters, “The thing I most regret is that I am not able to visit inland China when I have already come to Shanghai.”113 It is easy to tell from the above that Einstein was indeed eager to go to China to see “the cradle of East Asian civilization.”114 To make the trip he had turned down several U.S. offers that came to him with much higher payments. Einstein’s Chinese hosts, Beijing University and other institutions, were also anxious for his visit. Why, then, did Einstein suddenly cancel his trip to Beijing? Minguo ribao speculated on two reasons. First, Einstein was to travel to Jerusalem to take the office of the president of the newly founded Hebrew University; second, when Einstein was in Japan, it was widely rumored among the Japanese that Beijing University could no longer afford Einstein’s visit because of financial difficulties.115 The first reason was almost certainly false, as there is no evidence of such an offer to Einstein. The second reason may be partially correct. Dai Nianzu adds a third possible reason: that Einstein rushed home probably because he had some new ideas about his research during the tour in Japan. Dai’s evidence is that soon after Einstein returned to Germany, he published a paper that was written on the ship that took him home.116 However, Dai’s suggestion is very unlikely. It was quite natural for Einstein to think about his research and write it down dur-

76

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ing a long trip by an ocean liner, when there was much quiet time. Moreover, Einstein did not go back to Germany directly. Instead, he followed his travel plans and spent weeks visiting Palestine and Spain before he returned to Berlin. The fourth possible reason is what was stated in Einstein’s letter of apology to Cai Yuanpei on December 22. In the letter, Einstein blamed the cancellation on the misunderstanding caused by the lack of communication between him and Beijing University, and by Dr. Pfister’s unreasonable request. There is no reason to doubt Einstein’s explanation and, as a matter of fact, I have found evidence that supports this explanation. It seems that Beijing University had never established a direct and prompt communication with Einstein ever since it reached the agreement in July about Einstein’s visit. The university also did not send its representative to meet Einstein in Shanghai in November. All these happened while the country and the national university were experiencing widely reported financial crises, which were bound to arouse concerns from any coming visitors who were officially invited and sponsored by the government. Nevertheless, nobody at the university seemed to have contacted Einstein to assure him that the financial difficulty would not affect the planned visit. New evidence found in the Einstein archives demonstrates that the internal financial crisis of the Beijing government indeed caused the physicist’s concerns in August 1922. The continual lack of communication since then seemed to have turned the concerns into misunderstandings and eventually led to Einstein’s decision to cancel the planned trip to Beijing. Although Einstein had agreed to come to Beijing in his reply to the Chinese Embassy in July 1922, he was still not sure about the trip in late August. In his letter to Pfister on August 28, he wrote, It is possible that I will be able to hold several lectures in China. Hitherto I have been invited by the university in Beijing. However, with China’s prevailing great internal difficulties, I still don’t know whether I will be able to comply with that invitation.117 (italics added) What were these “prevailing great internal difficulties”? In 1922, various warlords were controlling much of China, including the central

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

77

government in Beijing. At the end of April, a major war broke out near Beijing between Zhili and Fengtian, the two most powerful warlord factions. Afterward, the Beijing government became extremely unstable. In the six months between June 11, 1922, and January 4, 1923, the cabinet was replaced five times.118 The central government’s finances, which had been bad for years, became worse in the second half of 1922. There was no effective way for the Beijing government to collect local taxes, because it had no control of local governments, which in most cases were dominated by militarists. When the Beijing government was forced to take loans from foreign powers, much of the money went to military payrolls in exchange for the support of various militarist factions on which the government had to rely. Under these circumstances, it was not surprising that public educational institutions were to suffer severe financial difficulties. That was what happened to the National University of Beijing in the fall of 1922. On August 17, eleven days before Einstein wrote to Pfister, Cai Yuanpei, along with the presidents of seven other national universities or higher institutes in Beijing, and faculty representatives of the eight institutions went to the office of the central government to demand payments that had been delayed for more than five months.119 When they failed to have their requests fulfilled after one whole day’s appeal, Cai and other school principals offered to resign and cabled their announcement to all concerned nationwide. The president of Beijing’s government had then promised to help, and asked the eight university presidents to stay. However, the situation did not improve immediately. In fact, the financial crisis for the eight schools lasted as late as October 1922. Consequently, the school presidents resigned six times within a month to protest!120 Einstein had perhaps learned of these difficulties even before he left for East Asia. The prolonged uncertainty in Beijing must have made Einstein suspicious of Cai’s capability to fulfill the previous agreement. Because of this, it was understandable that Einstein would like to have some sort of reassurance from Beijing University before he proceeded to the lecture tour in Beijing. Unfortunately, Cai Yuanpei and his colleagues did not seem to have realized the possible impact of the financial crisis on Einstein’s planned visit. As a result they did not sense the urgency of communicating with Einstein and sending the letter of welcome. Einstein, on the other hand, did not consider it appropriate for

78

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

him to inquire from Cai. When he failed to hear anything from Beijing after touring in Japan for weeks, his suspicion turned into misunderstanding. In the end, he canceled the trip to Beijing and extended his tour in Japan. When Cai’s letter finally reached Einstein, it was too late for him to reschedule a trip without affecting his planned visits to Jerusalem and Spain in early 1923, visits that presumably were not changeable. A s E i n s t e i n m e n t i o n e d in his letter to Cai Yuanpei, there was another factor that had surely deepened Einstein’s misunderstanding. After learning of Einstein’s trip to Japan, Pfister, a professor at Tongji (Tung-chi) University in Shanghai, wrote Einstein a letter on July 1, 1922, which Einstein thought had been authorized by Cai Yuanpei. In his letter, Pfister requested that Einstein give one lecture in Shanghai while he was waiting for his ship to Japan. He then stressed that “It would surely be necessary that you speak in English [in the lecture] because there is hardly any interpreter in China who could translate this difficult subject [from German] both quickly enough and correctly.” However, this request for lecturing in English would certainly have disturbed Einstein, because of what he referred to as his “language phobia.”121 In his reply, he made it clear to Pfister that “I cannot give lectures in English.”122 Einstein seemed always to have serious concerns about the language used in his lectures in the 1920s. The language issue was also at the heart of his negotiation with the Spanish when they invited him to Spain in 1920.123 At these negotiations, Einstein stressed that “German is the only language in which I can speak intelligibly on my theory.” Therefore, it was natural for Einstein to regard Pfister’s request as a serious obstacle for his trip to China, an obstacle that must have deepened his suspicion about Cai and his commitment to the previous agreement.

The Impact of Einstein’s Promised Visit Despite its unfortunate cancellation, Einstein’s promised visit created another wave of intense interest in the theory of relativity and greatly accelerated its dissemination in China. As Figure 2.3 shows, the number of books and articles discussing Einstein and the theory of relativ-

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

79

Figure 2.3 Number of publications on Einstein and his theories, 1922

ity increased sharply in December 1922 as China prepared for Einstein’s anticipated visit. The preparation also prompted many public talks on the relativity theory. For example, seven respected Chinese scholars held a series of public speeches at Beijing University between late November and midDecember 1922 (see Table 2.2). This group of scholars included four physicists, an astronomer, a mathematician, and a philosopher. The subjects discussed involved classical mechanics, the special and general theories of relativity, Einstein’s life, non-Euclidean geometry, and the philosophical significance of relativity. After all, people in Beijing and many other cities in China felt Einstein’s influence, despite his physical absence. Indeed, it was an “action at a distance.”124

The Impact of Japanese Scholarship The investigation on China’s introduction of relativity for this book has further confirmed Japan’s significant role in East Asia as a transit center

80

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Table 2.2 The public lecture series on relativity at Beijing University in 1922 Subject

Lecturera

Date

1. Mechanics before Einstein 2. Special Theory of Relativity 3. Old Concepts of Time and Space 4. Einstein’s Life and Theories 5. Non-Euclidean Geometry 6. General Theory of Relativity 7. Relativity Theory and Philosophy

Ding Xunfu He Yinju Gao Shuqin Xia Fuyun Wang Shishu Wen Fancun˙ Zhang Jingsheng

November 24 November 25 November 29 December 2 December 6 December 9 December 13

Source: “Aiyinsitan xueshuo gongkai yanjiang (Public speeches on Einstein’s theory)” in BDRK, November 20, 1922. a. Ding Xunfu or Ding Xilin (1893–1974), British-educated physicist; He Yinju or He Yujie (1882–1939), British-educated physicist; Gao Shuqin or Gao Lu (1877–1947), Belgian-trained engineer-turned-astronomer; Xia Fuyun or Xia Yuanli (1884–1944), U.S.–German-trained physicist; Wen Fancun or Wen Yuanmo (1890–1945), Japaneseeducated physicist; Zhang Jingsheng (1888–1932), French-educated philosopher.

for Western scholarship. In the early twentieth century, modern physics was introduced to China mainly through two channels: first, Chinese scholars who were educated in Japan, and second, translated Japanese works. Among the translated Japanese works on relativity, the most remarkable were those by Japanese physicist Ishiwara Jun.

Chinese Scholars Educated in Japan As we have seen, Chinese scholars educated in Japan pioneered the introduction of relativity. Both Xu Chongqing and Li Fangbai received their higher education in Japan. Other Japanese-trained physicists or physics writers included Zhou Changshou (1888–1950), Zheng Zhenwen (1891–1969), Wen Yuanmo (1890–1945), and Zhang Yihui (1886–1946). All four contributed to the introduction of the theory of relativity in China but the first two were particularly remarkable. Zhou Changshou (1888–1950) was born to a family of scholars and officials in Majiang, Guizhou province. His grandfather, father, and brother all earned Juren degrees. His grandfather had been a prefecture magistrate and secretary to the cabinet. His father was a county magistrate and a salt commissioner. Changshou’s elder brother, Zhou Gongshou (1876–1950), earned his Juren degree in the same year as his father in 1901 and then taught at Guizhou University. In 1905, Zhou Gongshou led a group of eight students to Japan to study education. After he returned to Guizhou in 1906, he was put in charge of the edu-

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

81

cational affairs in the province. Zhou Gongshou lived a plain life but spent a large portion of his income supporting Changshou’s study in Japan.125 Under his elder brother’s support, Zhou Changshou went to Japan in 1906. He started at the First High School in Tokyo and in 1915 was admitted to Tokyo Imperial University to major in experimental physics.126 Graduating from the college, Zhou went on to study at the graduate school. Zhou’s academic record was excellent, and the university administration asked him to work in Japan. Nevertheless, Zhou Changshou returned to China in 1919, after living thirteen years in Japan.127 While in Japan, Zhou Changshou was one of the founding members of the Bing-Chen (1916) Society, or the Chinese Xueyi Society. As mentioned, this was an academic society founded by a group of Chinese students. For twenty years, Zhou had been an executive officer of the society and an editor of its magazine, Xueyi. Xu Chongqing, who first introduced the theory of relativity to China, was also a member of the society. Xu’s article on Einstein’s theory in 1917 was published in Xueyi. After he returned to China, Zhou became a well-known editor and prolific translator at the Commercial Press. Before 1949, he had compiled at least five sets of physics textbooks for middle-school students. For college students he also translated Practical Physics128 by R. A. Millikan and H. G. Gale, General Physics by Ishiwara Jun, and Essential Physics by Tamaru Takuro.129 Zhou Changshou made outstanding contributions to the introduction of quantum theory and the theory of relativity in China, along with radioactivity and the structure of atoms. Between 1920 and 1930, Zhou published at least eighteen papers and two books introducing the quantum and relativity theories. Among the eighteen papers, twelve were devoted to relativity, as were both his books. Zheng Zhenwen (1891–1969),130 a native of Changle County in Fujian province, was born to a family of scholars. Zhenwen’s father died when Zhenwen was only three years old. From then on, his mother carefully guided him in the traditional studies for the civil examination. At the age of twelve, Zheng passed the entry level of the three-tier examinations and became Xiucai in 1903. Two years later, however, the traditional civil examination system was abolished and a Western-style national school system was implemented. Despite the dramatic change,

82

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Zheng’s mother remained determined that he become a scholar. She first sent Zheng to a reformed school and then, in 1906, asked a relative to take Zheng to Japan to study. Zheng Zhenwen did not have any knowledge of Japanese when he arrived in Japan at the age of fifteen. He began by learning Japanese and English at language schools. Zheng then attended the First Tokyo Higher School (preparatory class) and the Second Sendai Higher School. In 1915, he was admitted to the Northeastern Imperial University, majoring in physical chemistry. After three years’ study under Professor Katayama Masao, Zheng Zhenwen graduated from the university with a bachelor’s degree. In the fall of 1918, Zheng returned to China and became a scientific editor at the Commercial Press at the invitation of Zhang Yuanji, director of the translation department. Zheng took charge of the division of physical sciences in the following year. During the thirteen years when Zheng worked at the Commercial Press,131 he translated and edited dozens of books on chemistry and physics. Although Zheng’s major contributions were in the introduction of modern chemistry, he also composed at least six papers and cotranslated one book on relativity theory during the 1920s. Zheng also published a scientific drama in 1922 to introduce Einstein’s theory to general Chinese readers.132 The drama was published in Dongfang zazhi’s “Special Einstein Issue” in December, which was especially prepared for Einstein’s planned visit to China. The drama, which was titled “The Light of Love,” had four characters: Doctor of Science, Mr. Time, Miss Space, and the Goddess of Light. The plot can be summarized briefly: Doctor of Science used to think that Mr. Time and Miss Space were unrelated and absolutely independent of each other. The doctor thus met some insurmountable difficulty in his research. While the doctor was falling asleep in his study, the Goddness of Light offered crucial inspiration to him. Eventually he understood the nature of the relation between Mr. Time and Miss Space after his “colored glasses” were smashed and the “gauze” that had been covering Mr. Time and Miss Space ever since Newton published his Principia was burned. As the Goddess of Light said to the doctor at the end of the drama, “Do you want to know the relation [between Mr. Time and Miss Space]? You have to ask me because I am the connection between the two. They are inseparable. However, nobody can tell that without me. They are a pair of holy lovers and I am the goddess of love.”133

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

83

Zheng’s drama was a creative and lively way to popularize the theory of relativity and to illustrate the relation between time and space.

Ishiwaraw Jun and His Works In the early twentieth century, Japanese scientific publications not only dominated the Chinese textbook market, but also were a large fraction of academic publications in China. During the first ten years of the twentieth century, about half of all Chinese physics textbooks were translated from Japanese originals.134 Many introductory papers on the theory of relativity had their Japanese connections: they were either translated from Japanese texts or written by Chinese scholars who had received their scientific education in Japan. During the period between 1917 and 1923, more than 40 percent (thirty-six out of eighty-eight) of Chinese relativity publications were directly translated from foreign literature, and about one-third (eleven out of thirty-six) of these translations were rendered from Japanese originals. What is striking is that one man—Ishiwara Jun (1881–1947)—authored almost all (nine out of eleven) of these translated Japanese works. Ishiwara Jun was the first Japanese theoretical physicist of international reputation.135 He received his bachelor’s degree in theoretical physics at Tokyo Imperial University in 1906. In October 1909, he published his first paper on relativity theory, “On Optics in Moving Aether,” which was also the first research paper dealing with the theory of relativity in Japan. Between 1909 and 1911 he published numerous papers dealing with the theory, and he won Einstein’s favorable recognition on his work as early as 1910. In 1911 Ishiwara became assistant professor of science at Tohuku Imperial University. Early in 1912, Ishiwara published a review article on the recent studies in relativity theory in Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik, which included perhaps the most complete bibliography of relativity to that date.136 In the summer of 1912, he went to Germany to study with Arnold Sommerfeld in Munich, where he developed a close friendship with Max von Laue. He also attended Max Planck’s colloquium in Berlin. During the summer of 1913, Ishiwara went to Zurich and participated in the discussion led by Einstein while he was working on his general theory of relativity. He returned to Japan before the war broke out and was appointed full professor at Tohuku Imperial University.

84

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Ishiwara’s research addressed the electron theory of metals, the special and general theories of relativity, and the quantum theory. In relativistic physics, he published papers on the propagation of light in moving objects, cavity radiation, dynamics of electrons, and the energymomentum tensor of the electromagnetic field. Based on the principle of least action, Ishiwara drew the energy-momentum tensor in 1913, which had also been done by Hermann Minkowski. He “tried to revise the concept of a constant velocity of light within the theory of relativity, arguing that a variable time scale, such that the product cdt remained constant, would produce equivalent results.” Based on this point of view, Ishiwara built his theory of gravity and proved during his 1913–1915 investigation that all three competing contemporary theories of gravity by Gunnar Nordström, Abraham, and Einstein could be derived from Ishiwara’s theory. Later Ishiwara also tried to develop a five-dimensional theory unifying the gravitational and electromagnetic fields. Because of his achievement in research on the theory of relativity and the quantum theory, Ishiwara was awarded a prize by the Japanese Academy of Sciences in 1919.137 Ishiwara’s scientific career prematurely ended in August 1921 because a love affair forced him to resign his university post. Before long he became a popular scientific writer, editor, and publisher. He not only edited four volumes of a complete edition of Einstein’s works in Japanese translation (1922–1924), but he also wrote many popular books and articles introducing and explaining the latest developments in physics.138 Ishiwara was the founder and chief editor of a major Japanese scientific journal Kagaku (Science), and when Einstein visited Japan in late 1922, Ishiwara accompanied him as an interpreter.139 It was Ishiwara who took careful notes of Einstein’s address, titled “How I Created the Theory of Relativity” at Kyoto University in December 1922; these notes are now well known and are valuable historical documents for studies on the origin of Einstein’s theory of relativity. These notes have been repeatedly translated, and numerous references are made to the notes by historians and philosophers. Whereas the English translation of Ishiwara’s notes first appeared in 1979, fifty-seven years after Einstein’s visit, a Chinese translation was published on February 23, 1923, only three weeks after the original Japanese publication. Ishiwara’s notes were first published in The Kaizo on February 1, 1923; nine days later, Xia Yuanli reported Einstein’s Kyoto address in his speech to

China Embraces the Theory of Relativity

85

the Qinghua Science Society at Qinghua University, which was published in the February 23 issue of Chenbao fukan. As a result, Einstein’s own account on his route to the theory of relativity was introduced to the Chinese much earlier than it was to readers in the West.140 Ishiwara had rich research experiences in theoretical physics and had personally studied with Einstein and other leading German physicists, which gave him unique credentials as a commentator on Einstein and relativity, at least in the eyes of many Chinese intellectuals. Zheng Zhenwen called Ishiwara “the only expert of relativity studies in Japan” who “had a unique understanding of the theory of relativity.”141 These traits gave Ishiwara a special authority in this area, which in turn made his works more influential in China than other Japanese works. Ishiwara Jun was probably the single most influential foreign physicist, except for Einstein, introducing relativity to China in the 1920s.142 Ja p a n e s e - e d u c at e d C h i n e s e s c i e n t i s t s and Japanese scientific scholarship played leading roles in the introduction of the theory of relativity to China. But they contributed little to theoretical research, which began in the late 1920s and was carried out by a group of theorists educated in the West. The next chapter tells the story of the rise of such theoretical research in China through the assimilation of Einstein’s theory of relativity.



3 Six Pioneers of Relativity

This chapter examines six Chinese physicists and their contributions to the assimilation of the theory of relativity. The individuals were selected because of the significance of their contributions, and because of their different educational backgrounds; all were professionally trained overseas, in Japan, Europe, and the United States. The examination follows the chronological order of each scientist’s major contribution. It will show why these Chinese physicists accepted the theory of relativity; whether they had to struggle to accept it; how their struggles, if any, were compared with those experienced by their Western colleagues; and what the conditions and consequences of the Chinese assimilation were in terms of the institutionalization of physics teaching and research.

Li Fangbai’s Electromagnetic View Li Fangbai’s speech in November 1917 was the first public talk in China on Einstein’s special theory of relativity (STR) and revealed his strong electromagnetic worldview.1 In his introduction to the principle of relativity, Li began with H. A. Lorentz’s theory of the electron. According to Li, Lorentz’s failure to build a satisfactory theory of the electron, based on his “contraction” hypothesis and the “local time,” was the reason Einstein rejected his assumptions and proposed the princi-

Six Pioneers of Relativity

87

ple of relativity.2 Li’s description was not accurate historically, but that kind of understanding of the relation between Lorentz’s and Einstein’s work was not uncommon in 1917. Li also explained why Lorentz’s “true time” was not achievable. In his explanation, he touched a key to the understanding of the STR: the relativity of simultaneity.3 Li then introduced Einstein’s two postulates for the STR. Stating the principle of constancy of the velocity of light, however, Li did not specify that it should be within one system of reference. Li noticed the difference between Einstein’s assumptions in the special theory of relativity and Lorentz’s in his theory of electrons.4 He also correctly identified that they had achieved some of the same results; however, he misidentified the origin of Einstein’s principle of relativity. It appeared that Li thought Einstein’s principle was just an elaborated electron theory when he characterized it as part of the non-Newtonian dynamics—“a new dynamics based on theory of electrons.”5 Li introduced the relativity of length and time, in which he adopted Gilbert N. Lewis and Richard C. Tolman’s view to “interpret the relativity of length and time as changes in the units of length and time, and not in the quantities themselves.”6 It is clear that Li Fangbai had accepted the new conceptions of space and time in the theory of relativity. However, he retained a concept of “ether”; in the conclusion of his speech, he still discussed actions and reactions between two electrons based on the electromagnetic ether.7 Einstein was, from the outset, aware of the necessity to abandon the ether as a reference system of the absolute space.8 In the introduction of Einstein’s original paper in 1905, he declared that “The introduction of a ‘luminiferous ether’ will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ‘absolutely stationary space’ provided with special properties . . .”9 Since “ether” or “luminiferous ether” was usually associated with the “absolutely stationary space,” Li’s standpoint appears paradoxical. But if we read more carefully, we will see that the “ether” Li spoke of was not the same as the one to which a state of motion should have a special physical meaning. Instead, Li conceived of ether in a way that was similar to the concept Paul Langevin entertained in 1911. Having accepted the new conception of space and time in the theory of relativity, Langevin still preferred to maintain the ether “as a physical reality,” more

88

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

specifically, “as the vehicle or the bearer of the energy of electromagnetic wave.”10 Langevin’s position was not unusual among physicists in the 1910s, especially among those who were sympathetic toward the electromagnetic view of nature. According to this view, however, “the only physical realities are the electromagnetic ether and electric particles and all laws of nature are reducible to properties of the ether, properties which are defined by the electromagnetic field equations.”11 This view of nature became an increasingly popular outlook among physicists, especially among the younger generation, at the beginning of the twentieth century. For a time, it appeared very promising that the electromagnetic worldview would eventually replace the traditional mechanical view of nature, which had ably guided physical research ever since Newton’s Principia was published. The mechanical worldview asserted that “the ultimate constituents of physical reality are discrete or, sometimes, continuous inertial masses, and that they move according to the laws of mechanics under the influence of distance or contact forces.”12 By 1910, the notion that ether was “an entity with regard to which the motion or the rest should have a special meaning in the theoretical scheme of physics” had begun to disappear. However, even after 1910, many believers of the electromagnetic worldview were still not willing to discard the ether because it was for them an essential part of the reality of the universe.13 The German physicist A. H. Bucherer, for example, “explicitly rejected the concept of absolute motion, but at the same time he asserted that the ether should be retained as a unique constituent of the universe.”14 Li Fangbai’s strong inclination to the electromagnetic view of nature was evident in his speech. It was reflected in its title and the subjects he chose to address. The term “non-Newtonian dynamics,” the central subject of his address, is clearly a key notion. Li characterized nonNewtonian dynamics as “a new dynamics based on the theory of electrons.”15 The term “non-Newtonian dynamics” was likely adopted from the analogous one, “non-Newtonian mechanics,” first proposed by Lewis, an American physical chemist, in 1908.16 But by using the phrase non-Newtonian dynamics, instead of non-Newtonian mechanics, Li’s emphasis on dynamics was clear. This emphasis not only suggests that Li did not realize the kinematic nature of Einstein’s special theory of relativity; it also is in accordance with his electromagnetic view of

Six Pioneers of Relativity

89

nature because advocates of this view tended to focus on the dynamic side of the issue. For example, in discussing the velocity dependence of the electromagnetic mass of the electron, Max Abraham, a radical advocate of the electromagnetic view of nature, titled his paper “Dynamics of the Electron.”17 Henri Poincaré, a sympathizer of the electromagnetic view of nature, used the same title for the subject.18 There is a second issue in Li’s address worth discussing. Walter Kaufmann’s first experiment on the electron’s electromagnetic mass was done in 1901, and Einstein’s theory of relativity was published in 1905. More than ten years later, Li was still discussing these two developments. Was Li out of touch with contemporary physics in the West by choosing two “obsolete” subjects to discuss in his speech? The answer must be “no.” The subjects in Li’s address were still among the major problems that concerned many contemporary Western physicists at the time. The first topic in the speech, the velocity dependence of the electromagnetic mass, was most actively discussed by both experimental and theoretical physicists in the first fifteen years of the twentieth century.19 Participants in the discussion included not only younger physicists such as Kaufmann, Abraham, and Langevin, but also older and well-established physicists such as H. A. Lorentz, H. Poincaré, Max Planck, and Wilhelm Wien. The debate regarding the mass of the electron was also very much in Einstein’s mind in those days; it was important to his STR in a sense that the conclusion of the debate could influence the evaluation of his theory.20 Einstein’s principle of relativity was the second topic of Li’s address. Although it was first published in 1905, the STR did not draw wide attention among physicists until Hermann Minkowski’s lecture in 1908. Furthermore, it is only after 1910 that an increasing number of physicists began to realize the fundamental difference between Einstein’s STR and Lorentz’s theory of electrons, which led to the correct understanding of Einstein’s theory.21

Xia Yuanli: Struggle to Reconcile Ether with Relativity Xia Yuanli22 (1883–1944), a native of Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, was born in a family of scholars.23 Hangzhou was home to many wellknown Chinese mathematicians in the nineteenth century. Xia Yuanli’s grandfather, Xia Luanxiang (1823–1864), and Li Shanlan, the famous scientific translator (see Chapter 1), were among these mathemati-

90

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

cians.24 His father, Xia Zengyou (1863–1924), who earned his Jinshi degree in 1888, was a reform-minded official. He was a supporter and close friend of Liang Qichao (1873–1929), Tan Sitong (1865–1898), and Yan Fu (1854–1921). Xia Zengyou visited Europe in the 1890s and was the director of the department of general education in the Ministry of Education during the early years of the Republic of China.25 Xia Zengyou’s experience may explain why he sent his son to Western-style schools and supported his study in the West. Xia Yuanli entered Qiushi School in Hangzhou in the late 1890s.26 Qiushi School, founded in 1897, was the first reformed school of its kind in Zhejiang province. Feeling deeply ashamed for China’s defeat by Japan in 1894, founders of the school realized how important education in the natural sciences was for strengthening the country, and they stressed curricula in those fields. Indeed, students at this school “could not graduate without possessing extensive knowledge of natural science.”27 In 1904, Xia Yuanli went to Shanghai and studied at Nanyang College.28 After passing an examination in 1905, Xia was awarded a scholarship by the provincial government of Guangdong to study in the United States.29 Xia spent the first year studying at the Berkeley School in California, gaining experience in physical and chemical experiments, which were not available during his schooling in China.30 Then he moved to the East Coast and studied mathematical physics at the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University.31 Xia earned his bachelor of philosophy degree at Yale in 1907 with a thesis on Oliver Heaviside’s “System of Vector Analysis” and “Theory of Plane Electromagnetic Waves.”32 After Yale, Xia Yuanli, like anyone who wished to learn more about theoretical physics in those days, crossed the Atlantic Ocean “to continue the study of this subject at the universities of Paris and Berlin.”33 Although he traveled extensively in Europe, “including England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Belgium,” Xia stayed in Berlin most of the time.34 Xia Yuanli officially took courses at Berlin University between October 1908 and November 1911, although records show that he had registered at the university in October 1907. He might well have spent the first year studying German, which was not on the official registration record. Of the eighteen courses he took at Berlin University, Xia took five of Planck’s and three of Heinrich Rubens’s physics courses.35

Six Pioneers of Relativity

91

After the 1911 revolution began in China in October, the financial support from Guangdong province, which Xia relied on, stopped. This probably contributed to Xia’s leaving Berlin University in November 1911. He returned to China in 1912 and was appointed physics professor and dean of the science division at Beijing University.36 Xia belonged to the first generation of Chinese theoretical physicists, and under his directorship, China’s first graduates in physics completed their studies at Beijing University in 1916. When Cai Yuanpei became president of Beijing University in 1917, Xia Yuanli was again appointed dean of the science division.37 In 1919 Xia went back to Berlin and studied at Berlin University with Planck and Rubens.38 With Planck’s introduction Xia became acquainted with Albert Einstein. Xia then studied with Einstein and attended his lectures at the university. When Xia had questions for Einstein, as Xia later recalled, Einstein “always tried tirelessly to dispel his doubts.”39 After this time in Berlin, Xia devoted himself to spreading Einstein’s theory in China. He helped Beijing University invite Einstein for a visit. In March 1921, when Cai Yuanpei visited Berlin, Xia accompanied Cai to see Einstein and to invite him to present lectures in China. In April, Xia completed his Chinese translation of Einstein’s most widely known book, Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie (On the Special and the General Theory of Relativity). The book was the only comprehensive survey of the relativity theory in Einstein’s own words addressed to a broad audience, and it was his most widely known work.40 Xia’s translation was first published in the “Relativity Issue” of the Chinese journal Gaizao in April 1921; it was subsequently printed as a separate volume by the Commercial Press in 1922.41 Xia’s translation thus became the first book on relativity theory in China, a book that had a wide influence both in China and the rest of Southeast Asia.42 Coming back to Beijing from Berlin at the end of 1921, Xia Yuanli continued to teach physics at various universities in Beijing.43 He was one of the first Chinese physicists to spread the theory of relativity in China. He taught relativity in classrooms, translated Einstein’s book, wrote newspapers articles, and made public speeches about Einstein and his relativity theory.44 Before he studied Einstein’s theory of relativity, Xia Yuanli had been familiar with classical Maxwellian electromagnetic field theory, as his

92

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

1907 bachelor thesis was based on Heaviside’s electromagnetic theory.45 Heaviside was a self-taught expert in mathematical physics and played an important role in the development of James C. Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory. Xia first learned some features of the STR when he attended a speech by the great French mathematician Poincaré, probably in April 1909 when he gave a series of lectures in Goettingen; the speech was titled “La Mécanique nouvelle (New Mechanics).”46 It is, however, unlikely that Xia would have heard Einstein’s name in the speech: the printed speech never mentions the name and there is no paper by Poincaré in which Einstein and relativity are linked.47 Xia later recalled that Poincaré’s lecture made him “realize for the first time that there is mechanics different from the Newtonian theory,” which clearly indicates that he was not aware of the STR as late as the spring of 1909. It is curious to see that Xia did not learn of it earlier, because his educational experience in Germany apparently offered him plenty of opportunities to do so. From 1908 to 1911, Xia took Planck’s courses at Berlin University, and Planck was the first established physicist who realized the significance of Einstein’s theory. As a coeditor of the premier German physics journal Annalen der Physik, Planck was instrumental in the quick publication of Einstein’s 1905 paper on the STR. He compared the significance of Einstein’s work with that of Copernicus’s. Planck was also the first physicist who discussed relativity in his seminar in Berlin in 1905–1906 and encouraged his students to study the theory of relativity.48 Xia should also have had opportunities to hear about other German physicists’ works on relativity. For instance, Minkowski gave his famous speech, “Space and Time,” in Goettingen in late September 1908, and Max von Laue completed the world’s first monograph on the theory of relativity in 1910, more than one year before Xia’s return to China in 1912. Nevertheless, there is no evidence indicating that Xia actively studied or publicly discussed relativity before 1918. In 1918, the theory of relativity appeared in the curriculum of the physics department at Beijing University, where Xia was teaching. It is, however, not clear whether or how much Xia was involved in this course.49 In 1919, Xia went back to Berlin mainly to study with Einstein. But even as late as March 1921, when he was probably finishing his translation of Einstein’s book, Xia still had trouble understanding the transmission of light without the ether.50

Six Pioneers of Relativity

93

The Chinese magazine Gaizao published Xia Yuanli’s translation of Einstein’s popular book, On the Special and the General Theory of Relativity in April 1921, but readers complained that it was too difficult for them to understand. Wishing to help their readers, Gaizao editors tried to provide them with references and further explanations of Einstein’s theory. Since Xia was the original translator of Einstein’s book and was teaching relativity at universities in Beijing, he was an obvious choice to take on this job. Thus in April 1922, Gaizao published a transcript of Xia’s lecture titled “Einstein’s Relativity and His Biography.” In this lecture, Xia Yuanli started by saying: Einstein’s theory of relativity is the newest, the most advanced, and the most profound theory of today’s physics. For people who just start to study this theory, there may be too many subtleties and twists. One is always afraid that he may have picked up some specifics but lost the main theme. Therefore, the first thing I am going to do today is to summarize the important ideas of the theory of relativity despite the risk of repetition.51 Discussing its theoretical impact, Xia said: The theory of the electron has changed the concept of matter, while the theory of relativity has changed the concept of time. The theory of relativity, which was created by German [physicist] Einstein, is indeed one of the greatest inventions of human beings. Because of the [general] theory of relativity, the mysterious gravity also has its new interpretation and physics and geometry become inseparable.52 Xia then discussed the origin of the theory of relativity, According to the classical physics, there was no so-called absolute motion in mechanics; in optics, however, there was such absolute motion. . . . If two systems are in uniform motion with respect to each other, an observer cannot tell which system is in motion and which one is at rest according to classical mechanics because the motion equations for either system are the same. However, it is a different case in optics. If one observer sees light being transmit-

94

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ted at the same speed in all directions and another observer is moving with respect to the first observer, then according to the classical theory of physics the same light’s transmitting speed observed by the second observer could never be the same in all directions. Consequently, since the earth moves around the sun, its motion must affect the transmission of light, which should be detected by optical experiments. An American professor at the University of Chicago, Michelson, made an extremely precise experiment in 1884, but he did not detect the effect at all, a result that puzzled physicists. Many people, such as Mach and Poincaré, found the classical theory inconsistent with the facts. They thought that something must be wrong in the classical theory. However, it was Einstein who found out that the source of the mistake lay in the preconception called the “absolute time,” which had been deeply impressed into our minds and no-one had ever suspected due to the great fame of Newton.”53 According to Xia Yuanli, “Einstein’s 1905 proof of that the concept of absolute time cannot exist is an unprecedented great progress in physics.” This new idea of relative time (the value of time is different for each observer in every uniformly moving frame of reference) “led to a great revolution in physics” because, based on the relativity of time and the constant speed of light in all uniformly moving systems of reference, one can derive many previously inconceivable results, such as length contraction, time dilation, the relativity of simultaneity (Gleichzeitigkeit), relativity of shape (Gestalt), and the speed of light as the maximum speed of the universe. In Xia’s opinion, it was exactly because of these unprecedented and inconceivable results that many opposed the theory of relativity and considered it a heretical theory when it was first published. Only gradually did physicists realize that Einstein’s relativity was “an unprecedented great invention of the first class.”54 Xia went on to elaborate important results of the special relativity, such as variable mass and mass-energy equivalence. According to relativity, a body’s inertial mass is no longer invariable. Rather, the mass increases with its speed. If the matter were moving at the speed of light, its mass would become infinite, which was a shocking result. “However,” wrote Xia, “it had been completely proved by physical experiments.”55 Xia then took experiments on ß-rays as evidence and declared

Six Pioneers of Relativity

95

that the experimental data fit the result of relativity very well. Xia therefore believed it “a very powerful supporting evidence for the theory of relativity.”56 Introducing the mass-energy equivalence derived from relativity, Xia considered the result “extremely important.” “From this we know,” wrote Xia, “anything that has energy has inertial mass. In other words, mass and energy are in fact the same thing; their difference lies in the way to measure them, which differs by a factor of the square of the speed of light.” Xia pointed out the application of this equivalence in the study of radioactive rays.57 Regarding other scientists’ contributions to the development of relativity theory, Xia introduced in particular Minkowski’s interpretation of the physical relation between space and time in terms of a fourdimensional geometry. Xia praised Minkowski’s work because it clearly demonstrated that “Time and space have lost their independence and become inseparable.” Xia also realized the significant change in the study of physical fields as a result of the introduction of Minkowski’s four-dimensional space-time. One no longer needs to study separately the time-related and space-related state changes of a physical field because both changes are now represented in Minkowski’s “world.”58 Introducing the general theory of relativity, Xia pointed out that gravitation had always been a unique problem in physics because it “seemed to have no connection with other [physical] phenomena.” Although the STR had greatly broadened our understanding of nature, it had one shortcoming, according to Xia, that is, it did not apply to gravitation. Einstein was very much concerned about this shortcoming. In 1915, “Einstein invented the general theory of relativity in which gravitation and all physics [phenomena] were included.” As for the differences between the two theories, Xia stated that special relativity required uniform motion between two systems of reference, while general relativity did not restrict the way one system of reference moved with respect to the other. While “the special theory of relativity eliminates the prejudice of absolute time, the general theory of relativity abandons Euclidean geometry.”59 Xia then introduced some essential concepts of non-Euclidean geometry: If physical space does not have to be Euclidean, every point in the space must have its own metrical fundamental tensor that has

96

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ten components and varies at different points. . . . Einstein’s great achievement lies in his discovery that fundamental tensors decide not only the spatial metric but also the spatial gravitational field and its changes with time. One can detect such gravitational fields by observing the acceleration of one mass in the field, an acceleration that seems to be caused by other masses. Pondering the above results, Einstein obtained a law of gravitation whose first approximation is Newton’s law of universal gravitation. However, Einstein’s law has much broader coverage than Newton’s, and Newton’s law is only one special case of Einstein’s law, which is truly a great success of the theory of relativity.60 Xia believed that three experimental proofs of physical phenomena predicted by the general relativity (the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, the gravitational shift of spectral lines, and the deflection of light near the Sun) had completely confirmed Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Since the general theory of relativity “has created an extremely significant revolution in physical ideas only a few years after its creation,” Xia believed, “no matter whether the theory of relativity will change in the future, there is no doubt that Einstein ought to be considered the greatest [physicist] after Newton.”61 At Cai Yuanpei’s invitation, Xia addressed the faculty of Beijing University on Einstein and his theory of relativity on December 2, 1922, apparently in preparation for Einstein’s visit later that month. Most of the content of Xia’s talk closely followed his paper. Nevertheless, he did add a few new and important points. First, Xia accepted Einstein’s contention that “Relativity does not overthrow all previous physical theories. Rather, it is an advance based on the achievements of Newton and Maxwell.” Second, Xia by now had a better understanding of the special theory of relativity. After pointing out the apparent incompatibility of the two postulates in special relativity, Xia claimed, “Einstein has proved that the two postulates are indeed compatible with each other if one gets rid of the concept of the absolute time.” Again, Xia praised the elimination of absolute time as “an unprecedented great advance in physics.” Third, Xia introduced Einstein’s new view of cosmology (kosmologische Betrachtungen), in which Einstein argued that the universe was boundless but spatially finite. Here it is interesting to read Planck’s comments on Einstein’s cosmological view. Xia said that Planck once told him in

Six Pioneers of Relativity

97

the spring of 1921, “It is unnecessary to add cosmology to Einstein’s theory of relativity because it is already a completed theory.”62 Fourth, Xia was still concerned about the issue of ether, even introducing Einstein’s new definition of ether. Einstein was reported to have told Xia, “Ether is a space of physical properties rather than a matter of physical properties. Therefore it does not make sense to determine whether it is in motion or at rest. Under this definition ether may exist.”63 It seemed that Einstein’s approval of ether, even under a new definition that deprived it of its special place in electromagnetics as an absolute system of reference against which the velocity of light can be measured, gratified Xia who was deeply concerned about the propagation of light without ether.64 Fifth, Xia also mentioned alternative gravitational theories, such as those proposed by Hermann Weyl (1885–1955) and Paul Painlevé (1863–1933). However, Xia said that Einstein did not endorse Weyl’s theory. Between late 1922 and early 1923, Xia Yuanli was frequently invited by colleges and popular newspapers in the Beijing area to talk about Einstein, relativity, and other contemporary advances in modern physics. In these talks, Xia always emphasized the significance of the theory of relativity, regarding it as “the most important achievement since Newton and Darwin” and insisting that “everyone learn about its synopsis.” At the same time, however, Xia pointed out that relativity was only one of four current new trends in physical studies; the other three were the nuclear theory of atomic constitution, the quantum theory, and the electromagnetic view of nature.65 Xia used Einstein’s relativity to support the electromagnetic view of nature: Maxwellian electrodynamics can prove that an electromagnetic field must have inertia. Moreover, the electromagnetic field inside atoms produces the inertia of matter. There is no matter except electricity. Merely electrons and protons can constitute everything. In addition, according to relativity, anything with energy has equivalent mass. Matter is [in fact] where the energy of the electromagnetic field is most concentrated. There is no doubt that matter is made of electricity. What [we] don’t know is how it is made and the internal state of atomic nuclear, electrons and protons. It is only the beginning of a theory of matter, which has yet been able to explain mechanics in terms of electron.66

98

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Xia realized, “We don’t have a theory of mechanics or of electricity, which satisfies everyone.”67 He also pointed out that Einstein’s general theory of relativity still could not explain the existence of electrons and protons and that gravitational and electromagnetic fields had yet to be unified.68

Zhou Changshou’s Penetrating and Visionary Introduction Zhou Changshou’s background is discussed in Chapter 2; here we shall focus on his writings about the theory of relativity. As shown, Bertrand Russell’s lecture series in early 1921 aroused a strong and widely spread interest in the relativity theory in China. Many new papers on the subject were published within the first few months of 1921. These papers, however, were neither comprehensive nor easily understandable. In May 1921, Zhou Changshou published his first paper on the theory, which was titled “The Origin and Concepts of the Theory of Relativity.”69 Since, as Zhou argued, it was impossible to be both comprehensive and easily understandable at the same time, in this paper he intended only to present an easily understandable introduction of the theory.70 Zhou introduced fundamental concepts of the theory of relativity but omitted mathematical deductions whenever it was possible. The paper focused on issues such as Galilean and Newtonian views of space-time and Galileo transformations; ether and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory; the Lorentz transformations; Minkowski’s four-dimensional geometry and the new view of space-time; and Einstein’s new theory of gravitation. Zhou Changshou introduced the Lorentz transformations as the foundation of the theory of relativity, believing them crucial for Einstein’s success. In fact, Zhou considered Lorentz’s theory equivalent to Einstein’s, except for one difference: Lorentz always maintained that there existed an absolutely stationary ether and therefore all equations obtained have to be interpreted in the absolutely stationary system of reference. Einstein, however, thought otherwise. He would rather get rid of the ether completely than dreaming of such a kind of imponderable and being constrained by it. One does not have to care about the status of the ether if he does not use it. In other words, Einstein has extended Lorentz’s idea of local time but admits no absolute time.

Six Pioneers of Relativity

99

In Einstein’s opinion, times measured in all [uniformly] moving systems are equally true. This is the difference between Lorentz and Einstein, and it is also Einstein’s merit.71 It was to Zhou’s credit that he had recognized in this paper the difference between Lorentz and Einstein over the absolutely stationary ether; his contemporaries often failed to realize this key difference. An example of such misunderstanding is that for many years references to the Lorentz-Einstein theory were common.72 Still, Zhou had more to say about “Einstein’s value,” which he thought, is not limited to going beyond local time. His true value lies in his discovery that physical principles of space-time cannot be solely based on mechanical laws, like what Galileo did; and that there are other more important physical laws that one should continue to rely on. In order to preserve these more important laws, [we] have to sacrifice these mechanical laws and make new rules. That was why the theory of relativity was born.73 The “other more important physical laws” Zhou had in his mind were Maxwellian electromagnetic laws. Here Zhou seemed to support the electromagnetic view of nature and was willing to keep electromagnetic laws at the price of mechanical laws. That, however, was not what Einstein did in his theory of relativity. Zhou himself also realized this as he pointed out later in the same essay, “what has been thought sacrificed has not been after all” because the theory of relativity could reduce to Newtonian laws of mechanics.74 In the section titled “New World View,” Zhou introduced Minkowski’s four-dimensional geometry and the new view of space-time. Although in Zhou’s opinion, “The fundamental principle of the theory of relativity is the Lorentz transformations,” neither Lorentz nor Einstein had, according to Zhou, clearly explained or conceived the significance of the transformations. It was not until August 1908 when Hermann Minkowski presented his famous speech, “Space and Time,” that the significance of the Lorentz transformations became completely clarified.75 Quoting Minkowski’s speech, Zhou underlined the unity of space and time: “Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to

100

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.”76 Zhou then discussed Minkowski’s four-dimensional space and demonstrated how to use it to derive results of physical significance. He showed, for example, that the Lorentz transformations is only a rotation of axes in non-Euclidean geometry’s hyperbolic space; why absolute space and time are meaningless; and why the theory of relativity rejects the ether. Zhou also demonstrated how some of Einstein’s results, which are hard to understand, could be apprehended at a glance if they were expressed in non-Euclidean geometry. In this way, Zhou explained “length contraction” and “time dilation.” In the last section discussing Einstein’s “new theory of gravitation,” or the general theory of relativity, Zhou introduced the “principle of equivalence” that states: Forces resulting from the change of systems of co-ordinates are equivalent to those in a gravitational field. No experiment can distinguish the difference between the two kinds of forces. In other words, gravitation is a kind of geometrical property, which is generated by changing the system of co-ordinates and has nothing to do with the nature of matter.77 Zhou then introduced Einstein’s gravitational equation in tensorial form and results derived from the equation when it was applied to three particular problems: the perihelion of planets, deflection of a ray of light, and displacement of spectral lines. Zhou’s confidence in the general theory of relativity was apparently strengthened by Leonhard Grebe and Albert Bachem’s observation and discussion on the displacement of spectral lines. In his introduction, Zhou considered Grebe and Bachem’s results “most reliable.” Grebe and Bachem were among the most enthusiastically pro-Einsteinian spectroscopists. By 1920, they had obtained results that were more than 80 percent of required value and were considered most favorable to the theory. But even these results were in clear disagreement with Einstein’s theory. The gist of Grebe and Bachem’s papers in 1920 was to show how the negative results obtained by others and themselves might have actually been in error or due to imperfect observational conditions.

Six Pioneers of Relativity

101

Zhou’s discussion shows that he was familiar with Grebe and Bachem’s papers and was convinced by their arguments. In the end, he declared that the discrepancy had “resulted only from imperfect experimental methods rather than from the flaw in the theory of relativity.”78 Zhou’s paper, “The Origin and Concept of the Theory of Relativity,” was highly regarded by his Chinese colleagues. When Chinese mathematical physicist Wei Siluan read this essay in Germany, he was deeply impressed by Zhou’s elucidating explanations and scientifically based comments. Wei acclaimed it “the most penetrating” essay among the publications on the theory of relativity in China.79 In the same issue of Xueyi, where Zhou published the first part of his paper in May 1921, he also provided a list of research literature on the theory.80 The list, adopted from Nature magazine, included books and pamphlets published between 1892 and 1921, and excluded all papers published in journals or magazines. The list contains eighty-three books and pamphlets, beginning with H. A. Lorentz’s La théorie electromagnétique de Maxwell et son application aux corps mouvants ( Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory and Its Application to Moving Bodies) and ending with Rudolf Lämmel’s Die Grundlagen der Relativitätstheorie ( The Foundation of the Theory of Relativity). Having studied in Japan for fifteen years, Zhou Changshou knew Japanese physicists and their works well. It was therefore not surprising that Zhou had paid special attention to Ishiwara Jun’s works and introduced a number of them to Chinese readers. In November 1922, when Einstein was on his way to Japan, Zhou published his translation of Ishiwara’s paper, “Einstein’s Cosmology and the Outcome of [Human] Thinking.”81 The paper came from Ishiwara’s most popular book, Einstein and Relativity, which had by this time reached its twentieth Japanese edition.82 In this paper, Ishiwara challenged Einstein’s cosmological conclusion derived from the general theory of relativity. He argued that Einstein’s theory would lead to the abandonment of the principle of relativity and therefore must be revised.83 Ishiwara also introduced the Leyden astronomer Willem De Sitter’s competing theory of cosmology and compared it with Einstein’s. In his opinion, De Sitter’s theory seemed more reasonable because it could preserve the principle of relativity. Ishiwara, however, also recognized a flaw of De Sitter’s theory. That is, the subtle relation between matter and space in Einstein’s theory was

102

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

lost in De Sitter’s theory. Furthermore, Ishiwara proposed to build a new cosmology based on two principles: the principle of relativity and the extended “Mach’s principle.”84 Einstein had used Mach’s principle to explain the inertio-gravitational field “entirely in terms of the behaviour of material bodies.”85 In his extended Mach’s principle, Ishiwara replaced material bodies with energy so that the principle could be generalized and include all radiated energy, such as light, heat, electromagnetic waves, and gravitational waves.86 By translating this essay, Zhou introduced to Chinese readers the first two relativistic cosmological models: the “Einstein cylinder world,” filled with a uniform static mass distribution, and the completely empty “De Sitter hyperboloid world.” The essay also briefly discussed the 1916–1918 debate between Einstein and De Sitter, a recent international development in relativity studies.87 In December 1922, to prepare for Einstein’s visit to China, Zhou contributed an essay, titled “A Synopsis of the Principle of Relativity,” to The Eastern Miscellany’s special “Einstein Issue.” By this time, Einstein’s name was widely known in China. As Zhou stated at the beginning of his essay, “In today’s China, the name ‘Einstein’ probably has been known to almost everyone in academia—or perhaps nobody is willing to admit that he does not know it.”88 Zhou then reviewed how Einstein came to be such a famed scientist in China. He attributed the Chinese interest in Einstein and his relativity to Russell’s lectures in Beijing in early 1921. Zhou also pointed out, however, that there were Chinese introductions to Einstein’s relativity before Russell’s lectures. He took Xu Chongqing and Wen Yuanmo as examples. Both Xu and Wen were Zhou’s fellow members in the Chinese Xueyi Society and had introduced relativity, in September 1917 and in June 1920 respectively.89 However, neither had produced as great a sensation among Chinese intellectuals as Russell had. That was because, argued Zhou, they were not foreigners and therefore were unable to arouse the curiosity of the average Chinese. Zhou also criticized the way many of his compatriots studied Einstein’s relativity: in the same way they treated John Dewy’s and Russell’s lectures given in China in the previous years. Zhou warned them, “There is no royal road in geometry.” To achieve a true understanding of Einstein’s works, Zhou pointed out, one must change his practice of following others blindly. Otherwise, what one learned about

Six Pioneers of Relativity

103

Einstein’s theory would forever remain the same as that in Russell’s lecture, “Analysis of Matter.” On the eve of Einstein’s visit to China, Zhou urged his fellow Chinese to “conduct a sound study of Einstein’s theory in order to understand its true value.” Otherwise, wrote Zhou, “we will have nothing to show our deep admiration and respect, nor will Einstein appreciate this kind of empty and shallow welcome.”90 To prepare Chinese readers for Einstein’s lectures, in the rest of his essay Zhou summarized relativity’s origin, contents, evolution, scope of applications, and possible directions of future development. A distinguishing characteristic of this essay was that it introduced more updated development in relativity studies. For example, when discussing the general theory of relativity, Zhou brought up the difference between Einstein’s theory and French mathematician Painlevé’s calculation. According to Einstein, Euclidean geometry could not be applied at all to the gravitational field; it had to be replaced with Riemann’s non-Euclidean geometry. Painlevé’s calculation in 1921, however, showed different results. Zhou pointed out that it was still not certain whether Einstein or Painlevé was correct.91 Zhou also noticed Ernst Grossmann’s recent challenge to Einstein’s predicted anomaly in the advance of Mercury’s perihelion.92 While Einstein’s value was 42"9 per century, Grossmann’s calculation gave it a value of 38". Zhou thus commented, “If Grossmann’s calculation is correct, it is necessary to revise this [Einstein’s] result. However, since the difference [between the two] is so small, it certainly does not diminish the value of the theory of relativity.” Zhou’s remark showed his confidence in Einstein’s theory. His faith came partly from his knowledge of A. Anderson’s failed challenge to Einstein two years earlier.93 Anderson was a professor at University College, Galway. In February 1920, he concluded from his analysis that Einstein’s theory predicts no perihelion advance.94 E. S. Pearson of Trinity College, Cambridge, however, quickly pointed out Anderson’s error in September, and Anderson himself published a correction in November.95 Based on this experience, Zhou anticipated, “Perhaps Grossmann will fail in a similar manner.”96 Introducing the gravitational deflection of light rays, Zhou considered the “complete agreement” between Einstein’s prediction and the 1919 solar eclipse observation a “powerful proof” for the hypothesis of non-Euclidean space surrounding matter.97 Zhou also made some remarkable comments based on the gravitational deflection of light. First,

104

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

he compared the gravitational deflection to the effect of a refractive medium surrounding the mass. This is actually the first introduction of the concept of gravitational lens, which astrophysicists discovered only accidentally in 1979. Second, Zhou introduced here a “very violent” assumption of Anderson.98 Based on his calculation, Anderson had remarked: If the mass of the sun were concentrated in a sphere of diameter 1.47 kilometers, the index of refraction near it would become infinitely great, and we should have a very powerful condensing lens, too powerful indeed, for the light emitted by the sun itself would have no velocity at its surface. Thus if, in accordance with the suggestion of Helmholtz, the body of the sun should go on contracting, there will come a time when it will be shrouded by darkness, not because it has no light to emit, but because its gravitational field will be impermeable to light.99 Since Anderson’s remark was perhaps “the first prediction of black hole formation in general relativistic space-time,”100 it is remarkable that Zhou Changshou introduced the idea of a black hole in China as early as 1922. In the section dealing with Einstein’s cosmology, Zhou repeated Ishiwara’s arguments, indicating that he had accepted them. Following Ishiwara, Zhou also considered it necessary to revise Einstein’s cosmology. He reported, however, that he was still unable to determine how to revise it. At the end of the essay, Zhou introduced Weyl’s newly extended theory of relativity: The special theory of relativity started from electromagnetic phenomena. Later it became the general theory of relativity in order to include universal gravitation. However, there is no electromagnetic relation in this general relativity, which has to be regarded as a flaw. Weyl therefore intends to extend general relativity even further in order to explain electromagnetic actions in terms of geometric changes in space. This idea of his, after being modified several times, has been developed into his famous book entitled Space-Time-Matter [Raum-Zeit-Materie].101

Six Pioneers of Relativity

105

According to Zhou’s summary of Weyl’s theory, Weyl presented electromagnetic action in terms of the change of Weltmetrik, or the metrical structure of the world. In four-dimensional (Riemann) space, the metrical change has to be determined by four independent variables. Weyl used these variables to identify the electromagnetic potentials and then proved the law of electricity conservation. Zhou believed that Weyl’s results would have a great impact on studies of the properties of the electron and atom.102 Zhou also pointed out the significance of the “world space curvature” in Weyl’s theory not only because it would determine matter’s fundamental properties, but also because it may be taken as the standard to measure space-time. Zhou appreciated Weyl’s starting point, which he saw as further progress on top of Einstein’s achievement, but, he had a mixed view about the future of Weyl’s theory. He anticipated mathematical difficulties for its development while placing much hope on it.103

Wei Siluan and the German Influence Wei Siluan (courtesy name Shizhen) (1895–1992) was born in Peng’an, Sichuan province,104 and received his early education at home under the supervision of his grandfather Wei Ding, a learned and reform-minded scholar.105 After the traditional civil examination system was abolished in 1905, Wei Ding ordered young Siluan, and his other grandsons, to burn all their books needed for civil examinations. He then purchased from Shanghai works by the famous reformers Yan Fu and Liang Qichao whenever they were available. Feeling deeply humiliated by China’s defeat in 1894 Sino-Japanese War and worrying about China’s future, Wei Ding could not help crying whenever he talked about national affairs with his grandchildren.106 Wei Ding’s personal example and verbal instruction had a lifelong impact on Wei Siluan. Young Siluan was one of Wei Ding’s favorite grandchildren and he remained close with his grandfather after he grew up.107 At age fifteen, Wei Siluan was admitted to the middle school affiliated with the Chengdu College in Chengdu, Sichuan province. This school was famous for its high quality faculty, ample funding, wellequipped facilities, and a revolutionary principal. Wei Siluan did very well in school,108 which was demonstrated after he transferred to the Tongji middle school in Shanghai. Wei Siluan came to Shanghai in the fall of 1913. To study engineer-

106

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ing at Tongji School of Medicine and Engineering, Wei spent two more years in the middle school attached to this school. During this time he earned top scores in all courses except for physical education. The required German language course was new to Wei Siluan and probably the only subject that was challenging to him.109 By the end of the second year, however, he was able to understand the works of Goethe and Schiller and was sometimes assigned by his teacher, as an honor, to make speeches in German. In his free time Wei enjoyed reading Chinese classics, especially works by Zhuangzi, an ancient Chinese philosopher. His lifelong interest in philosophy was probably rooted in his reading of Zhuangzi.110 Upon his graduation from Tongji middle school, Wei was directly admitted to Tongji School of Medicine and Engineering, the predecessor of Tongji University, which was founded in 1907 by a German physician. Unlike most missionary schools in China, Tongji School had support from the German government, private enterprises, and other institutions of higher education.111 Despite its world-leading place in science, technology, and industrial production, Germany was only a second-class colonial power at the beginning of the twentieth century. It was less influential in China than Britain, the United States, and France, as well as Japan. Anxious to change its unfavorable position in China, the German government under Wilhelm II hoped to publicize and exalt German culture and to promote German products in China. One way to achieve these goals was to establish schools. Tongji School was thus founded as part of Germany’s cultural mission in China.112 A remarkable feature of Tongji School was that a team of experienced German scholars taught courses in natural science, philosophy, medicine, and engineering in German.113 Wei majored in electrical engineering at Tongji School. He graduated in 1918 and was hired as a German instructor by the school. While at Tongji School, Wei gained a solid knowledge of German and mathematical and physical sciences, and became deeply interested in Western philosophy.114 Wei joined the Young China Association (YCA) in 1919. The precept of the YCA was to “dedicate itself to social services under the guidance of the scientific spirit, in order to realize our ideal of creating a Young China.” By joining the YCA, Wei set his aspiration for life, which was consistent with the early teaching from his grandfather. As he recalled in his late years:

Six Pioneers of Relativity

107

I love my country and my nation. Since the time I joined “The Young China Association,” I always hoped to work for the benefit of society. In my opinion, the precondition for a country to be wealthy and powerful and for a nation to be vigorous is to respect, to promote, and to advance knowledge. Only with this condition can we develop practical science and technology. Therefore, I chose to study mathematics and physics and have engaged in education all my life.115 In April 1920, Wei Siluan sailed with his close friend Wang Guangqi from Shanghai to Germany. Since Wang could not afford the trip, Wei generously covered all travel expenses using his small savings from teaching at Tongji School. They arrived in Frankfurt, Germany, on June 1.116 Wei took courses at Frankfurt University during the day and translated German articles in local newspapers with Wang Guangqi at night. In Germany, Wang worked as a special correspondent for several Chinese newspapers. However, Wang did not understand German, and he had to rely on Wei’s oral translation to acquire information from German newspapers. The payment for their contributions supported their living.117 In April 1922 Wei left Frankfurt and transferred to Georg-August University in Goettingen.118 Goettingen in the 1920s was a world-renowned research center for mathematical physics. The strong tradition of mathematical physics at Goettingen University can be traced back to Karl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) and Wilhelm Weber (1804–1891) in the early 1830s. This tradition was inherited and strengthened by Felix Klein (1849–1925), Hermann Minkowski (1864–1909), David Hilbert (1862–1943), Hermann Weyl (1885–1955), Max Born (1882–1970), and Richard Courant (1888–1972). Wei, who took courses with Hilbert, Courant, and Born, majored in mathematics in Goettingen, but under his mentors’ influence he maintained a strong interest in mathematical physics. Wei’s philosophical disposition probably led him to the classroom of Goettingen philosophy professor Leonard Nelson (1882–1927). Nelson’s teaching had such a great influence on Wei that he became a follower of Nelson and a representative of neo-Kantianism in China.119 Nelson was close to Hilbert and strongly interested in problems involving mathematics, philosophy, and logics. Wei had a similar interest, and thus felt attracted to Nelson.120 Wei very much enjoyed the stimulating academic climate at Goettingen University. He set an ambitious goal for himself: to master the es-

108

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

sential knowledge of mathematics, physics, and philosophy, because he loved to study problems involving all three fields. His ambition led him to take a much heavier load of courses than most students. In 1925, he received his doctorate under the supervision of professors Courant and Dr. A. Nádai.121 In his dissertation, titled “On the Fixed Rectangular Plate with Uniformly Distributed Pressure,” Wei discussed the extreme values of relevant functions using calculus of variations, a method that was still relatively new, and provided numerical values.122 Wei Siluan must have learned about the STR before 1920 while he was still at Tongji School. Dr. Hans Drexler, a German professor who came to Tongji School in 1914 and taught physics for engineering students, had a great influence on Wei.123 Drexler was very interested in the theory of relativity and wrote an article about it, which was translated and published in Tong ji Magazine.124 In January 1920, Wei published an essay titled “A Concise Explanation of Space and Time,” probably his first essay concerning the theory of relativity.125 Based on Kantian philosophy and some contemporary scientific achievements, Wei argued in this essay that “Space and time are subjective concepts created by human beings to unify and organize everything.”126 The thesis of this essay was not about Einstein’s theory of relativity. Rather, it was about a philosophical understanding of space and time based on recent scientific achievements, including a discussion of the relativity of simultaneity in the special relativity. Given the date of this publication, it was clear that Wei had learned about relativity before 1920. It is also quite clear that at this time Wei did not understand the theory or realize the significance of relativity: in his discussion on space and time, all he could use from a great space-time theory, such as Einstein’s special relativity, was a partial discussion of the relativity of simultaneity. Wei did not, for example, mention the inseparable connection between space and time in the theory of relativity. Furthermore, Einstein’s name was consistently spelled “Eisenstein,” probably not a misprint. The misspelled name makes one wonder whether Wei had, by 1920, read any of Einstein’s papers or any authoritative paper on relativity. In August, three months after Wei’s arrival in Frankfurt, a widely publicized anti-relativity rally was held in Berlin. The rally and the subsequent controversies about Einstein and his relativity were widely reported in Germany. All these events had naturally caught Wei’s attention.127 Malicious slanders and attacks on Einstein and his relativity did not, however,

Six Pioneers of Relativity

109

diminish Wei’s enthusiasm for studying the theory. On the contrary, they might have aroused his curiosity to learn more and find the truth. During his years in Frankfurt, Wei taught himself the theory of relativity by reading widely in the German literature on the theory. He often discussed relativity and related philosophical and physical issues with Drexler. What he had learned from these readings and discussions was demonstrated in his essays published in the Young China magazine. In March 1921, Wei published another essay comparing Newtonian and Einsteinian theories on space and time.128 After introducing the Galilean and Lorentz transformations, Wei emphasized the two theories were completely different: Newtonian space-time is absolute and does not change with respect to different observers; Einsteinian spacetime, by contrast, is relative to the status of observers. Based on the two transformations, Wei showed how length, time, and velocity were calculated in each of the two theories. Wei concluded that Einstein’s relativity was a better theory because Newton’s theory could not explain Michelson’s experiment, while Einstein’s easily did so. Wei believed that the virtue of a physical theory should be determined by experiments. In contrast to his paper “Kongshi shiti (A Concise Explanation of Space and Time),” published a year before, Wei’s discussion in this essay focused on physical rather than philosophical meanings of space and time. He advised his readers to pay attention to the difference between the space-time in philosophy and that in physics.129 Wei’s essay had shown only partial progress in his understanding of the theory of relativity. He pointed out, for example, that after the birth of the theory of relativity, there no longer existed an ether, whereas just one year before he believed that ether was a special matter filling all space.130 There were also indications at the end of the essay that Wei had already begun to study the general theory of relativity. He also discussed which geometry should be used to study space; he concluded that both Euclidean and Riemannian geometries could be used to obtain correct results and that whether one should be chosen over the other depended solely on which was convenient for one’s research.131 Here Wei seemed to have ignored the fact that in Einstein’s relativity, space cannot be studied separately from time, one of the important reasons for Einstein’s choice of Riemannian geometry. In his enthusiastic study of the relativity theory, Wei’s philosophical mind kept raising questions to challenge relativity. Successfully finding

110

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

answers to these questions improved his understanding of the theory. In his diary, Wei recorded some of the questions and his reflections from various readings, which are helpful to reconstruct his path to the reception of relativity. In April 1921, one of Wei’s diary entries reads, “In the special relativity, the speed of light is taken as the maximum speed in the universe. Although this can be proved by mathematical physics, it is rather hard to be understood from a philosophical point of view. The speed of light can be finite, but how could that prevent anything in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light? This seems rather unreasonable.”132 He would later find an “answer” to his question, which will be discussed later. In December, Wei read a book in which the author argued that Einstein’s second postulate in the STR was in conflict with the relativity of simultaneity. That was a mistake on the author’s part. But Wei could not tell who was correct and who was incorrect; he considered the author’s arguments “rather reasonable.”133 While teaching himself the relativity theory in Germany, Wei also cared about how the theory was introduced in China. As mentioned earlier, Gaizao magazine published a special “Relativity Issue” in April 1921, which contained Xia Yuanli’s Chinese translation of Einstein’s popular work and essays by Xu Zhimo and Wang Chongzhi. As soon as Wei received a copy of the special issue, he began to study it. Two weeks later, Wei was still found reading it in a streetcar on his way to the university. He spent so much time on the special issue partly because of his strong interest and partly because the awkward Chinese translations were hard to understand, even though the originals were considered popular introductions to the theory in the West.134 Besides Gaizao’s “Relativity Issue,” Wei also read many other Chinese publications on the theory, such as Russell’s lecture in Beijing (“Analysis of Matter”) and essays in Xueyi magazine. After carefully studying these works, Wei published his review in February 1922, which discussed three works: Xu Zhimo’s “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity,” Russell’s “Analysis of Matter,” and Zhou Changshou’s “The Origin and Concept of the Theory of Relativity.”135 Wei appreciated Xu’s effort in using metaphors to popularize the theory of relativity, but he considered most of Xu’s metaphors misleading and contradictory to the theory’s original meaning.136 In Wei’s opinion, Russell’s lecture was neither a good public speech nor a suitable academic lecture. For example, the lecture began with concepts of “space-like and time-like sep-

Six Pioneers of Relativity

111

arations,” terms that came from Minkowski’s four-dimensional treatment of special relativity. When one has not fully understood the relativity of time and the Lorentz transformations, discussing the “separations” is, in Wei’s words, like trying “to teach one how to run when he cannot even walk.” Russell also used many equations in his lecture, which could not be understood without advanced knowledge of mathematical physics. Wei therefore considered it not a good lecture for the general public, especially since there must have been few Chinese people who were able to understand it. Furthermore, Wei argued that Russell’s “Analysis of Matter” was not a scientific lecture: he used metaphors instead of precise scientific terms. Wei highly praised Zhou Changshou’s essay and regarded it as “the most penetrating” Chinese literature on the theory of relativity, despite some minor criticisms.137 Having gathered a broad knowledge of Western literature on the relativity theory, and having realized flaws in the relevant Chinese literature, Wei must have felt an increasingly strong impulse to contribute personally to the introduction of the theory to Chinese readers. Indeed he was determined to do so in precise terms and in a systematic way.138 On February 1, 1922, the magazine Young China published its “Relativity Issue,” which consisted of three essays: Wei’s comprehensive introductory essay, his essay review on the Chinese literature, and an article on Einstein’s life written by Wei’s friend Wang Guangqi. In the introductory essay titled “The Theory of Relativity,”139 Wei started with the classic principle of relativity. He demonstrated mathematically that if one coordinate system were moving uniformly with respect to another coordinate system, all mechanical experiments done in either system would obtain exactly the same result. That is to say, observers in either system cannot tell whether their system is in motion or at rest with respect to the other system by doing mechanical experiments. In the second chapter, he brought up the difficulty of applying the principle in electrodynamics. In electrodynamics, equations did change when one selected different systems of reference. Therefore, it seemed to suggest that there existed a special system of reference (the ether), the only one in which light traveled in uniform speed in all directions (and the original form of the equations of electrodynamics can be applied). Assuming that the Earth was in motion with respect to this special reference system (the ether), physicists had designed all kinds of experiments to detect such a motion. Among these experiments was the famous Michelson-

112

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Morley experiment. He pointed out that the failure to detect such a special system through the precise Michelson-Morley experiment suggested that the special system does not exist, and the principle of relativity should also be applicable in electrodynamics. Then physicists were facing a great problem, because experiments seemed to suggest the applicability of the relativity principle in electrodynamics, whereas a negative answer was to be expected based on “the classical kinematics.” In the third chapter, Wei stated that although Lorentz could also explain the Michelson-Morley experiment, few paid much attention to his theory because Lorentz’s solution was based on his ad hoc hypothesis, that is, the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. It was Einstein who really solved the problem by abandoning the concept of absolute time. Here Wei introduced Einstein’s new physical definition of time and then demonstrated mathematically the relativity of time based on the relativity of simultaneity for observers in different inertial systems. In the fourth chapter, Wei introduced the Lorentz transformations. By deducing the Galileo transformation from the Lorentz transformations for small velocities, Wei demonstrated that “The Newtonian kinematics is only a special case of the Einsteinian kinematics.”140 The fifth chapter introduced Einstein’s revolutionary changes in space-time by comparing them with the classical Newtonian theory. This chapter was basically adopted from a paper Wei had previously published.141 In the sixth chapter, Wei introduced supporting experimental evidence for Einstein’s theory, which included the Michelson-Morley experiment, Fizeau’s experiment, Doppler’s principle, and stellar aberration. It is worth noting that Wei was probably the first in China to discuss the Fizeau experiment as an important experimental proof for Einstein’s special relativity. French physicist Fizeau studied the velocity of light in flowing water and discovered a formula in 1851 that could not be understood in terms of classical physics. Prior to the development of Einstein’s relativistic kinematics, the Fizeau experiment was a mysterious phenomenon and its explanations were very artificial. Under Max Planck’s influence, German physicist Max von Laue became one of the first adherents of Einstein’s special relativity. In 1907, Laue first demonstrated that Einstein’s relativistic velocity-addition law could lead, without any extra assumptions, to Fizeau’s formula, a result that used to be explained in terms of a mysterious partial dragging of the light by the medium. Laue’s proof helped early acceptance of relativity in the West. In 1910 Laue wrote the

Six Pioneers of Relativity

113

first monograph on special relativity, which was cited by Wei as a reference in this essay. 142 Wei introduced in the seventh chapter the new mathematical expression of the STR, Minkowski’s four-dimensional geometry. Here he introduced new concepts such as “worldline,” “time-like and space-like separations,” “front and back cones,” and so on. In the summary of this chapter, Wei stated, “The significance of Minkowski’s fourdimensional geometry lies in its unity of space and time.”143 In the eighth and the last chapter, Wei discussed relativity’s dynamic consequences. He provided the relativistic form of the dynamic equation K⫽

m0n d a b dt 冄1 ⫺ vc22

and particularly the relativistic form of mass m⫽ a

m0 冄1 ⫺ vc2

2

b

(where, in Wei’s term, K denotes Minkowski force; t, proper time; m0, rest mass; n, Minkowski velocity; v, the relative speed between two frames of reference). From his comments on the second equation, we see that Wei thought that he had found an “answer” to his previous question regarding the speed of light as the ultimate speed in the universe: According to this equation, we know that mass in mechanics is not an invariant; instead it is closely related to velocity. The greater its velocity, the greater the mass. If the velocity of the mass were equal to the velocity of light, the mass (or the inertia) would become infinite. . . . we have said that the velocity of light is the maximum velocity in the world. At the time it was only a mathematical deduction and we did not know its physical reasons. Consequently we used to be suspicious about the conclusion. Now its [physical] reasons have been revealed, we need not doubt it.144 In the second part of the eighth chapter, Wei derived the mass-energy L equivalence equation 1m ⫺ m0 2 ⫽ c2 (where L denotes kinetic energy). He added, This is an extremely important result in the theory of relativity, which means that the change of mass is closely related to “kinetic

114

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

energy.” The reason that mass increases when it is in motion is because its energy is increasing. Therefore, mass in nature is nothing but an appearance of all energy. Consequently, the law of conservation of mass and the law of the conservation of energy in physics are not [two] independent and separated laws [any more]. By now, they have been unified into one [physical law].145 In addition to his observation of the anti-relativity movement in Berlin in 1920, Wei also learned about various opinions on the theory of relativity through his broad readings. Wei therefore had a deep sense of the difficulty, or even the resistance, in the West to understand relativity, let alone to accept it. Comparing that awareness with his personal experience in studying Einstein’s theory, Wei wrote some very interesting remarks in this essay, revealing key characteristics of China’s reception of relativity. In Wei’s opinion, it should have been easy to understand the relativity of time in the theory of relativity. The reason that it was so hard for European scientists to understand or accept relativity is that they had formed a prejudicial concept of absolute time during the past two centuries. Comparing the scientific developments in Europe and in China, Wei argued: Science in China is still very young and there has not yet formed any prejudice [among Chinese scientists]. To examine their [European] prejudicial science in our non-prejudiced mind, we believe that it would be easier for us [Chinese scientists] than for themselves [European scientists] to find flaws [in Western scientific theories]. Consequently, we could advance quickly [in science], even faster than they do, if we were to make a genuine effort to assimilate their achievements after a careful and critical examination.146 In February 1922, Wei Siluan finished another long essay, this time on “the theory of gravitation.”147 Wei particularly loved to study the theories of relativity and gravitation, because to him they were good discussion materials that involved mathematics, physics, and philosophy at the same time. According to Wei, the theories of relativity and gravitation “completely belonged to physics in terms of their origins and supporting evidence; they were both mathematical in terms of their rationales and foundations; and finally both theories were profoundly

Six Pioneers of Relativity

115

philosophical because of their significance and impact.”148 Wei preferred this kind of cross-disciplinary discussion: Studying mathematics alone often stresses too much on abstruseness, studying physics alone often leads to too much concreteness, and studying philosophy alone usually tends to be too hollow. If all three of them are united and used in research, the abstruse will not be too abstruse, the concrete will not be too concrete, and the hollow will not be too hollow. Moreover, the essence can be found from the abstruseness, theories can be built on the concreteness, and principles can be seen in the hollowness.”149 Wei’s strong mathematical background and his interest in philosophy evidently helped him to accept the abstract theory of relativity. He appreciated the aesthetic sense represented in general relativity’s abstruse mathematical formalization and he valued the theory’s profound philosophical implications. Wei wrote this essay when he was still in Frankfurt, Germany.150 At the time, Wei had not seen many Chinese writings on the theory of relativity or the theory of gravitation. Almost all the Chinese writings on gravitation that he had read were popular speeches. Wei therefore argued: Popular speeches are naturally necessary when scientific knowledge was not yet widely disseminated. However, because they are designed to be popular, the terms must not be precise and thus tend to be misleading. In order to avoid misunderstanding, I have tried to provide more precise explanations in my previous essay on the theory of relativity and in the following on the theory of gravitation.151 Nevertheless, Wei still considered his essays basic introductions to Einstein’s theories. He used only simple mathematics so that Chinese readers could understand as much as possible.152 Wei divided his essay on the theory of gravitation into six sections. First, Wei discussed why the special theory of relativity had to be generalized into the general theory of relativity.153 Second, he showed how the general theory of relativity led to a theory of gravitation. Third, he

116

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

outlined the basic idea of the theory of gravitation. Fourth, he explained in detail three mathematical concepts used in the theory of gravitation: the metric fundamental tensor, the geodetic line, and the Riemann tensor. Fifth, he briefly introduced Einstein’s laws of gravitation. The sixth section showed how Newton’s law of gravitation could be derived from Einstein’s law. Hence Newton’s theory was only a special case of the generalized Einstein’s theory of gravitation.154 In this essay Wei discussed gravity based on his extensive reading of current works on the theory of relativity.155 As a mathematical physicist, Wei used almost half of his twenty-nine-page essay discussing the mathematical formalization of the theory of gravity.156 Wei also used epistemological arguments along with physical arguments to explain why Einstein was correct and why Newton was wrong.157 That was consistent with what Wei said at the beginning of this essay: he favored the interdisciplinary discussion of physics, mathematics, and philosophy on relativity. Reading Wei’s essay on gravity, one has a feeling that the essay did not present a clear explanation of the physical meanings of the theory of gravitation. It contained more abstruse mathematical rationale and less physical justification for the theory of gravitation. That was, however, not necessarily Wei’s fault: Einstein’s general theory of relativity or the theory of gravitation was indeed mathematically recondite and complex compared to the special theory, and had little supporting experimental evidence at the time.

Peiyuan Chou Connects with Einstein Peiyuan Chou158 (1902–1993) was born in a well-to-do family in Yixing, Jiangsu province, a famous pottery-making town about one hundred sixty kilometers west of Shanghai. His father, Wenbo Chou, was a well-respected gentleman in his hometown, even though he had only a Xiucai degree. Deeply influenced by Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao’s works, Wenbo Chou favored social and political reforms. Wenbo Chou and his wife had eight children, four of whom died young. Peiyuan was the second child and the only boy in the family.159 Concerned about Peiyuan’s mischievous behavior, his grandmother sent him to a village school at the age of only three and a half. This was at a time when the late Qing government had just abolished the traditional examination system to promote Western-style school educa-

Six Pioneers of Relativity

117

tion. Although Western-style schools were not immediately available everywhere, reform had already taken hold in many village schools by 1906. In the traditional school Peiyuan attended, students used modern primary school textbooks published by the Commercial Press. In 1910, when a Western-style school opened in a nearby village, Peiyuan’s father transferred him, and it was there that he took his first lessons in mathematics.160 After the Manchu dynasty was overthrown in the 1911 revolution, the new republican government did not have effective control in many areas. Yixing was one of them, and therefore often invaded by bandits. Wenbo Chou moved the family to Nanjing and then Shanghai, where he had a pottery business. After Peiyuan Chou graduated from a wellknown elementary school in Shanghai, he attended the middle school attached to St. John’s University, which U.S. missionaries had founded and supervised. Only a year and a half later, Chou was expelled from the school due to his active participation in the May Fourth movement. The dismissal became a turning point in Chou’s life. After reading a newspaper advertisement by chance, Chou applied for and was admitted to the Qinghua School in Beijing, which gave him five years of solid scientific training and prepared him for further studies in the United States.161 When Peiyuan Chou first entered Qinghua School in 1919, he hoped to become an engineer. Inspired by the great success of the theory of relativity and the booming Chinese studies on relativity in the early 1920s, however, Chou changed his mind and fell in love with physics.162 In the fall of 1924, Chou graduated from Qinghua School and went to the United States to study physics. He chose the University of Chicago because he hoped to study with Professors Albert A. Michelson and Robert Millikan. Chou had learned Michelson’s name from the famous Michelson-Morley experiment, which provided one of the most widely acknowledged pieces of evidence supporting Einstein’s relativity. Millikan earned his fame in China through his popular and widely used physics textbook for middle schools. What Chou did not know until his arrival in Chicago was that both Michelson and Millikan had relocated to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) by this time.163 At the University of Chicago Chou earned both bachelor’s and master’s degrees within two years. Early in the spring of 1927, he went to Caltech to work on his doctorate, and studied with H. Bateman and

118

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Eric T. Bell.164 It was no later than early 1927 that Chou began his research in the theory of relativity, a subject that would become his unfailing lifelong interest. Almost as soon as he arrived at Caltech, Chou submitted a paper to American Mathematical Monthly, discussing a theorem on algebraic quadratic forms and its application in the general theory of relativity.165 Soon after that, Chou submitted another paper to the journal Annuals of Mathematics.166 Advised by Bateman and B. Podolsky, Chou established in this paper a new derivation of the Lorentz transformations. Although Chou had a good relationship with Professor Bateman, the two disagreed on the problem he would address in his dissertation. Bateman insisted on his choice and Chou turned to Bell for advice. Under Bell’s direction, Chou successfully completed his third paper on relativity and graduated summa cum laude in the summer of 1928. The paper, which was titled “The Gravitational Field of a Body with Rotational Symmetry in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation,” was “an attempt to solve rigorously the problem of the static gravitational field of a body whose mass is distributed symmetrically around an axis in Einstein’s theory of gravitation.”167 After he graduated from Caltech, Chou visited Harvard, Princeton, and Cornell universities before he traveled to Europe in the fall. In Europe, Chou did his postdoctoral work with Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli. He first went to Leipzig, Germany, to work with Heisenberg, who was only about nine months older than Chou.168 The late 1920s were the most creative years of Heisenberg’s career. In February 1927, only one year before he met Chou, Heisenberg had formulated his famous “uncertainty principle,” a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics and one of Heisenberg’s greatest achievements. In October of the same year, Heisenberg was appointed professor of theoretical physics at the University of Leipzig at the age of twentyfive. The great success of the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics, of which Heisenberg was a cofounder, attracted students and visitors around the world to Leipzig, and Peiyuan Chou was one of them. In Leipzig, Chou studied quantum mechanics and got along with Heisenberg quite well, and the two were often seen playing Ping-Pong in their spare time.169 Chou, however, did not stay long in Leipzig. When Heisenberg left for his lecture tour in the United States in March 1929, Chou left for

Six Pioneers of Relativity

119

Zurich Polytechnic (Eidgenössiche Technische Hochschule) at the invitation of Pauli, a good friend of Heisenberg and one of the cofounders of quantum mechanics. Chou continued his postdoctoral work in quantum mechanics in Zurich. Chou’s 1931 paper, “Diamagnetism of Free Electrons in Metals,” was likely a result of his research during this period, because at the end of his paper, Chou thanked “Prof. Pauli of Zürich for suggesting the problem and many valuable criticisms during the course of the work.”170 In September 1929, Chou accepted an invitation from Luo Jialun, the president of Qinghua University in Beijing, and returned to China, where at the age of twentyseven he was the youngest professor in the physics department.171 He was also the first and, for the next ten years, the only theoretical physicist at Qinghua University. Chou’s paper on free electrons in metals was his only paper in quantum mechanics. His researches in the 1930s were almost exclusively on general relativity and its application to cosmological studies. He published five papers between 1935 and 1940. In 1935, Chou proposed a relativistic theory of the expanding universe, in which he showed “both Milne’s recent Newtonian theory of the expanding universe and Lemaitre’s interpretation of the velocity-distance are first order approximations and are valid only within 2 ⫻ 108 l.y. from our galaxy.”172 Chou’s paper therefore “sets an upper limit to the validity of Lemaitre and Milne’s derivations of the linear velocity-distance law of the spiral nebulae which was supposed to hold originally for any time-length and every distance from the observer.”173 In addition, Chou also provided a way to study phenomena of nebular recession beyond 2 ⫻ 108 l.y.174 In about 1936, Chou set to work on isotropic static solutions of the field equations in Einstein’s theory of gravitation. By the summer of 1936, he had obtained general results for his paper.175 Taking advantage of his first sabbatical leave between 1936 and 1937, Chou spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, where he attended an advanced seminar presided over by Einstein on general relativity. Actively organizing this seminar were Einstein’s two assistants, Leopold Infeld and Banesh Hoffmann. The late 1930s saw a low point in the study of general relativity, a subject in which many in the mainstream of physics had lost interest.176 Most theoretical physicists in the world were interested in researching nuclear theories and other areas of quantum physics. Consequently only a small group of young theorists

120

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

participated in the seminar in Princeton. Einstein attended seminars every week, where he listened to participants’ reports on their research or on important papers just published, including Chou’s report on his research done in China. In the discussion, Einstein not only offered his suggestions and opinions to the young physicists, but also introduced to the group problems on which he was working.177 It was during this period that Einstein made his last important contribution to general relativity. Collaborating with Infeld and Hoffmann, Einstein completed a paper on the N-body problem of motion, in which he developed a slow approximation method, the EIH method.178 Chou’s experience in this advanced seminar, especially the opportunity to discuss physics with Einstein personally, deeply influenced his later research on relativity.179 Chou was also deeply impressed by the Einstein–Infeld–Hoffmann paper and regarded the work as “theoretically quite perfect.”180 It was in this stimulating and inspiring environment that Chou completed the details of his paper on isotropic static solutions of the field equations, which he had started earlier.181 In this paper, Chou limited his investigation to static fields. He gave “a detailed proof of the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of isotropic fields in empty space” and outlined a proof for the corresponding theorem within matter. Chou showed two classes of solutions to problems of determining “the field of a single body so that space outside the body is free from other singularities.” As special cases of each class, Chou found “respectively Schwarzschild’s solution and the solution for a semi-infinite plane with variable distribution of mass which was not known before.” Chou also gave Kasner’s solution as a third example of his general result. In the last part of his paper, Chou investigated the field equations within matter in general. He proved “incidentally that the Einstein static universe is the only solution for a closed static space filled with matter which is kept at constant pressure everywhere without assuming the spherical symmetry property of the universe to start with.”182 During the year in Princeton, Chou became well acquainted with Einstein. He was deeply impressed by the modest and amiable Einstein and by his sincere sympathy with the Chinese people. When Einstein once talked about China with Chou, he recalled miserable scenes on the streets of Shanghai in 1922, all of which still profoundly disturbed him more than thirteen years later.183

Six Pioneers of Relativity

121

In May 1937, Chou bade Einstein good-bye to return to China. He arrived in Beijing on July 7, 1937, the very day the Marco Polo Bridge incident took place, which was the beginning of the all-out Japanese invasion in China.184 The war forced the faculty and students of Qinghua University to flee south. It was not until the beginning of May 1938 that Chou finally settled down in Kunming, the capital of China’s southwestern province Yunnan, where Qinghua, together with Beijing and Nankai universities, formed the Southwestern Associated University (SAU). The conditions for scientific research at the SAU were extremely poor. There were only a few thousand books in the library and almost no laboratory facilities. To make things worse, Japanese bombers often flew over Kunming during the day. Under such difficult conditions, Chou still continued to work on general relativity and cosmology. In the years 1939 and 1940, Chou published three papers, two of which dealt with the foundations of the Friedmann universe; the other considered the method of finding isotropic static solutions of Einstein’s field equations of gravitation.185 Wishing to contribute to the war against the Japanese invasion, Chou changed his research topic after 1940 from general relativity to turbulence. In the next forty-one years, Chou did not publish any research papers on relativity. Many factors contributed to Chou’s silence in this field, such as wars, intensive research in turbulence, increasing responsibilities in university administration and government affairs, and frequent political movements in China. Nevertheless, Chou maintained his enthusiasm in relativity studies. In the late 1970s, after the end of the Cultural Revolution and his retirement from the presidency of Beijing University, Chou resumed his research in general relativity and cosmology and published fifteen more papers between 1982 and 1990.186

Shu Xingbei Is Influenced by Many Shu Xingbei (1907–1983)187 was perhaps the only Chinese theoretical physicist in the 1930s who carried on research not only in general relativity but also in unified field theories. Shu Xingbei was born in Hanjiang, Jiangsu province. Xingbei’s father was known for helping Zhang Jian (1853–1926) manage business. Zhang was a famous entrepreneur in Nantong, Jiangsu province, in the early twentieth century.188

122

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Compared with Peiyuan Chou, Shu Xingbei started school rather late, entering a traditional village school at the age of eight. He first attended a Western-style school at age ten. In 1924, Shu Xingbei was admitted to Zhijiang College in Hangzhou. Shu’s college experience was unique, especially for a Chinese student. In 1925, Shu transferred to Qilu College in Ji’nan, Shangdong province, which was a U.S. missionary college. In 1926, Shu traveled to the United States as a college junior and studied physics at Baike University in Kansas. At the beginning of 1927, he left for the University of California at San Francisco. In the summer, Shu traveled to Europe and studied at Hanover Industrial University in Germany for about a year.189 In October 1928, Shu went to Edinburgh University, where he finally settled down for a while and studied with E. T. Whittacker (1873–1956) and C. G. Darwin (1887– 1962), both of whom were mathematical physicists. In January 1930, Shu graduated from the University of Edinburgh with a master’s degree.190 In the following seven months, he engaged himself in advanced studies at Cambridge University, directed by A. S. Eddington. In September, Shu came back to the States and studied with mathematics professor Dirk J. Struik at MIT, who was a student of H. A. Lorentz, W. De Sitter, and P. Ehrenfest at the University of Leyden.191 In May 1931, Shu Xingbei earned his second master’s degree of science at MIT.192 Shu Xingbei returned to China in September 1931. After teaching physics at the Nanjing Central Military Academy for a term, Shu was appointed physics professor at Zhejiang University, a position he held for nineteen years. At Zhejiang University Shu taught special and general relativity for many years. He was an excellent physics teacher and was good at presenting fundamental concepts and principles to students in a clear and lively manner.193 T. D. Lee, a Chinese–American Nobel laureate in physics, was Shu’s student in the early 1940s. Thirty years later, Lee wrote to his teacher, “The foundation of my physics knowledge was laid down during the year at Zhejiang University and all my later achievements can be traced back to what I learned from you.”194 Inspired by Einstien’s “gigantic achievements,” Shu Xingbei had concentrated his study and research on mathematical physics, especially the general theory of relativity, since his college years.195 Soon after Shu arrived at MIT in the fall of 1930, he sent a note to the editor of The Physical Review about his forthcoming paper.196 In 1915 Einstein had solved

Six Pioneers of Relativity

123

his new field equations in the linear approximation for the spherically symmetric field around a central mass. In 1916 Karl Schwarzschild and Johannes Droste found the exact spherically symmetric solution to the field equations.197 All these solutions, approximate or exact, were static. In his paper, by contrast, Shu attempted to obtain a nonstatic solution of “Einstein’s Law of Gravitation in a Spatially Symmetrical Field.” He gave an approximation with material radiation in this paper.198 In the early 1930s, Shu also endeavored to build a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism.199 Inspired by Einstein’s successful geometrization of the gravitational field, three people—Hermann Weyl in 1918, Eddington in 1921, and Einstein himself in 1925— attempted to generalize Riemann’s geometry to unify the gravitational field with the electromagnetic field.200 By 1927, however, Einstein had been convinced that “this road [Weyl Eddington Einstein] does not bring us closer to the truth.”201 Most theoretical physicists lost their interest in creating such a theory in the 1930s.202 Einstein nonetheless never gave up his goal to build a unified field theory, and he spent his last thirty years pursuing it. Shu Xingbei, just like Peiyuan Chou, belonged to a small band of mathematical physicists who kept pursuing research in general relativity and unified field theories in the 1930s. In 1933, Shu proposed a new unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism based on complex Riemannian geometry.203 Shu was not satisfied with Weyl, Eddington, and Einstein’s theories for two reasons. First, they failed to establish the clear connection “between the geometrical quantities interpreted as the electromagnetic potential and the charge and current densities.” Second, “no purely geometrical derivation of the Lorentz law of force seems possible in any of these theories.”204 Shu Xingbei started his exploration by examining “two fundamental entities,” mass and electric charge. He was deeply impressed by their resemblance and differences.

៬

៬

The most obvious resemblance is found in the inverse square law of interaction between two masses or two charges. The difference in the manner of their interaction lies in the fact that while two masses, necessarily of the same sign, attract, two charges of the same sign repel. Thus two charges of the same sign interact in the opposite way as two masses of the same sign. The difference in the

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

124

manner of the interaction and the double sign of the electric charge, can be formally brought out if we associate the factor ⫾ 2⫺1 with the electric charge.205 Shu therefore modified Einstein’s theory of relativity by replacing the original line element with “a complex Riemannian line element in which, to the first order of approximation, the real part is associated with mass (gravitation) and the imaginary part with charge (electromagnetism).” In the end, Shu obtained, as a first approximation, “Newton’s law of gravitation, Maxwell’s laws of electromagnetism and Lorentz laws of motion.” Shu claimed that in his theory, “The intrinsic connections between electricity and matter can be seen at a glance,” but had to admit that “the physical concepts and the full development of the theory” remained to be given.206 The recent developments in quantum theory strengthened Shu’s faith in his new theory. He believed that it would “find its place in a more comprehensive theory of matter, gravitation and electricity,” because, as Shu argued: In the sense of the correspondence principle one must expect a unified theory of electromagnetism and gravitation for large scale phenomena which will be obtained from the complete theory in the limit h 0. Now if in this theory Weyl’s principle of gauge invariance is right, the gauge exponent must be an imaginary quantity. This necessitates the introduction of a complex line element as in this paper.207

៬

Shu Xingbei’s unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism appears to have had no significant impact on physicists’ thinking in the field, although it was a bold and admirable attempt. Similar to Einstein’s failure to build a satisfied unified field theory, Shu’s failure was due partly to the conditions of physics development. The time was not ripe for such a theory in the 1930s, because nuclear physics was still in its early stage of development and nuclear forces, or interactions, which differ from both gravitational and electromagnetic forces, were not understood. It is, however, easy to tell that Shu was on the wrong track when he based his theory on what he called the “most obvious resemblance” between gravitation and electromagnetism: the inverse square law of interaction be-

Six Pioneers of Relativity

125

tween two masses or two charges. Somehow Shu ignored the breakdown of the inverse square law of force at small distances, which had first been hinted at by Sir James Chadwick as early as 1921.208 During the war, Zhejiang University was forced to move from the coastal city Hangzhou to China’s interior and suffered heavy losses during long-distance travels and frequent moves. Even under such difficult condition, Shu Xingbei continued his research on general relativity and published several papers in Nature and Philosophical Magazine.209 In the 1940s, a group of physicists at Zhejiang University were very interested in studying general relativity and they did a lot of work on the principle of equivalence.210 In 1945, Cheng Kaijia (Kai-Chia Cheng), one of Shu’s students, published a paper in Nature titled “A Simple Calculation of the Perihelion of Mercury from the Principle of Equivalence.”211 In his paper, Cheng “asserted that the principle of equivalence sufficed to obtain the equivalent of the Schwarzschild solution, for local validity of special relativity was needed and also the Newtonian form as an approximation.” Cheng’s paper gave the strongest assertion of the power of the principle of equivalence with respect to the perihelion of Mercury.212 The paper also offered the earliest elementary deduction of the Schwarzschild solution based on the principle of equivalence.213 From an equation obtained by Cheng, another student of Shu’s, Su-Ching Kiang, derived a value of the light deflection in the Sun’s gravitational field.214 Her value was, however, found too high and her method was incorrect.215 Shu found the results of Cheng and Kiang’s exploration in support of his own research that was published in a series of papers between 1945 and 1951.216 During this period, Shu concentrated on deriving acceleration transformation equations from Lorentz transformations. In one of his papers, for example, Shu used the method of instantaneous infinitesimal Lorentz transformations and obtained transformation coefficients connecting two systems moving with respect to each other in accelerated motion. He proved that “the field due to a rest charge observed by an accelerated observer is exactly identical with that due to accelerated charge observed by a rest observer, provided that the quantities are relative to the observer in question.”217 Shu claimed that his results not only demonstrated the relative nature of electromagnetic radiation, but also indicated the relative nature of acceleration. Shu and his collaborators also investigated the properties satisfying the “relativity transformation” and concluded that “the only ‘force’ existing in Na-

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

126

ture is that obeying the central inverse square law and derivations therefrom.”218 The nature of Shu’s ideas in these papers was “to reject Einstein’s gravitation, admit only Lorentz transformations, give up Einstein’s unified field theory, and believe that space-time curvature is due to the acceleration of matter in relative motion.”219

The Assimilation of the Relativity Theory From Xu Chongqing’s article first mentioning Einstein and relativity in Chinese literature in 1917 to Peiyuan Chou’s first research paper on general relativity in 1927 was merely ten years. The institutionalization and professionalization of physics instruction and research in China during the 1920s and 1930s greatly helped the introduction and assimilation of the relativity theory. The modern Chinese higher education system, which started at the end of the nineteenth century, expanded quickly in the 1920s.220 As Table 3.1 shows, in 1916, the year before Einstein’s relativity was introduced into China, the country had ten universities with a total number of 1,448 college students. By 1929, when general relativity specialist Peiyuan Chou assumed his professorship at Qinghua University, the number of universities reached fifty, with 25,499 students. This represented increases by factors of 5 and 13 respectively.

Table 3.1 The increase in the number of universities and colleges, 1911–1930 Year

1911 1916 1925 1928 1929 1930

Number of institutions Public

Private

2 3 26 28 29 27

2 7 24 21 21 27

Number of teachers

229 420 4,669 4,567 5,495 6,212

Number of studentsa

418 1,448 25,278 21,786 25,499 33,847

Source: Lu-dzai Djung, A History of Democratic Education in Modern China (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1934), 233. Quoted in Richard A. Hartnett, The Saga of Chinese Higher Education from the Tongzhi Restoration to Tiananmen Square: Revolution and Reform (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 1998), 98. a. Does not include the number of preparatory students, which ranged from 1,595 in 1911 to 8,119 in 1930.

Six Pioneers of Relativity

127

Table 3.2 Years that physics departments were established in major Chinese universitiesa University (founding year) Beijing (1898) Central (1915) Beijing Normal (1922) Nankai (1919) Qinghua (1925) Sichuan (1905) Lingnan (1916) Wuhan University (1912) Zhejiang (1928) Yanjing (Yenching) (1919) Jiaotong (1921)

Year physics department was established 1919 1921 1922 1922 1926 1926 1928 1928 1928 1929 1930

Source: The data in the table are summarized from “Guonei ge daxue wulixi gaikuang (A synopsis of physics departments at domestic universities),” Wuli tongbao 1, no. 1–2 (1951): 54–70; Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu jianshi, 114–117; ZJKJS, 794–795; Hartnett, The Saga of Chinese Higher Education, 29; Theodore E. Hsiao, The History of Modern Education in China (Peiping: Peking University Press, 1932), 45, 50, 121. a. Teaching of natural science or natural philosophy began as early as the 1860s (see Chapter 1). All Chinese universities began with a curriculum including scientific subjects. Physics had been taught long before physics departments were established in these universities and a mathematics-physics or physics-chemistry division had usually already existed.

The institutionalization of physics education and research in China also made significant progress during this period. In 1919, Beijing University set up China’s first university physics department.221 Other major universities soon followed suit. By the early 1930s, more than thirty universities or colleges had physics departments or mathematics-physics departments.222 As Table 3.2 shows, China’s leading universities established their physics department during the 1920s. The year 1932 was a turning point for the Chinese development in physics. That August, following French physicist Paul Langevin’s suggestion, Chinese physicists formed the Chinese Physical Society (CPS) in Beijing.223 At the time, the CPS had some seventy members.224 There is no doubt that the institutionalization created more teaching and research opportunities and attracted more Chinese physicists to return after their education overseas. Dr. Qu Jingcheng’s study shows that sixty-seven Chinese physicists earned their doctorates in the United States and twenty-eight Chinese physicists received their doctoral degrees in Germany during the first half of the twentieth century. Almost

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

128

all of them returned to China and had a career in physics teaching and research.225 The institutionalization also facilitated the teaching and study of the theory of relativity in China. For example, almost all the physicists examined in this chapter were based at a university or college. By 1933 several universities had offered relativity as a onesemester elective course for college seniors; Peiyuan Chou offered his relativity course for one full academic year;226 and Wuhan University required students to take the relativity course (see Table 3.3). Some even proposed a nationwide standard for college physics curricula, in which a one-semester course on the theory of relativity was offered in the first semester of the senior year.227 A milestone for the Chinese assimilation of relativity is the publication of the first Chinese college textbook of the theory, Tian Qu’s Theory of Relativity.228 Tian Qu (1901–1958), a native of Mayang, Hunan province, studied physics and astronomy in France for ten years (1928–1938). Coming back to China, Tian taught physics at several provincial universities and completed the textbook of relativity at Hunan University.229 This ninety-six-page textbook, which covers not only special relativity but also general relativity, was well suited for a one-semester survey course.230

Table 3.3 Relativity teaching in Chinese Universities (1933) University name Central Universitya Jinling University (private) Qilu University (private) Qinghua (Tsinghua) University Wuhan University Zhejiang University

Class

Course type

Credits

Hours per week

Course duration

* *

Elective Elective

6 2

* *

Senior

Elective

4

4

*

Senior

*

6

3

One year

Senior Senior

Required Elective

* 3

3 3

* Half a year

One year Half a year

Source: Guoli bianyiguan (National Institute for Compilation and Translation), ed., Jiaoyubu tianwen shuxue wuli taolunhui zhuankan (Proceedings for the Education Ministry’s Conference on Astronomy, Mathematics, and Physics) (Nanjing: Ministry of Education, 1933), 299, 327, 334, 343, 457, 485. * Data not available. a Credits and Course Duration were from 1923 data; it was a combined course of electron theory, the theory of radiation, and relativity. (See Yang Jian, “Making the Professional Education of Physics in Modern China [Japanese],” Kagakusi Kenkyu 36, no. 202 [1997]: 79.)

Six Pioneers of Relativity

129

Tian’s book represented great progress in China’s college teaching of physics, especially considering that the topic was an advanced subject. Before 1933 there were no Chinese textbooks of general physics for college students until Sa Bendong (1902–1949), a U.S.-educated physicist at Qinghua University, published his General Physics.231 Most universities used foreign textbooks in their original languages or in Chinese translations. According to a survey conducted in 1933, nineteen out of twenty (or 95 percent) of participating universities used English textbooks in their freshman course in general physics.232 The most popular one was Physics, by U.S. physicists A. Willimer Duff and others. If most Chinese universities still used foreign textbooks of general physics in the mid-1930s, it’s not surprising that, for advanced physics courses, Chinese textbooks would not replace their foreign counterparts until much later. Tian Qu’s book thus represented a breakthrough in the assimilation of more advanced subjects, such as relativity. The breakthrough would have probably come sooner, had there not been the eight-year hard-fought war against the Japanese invasion. After all, the demand had emerged in 1933 when someone proposed to make relativity a one-semester course for college seniors nationwide.233 Research was interrupted again by the civil war (1947–1949). Between the 1950s and the early 1960s, most Chinese physicists were mobilized to carry out research serving the national defense and economic construction. In the late 1960s, when the mainstream of the world’s physics community finally began to embrace the studies of general relativity and cosmology,234 most Chinese physicists were forced to leave their laboratories and studies to do manual labor on farms or in factories. It was at one of the coal mining sites in Anhui province that a young theoretical physicist named Fang Lizhi became interested in astrophysics and later began the studies of relativistic cosmology in China in the early 1970s. By then, however, the conditions for relativity studies in China had radically changed.



4 From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

Albert Einstein was first introduced into China during the May Fourth period (1917–1921) as a scientific hero who revolutionized physical science and our understanding of the universe. Within the next three decades, Einstein and relativity became glorious symbols of modern science and were admired unanimously and persistently in China. During this period, Einstein’s ideas on pacifism and social democracy were introduced into China, which made him even more popular among the Chinese. Many Chinese admired Einstein’s great scientific achievements, but many more appreciated his sincere sympathy and consistent support for the Chinese people when they were subject to the oppression of imperialist powers and the persecution of Chiang Kai-shek’s authoritarian government. After World War II, global geopolitical changes and the domestic revolution created a completely new political environment in China. The “leaning to one side” (the side of the Soviet Union) policy in the 1950s helped China to survive the Western blockade, but it also subjected the country to the prevalent influence from the Stalinist Soviet Union: Soviet-derived political and philosophical criticisms of Einstein and the theory of relativity were thus introduced and spread in China. Gradually, the Soviet criticism not only tarnished the public image of Einstein, but also induced Chinese criticism, which by 1965 had focused on Einstein’s philosophical views. This chapter traces the evolution and deterioration of Einstein’s

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

131

public image in China from his introduction to the eve of the Cultural Revolution. As a popular symbol of modern science, the changing representations of the great physicist mirrored the varying social status of Chinese science and scientists.

The Early Image of Einstein Five years after its first appearance, the theory of relativity had become widely known among Chinese intellectuals. This interest prompted intense curiosity about the theory’s creator. Soon there appeared in China an increasing number of articles on Einstein, first as a great scientist and then as a distinguished humanitarian. From the beginning Einstein was portrayed as a scientific revolutionary. In the first Chinese article on Einstein, Zhang Songnian, a leftist intellectual, quoted Max Planck to compare Einstein to Copernicus, because, like Copernicus, Einstein had introduced a revolution in physical conceptions.1 Other authors called Einstein a scientific revolutionary2 and “Newton in the twentieth century.”3 In an article published just before Einstein’s scheduled visit to Beijing at the end of 1922, the author called Einstein “A Star of 20th Century Thought,” and his work “The Starting Point of the Revolution of the Whole World of Science.”4 The popular image of Einstein as a revolutionary in science, introduced into China from the West (often via Japan), had particularly strong impact on the Chinese intelligentsia during the May Fourth period and helped to disseminate the theory of relativity in China. Einstein’s personality and his private life were later introduced to Chinese readers as well, but this introduction was less informative than that of his scientific achievements. For several years the Chinese were often confused about whether Einstein was a mathematician or a physicist, a Swiss or a German.5 The first detailed and relatively accurate report on Einstein’s personal life appeared in June 1920, in a Chinese translation of an interview conducted by the English journalist George Renwick. According to the article, Einstein was then forty years old and was born in Germany but did scientific studies in Switzerland. Renwick described Einstein as a very humble man: Einstein claimed that he owed the creation of the theory of relativity to the help from many of his friends, especially Hendrick Lorentz. The report informed Chinese readers about Einstein’s Jewish origin and his enthusiasm for Zionism

132

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

and his work to establish Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It reported Einstein’s hobbies: playing the violin and sailing. It also revealed Einstein’s philanthropic deeds. As a popular celebrity, Einstein’s photos were hot among collectors. But it was reported that Einstein did not give away his photos for free; instead, he sold them to collect funds to feed hungry children in Vienna.6 Since 1922, Einstein had also been known as an internationalist, pacifist, and democrat. In his article in February, Wang Guangqi wrote that Einstein cared little about nationality because his thoughts ran far beyond the small world of planet Earth. But he added that Einstein cared very much about social issues. To exemplify his point, Wang revealed that Einstein did not sign the notorious manifesto of ninetythree German intellectuals in 1914; that, instead, he joined with Georg F. Nicolai to draft a counter-manifesto “to advocate justice,” which they were unable to publish; that he participated in the peace movement to Europe; and that he helped Jews in Palestine to raise funds to build a university.7 In May, Zhang Ziheng reported on Einstein’s signature on a revolutionary declaration on the eve of the Armistice.8 Meanwhile, the Chinese learned more of Einstein’s scientific achievements. In his talk at Beijing University, Xia Yuanli told his audience that Einstein’s greatness was not only based on the theory of relativity, but also on his significant contributions to all fields of physics, including his work on Brownian motion, light quanta, specific heats of solids, and photochemical effects.9 The Chinese also reported on the Western criticism of Einstein and relativity. But such reports were rare and whenever it appeared, the reporter often gave it a positive spin and never attacked the physicist or his theory. The report on the anti-Einstein and anti-relativity rally in Berlin in late 1920 was an example. Einstein had become a convenient target of “the bitterness and hatred that swept through Berlin in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat” in World War I because of his Jewish origin, pacifist disposition, outspoken belief in democratic internationalism, and especially because he was the creator of the theory of relativity, which was regarded by many as “a mysterious, incomprehensible, and fundamentally radical scientific theory.” The peak of abuse took place in the late summer of 1920.10 On August 24, 1920, Paul Weyland and his Anti-Einstein League orchestrated an anti-relativity rally at the Berlin Philharmonic Hall.11

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

133

Weyland was an open anti-Semite with an education in engineering and “journalistic and political ambitions.” Financed by anonymous people, he offered money to any physicist willing to speak publicly against the theory of relativity.12 For this particular meeting, Weyland found an experimental physicist named Ernst Gehrcke as his cospeaker.13 The rally was concerned less with physics than with anti-Semitic politics.14 Speaking first at the rally, Weyland denounced the relativity theory as “a publicity stunt” and “scientific DaDa,” and defamed its creator as “a plagiarist” and “a charlatan.”15 Speaking after Weyland, Gehrcke only repeated his previous attacks on relativity, which had been sharply retorted by physicist Max Born and astronomer Hugo von Seeliger.16 In response to the anti-relativity rally, Walther Nernst, Heinlich Rubens, and Max von Laue—three of the most authoritative German physicists—immediately issued a joint statement condemning the malicious attack on Einstein and his theory.17 Among the public there was plenty of support for Einstein, too.18 Einstein took an unusual measure to respond to these attacks in the newspaper. In his article titled, “My Answer to the Anti-Relativity Theory Company Ltd.,” he pointed out incisively, “motives other than a desire to search for truth are at the bottom of their enterprise.”19 Einstein snubbed Weyland’s attacks as “rude insolence and vulgar accusations.” While refuting Gehrcke’s arguments in detail, Einstein regarded them as a “deliberate attempt to mislead the lay public.”20 The anti-relativity rally in Berlin was quickly reported to Chinese readers. On September 12, 1920 Wang Guangqi (under his pen name Ruoyu) wrote a report of the rally for Shishi xinbao (Current Affairs), a popular newspaper in Shanghai.21 Wang’s report was later also reprinted in Dongfang zazhi, one of the most popular magazines in China. The report, titled “A Great Debate in the German Scientific Circles,” focused on the anti-relativity rally in Berlin and Einstein’s rebuttal article in the German newspaper, Berliner Tageblatt.22 In his report, Wang first introduced Einstein’s life and theory. He called Einstein a “modern Copernicus, contemporary Newton, and a great revolutionary in science.” Because Einstein’s theory had “overthrown” the old fundamental concepts, on which “all previous sciences were built,” Wang believed, “the impact of the Einsteinian revolution is even greater than Luther’s Reformation in Germany and Marx’s eco-

134

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

nomic revolution in the past.” Reporting on the rally, Wang summarized Weyland and Gehrcke’s speeches and described how Einstein reacted to his opponents’ attacks. Einstein was reported to have sat in the back of the music hall with his stepdaughter and listened to the speeches with a smile. Wang reported on public support for Einstein from von Laue and other German scholars; in addition, he noted Einstein’s intention to leave Germany immediately after the anti-relativity rally.23 Here Wang mentioned some Chinese students’ suggestion to invite Einstein to China.24 What is more interesting in Wang Guangqi’s report is his interpretation of the event. Wang blamed Einstein’s “unexpected misfortune” on the idolization of Einstein and on anti-Semitism in Germany.25 The anti-Semitism in Weyland’s campaign was obvious to most observers, both Western and Chinese. The unique point in the report lies in Wang’s opposition to the worship of Einstein. Wang’s position seemed to be consistent with his political belief in anarchism.26 It is evident from his introduction that Wang admired Einstein and his scientific achievements very much. Nevertheless, he also strongly believed that progress could be made only through free academic debates. Having mistaken the assault on Einstein and relativity for a new form of academic debate, Wang pointed out that the debate in Germany was no longer limited to scholarly publications, or to university podiums. Rather, it had now extended to newspapers and public rallies. Indeed, it was new for scientists to use the media in such a manner. As Ronald Clark, a biographer of Einstein, noted, in 1920 “it was almost unknown for a scientist to use the columns of the daily press in this way.”27 Wang argued that these harsh polemics and criticism explained both why German scientists were so respected and why German science was ranked top in the world: they had high standards for scientists and their works. Wang thus urged Chinese intellectuals to pay special attention to these new forms of academic debates.28 At the end of the article, he wrote down his reflections: First, it is very easy to achieve fame in present Chinese academia. Anyone who has read a couple of books in foreign languages can claim himself an authority in philosophy, in literature, or in science. This [only] demonstrates our inferior criteria to evaluate

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

135

and employ talents. From now on, we should raise the standard. No matter who he is, whether a [Chinese] student returned from Uranus or Neptune, or a peerless Western scholar, we should always make a strict and critical evaluation of him. It is a shame that we have only “political strives” but not “academic debates,” only “the National Assembly” to save the country but not “the academic conference” to rescue the nation and the world. Second, more and more Chinese youths are pursuing academic research. However, without basic scientific knowledge as the foundation, many edifices they construct are built on sand and eventually will collapse.29 As a well-known leader of the Chinese youth movement during the May Fourth period, Wang Guangqi called on Chinese youth to carry out academic debates and academic criticism. Two years later, an unprecedented academic debate indeed took place in China, in which Einstein’s relativity also played a role.

Einstein’s Impression of Shanghai Einstein visited Shanghai only briefly on his way to and from Japan in 1922–1923. In the early 1920s, China was, in the words of Sun Yat-sen, a great leader of the Chinese revolution, a semicolony that had neither full territorial integrity nor political independence. Its jurisdictional power was severely undermined, a fact that was particularly evident in coastal cities such as Shanghai. As one standard textbook in the United States proclaimed: Foreigners continued to bestride the Chinese scene with haughty arrogance; they held high posts of vital economic interest in the Chinese Maritime Customs, the Salt Revenue, and the Postal Service. In major cities along the coast foreign settlements and municipal concessions existed as usual, and Chinese in the Shanghai International Settlement paid tax without representation on the Municipal Council. In the north, the Japanese still ran the Southern Manchurian Railway and used it as an instrument of encroachment, while in the south the British continued to dominate the South China trade through Hong Kong.30

136

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

During his three-day visit in Shanghai, Einstein witnessed in person the suffering of the Chinese people. In his diary he recorded his observation: Outwardly, the Chinese attract attention by their industry, the small demands of their method of living and their wealth of children. They are more cheerful and childlike than Hindus. Yet to a large extent they are burdened people: men and women who crack stones day after day and carry them for a wage of only twopencehalfpenny per day. They themselves seem too stolid to realize the horror of their lot. . . . The city [of Shanghai] showed the difference in the social position of Europeans and Chinese, which make the later revolutionary events partially comprehensible. In Shanghai, the Europeans form a class of masters, while the Chinese are their servants. They appear as a tormented, stolid and unintellectual people, not in any way related to the great intellectual past of their country. They are good-natured labourers and as such are appreciated by the Europeans, to whom they are far inferior intellectually.31 All of these were sad sights to Einstein, “a man who desires to see social happiness, economic justice, international peace and peace between the classes throughout the world.” It seemed to Einstein that the Chinese people were “the poorest people of the earth, cruelly abused and treated worse than cattle.”32 The suffering of the Chinese people aroused Einstein’s profound sympathy. The miserable scenes in Shanghai gave Einstein such an unforgettable impression that he still recalled them when he met Peiyuan Chou in Princeton in 1936–1937.33

The Polemic on Science and Metaphysics The widespread impact of Einstein and relativity in the 1920s was evident in the great debate beginning only one month after Einstein’s departure from Shanghai.34 On the surface, the controversy focused on whether science could govern a philosophy of life. In nature, however, it was about “the evaluation of science and Chinese traditional culture.” In the end, “science with its cultural functions or scientific worldview and methodology” overcame the last resistance of Chinese Confucian scholars35 who asserted, “no matter how advanced science may be, it

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

137

cannot solve the problems of the philosophy of life, which depend entirely on man himself and nothing else.”36 The debate involved many of China’s leading minds of the day and was unprecedented in modern Chinese history in terms of its scope and duration. The debate also generated numerous essays, the most important of which were later collected and printed. The book was first published in December 1923 and was already in its fourth edition by April 1926. The most recent reprint in 1997 attests to the attention the debate received and its far-reaching impact.37 Einstein’s relativity clearly influenced the thinking of participants on both sides of the debate. In the volume of collected essays, among twenty-one contributors, eight cited Einstein’s relativity in their arguments; both Ding Wenjiang and Zhang Junmai, the two leading polemicists, cited it multiple times. Ren Hongjun, a supporter of scientism who did not cite relativity in his essay, actually introduced general relativity into China in 1920.38 The person who cited Einstein and relativity most often was Zhang Junmai, the leading opponent of scientism in this debate. By the spring of 1923, Zhang was no longer a stranger to either relativity or Einstein. Zhang began to learn relativity at the end of 1919 in Berlin.39 He was also one of the few Chinese scholars who accompanied Einstein at the Chinese banquet and attended Einstein’s only speech in Shanghai. Zhang not only tried to understand relativity himself, but also urged his friends to study it.40 Xu Zhimo, a well-known romantic poet and a close friend of Zhang, was an example.41 When Zhang met Xu in Paris in the fall of 1920, he gave Xu a copy of Einstein’s Relativity, the Special and the General Theory and suggested that he study it. It was not an easy thing for Xu because of his non-scientific background, but he did. Xu even published an essay a few months later introducing relativity to Chinese readers with nonscientific backgrounds.42 Zhang also translated a paper by German philosopher Hans Driesch criticizing relativity, which was the only critical essay published in China in the 1920s. Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch (1867–1941), a German experimental embryologist and philosopher, was the last great spokesman for vitalism.43 Driesch visited China in 1922–1923 as a guest professor, which was arranged by Zhang. In fact, it was after serving as Driesch’s interpreter in Beijing that Zhang delivered a lecture at the request of students at Qinghua School. The lecture, titled “Philosophy of Life,”

138

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

provoked Ding Wenjiang’s caustic refutation and thus triggered the aforementioned great debate.44 Having noted Driesch’s earlier harshly critical remark on Einstein’s relativity, Zhang Junmai requested Driesch to elaborate his criticism. Driesch thus expanded his criticism into an essay titled “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Its Criticism: A Logical Inquiry,” in which Driesch presented his philosophical criticism of relativity, claiming that he had found discrepancies between Einstein’s conclusions and rules of logic.45 Driesch’s criticism, however, was of little value. Even Zhang disagreed with him on most of his arguments. Why, then, did Zhang translate this essay? Zhang did so because he believed, “All academic ideas are disputable. The truth will become more powerful in the process of refuting the false.” For several years, Zhang had been looking for philosophical evaluations of relativity in China but failed to find anything. Consequently, Zhang had to use Driesch’s essay to elicit more criticism from Chinese scholars.46 It does not appear, however, that Driesch’s essay induced any Chinese follow-ups.

Einstein’s Support for the Chinese People In addition to his great scientific achievements and reputation, Einstein’s strong sense of social and international justice won him wide respect and admiration in China. Einstein’s sincere sympathy to the suffering Chinese people was recorded in his diary during his brief visit to Shanghai. In 1931, when the Japanese army invaded and occupied three provinces in northeast China, Einstein was among the first in the West to urge all nations to impose economic sanctions against the Japanese government.47 Einstein, as a spokesman for international justice and peace, was not only widely respected in China, but was also a person from whom Chinese intellectuals often sought support. In March 1932 Cai Yuanpei, now the president of Academia Sinica, requested that the Chinese legation in Washington forward his letter to Einstein, who was then visiting the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena.48 In the letter, Cai reported Japan’s “indiscriminate bombardment of Shanghai” and willful “wholesale destruction of China’s educational and cultural establishments.”49 In the recent campaign against China, Japan’s “wanton aerial and artillery bombardment” had burned to the ground the well-known Commercial Press, China’s premier publishing house, and its priceless public library.50 Many other

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

139

Chinese educational and cultural institutions in the area were also destroyed by the Japanese military.51 Cai appealed to the intellectual leaders of the world “to publicly condemn such barbarity of the Japanese military in destroying China’s educational and cultural organs and also to devise means for the prevention of any such further action on the part of Japan.”52 The all-out Japanese invasion in 1937 forced major universities, including Beijing and Qinghua, to move to Kunming, the small capital city of remote Yunnan province, about 1,280 miles southwest of Beijing. From Kunming, Peiyuan Chou, who had just spent his 1936–1937 sabbatical year at Princeton attending Einstein’s advanced seminar on general relativity, wrote Einstein on July 7, 1938. My dear Prof. Einstein, Fourteen months have elapsed, since I bade you good-bye in Princeton. A year ago in this very day our neighbor, the Japanese, launched their relentless campaign at Lu-Kou-Chiao about fifteen miles west of Peiping [Beijing]. To-day is also significant to me personally, for on this same day last year, my family and I arrived in Peiping after I came back from America. I wish to tell you on this memorable day our feelings and hopes about this unexpected war which is neither wanted by our people nor desired by our government. The war was precipitated solely by the Japanese militarists. Chou expressed in the letter his confidence of the eventual defeat of Japan despite unprecedented Chinese loss of “human power and civilian property” at the beginning of the war. The death and the severely wounded roll in the Japanese army according to neutral observers have amounted to half a million and the cost of the expedition so far is even beyond the imagination of the Japanese militarists. In name they have occupied several provinces, but actually they have only destroyed the big cities in these provinces and controlled the lines of communication between these cities, while the countries beyond are still in the hands of the Chinese soldiers. To our minds the Japanese army will collapse long before they can clean up their occupied areas.

140

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

The losses of Chinese lives have been immensely great. It might be true that a million soldiers have either died or been severely wounded and the error of estimate may be fifty per cent. The loss of civilian lives due to bombing in open cities and slaughter in the occupied areas may be as great as the death roll of the soldiers. But we do believe that these warriors and civilians have not died in vain. May their lives form the road-bed to freedom and prosperity for the Chinese race as a whole! And Chou asserted the Chinese people’s gratitude to Einstein and their determination for the victory, We have to thank you for your sympathy for our cause and your effort in promoting the boycott of Japanese goods movement in the world at large. We perfectly agree with you that when Japan’s economic life is endangered, the Japanese militarists have to have their campaign ended before they get into the mud deeper and deeper. I can also assure you that China from the Chairman of the Nationalist Government to every peasant in the country is optimistic about the outcome of the struggle for all of us believe that China will survive this crisis and emerge victorious eventually. . . . Under all difficulties like lack of books and other facilities we are carrying on our educational work as usual here in Kunming (Kunming is now one of the educational centers in China for many institutions have been moved here). All of us are looking forward to the day in the near future to go back to and enjoy our beloved Peiping.53 It is clear that in Chou’s mind Einstein was a sympathetic and supportive friend, with whom he wished to share his sorrow at difficult time. Chou was certainly not alone in having such affection toward Einstein. His colleague, Shu Xingbei admired Einstein so much that he invited Einstein to come to China to live the rest of his life!54

Einstein’s Social and Political Ideas Einstein’s support to the Chinese people was not limited to their struggle against imperialist aggression. He also generously lent his name on sev-

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

141

eral occasions to protest political persecution of independently minded intellectuals by the dictatorial Nationalist regime in China. In October 1932, for example, Einstein, together with Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, telegraphed Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek to ask for Chen Duxiu’s release.55 Chen, a former professor at Beijing University, was one of the key leaders of the May Fourth movement. In 1921 Chen became the first general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Dismissed from the CCP in the late 1920s, Chen was an independent critic of both the CCP and Chiang Kai-Shek’s nationalist regime in the early 1930s. In another case, when the so-called Seven Gentlemen, popular leaders of the anti-Japanese National Salvation Movement, were persecuted in March 1937 by Chinese authorities, Einstein joined Dewey and fourteen other U.S. scholars in sending a telegram to the Chinese authorities. It read: “Because we are friends of China and support China’s unity and the freedom of speech and association, we in the United States are deeply concerned for the arrest of the ‘Seven Gentlemen’ in Shanghai.”56 The repeated support from Einstein must have helped the growing interest in his social and political ideas in China in the 1930s. It was easier to access Einstein’s social and political ideas systematically after the Chinese translation of Mein Weltbild [My Worldview] was published in January 1937. The book was a collection of Einstein’s speeches and thoughts dealing mainly with social and political issues.57 The “definite object” for publishing the book was, as the editor pronounced, to present Einstein’s true character and opinions, which were “being exhibited to the world in an utterly distorted form.” The book had another goal: to appeal for Einstein’s beliefs in “humanity, in a peaceful world of mutual helpfulness, and in the high mission of science.”58 The publication of My Worldview in China did not receive as wide attention as it should. Few newspapers or periodicals, if any, reviewed the book, nor was there any discussion about the book on college campuses, probably because of the imminent crisis China was facing. Only six months after the publication of My Worldview, Japan began its fullscale invasion of China.59 The book, however, reached the hands of Xu Liangying (1920– ), a seventeen-year-old high school student in Hangzhou, and would have a profound influence on his future political thought.60 As a young admirer of Einstein, Xu bought a copy of My Worldview in February 1937 and finished reading it before he was ad-

142

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

mitted to the National Zhejiang University in 1938. Upon his graduation from the physics department in 1942, Xu became an activist in the revolutionary underground; four years later he joined the CCP. In the 1950s Xu served as deputy director of the editorial office of Kexue tongbao [Scientia Sinica] and studied the philosophy of science at the Institute of Philosophy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences before his political condemnation in the anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957.61 As a party member, Xu personally witnessed the introduction of Soviet criticism of Einstein and its impact in China in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Einstein’s Stained Image Under the influence of Marxist ideology imported from the USSR, the glorious image of Albert Einstein and his scientific theories gradually lost luster during the 1950s and the early 1960s.62 The cause of the change can be traced to the 1920s when a heated philosophical debate began in the Soviet Union, and continued in various forms at least until 1958. In this debate, some Soviet physicists and philosophers rejected the theory of relativity “in the name of dialectical materialism, but in fact because of a limited understanding of classical physics, a mechanistic world view, and a notorious ‘common sense.’ ”63 After World War II, the state interference in scientific realms in the Soviet Union became even worse.64 In June 1947, Andrei A. Zhdanov, Stalin’s assistant in the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party, criticized the cosmological interpretation of the general theory of relativity: Not understanding the dialectical path of cognition, the mutual relation of absolute and relative truth, many followers of Einstein, transferring the results of research on the laws of movement of a finite, bounded part of universe to the whole infinite universe, have begun speaking about a finite world, about its temporal and spatial boundaries; the astronomer Milne even “calculated” that the world was created two billion years ago.65 Zhdanov’s criticism of relativistic cosmology soon influenced people in China, especially members of the Communist Party. Xu Liangying, for example, read Zhdanov’s speech in the spring of 1948. Forty years later,

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

143

he could still recall his shock when he read Zhdanov’s criticism. The speech completely changed Xu’s opinion about modern cosmological theories, from admiration to condemnation. As a new CCP member worshiping Stalin and the USSR, Xu followed Zhdanov and accused modern cosmological theories of “providing new evidence for theology.” It was not until the end of the Cultural Revolution that Xu fully realized his mistake.66 Zhdanov’s speech started a new debate on the philosophic foundations of the theory of relativity. The debate lasted until 1955, and, “in altered and much more sophisticated forms,” continued for many years after.67 The Soviet influence in China became prevalent after 1949 and especially after China was drawn into the Korean War in October 1950. As a result, the philosophical debate and hostile criticism of Einstein’s relativity in the USSR were widely reported in China in the 1950s.68 Einstein’s public image in China thus began to deteriorate in the early 1950s. Reports in The People’s Daily, the CCP’s official newspaper founded in 1946, can both testify to the deterioration and identify the Soviet influence. Einstein’s name first appeared in the communist newspaper in January 1947, when the full scale of the civil war between the Communists and the U.S.-supported Nationalists was unfolding. On January 13, the newspaper reported Einstein’s protest against U.S. militarism, calling him “the world’s most renowned progressive scientist.”69 Reports about Einstein were rare but remained positive until 1952. Late in January 1952, editors of Scientia Sinica, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, made a public self-criticism about their previous “erroneous” report on the Soviet philosopher M. M. Karpov’s criticism of Einstein. Karpov accused Einstein of being “a thoroughgoing idealist” and listed as evidence Einstein’s belief that “matter and energy are mutually transformable.”70 When the Chinese translation of Karpov’s article was published in Scientia Sinica, the editor pointed out Karpov’s mistake in a footnote, asserting that Einstein’s belief “has experimental basis and thus is not idealism.” This footnote now became evidence of “siding with Einstein,” for which the editorial office had to criticize itself.71 More translations of the Soviet criticism of Einstein then followed. Early in 1953, The People’s Daily published Gong Yuzhi’s translation of Iurii Zhdanov’s article, in which Zhdanov condemned Einstein’s interpretation of his relativity as Machism and agnosticism.72

144

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

The following year, Soviet academician S. L. Sobolev’s new and compromised essay was translated into Chinese, indicating policy changes in the post-Stalin Soviet Union.73 Although Sobolev considered criticism of Einstein’s “confusing and idealist worldview . . . completely correct,” he criticized the “unwillingness and inability” among some scientists to see the rational part of Einstein’s physical research and their attempts to overthrow the theory of relativity.74 By the mid-1950s, translated books or articles that condemned Einstein as “an idealist and reactionary” were widely available in China.75 Despite increasingly hostile political propaganda, most Chinese scientists continue to venerate Einstein and his scientific achievements. When Einstein died on April 18, 1955, it was reported in The People’s Daily on April 20.76 The next day, Li Siguang and Peiyuan Chou telegraphed their condolences on behalf of Chinese scientists to Einstein’s family, apparently authorized by the government. Li was chairman of the Chinese National Association of Professional Societies for Natural Sciences, and Chou was the director of the association’s organizing department and president of the Chinese Physical Society.77 On the very same day, Chou also published an article in The People’s Daily, titled “Mourning for the Greatest Contemporary Physicist Albert Einstein,” in which he wrote, [Einstein’s death] is a loss of righteous mankind. His contributions to science are epoch-making. He loved science and human beings; he opposed German militarism, fascism, and American imperialism. He strove untiringly for the cause of peace, democracy, and freedom. With the greatest grief, the Chinese people mourn this outstanding scientist and great soldier for the cause of human peace.78 Chou extolled Einstein’s contributions to physics. “Einstein’s immortal works,” Chou wrote, “ushered in a new era in physics.” He attributed the developments of contemporary physics to Einstein’s fundamental discoveries. Chou also praised Einstein for his pacifism and for his courageous struggle against McCarthyism, a practice named after U.S. Senator Joseph R. MacCarthy who, in the 1950s, publicly accused many intellectuals and others of political disloyalty without sufficient evidence. He fully supported Einstein’s stands against violations of academic

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

145

freedom and for the personal and constitutional rights of individuals, which was clearly demonstrated in his quote of Einstein’s reply to the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee. At the end of his article, Chou called all scientists to learn from Einstein’s fighting spirit in conquering nature and in opposing political persecutions, and to devote themselves to science that is used for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humans.79 In May, Chou published another memorial essay, “A. Einstein’s Great Achievements in Physics,” in which Chou summarized the special and general theories of relativity and Einstein’s other major contributions to modern physics.80 Chou stressed, “Einstein not only made epochmaking contributions to physics, but also was a courageous soldier in advocating human rights, in objecting to warfare, and in resisting persecutions.”81 The essay also showed that Soviet propaganda and criticism had begun to influence Chou’s writing. For example, Chou seemed to have added, perhaps after completing his essay, two special but superficial tributes to Soviet physicists V. A. Fock and A. A. Friedmann for their contributions to the study of gravitation and cosmology. Chou’s remarks were terse (only two sentences) and irrelevant to his thesis. It is interesting to note that in 1963, after the public Sino-Soviet rift, Chou criticized Fock’s attempt to revise the general theory of relativity. In another example, Chou stressed at the end of his essay: We must also look at Einstein’s weakness without bias. He opposed warfare, but was unable to view the anti-war issue in terms of class struggle, and never joined the great movement to defend world peace. He was a spontaneous materialist who could discover physical laws, but his philosophical interpretations of his physical discoveries were often based on idealist viewpoints. Erroneous philosophical views had to hinder the progress of the scientific cause. In order to criticize Einstein’s idealist viewpoints, understand his theory thoroughly, and study modern physics more effectively, we physicists must step up the study of Marxism and master dialectical materialist worldview and method of thinking.82 These critical remarks may not be sincere words from Chou, and could have been added without his authorization: they were discordant with the essay’s keynote. They could also have been products of a series of

146

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

thought-reform campaigns,83 and were apparently part of the consequences of “learning from the Soviet Union.” Since the philosophical criticism of Einstein in the early 1950s was imported from the Soviet Union, it is not surprising that the Chinese attitudes quickly changed in 1956 after two new developments in the USSR: open criticism of Stalin in February by Nikita Khrushchev, head of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, and T. D. Lysenko’s stepping down in April from the presidency of the Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences.84 The Lysenko case caught both Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai’s attention. They instructed the propaganda department of the Central Committee and the Chinese Academy of Sciences to investigate the impact of Lysenkoism in China, which eventually led to the significant Qingdao Symposium on genetics in August 1956.85 The symposium was designed to be a model scientific discussion to promote the “Double-Hundred” policy.86 At the symposium, Yu Guangyuan (1915– ), a former physics student of Peiyuan Chou at Qinghua University and director of the science division of the party’s propaganda department, gave two important speeches.87 In his speech on August 20, Yu discussed the relations between philosophers and scientists, philosophy and science. Commenting on A. A. Maksimov’s philosophical criticism of Einstein, Yu said: In my opinion, this kind of criticism is not helpful for physics; it only creates confusion and hinders the development of natural sciences. We would rather have one Einstein than one hundred philosophers of this kind. Philosophy can provide guidance to science and therefore has a great responsibility. [Philosophers] should never be allowed to make casual criticism of scientists.88 Although Yu stressed that his speeches only represented his personal opinions, the prestigious position he had within the party made his talks significant and influential.89 Yu’s message was welcomed by many Chinese scientists and philosophers, but its impact must have been largely confined to those who attended the symposium, because his speeches were not published with the conference proceedings in April 1957.90 In fact, Yu’s speeches remained unpublished until 1985.91 The government-sponsored study of natural dialectics (or philosophy of science under the direction of Marxist dialectical materialism)

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

147

also began in 1956.92 In October, a new journal, Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu tongxun (Bulletin for Natural Dialectics Researches), was created.93 In December, The People’s Daily revealed a governmental plan to develop such research. The plan was being examined in a series of symposia by many leading Chinese scientists and some philosophers, who gathered in Beijing to work on the nation’s first long-term plan for science and technology. The participants agreed that philosophical problems involving the theory of relativity were among the most important issues in the field and that one goal of the natural dialectics research was “to denounce relativist and subjective misrepresentations of relativity.” They hoped that Chinese researchers in natural dialectics would learn from the “experience and lessons” in the Soviet Union so as not to hinder scientific research. They agreed that, while it is correct to criticize “idealist philosophy penetrated in the natural sciences,” it is wrong to “reject true scientific facts and theories without analysis”; such practices, therefore, should be prevented. In particular, they mentioned Soviet philosophers’ mistake in denying relativity because of criticism of idealism.94

Einstein Studies Return to China Between 1956 and 1964, The People’s Daily did not report any substantial political or philosophical attack on Einstein or his theory of relativity. On the contrary, after 1960 the paper publicized the theory of relativity in an unprecedented and favorable manner. Several factors may have contributed to this change. First, criticism from the Soviet Union was toning down. After the death of Stalin in 1953, “a strong majority” of Stalinist philosophers adopted “more moderate ways of looking at Einstein’s elaborate theoretical structure.”95 Second, after 1956, Soviet influence in China began to abate because of the deteriorating Sino-Soviet relations. Third, the early 1960s was a relatively relaxed period for Chinese intellectuals after the party restored some liberal policies.96 The fourth factor was Mao Zedong’s strong personal interest in the internal structure of the elementary particles, which helped China’s research in particle physics, may have also played a role in the renewed interest in the theory of relativity.97 Late in the summer of 1962 and early in 1964, Hu Ning and Peiyuan Chou, the two well-known relativity specialists, were invited to con-

148

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

tribute to The People’s Daily’s popularization papers on relativity.98 In his first paper, Hu Ning called Einstein “the great physicist” and specifically pointed out that “the theory of relativity has nothing in common with philosophical relativism.”99 Hu also proclaimed, “Einstein’s special theory of relativity has been confirmed beyond doubt by experiments in the 20th century. In terms of the understanding of time, it represents a transformation from the mechanical materialist view to the dialectical materialist view.”100 Hu’s last remark directly contradicted Soviet phi-losophers’ criticism that Einstein was a “thoroughgoing idealist” or at best merely a “materialist,” but not a “dialectical materialist.”101 Peiyuan Chou discussed the origin of the theory of relativity, the special and general theories, and their applications in natural sciences and engineering. Comparing this paper with his 1955 article, one can easily find a significant difference: Chou eliminated all the criticism of Einstein’s idealism that had been inserted at the end of his 1955 article.102 Early in 1964, Hu Ning wrote another article explaining concepts of time and space in the special theory of relativity. He started by asserting, “The special theory of relativity proposed by Einstein at the beginning of this century is a significant milestone in the development of physics. The truth of the theory has stood up to numerous tests in practice. For physicists, it has been an unquestionable objective truth.”103 Hu concluded his article with the following statement: The birth of the theory of relativity not only preconditioned the great development of 20th century physics, but also had profound influence on philosophical ideas. Relativity has enriched philosophical ideas of space and time and confirmed the truth of the dialectical materialist ideas of space and time.104 The Chinese translation of selected works of Einstein, one of the most important projects in China’s Einstein studies, also began in the early 1960s. The development of the natural dialectics studies called for a systematical collection and translation of philosophical works by outstanding modern scientists. A Chinese translation of collected philosophical works of Albert Einstein was among the first scheduled.105 The organizer of the translation project, Gong Yuzhi in the Chinese

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

149

Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Philosophy, assigned the translation of Einstein’s works to his former colleague, Xu Liangying, because of Xu’s longtime interest in Einstein.106 Happily accepting the assignment in September 1962, Xu immediately began to prepare a proposal for the translation project.107 He signed an official publication contract with the Commercial Press in March 1963. Although there were a few collaborators, Xu Liangying did most of the translation and editing work. For more than two years, Xu worked fourteen hours a day, seven days a week. By the end of 1964, Xu and his colleagues had finished translating 197 of Einstein’s works (about 600,000 Chinese characters), among which Xu translated 181 works (more than 500,000 Chinese characters).108 When Xu Liangying sent the manuscript translation to the Commercial Press at the end of 1964, however, the scheduled publication was suspended, because most people in the press were dispatched to the countryside to carry out the so-called “four clean-ups” in the wave of the Socialist Education Campaign.109 The Commercial Press then sent the manuscripts back to Xu.110 Hoping that the Press would later fulfill the publication contract, Xu proofread the whole manuscript one more time during 1965.111 Xu’s hope seemed to have been completely shattered at the beginning of the Cultural Revolution but would unexpectedly come true in 1976.112 In 1965, accusations against Einstein resurfaced in The People’s Daily. This time it was not imported from the Soviet Union but was induced by Mao’s rectification campaign in 1964 –1965.113 Early in 1965, China Youth Daily, the newspaper of the Chinese Communist Youth League, organized a debate on the issue of whether it is necessary to be both red and expert, that is, both socialist-minded and professionally proficient. In the debate, some took Einstein as an example, arguing that one could still make great contributions to society by becoming an expert without being well versed in Marxism-Leninism, or taking an active part in politics. Opposing this view, two young Chinese philosophers, Guan Shixu and Liu Shuzi from the Chinese Academy of Sciences published an article in April.114 Guan and Liu asserted that Einstein was not a scientist transcending classes or politics. They alleged that Einstein had in fact served American imperialism by proposing and assisting the construction of the first atomic bomb, which, in the hands of American imperialists, became a tool to blackmail and threaten social-

150

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ist countries and other peace-loving countries and people in the world. They also blamed Einstein’s idealist and metaphysical worldview for his failure to create a successful unified field theory, and for his “absurd conclusion” on a finite universe.115 The debate became increasingly heated and caught so much attention from the party in the following months that even Qian Xuesen (H. S. Tsien) was asked to contribute an article to the discussion. Qian, who returned to China from the United States in 1955 after suffering the persecution of McCarthyism, is a founding father of China’s missile programs. In his essay, Qian also used Einstein’s so-called atomic bomb proposal as evidence to demonstrate that Einstein was actually involved in bourgeois politics.116 Because it had been widely known by 1960 that Einstein really had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project, the U.S. effort in the 1940s to create the first atomic bomb, this Chinese criticism only showed the commentators’ ignorance, if it was not deliberate slander. Einstein’s philosophical ideas have always been a controversial subject: they never completely fit in the philosophical system of Marxist dialectical materialism, or any other single philosophical system. As a consequence, his ideas were favorite targets of Marxist philosophers and critics. Such philosophical attacks on Einstein became so tempting among Marxists that even Xu Liangying was critical in his analysis of Einstein’s philosophy in 1965. After becoming a member of the Communist Party, Xu was often critical of Einstein’s philosophical and political views based on teachings of Marxism-Leninism, even though he continued to admire Einstein’s scientific achievements. It was not until the end of the Cultural Revolution that Xu completely reversed his viewpoint.117 In his 1965 paper, Xu argued that Einstein’s leading philosophical ideas were materialistic, but he was not “a thoroughgoing materialist.” Xu believed that Einstein was an idealist in social and political realms and that even Einstein’s epistemological conclusions based on scientific research had “a lot of idealist impurities.”118 In essence, Xu echoed the Soviet derived idea: “Einstein was a great physicist but a very poor philosopher.”119 Chinese criticism of Einstein in the late 1950s and early 1960s was sporadic and focused mainly on the philosophical views of Einstein, who had by then become an exemplar of Lenin’s motto: “eminent scientist but poor philosopher!”120 Although the criticism might not have

From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher”

151

caused serious damage in China’s scientific study before the mid-1960s, it disseminated poisonous seeds and helped prepare the far more radical attacks on Einstein and his theory of relativity in the next decade, when the country was plunged into unprecedented turmoil and when Einstein’s critics not only assaulted his political and philosophical views but also challenged his scientific theories.



5 Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

The Cultural Revolution ( 1966 – 1976 ) was nothing less than a tragic calamity for China. Resulting largely from Mao Zedong’s personal decisions, the movement had perhaps the most ruinous effects on the Chinese society.1 Because the Cultural Revolution began by destroying the cultural establishment, Chinese science and scientists were among those who suffered most. During the Cultural Revolution, Einstein and the theory of relativity became primary targets of organized criticism that began in Beijing in 1968 and expanded in Shanghai in the 1970s. Radical Chinese Communist Party leaders sponsored and exploited the criticism for their own political gain. After these radical leaders lost their power, most political and philosophical criticism ended in 1976. But a major debate on relativity, which was induced by the criticism, lasted six more months. It was not until 1979 that the Chinese government officially “rehabilitated” Einstein. This chapter explores the origin, contents, participants, and consequences of the criticism movement. The investigation helps to illustrate how China’s scientific development was affected by the “guidance” of dialectical materialism during these turbulent years.

The Campaign in Beijing The Cultural Revolution had its “initial stirrings” in late 1965, at which time criticism of Einstein also returned to the media. The next three

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

153

and a half years were the “manic” period of the Cultural Revolution, “in which the political crisis induced by Mao was the deepest, and the chaos the greatest.”2 In this poisonous atmosphere of political extremism, some people saw a chance to make names for themselves by attacking acknowledged authorities and achievements.3 Self-motivated attacks of such kind triggered China’s organized criticism against Einstein and his relativity theory. At the end of 1967, Zhou Youhua,4 a middle-aged mathematics teacher from Liling middle school in Hunan province, came to Beijing to promote his paper, which attacked field theories in physics, especially Einstein’s general theory of relativity, on the basis of Mao’s teaching in dialectical materialism.5 In February 1968, Zhou Youhua presented his “new theory” at the Physics Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), where physicists made a forceful rebuttal to the “revolutionary” field theory. Even though physicists denounced Zhou’s nonscientific and irresponsible attitude in dealing with this scientific subject, the Revolutionary Committee at the CAS, which was now in charge, considered Zhou’s paper a politically correct and “newly emerging thing” that should be supported.6 With this support, Zhou continued to search for comrades and to promote his “new theory” in Beijing. Finally, in March 1968, a group named Mao Zedong Thought Study Class for Criticizing Reactionary Bourgeois Standpoints in Theories of Natural Sciences was formally created in the CAS. The members of the study class include Zhou Youhua and a dozen junior scientists from several CAS research institutes and from various universities in Beijing.7 No one in the group was academically ranked above assistant professor.8 One senior mathematician, Qin Yuanxun, however, actively participated in the criticism campaign although he might not have been an official member of the group.9 One leader of this group was Kong Linghua (1935–1999), who was Mao Zedong’s son-in-law.10 Kong’s special connection with Mao added to the authority of the group and attracted others to join.11 From the very beginning, the critics took the theory of relativity as their primary target of criticism and thus called themselves in short the Criticizing Relativity Study Class (CRSC).12 They targeted relativity for several reasons. First, the theory of relativity was considered one of the most influential scientific theories in the twentieth century and thus was a natural target for the group who wished to be in the spotlight. Second, to achieve their goal of creating a new proletarian science, the critics had to overthrow all existing bourgeois theories, and relativity

154

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

seemed to be a perfect representative. Third, it is well known that Ernst Mach’s ideas had significant influence on Einstein during the creation of relativity, and Mach had been denounced by V. I. Lenin in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908). Following the guidelines of the Cultural Revolution, the CRSC asserted, “the serious mistake in Einstein’s relativity is one of the biggest obstacles that is at present blocking the advance of natural sciences.” Therefore, “It is necessary, using Mao Zedong’s thought as the weapon, to criticize and revolutionize relativity in order to advance natural sciences and to create new scientific theories. Otherwise, it is impossible to advance scientific theories to a higher level.”13 In June 1968, the CRSC produced its first paper, which was proclaimed as “the beginning of the criticism of relativity.” The paper had a long title: “Thoroughly Criticize Reactionary Bourgeois Viewpoints in the Theory of Natural Sciences: On the Foundation of the Theory of Relativity—the Principle of Constant Speed of Light.” Their goal was “to destroy completely the bourgeois intellectuals’ rule . . . in order to consolidate the proletarian dictatorship against the bourgeoisie in the realm of natural science.”14 The critics claimed: A proletarian scientific revolution, which is unparalleled in human history, will soon emerge on the horizon in the East. It will be the first great scientific revolution in history under the proletarian dictatorship and in the circumstances of on-going thorough socialist revolution.15 To denounce relativity, they used various political labels and pretexts. For example, they labeled it “thoroughgoing subjectivism and sophism” or “idealist relativism.”16 One of the foci of the criticism was the principle of the constant speed of light (or light principle, in short), one of the two postulates of special relativity. The critics said the light principle was “a profound reflection of Western bourgeois reactionary political viewpoints”: the constant speed of light implied “that capitalist society was the ultimate society of human beings, that productive forces of the monopolistic capitalism were insurmountable, and that Western science was the ultimate science of mankind.” They regarded the light principle as “a fundamental violation of the materialistic dialectics.” Besides ridiculous ideological arguments, the critics also based their

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

155

opposition on the allegation that the light principle “has never been directly confirmed in experiments.”17 This argument, however, is also unwarranted. Although it is true that the light principle was Einstein’s hypothesis based on all known experimental facts in 1905, by 1965 there had been much experimental evidence that directly confirmed the light principle.18 The CRSC paper deliberately confused the theory of relativity with philosophical relativism. For instance, it cited Mao’s previously unpublished speech in 1937, in which he criticized relativism. Because the Chinese translation of the term “relativism” in the 1930s is the same as the contemporary Chinese term for the theory of relativity (both read Xiangduilun), it is confusing if one does not carefully refer to the context in which they were used. However, anyone with a basic knowledge of philosophy can tell what Mao really meant in his speech, and it is therefore clear that the CRSC confused the two on purpose so as to appeal to Mao’s authority when he was a godlike figure in China. At the end of the paper, the CRSC announced where the criticism would lead: The proletarian class will be able to take over and consolidate their control of all positions in natural sciences; brand new scientific theories, which bourgeois scholars cannot even dream of, are thus bound to be developed rapidly, one after another. [Consequently] a truly new epoch for scientific development ought to come first in our country.19 Early in July 1968, the Revolutionary Committee of the CAS submitted this paper to Chairman Mao, Vice Chairman Lin Biao, the Central Committee of the CCP, and the Central Cultural Revolution Small Group. Attached to the paper were two reports from the CRSC and the authorities of the CAS respectively. In its report, the CRSC proclaimed its goal was “to carry out the proletarian scientific revolution and create a brand new [Chinese] theoretical system through the criticism.” The authorities at the CAS requested support and authorization to take the CRSC “as a model experiment to gain experiences” so that they could carry out similar criticism in biology, geology, and other scientific fields.20 Between mid-1968 and mid-1969, the CRSC continued to search for more materials and to produce more criticism papers on relativity.21

156

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

The CRSC’s membership also continued to grow during this time.22 It was not until the second half of 1969, however, that the criticism of Einstein and relativity received significant momentum and endorsement from the party. In April 1969, the Ninth Party Congress of the CCP convened in Beijing and legitimized the radical theories and practices carried out in the first three years of the Cultural Revolution. On August 27, 1969, the CCP’s three major official organs, People’s Daily, Red Flag Magazine, and the PLA Daily, published a joint editorial titled “Pay Close Attention to the Revolutionary Mass Criticism and Repudiation,” which advocated carrying out “the struggle-criticism-transformation in the realm of natural sciences.”23 In August, the CRSC completed a new paper, “Relativity Criticism (Draft for Discussion).” Its theme was essentially the same as the first paper. It differed only in that it contained more extensive and hostile philosophical criticism. The new paper asserted, for example, The major premise of relativity was relativism in philosophy; the space-time theory in relativity was bourgeois solipsism; and relativity’s fundamental principle had never been confirmed by experiments. . . . The debate about relativity has gone far beyond the scope of general academic discussion. It has always been full of the struggle between the two kinds of worldviews and closely related to the political struggle. Under this situation, we must use invincible Mao Zedong’s Thought as our weapon to criticize thoroughly philosophical errors in relativity and reexamine its physical contents in order to carry out this struggle to its end!24 In order to refute the relativity of simultaneity in the theory of relativity, one young physicist in the CRSC even invented sensational evidence. Early in March 1969, a number of widely publicized military clashes occurred between China and the USSR at Zhen-bao Island in Wu-su-li (Ussuri) River, China’s northeast border with the Soviet Union. China suffered hundreds of casualties in these incidents, which also triggered nationwide protests in China against the USSR.25 Relating the China– USSR border incident with the criticism of relativity, the young physicist claimed that if simultaneity were relative as Einstein claimed in his relativity theory, then there would be no way to judge objectively who actu-

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

157

ally fired the first shot in the recent Zhen-bao Island incident.26 This demagogic argument implied a political threat to anyone wishing to defend the theory of relativity, because they could be labeled as traitors and followers of the revisionists in the Soviet Union. The demagoguery, however, could not fool any serious Chinese scientist, even a nonspecialist. For instance, Zhu Kezhen (1890–1974), a 1918 Harvard Ph.D. in meteorology and the CAS’s vice president, was able to find the misconceptions in the critic’s argument after teaching himself for a few weeks using standard physics textbooks. He pointed out that one cannot derive such a conclusion from the theory of relativity because the Soviet Union and China are on the same planet, the Earth, and therefore in the same system of reference.27 Since the relativity of simultaneity in the theory of relativity is a phenomenon associated only with observers in different systems of reference moving with respect to each other, it does not apply to the Sino-Soviet border clash. Nevertheless, it was impossible for scientists like Zhu to stop the tide of criticism. In October, the CRSC finished the revision of the “Relativity Criticism” and distributed it throughout the country, hoping to incite a nationwide mass criticism of Einstein and relativity.28 In the fall of 1969, the criticism campaign gained great momentum from the personal endorsement of Chen Boda (1904–1989). Chen was Mao’s longtime ideological adviser and former political secretary, and one of the most powerful figures in the early years of the Cultural Revolution.29 In May 1966, Mao appointed Chen the chief of the newly created Central Cultural Revolution Small Group (CRG), the headquarters of the movement.30 By early 1969, Chen was ranked fourth in the CCP leadership, after Mao, Lin Biao, and Zhou Enlai.31 Since the fall of 1969 Chen had closely watched the criticism of relativity. He gave many instructions to the critics, sent his liaison to the CRSC, and assigned an editor from the Red Flag Magazine to help the CRSC revise papers. The criticism of relativity was one of the two central issues on Chen’s criticism agenda, which required scientists to criticize Einstein and artists to denounce Stanislavski.32 But why was Chen so enthusiastic about supporting this novel criticism of Einstein and relativity? There were two possible motivations. Politically, Chen seemed to believe that the criticism would help him in the power competition with Zhang Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan.33 There is evidence that Chen had lost Mao’s trust before October 1969. As early as February

158

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

1967, Mao angrily blamed Chen for purging Tao Zhu, a member of the standing committee of the Politburo, without his approval.34 Early in 1969, Chen lost to Zhang and Yao in the competition to draft the political report for the Ninth Party Congress. Mao approved the report drafted by Zhang and Yao, but returned Chen’s draft without even looking at it.35 Widely known as “a famous party theorist,” “an effective writer,” who had previously drafted many important documents for Mao and for the party, this unexpected defeat was a great humiliation for Chen.36 Ambitious as Chen was, he must have sought every opportunity to come back.37 The criticism of Einstein and relativity seemed to provide Chen such an opportunity for two reasons. First, Chen was a former vice president of the CAS and had powerful influence in the academy during the Cultural Revolution. Since the CRSC was subordinated to the CAS, the criticism started by the CRSC seemed to have opened a new battlefield, where, if successful, Chen could take full credit for it and reestablish his powerbase against the competitors from Shanghai. Second, since Kong Linghua, Mao’s son-in-law, was also an active participant in the criticism, Chen might well consider the support to the CRSC a shortcut to please Mao. Chen Boda also promoted the criticism out of his cultural nationalism.38 Ever since 1966, Chen had repeatedly said in his public speeches, “Civilization began in the East, later [its center] shifted to the West. After a round trip, [the center of civilization] has now returned to the East at a more advanced level.”39 In April 1970, on his visit to Beijing University, Chen once again said, “In the past, science was introduced from the West to the East, from Europe and America to China. In the future, China will lead [the development of] science. For this, we must thoroughly denounce the theory of relativity.”40 Clearly, Chen wished to restore China’s prominent international position in science and technology in ancient time. In nature, he attempted to revive the Sino-centric cultural bias, which had long been employed by conservative thinkers to resist Western ideas in the past. But this time, Chen advanced his cultural nationalism “under the banner of Marxism.”41 Since the CRSC had also proposed to overthrow Western bourgeois domination in natural science and “to create a brand new [Chinese] theoretical system through criticism,”42 Chen must have found the criticism congenial to his own plan. Under Chen Boda’s instruction, the CRSC’s paper “Relativity Criti-

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

159

cism” was scheduled to be published in two of the most prominent magazines in China, Hongqi [Red Flag] and Zhongguo kexue [Scienta Sinicia], in January 1970. However, Liu Xiyao,43 who was in charge of the CAS at the time, seemed to be more cautious in dealing with this matter. Liu decided to invite some renowned scientists to examine the paper, and a special meeting attended by a group of famous Chinese scientists and members of the CRSC was called at the CAS on October 23, 1969.44 Several representatives of the CRSC, including Zhou Youhua, attended the meeting.45 Senior scientists Zhu Kezhen (1890–1974), Wu Youxun (1897–1977), Peiyuan Chou (1902–1993), Qian Xuesen (1911– ), and He Zuoxiu (1927– ) were among the meeting’s special invitees.46 Chen Boda personally summoned Chou to the meeting from Hanzhong, Shaannxi province because of Chou’s well-known research on relativity and for his personal associations with Einstein in the 1930s.47 Another well-known nuclear physicist Wang Ganchang (1907–1998) was also called, but he refused to come, which was rather unusual and may have demonstrated both Wang’s privilege as an expert in China’s nuclear weapon program and his extraordinary courage.48 Hao Mengce, one of the military representatives then in charge at the CAS, chaired the meeting.49 He Zuoxiu, a quantum field theorist, spoke first. He supported the criticism of Einstein, which, in his opinion, should include not only the theory of relativity, but also his unified field theory, views of a finite universe, and opposition against quantum mechanics. Nevertheless, He disagreed with members of the CRSC on many arguments in their paper.50 Peiyuan Chou spoke next, partly because He just mentioned his name. Chou first introduced Einstein’s life and work, in which he defended Einstein implicitly in many respects. In particular, he pointed out that Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt in 1939 was an action against Nazi Germany, he actually did not participate the construction of the atomic bomb, and he co-signed a letter with Bertrand Russell in 1955 to oppose building hydrogen bomb. Chinese critics often cited Einstein’s letter to Roosevelt as evidence serving for the reactionary U.S. imperialism. It is understandable that under the situation, Chou had to make some apparently perfunctory criticism against Einstein in his speech. He also stated his genuine disagreements with Einstein on the unified field theory and the definition of reference frames in the general relativity, but did not use them for political gain.

160

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Chou did not directly criticize the CRSC paper, but the fact that he “had never carefully read the paper” clearly indicated his antipathy to it.51 After learning Chen’s publication arrangement, however, Chou talked with Liu Xiyao privately after the meeting. Chou pointed out that it was not appropriate to publish the criticism paper in an internationally distributed magazine such as Red Flag because “it will place us in a very embarrassing position in the future.”52 Chou was greatly concerned with the serious damage this criticism would inflict on China’s international reputation in science. He told Liu, “Relativity can be discussed but cannot be overthrown.”53 Qian Xuesen, speaking after Chou, began with some exaggerated cliché, saying that he was “excited, inspired, and enlightened” by the CRSC paper and that he came to the meeting “with full enthusiasm.” He first congratulated members of the CRSC for their achievement. Then he quickly added that Einstein was a very complex figure, whose evaluation had to be comprehensive and objective to convince others. In the end, Qian seemed to have disapproved the paper and he urged the critics to base their criticism and investigation on Mao Zedong thoughts. Wu Youxun stated that he “completely” agreed with Qian in his speech and he suggested that the CAS support and expand the criticism because the theory of relativity involved a wide variety of areas. Nevertheless, Wu did not think that the paper was clearly written or convincingly argued. By raising a series of challenging questions to its authors, Wu obviously disapproved its publication. Many other physicists in the meeting also voiced their opposition to the CRSC paper, often implicitly and focusing on concrete scientific evidence and arguments.54 Most participants of the meeting expressed their general support to the criticism campaign; some genuinely thought so, many others did it simply to avoid detrimental political consequences. Few senior scientists, however, were in favor of the CRSC paper, not to say supporting its publication. At least partly because of the opposition led by Peiyuan Chou and other senior scientists, the paper was never published in either Red Flag or Scienta Sinicia.55 Despite the setback in publishing the CRSC paper, Chen continued to push forward with the criticism movement. On April 3, 1970, Chen stopped at Beijing University and called a meeting in which he personally preached the criticism of Einstein and the theory of relativity. Chen

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

161

stressed that it was necessary to carry out a comprehensive mass criticism in order to reexamine and reevaluate all scientific theories in the past and to overthrow Newton and Einstein. Chen asked professional scientists to learn from “young revolutionary militants” in primary and middle schools. He insisted that students in primary and middle schools also participate in the criticism of relativity because they “had active and dynamic ideas, sharp eyes, broad interests, and full vitality.” Chen further proposed to convene a mass meeting of ten thousand people to denounce Einstein and relativity. The meeting never materialized, however, because of Chen’s unexpected political downfall.56 On the above visit, Chen summoned Peiyuan Chou again. After Chen preached why relativity should be thoroughly denounced, Chou replied firmly, “Einstein’s special theory of relativity is a confirmed truth and therefore cannot be denounced. Controversies still exist regarding the general theory of relativity, which can be discussed.”57 Chen did not understand relativity, but he insisted on criticizing it. On April 8, Chen again directed Liu Xiyao to pay close attention to the criticism of Einstein and relativity. He also ordered the creation of a special publication to publish relevant criticism papers.58 Following Chen’s instructions, the CAS set up a Relativity Criticism Office and an editorial office for the publication,59 which later was named Relativity Discussion. It is worth noting that the word “discussion” was used here instead of “denunciation” or “criticism,” probably because of Chou’s repeated warning.60 The first issue of the Relativity Discussion was published in June 1970. It included six papers submitted by contributors from Beijing (four) and Shanghai (two), the two centers of the criticism movement. The first article in Relativity Discussion was “Relativity Criticism,” contributed by the CRSC. The content of the article was essentially the same as that of its previous three drafts. There were, however, some minor changes. For example, it had to admit that the theory of relativity was not relativism.61 One paper from Beijing was particularly interesting and clearly discordant with the keynote of the criticism movement. The mass criticism group from the CAS’s Atomic Energy Institute contributed a paper that acknowledged the truth of the special theory of relativity (STR) and demonstrated the sound experimental foundation of the

162

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

STR by listing twenty-three experimental results.62 Its publication clearly indicated the opposition to the criticism among the scientists. Perhaps the title Relativity Discussion can explain why this opposition paper was chosen for publication. In order to show that it was a discussion rather than a complete criticism, the editor had to publish opinions from both sides. However, since the other five papers were heavily critical, this paper was selected probably only as an adornment. In this issue, the two articles from Shanghai were also remarkable for having the most radical tone among all six articles, which are discussed below.63 The publication of Relativity Discussion marked the climax of the criticism movement in Beijing,64 which mainly depended on Chen Boda’s personal support. Soon after Chen’s political downfall in August 1970, however, Beijing’s criticism hastily wound up. It was reported that most members of the CRSC realized their “mistake” and changed from criticizing to studying, and even defending, relativity. The CAS members in the CRSC later formed a separate research group in the CAS’s Physics Research Institute. The authority assigned the group to study gravity, theories of elementary particles, and astrophysics, issues that were closely related to relativity. As a result, these physicists were able to do what most other Chinese scientists were unable to do then: concentrate on research and explore forefront scientific issues.65 In fact, it was precisely because of this possibility to resume research and to enjoy the “privilege” of accessing research literature that some physicists decided to join the CRSC.66 Moreover, some former CRSC members even publicly defended the theory of relativity by refuting absurd criticism in the later years of the Cultural Revolution. These CRSC members’ change of position represented the split of the criticism movement in China and was deeply resented by die-hard critics, especially those in the Shanghai Science Mass Criticism Group, who regarded these CRSC members as “traitors.”67 As we will see later in the relativity debate in Wuli, however, some of these “traitors” remained critical of Einstein’s philosophical view.

The Campaign in Shanghai The criticism of relativity in Shanghai started later than in Beijing. In 1969, as part of the competition with Chen Boda, Zhang Chunqiao and

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

163

Yao Wenyuan instructed their followers in Shanghai to carry out actively the criticism of Einstein and the theory of relativity. After the criticism in Beijing wound up late in 1970, the criticism in Shanghai intensified.68 From 1972 on, the political motivation for the Shanghai radicals was to smear Premier Zhou Enlai, who now became their major obstacle to greater political power and who had praised Einstein recently and publicly.69 Shanghai’s criticism continued until the end of the Cultural Revolution. In July 1969, Wang Zhichang, a trusted follower of Zhang’s and Yao’s, called a meeting at Fudan University in Shanghai to mobilize the physics department faculty to criticize Einstein and relativity. Wang urged Fudan physicists to set up a special criticism group. To entice scientists to join this group, Wang promised that group members would enjoy privileges such as exemptions from labor work or political studies. It proved hard, however, to lure Fudan physicists to join the criticism. Physicist Dai Xianxi, for example, questioned Wang at the meeting about the scientific basis for criticism of relativity.70 Although Wang did not have any legitimate answer to Dai’s question, it did not prevent him and other Shanghai radicals from setting up at Fudan University a writing company called Shanghai Science Revolutionary Mass Criticism Group, or Shanghai Science Criticism Group (hereafter SSCG) in short.71 The SSCG was under the command of the Shanghai Municipal Revolutionary Committee, a governing body of Shanghai City after 1967, which was controlled by Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and their followers. From the beginning, some senior physicists at Fudan resented the malicious criticism and boycotted it in various ways.72 Such boycotts were, of course, very dangerous. For example, Professor Zhou Tongqing (1907–1989) refused to support the criticism of Einstein despite pressure from the Shanghai radicals.73 Leaders of the SSCG then ordered Zhou and other senior physicists to translate materials for the criticism, an assignment designed to let the physicists “dig up their own ancestral grave.”74 When Zhou deliberately provided translations irrelevant to the criticism, he was charged with resisting the criticism of Einstein and was denounced at public criticism sessions, in which he suffered severely.75 After Chen Boda offered his personal endorsement to the criticism movement in Beijing, Yao Wenyuan also summoned Zhu Yongjia to

164

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Beijing in early October 1969 to scheme for further criticism of Einstein and relativity.76 Zhu was the leader of the writing group of the Shanghai Municipal Revolutionary Committee, supervising the SSCG’s work. Under Yao’s personal instructions, the SSCG drafted a paper, “Criticize Einstein’s Relativity,” in January 1970, which asserted, “The vital element of the theory of relativity is relativism. The components of the theory of relativity are a relativistic view of truth, metaphysical cosmology, and mythological methodology.” Their goals were indicated in their allegations: “Einstein is the most well-known reactionary bourgeois academic authority in natural science in this century”; “Einstein’s relativity is a typical example of the reactionary bourgeois idealist and metaphysical worldview in contemporary science”; and “It is impossible to create any new science and technology without denouncing reactionary theories such as relativity.” “Criticize Einstein’s Relativity” was published in the first issue of Relativity Discussion in June 1970. Among papers published in that issue, “Criticize Einstein’s Relativity” was the most hostile in its tone.77 After the CRSC’s disbandment, the SSCG also lay dormant in 1971– 1972.78 In September 1971, Lin Biao, the party’s vice chairman and Mao’s designated successor, was killed in an airplane crash after his failed coup against Mao. Mao’s own health was deteriorating and he put Zhou Enlai in charge of the party’s daily affairs.79 Zhou launched in late 1971 an anti-leftist offensive,80 which, in the circle of science and education, promoted theoretical research and education in basic sciences. The ultraleftist policy in the previous five chaotic years had ruined China’s scientific research, especially the theoretical research in basic sciences. Deeply concerned with the damage, Zhou started to stress research in basic sciences as early as 1970.81 In the summer of 1972, Nobel laureate physicist Chen Ning Yang visited China from the United States. Yang met Premier Zhou in Beijing on July 1 and urged him “to consider adopting a policy of increased attention to basic sciences.”82 Two weeks later, Zhou met a delegation of twelve Chinese-American professors (mostly scientists and engineers)83 and announced Yang’s suggestion. He instructed Peiyuan Chou, vice president of Beijing University, “to study how to implement such a policy.”84 On September 5, Zhou Enlai met visiting Pakistani theoretical physicist Abdus Salam. Following that meeting, Zhou also instructed the leaders of the CAS and the Defense Science and Technology Commission to pay special attention to “basic sciences and theo-

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

165

retical research,” and particularly to high-energy physics and the design and manufacture of high-energy accelerators.85 Zhou Enlai also personally praised Albert Einstein, probably intending to counter Chen Boda’s criticism of Einstein and to promote the status of theoretical scientists. In November 1971, during his meeting with some Italian guests, Zhou remarked, “The Jewish nation has produced many outstanding talents. Marx was Jewish, so was Einstein.”86 In the summer of 1972, Peiyuan Chou, one of Zhou’s most prominent supporters, also publicly voiced his opposition to the criticism of Einstein and his relativity at a national conference on education.87 Unfortunately, Zhou’s anti-leftist campaign was unable to liquidate leftist positions. Rather, it only further enraged radical ultra-leftist leaders such as Jiang Qing, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen, or the so-called Gang of Four. The key reason for Zhou’s failure was that he did not have Mao’s support. By the end of 1972, these radicals had convinced Mao that Zhou’s anti-leftist campaign had gone too far. Mao effectively stopped Zhou’s campaign and turned it around to purge “ultra-rightism,” which now enabled radicals to resume their offensive.88 Beginning in late 1972, these radical leaders took every possible opportunity to attack Zhou Enlai. For Yao Wenyuan and his radical colleagues, the criticism of Einstein and relativity was an effective way to counter Zhou’s efforts to restore China’s scientific and educational development. During 1971–1972, although the SSCG did not publish anything, members continued to prepare a criticism document for Yao Wenyuan and other radical leaders.89 Under Yao’s personal direction, the SSCG made numerous changes and revisions of this document during this period. In September 1972, Yao finally approved the document, titled “Einstein and Relativity.” After Mao stopped Zhou Enlai’s antileftist campaign in late 1972, the SSCG began to prepare to publish a series of criticism papers.90 Between October 1973 and September 1974, the SSCG adapted “Einstein and Relativity” into four lengthy papers dealing respectively with subjects such as the space-time view, the view of motion, the view of matter, and the worldview. Under Yao’s instruction, all four papers were published in academic journals in order to disguise the political motivations “with an ‘academic’ garb.”91 This was probably why Yao and his followers did not publish their criticism in Red Flag, as Chen Boda had tried before.

166

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

By the end of August 1973, the Gang of Four had further strengthened their power in the party, especially their control in the realm of ideology at the Tenth Party Congress.92 In October 1973, the first of the four criticism papers, titled “On Einstein’s View of Space-Time,” appeared in the Journal of Fudan University. On the one hand, the SSCG had to admit Einstein’s revolutionary role in rejecting the Newtonian view of absolute space and time and in discovering the relativity of space-time. On the other hand, however, the SSCG accused Einstein of going too far. As a result, Einstein’s relativity of space-time became relativism, which, according to Lenin’s teaching, was doomed to degenerate into the “idealist view of space-time.”93 Ironically the SSCG almost immediately contradicted itself by asserting that “the theory of relativity was in fact ‘the theory of absoluteness’” because of the invariance of space-time separation.94 The SSCG also attacked the curved space-time in Einstein’s general theory: a curved space-time would eventually lead to a “limited and closed circle,” supporting the idea of a limited universe. Earlier in this chapter we saw Zhdanov’s criticism of a finite universe in relativistic cosmology. Following similar orthodox Marxist arguments, the SSCG also could not tolerate a limited universe because members alleged that it would result in the existence of something nonmaterial and supernatural, or God, outside of the limited material world.95 The remaining three papers by the SSCG on Einstein’s views of motion, matter, and his worldview basically followed the same kinds of argument. In general, the SSCG admitted in a casual way that Einstein had made progress in certain physical problems and advanced the knowledge of space, time, and matter.96 But what the SSCG stressed in its criticism was: because Einstein did not understand Marxist dialectical materialism,97 his theory of relativity led him only to relativism, and eventually he fell into the “quagmire of idealism and metaphysics.”98 All four papers were filled with phrases quoted out of context from various works by Einstein, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, and other philosophers and scientists.99 There was no consistent argument or clear logical structure in any of the papers, nor was there any true scientific, historical, or even philosophical analysis. Besides some superficial introduction of the theory of relativity and its historical evolution, what the SSCG did most was to denounce Einstein’s theory and its philosophical interpretations by abusing various philosophical labels. For example,

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

167

members regarded mass-energy equivalence and the four-dimensional energy-momentum tensor as examples of energetics;100 they called Einstein a Machian;101 and they accused Einstein’s ideas of unified field theory of complete idealist apriorism and jeered at Einstein’s failure to build such a theory, calling it a “grand abortion” in science.102

The Criticism of Relativistic Cosmology In June 1973, the SSCG published two articles in a new magazine, Dialectics of Nature, to attack the “reactionary bourgeois” big-bang cosmology.103 What triggered the SSCG’s attacks was a paper titled “A Cosmological Solution in Scalar-Tensor Theory with Mass and Blackbody Radiation,” published in Wuli, a new physics journal.104 The paper marked the beginning of the Chinese study of relativistic cosmology. The author of the cosmology paper, Fang Lizhi (1936– ), graduated at the top of his class in the physics department of Beijing University in 1956, where both Professors Peiyuan Chou and Hu Ning taught.105 Upon his graduation, Fang was assigned to lead a theory group researching nuclear reactor design for plutonium production in China’s top-secret nuclear project.106 After being labeled as a quasirightist in the 1957 anti-rightist campaign, however, Fang was expelled from the party, removed from classified research, and in 1958 was reassigned to the new University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in Beijing. In the early 1960s, Fang was active in researching particle, solid state, and laser physics. In 1969, Fang and his colleagues in the USTC physics department were sent down to Huainan, Anhui, to mine coal.107 In Huainan, Fang secretly read and reread Lev Landau’s Classical Theory of Fields and fell in love with problems of general relativity and cosmology. During those months Landau’s book became my . . . only sustenance. When night fell and I lay in my [mosquito] netting exhausted from the day’s labor, my soul would roam the expanding universe. . . . It was from this time that I fell in love with astrophysics.108 By the end of 1971, Fang had changed his research subject to astrophysics.109 Having found the current astrophysics literature in 1972, Fang quickly completed the above-mentioned paper, in which he used

168

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

“‘scalar-tensor theory’ (a metric theory of gravity) and blackbody radiation data to calculate basic spatial and temporal properties of the evolution of the universe.” Within only six months of its publication, “A Cosmological Solution” became a target of the SSCG because bigbang cosmology, which Fang’s paper supported, directly contradicted the dialectical materialist doctrine of the infinite universe and therefore was a reactionary theory.110 The history of Marxist polemics on the spatial and temporal infinitude of the universe can be traced back to Engels’s Anti-Düring, Dialectics of Nature, and Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-criticism. Relativistic cosmology was condemned in the 1930s by the Soviet Union and most prominently in the late 1940s by Andrei Zhdanov, whose speeches had been introduced into China as early as 1948 and were soon accepted by China’s Marxist philosophers.111 Accordingly, cosmology became a forbidden region for scientists in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). It is thus not surprising that no scientific papers on relativistic cosmology were published in the PRC before Fang’s.112 It is, however, quite remarkable that Fang broke the taboo when the ultra-leftism was at its height.113 Ironically it was, at least partially, because of the radical requirement that “theories be integrated with practice,” leading to more theoretical physicists working in astronomy or astrophysics. The SSCG and other orthodox Marxist critics were enraged by Fang’s public support of anti-Marxist big-bang cosmology and organized a campaign against Fang and his supporters. At least thirty articles, criticizing the big-bang theory in general and Fang’s paper in particular, were published between early 1973 and the fall of 1976, and much of the criticism was carried out by the SSCG. The campaign actually had the unexpected benefit of allowing Chinese astronomers to resume in 1974 national astronomy conferences under the pretext of conducting “mass criticism.”114 In 1975, the radicals were again on the defensive because Deng Xiaoping was now overseeing the day-to-day running of the country.115 That fall Fang and his colleagues were able to publish a response to their critics. In the article, titled “The Extragalactic Redshift Can Be Understood,” Fang argued that “whether the Big Bang is a correct theory or not, recent developments such as radiotelescopy had made cosmology an experimental science, to be approached through the usual scientific methods rather than through philosophical discourse.”116 In 1973 Fang Lizhi and his colleagues at the USTC formed

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

169

an informal astrophysics research group and they published prolifically in the 1970s. The astrophysics research group eventually became the USTC Center for Astrophysics, which in 1985 was praised by Stephen Hawking for having “attained the state of the art in astronomy and cosmology.”117 In the same year, Fang Lizhi also shared with his Japanese co-author, Sato Humitaka, the highest international award in relativistic astrophysics, from the Gravity Research Foundation in the United States.118

The Publication of Einstein’s Collected Works Besides astronomy conferences, Shanghai’s criticism campaign had another unexpected consequence: the publication of the Collected Works of Einstein. Compared with criticism papers produced elsewhere, the SSCG’s papers quoted more of Einstein’s works previously unknown to Chinese readers. The SSCG’s advantage came from two seized manuscripts by Xu Liangying: a monograph, Einstein’s Worldview, and the Selected Philosophical Works of Einstein in Chinese translation.119 After the Commercial Press suspended the publication of Einstein’s philosophical works late in 1964 (see Chapter 4), the Press returned the manuscript to Xu early in 1965. Xu then continued to polish the translations and jointly published a paper with Li Baoheng, his cotranslator, in 1965.120 It was probably because of this coauthored paper that Li was criticized at the outset of the Cultural Revolution in 1966. The Red Guards confiscated the manuscript translation together with Xu’s manuscript on Einstein’s worldview from Li’s home in Shanghai. Having lost contact with Li Baoheng in 1966, Xu Liangying did not know where the manuscripts were until the end of 1969.121 Late in November 1969, a physicist from Beijing, representing the CRSC, came to visit Xu Liangying in his village in Linhai, Zhejiang. He asked Xu for the translated works of Einstein in order to compete with the SSCG, who was holding the finished manuscript translation. Xu learned from this CRSC representative that the SSCG was using his manuscript translation.122 He then wrote to the critics in Shanghai on January 30, 1970, expressing his wish to join the criticism team and asking them to return his manuscript of Einstein’s Worldview “in order to overhaul it.”123 But Xu received no reply to his letter. More than a year later, in October 1971, after learning that the Commercial Press had

170

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

resumed its publication business, Xu wrote the Press to see whether they could reinstate the previous publication plan for the translated Einstein’s works.124 The Press replied on October 27, asking Xu to send the finished manuscript translation immediately, so it could decide whether it should be published.125 Xu thus began to work on retrieving his manuscript from the SSCG. Xu first wrote Li Baoheng in Shanghai and asked him to negotiate with the parties concerned to get back the manuscripts. Li, however, told Xu later that he was unable to do so because the manuscripts were “officially borrowed” by the Shanghai authority with a “receipt.” The authorities told Xu and Li, “We must use these manuscripts at present and promise to return all manuscripts to you after we are done with them.”126 However, Xu and Li were not informed the date that they would be returned. Xu immediately wrote to Shen Mingxian, the man who left the receipt, and “demanded him to return the manuscripts within a month.” In his letter, Xu also requested the borrowers to “pay at least a rudimentary respect” to his intellectual products. Two months later, however, Xu still had not received the manuscripts and nobody responded to his further inquiries.127 A friend in Shanghai suggested Xu contact Zhu Yongjia, the leader of the writing group of the Shanghai Municipal Revolutionary Committee, to which the SSCG was subordinated.128 Xu sent a registered letter to Zhu on February 28, in which Xu told Zhu that he was going to Beijing late in March and demanded the return by then. On March 27, 1972, Xu Liangying finally received the original manuscript of the Selected Philosophical Works of Einstein, but the other manuscript, Einstein’s Worldview of 170,000 Chinese characters, was reported lost.129 When Xu Liangying recovered the one manuscript, Li Baoheng told him that the SSCG had had it proofread by several physics professors at Fudan University and printed a small number of copies as restricted documents. Since it was printed as a restricted document and only “in a small number,” Xu did not give much thought to the matter. He did not realize until five months later that these “restricted documents” almost destroyed his publication plan with the Commercial Press.130 Xu handed in the manuscript to the Commercial Press on March 29 and received the official decision from the Press a week later. The Commercial Press considered the manuscript an important document and would “publish it as soon as possible.”131 In the next two months, Xu

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

171

stayed in Beijing working on the manuscript. He also found many newly published Einstein works from recent overseas publications. From these new materials, Xu chose eighteen works and added them to his manuscript. In June, Xu returned to Zhejiang and proofread the manuscript. In July Li Baoheng also joined the work of revising and enlarging the manuscript. Li was going to translate nine newly found articles from Russian sources. Xu and Li expected to submit the manuscript to the Commercial Press in early October.132 When Xu and Li were nearly finished enlarging and proofreading the manuscript, they were shocked to learn of a forthcoming book. In September, a friend in Beijing brought Xu’s attention to an announcement that the SSCG (under the name The Translating and Editing Group at Fudan University) was to publish in October a new book titled Collected Speeches of Einstein. Comparing it with his own manuscript, Xu found that the book was virtually a duplication of his 1965 manuscript.133 Determined to protect the product of his hard work, Xu sent on October 3 a detailed letter of appeal to Xu Jingxian, a deputy director of the Shanghai Revolutionary Committee.134 On October 12, Xu traveled to Shanghai and personally argued with the concerned parties of the Shanghai authority to seek justice. Many of Xu’s friends warned him of the danger of doing so, because both Xu Jingxian and Zhu Yongjia were trusted followers of Zhang Chunqiao and Yao Wenyuan.135 Nevertheless, Xu went ahead with his appeal. It was a very difficult time, but Xu Liangying never gave up. Zhu Yongjia was surprised by Xu’s courage and was forced to negotiate with Xu.136 To lure Xu to give up his appeal, Zhu offered to consider Xu’s job arrangement, add his name to the book, and pay him author’s remuneration, a practice rarely performed during the Cultural Revolution. For anyone in Xu Liangying’s situation (a former “reactionary rightist” who lost his job in the government and had been forced to work in the countryside for more than fourteen years), Zhu Yongjia’s offers would have been very tempting. But Xu was not moved and insisted on reclaiming the right he and his cotranslators had to the manuscript. Enraged by Xu’s stubborn demand, Zhu was reported to have angrily shouted, “We’ll go ahead to publish our book and it’s none of Xu Liangying’s business.”137 The setback in Shanghai did not stop Xu from appealing to higher authorities. On his way home from Shanghai, Xu sent letters to Premier Zhou Enlai in care of Zhu Kezhen, a former president of Xu’s

172

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

alma mater, Zhejiang University. After Zhu Kezhen handed over the letters to the State Council, Zhu Yongjia was panic-stricken and agreed to give up his original plan. In March 1973, Zhu sent two people from Shanghai People’s Press to negotiate with the Commercial Press in Beijing. The two sides reached an agreement: the Commercial Press would keep its original publication plan while Shanghai People’s Press could publish only a small number of copies of Collected Speeches of Einstein as a restricted publication.138 In the summer of 1973, the translators and the Commercial Press decided to expand the one-volume translation into a three-volume collection of Einstein’s works, to include not only Einstein’s philosophical works but also his scientific, social, and political writings and speeches.139 There was a revealing controversy regarding the title of the translated volumes. The previous title, Selected Philosophical Works of Einstein, obviously did not fit the enlarged volumes. Xu proposed Aiyinsitan xuanji (Selected Works of Einstein) as a new title. All concerned parties agreed to Xu’s proposal except for one leader of the National Committee of Science and Technology, who opposed it on the ground that the term Xuanji (Selected Works) was reserved only for revolutionary leaders such as Marx, Lenin, and Mao, asserting that Einstein was a bourgeois scientist and certainly not entitled to that term. Eventually, according to Yu Guangyuan’s suggestion, Aiyinsitan wenji (Collected Works of Einstein) was adopted as the new title.140 Based on similar arguments, the cover of Einstein’s works could not use red and the title was to be printed without gilding.141 In 1974, when the Gang of Four launched a new political campaign called “Criticizing Lin Biao, criticizing Confucius,” many publication plans for Western works at the Commercial Press were canceled. The translated works of Einstein, however, were not affected this time because of the previously mentioned agreement with Shanghai authorities, which had been filed with the National Publication Bureau.142 In October 1976, members of the Gang of Four were arrested and the Cultural Revolution officially ended. In December 1976, 25,000 copies of the first volume of Collected Works of Einstein were printed, but their distribution was restricted. Seven months later, the Commercial Press decided to reprint the first volume of the Collected Works with open distribution.143 Peiyuan Chou was invited to contribute a foreword to this volume. Chou subsequently asked Xu Liangying to help

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

173

him draft the foreword.144 In his draft, Xu extolled Einstein as “a giant bright star in the history of science and the history of human ideas,” a remark that provoked a dispute between Xu and the editor in charge of the publication of academic works at the Commercial Press. The editor argued against calling Einstein “a giant bright star in the history of human ideas” because, as he claimed, “After the birth of Marxism, there have been no more bourgeois thinkers.” Xu retorted by asking, “Is it possible that after Marx all the bourgeoisie stopped thinking?”145 Eventually both sides appealed to Peiyuan Chou. After listening to both sides’ arguments, Chou remarked calmly and not without humor: Since it is controversial whether Einstein is a giant bright star in the history of ideas, why don’t [we] simply delete the phrases of both “the history of ideas” and “the history of science” and change the sentence into the following: “He [Einstein] is a giant bright star in human history”!146 In so doing, Chou not only quick-wittedly eliminated the opposition, but also honored Einstein even further. The reprinted volume appeared in March 1978 and its foreword was published in its full text in the People’s Daily on March 14, the ninety-ninth anniversary of Einstein’s birthday.147 The publication of Einstein’s works not only was extremely well received in academic circles, but also drew the attention of political leaders. Hu Yaobang (1915–1989), for example, obviously read the first volume soon after it was printed. In 1977, when Hu was organizing an “emancipating the mind” campaign against ultra-leftist policies inherited from the Cultural Revolution, he recommended the book to the party’s young cadets, saying that he was enlightened by the contents of the book.148 In October 1979, the third volume of Collected Works of Einstein was published, consisting of “his writings on political and social issues.”149 This volume was particularly popular among China’s college students and young intellectuals. According to a newspaper survey in the mid-1980s, the third volume was one of college students’ most favorite readings.150

The Relativity Debate in Wuli The journal Wuli (Physics) was created in June 1972, when Premier Zhou Enlai was expanding his anti-leftist offensive to the realms of cul-

174

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

ture and education, taking particular measures to rescue Chinese science from its dangerous retrogression. Zhou was especially concerned about research in the basic sciences, which had nearly been eliminated during the early years of the Cultural Revolution.151 In 1972, Wuli was the only professional physics journal and one of the only two existing scientific journals in China.152 It was designed to be a “comprehensive scientific journal” on China’s “physics research and its applications,” but guided by Mao’s thought. Its contents were to include first the “rewarding experience in studying Mao’s philosophical works and applying Mao’s philosophical thought to physics research,” and then “creative physics research papers and review articles and other physics related columns, discussions, and reports.153 The editors emphasized that they would “firmly carry out Chairman Mao’s policy of ‘letting all flowers blossom and all schools of thought contend,’” a frequently used excuse to smuggle in unorthodox viewpoints. In response to Mao’s call to rely on the masses to run newspapers, the editors invited “the broad masses of workers, peasants, and soldiers and revolutionary scientists” to “support and help” the publication of Wuli.154 These guidelines for Wuli set the stage for its development in the following years. Although ranked first in Wuli’s planned contents, no articles about Mao’s philosophical thought appeared during 1972 and 1973. All the published papers dealt with scientific or technological issues. Beginning in the first issue in 1974, however, Wuli added an increasing number of political editorials and philosophical discussions on physical problems. This change conformed to the alternation of the general political atmosphere: Zhou Enlai’s anti-leftist offensive had been stopped by Mao and the radicals launched their counterattack, the “anti-Lin Biao, anti-Confucius” movement, late in 1973. In Wuli’s newly added forum, “Philosophy and Physics,” Liu Shuzi, a philosopher who accused Einstein in 1965 of serving U.S. imperialism, published an article on what he had learned from Lenin’s book Materialism and EmpirioCriticism. Liu hyped the work as “a brilliant beacon for the development of modern physics and every subfield of natural sciences,” and urged Chinese physicists to study it “carefully” to “be better guided” in advancing modern physics.155 Lenin published Materialism and Empirio-Criticism in 1908 to defend dialectical materialism from criticism by a group of so-called “Machians” based on new scientific discoveries, especially those in physics at

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

175

the turn of the twentieth century.156 A main target of Lenin’s criticism was the so-called “physical” idealism, the idealism of a certain school of physicists, which he found to have an “indubitable connection” with Machism, named after the Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Among other physicists in this school, Lenin named Henri Poincaré, Pierre Duhem, and Karl Pearson as representatives.157 Lenin concluded that this “minority of new physicists, . . . influenced by the crisis in the new physics . . . have, owing to their ignorance of dialectics, slipped into idealism by way of relativism.”158 In his reflection, Liu Shuzi asserted that none of Lenin’s analyses and judgments was outdated, despite many revolutionary changes in science.159 He further claimed that bourgeois and revisionist scientists “reached the conclusion of the so-called ‘finite universe’ based on the theory of relativity in an attempt to seek a new resting place for God outside of the boundless universe,” and that they worked to “revive Ostwald’s ‘energetics’ from the mass-energy equivalence in Relativity.” He warned Chinese physicists: As a Marxist and a revolutionary scientist, one should never ignore class struggles in the domain of ideology and neglect all these reactionary fallacies. No matter where, in what name, under what disguise they emerge, one has to use Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong’s thought to expose and criticize them. In the end, Liu concluded, “The development of modern physics must be guided by the dialectical materialism.”160 Liu’s article inaugurated a series of criticisms in Wuli of modern physical theories often based on Lenin’s teaching in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. In the next issue of Wuli, for example, a book review called Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy “a specimen of contemporary ‘physical’ idealism.”161 The criticism and debates in Wuli in the next five years, however, concentrated on Einstein’s theory of relativity, which was triggered by a widely distributed booklet titled Space and Time.162 The author of the booklet, Qin Yuanxun (1923– ), received his doctorate in 1947 from Harvard, was an expert in applied mathematics and contributed to the design of China’s first nuclear bomb. But he was also the only senior Chinese scientist who actively participated in the

176

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

1968–1970 campaign in Beijing against relativity.163 Although Beijing’s campaign ended in late 1970, Qin apparently continued to elaborate his critical ideas, even after he was sent down to the countryside in central China.164 The core of Qin’s text is the introduction of his new theory, which, he claimed, would make it easier for average readers to “understand the nature of space-time in the special theory of relativity (STR)”; it abandoned Einstein’s controversial “assumption of the constant speed of light.”165 Although Qin alleged that his theory was a breakthrough in the criticism of Einstein’s space-time theory, his text soon met harsh criticism and induced debates in Wuli.166 Most physicists who commented on Qin’s theory were critical. In August 1974, physicist Zhen Min criticized the serious mistakes in basic physical concepts and the logical structure in Qin’s booklet.167 In December, some astrophysists pointed out that Qin merely repeated what some Western physicists had done since 1910, and that Qin “not only did not hit the idealism and positivism in Einstein’s philosophical ideas, but also lost essential ingredients of truth [in the theory of relativity] and promoted wrong ideas.”168 But these criticisms did not prevent Qin from continuing to promote his theory. B e g i n n i n g i n 1975 , Wuli added a new feature, “Contending in Physics,” to “deepen and broaden even further the discussions on issues in physics” and to “criticize the revisionist and bourgeois worldview.”169 The first significant issue to contend here is the theory of relativity. For this purpose, the editor published Qin Yuanxun’s paper, which was an elaboration of his previously published theory, together with three commentaries.170 In addition to his previous claims, Qin asserted that his theory could include Einstein’s as an approximation and could handle possible faster-than-light phenomena, rest mass of photon, and variable speed of light.171 None of the three commentators agreed with Qin completely. The first, Xie Jishen, was a physicist at Beijing Aeronautical Engineering Institute. Xie agreed with Qin that the theory of relativity should be revised, but he found that Qin overemphasized logic and ignored experiments.172 Ka Xinglin and Yang Zhanru from Beijing Normal University wrote the second commentary, which ridiculed Qin’s intention to create a space-time theory without considering the transmission of light.173 The author of the third

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

177

commentary was Zhu Zhongyuan, a theoretical physicist at the Physics Institute of the CAS, who participated in the criticism campaign in Beijing in the late 1960s.174 Beginning with harsh criticisms on Einstein’s philosophical view, Zhu, however, firmly defended the physics of relativity and made sharp refutations on Qin’s paper.175 Qin Yuanxun’s 1975 paper inaugurated the relativity debate series in Wuli. In eight series, Wuli published twenty-five papers. Scientific professionals, including physicists, mathematicians, and engineers, contributed fifteen (60 percent) papers, while scientific amateurs such as middle school teachers, factory workers, and the sent-down youths (usually middle-school graduates sent to the countryside) authored the rest. Qin Yuanxun had two papers; among the rest of the papers, eighteen (78 percent) commented on Qin’s theory, but only two (11 percent) supported him. Both supporting authors were from middle schools.176 None of the scientific professionals among the commentators agreed with Qin’s theory. Disagreement with Qin, however, does not necessarily mean support for Einstein. In fact, among the sixteen papers critical of Qin, seven (44 percent) also attacked relativity. Out of twenty-five papers, only nine (36 percent) attempted to defend the main content and results of relativity, but even they usually qualified their arguments and criticized so-called idealist and metaphysical interpretations from Einstein. The debate in Wuli began in early 1975 and did not end until the summer of 1977. The last group of the debating papers appeared in June 1977, eight months after the arrest of the Gang of Four, which indicates that the debate was not directly controlled by the radical leaders. Ever since, it has been difficult, if not impossible, to publish anything in mainstream professional scientific journals in China challenging the theory of relativity.177 It was not until December 1977 that Wuli published Fan Dainian’s condemnation of the anti-relativity campaigns led by Chen Boda and Yao Wenyuan. Although Fan accused the criticism campaigns of being criminal actions “against Marxism and science,” he endorsed the young physicists’ initiative in 1969–1970 to criticize Einstein, and he did not mention the debate in Wuli. Fan actually maintained the legitimacy of the philosophical attacks: Einstein’s philosophical views indeed contain ingredients of idealism and metaphysics; contemporary bourgeois philosophical schools

178

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

also misrepresented Einstein’s theory and brought in many absurd philosophical conclusions. All of these should be criticized.178 Nevertheless, Fan’s article was a clear indication that another overhaul of political and scientific judgment of Einstein and his theory was on its way.

The Reevaluation of Albert Einstein Early in 1979, Chinese scientists held a grand commemorative ceremony in Beijing to celebrate the centennial anniversary of Einstein’s birth. They held the ceremony “with a view to restoring the glorious image of this great scientist,” whose name had been “subjected to humiliation and slander” during the last eight years of the Cultural Revolution.179 Xu Liangying first proposed in March 1977 a grand commemoration for the centennial birth anniversary to give Einstein a public rehabilitation.180 The Chinese Physical Society (CPS) approved Xu’s suggestion at its Lushan meeting in August 1978. On September 21, CPS submitted a request to Fang Yi, a vice premier and the minister of State Science and Technology Commission, who, seven days later, submitted it to Deng Xiaoping for instructions. Deng, a CCP vice chairman and the first vice premier of the State Council, granted the request on September 30 for organizing a centennial commemoration, a decision also approved by the party’s chairman, Hua Guofeng, and three other vice chairmen, Ye Jianying, Li Xiannian, and Wang Dongxing.181 The request recommended Peiyuan Chou lead the effort to organize the commemorating activities. It also suggested convening the conference in February 1979, earlier than other countries in the world, in order to show that the Chinese took this matter more seriously.182 On February 20, more than one thousand Chinese scientists assembled in Beijing to celebrate the centennial of Einstein’s birth. The ceremony was cosponsored by the Chinese Association of Science and Technology, the Chinese Physical Society, and the Chinese Astronomical Society. Peiyuan Chou, now the acting chairman of the Chinese Association of Science and Technology and vice president of the CAS, gave the keynote speech at the conference. Yu Guangyuan, Chou’s former student and now deputy minister of the State Science and Technology Commission, also spoke at the conference.183 Yu discussed correct

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

179

Marxist positions on natural science, scientific discoverers and inventors, and basic scientific theories. He considered this grand assembly “a victory” over Einstein’s opponents. He stressed that the nature of past controversies in China regarding how to judge Einstein lay in whether the Chinese should develop science and culture and pay special attention to the basic theories of natural science.184 Peiyuan Chou’s keynote speech offered a comprehensive reevaluation of Einstein and issued official condemnation to the criticism of Einstein and his relativity during the Cultural Revolution.185 Chou lauded Einstein’s “most brilliant” lifelong scientific achievements and considered his position in the history of science being matched only by “Copernicus, Newton, and Darwin.”186 To counter the repeated criticism of Einstein’s philosophical thinking, Chou presented some new judgments. Chou regarded Einstein’s guiding philosophical thinking as “rationalist materialism.”187 Obviously having the current political campaign in his mind, Chou used Einstein as an example to support Deng Xiaoping’s new ideology, namely, “Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth.”188 Approaching from the materialist stand of natural science, he believed that practice was the only source of knowledge. He said, “all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. Experience alone can decide on truth.” He sharply repudiated [the] apriorism of Plato and Kant, saying “the philosophers have had a harmful effect upon the progress of scientific thinking in removing certain fundamental concepts from the domain of empiricism, where they are under our control, to the intangible heights of the a priori.”189 To refute the criticism that Einstein was a Machian, Chou argued that Mach was the one who, after Hume, issued “the most forceful criticism of such apriorism” as above mentioned. “Young Einstein,” continued Chou, Primarily had their [Hume and Mach] influence in this respect and the influence was basically positive and therefore should be affirmed. On the other hand, however, he also realized that the critical philosophy of Hume and Mach “could only destroy perilous insects” and “could produce no living thing.”190

180

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

Chou also stressed that it was a mistake to consider Einstein a captive of theology simply because of his constant mention of his belief in the God of Spinoza, because, as Karl Marx had earlier pointed out, “the ‘God’ as referred to by Spinoza was none other than ‘Nature.’ ”191 Between 1949 and 1976, many critics in the People’s Republic of China attacked Einstein’s social and political thinking and considered it “reactionary.” Most of these critics, however, had probably never read any of Einstein’s works; they simply repeated what Soviet critics had said in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1950s. The newly published Collected Works of Einstein, especially its third volume, published in October 1979, made it possible for Chinese readers to reevaluate Einstein’s social and political ideas. As a result, many found that a lot of Einstein’s ideas “hit at the contemporary evils and therefore were of great value.”192 In his speech, Chou offered one of such ideas by quoting from Einstein’s 1949 essay titled “Why Socialism?”: A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?193 For those who had personally witnessed the calamities and suffering resulting from various political campaigns and especially from the catastrophic Cultural Revolution, Einstein’s anticipation of the problems of socialist society thirty years earlier was astonishingly accurate.194 The Chinese “keenly and painfully feel the seriousness and urgency” of the issues Einstein had raised. They considered the issues to be “of fundamental importance to all the countries eager to build socialism.”195 At the end of his speech, Chou called on Chinese scientists to learn from Einstein: The whole purpose of this solemn commemoration is to carry on further the cause for which he had fought throughout his life, to learn from his noble qualities of fearing no hardship or danger, de-

Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism

181

fying any tyrannical power, and his readiness to fight for truth and to sacrifice himself for a just cause. We want to learn from him the scientific spirit of the absence of blind faith in authorities or old customs but the adherence to truth, seeking truth from facts and daring to think independently and with pioneering efforts. We want to learn from his indomitable spirit of exploration with which he was never self-conceited or complacent along the road of science, to learn from his democratic spirit against arbitrary practice and worship of idols but respecting reasoning, caring for and respecting others. Finally, his open-heartedness and his thinking and acting in one and in the same way, and his consistent approach towards life in search of truth and for the betterment of mankind should always be our common ideal.196 The call for learning from Einstein’s “democratic spirit against arbitrary practice and worship of idols” made it clear that Albert Einstein had by then not only been restored to the status of a scientific giant, but also been esteemed as a champion of social democracy and justice.197

Epilogue

The study of the Chinese reception of the theory of relativity revealed several interesting findings. First, the successful introduction of the theory of relativity in 1917 was conditioned by the May Fourth movement and the early Japanese interest in Einstein’s relativity theory. The great admiration and enthusiasm for Western science generated by the movement created favorable conditions for the introduction. In pursuit of Western scientific culture, both overseas and domestic Chinese intellectuals organized themselves into scientific societies. In the United States, it was the famous Science Society of China (Ithaca, N.Y., 1915); in Japan, the Xueyi Society (Tokyo, 1916); in Wuchang, China, the Mathematical and Physical Society at the National Wuchang Higher Normal School (1917). The introduction of relativity by Xu Chongqing and Li Fangbai was part of the activities of these scientific societies. Xu’s paper was published in Xueyi magazine, published by the Xueyi Society; Li gave his talk at a meeting of the Mathematical and Physical Society at the National Wuchang Higher Normal School; and Kexue, put out by the Science Society of China, was the first to publish articles on general relativity and Bertrand Russell’s relativity lectures. The strong interest in science among the May Fourth intellectuals prompted Cai Yuanpei to invite renowned Western scientists such as Paul Painlevé, Bertrand Russell, Madame Curie, and Albert Einstein to lecture at Beijing University. The first two came and gave lectures.

Epilogue

183

Madame Curie was unable to make the trip, and Einstein planned to come but later canceled his visit. Both Russell’s lectures and Einstein’s planned trip furthered the dissemination of relativity. The May Fourth movement not only expedited the creation of hundreds of new periodicals, but also pressured the old ones to reform, which propagated new knowledge and ideas in vernacular Chinese. The monthlies Shaonian zhongguo and Gaizao were new periodicals created in 1919; Dongfang zazhi was founded in 1904 and radically reformed after June 1919.1 All three magazines published special “relativity” or “Einstein” issues in 1921 and 1922 and greatly helped to advance the theory’s dissemination.2 Japanese physicists began to study the special theory of relativity soon after Einstein had published it. The most prominent among them was Ishiwara Jun, who monopolized Japanese studies on relativity during the second decade of the twentieth century.3 Second only to Einstein, Ishiwara was the most popular foreign author on relativity, and many of his works were promptly translated into Chinese during the 1920s, often by Japanese-trained Chinese physicists. It was this group that transmitted the Japanese interest in relativity to China. It seems that some historians have often underestimated the scientific contributions of Chinese scientists educated in Japan. In a recent study, two Chinese historians claimed that Chinese “students educated in Japan [in the early twentieth century] made no special contribution to the Chinese education in science and technology.”4 This book has proven the above statement completely unjustified. Contrary to the above statement, the Japanese-educated Chinese made particularly great contributions to the education in science and technology because many of them served as schoolteachers or textbook editors in China. Information is hardly available about the career and works of Japaneseeducated Chinese physicists such as Li Fangbai, Zhang Yihui, Wen Yuanmo, and Zhou Changshou. This situation has undermined the understanding of the history of Chinese physics in the twentieth century. For example, Zhou Changshou was among the first Chinese physicists to introduce both quantum theory and relativity to China, and he made a great contribution to physics education by translating and compiling a large number of physics textbooks for middle school and college students. And yet, Zhou’s life and his study in Japan are mostly unknown. Moreover, Zhou Changshou and Wen Yuanmo, together with Xu Chong-

184

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

qing, were founding members of the Xueyi Society. This was one of the earliest Chinese scientific societies, but until recently it has been ignored in the literature, though it is well worth a thorough study.5 Clearly, there is still a huge gap in our knowledge about this remarkable group and their organization, and more substantial studies should be carried out. Second, the quick and unanimous acceptance that characterized the early Chinese reception of relativity seems to have been partially rooted in the absence of the tradition of classical physics in China. China went through a long and slow process of scientific enlightenment from the end of the sixteenth century to the early twentieth century.6 During these centuries, Western knowledge of physics was gradually introduced into China through translated scientific works. But the introduction was sporadic, incomplete, and mostly utilitarian. None of the major works by Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac Newton, or James C. Maxwell were ever translated into Chinese. There was no systematic teaching or research in classical physics in China. Consequently, despite the rich and historically significant introductions in classical physics before the twentieth century, the conceptual system of classical physics never became a significant component in Chinese thought before the introduction of the theory of relativity. Furthermore, China’s nationwide modern school education, in which physics became part of the regular curriculum, did not begin until 1905, the year the special theory of relativity was published. The new school system, and especially the system of college education, was not well developed until the late 1920s. Consequently, the first generation of Chinese physicists, such as Xia Yuanli, Zhou Changshou, and Li Fangbai, pursued advanced studies overseas, mostly after 1905. They began to return home in the late 1910s and founded modern physics instruction in China and trained the next generation of Chinese physicists. Almost all early Chinese physicists, therefore, established their careers in the era of the twentieth-century revolution in physics, when the classical conceptual system was seriously shaken. This particular background made Chinese physicists more susceptible to new ideas and contributed to their unanimously positive acceptance of the theory of relativity. My study has so far not discovered a single Chinese physicist or mathematician between the 1920s and the 1940s who publicly raised

Epilogue

185

opposition to the theory of relativity. Even the conservative Chinese philosopher Zhang Junmai, who translated the only critical essay on relativity during the 1920s, actually disagreed with the criticism of German philosopher Hans Driesch.7 This phenomenon supports Wei Siluan’s reflection, based on his personal experience of studying relativity in the early 1920s. Wei argued that it was easier for Chinese scientists to accept the revolutionary new concept, the relativity of time, a key step in understanding the theory of relativity, because, unlike their European counterparts, they did not insist on maintaining the prejudicial Newtonian concept of absolute time. Wei further speculated that nonprejudiced Chinese scientists could make faster progress in science.8 Indeed, it took only ten years from relativity’s first appearance in China to the publication of the first Chinese theoretical research on relativity in an internationally renowned scientific journal.9 The first research paper on relativity leads to the third significant finding in my study: the reception of relativity contributed to the rise of theoretical physics as a discipline in China. Peiyuan Chou and Shu Xingbei were among the first Chinese theoretical physicists.10 Both Chou and Shu were inspired by the success of the general theory of relativity while in college and then decided to study theoretical physics. Chou also did his postdoctoral work with Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli in 1928–1929 and therefore personally benefited from these two leading theoretical physicists and founders of quantum mechanics. Although Chou published only one paper in quantum mechanics, his working experience with Heisenberg and Pauli must have helped him guide his students in pursuit of further and broader theoretical researches. Many generations of Chinese physicists benefited from Chou’s and Shu’s instruction and advice, among whom were many leading Chinese theoretical physicists, including Wang Zhuxi ( J. S. Wang, 1911–1983), Zhang Zongsui (T. S. Chang, 1915–1969), Peng Huanwu (1915– ), Hu Ning (N. Hu, 1916–1998), C. N. Yang (1922– ), T. D. Lee (1926– ), and Cheng Kaijia (K. J. Cheng, 1918– ). Yang and Lee were 1957 Nobel laureates, and Lee and Cheng were students of Shu’s. The reception of general relativity also directly helped to bring about the foundation of the Chinese Mathematical and Physical Society. In 1929, Zhang Yihui (physicist), Feng Zuxun (mathematician), and more than twenty other Chinese physicists and mathematicians met in Beijing and agreed

186

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

to found such a professional society on the argument that the combined study of mathematics and physics would advance both sciences, as exemplified by the success of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.11 Fourth and last, the bitter experience of the treatment of Einstein and the theory of relativity during the Cultural Revolution has implications for two significant but thorny issues in the history of modern Chinese science: the relation between natural science and philosophy, and the status of basic theoretical research in the country’s development. In the history of the People’s Republic of China, relativity was not the only modern scientific theory that was tried in the court of philosophy. Others—such as cybernetics, quantum mechanics, chemical resonance theory, Morgan genetics, psychology, and cosmology—had similar experiences and were pronounced, at one time or another, guilty of violating the laws of Marxist philosophy. Dong Guangbi, a Chinese historian of science in the Chinese Academy of Sciences, has penetratingly pointed out why philosophy was able to interfere wantonly with natural science in China. The reason lies in the inappropriate relations between natural science and social science. In China, the intension of social science differs from the practice in the West by including philosophy, art, and other humanities into this category. Therefore, the erroneous judgment that “natural science has no class characters but social science does” has long dominated many scholars’ mind. Under the political ideology “to take class struggle as the key link,” the status difference between natural and social sciences was artificially made. The social science becomes a science that “guides” natural science; and philosophy, which is considered the ultimate generalization out of the knowledge of both natural and the social sciences, is “the science of sciences.” Consequently, in countries under “the proletarian dictatorship” and in the hands of a dogmatist, Marxist philosophy becomes the judge of the natural science.12 Some Marxist theorists have long considered that “social science is more advanced than natural science in socialist countries.” “In fact,” argues Dong, “it is a misconception”: they “mistakenly took basically speculative social theories as science.” He points out, “science first matured in the natural science and the social science emerged [only] by

Epilogue

187

imitating the natural science.” Dong declares, “Judged by the worldwide development, the social science has so far remained far behind the development of the natural science, and it is no exception in China.”13 Chen Boda and Yao Wenyuan’s anti-scientific campaigns seriously damaged Chinese science. The campaigns encouraged nihilistic attitudes toward scientific research in the basic sciences. As a result, theoretical research in the basic sciences was almost smothered in China. Except for those involving military projects, most scientific research institutes were dismantled and researchers “sent down” to work in factories or the countryside. In the Chinese Academy of Sciences, for instance, the number of research institutes dropped sharply from 106 in 1965 to 43 in 1973. Even those institutes that escaped the dismantlement “became testing plants that served directly for production.” When China’s colleges in science and engineering resumed teaching in 1970, their programs were also organized “with heavy emphasis on practical application,” a practice that also greatly undermined teaching and research in basic scientific theories.14 By 1970 basic scientific researches, especially theoretical investigations, were nearly eliminated in China. Premier Zhou Enlai endeavored to rescue Chinese science from this dangerous situation in the early 1970s. In 1972, he asked Peiyuan Chou to study the situation and then submit concrete suggestions for reforms. But Yao soon launched attacks on Zhou’s efforts, advocating the replacement of basic scientific theories with Marxist philosophy. He and his followers claimed that the dialectics of nature in Marxist philosophy was their theory for natural sciences: “The foundation of the basic [scientific] theories is Marxist philosophy; the most basic theory is Marxism. Without Marxism, there are no scientific theories.” Because of Yao’s and other radicals’ resistance, the conditions for basic scientific research were unable to improve fundamentally until the end of the Cultural Revolution.15 The status of basic scientific research in China’s development was not a problem emerged only during the Cultural Revolution. Actually, it has always been a thorny issue for modern Chinese governments. For a vast country like China, which has only very limited scientific resources, it remains a tough challenge for the government to balance between the urgent practical needs for national defense and economic construction, and the needs for long-term development in basic theoretical researches. To recognize and address appropriately the inter-

188

C H I N A A N D A L B E RT E I N S T E I N

connected relationship between the two needs was a challenge for the Nationalist government in the 1930s, but the issue has been particularly contesting since 1949 because of the nature of the highly central controlled communist government.16 A controversy regarding the necessity of basic sciences occurred in 1956, when government officials and scientists were making the country’s first developing plan for science and technology. Zhou Enlai stressed at the time, “It would be a great mistake if we do not pay prompt attention to the long-term needs and theoretical works. Without certain theoretical researches as the foundation, it is impossible to make fundamental progresses and innovations in technology.”17 China’s basic sciences progressed significantly between the late 1950s and the early 1960s, but they suffered heavily during the Cultural Revolution. After the Cultural Revolution, the government promoted science and technology as “the first production force”; its policy is that “science should serve the economy.” As a result, industrial technology and high technology became the first two priorities of the nation’s development; basic research is in third place. Chinese scientists, especially those in basic theoretical researches, were not satisfied with the government’s policy in the 1980s; they complained about the low intensity and unstable growth of investments in basic research. Studies show that the instability of China’s scientific investment was historic and comprehensive between 1953 and 1988. As Dong points out, the significant fluctuation of the investment in basic research demonstrates both the wavering government policy and the ignorance of basic research. In the management of scientific research, such problems manifested in the practices of “using technology policy to replace science policy, even economic policy for science policy.”18 The visit by Stephen Hawking in 2002 revived the debate on the status of basic scientific research in China. Once again, people are pondering the significance of studies in basic scientific theories such as general relativity and the string theory, the contemporary effort to continue Einstein’s legacy in pursuit of a unified physical theory for nature. Here one may be enlightened by Einstein’s comments on the contributions of scientific works to “the elevation of the human race and human life,” in which he stressed, “it is not the fruits of scientific research that elevate a man and enrich his nature, but the urge to understand, the intellectual work, creative or receptive.”19

Epilogue

189

To be sure, the theory of relativity is no longer subjected to the official persecution in the name of dialectical materialism in China. In fact, a group of Chinese relativity dissidents are complaining about the “intolerant” environment for academic discussions on relativity, the “ignorance” of their dissenting opinions, and the “difficulty” in publishing their papers.20 It seems that the Chinese government and public are now eager to promote basic science by calling for “the March to the Nobel Prize.”21 But for true supporters of Chinese science, especially the policy makers in the government, it is important to remember Einstein’s remarks: “The progress of science originates from man’s quest for knowledge, and rarely from his pursuit of practical objectives. Science will stagnate if it is made to serve practical goals.”22

Notes

Prologue 1. Chinese news reports on Hawking’s visit in 2002 can be found online at tech.sina.com.cn/focus/hawking.shtml (accessed January 21, 2004).

Western Physics Comes to China 1. Einstein to J. S. Switzer, April 23, 1953, AEP, 61–381. For the background of the letter, see Arthur F. Wright to Derek J. de Solla Price, October 20, 1959, AEP, 61–382. 2. Luo Guang, Limadou zhuan (A biography of Matteo Ricci), 2nd ed. (Taipei, Taiwan: Xianzhi Press, 1972), 227–228. 3. Jiang Wenhan, Ming-Qing jian zai hua de tianzhujiao yesuhui shi ( The Jesuit Missionaries in the Late Ming and Early Qing China) (Shanghai: Knowledge Press, 1987), 28. Jihe yuan ben was a Chinese translation of Euclid’s Elements translated by Ricci with collaboration of Xu Guangqi, a Chinese scholar-official and Christian convert. The translation was based on the Latin text of Clavius, who was a renowned mathematician at Roman College, where Ricci studied from 1572 to 1577. A brief description of Ricci’s scientific contributions can be found in Arnaldo Masotti, “Matteo Ricci,” in DSB, 11:402–403. 4. Matteo Ricci, Opere storiche, ed. Macerata Tacchi-Venturi, 2 vols. (1910– 1913), 5, 69. Quoted from Henri Bernard, Matteo Ricci’s Scientific Contribution to China, trans. Edward C. Werner (Peiping: Henri Vetch, 1935), 67. 5. Bernard, Ricci’s Scientific Contribution to China, 67. 6. Xu Guangqi intended to complete the remaining books of Elements, but Ricci, “being desirous of devoting his time to more properly religious matters,” asked Xu “to wait until they had seen from experience how the Chinese scholars received these first books, before translating the others.” See Bernard, Ricci’s Scientific Contribution to China, 68.

192

Notes to Pages 7–9

7. Galileo Galilei, “The Assayer,” in The Controversy on the Comets of 1618 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1960), 183–184. 8. Isaac Newton, The Principia, trans. Andrew Motte, Great Minds Series (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995), 3. 9. Einstein to J. S. Switzer, April 23, 1953, AEP, 61–381. 10. For discussions on the seventeenth-century Chinese astronomic studies using geometrical models, see Jiang Xiaoyuan and Niu Weixing, Tianwen xixue dongjian ji (Collected Papers on the Gradual Introduction of Western Astronomy) (Shanghai: Shanghai Shudian, 2001), 361–362; and Nathan Sivin, “Wang Hsi-shan,” in DSB, 14:160. 11. For a discussion of the history of Buddhist translation and relevant references, see David Wright, “The Translation of Modern Western Science in Nineteenth-Century China, 1840–1895,” Isis 89, no. 4 (1998): 654. 12. Matteo Ricci, “Yi jihe yuanben yin (Introduction to the Translation of Elements of Geometry),” in Ming qing jian yesuhuishi yizhu tiyao (Abstracts of Translated Works by Jesuits during the Ming-Qing Period), ed. Xu Zongze (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1989), 262. 13. ZJKJS, 2. Ricci’s arrival in China becomes one of the two pieces of evidence on which Dong argues that the late sixteenth century is the starting point of China’s scientific modernization. The other piece of evidence is the socialization of the traditional Chinese science in the late Ming. 14. Jonathan Spence, To Change China: Western Advisers in China 1620–1960 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969), 8; also see a similar statement in Pasquale M. D’Elia, Galileo in China: Relations through the Roman College between Galileo and the Jesuit Scientist-Missionaries (1610–1640), trans. Rufus Suter and Matthew Sciascia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 5–6. 15. Here I follow Joseph Dehergne to record Terrentius and Schall’s dates and to spell their names. See Joseph Dehergne, Zai hua yesuhuishi liezhuan ji shumu bubian (Repertoire des Jesuites de Chine de 1552–1800), trans. Geng Sheng, 2 vols., Zhong wai guanxishi mingzhu yicong (A translated great book series on China’s foreign relations) (Beijing: zhonghua shuju, 1995), 599, 603. 16. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), vol. 3, 437. 17. The statistics of Jesuit publications are quoted from Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien, “Western Impact on China Through Translation,” The Far Eastern Quarterly 13, no. 3 (1954): 307. 18. Tsuen-Hsuin Tsien’s statistics included six works on physics. It is not clear, however, how Tsien defined “physics” in his category. Chinese historian Wang Bing lists only five physics works. (See Wang Bing, “Ming qing shiqi [1610–1910] wulixue yizhu shumu kao [A Textual Research of the Bibliography of the Translated Works on Physics in the Ming and Qing Dynasties (1610–1910)],” ZKS 7, no. 5 [1986]: 7–10.) 19. Luo, Limaduo zhuan, 116–117. 20. Ricci did not introduce the explanation on the chromatic dispersion by means of prism; nor was he the first one to bring prisms to China. In the West, Issac Newton studied color in the 1660s and provided his explanation in the 1670s. However, Newton’s studies were not introduced into China until probably the nineteenth century. See Wang Jin’guang and Hong Zhenhuan, Zhongguo guangxue shi ( The History of Optics in China) (Changsha: Hunan Education Press, 1986), 144.

Notes to Pages 9–11

193

21. Yang ma nuo (P. Emmanuel Diaz), Tian wen lue (Problems of Astronomy). The passage on the telescope is available in Liu Zhaomin, Zhonghua wulixue shi (A Chinese History of Physics), ed. Chen Lifu, Zhonghua kexue jiyi shi (A Chinese History of Science and Technology) (Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press, 1987), 375; and D’Elia, Galileo in China, 17–19. 22. D’Elia, Galileo in China, 33; Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 145. 23. Spence, To Change China, 7–8. 24. When composing his treatise Yuanjing shuo, Schall probably referred to Girolamo Sirturi’s Telescopium, Sive ars perficiendi novum illud Galilaei Visorium Instrumentum ad Sidera (Frankfurt: 1618), but he did not directly translate Sirturi. (See Joseph Needham and Lu Gwei-djen, “The Optick Artists of Chiang Su,” The Proceedings of the Royal Microscopical Society 2, pt. 1 [1967]. Quoted in Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 193.) 25. Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 145–146. 26. Liu, Zonghua wulixue shi, 375–384. 27. Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 146; Liu, Zonghua wulixue shi, 378–379; Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 8. 28. In 1629 Xu Guangqi attempted to make three telescopes, but he failed. Nevertheless, Xu used a telescope to observe the solar eclipse in 1631, the first such observation recorded in China. See Jiang Xiaoyuan, “Tianwenxue de chuanru ji yingxiang (The Introduction of Western Astronomy and Its Impact),” in ZJKJS, 68; Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 160; and Needham and Lu, “The Optick Artists of Chiang Su.” Quoted in Wang and Hong, Guangxue shi, 193. 29. Guo Yongfang, “Qing chu zhanghui xiaoshuo Shi Er Lou zhong de yifen zhengui guangxue shiliao (A Rare Historical Document In The Early Qing Serial Novel Twelve Mansions),” ZKS 9, no. 22 (1988): 87. Li Yu (original author) and Cui Zi’en (collator), Jueshi mingyan shi er lou (Twelve Mansions), ed. Liu Shide, Zhongguo huaben daxi (A Great Series of Original Chinese Stories) (Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1989), 59–82. 30. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 9. For a detailed history on Verbiest and European astronomical instruments in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century China, see Zhang Baichun, Ming qing cetian yiqi zhi ouhua: shiqi, shiba shiji chuanru zhongguo de ouzhou tianwen yiqi jishu jiqi lishi diwei (The Europeanization of Astronomical Instruments in the Ming and Qing China: The European Instrument Technology Introduced by the Missionary during the 17th and 18th Centuries and Its Position in the History of Chinese and European Instruments) (Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu chubanshe, 2000), especially 161–273. 31. Luo, Limaduo zhuan, 116, 119; Wang Bing, “Several Opinions on Spreading the Western Knowledge of Mechanics to China in the Seventeenth Century” (paper delivered at the eighth International Conference on the History of Science in China, Berlin, Germany, August 23–28, 1998), 1. 32. Spence, To Change China, 11. 33. Fang Hao, “Wang Zheng zhi shiji jiqi shuru xiyang xueshu zhi gongxian (Wang Zheng’s Story and His Contributions to the Introduction of Western Sciences),” in Fang Hao liushi zidinggao (The Collected Works of Maurus Fang Hao Revised and Edited by the Author on His Sixtieth Birthday) (Taipei: Student Book Co., 1969), 319–378. Jinshi and Juren were the highest and second highest degrees respectively attainable through the imperial examination system.

194

Notes to Pages 11–15

34. Tsien, “Western Impact on China Through Translation,” 309; Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 9. 35. Alexander Wylie, “Translation of Whewell’s Elementary Treatise on Mechanics” in William Whewell (Hu Weili), Zhong xue (An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics), trans. Li Shanlan and J. Edkins, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (Shanghai: 1867). 36. Liu, Zhonghua wulixue shi, 373. 37. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 9. The book first introduced to China the proportional compass invented by Galileo in 1597. ( Yan Dunjie, “Jialilue de gongzuo zaoqi zai zhongguo de chuanbu [The Early Dissemination of Galileo’s Work in China],” Kejishi jikan [Collected Papers in History of Science and Technology], no. 7 [1964]: 22.) 38. Wang, “Wulixue yizhu,” 9. 39. Yan, “Jialilue de gongzuo,” 18–21. Also see Wang, “Wulixue yizhu.” 40. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, 3:447; Jiang, “Tianwenxue de chuanru ji yingxiang,” 54. 41. This seems to support the view that in the early seventeenth-century China was not far behind Europe in terms of the basic conditions for the development of modern science. The gap was enlarged during the next two hundred years. 42. The Tychonic system was a compromise between the Copernican and Ptolemaic world systems, in which the Earth was at the center of the universe and the Sun and Moon circle the Earth while all the five planets orbited the sun. 43. Jiang, “Tianwenxue de chuanru ji yingxiang,” 54–63. 44. Ibid., 63–65. 45. Tsien, “Western Impact on China Through Translation,” 307. 46. Jonathan Spence, The Search for Modern China (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1999), 71–72. 47. Ibid., 84. 48. The Jesuits in China suffered their last blow when Pope Clement XIV abolished the order in 1773. Jesuits reappeared in China after the Society of Jesus was reestablished by Pope Pius VII in 1814. 49. Xiong Yuezhi listed only one work dealing with astronomy. See Xiong Yuezhi, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui ( The Gradual Spread of Western Learning to the East and the Late Qing Society) (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press, 1994), 134–141 (table 5). 50. For the early history of Protestants in China, see Li Zhigang, Jidujiao zaoqi zaihua chuanjiao shi (A History of the Early Christian Teaching in China) (Taipei: Taiwan Commercial Press, 1985), 262–266; for the comment on Chinese intellectuals’ reaction to Protestant publications, see Tsien, “Western Impact,” 310–311. 51. A general discussion of these treaties can be found in Spence, The Search, 161. For the full text of the Treaty of Nanjing, the first of such treaties with Britain, see Godfrey Hertslet, Treaties etc. Between Great Britain and China and Between China and Foreign Powers, 2 vols. (London, 1908), 1:7–12. A discussion on the Treaty of Wanghia with the United States is in H. B. Morse, The International Relations of the Chinese Empire (Shanghai, 1910), 1:330. (Quoted in Spence, The Search, 752, nn. 15, 16.) 52. For example, Benjamin Hobson’s Digest of Astronomy (Tianwen lue lun) (1849) and Andrew P. Happer’s Q & A in Astronomy (Tianwen wen da) (1849). See Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 158, 177.

Notes to Pages 15–17

195

53. Chinese literature somehow indicates that there are fifteen books in Euclid’s Elements, while the English translation has only thirteen books. 54. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 12. 55. Alexander Wylie, Chinese Researches (1897; repr. Taipei: Cheng-Wen Publishing Co., 1966), 1–2. 56. The titles were Compendium of Arithmetic (1853), Supplementary Elements of Geometry (1857), Popular Treatise on Mechanics (1858), Treatise on Algebra (Dai shu xue, 1859), Elements of Analytical Geometry and of the Differential and Integral Calculus (Dai wei ji shi ji, 1859), and Outlines of Astronomy (1859). See Alexander Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese: Giving a List of Their Publications, and Obituary Notices of the Deceased. With Copious Indexes. (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1867), 173–175. 57. See William Muirhead, China and the Gospel (London: James Nisbet and Co., 1870), 193. 58. Wann-Sheng Horng, “Li Shanlan: The Impact of Western Mathematics in China During the Late 19th Century” (Ph.D. diss., City University of New York, 1991), 58, 60, 62; also see Li Di, “Shijiu shiji zhongguo shuxuejia Li Shanlan (Li Shanlan: A 19th-century Chinese Mathematician),” ZKS, no. 3 (1982): 15. 59. Muirhead, China and the Gospel, 193; Horng, “Li Shanlan,” 62; Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi de kexue chuanbo (The Scientific Dissemination by Protestants),” in ZJKJS, 181–182. 60. Dr. Horng also implied this in his thesis. See Horng, “Li Shanlan,” 311. 61. Li Shanlan and Alexander Wylie, Xu jihe yuanben (The Last Nine Books of Euclid’s Elements) (1865), preface; quoted in Horng, “Li Shanlan,” 61; also see Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 181. 62. Wylie’s translation of Elements was not based on the Greek original. Instead he used an English version that was probably translated by Isaac Barrow (1630–1677). During the translation, Li Shanlan corrected many significant mistakes in the English translation. Wylie thought Westerners should read the Chinese version for a correct translation of Euclid’s work. (See Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 181–182.) 63. Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese, 173. 64. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 4. 65. Han Qi, “Shuli gezhi de faxian (The Discovery of the First Chinese Translation of Newton’s Principia),” ZKS 19, no. 2 (1998): 81, footnote. By the time of the Guangxu reign, Tan Tian had been reprinted at least thirteen times. See Sun Weixin, Taixi gezhi zhi xue yu jin ke fanyi zhushu xianglue deshi hezhe wei zui yao lun (Remarks on Western Science and of Recently Translated Books) in Gezhi shuyuan ke yi: ge zhi lei (Curricula of the Scientific School: Science), Guanxu nian jian kanxing (published during the reign of Guangxu Emperor [1875–1909]). Quoted in Dai Nianzu and Zhou Jiahua, eds., Yuanli—shidai de juzhu (Principia—An Epoch-Making Work) (Emei, Sichuan: Southwestern Jiaotong University Press, 1988), 86. 66. Tsien, “Western Impact on China Through Translation,” 312; Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 182–183; Li Yan and Du Shiran, Chinese Mathematics: A Concise History, trans. John N. Crossley and Anthony W.-C. Lun (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 257. For the most recent and more penetrating discussions on the nineteenth-century introduction of Western algebra and calculus, and its impact on Chinese mathematics, see Dr. Mingjie Hu, “Merging Chinese and West-

196

Notes to Pages 17–21

ern Mathematics: The Introduction of Algebra and the Calculus in China, 1859–1903” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1998). 67. John M. Dubbey, “Augustus De Morgan,” in DSB, 4:35. The title of De Morgan’s original text was The Elements of Algebra Preliminary to the Differential Calculus, and Fit for the Higher Classes of Schools etc. (London, 1835). 68. Gisela Kutzbach, “Elias Loomis,” in DSB, 8:487. 69. Elizabeth Garber, The Language of Physics: The Calculus and the Development of Theoretical Physics in Europe, 1750–1914 (Boston: Birkhauser, 1999). 70. Wylie, Chinese Researches, 12. 71. Hu, “Merging Chinese and Western Mathematics,” 102. 72. Hu Daojing and Wang Jin’guang, “Mohai shuguan (The London Mission Press),” ZKS 3, no. 2 (1982): 56; Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 182–183. The original of Guang lun is unknown. 73. Li Di, “Li Shanlan,” 16; Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 184. The original of Zhongxue qianshuo is unknown. 74. Whewell’s Treatise had been reprinted several times in different editions before 1858. It is not clear which edition of Whewell’s book was used by Li and Edkins. 75. Wylie’s preface to Whewell, Zhong xue. 76. Qian Xifu’s preface to Whewell, Zhong xue. Li Shanlan must have completed his translation of Dai wei ji shi ji before Zhong xue, because Whewell’s Treatise used calculus and Li kept referring his readers to Dai wei ji shi ji. 77. Xiong Yuezhi, Xixue dong jian yu wanqing shehui 193. 78. Wylie’s preface to Whewell, Zhong xue. 79. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 4. 80. According to Wang Bing in “Wulixue yizhu,” the 1866 edition of the Chinese translation included the section on “fluid mechanics.” Neither the 1867 Chinese edition nor the 1828 English (3rd) edition includes a section on fluid mechanics. 81. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 4. 82. The summary of the content of Zhong xue is based on Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 4; Whewell, Zhong xue; and William Whewell, An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics: Designed for the Use of Students in the University, 3rd ed., with improvements and additions (Cambridge: J. Smith, printer to the University; for J. & J. J. Deighton, and G. B. Whittaker, Ave-Maria Lane, London, 1828). 83. Wylie’s preface to Whewell, Zhong xue. Here the “insurrectionary disturbances” probably refers to an attack by the Taiping rebellion. 84. Ibid.; Qian Xifu’s preface to Whewell, Zhong xue. 85. Robert E. Butts, “William Whewell,” in DSB, 14:292. Walter F. Cannon, “William Whewell, F. R. S. (1794–1866): II. Contributions to Science and Learning,” Notes and Records. Royal Society of London 19, no. 2 (December 1964): 177. 86. Cannon, “Whewell,” 176–177. By 1833, however, “Whewell had abandoned the attempt to sell calculus to the rank and file of students, and in the fourth edition of the Elementary Treatise removed the sections requiring calculus to a separate volume” (Cannon, “Whewell,” 177). Since the Chinese translation, Zhong xue, did have sections using calculus, its original should be one of the first three editions. 87. Han, “Shuli gezhi,” 81, 84.

Notes to Pages 21–22

197

88. John Fryer, “An Account of the Department for the Translation of Foreign Books at the Kiangnan Arsenal, Shanghai,” The North China Herald and Supreme Court and Consular Gazette, January 29, 1880, 78. Another factor that might have contributed to the uncompleted translation was that both Wylie and Fryer were self-taught men in science. Consequently, it was certainly a great challenge for them to understand the Principia themselves. There was evidence showing that Fryer had attempted to avoid mathematically oriented subjects such as physics and astronomy (See David F. A. Wright, “The Transmission of Western Science into China 1840–1900” [Ph.D. diss., London University, 1995], 321). As a result, it was possible that the translation was not completed simply because Wylie and Fryer were not able to proceed. 89. The true title of the Chinese translation of Principia should be Shuli gezhi instead of Naiduan shuli as previously thought. See Han, “Shuli gezhi,” 84–85. For the extent of the Chinese translation, see Fryer, “An Account,” 78. 90. The four sections are: I. Of the method of first and last ratios of quantities, by the help whereof we demonstrate the propositions that follow; II. Of the invention of centripetal forces; III. Of the motion of bodies in eccentric conic sections; IV. Of the finding of elliptic, parabolic, and hyperbolic orbits, from the focus given. See and compare Han, “Shuli gezhi,” 84 with Newton, The Principia, “Contents.” 91. Unable to understand the scientific content of Newton’s work, Hua had not been able to elaborate Li Shanlan’s manuscript before it was lost, probably by Liang Qichao during the coup in 1898. See Dai Nianzu, “Liang Qichao diushi naiduan shuli yigao (Liang Qichao Lost the Translated Manuscript of I. Newton’s Principia),” ZKS 19, no. 2 (1998): 86. 92. Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese, 126–127. Benjamin Hobson (1816–1873) studied medicine in London and earned his bachelor degree before he came to China in 1839. In 1849, he published Digest of Astronomy (Tianwen lue lun), in which he introduced up-to-date astronomical information from Europe, including the discovery of Neptune three years ago. 93. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 12; Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 156. 94. Fryer and his colleagues at Jiangnan Arsenal tried to adopt as much LMP vocabulary as possible. See Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 184. 95. Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 184. 96. Wang Yangzong was perhaps incorrect in thinking that LMP disappeared in 1860. According to Xiong Yuezhi, LMP still existed during the 1870s. Although it is not certain when LMP closed its doors, it seems to be a mutual agreement that by 1860 LMP had been replaced by the American Presbyterian Mission Press (Mei hua shu guan) as the publishing center of missionary translations. See Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 184; Xiong, Xixue dongjian, 187–188; and Tsien, “Western Impact,” 313. 97. James Thomas, “Biographical Sketch of Alexander Wylie,” in Wylie, Chinese Researches, 4. Wang Yangzong, “Xinjiao chuanjiaoshi,” 184. 98. Li went to Suzhou in May 1860 to serve as the governer’s adviser; Wang Tao fled to Hong Kong in 1862 to escape government persecution. See Horng, “Li Shanlan,” 79, 82; Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 278. 99. Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 188; and Tsien, “Western Impact,” 313.

198

Notes to Pages 22–24

100. Philip A. Kuhn, “The Taiping Rebellion,” in CHOC, 264. 101. Ting-Yee Kuo, “Self-Strengthening: The Pursuit of Western Technology,” in CHOC, 491. 102. Gong qin wang deng (Prince Gong et al.), “Zou she Tong Wen Guan zhe (A Memorial on Founding Tong Wen Guan)” in Chou ban yi wu shi mo ( The Ins and Outs of the Preparation for Dealing with Foreign Affairs), Tongzhi’s reign (1862–1874), vol. 4, no. 8:29–35. Quoted in Shu Xincheng, ed., Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao (Historical Materials of Chinese Modern Education), 3 vols. (Beijing: People’s Education Press, 1961; reprinted in 1979), 117–121. For a detailed discussion about Tong Wen Guan and its translations, see Knight Biggerstaff, The Earliest Modern Goverment Schools in China (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1961), 94–153; Xiong, Xixue dongjian, 301–333; Li Nanqiu, Zhongguo kexue wen xian fan yi shi gao (A Draft History of the Translation of Scientific Literature in China) (Hefei, Anhui: University of Science and Technology of China Press, 1993), 92–98; Su Jing, Qingji tong wen guan jiqi shisheng ( Tong wen guan, Its Faculty, and Its Students in the Qing Dynasty) (Taipei, Taiwan: Su Jing, 1985); and Sun Zihe, Qingdai tong wen guan zhi yanjiu (A Study of Tong wen guan in Qing Dynasty), ed. Wang Yunwu, Jiaxin shuini gongsi wenhua jijinhui congshu (Chia Hsin Cement Company Cultural Foundation Series) (Taipei, Taiwan: Chia Hsin Foundation, 1977). 103. The original of Gewu rumen is unknown (see Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 13). But according to Reardon-Anderson, Martin compiled Gewu rumen on his own rather than translating an existing text. ( James Reardon-Anderson, The Study of Change: Chemistry in China, 1840–1949 [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991], 34.) 104. Peter Duus, “Science and Salvation in China: The Life and Work of W. A. P. Martin (1827–1916),” in American Missionaries in China, ed. Kwang-Ching Liu (Cambridge, Mass.: East Asian Research Center, Harvard University, 1966), 12. 105. Martin succeeded John Fryer, who served at the TWG from 1863 to 1864. See W. A. P. Martin, A Cycle of Cathy or China, South and North, 3rd ed. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1900), 296–297; “Tong wen guan ti ming lu ji han yang jiao xi (Successive Chinese and Foreign Professors Recorded in the Tong Wen Guan Roster),” in Zhongguo jin dai xue zhi shi liao (Historical Documents of Modern Chinese Education), ed. Zhu Youhuan, Jiaoyu kexue cong shu (Science of Education Series) (Shanghai: Eastern China Normal University Press, 1983), 38. The latter was edited from Tong wen guan ti ming lu ( Tong Wen Guan Roster) printed in 1898. 106. Wright, “The Transmission of Western Science into China 1840–1900,” 267. 107. Luo Bingxian and He Ruxin, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu jian shi (A Short History of Physics Education in China) (Changsha, Hunan: Hunan Education Press, 1991), 57; Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 13. 108. Wang Jin’guang and Hong Zhenhuan, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 150. 109. Three years after its publication in Beijing in 1866, Rumen was reprinted in Japan. In 1879, Rumen was published again in Japan, this time with explanatory notes. (See Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 13.) China therefore served as “a transfer station” for Japan’s introduction of Western science at the time. 110. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu jian shi, 57. 111. At the end of the nineteenth century Chinese scholar Liang Qichao remarked on Martin’s Rumen: “There was nothing new (in the book) . . . and the translated Chinese text was also very poor. It is not necessary to read it.” (Liang

Notes to Pages 24–28

199

Qichao, Du xi xue shu fa (On Reading Books of Western Learning), 10, quoted in Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 526. 112. Wei Yungong, ed., Jiang nan zhi zao ju ji (Record of the Jiangnan Arsenal), Jindai zhongguo shiliao congkan di si shi yi ji (Modern China Historical Materials Series, No. 41) (Taipei, Taiwan: Wenhai Press, 1905), vol. 404:195–209. 113. For details about the history of Jiangnan Arsenal Translation Bureau and its staff, primary sources include Wei, Jiangnan zhizaoju ji, especially 173–191 and Fryer, “An Account of the Department for the Translation of Foreign Books,” 77–81. Secondary sources include Wright, “Transmission of Western Science”; Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 30; Wang Yangzong, “Jiangnan zhizao ju fanyi guan shi lue (A Brief History of the Translation Department of the Jiangnan Arsenal),” ZKS 9, no. 3 (1988): 68; and Wang Yangzong, “Kexue shuji yikan (The Translation and Publication of Scientific Books),” in ZJKJS, 245–246. 114. Wang Yangzong, “Kexue shuji yikan,” 246. 115. The primary sources on Xu Shou’s life and achievements are Zhao Erxun et al., ed., Qing-shi gao (A draft history of the Qing danasty) (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1977), 46:13, 929–931; Min Er-chang, comp., Bei zhuan ji bu (Supplement to the Collection of Epitaphs), 24 vols. (Taipei: Wen-hai Press, 1973), juan 43, 12b–18b; and Yang Mo, ed., Xi-Jin si-zhe hui-cun (Records of the Four Scholars of Wuxi and Jin’gui) (Wuxi, 1910). For recent writings on Xu Shou, see Yang Gen, ed., Xu Shou he Zhongguo jindai huaxue shi ( Xu Shou and the History of Chemistry in Modern China) (Beijing: Kexue jishu wenxian press, 1986). 116. Various factors might have contributed to Xu Shou’s failure to pass the entrylevel civil exam. First, Xu Shou’s father’s early death led to the family’s financial decline, which could have affected Xu Shou’s preparation for the civil examinations. Second, Wuxi was noted for having produced many brilliant scholars. Since only a certain quota of students in one area were allowed to pass, Xu was in fiercer competition than candidates in many other areas. Finally, Xu Shou was apparently not very interested in the traditional examinations. 117. Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 19. 118. David Wright, “Careers in Western Science in Nineteenth-Century China: Xu Shou and Xu Jianyin,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 5, no. 1 (1995): 55. 119. Ibid., 67–69. 120. Ibid., 55. 121. Ibid., 76. After the mid-1880s, the relations between the two soured. 122. Ibid., 77–78, 79–80, 85. 123. A detailed description about Fryer’s life can be found in Wright, “Transmission of Western Science,” 308–319; relevant information is also included in Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 25–27. The summary of Fryer’s biographical materials is based on these two sources unless otherwise noted. 124. Wright, “Transmission of Western Science,” 310, 334. 125. Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 573–574. 126. Fryer to Susy ( July 11, 1868) (Fryer Papers: Box 1 Folder 3; held at the Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley), quoted in Wright, “Transmission of Western Science,” 327. 127. Wright, “Transmission of Western Science,” 321. 128. Ibid., 334; Reardon-Anderson, The Study of Change, 25.

200

Notes to Pages 28–32

129. Tsien, “Western Impact on China,” 317. 130. Fryer, “Account of the Department for the Translation of Foreign Books,” 81. 131. According to Wang Yangzong, TBJA ended in 1913; see Wang Yangzong, “Kexue shu ji yi kan,” 246. 132. Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 36. Wang Yangzong thinks that the number of translations produced by the TBJA was more than 180. See Wang Yangzong, “Kexue shu ji yi kan,” 246. 133. Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 36. 134. The translated physics works included Sheng xue (1874) (Sound, 1869) and Guangxue (1876) (Light, 1870), both by John Tyndall; Dian xue (1879) (The Student’s Textbook of Electricity, 1867) by Henry Noad; Tong wu dian guang (1899) (X-ray, or Photography of the Invisible and Its Value in Surgery, 1896) by William J. Morton. The discovery of X-rays was introduced in China only four years after Röntgen’s first publication. 135. Roy MacLeod, “John Tyndall,” in DSB, 13:521. 136. Ibid.. 521, 524. 137. John Tyndall, Sound, 2nd ed. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1869). See Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 6. 138. Hereafter I use Sound to represent the English original and Sheng xue for its Chinese translation. 139. John Tyndall, Sound: A Course of Eight Lectures Delivered at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1867), ix. 140. MacLeod, “John Tyndall,” 522, and Tyndall, Sound (1867), ix–x. 141. Tyndall, Sound (1867), x, cover page. 142. W. F. Bynum, E. J. Browne, and Roy Porter, eds., Dictionary of the History of Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 378. 143. John Tyndall, Sound, 3rd ed. (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), 7. 144. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 6. 145. For the influence of Sound, see Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 505. About the cheap printing cost of Sound, see Tyndall, Sound (1898), 6. 146. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 6; Xu Weize and Gu Xuguang, Zengban dong xi xue shumu, shengxue di shi liu (Enlarged Bibliography of Eastern and Western Learnings, Sound: No. 16), 16 (quoted in Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 505). 147. Tyndall, Sound (1898), 6. This story is significant for two reasons. First, it indicated the decision-making process at the TBJA. Usually, the higher authorities such as Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang decided which books were translated. Occasionally, however, some translations were made because of one person’s scientific curiosity. Second, it showed that Chinese officials were interested in pure science, despite their usual emphasis on pragmatism during the self-strengthening movement. 148. Wright, “Careers in Western Science,” 54. 149. Wright, “Transmission of Western Science,” 364. Detailed discussion on Xu Shou’s study of music and his letter to Tyndall can be found in Wright, “Careers in Western Science,” 69–71. 150. John Fryer, “Acoustics in China,” Nature: A Weekly Illustrated Journal of Science 23 (March 10, 1881): 448. 151. According to Dr. Wright, “It is not surprising that Tyndall made no reply to Fryer’s letter, whose publication Tyndall (a notoriously sensitive man) must have found deeply humiliating . . . after the publication of Fryer’s letter in Nature all

Notes to Pages 32–35

201

mention of Fryer was removed in subsequent editions.” (See Wright, “Careers in Western Science,” 71.) 152. Fryer, “Acoustics in China,” 448–449. 153. Carl T. Kreyer was an American of German heritage. Originally a missionary, he began work at the Jiangnan Arsenal in 1869, leaving in 1878 to serve as interpreter for Xu Jianyin (see John Fryer to George Fryer, December 7, 1869 in Fryer Papers, Box I, Folder 4), quoted in Wright, “Careers in Western Science,” 79, n. 159. 154. Zheng Fuguang (1780–c. 1853) published a monograph on geometrical optics, Jing-jing ling chi, in 1847. Zheng’s work consitituted a logical and comprehensive system of geometrical optics, which was based mainly on his own study. Zou Boqi (1819–1869) also made a great contribution in geometrical optics by publishing his Ge shu bu in 1874 and by independently inventing his own camera. For more Chinese discussions on Zheng and Zou, see Wang and Hong, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 170–187; and Liu, Zhong hua wulixue shi, 405–422. 155. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 6. 156. John Tyndall, Notes of a Course of Nine Lectures on Light (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1870), 31. 157. Tyndall, Nine Lectures on Light. See also Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 6. 158. Du Shiran and others mistakenly consider Guangxue as the first to introduce luminiferous ether in China. See Du Shiran, Lin Qingyuan, and Guo Jinbin, Yangwu yundong yu zhongguo jindai keji (Self-Strengthening Movement and Modern Chinese Science and Technology) (Shenyang: Liaoning jiaoyu chubanshe, 1991), 471. The light ether hypothesis had been introduced earlier by Martin’s Gewu rumen in 1866. See Wang and Hong, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 150. 159. Ding Wei Liang (W. A. P. Martin), Gewu rumen (Natural Philosophy) (Beijing: Beijing Tong Wen Guan, 1866). Quoted from Wang and Hong, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 150. The Chinese text was translated into English by this author. 160. Tyndall, Nine Lectures on Light, 32. 161. Wang and Hong, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 152. 162. The expenses spent on book translating and map making dropped sharply after the mid-1880s, which clearly indicated the declining status of the TBJA. (See the accounting table in Wei, Jiang nan zhi zao ju ji, 487–496.) 163. Wang Jilie (1873–1952), a native of Jiangsu province, translated several remarkable physics and chemistry works (see Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 11). 164. Fifth ed. (New York: American Technical Book Co., 1896). For introductions to this book, refer to Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 503–504, 541; Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 11. 165. The English name and dates of the original author are referred to in Li, Zhongguo kexue wen xian fan yi shi gao, 176. However, in Li’s book Kerr’s birth year is 1829, which is likely a misprint of 1824 (see E. P. Lewis, ed., The Effects of a Magnetic Field on Radiation: Memoirs by Faraday, Kerr and Zeeman, Scientific Memoirs [New York: American Book Co., 1900], 64.). The summaries of the books’ content are quoted from Wang Bing “Wulixue yizhu,” 11. 166. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16; Wang Bing, “Jin dai zao qi zhongguo he ri ben zhi jian de wulixue jiao liu (On the Exchange of Physics between China and Japan during Early Modern Times),” Studies in the History of Natural Sciences 15, no. 3 (1996): 231. 167. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16; Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 60.

202

Notes to Pages 35–39

168. Wang Jin’guang has pointed out some significant omissions in the late nineteenth-century scientific introduction. He also questioned the role played by these superficial translations during the formation of scientific research in modern China (see Wang and Hong, Zhongguo guangxue shi, 155). 169. Liang Qichao, “Wushi nian lai zhongguo jinhua gailun (A General Discussion of China’s Progress in the Last Fifty Years),” in Zuijin wushi nian ( The Last Fifty Years), ed. Shenbao Guan (Shanghai: Shen bao guan, 1922), 3. 170. Wang Yangzong, “Kexue shuji yikan,” 247. 171. Qu Shipei and Liu Lanping, “Shehui bianqian yu xinjiaoyu de chansheng (Social Changes and the Birth of New Education),” in ZJKJS, 265. 172. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 33. Oliver earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Queen’s College in Belfast, North Ireland. For more about Oliver’s background, see Sun, Qing dai tong wen guan zhi yanjiu, 161–162. 173. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 33. 174. Shi Jinghuan, Dikaowen he Situleideng zai hua de jiaoyu huodong (Calvin W. Mateer and J. Leighton Stuart’s Educational Activities in China), vol. 5, Dalu diqu boshi lunwen congkan (Mainland China Dissertation Series) (Taipei, Taiwan: Wenjin Press, 1991), 56–69. Also, see Xiong, Xixue dongjian yu wanqing shehui, 293, 299. Mateer’s dates are quoted from The Translation Division in the Institute of Modern History at the Chinese Academy of Social Science, ed., Jindai laihua waiguo renming cidian (Who’s Who of Foreigners in Modern China) (Beijing: Zhongguo she hui kexue chubanshe, 1981), 316. 175. Shi, Dikaowen, 41–43. 176. Calvin W. Mateer, “The Relation of Protestant Missions to Education,” in Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May 10–24, 1877 (Shanghai: Presbyterian Mission Press, 1877), 176, 179; Shi, Dikaowen, 58. 177. Shi, Dikaowen, 58, 67–68. 178. Spence, The Search, 219–20. Joanna Waley-Cohen, The Sextants of Beijing (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1999), 197–198. Both the Annapolis Naval College and the West Point Military Academy refused to admit Chinese students, notwithstanding treaty provisions to the contrary. 179. More biographical information about Yan Fu can be found in Howard L. Boorman, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, 4 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 4:41–47. A monograph on Yan Fu is Benjamin I. Schwartz’s In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964). 180. The Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895 forced China to cede to Japan Taiwan and the Pescadores, to add four more treaty ports, and to pay Japan 200 million taels in war indemnities. Spence, The Search, A64. For a full treatment of the reform movement, see John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, eds., Late Ch’ing, 1800–1911, Part 2, vol. 11, chap. 5, CHOC. 181. For historical discussions on the Boxer movement, see Paul A. Cohen, History in Three Keys: The Boxers as Event, Experience, and Myth (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997), and Joseph W. Esherick, The Origins of the Boxer Uprising (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987). 182. Among other things, the Qing was forced to agree in this protocol to pay an indemnity of 450 million taels (about $333 million at the then-current exchange

Notes to Pages 40–43

203

rates), a staggering sum at a time when the entire annual Qing income was estimated at about 250 million taels. (Quoted from Spence, Search [2nd. ed., 1999], 233). 183. “Qingdi yu liting keju yi guang xuexiao (Qing Emperor’s Edict on Stopping Immediately Traditional Civil Examinations to Promote Modern School Education) (1905),” in Shu Xincheng, ed., Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao (Historical Materials of Chinese Modern Education), (1961; reprint, Beijing: Renminjiaoyu chubanshe, 1979), 1:62–66. Also see Qu Shipei and Liu Lanping, “Weixin bianfa yu keji jiaoyu hefahua (Reforms and the Legalization of Scientific Education),” in ZJKJS, 308. 184. Shu, Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao, 2: 507, 511. 185. Ibid., 567–68, 571–72. Number of prefectures and provinces in late Qing China: Qu Tongzu (Tung-tsu Chü), Local Government in China under the Ch’ing (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), 2–3. Physics contents in curriculum II: second year: mechanics, Wu xing xue, acoustics, and thermodynamics; third year: optics, electricity, and magnetism. 186. Shu, Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao, 2:578–579, 600, 602–603. 187. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 38. 188. Reardon-Anderson, Study of Change, 129. 189. “Qing di guang pai you xue yu (Qing Emperor’s Edict on Widely Sending Students Abroad) (1901),” in Guangxu chao dong hua lu (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1958), 4:4720. Quoted in Chen Xuexun and Tian Zhengping, eds., Liu xue jiaoyu (Education through Studying Abroad), Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao huibian (Collected Historical Materials of Modern Chinese Education) (Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, 1991), 3–4. 190. A good historical summary on Chinese students in Japan can be found in CHOC, 11:348–353. 191. Huang Fu-ching, Qingmo liuri xuesheng (Chinese Students in Japan in the Late Ch’ing Period), Zhong yang yan jiu yuan jin dai shi yan jiu so zhuan kan (34) (Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Modern History, Academia Sinica, 1975), 2. Spence, Search, 239. 192. Fairbank and Liu, eds., CHOC, 11:348. 193. Many sources consistently give this 1905 statistic, but there are great discrepancies among the data of the 1906 number. I have refered the following sources: CHOC, 11:350–351; Saneto Keishu, Zhongguoren liuxue riben shi (History of Chinese Students in Japan), trans. Tan Ruqian and Lin Qiyan (Beijing: Shenghuo, dushu, xinzhi sanlianshudian, 1983), 451; Shu Xincheng, Jindai zhongguo liuxue shi (A Modern Chinese History of Studying Abroad), (reprint: Shanghai: Shanghai Cultural Press, 1989), 46; Liu Xiusheng and Yang Yuqing, Zhongguo qingdai jiaoyu shi (A History of Education in Qing China), ed. Shi Zhongwen and Hu Xiaolin, Zhongguo quanshi (A Comprehensive History of China) (Beijing: People’s Press, 1994), 88:171. (Liu and Yang compared statistics from three sources.) 194. Saneto Keishu, Tan Ruqian, and Ogawa Hiroshi, eds., Zhongguo yi riben shu zonghe mulu (A Comprehensive Index of Chinese Translations of Japanese Books) (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1980), 63. 195. Tan Ruqian gave eighty-three translations, among which nine were physics books (Saneto, Tan, and Ogawa, A Comprehensive Index, 41, table 2; 46, table 7). But Wang Bing argued that there must have been at least a dozen more physics books translated from Japanese during the period. (Wang Bing, “Wulixue jiao liu,”

204

Notes to Pages 43–47

231.) For more on physics books translated from Japanese, see Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 3–20. 196. Tan Ruqian, Zhongguo yi riben shu, 62. 197. Wang Bing, “Wulixue jiao liu,” 231. 198. Fu Sinian, “Yi shu gan yan (Reflections on Translating Books),” in Xin chao (New Tides) 1, no. 3 (1919): 531–537. Quoted from Wang Bing, “Wulixue jiao liu,” 231. 199. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16–19. 200. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16, 11; Wang Bing, “Wulixue jiao liu,” 231. 201. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 60; Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16. 202. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu, 246–251. 203. Wang Bing, “Wulixue yizhu,” 16. 204. Dai Nianzu, ed., Ershi shiji shangbanye zhongguo wulixue lunwen jicui (A Collection of Physics Theses in the First Half of 20th Century) (Changsha: Hunan Education Press, 1993), “Introduction,” 3. 205. Zhang Chenghua, “Zhongguo diyibu wulixue biaozhun cihui (China’s First Standard Vocabulary of Physics),” ZKS 14, no. 3 (1993): 96. 206. Wang Bing, “Zhongguo zao qi wulixue ming ci de shen ding yu tong yi (Revision and Unification of Physical Terms in China during Early Modern Times),” Studies in the History of Natural Sciences 16, no. 3 (1997): 253–262. 207. Qu and Fang, “Liu xue he jiao hui da xue de ke ji jiaoyu,” 347; Huang, Qingmo liuri xuesheng, 75. 208. Liu and Yang, Zhongguo qingdai jiaoyu shi, 169. 209. Ibid., 166. 210. Dai, zhongguo wulixue lun wen ji, 13. 211. Chen Xuexun, ed., Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu dashiji (A Chronicle of Chinese Modern Education) (Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press, 1981), 134. 212. Xie Zhensheng, “Zhongguo jin dai wulixue de xian qu zhe He Yujie (He Yujie: A Pioneer of Modern Physics in China),” ZKS 11, no. 1 (1990): 36–40. 213. “1918 nian Beijing da xue wen li fa ke gai ding ke cheng yi lan (The Revised Curriculum at Peking University in 1918),” in Zhongguo jindai xuezhi shiliao (Historical Materials of Modern Chinese School System), ed. Zhu Youhuan (Shanghai: Eastern China Normal University Press), 1992, 3:2, 117. 214. He Yujie, “An si dun xiang dui lun (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity),” Beijing daxue yuekan (Peking University Monthly) 1, no. 8 (February 1921): 1–18; Xie, “He Yujie” 38–39. 215. Arthur H. Smith, China and America To-day: A Study of Conditions and Relations (New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907), 213–215. 216. Shu, Zhongguo jindai jiaoyu shi ziliao, 3:1113–1117; Spence, Search, 283. 217. Qu and Fang, “Liuxue he jiaohui daxue de keji jiaoyu,” 347–348.

2. China Embraces the Theory of Relativity 1. Some Japanese scholars have suggested that Ayao Kuwaki started to work on the relativity theory soon after Einstein published his special relativity theory in 1905. James R. Bartholomew, The Formation of Science in Japan: Building a Research Tradition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989), 179. 2. Sigeko Nisio, “The Transmission of Einstein’s Work to Japan,” Japanese Studies in the History of Science (1979), 1. For biographical data on Ishiwara, I referred to Nishikawa Tetsuharu et al., eds., Butsurigaku-jiten (Dictionary of Phyiscs),

Notes to Pages 47–49

205

rev. ed. (Tokyo: Baifu kan, 1992), 75. Translation from Japanese is made by this author with the help of Dr. Hitoshi Nakada. An older but probably more authoritative biographical sketch of Ishiwara is Tetu Hirosige, “Jun Ishiwara,” in DSB 7:26–27. For a list of Ishiwara’s papers on relativity published before 1912, see Jun Ishiwara, “Bericht ueber die Relativitaetstheorie,” Jahrbuch der Radioaktivitaet und Elektronik 9 (1912): 560–569. 3. Xu Chongqing, “Zai pipan Cai Jiemin xiansheng zai xinyang ziyou hui yanshuo zhi dingzheng wen bing zhiwen Cai xiansheng (A Further Criticism of Mr. Cai Jiemin’s Correction of His Speech at the Freedom of Belief Society and My Questions to Mr. Cai),” Xueyi ( Wissen und Wissenschaft) 2 (September 1917): 211– 215. Here “Cai Jiemin” is another name for Cai Yuanpei. It should also be noted that Xu did not use the term “relativity theory” or Xiang dui lun in Chinese; he used instead Xiangduixing yuanli, a translation from German, “Relativitatsprinzip.” Zhou Changshou considered Xu’s essay one of the earliest documents on relativity in China; Dai Nianzu went further to name Xu the first Chinese who mentioned relativity. For details, see Zhou Changshou, “Xiang dui lun yuan li gai guan (A Synopsis of the Principle of Relativity),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 8; Dai Nianzu, “Aiyinsitan zai zhongguo—ji 1922–1923 nian jian Aiyinsitan liangci luguo Shanghai he xiangduilun zai zhongguo zaoqi de chuanbo (Einstein in China: Stories of Einstein’s Twice Passing Through Shanghai and the Early Dissemination of Relativity in China),” in Jinian Aiyinsitan yiwenji (A Collection of Papers in Commemoration of Einstein), ed. Zhao Zhongli and Xu Liangying (Shanghai: Shanghai Science and Technology Press, 1979), 402. 4. This and the following biographical data of Xu Chongqing are mainly cited from the following sources: Lu Sha, “Xu Chongqing,” in Zhongguo xiandai jiaoyu jia zhuan (Biographies of Chinese Modern Educators), ed. Zhongguo xiandai jiaoyu jia zhuan bianweihui (The Editorial Committee of Biographies of Chinese Modern Educators) (Changsha: Hunan Education Press, 1986), 329–341; Xu Youchun, ed., Minguo renwu da cidian (Who’s Who in the Republic of China) (Shijiazhuang: Hebei People’s Press, 1991), 839. 5. In Wuchang, Xu also became acquainted with Huang Xing and Song Jiaoren, both early leaders of the Guomindang. Xu’s friendship with Huang and Song influenced his political inclination. 6. Xu, “Zai pipan Cai Jiemin xiansheng,” 215. 7. It was called “Bingchen Society” because it was founded in December 1916, the year of Bingchen, according to the Chinese lunar calendar. The name of the society was later changed to The Chinese Xueyi Society in June 1923. For more about the Chinese Xueyi Society, see “Zhonghua xueyi she yange xiaoshi (A Brief History of the Chinese Society of Science and Art)” (hereafter “Yange xiaoshi”), Xueyi (Wissen und Wissenschaft) 12, Xueyi baihao jinian zengkan (The 100th Issue Commemorating Supplement) (March 30, 1933): 1. Also see Wusi shiqi qikan jieshao (Introductions to Journals during the May Fourth Period), 3 vols. (Shenyang: Shenghuo dushu xinzhi sanlian, 1979), 3:346. 8. See Shi Yi, “Shuo Xueyi (On Xueyi),” Xueyi 1, no. 1 (April 1917): 3–5; and Jun Yi, “Fa kan ci (Editor’s Opening Statement),” Xueyi 1, no. 1 (April 1917): 1–2. 9. Cai Yuanpei, “Cai Jiemin xiansheng zhi xinqingnian jizhe shu (Mr. Cai Jiemin’s Letter to Journalists of New Youth magazine),” Xueyi 1, no. 2 (September 1917): 216.

206

Notes to Pages 49–53

10. Xu, “Zai pipan Cai Jiemin xiansheng,” 211–215. It should be noted that Xu referred to Einstein’s 1905 relativity paper as the “Principle of Relativity,” which was not uncommon for early researchers of relativity. Even Einstein himself for several years continued to use the “principle of relativity,” or in German, “Relativitätsprinzip,” after he accepted the new name for his theory, the theory of relativity or Relativitäts, in 1907. For more discussion on the evolution of Einstein’s theory of relativity, see John Stachel, ed., Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 102. 11. Xu, “Zai pipan Cai Jiemin xiansheng,” 213, 214. 12. Ibid., 214. 13. Li Fangbai, “Naiduan lixue yu fei Naiduan lixue (Newtonian Dynamics and Non-Newtonian Dynamics),” Shuli xuehui zazhi (Magazine of Mathematical and Physical Society), no. 1 (May 15, 1918): 23–29. 14. Ota Chikai, ed., A Fifty-Year History of The Tokyo School of Physics (in Japanese) (Tokyo: The Tokyo School of Physics, 1929), 224; Kenkichiro Koizumi, “The Emergence of Japan’s First Physicists: 1868–1900,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 6 (1975): 39–40. I am very grateful to Dr. Yang Jian for his help in finding the above sources for me. 15. Ota, The Tokyo School of Physics, 224; “Renwu zhuan: Li Fangbai (Biographies: Li Fangbai),” in Chaozhou shi zhi ( The Chaozhou City Gazetteer), ed. Chaozhou shi difangzhi bianzuan weiyuanhui (The Editorial Committee of The Chaozhou City Gazetteer) (Shaoguan: Guangdong People’s Press, 1995), 1886; Wang Yuzhi, “Wuchang gaodeng shifan xuexiao jilue (A Brief History of the National Wuchang Higher Normal School),” Wuhan wenshi ziliao ( Wuhan Documents of Literature and History), no. 24 (1986): 8–9. According to my correspondence with Dr. Yang Jian in Tokyo, Li Fangbai finished the preparatory courses at the First High School and was assigned to the Third High School (letter from Dr. Yang Jian, November 9, 1998). 16. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 23. 17. Ibid. 18. The description in this paragraph is adopted from Henry A. Boorse and Lloyd Motz, “Walter Kaufmann (1871–1947),” in The World of the Atom, ed. Henry A. Boorse and Lloyd Motz (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1966), 502–506. 19. J. J. Thomson, “On the Electric and Magnetic Effects Produced by the Motion of Electrified Bodies,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 5th ser. 11, no. 68 (April 1881): 234. 20. Stanley Goldberg, “Max Abraham,” in DSB, 1:24. 21. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 24. In Li’s transcript, the “transverse mass” was misspelled as “transversal mass.” For Kaufmann’s data, see W. Kaufmann, “Die magnetische und elektrische Ablenkabarkeit der Bequerelstrahlen und die scheinbare Mass der Elektronen,” Nachrichten von der Koenigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen, Mathematisch-physikalische Klass 2 (1901): 152. The number on the last row of Li’s table, 2.85⫻1010 cm/s, is likely a typographical error of the number 2.83⫻1010 cm/s in Kaufmann’s paper. When quoting Kaufmann, Li also reversed the order of the data in the table. Li’s table listed the data from lower speed to higher speed. 22. It is, however, exaggerated to claim, as is done in some physics textbooks, that the research on this subject provided “the first experimental verification of the

Notes to Pages 53–56

207

theory of relativity.” See Tetu Hirosige, “The Ether Problem, the Mechanistic Worldview, and the Origins of the Theory of Relativity,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 7 (1976): 75–76. 23. Albert Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” in Albert Einstein et al., The Principle of Relativity (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1952), 61–65. 24. Walter Kaufmann, “Über die Konstitution des Elektrons,” Sitzb. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. (1905), 945–956; quoted in Hirosige, “The Ether Problem,” 75. Li Fangbai did not mention Kaufmann’s 1905 paper and it is not clear whether he knew about it. 25. Max Planck, “Das Prinzip der Relativität und die Grundgleichungen der Mechanik,” Verh. d. Deutsch. Phys. Ges. 8 (1906), 136–141; Physikalische Abhandlungen und Vortrage 2, 115–120. Max Planck, “Die Kaufmannschen Messungen der Ablenkbarkeit der ß-Strahlen in ihrer Bedeutung für die Dynamik der Electronen,” Phys. Zeits. 7 (1906): 753–761; Phys. Abhandlungen und Vorträge 2, 121–135. Quoted in Hirosige, “The Ether Problem,” 75. 26. Hirosige, “The Ether Problem,” 74. 27. Li’s statement seemed to be based on Lorentz’s paper in 1904. See Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 25, and Einstein et al., The Principle of Relativity, 11–34. 28. Before 1910 ether had been generally accepted by physicists and regarded as “an absolute frame against which the velocity of light can be determined.” See Tetu Hirosige, “A Consideration Concerning the Origins of the Theory of Relativity,” Japanese Studies in the History of Science 4 (1965): 120; “aether” in W. F. Bynum, E. J. Browne, and Roy Porter, eds., Dictionary of The History of Science (1981; reprint, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984), 8. 29. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 25. 30. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 25–26. “The same results” mentioned here likely include the “local time” and “the length contraction.” 31. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 26–28. 32. Ibid., 28. 33. Gilbert N. Lewis and Richard C. Tolman, “The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 18 (May 11, 1909): 510–523. The mathematical inference I referred to appeared on pages 512–515. Li Fangbai’s graphs, mathematical reasoning, and explanations for the results are almost exactly the same as Lewis’s and Tolman’s. 34. Stanley Goldberg, Understanding Relativity: Origin and Impact of a Scientific Revolution (Boston: Birkhaeuser, 1984), 255. 35. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 28. 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid., 28–29. 39. This definition, given by Albert Einstein in his article “Das Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen,” Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität 4 (1907): 411, was first used by Gilbert N. Lewis in his paper “A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy,” Phil. Mag. 16 (1908): 705. Richard G. Tolman saw additional support for this definition in the fact that it led to a derivation of the equation for the Lorentz force from Maxwell’s electromagnetic-field

208

Notes to Pages 56–62

equations. See Tolman’s article, “Note on the Derivation from the Principle of Relativity of the Fifth Fundamental Equation of the Maxwell-Lorentz Theory,” Phil. Mag. 21 (1911): 296. Quoted from Max Jammer, Concepts of Force: A Study in the Foundations of Dynamics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957), 255, footnote. 40. Jammer, Concepts of Force, 254–255. 41. A. P. French, Special Relativity, The M.I.T. Introductory Physics Series (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1968), 215, 217, 224. 42. Isaac Newton, The Principa, trans. Andrew Motte, Great Minds Series (Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1995), 19. 43. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 29. 44. French, Special Relativity, 224. 45. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 29. 46. It was not until the spring of 1920 that Xueyi was published in Shanghai by the Commercial Press. See “Yange xiaoshi,” 1. 47. Stephen G. Brush, “Why Was Relativity Accepted?” Physics in Perspective 1, no. 2 (1999): 198. 48. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 23. 49. Tse-tsung Chow, The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 1, 2, 5–6. 50. Ibid, 176–182. 51. Ibid., 187–188. 52. J. J. Thomson, “Address of the President, Sir J. J. Thomson, O. M. at the Anniversary Meeting, December 1, 1919,” Proceedings of The Royal Society of London Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character 96 (February 1920): 315–318. Quoted in A. Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord . . .”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 305. 53. “Guangxian neng bei zhongli xiyin zhi xinshuo (A Theory on Light Can Be Bent by Gravity),” DFZZ 17, no. 3 (1920): 73–74. 54. Martin J. Klein, “Einstein on Scientific Revolutions,” Vistas in Astronomy 17 (1975): 113–120. For Einstein, a truly revolutionary physical theory would be the one that could provide “a new unified foundation for physics” (Klein, 120). 55. John L. Heilbron, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 31. 56. Or Zhang Shenfu. Zhang, a graduate from Beijing University in 1917, was one of the earliest admirers of Bertrand Russell in China. In the early 1920s, Zhang also deeply admired the “three extraordinary Jews”: Marx, Freud, and Einstein. Zhang translated a book by Einstein on relativity in about 1922, but it was not published. (Zhang Shenfu, So yi—Zhang Shenfu yijiu wenxuan [ Memoirs: Selected Recollections of Zhang Shenfu] [Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 1993], 28, 30.) 57. Zhang Songnian, “Kexue li de yi geming (A Revolution in Science),” Shaonian shijie (Young World) 1, no. 3 (March 1920): 1–6. 58. Zhou Enlai, “Zongjiao jingshen yu gongchanzhuyi (Religious Spirit and Communism) (August 1922),” in Zhou Enlai zaoqi wenji (A Collection of Zhou Enlai’s Early Papers), ed. Liu Yan (Tianjin: Nankai University Press, 1993), 383–388. See also Edward Friedman, “Einstein and Mao: Metaphors of Revolution,” The China Quarterly, no. 93 (March 1983): 51, n. 2. 59. The New York Times, November 16, 1922. Quoted in Abraham Pais, Einstein Lived Here (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 159. Also see Maxim William

Notes to Pages 62–66

209

Mikulak, “Relativity Theory and Soviet Communist Philosophy (1922–1960)” (Ph.D. diss., Columbia University, 1965), chap. 2, especially 124–128. 60. Zhonggong zhongyang wenxian yanjiushi (Division for Documentary Research of the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee), ed., Zhou Enlai nianpu, 1898–1949 (The chronological biography of Zhou Enlai, 1898–1949), rev. ed. (Beijing: Zhongyang wenxian chubanshe, 1998), 48. 61. Xinnan (Zheng Zhenwen), “Aiyinsitan he kexue de jingshen (Einstein and Scientific Spirits),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 4. 62. Feng Chongyi, Luosu yu zhongguo: xifang sixiang zai zhongguo de yici jingli (Russell and China: An Experience of Western Ideas in China) (Taipei: Daohe Press, 1996), 101–103. 63. Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Bertrand Russell (London: Jonathan Cape and Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1975), 389. 64. Feng, Luosu yu zhongguo, 110–111 65. Bertrand Russell, Luosu wu da yanjiang: wuzhi fenxi (Five Great Lectures by Russell: Analysis of Matter), lecture notes taken by Yao Wenlin (Beijing daxue xinchao shushe, 1921), 1. Also see Ren Hongjuan and Zhao Yuanren, “Wuzhi fenxi (Analysis of Matter),” Kexue 2, no. 2 (1921): 139–153; no. 4 (1921): 341–350; no. 5 (1921): 447–454; no. 6 (1921): 549–560. 66. Russell, Luosu wu da yanjiang; Feng, Luosu yu zhongguo, 119–121. 67. Feng, Luosu yu zhongguo, 120. 68. Ibid., 91–92, 129, nn. 4, 5, 6. 69. Ibid., 92. Minguo ribao, March 22–27, 1920. 70. Often there were lecture notes taken by several people published at about the same time. For example, at least three different transcripts of Russell’s lecture series “Analysis of Matter” were published in 1921. 71. Zhou Changshou, “Xiangduixing yuanli gaiguan (A Conspectus of the Principle of Relativity),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 8. 72. B. Harrow, Cong Niudun dao Aiyinsitan (From Newton to Einstein), trans. Wen Yuanmo (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1923), 3. 73. Bertrand Russell, Essays on Language, Mind and Matter 1919–26, ed. John Passmore (Australian National University), vol. 9, The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell (London: Unwin Hyman, 1983), xvii. 74. Ibid., xvii–xviii. John E. Littlewood “had arranged with Arthur S. Eddington, one of the physicists involved in the experiment, to cable him as soon as a preliminary study of the data indicated the likely outcome. Littlewood then cabled Russell: ‘Einstein’s theory is completely confirmed. The predicted displacement was 1."72 and the observed 1."75 ⫿ .06.’ ” (xviii). 75. Russell, Essays, xviii. 76. Ibid., 205. 77. Herbert Dingle, “More Relativity,” Nature 117, no. 2956 (1926): 885–886. 78. Russell, Essays, xix. 79. Wei Siluan, “Du guonei xiangduilun zhushu yihou de piping (Reviews on Chinese Writings Dealing with the Theory of Relativity),” SNZG 3, no. 7 (February 1, 1922): 51–52. 80. Cai Yuanpei, “Ansitan (Einstein) boshi laihua zhi zhunbei (The Preparation for Dr. Einstein’s Visit),” BDRK, no. 1107 (November 14, 1922): 1–2. 81. W. Y. Ting to A. Einstein (on behalf of Yuan Shih Tao, courtesy name of Yuan Guanlan), September 11, 1920, AEP, 36–478.

210

Notes to Pages 66–70

82. For detailed descriptions about the anti-relativity rally in Berlin, Einstein’s rebuff, and his colleagues’ responses, see Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Volume 1: The Making of a Theoretical Physicist, 3rd ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985), 320–323; and Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, trans. Ewald Osers (New York: Viking, 1997), 460–468. For details about Einstein’s difficult situation in Germany during the early 1920s, see Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 315–316, 526. For the communication between Yuan and Cai, see Cai, “Ansitan,” 1. 83. Cai, “Ansitan,” 1; Ting to Einstein, AEP, 36–478. 84. Ting to Einstein, AEP, 36–478. 85. Fölsing, Albert Einstein, 464. 86. Christa Kirsten and Hans-Jürgen Treder, eds., Albert Einstein in Berlin, 1913–1933, 2 vols. (Berlin: Akadamie-Verlag, 1979), 1:204.; English translation is quoted from Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 316, 526. 87. Cai, “Ansitan,” 1–2. Also see Cai Yuanpei, Cai Yuanpei wenji: Riji (Collected Papers of Cai Yuanpei: Diary (I)), ed. Gao Pingshu et al., vol. 13, CaiYuanpei wenji (Taipei, Taiwan: Jinxiu chuban, 1995), 491. From April 2 to May 30, 1921, Einstein, along with Chaim Weizmann, paid his first visit to the United States to raise funds for the planned Hebrew University in Jerusalem (Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 526) 88. Zhu Jia-hua (Chu Chia-hua) to Einstein, March 21, 1922, AEP, 36–479. Cai Yuanpei mentioned in a letter on June 16, 1922, that Zhu was a representative of Beijing University in Germany. See Gao Pingshu, ed., Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu (Cai Yuanpei on Science and Technology) (Shijiazhuang, Hebei: Hebei Science and Technology Press, 1985), 66. 89. Einstein to Zhu Jia-hua, March 25, 1922, AEP, 36–481. For the Chinese translation of this letter, see Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 68–69. 90. See the Chinese Legation in Berlin to Einstein, April 8, 1922, AEP, 36–482. The Chinese version of Cai Yuanpei’s telegram to the Chinese ambassador can be found in Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 68. Cai’s message in Chinese is slightly different from that in the German message that Einstein received. The sentence “the travel expenses in China will be born by each university” in the Chinese version is missing from the German version. I chose to quote the German version because I think that it is more relevant here to show what information Einstein had actually received, which could affect his decision. According to the data proclaimed by the secretary of the Treasury of the United States as of July 1, 1922, one Chinese yuan dollar equaled 0.5390 U.S. dollars (Robert Hunt Lyman, ed., The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1923 [New York: Press Publishing Co., 1923], 731.) 91. Einstein to the Chinese legation in Berlin, May 3, 1922, AEP, 36–484. For the Chinese translation of this letter, see Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 69. 92. Gao Pingshu, “Cai Yuanpei’s Contributions to China’s Science,” in Dainian Fan and Robert S. Cohen, eds., Chinese Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996) 179: 404. 93. Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 70. 94. The Chinese legation in Berlin to Einstein, July 22, 1922, AEP, 36–487. 95. Einstein to the Chinese legation, July 24, 1922, AEP, 36–488, 36–489: “Ich denke, dass ich etwa um Neujahr in Peking sein kann.” For the arrival time of Einstein’s letter, see Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 70. 96. M. Pfister to Einstein, July 1, 1922, AEP, 36–493.

Notes to Pages 70–75

211

97. C. H. Robertson to Einstein, July 5, 1922, AEP, 36–497. 98. Zhao Yuanren (Yuen-Ren Chao) in his autobiography twice mentioned Robertson. According to Zhao, Robertson, who could speak standard Mandarin Chinese, had twice come from Tianjin to present speeches at Zhao’s school in Nanjing in 1909. Robertson came to meet Zhao in the physics laboratory at Cornell University, where Zhao worked as a physics instructor from 1919 to 1920. In the fall of 1920, Zhao became Bertrand Russell’s interpreter during his trip in China. See Zhao Yuanren, Zhao Yuanren zao nian zi zhuan (Yuen Ren Chao’s Autobiography: First 30 Years 1892–1921), ed. Zhuanji wenxue zazhi she (Biographical Literature Magazine), trans. Zhang Yuan (Taipei: Biographical Literature Press, 1984), 78, 124. 99. Robertson to Einstein, July 5, 1922, AEP, 36–497. 100. Ibid. 101. “Ensitan boshi guohu fu ri (Dr. Einstein Passing by Shanghai on His Way to Japan),” Xinwen Bao (The Sin Wan Pao), Tuesday, November 14, 1922, 3. “Ensitan boshi laihu xi xun (Dr. Einstein’s Coming to Shanghai),” Minguo ribao, Wednesday, November 15, 1922, 3:10. A telegram from Stockholm was delivered to Einstein’s residence in Berlin on November 10, but by then he had left for Japan and thus did not receive it. (See Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 503.) 102. “Ensitan boshi guohu zhi zhaodai (The Reception for Dr. Einstein in Shanghai),” Minguo ribao, Tuesday, November 14, 1922, 3:10. Also see A. Einstein diary, November 14, 1922, AEP, 29–131. 103. “Ensitan boshi guohu zhi zhaodai,” and “Wang Yiting nianpu jianbiao (Wang Yiting’s Brief Chronicle),” in Wang Yiting shuhuaji (A Collection of Wang Yiting’s Calligraphy and Paintings), ed. Xu Chengwei and Wang Zhongde (Shanghai: Shanghai shuhua chubanshe, 1988). 104. “Ensitan boshi guohu zhi zhaodai.” 105. Ibid. 106. Ibid. 107. Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 74; Cai Yuanpei to Einstein, December 8, 1922, AEP, 36–490. The original letter is in German; the English translation was made by this author. 108. Einstein to Cai Yuanpei, December 22, 1922, AEP, 36–491; for the Chinese version of this letter, see “Ansitan boshi gao bulai Beijing zhi han (Einstein’s Letter on Not Coming to Beijing),” BDRK, January 4, 1923; the Chinese translation of Einstein’s letter can also be found in Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 74–75. English translations were made by the author with reference to Fan and Cohen, eds., Chinese Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology, 405. 109. “Ansitan boshi gao bulai Beijing zhi han,” BDRK, January 4, 1923. 110. “Ensitan daohu hou zhi tanhua (Einstein’s Statements in Shanghai),” Minguo ribao, Sunday, December 31, 1922, 3:11. 111. “Ensitan boshi erci guohu ji (Einstein’s Second Passing by Shanghai),” Minguo ribao, Wednesday, January 3, 1923, 3:11. Since Russell was also a famous scientist, it was self-contradictory for the reporter to claim that the Chinese public that welcomed Russell ignored science. 112. “Ansitan zhi Xia Fuyun shu (Einstein’s letter to Xia Fuyun [Xia Yuanli]),” BDRK, December 26, 1922. The original of Einstein’s letter to Xia is not found in Einstein Papers.

212

Notes to Pages 75–81

113. “Ensitan daohu hou zhi tanhua (Einstein’s Statements in Shanghai),” Minguo ribao, Sunday, December 31, 1922, 3:11. 114. Einstein to Zhu Jia-hua, March 25, 1922, AEP, 36–481. For the Chinese translation of this letter, see Gao, Cai Yuanpei lun kexue yu jishu, 68–69. 115. “Ensitan dao hu hou zhi tanhua,” Minguo ribao, Sunday, December 31, 1922, 3:11. 116. Dai, “Einstein in China,” 401–402. 117. Einstein to Dr. M. Pfister, August 28, 1922, AEP, 36–496. 118. Andrew J. Nathan, Beijing Politics, 1918–1923: Factionalism and the Failure of Constitutionalism (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1976), xvi. 119. The eight national universities or higher institutions were Beijing University, Beijing Normal University, Beijing Women Normal University, Beijing Institute of Law, Beijing Institute of Agriculture, Beijing Institute of Industry, Beijing Institute of Medicine, Beijing Institute of Fine Art. See Li Shuhua, “Qi nian beida (Seven Years at Beijing University),” Zhuanji wenxue (Biographical Literature) 6, no. 2 (February 1965): 17. 120. Han Xinfu and Jiang Kefu, eds., Zhonghua minguo dashiji (Chronology of the Republic of China), vol. 1 (Beijing: Zhongguo wenshi chubanshe, 1996), 913, 919, 922, 925. Cai Yuanpei, Cai Yuanpei wenji: jiaoyu (Collected Papers of Cai Yuanpei: Education (II)), ed. Gao Pingshu et al., vol. 3, Cai Yuanpei wenji (Collected Papers of Cai Yuanpei) (Taipei, Taiwan: Jinxiu chuban, 1995), 248–254, 260–262, 267–269. 121. Pfister to Einstein, July 1, 1922, AEP, 36–493. Thomas F. Glick, Einstein in Spain: Relativity and the Recovery of Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1988), 100. 122. Einstein to Pfister, August 28, 1922, AEP, 36–496. 123. Glick, Einstein in Spain, 100. 124. This is a comment from Professor Martin J. Klein during a conversation with the author. 125. Majiang xianzhi (Majiang County Gazetteer), ed. Guizhou sheng Majiang xianzhi bianji weiyuanhui (Guizhou Province Majiang County Gazetteer Editorial Committee) (Guiyang: Guizhou renmin chubanshe, 1992), 845–847. 126. I inferred that Zhou Changshou was admitted to Tokyo Imperial University in 1915 based on the information in Kyoteikokudaigakuichi (Taisho 4–5nendo) (A General Survey of the Tokyo Imperial University [1915–1916]), 57. I am in debt to Dr. Jian Yang at Tokyo Institute of Technology for providing me a copy of relevant sections of the book. 127. Majiang xianzhi, 849–850. 128. The first Chinese edition was published in August 1935; the second edition was printed in April 1947. 129. Shangwu yinshuguan (The Commercial Press), ed., Shangwu yinshuguan tushu mulu (A Publication Catalogue of The Commercial Press, 1897–1949) (Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 1981). 130. Zheng Zhenwen’s biographical data can be found in the following sources: Wang Zhihao, Liu Yunna, and Gan Jinghao, “Yidai xueren Zheng Zhenwen (A Remarkable Scholar Zheng Zhenwen),” ZKS 12, no. 3 (1991): 38–45; Zheng Shan, “Ji Zheng Zhenwen (Commemorate Zheng Zhenwen),” in Fujian wenshi ziliao (Cultural and Historical Materials of Fujian Province) (Fuzhou: Zhongguo renmin zhengzhi

Notes to Pages 81–85

213

yieshang huiyi fujian sheng weiyuanhui wenshi ziliao yanjiu weiyuanhui, 1986), 43–49; Li Qiaoping, “Min hou Zheng Zhenwen xian sheng zhuan (A Biography of Mr. Zheng Zhenwen of Fujian Province),” in Zhongguo hua xue shi (The Chinese History of Chemistry) (Taipei, Taiwan: Taiwan Commercial Press, 1978), 784–791; and Xie Zhensheng, “Zheng Zhenwen xiansheng yu shangwu yinshuguan (Mr. Zheng Zhenwen and The Commercial Press),” in 1897–1992 Shangwu yinshuguan jiushiwu nian (Ninety-Five-Year History of The Commercial Press, 1897–1992) (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1992), 183–193. 131. Zheng left the Commercial Press in 1932 after the press was heavily damaged by Japanese bombing. The library of the Commercial Press, one of the best in East Asia, was completely destroyed. 132. Xinnan, “Ai zhi guang (The Light of Love),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 129–131. 133. Ibid., 131. 134. Wang Bing, “Ming Qing shiqi wulixue yizhu shumu kao (1610–1910) (A Textual Research of the Bibliography of the Translated Works on Physics in Ming and Qing Dynasties [1610–1910]),” ZKS 7, no. 5 (1986): 16–19. 135. The account of Ishiwara’s life is based on the following sources unless otherwise stated: Seiya Abiko’s “Einstein’s Kyoto Address: ‘How I Created the Theory of Relativity,’ ” HSPS 31, part 1 (2000): 6–7; Nishikawa Tetsuharu et al., eds., Butsurigaku-jiten (Dictionary of Physics), rev. ed. (Tokyo: Baifu kan, 1992), 75; Tetu Hirosige, “Jun Ishiwara,” in DSB, 7:26–27. For a list of Ishiwara’s papers on relativity published before 1912, see Ishiwara, “Bericht ueber die Relativitaetstheorie,” 560–569. 136. Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität und Elektronik 9 (1912). 137. Hirosige, “Jun Ishiwara,” 26–27. 138. Ibid., 26. 139. Founder of Kagaku: Nishikawa et al., eds., Butsurigaku-jiten, 75. 140. It appears that Xia’s report had only minor difference from the English translation of Ishiwara’s notes. Xia did not identify the source of his report. Since there is no record that Xia had traveled to Japan at the time, and judging by the timing of Xia’s report, it was very likely a Chinese translation based on Ishiwara’s notes. The most recent study on Einstein’s Kyoto address is Abiko’s “Einstein’s Kyoto address,” 1–35. Abiko’s discussion on the address’s English translations is on pages 2–3. 141. Ishiwara Jun, Aiyinsitan he xiangduixing yuanli (Einstein and the Principle of Relativity), trans. Zhou Changshou, Zheng Zhenwen (Shanghai: The Commercial Press, 1923), translator’s preface, 2. 142. At least eleven of Ishiwara’s physics works (including books, popular articles, and speeches) were translated into Chinese during the 1920s. Nine of them dealt with relativity: “Shijian ji kongjian di xiangduixing (The Relativity of Time and Space),” DFZZ 18, no. 10 (May 25, 1921): 45–62; “Einstein xiangduixing yuanli shu yao (A Synopsis of Einstein’s Principle of Relativity),” CBFK, April 9, 11–16, 1923; Aiyinsitan he xiangduixing yuanli (Einstein and the Principle of Relativity) (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1923); “Aiyinsitan zhi xinxueshuo (Einstein’s New Theory),” DFZZ 26, no. 7 (April 10, 1929): 53–60; “Xiangduilun di faze jueduixing (The Absoluteness of the Laws in the Theory of Relativity),” DFZZ 18, no. 12 (June 25, 1921): 37–49; “Nengmei wanyou yinli he xiangduixing yuanli (Gravita-

214

Notes to Pages 85–88

tional Field and the Principle of Relativity),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 42–57; “Pubian xiangduixing yuanli he guance shishi de bijiao (The Comparison Between the General Theory of Relativity and Observational Facts),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 91–94; “Aiensitan zai riben de jiangyan (Einstein’s Speech in Japan),” CBFK, April 21–27, 1923; “Aiyinsitan di yuzhoulun he siwei di jiuji (Einstein’s Cosmology and the Outcome of Thinking),” Xueyi 4, no. 5 (November 1, 1922): 1–14.

3. Six Pioneers of Relativity 1. For general discussions about Li’s background and his speech, see chapter 2. 2. Li Fangbai, “Naiduan lixue yu fei Naiduan lixue (Newtonian Dynamics and Non-Newtonian Dynamics),” Shuli xuehui zazhi (Magazine of Mathematical and Physical Society), no. 1 (May 15, 1918): 25. Here it should be noted that the “principle of relativity” means the special theory of relativity. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid.; Lewis and Tolman in their 1909 paper, which Li Fangbai was apparently quite familiar with, also recognized that Einstein’s principle of relativity was “radically different” from Lorentz’s. (Gilbert N. Lewis and Richard C. Tolman, “The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics,” The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 18 [May 11, 1909]: 517.) 5. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 23. 6. Arthur I. Miller, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, 2nd ed. (London: University College, 1997), 237. 7. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 29. 8. Tetu Hirosige, “Theory of Relativity and the Ether,” Japanese Studies in the History of Science, no. 7 (1968): 39. 9. A. Einstein et al., The Principle of Relativity, trans. W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1952), 38. 10. Hirosige, “Theory of Relativity and the Ether,” 44–45. 11. Russell McCormmach, “H. A. Lorentz and the Electromagnetic View of Nature,” Isis 58 (1970): 459. 12. Ibid. 13. Hirosige, “Theory of Relativity and the Ether,” 45, 49. 14. Ibid., 49. A. H. Bucherer was perhaps the first person to use the term “theory of relativity,” and then Paul Ehrenfest used it in an article in 1907. Einstein adopted Bucherer’s term in 1907 in his reply to the aforementioned Ehrenfest’s article. ( John Stachel, ed., Einstein’s Miraculous Year: Five Papers That Changed the Face of Physics. [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998], 102.) 15. Li, “Naiduan lixue,” 23. 16. In the paper “A Revision of the Fundamental Laws of Matter and Energy” (The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 16 (November 1908): 705–717), Gilbert N. Lewis mirrored non-Euclidean geometry to define “non-Newtonian mechanics” as a system of mechanics that had at least one of its axioms being modified from that in the traditional Newtonian mechanics. This definition appeared on page 709. I am almost certain that Li Fangbai read the paper by Lewis and Tolman, “The Principle of Relativity, and Non-Newtonian Mechanics.” As we shall see, Li’s mathematical inference of the relativity of time

Notes to Pages 88–90

215

and length was adopted from that paper. Since in the 1909 paper Lewis referred to his paper of the previous year, Li Fangbai should have read Lewis’s paper in 1908 in which he invented the term “non-Newtonian mechanics.” 17. Max Abraham, “Dynamik des Elektrons,” Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, 1902, pt. I:20–41; “Prinzipien der Dynamik des Elektrons,” Ann. Phys. 10 (1903): 105–179 (quoted from McCormmach, “H. A. Lorentz,” 479, n. 56, 480, n. 57). 18. H. Poincaré, “Sur la dynamique de l`electron (On the Dynamics of Electron),” Rendiconti del Circolo matematico di Palermo 21 (1906): 129–176 (quoted from McCormmach, “H. A. Lorentz,” 481, n. 63). 19. Tetu Hirosige, “The Ether Problem, the Mechanistic Worldview, and the Origins of the Theory of Relativity,” HSPS 7 (1976): 75. 20. Miller has discussed these issues in detail in his book, Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. 21. Hirosige, “The Ether Problem,” 78–79. 22. Xia’s name was registered as Yuen-li Hsia when he studied in the United States and in Germany. 23. The primary source on Xia Yuanli’s student years at Yale and Berlin universities can be found at university archives of Yale University and Humboldt University in Berlin respectively. A secondary source about Xia is Dai Nianzu, “Xia Yuanli— Zhongguo zuizao er zuihao de wuli dashi (Xia Yuanli, A Master of Physics Among the First Chinese Physicists),” Wuli tongbao (Physica), no. 5 (1984): 44. A somewhat abridged version of this paper can be found in Dai Nianzu, “Xia Yuanli,” in ZXKZ 2:130–132. One should use caution when referring to Dai’s paper, because there are factual errors and because he does not identify his sources. I have made some corrections on Xia’s biographical data according to newly discovered archival sources. 24. Chen Qiong et al., eds., Minguo Hangzhou fuzhi (Gazetteers of Hangzhou Prefecture Published during the Republic of China), vol. 3, Zhongguo difangzhi jicheng: Zhejiang fu xian zhi ji (Collected Local Gazetteers of China: A Collection of Prefecture and County Gazetteers of Zhejiang) (1922; reprint, Shanghai: Shanghai Bookstore, 1993), 506–508. More on Xia Luanxiang can be found in Liu Jiemin, “Wanqing zhuming shuxuejia Xia Luanxiang (A Famous Late Qing Mathematician, Xia Luanxiang),” ZKS 7, no. 4 (1986): 27–32. One of Xia Luanxiang’s close friends was Zou Boqi (1819–1869). Zou was well known for his versatility; he not only wrote a book on geometrical optics but also successfully invented in the late 1830s a machine that could take long-lasting pictures. (See Chen Xulu et al., ed., Zhongguo jindaishi cidian [Dictionary of Modern Chinese History] [Shanghai: Shanghai Reference Book Press], 1982), 347–348.) 25. Chen Qiong et al., eds., Minguo Hangzhou fuzhi, vol. 2, 1028; Chen Xulu et al., ed., Zhongguo jindaishi cidian, 564. Liang and Tan were main planners of the failed 1898 “One Hundred Day Reform.” Yan Fu was a British-trained navy officer and a translator of great influence who became the first president of the modernized Beijing University in 1912. Xia Zengyou’s friendship with Yan Fu might well have helped his son, Xia Yuanli, to land at Beijing University as physics professor in 1912 when Xia Yuanli returned from Germany. 26. Dai, “Xia Yuanli,” 44. 27. Chen Qiong et al., eds., Minguo Hangzhou fuzhi, vol. 1: 464–465. The quotation in the Chinese original is “fei botong gezhi bude wei zhi xuecheng.” Qiushi Shuyuan was the predecessor of the now prestigious Zhejiang University. The

216

Notes to Pages 90–91

founders of Qiushi Shuyuan were two local officials who, deeply provoked by China’s defeat by Japan in 1895, sensed the urgency to reform the traditional school system. By founding this school, they hoped to cultivate men of talents who would be well versed in Western science and technology. A U.S. scholar, Wang Linggeng, was invited to teach English, physics, and chemistry there. About Qiushi School, one may also refer to Qian Junfu, “Qiushi shuyuan zhi chuangshe yu qi xuefeng ji xuesheng shenghuo qingxing (The Creation of Qiushi School, Its Tradition, and the Life of Its Students),” in Zhejiang jindai zhuming xuexiao he jiaoyujia, ed. Zhejiangsheng zhengxie wenshi ziliao weiyuanhui, Zhejiang wenshi ziliao di sishiwu ji (Hangzhou: Zhejiang renmin chubanshe, 1991), 1–5. 28. Nanyang College, the predecessor of today’s Shanghai Jiaotong University, emphasized Western learning in science and technology. According to the American president of the college, Fu Kaisen (his Chinese name), all students at the college were taught English; science and mathematics were taught by teachers trained in China and textbooks in Chinese were used whenever possible. Jiaotong daxue xiaoshi ziliao xuanbian (Selected Historical Materials of Jiaotong University), vol. 1 (Xi’an, Shannxi: Xi’an jiao tong daxue chubanshe, 1986), 21–22, 26. 29. Dai, “Xia Yuanli,” 44. 30. Ibid. 31. Stanley B. Ineson, ed., Class History: 1907 Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University, vol. 1 (New Haven, Conn.: 1907), 125. 32. Xia Yuanli’s thesis is at Yale University Library, Manuscripts and Archives, Collection YRG 31-B, Box 90, Folder 980 (under the name Hsia, Yuan-Li). 33. Ineson, Class History, 125. 34. Stanley B. Ineson, ed., History of the Class of 1907, Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University, vol. 2 (New Haven, Conn.: 1915), 120. 35. For Xia’s official course registration and departure certificate, see Acta der Königl. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin betreffend: Abgangs-Zeugnisse, vom 10 ten November 1911 bis 30 ten November 1911, No. 5135. Xia’s 1907 records at Berlin University: Amtliches Verzeichnis des Personals und der Studierenden der Königl. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin, Auf das Winterhalbjahr vom 16. Oktober 1907 bis 15. März 1908, p. 128. All original records are now located in the University Archives, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Salzufer 14a, 10587 Berlin, Germany. 36. Ineson, History of the Class of 1907, 120. Also see Dai, “Xia Yuanli,” 44. 37. Dai, “Xia Yuanli,” 44. 38. Ibid. 39. Xia Yuanli, Ansitan jiqi xueshuo (Einstein and His Theory), 3a. This unofficial publication was originally Xia Yuanli’s speech at Beijing University. It is undated and its publisher is unknown. President Cai Yuanpei invited Xia to present the speech on December 2, 1922 (see Xia Fuyun, “Ansitan xiangduishuo gailue [A Synopsis of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity],” CBFK, December 1, 1922). Xia Yuanli’s speech was part of the preparations at Beijing University for Einstein’s planned visit. 40. Margaret C. Shields, “Bibliography of the Writings of Albert Einstein to May 1951,” in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, ed. Paul A. Schlipp (New York: Tudor Publishing Co., 1957), 706. 41. Albert Einstein, “Xiangduilun qianshi (On the Special and the General Theory of Relativity),” trans. Xia Yuanli, GZ 3, no. 8 (April 1921): 1–48.

Notes to Pages 91–95

217

42. Dai, “Xia Yuanli,” 45. 43. Ibid. 44. Xia Yuanli’s published works (including translations) on relativity: Xiangduilun qianshi (On the Special and the General Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein) GZ 3, no. 8 (April 1921): 1–48; “Ansitan xiangduilun ji Ansitan zhuan (Einstein’s Relativity and His Biography),” GZ 4 no. 8 (April 15, 1922); “Ansitan xiangduishuo gailue (A Synopsis of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity),” CBFK (December 1, 1922); Ansitan jiqi xueshuo (Einstein and His Theory) (An unofficial publication, December 2, 1922); “Ansitan jiqi xueshuo (Einstein and His Theory),” Xue Deng ( January 3–4, 1923); “Wulixue zhi xinchaoliu ji xiangduixueshuo (New Trends in Physics and the Theory of Relativity), CBFK ( January 11, 1923); “Xiangduilun jiqi fajian zhi lishi (Relativity and the History of Its Discovery [Speech at the Science Society of Qinghua University]),” CBFK (February 22, 1923); “Wulixue yu ge kexue zhi guanxi (The Relations between Physics and Other Sciences),” CBFK (April 17, 1923); “Xinjiu lixue zhi yidian (The Differences Between the New and Old Theory of Mechanics),” CBFK, November 6, 9, 10, 1923. 45. Xia Yuanli (Y. L. Hsia), “Heaviside’s System of Vector Analysis and His Theory of Plane Electromagnetic Waves” (bachelor of philosophy thesis, Yale University, 1907). 46. Xia, “Xinjiu lixue zhi yidian.” Poincaré’s speech: Abraham Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord . . .”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 167–168. A collection of Poincaré’s speeches, titled “La mécanique nouvelle,” was published in his Science and Method. See Henri Poincaré, Science et Methode (Paris: Editions Kime, 1999); in the preface of this French edition, the editor also provides the original publishing date of the speeches. 47. On Poincaré and Einstein, see Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 167, 169–172. 48. For discussions on Planck’s enthusiastic support of Einstein’s special theory of relativity and personal connections between the two, see John L. Heilbron, The Dilemmas of an Upright Man (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986), 28–32. 49. Another Chinese physicist, He Yujie, was also teaching at Beijing University at the time. He was a student of Arthur Schuster (1851–1934) at the University of Manchester. (See the section “Studying in Europe” near the end of Chapter 1. He was reported to have taught theoretical physics, including the theory of relativity. (Qiu Zongyao, “He Yujie jiaoshou xiaozhuan (A Biographical Note of Professor He Yujie),” KX 23, no. 12 [1939]: 788.) 50. Cai Yuanpei, Cai Yuanpei wenji: Riji (Collected Papers of Cai Yuanpei: Diary (I)), ed. Gao Pingshu et al., vol. 13, Cai Yuanpei wenji (Taipei, Taiwan: Jinxiu chuban, 1995), 491. 51. Xia, “Ansitan xiangduilun ji Ansitan zhuan,” 1. 52. Ibid. 53. Ibid., 1–2. Xia’s history of the Michelson-Morley experiment is not accurate. When they took part in the experiment in 1887, A. A. Michelson was a professor of Case School of Applied Science in Cleveland, Ohio, and E. W. Morley was a professor of Western Reserve University in the same city. 54. Ibid., 2. 55. Ibid., 3. Here Xia seemed to refer to Kaufmann and others’ experiments on the mass of the electron. 56. Ibid. 57. Ibid.

218

Notes to Pages 95–101

58. Ibid., 4. 59. Ibid., 4, 5. 60. Ibid., 6. 61. Ibid., 6–7. 62. Xia Yuanli, Ansitan jiqi xueshuo, 1, 3–4, 9. 63. Ibid. Cai Yuanpei recorded in his diary Xia’s conversation with Einstein on “ether” when they visited Einstein in Berlin on March 16, 1921. (Cai, Cai Yuanpei wenji, 13:491.) 64. Cai, Cai Yuanpei wenji, 13:491. 65. Xia, “Wulixue zhi xinchaoliu ji xiangduixueshuo.” 66. Ibid. 67. Ibid. 68. Xia Fuyun, “Ansitan xiangduishuo gailue.” 69. Zhou Changshou, “Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian (The Origin and Concept of the Theory of Relativity),” Xueyi 3, nos. 1, 2, 10 (May 30, 1921). These and other essays were collected and printed as a book: Zhou Changshou, Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian (Der Ursprung und Begriff von der Relativitaetstheorie or The Origin and the Concept of Relativity), Xueyi huikan (Aus Wissen und Wissenschaft or A Collection from Xueyi) (Shanghai: The Chinese Xueyi Society, June 1923). 70. Zhou, Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian, 1–3. 71. Ibid., 24–25. 72. John Stachel, “History of Relativity,” in Twentieth Century Physics, ed. Abraham Pais, Laurie M. Brown, and Sir Brian Pippard (Bristol/Philadelphia/New York: Institute of Physics Publishing and American Institute of Physics Press, 1995), 272. 73. Zhou, Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian, 25. 74. Ibid., 38, 39. 75. Ibid., 26. 76. Ibid., 26–27; English translation quoted in Einstein et al., The Principle of Relativity, 75. 77. Zhou, Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian, 41. 78. Ibid., 53. I thank Dr. Daniel Kennefick at The Einstein Papers Project for his important comments and suggestions on Grebe and Bachem and their works. More discussions on Grebe and Bachem can be found in John Earman and Clark Glymour, “The Gravitational Red Shift as a Test of General Relativity: History and Analysis,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11, no. 3 (1980): 194–195. 79. Wei Siluan, “Du guonei xiangduilun zhushu yihou de piping (Reviews on Chinese Writings Dealing with the Theory of Relativity),” SNZG 3, no. 7 (February 1, 1922): 48–51. 80. Zhou Changshou, “Xiangduilü zhi wenxian (Research Literature on the Principle of Relativity),” Xueyi 3, no. 1 (May 30, 1921): 6. 81. Ishiwara Jun, “Aiyinsitan di yuzhoulun he siwei di jiuji (Einstein’s Cosmology and the Outcome of [Human] Thinking),” trans. Zhou Changshou, Xueyi 4, no. 5 (November 1, 1922): 1–14. Referred to a reprint in Zhonghua xueyishe (The Chinese Xueyi Society), ed., Ziran kexue zhi geming sichao (Revolutionary Thoughts in Natural Science) (Shanghai: Commercial Press, July 1926), 75–81.

Notes to Pages 101–104

219

82. Ishiwara Jun, Aiyinsitan he xiangduixing yuanli (Einstein and the Principle of Relativity), trans. Zhou Changshou and Zheng Zhenwen (Shanghai: Commercial Press, January 1923), translator’s preface, 2. 83. Ibid., 76–79. 84. Ibid., 80, 81–83. 85. Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 289. 86. Ishiwara, “Aiyinsitan di yuzhoulun,” 82–83. 87. Robert Schulmann et al., eds., The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol. 8 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 351. The relevant correspondence between Einstein and De Sitter was included in Collected Papers. For more comments about the debate and relevant literature, see pages 351–357 in Collected Papers. 88. Zhou Changshou, “Xiangduilun yuanli gaiguan (A Synopsis of the Principle of Relativity),” DFZZ 19, no. 24 (December 25, 1922): 7–28. 89. Xu Chongqing, “Zai pipan Cai Jiemin xiansheng zai xinyang ziyou hui yanshuo zhi ding zheng wen bing zhiwen Cai xiansheng (A Further Criticism of Mr. Cai Jiemin’s Correction of His Speech at the Freedom of Belief Society and My Questions to Mr. Cai),” Xueyi 1, no. 2 (September 1917): 211–218. Wen Yuanmo, “Xiandai ziran kexue zhi geming sichao (The Revolutionary Thoughts in Modern Natural Science),” Xueyi 2, no. 3 ( June 30, 1920): 1–6. 90. Zhou, “Xiangduilun yuanli gaiguan,” 7–9. 91. Ibid., 20. 92. Ibid., 21. Ernst Grossmann reanalyzed the astronomical data used by Newcomb and argued “that the perihelion advance for Mercury should be between 29" and 38" and that this was too small to confirm Einstein’s theory.” See N. T. Roseveare, Mercury’s Perihelion from Le Verrier to Einstein (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 94. John Earman and Michel Janssen, “Einstein’s Explanation of the Motion of Mercury’s Perihelion,” in The Attraction of Gravitation: New Studies in the History of General Relativity, ed. J. Earman, M. Janssen, and J. D. Norton, Einstein Studies (Boston: Birkhauser, 1993), 159. 93. Zhou, “Xiangduilun yuanli gaiguan,” 21. 94. A. Anderson, “On the Advance of the Perihelion of a Planet and the Path of a Light Ray in the Gravitational Field of the Sun,” Philosophical Magazine 39 (1920): 626–628. Anderson wrote at the end of his letter to the editor, “So that Mercury, unfortunately, is left with the advance of his perihelion unexplained.” (p. 628) 95. E. S. Pearson, “Advance of the Perihelion of a Planet,” Philosophical Magazine 40 (1920): 342–344; A. Anderson, “Advance of the Perihelion of a Planet,” Philosophical Magazine 40 (1920): 670. For more discussion about the Anderson case, see Earman and Janssen, “Einstein’s Explanation,” 155, 159. 96. Zhou, “Xiangduilun yuanli gaiguan,” 21. 97. Ibid., 21–22. 98. Zhou did not specifically say where he got this idea. If we compare Zhou’s and Anderson’s wordings, however, it is quite clear that both Zhou’s remarks came from reading Anderson’s paper. 99. Anderson, “On the Advance of the Perihelion,” 627. 100. Earman and Janssen, “Einstein’s Explanation,” 166, n. 38. 101. Zhou, “Xiangduilun yuanli gaiguan,” 26–27. Zhou read the fourth edition of Weyl’s book, published in 1921.

220

Notes to Pages 105–108

102. Ibid., 27. 103. Ibid. 104. Wei Siluan, “Wo de huiyi (My Recollections),” (unpublished manuscript, private collections), 1. Peng’an is 397 kilometers northeast of Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan. 105. Wei Ding earned his Juren degree in the sixth year of Emperor Tongzhi’s reign (1867). See Fang Xu et al., eds., Guangxu Pengzhou zhi (Gazetteers of Pengzhou Published during the Guangxu Reign), Zhongguo difangzhi jicheng: Sichuan fu xian zhi ji (Collected Local Gazetteers of China: A Collection of Prefecture and County Gazetteers of Sichuan) (Chengdu, Sichuan: Bashu shushe, 1992), 58:588. 106. Wei, “Wo de huiyi,” 11, 14. 107. Even when Wei Siluan studied in Germany in the 1920s, he still sent his diaries to his grandfather. See Wei Siluan, “Lüde riji (Diaries in Germany),” SNZG 3, no. 4 (November 1, 1921): 29–30. 108. Guo Moro, Moro zizhuan: shaonian shidai (The Autobiography of Moro: The Youth), vol. 1 (Hong Kong: San Lian Bookstore, 1978), 166–167, 195. 109. Zheng Shoulin, “Tongji shidai de Wei Siluan (Wei Siluan at Tongji),” in Wei Siluan xiansheng kezhe lunwenji (Collected Scientific and Philosophical Papers of Wei Siluan), ed. Song Yiqing (Taipei, Taiwan: Qingcheng chubanshe, 1980), 7. 110. Ibid. 7–8. Wei Siluan’s strong interest in Zhuangzi was most likely inherited from his grandfather, who spent the last ten years of his life studying Zhuangzi. (See Wei, “Wo de huiyi,” 16.) 111. Weng Zhiyuan and Tu Tingquan, eds., Tongji daxue shi (A History of Tongji University), vol. 1 (Shanghai: Tongji University Press, 1987), 1, 7–8. 112. Ibid. 1. 113. Ibid., 33. There is some discussion on the composition and qualification of the faculty at Tongji. 114. Bai Suhua, “Wei Shizhen,” in Zhongguo xiandai shuxuejia zhuan (Biographies of Modern Chinese Mathematicians), ed. Cheng Minde (Nanjin: Jiangsu Education Press, 1998), 85. 115. Wei Shizhen xiansheng jinian wenji bianjizu (Wei Shizhen Festschrift Editorial Group ), ed., Wei Shizhen xiansheng jinian wenji (Wei Shizhen Festschrift) (Chengdu, Sichuan: 1993), 233. 116. Han Liwen and Bi Xing, eds., Wang Guangqi nianpu (A Chronological Biography of Wang Guangqi) (Beijing: People’s Music Press, 1987), 42, 45. 117. Bai, “Wei Shizhen,” 86–87; Han and Bi, eds., Wang Guangqi nianpu, 42, 45, 83. 118. In his diaries, he recorded that Wei Siluan moved from Frankfurt to Goettingen on April 24 because he wished to learn from famous mathematicians such as David Hilbert, Carl D. T. Runge (1856–1927), and Max Born. (See Wei Siluan, “Lüde riji (Diaries in Germany),” SNZG 3, no. 12 ( July 1, 1922): 55. Also see Bai, “Wei Shizhen,” 87. 119. Bai, “Wei Shizhen,” 87, 89; Holger Franke, “Si-luan Wei und Leonard Nelson,” in Wei Shizhen xiansheng jinian wenji, 124–132. 120. Bai, “Wei Shizhen,” 89. 121. Si Luan Wei, “Über die eingespannte rechteckige Platte mit gleichmäßig verteilter Belastung” (Ph.D. diss., Goettingen University, 1925); also see the cer-

Notes to Pages 108–114

221

tificate sent to Wei Siluan by Professors Norbert Kamp, president of GeorgAugust University at Goettingen, and Heinrich Hering, dean, on March 30, 1984. 122. Wei, “Über die eingespannte rechteckige Platte;” Bai, “Wei Shizhen,” 88. 123. Tongji University, Guoli tongji daxue ershi zhounian jiniance (Festschrift zum Gedenken des 20jaehrigen Bestehens der staatlichen Tung-Chi Universitaet) (Woosung, China: Tongji University, 1928), 5, 281. As Wei Siluan’s diaries show, while he studied in Germany, he still kept in contact with Drexler. They had discussions involving the relativity theory and other scientific and philosophical issues. 124. Dr. Hans Drexler, “Aiensitan xiangduilun pipan fu shuxue shang zhi zhexue jichu (Remarks on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, with the Philosophical Foundation of Mathematics),” trans. Xie Zhaoxiang, Tongji zazhi (Tongji Magazine) 1, no. 1 ( July 1, 1921): 1–8. 125. Wei Siluan, “Kongshi shiti (A concise explanation of space and time),” SNZG 1, no. 7 (January 15, 1920): 26–35. 126. Ibid., 29. 127. Wei Siluan helped his friend Wang Guangqi translate relevant reports in German newspapers in order to report the event to Chinese readers back in China. 128. Wei Siluan, “Kongjian shijian jinxi de bijiaoguan (Comparing Present and Past Views on Space and Time),” SNZG 2, no. 9 (March 15, 1921): 14–24. 129. Ibid., 15–21. 130. Ibid., 19; Wei, “Kongshi shiti,” 27. 131. Wei, “Kongjian shijian jinxi de bijiaoguan,” 21–22. 132. Wei, “Lüde riji,” 30. 133. Wei’s diary, December 18, 1921. See Wei Siluan, “Lüde riji (Diaries in Germany),” SNZG 3, no. 9 (April 1, 1922): 47–48. 134. Wei’s Diary, June 1, 17, 1921. See Wei Siluan, “Lüde riji” (November 1, 1921): 32, 38. 135. Xu Zhimo, “Ansitan xiangduizhuyi (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity),” GZ 3, no. 8 (April 15, 1921): 49–64; Luosu (Bertrand Russell), Wuzhi fenxi (Analysis of Matter [Notes of Russell’s Speech Taken by Yao Wenlin]), Luosu wu da yanjiang (Russell’s Five Great Speeches) (Beijing: Beijing University New Knowledge Bookstore, 1921); Zhou, “Xiangduilü zhi youlai jiqi gainian.” 136. Wei, “Du guonei xiangduilun zhushu yihou de piping,” 48–51. 137. Ibid., 52–55. 138. Wei’s Diary, June 1, 17, 1921. See Wei Siluan, “Lüde riji” SNZG 3, no. 4 (November 1, 1921), 32. 139. Wei Siluan, “Xiangduilun (The Theory of Relativity),” SNZG 3, no. 7 (February 1, 1922): 1–48. Quoted in Wei Siluan xiansheng kezhe lunwenji, 148–236. 140. Ibid., 183. 141. Wei, “Kongjian shijian jinxi de bijiaoguan,” 14–24. 142. Armin Hermann, “Max von Laue,” in DSB, 8:50–53. 143. Song Yiqing, ed., Wei Siluan xiansheng kezhe lunwenji (Collected Scientific and Philosophical Papers of Wei Siluan) (Taipei, Taiwan: Qingcheng Chubanshe, 1980), 218. 144. Ibid., 221–225. 145. Ibid., 235. 146. Wei, “Xiangduilun,” 1.

222

Notes to Pages 114–117

147. Wei Siluan seemed to call Einstein’s special theory of relativity “the theory of relativity” and the general theory of relativity “the theory of gravitation.” Occasionally, as we shall see below, Wei also used the terms “the special theory” and “the general theory” but meant different things. Wei Siluan, “Shelilun (Theory of Gravitation),” SNZG 3, no. 12 (July 1, 1922): 1–29. Alternatively, it can also be found in Wei Siluan xiansheng kezhe lunwenji, 249–297. 148. Wei Siluan, “Shelilun,” 1. 149. Ibid. 150. Ibid. 151. Ibid. 152. Ibid. 153. It seems that Wei here used terms “the special theory of relativity” and “the general theory of relativity” to refer to the principle of relativity in the special theory and the extended principle of relativity in the general theory respectively. 154. Wei, “Shelilun.” 155. In this essay, Wei referred to many works by contemporary scholars such as M. Born, A. Einstein, E. Freundlich, A. Haas, and others. 156. The number of pages are based on the original publication on Shao nian zhongguo. See Wei, “Shelilun.” 157. Wei, “Shelilun,” 2–3. 158. In pinyin Professor Chou’s name should be spelled as Zhou Peiyuan. However, since he was best known in the West as Peiyuan Chou, an old way of romanizing his Chinese name when he studied in the United States in the 1920s, I make an exception here to spell his name as Peiyuan Chou. The following biographical profile is mainly based on “Peiyuan Chou jiaoshou zhuanlue (A short biography of Professor Peiyuan Chou)” in Guoji liuti lixue he lilun wulixue taolunhui zuzhiweiyuanhui bian (The Organizing Committee of International Scientific Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Theoretical Physics), ed., Kexue jujiang shibiao liufang (Peiyuan Chou: Great scientist and reputable teacher) (Beijing: Zhongguo kexue jishu chubanshe, 1992), 1–39. (Hereafter cited as “Peiyuan Chou zhuanlue.”) 159. “Peiyuan Chou zhuanlue,” 2. 160. Ibid., 2–3. 161. Ibid., 3–4. 162. Ibid., 7. Mary Bullock implies that Zhou already had an ambition to study relativity in May 1919, inspired by British astronomers’ observational confirmation of Einstein’s relativity and by “a series of articles in Shanghai newspapers.” (See Mary Brown Bullock, “American Science and Chinese Nationalism: Reflections on the Career of Peiyuan Chou,” in Remapping China: Fissures in Historical Terrain, ed. Gail Hershatter et al. [Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1996], 215.) But that was impossible for two reasons: first, the observational results were not publicly announced until November 1919; second, news about the confirmation of Einstein’s theory and a majority of Chinese publications on relativity did not appear until 1920. (See the discussion in Chapter 2.) 163. “Peiyuan Chou zhuanlue,” 7–8. Michelson and Millikan left the University of Chicago in 1920 and 1921 respectively. (See James F. Maurer et al., eds., Concise Dictionary of Scientific Biography [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981], 476, 478.) Millikan’s textbook, A First Course in Physics, was first translated and published in China in 1913; by 1923 it had been reprinted in the ninth edition. (Beijing tu shu

Notes to Pages 118–120

223

guan (Beijing Library), ed., Minguo shiqi zongshumu: Ziran kexue yiyao weisheng [The General Catalogue in the Republic Period: Natural Sciences, Medicine, and Health] [1911–1949] [Beijing: Shumu wenxian chubanshe, 1995], 79.) 164. Chou had left the University of Chicago for Caltech before April 12, 1927. See “Peiyuan Chou zhuanlue,” 8–9. 165. P. Y. Chou, “A Theorem on Algebraic Quadratic Forms and Its Application in the General Theory of relativity,” American Mathematical Monthly 40 ( January 1928): 21–24. Reprinted in Huang Yongnian, Shi Guangyi, and Huang Chaoguang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji (Collected Scientific Papers of Peiyuan Chou) (Beijing: China Press of Science and Technology, 1992), 7–9. 166. The paper was titled “A New Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation” and was first received on July 19, 1927. The revised paper was received on January 3, 1928, and was published in Annuals of Mathematics, 1927–1928. Second Series 29, no. 4 (November 1928): 433–439. Quoted in Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 10n. 167. P. Y. Chou, “The Gravitational Field of a Body with Rotational Symmetry in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation,” American Journal of Mathematics 53, no. 2 (April 1931): 289–308. Quoted in Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 16–34. 168. “Peiyan Chou zhuanlue,” 10, 11. Heisenberg was born on December 2, 1901, and Chou on August 28, 1902. 169. Ibid., 11. 170. P. Y. Chou, “Diamagnetism of Free Electrons in Metals,” Tsing Hua University Sciences Report, Ser. A. (April 1931): 1–7. Reprinted in Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 35–39; quoted in page 39. 171. Ru-ling Chou, “My Father” in Kexue jujiang, 275. 172. P. Y. Chou, “A Relativistic Theory of the Expanding Universe,” Chinese Journal of Physics 1, no. 3 (1935): 1–17. Quoted in Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 40. 173. Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexua lunwenji, 50. 174. Ibid., 41. 175. P. Y. Chou, “Isotropic Static Solutions of the Field Equations in Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation,” American Journal of Mathematics (1937): 754–763. Quoted in Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 59. 176. Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 297. 177. R. Chou, “My Father,” 276, and Peiyuan Chou, “Huiyi Aiyinsitan yu zhongguo kexuejie de jiaowang (Remembering Einstein’s Association with the Chinese Scientific Circle),” Renmin ribao (Haiwaiban) (People’s Daily, overseas edition), May 22, 1991, 2. 178. Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 290–291, 495 and Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 303. Stachel has more detailed remarks on the EIH method and relevant references. But so far the most complete historical account of the EIH method is Peter Havas, “The Early History of the ‘Problem of Motion’ in General Relativity,” in Einstein and the History of General Relativity, ed. D. Howard and J. Stachel, Einstein Studies (Boston: Birkhaeuser, 1989), 234–276. I thank Daniel Kennefick for bringing Havas’s paper to my attention. 179. R. Chou, “My Father,” 276. 180. Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 83.

224

Notes to Pages 120–122

181. Ibid., 59. 182. Ibid., 52. 183. P. Chou, “Huiyi Aiyinsitan yu zhongguo kexuejie de jiaowang.” 184. P. Y. Chou to Einstein, July 7, 1938, AEP, 52–758–1. Chou and his family visited their hometown in Jiangsu before returning to Qinghua University. 185. Huang, Shi, and Huang, eds., Peiyuan Chou kexue lunwenji, 60–75. 186. For the list of Chou’s publications, see ibid. 187. Also known in the West as Hsin–Pei Soh. This biographical profile of Shu Xingbei is mainly based on Zhang Zaisheng, “Shu Xingbei jiaoshou jiashi he shaonian shidai (Professor Shu Xingbei’s Family and Youth)” and Yang Shuzhen, “Shu Xingbei xiansheng nianbiao (A Chronicle of Mr. Shu Xingbei),” in Wulixuejia Shu Xingbei—jinian Shu Xingbei xiansheng shishi shi zhounian (Shu Xingbei, a Physicist: In Memeory of the Tenth Anniversary of Mr. Shu Xingbei’s Death), ed. Zhengxie jiangsu sheng hanjiang xian weiyuanhui wenshi ziliao weiyuan-hui bian, Hanjiang wenshi ziliao (Literatural and Historical Materials of Hanjiang) (Hanjiang, Jiangsu province: Literature and History Committee of Hanjiang County, 1993), 122–126, 67–78; and Li Shoutan, “Lilun wulixuejia Shu Xingbei (Theoretical Physicist Shu Xingbei),” Wuli (Physics) 24, no. 8 (1995): 502–508. 188. Zhang, “Shu Xingbei jiaoshou jiashi he shaonian shidai,” 123. 189. Yang, “Shu Xingbei xiansheng nianbiao,” 67–68. Here Yang followed Shu Xingbei’s own claim in 1979 that he was Einstein’s assistant in Berlin in 1928–1929 (see Shu Xingbei, “Zai Aiyinsitan shenbian gongzuo de rizili [Working at Einstein’s side],” Guangming ribao [Guangming Daily], March 9, 1979). This claim was first questioned by Xu Liangying (See Xu’s letter in Wulixuejia Shu Xingbei, 141–144). I searched the Duplicated Einstein’s Archives at Boston University and found on August 15, 1997, a letter in English from Shu Xingbei (Hsin P. Soh) to A. Einstein, which was dated on December 17, 1943 and began by saying, “It is to be regretted that I have not had the chance of making your acquaintance” (AEP, 56–173). It is therefore clear that it was impossible that Shu worked for Einstein in 1928 if he had not become acquainted with Einstein by 1943. The Baike University is probably Baker University. 190. Hsin P. Soh, “On the Foundation of Mathematics Physics” (master’s thesis, University of Edinburg, 1930). Quoted in Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 503, 508. 191. Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 503. R. S. Cohen, J. J. Stachel, and M. W. Wartofsky, eds., For Dirk Struik: Scientific, Historical and Political Essays in Honor of Dirk J. Struik, vol. 15, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht-Holland/ Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1974), xiii. 192. Hsin P. Soh, “Introductory Study of Hypercomplex Number Systems and Their Applications in Geometry,” (master’s thesis, MIT, 1931). A library record of this thesis can be accessed at http://owens.mit.edu:8000/FETCH::sessionid= 14503:next=html/record.html:resul 193. Yang Shuzhen, “Shu Xingbei xiansheng nianbiao,” 68–72, and Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 503. 194. Wulixuejia Shu Xingbei, 88. 195. In his letter to Einstein, Shu stated, “Your gigantic achievements in the realm of natural philosophy has inspired me from (sic) my boyhood to the study of natural science” (Shu Xingbei to Einstein, December 17, 1943, AEP, 56–173). 196. Hsin P. Soh, “The Non-Statical Solution of Einstein’s Law of Gravitation in a Spatially Symmetrical Field,” The Physical Review 36, no. 9 (1930): 1515.

Notes to Pages 123–127

225

197. Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 303, 348, nn. 272, 273. 198. Soh, “The Non-Statical Solution,” 1515. Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 505. 199. H. P. Soh, “Theory of Gravitation and Electromagnetism,” Zhongguo wuli xuebao (Chinese Journal of Physics) 1, no. 2 (April 1934): 74–81. 200. For dates and discussions of major efforts in building unified field theories, please refer to Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 325–354. 201. Albert Einstein, Math Ann. 97, no. 99 (1927). Quoted in Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 344. 202. Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 297. 203. Soh, “Theory of Gravitation and Electromagnetism,” 74. 204. Ibid., 74n. 205. Ibid., 75. 206. Ibid., 74, 75. 207. Ibid., 75. Here Shu thanked Professor Eddington for his last remark. 208. Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord,” 326–327. Chadwick’s paper can be found in J. Chadwick and E. S. Bieler, Phil. Mag. 42 (1921): 923. 209. Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 505, 508, nn. 7–10. 210. Cheng Kaijia, “Shu Xingbei xiansheng de xueshu sixiang (Shu Xingbei’s Academic Ideas),” in Wulixuejia Shu Xingbei, 11. 211. Kai-Chia Cheng, “A Simple Calculation of the Perihelion of Mercury from the Principle of Equivalence,” Nature 155, no. 3941 (May 12, 1945): 574. 212. Roseveare, Mercury’s Perihelion, 165, 167. 213. Ibid., 167. Lenz, Sommerfeld, Eriksson, and others later derived the Schwartzschild line element along the line of argument similar to Cheng’s. This kind of derivation was criticized by Sacks and Ball in 1968 because Lenz’s and others’ solution was not an invariant and has no physical significance, even though they could obtain a line element that looks like the Schwarzschild line element (ibid., 167–169). For more discussion on the principle of equivalence and the perihelion advance, see Roseveare, Mercury’s Perihelion, 165–183. 214. Su-Ching Kiang, “Deflexion of Light in the Gravitational Field without Using Einstein Geometry,” Nature (Lon.) 157 (1946): 842. 215. Roseveare, Mercury’s Perihelion, 166. 216. Hsin-Pei Soh, “Relativity Transformations Connecting Two Systems in Arbitrary Acceleration,” Nature 158, no. 4003 (July 20, 1946): 100. For discussion of Shu’s research in this period and a list of his publications see Li Shoutan, “Shu Xingbei,” 505, 508, nn. 6–10. 217. Hsin-Pei Soh, “Relative Nature of Electromagnetic Radiation,” Nature 157, no. 3998 (June 15, 1946): 809. 218. Ibid. 219. Cheng, “Shu Xingbei xiansheng de xueshu sixiang,” 11. 220. He Bingsong, “Sanshiwu nian lai zhongguo zhi daxue jiaoyu (China’s College Education in the Last Thirty-Five Years)” in Cai Yuanpei et al., Wanqing sanshiwu nian lai zhi zhongguo jiaoyu (China’s Education during the Thirty-Five Years Since the Late Qing Dynasty): 1897–1931 (1931; reprint, Hong Kong: Longmen shudian, 1969), 106. 221. Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu jianshi, 115. “Guonei ge daxue wulixi gaikuang,” 63. 222. ZJKJS, 795. 223. Zhongguo wuli xuehui liushinian bianxiezu, ed., Zhongguo wuli xuehui

226

Notes to Pages 127–131

liushi nian (The Sixtieth Anniversary of the Chinese Physical Society) (Changsha, Hunan province: Hunan Education Press, 1992), 296. Also see Qian Linzhao, “Zhongguo wulixuehui chengli wushi zhounian (The Fiftieth Anniversary of the Chinese Physical Society),” Wuli (Physics) 11, no. 8 (August 1982): 449. 224. Qian Weichang, “Zhongguo de wulixue (Physics in China),” RMRB, August 13, 1949. Dai Nianzu claims about three hundred Chinese physicists in 1932 without providing his source (ZJKJS, 801). 225. Jing-cheng Qu, “Chinese Physicists Educated in Germany and America: Their Scientific Contributions and Their Impact on China’s Higher Education (1900–1949)” (Ph.D. diss., Ohio State University, 1998), 277, 285, 236–238. 226. The source from which I produced the table does not give the relativity instructor’s name at Qinghua University. However, based on my study about Peiyuan Chou and his career at Qinghua University, I am almost certain it was Chou who taught the course. 227. See Wang Shouheng’s proposal in Guoli bianyiguan (National Institute for Compilation and Translation), ed., Jiaoyubu tianwen shuxue wuli taolunhui zhuankan (Proceedings for the Education Ministry’s Conference on Astronomy, Mathematics, and Physics) (Nanjing: Ministry of Education, August 1933), 158. (Hereafter, cited as Jiaoyubu zhuankan.) 228. Tian Qu, Xiangduilun (Theory of Relativity) (Shanghai: Zhengzhong shuju, May 1948). Tian’s date: Dong Guangbi and Tian Kunyu, Shijie wulixue shi (History of Physics) (Changchun, Jilin: Jilin jiaoyu chubanshe, 1994), 417. 229. This author’s interview with Tian Kunyu, daughter of Tian Qu on June 6, 1998. 230. Tian, Xiangduilun. 231. ZJKJS, 796; and Luo and He, Zhongguo wuli jiaoyu jianshi, 117–119. 232. Ren Hongjun, “Yige guanyu like jiaokeshu de diaocha (A Survey on Science Textbooks),” Duli pinglun (Independent Review), no. 61 (July 30, 1933): 7. It is also a remarkable result that the survey shows that all high school and college science textbooks in Western languages were published in the United States, which clearly shows the significant U.S. influence on China’s scientific education in the 1930s. 233. Jiaoyubu zhuankan, 158. 234. Stachel, “History of Relativity,” 298.

4. From Eminent Physicist to the “Poor Philosopher” 1. Zhang Songnian, “Kexue li de yi geming (A Revolution in Science),” SNZG 1, no. 3 (March 1920): 1. 2. Wen Yuanmo, “Lun xiandai kexue geming zhe Ai-yin-si-tai-yin de xin yuzhouguan (On the Modern Scientific Revolutionary A. Einstein’s New Theory of the Universe),” Xueyi 2, no. 4 ( July 30, 1920): 1–13. 3. W, “Ershi shiji zhi Niudun (Newton in the Twentieth Century),” DFZZ 17, no. 11 ( June 10, 1920): 50–52. 4. Guan Shizhi, “Jingdao yishi zhi geming de wuli xuezhe Ansitan (The Revolutionary Physicist Who Shocks the World: Einstein),” CBFK, December 4, 1922. 5. Chun Cai, “Xiangduixing yuanli he sidu kongjian (The Principle of Relativity and Four-Dimensional Space),” DFZZ 17, no. 6 (March 25, 1920): 66.

Notes to Pages 132–135

227

6. W, “Ershi shiji zhi Niudun,” 50–52. 7. Wang Guangqi, “Wo sozhi de Ansitan (What I Know of Einstein),” SNZG 3, no. 7 (February 1, 1922): 56, 60. For more about the manifesto and Einstein’s pacifist actions during the war, see Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden, eds., Einstein on Peace (New York: Schocken Books, 1968), 1–26; discussions on the manifesto are on pages 3–4. 8. Zhang Ziheng, “Aisitan zhuanlue (A Profile of Einstein),” CBFK, May 14, 1922. The “revolutionary declaration” was probably the one adopted by the Bund Neues Vaterland (see Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace, 23–24.) 9. Xia Yuanli, “Ansitan jiqi xueshuo (Einstein and His Theory)” (speech at Beijing University at Cai Yuanpei’s invitation, December 2, 1922), 10–12. 10. Martin J. Klein, Paul Ehrenfest, Volume 1: The Making of a Theoretical Physicist, 3rd ed. (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985), 320. 11. Ibid. 12. Albrecht Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, trans. Ewald Osers (New York: Viking, 1997), 460–461. 13. Ibid., 461. 14. Philipp Frank, Einstein: His Life and Times, trans. George Rosen (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1947), 158–166; Fölsing, Einstein, 462. 15. Fölsing, Einstein, 462. Klein, Ehrenfest, 320. 16. Fölsing, Einstein, 461, 462. 17. Klein, Ehrenfest, 320. An English translation of the statement can be found in Fölsing, Einstein, 462–463. 18. Fölsing, Einstein, 464. For an exemplary response of Einstein’s friends in other European countries to the incident, see Klein, Ehrenfest, 320–323. 19. Berliner Tageblatt, August 27. The English translation is quoted in Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (New York: The World Publishing Co., 1971), 257. 20. A. Einstein, “Meine Antwort über die anti-relativitätstheoretische G. m. b. H.,” Berliner Tageblatt, 27, August 1920, p. 1. Quoted in Klein, Ehrenfest, 322. 21. Han Liwen and Bi Xing, eds., Wang Guangqi nianpu (A Chronological Biography of Wang Guangqi) (Beijing: People’s Music Press, 1987), 46. At the time, Wang worked as a special correspondent for Shishi xinbao to support his study in Germany. For this job, Wang had his close friend Wei Siluan’s help in translating German newspaper articles into Chinese because Wang’s German was not good enough at the time to read German newspapers (ibid., 45). 22. Ruoyu, “Deguo kexuejie de dalunzhan (A Great Debate in the German Scientific Circle),” DFZZ 17, no. 23 (December 10, 1920): 122–124. 23. Ibid., 123, 124. 24. See the discussion in Chapter 2 on the negotiation for Einstein’s visit. 25. Ruoyu, “Deguo kexuejie de dalunzhan,” 124. 26. “Wang Guangqi (1892–1936)” in Xu Youchun, ed., Minguo renwu dacidian (Who’s Who in the Republic of China) (Shijiazhuang: Hebei People’s Press, 1991), 50. 27. Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times (New York: H.N. Abrams, 1984), 258. 28. Ruoyu, “Deguo kexuejie de dalunzhan,” 122. 29. Ibid., 124. 30. Immanuel Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 533.

228

Notes to Pages 136–137

31. Anton Reiser, Albert Einstein: A Biographical Portrait (London: Thornton Butterworth Ltd., 1931), 173, 176. This is a reliable source about Einstein and his ideas. Anton Reiser was a pseudonym of Rudolf Kayser, who was a journalist and Albert Einstein’s son-in-law. In his “Foreword” to this biography, Einstein wrote, “The author of this book is one who knows me rather intimately in my endeavour, thoughts, beliefs . . . I found the facts of the book duly accurate, and its characterization, throughout, as good as might be expected of one who is perforce himself, and who can no more be another than I can.” In 1931, Einstein considered Reiser’s book “the best biography which has been written about me.” (A. Einstein, letter to E. F. Magnin, February 25, 1931. Quoted in Abraham Pais, “Subtle Is the Lord”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982], 48.) I did not, however, always find the matching words in Einstein’s diaries on November 14 and December 31, 1922, and January 1, 1923, where Einstein recorded his activities in Shanghai. Reiser might well have drawn from somewhere else in Einstein’s diary, or from personal conversations with Einstein. Most words in the second paragraph can be found in Einstein’s diary on January 1, 1923, AEP, 29–131. 32. Reiser, Einstein, 173, 176. 33. P. Chou, “Huiyi Aiyinsitan yu zhongguo kexuejie de jiaowang,” RMRB (overseas edition), May 22, 1991, 2. 34. Original papers during the debate are reprinted in Zhang Junmai et al., Kexue yu renshengguan (Science and Philosophy of Life), ed. Shi Jun et al. (reprint, Jinan, Shandong province: Shandong People’s Press, 1997). For a useful earlier survey of this debate, see D. W. Y. Kwok, Scientism in Chinese Thought 1900–1950 (New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1965). Charlotte Furth had a perceptive treatment of the debate in her book, Ting Wen-chiang: Science and China’s New Culture (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), 94–135. A more recent and philosophical discussion can be found in Yu-sheng Lin, “The Origins and Implications of Modern Chinese Scientism in Early Republican China: A Case Study—The Debate on ‘Science vs. Metaphysics’ in 1923,” in Proceedings of the Research Conference on the Early History of the Republic of China, ed. Academia Sinica Institute of Modern History (Taipei: Academia Sinica, 1984), 1181–1224. 35. Dong Guangbi, Zhongguo jinxiandai kexue jishu shi lungang (Changsha: Hunan Education Press, 1992), 36, 37. 36. Zhang et al., Kexue yu renshengguan, 38. The English translation is referred to James Reardon-Anderson, The Study of Change: Chemistry in China, 1840–1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 92. 37. Zhang et al., Kexue yu renshengguan, “Introduction to the Reprint,” 8. 38. Ren Hongjun (1886–1961), a native of Sichuan province, was educated in Japan and the United States. He earned his bachelor’s degree at Cornell University in 1917 and a master’s degree in chemistry at Columbia University in 1918. Ren was a founding member and leader of the China Science Society. Returning to China in 1918, Ren had a variety of positions: as a professor of chemistry, an official of the Ministry of Education, university presidents, and the secretary general of the Academia Sinica of China. Ren made a great contribution to the development of modern science in China during his chairmanship of the Chinese Educational and Cultural Foundation. His last published work in 1959 was the Chinese transla-

Notes to Pages 137–141

229

tion of Lincoln Barnett’s The Universe and Dr. Einstein. During the 1920s, Ren had published two works on relativity. The first was Bertrand Russell, “Wuzhi fenxi (Analysis of matter),” (lectures at Beijing University), notes taken and trans. Ren Hongjun and Zhao Yuanren, KX 6, no. 2 (February 1921): 139–153; no. 4 (April 1921): 341–350; no. 5 (May 1921): 447–454; and 6 (June 1921): 549–560. The second was Ren Hongjun, “Aiensitan zhi zhongli xinshuo (Einstein’s New Theory of Gravitation),” KX 5, no. 11 (November 1920): 1071–1087. 39. Hans Driesch, Lunlixue shang zhi yanjiu Aiyinsitan shi xiangduilun jiqi piping (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Its Criticism: A Logical Inquiry), trans. Zhang Junmai, Shangzhi xuehui series (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1924), Preface, 1. Studying relativity, Zhang was fortunate to have Xia Yuanli as his tutor in Berlin in the early 1920s when Xia was studying with Einstein personally at Berlin University. Devoid of knowledge of mathematics and physics, however, Zhang admitted that he did not learn much (Driesch, preface). 40. Lin Zaiping, “Du Ding Zaijun xiansheng de ‘Xuanxue yu kexue’ (On Mr. Ding Zaijun’s ‘Metaphysics and Science’),” in Zhang et al., Kexue yu renshengguan, “Introduction to the Reprint,” 179. 41. Xu Zhimo (1896–1931), who came to the United States in 1918, studied banking at Clark University and politics at Columbia University. After receiving his master’s degree at Columbia University, he left for Europe in 1920. Xu returned to China in the fall of 1922, and became a professor at Beijing University in 1924. 42. Xu Zhimo, “Ansitan xiangduizhuyi (Einstein’s Theory of Relativity),” GZ 3, no. 8 (April 15, 1921): 49–64. 43. Neue Deutsche Biographie, vol. 4 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1959), s.v. “Hans Adolf Eduard Driesch.” Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (http://eb.com). 44. Howard L. Boorman, ed., Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, vol. I (New York: Columbia University Press, 1967), 31. 45. Driesch, Lunlixue, preface. 46. Ibid., preface, 1, 2. 47. Einstein’s comments about the Japanese invasion (or so-called Manchuria incident) can be found in Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace, 149, 150, 165, 174, 176, 180. 48. Chinese legation to Einstein, March 2, 1932, AEP, 49–397. 49. Cai Yuanpei (Tsai Yuan-Pei) to Einstein et al., AEP, 49–398. Cai also sent the letter to other academic leaders, including Secretary Wilbur, President Butler, President Lowell, Professor Dewey, President Mary Woolsley, Professor Millikan, and Professor Holcomb. 50. The Commercial Press had supplied 75 percent of the country’s textbooks for the past two decades. (Cai: AEP, 49–398.) 51. According to Cai, the destroyed cultural institutions include “the wellknown national Chinan University, Tunchi University, Chitse University, and the Medical College of the Central University.” 52. Cai, AEP, 49–398. 53. Peiyuan Chou to Einstein, July 7, 1938, AEP, 52–758. 54. Shu Xingbei (Hsin Pei Soh) to Einstein, December 17, 1943, AEP, 56–173. 55. Wang Guangyuan, ed., Chen Duxiu nianpu (A Chronological Biography of Chen Duxiu) (Chongqing, Sichuan: Chongqing Press, 1987), 326. Professor Xu Liangying has cited Einstein’s telegram in his speech to the American Association

230

Notes to Pages 141–142

for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting. See Xu Liangying, “Einstein’s Ideas on Democracy and Human Rights: Their Influence on China” (paper presented at the AAAS Annual Conference, February 1995), 1–2. 56. “Mei xuezhe Duwei deng zhidian woguo dangju biaoshi guanhuai ‘qi junzi’ de beibu (Dewey and Other American Scholars Telegraph Our Government Concerning the Arrest of the ‘Seven Gentlemen’),” Li bao, March 16, 1937. Again, Einstein’s role in this event was cited in Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 2. 57. A. Einstein, Wode shijieguan (My Worldview), ed. Ba Jin, trans. Ye Yunli (Shanghai: Wenhua shenghuo chubanshe, 1937). The contents of the Chinese translation are the same as the German edition (Amsterdam: Querido, 1934) and the English translation by Alan Harris, The World as I See It (Covici Friede, 1934); the English edition has a different arrangement of its contents. Ye Yunli (Yeh Wenli, 1905–?), the Chinese translator, was a French trained physicist who received his doctoral degree at the University of Paris. (Hashikawa Tokio, ed., Chu goku bun ka kai jin butsu so kan [Who’s Who in the Chinese Circle of Culture] [Beijing: Zhonghua faling bianyinguan, 1940], 622.) 58. Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, trans. Alan Harris (New York: Covici Friede, 1934), preface. 59. Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 2, 3. 60. Since 1946, Xu had been a loyal member of the CCP, but his political views changed during the 1980s. By the mid-1990s, he had renounced Marxism and admitted “truth is indeed on the side of bourgeois democrats like Einstein” (Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 3). In the 1990s Xu became one of the most outspoken political dissidents in the People’s Republic of China, advocating social and political democracy. Besides lessons Xu learned from his painful experience between 1957 and 1977, his reading of Einstein’s social and political ideas embedded in the book My Worldview contributed significantly to the change in his political opinions. For more discussion about Xu’s political and academic activities in the 1980s, see H. Lyman Miller, Science and Dissent in Post-Mao China: The Politics of Knowledge (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996). One of Xu’s more recent political moves was reported in Patricke Tyler, “7 Chinese Intellectuals Appeal for End to Political Repression,” The New York Times, March 11, front page, 1994. 61. Xu Liangying’s letter to this author, March 18, 2000. Xu’s admission to Zhejiang University: Hu Jimin et al., eds., Wang Ganchang he tade kexue gongxian (Wang Ganchang and His Scientific Contributions) (Beijing: Science Press, 1987), 209. Xu Liangying and Fan Dainian, Science and Socialist Construction in China (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1982), 223. 62. An overview of science and politics in China can be found in James H. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang: A Physicist and the State in China,” HSPS 30, part 1 (1999): 53–66. 63. V. P. Vizgin and G. E. Gorelik, “The Reception of the Theory of Relativity in Russia and the USSR,” in The Comparative Reception of Relativity, ed. Thomas F. Glick, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht/Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 1987), 294. See also Loren R. Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union (New York: Columbia University Press, 1987), 354–363. 64. Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 14–15. 65. Andrei A. Zhdanov, Vystuplenie na diskussii po knige G. F. Aleksandrova “Istoriia zapadnoevropeiskoi filosofii” 24 iiunia 1947. Quoted in Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 357.

Notes to Pages 143–145

231

66. Xu Liangying, “Zhenglun conghe erlai? Fenqi hezai? (How Did the Debate Originate? Where Do We Differ?),” ZBTX, no. 5 (1987): 61–62. 67. Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 357. 68. Many papers on relativity by Soviet physicists and philosophers were translated or summarized and published before the Cultural Revolution in the Chinese journal Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu tongxun (Bulletin for Studies of the Dialectic of Nature) that started publication in 1956 and stopped probably in about 1966. 69. Xinhuashe (New China News Service), “Aiyinsitan zhichi mei junguozhuyi tongzhi kexue (Einstein Condemns American Militarism’s Rule in Science),” RMRB, January 13, 1947. 70. “Kexue tongbao bianzhe de ziwo jiantao (A Self-Examination of Scientia Sinica’s Editors),” RMRB, January 25, 1952. Karpov’s criticism: Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 495, n. 14. 71. “Kexue tongbao bianzhe de ziwo jiantao,” RMRB, January 25, 1952. 72. Iurii Zhdanov, “Fandui zirankexue zhong de zhuguanzhuyi waiqu (Opposing Subjective Distortions in Natural Sciences),” trans. Gong Yuzhi, RMRB, February 3, 1953. 73. S. L. Sobolev, “Lun kexue zhong de piping, gexin jingsheng he jiaotiaozhuyi (On the Criticism, Spirit of Renovation, and Doctrinairism),” trans. Sun Nai, RMRB, August 9, 1954. One of the targets of Sobolev’s criticism, as shown in his title, was doctrinairism, calling it “the worst enemy of scientific progress.” He blamed T. D. Lysenko and two other of his fellow academicians by names for the suppression of free academic debate and criticism. He opposed specifically the idolization of any individual. 74. Ibid. 75. An example is Lubaluo, Fan zongjiao de kexue (Sciences That Are Against Religion), trans. Zhou Qixiu (Beijing: China Youth Press, 1955), 30. 76. Xinhuashe (New China News Services), “Zhuming kexuejia Aiyinsitan shishi (Famed Scientist Einstein Died),” RMRB, April 20, 1955. 77. I am grateful to Professor Xu Liangying for giving me copies of the two Western Union telegrams dated April 21, 1955. Peiyuan Chou’s telegram read, “With profound regrets I learned of the passing of Professor Einstein. I send you our heartfelt condolences in your sad bereavement.” Li Siguang’s telegram read: “I learn with deep regrets of the passing of Professor Einstein and hereby offer my heartfelt condolences.” In 1969, Chou said that Premier Zhou Enlai had sent a telegram after Einstein died in 1955. (An unpublished meeting record, October 23, 1969.) It is not clear whether it is the same telegram that Chou and Li had sent. 78. Peiyuan Chou, “Daonian dangdai zuiweidade wulixuejia Ai Aiyinsitan (Mourning for the Greatest Contemporary Physicist Albert Einstein),” RMRB, April 21, 1955. 79. Ibid. Einstein’s reply to the Emergency Civil Liberties Committee is quoted in Nathan and Norden, Einstein on Peace, 551–552. 80. Peiyuan Chou, “A Aiyinsitan zai wulixue shang de weida chengjiu (A. Einstein’s Great Achievements in Physics),” Wuli xuebao (Chinese Journal of Physics) 11, no. 3 (May 1955): 191–197. 81. Ibid., 197. 82. Ibid. Chou’s criticism of Fock: Peiyuan Chou, “Xiangduixing yuanli zhenshi meiyou biyao de ma (Is the Principle of Relativity Really Unnecessary?),” Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu tongxun (Bulletin for the Study of Natural Dialectics), no. 2 (1963): 15–16.

232

Notes to Pages 146–147

83. In 1952 the “Ideological Remolding Campaign” for Chinese intellectuals was carried out to advocate materialism and to oppose idealism. In the campaign, many Western-educated Chinese scientists were criticized because they upheld certain schools of Western scientific thought. The criticism of Chinese biologists and geneticists of the Morgan school was an outstanding example. (Li Peishan, “Genetics in China: The Qingdao Symposium of 1956,” ISIS 79 [1988]: 228.) During the campaign, Chou had made a public confession in a newspaper, titled “Criticism of My Decadent Bourgeois Ideology.” (See Theodore Chen, Thought Reform of the Chinese Intellectuals [Hong Kong, 1960], 209–211.) 84. Li, “Genetics in China,” 230. 85. Ibid., 231. Documents regarding the symposium are collected and published in Li Peishan et al., eds., Baijia zhengming—fazhan kexue de biyou zhilu (A Hundred Schools of Thought Contending—The Road That Must Be Followed to Develop Science) (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1985). For an English edition of the conference proceedings, with a useful introduction by the editor, see Laurence Schneider, ed., Lysenkoism in China: Proceedings of the 1956 Qingdao Genetics Symposium, special issue of Chinese Law and Government, 19(2) (summer 1986). 86. “Double-Hundred” stands for the slogan “Let a hundred flowers blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend,” which was taken as a basic policy for encouraging science and culture to flourish in China. In the wake of the dramatic changes in the Soviet Union in 1956, Mao proposed readjusting national policies and advanced the “Double-Hundred” policy (Li, “Genetics in China,” 231). 87. Li, “Genetics in China,” 233. Yu’s bachelor thesis was titled “The Motion of a Co-ordinate System in Gravitational Field,” a topic chosen and directed by Chou. For more about Yu and Chou’s close association, see Guoji liutilixue he lilun wulixue taolunhui zuzhiweiyuanhui bian (The Organizing Committee of International Scientific Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Theoretical Physics), ed., Kexue jujiang shibiao liufang (Peiyuan Chou: Great Scientist and Reputable Teacher) (Beijing: Zhongguo kexuejishu chubanshe, 1992), 80–81. (Hereafter cited as Kexue jujiang.) 88. Li et al., Baijia zhengming, 26. Maksimov’s criticism of relativity: Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 359. 89. As the director of the science division of the central committee’s propaganda departmen, Yu was in charge of making and implementing the CCP’s scientific policy. 90. Yu said he did not want his talks to be included in the conference proceedings because he was not a geneticist (Li et al., Baijia zhengming, ii). But he might well have had some political concerns when he chose not to publish it. On the publication of the conference proceedings in 1957, see Li et al., Baijia zhengming, 424. 91. Li et al., Baijia zhengming, 26. 92. Classical Marxist works on these subjects had been introduced in China as early as the 1930s: The Chinese translations of F. Engels’s Anti-Düring and V. I. Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism were first published in 1930, and Engels’s Dialectics of Nature in 1932. (See ZJKJS, 528.) 93. “Weiren Mao Zedong” congshu, 24 vols., vol. 4, Wenhua juren Mao Zedong (Beijing: Zhongyang minzu daxue chubanshe, 2003), 1672. 94. Gong Yuzhi, “Kaizhan ziran bianzhengfa de yanjiu gongzuo (Carry Out the Research of Natural Dialectics),” RMRB, December 26, 1956. 95. Alexander Vucinich, Einstein and Soviet Ideology (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 2001), 120.

Notes to Pages 147–149

233

96. Intellectual relaxation: Roderick MacFarquhar and John K. Fairbank, eds., The People’s Republic, Part I: The Emergence of Revolutionary China 1949–1965, vol. 14, CHOC, 434–441 (Einstein is mentioned on page 437). 97. For discussions on Mao’s interest in the particle physics, see “Weiren Mao Zedong” congshu, 1671–1675. 98. Hu Ning, “Xiangduilun de shijian gainian (The Concept of Time in the Theory of Relativity),” RMRB, August 16, 1962; Peiyuan Chou, “Xiangduilun zai zirankexue zhong de yiyi (The Significance of the Theory of Relativity in Natural Science),” RMRB, September 18, 1962; Hu Ning, “Xiayi Xiangduilun li guanyu shijian he kongjian de gainian (The Concepts of Time and Space in the Special Theory of Relativity),” RMRB, January 21, 1964. Hu Ning (1916–1998) was Chou’s student at Qinghua University. He graduated from college in 1938, and came to the United States in 1941. He studied with P. S. Epstein at Caltech, where he earned his Ph.D. in 1943. Hu did postdoctoral studies with W. Pauli at Princeton between 1943 and 1945. During this period Hu made some significant contributions to meson theory and the general theory of relativity. Beginning in 1945, Hu visited various research institutions in Dublin, Copenhagen, Wisconsin, and Ottawa before returning to China at the end of 1950. He taught physics at Beijing University until his death. (ZXKZ, 1:154–155.) 99. Hu, “Xiangduilun de shijian gainian.” 100. Ibid. 101. Soviet criticism: Graham, Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior, 494–495, n. 14. 102. Chou, “Xiangduilun zai zirankexue zhong de yiyi”; Chou, “A Aiyinsitan zai wulixue shang de weida chengjiu.” 103. Hu, “Xiayi Xiangduilun li guanyu shijian he kongjian de gainian.” 104. Ibid. 105. Gong Yuzhi, “Dui ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu de yidian yijian (A Suggestion to the Study of Natural Dialectics),” RMRB, September 9, 1962. 106. Xu Liangying, “Chubanjie he xueshujie de yijian guaishi (A Strange Thing in the Publishing and Academic Circles)” (unpublished manuscript, October 3, 1972). According to Xu’s note on the copy he presented to me, this is a document Xu prepared and sent to Xu Jingxian, a leader of the Shanghai Revolutionary Committee, to ask that his manuscript of the Chinese translation of Einstein’s works be returned. Gong Yuzhi (1929– ) graduated from Qinghua University in 1952. He joined the CCP in 1948. For many years Gong worked as a researcher in the Central Committee’s propaganda department and in the Philosophy Institute of the CAS. (Editorial Board of Who’s Who in China, ed., Zhongguo renming dacidian [Who’s Who in China: Current Leaders] [Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 1989], 166–167.) 107. After Xu was condemned as a “rightist” in 1957, he was forced to return to his hometown in Zhejiang province working as a peasant. Despite this government project, Xu did not have a regular government position and his official residence remained in the village of Zhejiang until 1977. (Interview with Xu Liangying.) 108. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” Hu Guohua, “Lüse de wenji (The Collected Papers with a Green Cover),” Liaowang zhoukan (Outlook Weekly), no. 37 (1984): 44. 109. My telephone interview with Professor Xu Liangying in February 2000. (Hereafter cited as Interview with Xu Liangying.) For more about the timing and

234

Notes to Pages 149–153

reasons to send “work teams,” see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 14:348–351. 110. Interview with Xu Liangying. 111. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” 112. For several years, Xu did not even know where his manuscripts were. After the Cultural Revolution started in the summer of 1966, Xu lost contact with his collaborator, Li Baoheng, who had the manuscript translation by then. It was not until December 1969 when someone from the CAS came to him, asking for translated works of Einstein, that Xu Liangying learned that the Shanghai Revolutionary Committee was using the manuscript. (Xu Liangying’s letter to me, March 18, 2000.) 113. For detailed discussion on the rectification campaign, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 14:463–477. 114. Guan Shixu and Liu Shuzi, “Zenyang kan Aiyinsitan (How to Evaluate Einstein),” Zhongguo qingnian bao (China Youth Daily), April 10, 1965. 115. Ibid. 116. Qian Xuesen, “Youhong youzhuan, wei geming liyi er pandeng gaofeng— he qingnian tongzhi tantan hong zhuan wenti (Both Red and Expert, Scale Heights for Revolutionary Interests—a Conversation with Young Comrades Regarding Issues of Socialist Mind and Professional Proficiency),” RMRB, June 4, 1965. Qian Xuesen (H. S. Tsien, 1911– ) studied with Theodore von Karman at Caltech, where he received his doctorate in 1939. For detailed studies on Qian, see ZXKZ, 1:767–802; and Iris Chang, Thread of the Silkworm (New York: Basic Books, 1995). 117. Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 3. 118. Li Baoheng and Lin Yin, “Shi lun Aiyinsitan de zhe xue si xiang (On Einstein’s Philosophical Ideas),” Zi ran bian zheng fa yan jiu tong xun (Bulletin of Natural Dialectical Studies), no. 4 (1965): 32–33. The real author of this paper is Xu Liangying under his pen name, Lin Yin, whereas Li Baoheng only made some changes in the paper’s conclusion. Xu’s political trouble in 1957, however, prevented him from publishing the paper as the first author or using his real name. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” 119. M. M. Karpov and Zhou Bangli, trans., “Lun Aiyinsitan de zhexue guandian (On Einstein’s Philosophical Views),” Kexue tongbao 2, no. 12 (1951): 1237. 120. In 1908, Lenin criticized Friedrich W. Ostwald (1853–1932), the wellknown German physical chemist, and labeled him an “eminent chemist, but poor philosopher,” which later became a common motto for orthodox Marxist philosophers when they decried certain natural scientists’ philosophical ideas. (V. I. Lenin, Materialsim and Empirio-Criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1970), 276.

5. Einstein: A Hero Reborn from the Criticism 1. Roderick MacFarquhar and John K. Fairbank, eds., The People’s Republic, Part II: Revolutions within the Chinese Revolution 1966–1982, vol. 15, CHOC, 107–110. 2. Ibid., 111. 3. This was a similar environment to that in Germany of 1920 when Paul Weyland’s malicious attack on Einstein and his relativity took place. See Albert Fölsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, trans. Ewald Osers (New York; Viking, 1997), 460.

Notes to Page 153

235

4. I am grateful to Dr. Qu Jingcheng for providing the name of the middle school teacher (e-mail from Qu, September 8, 2000). This information has not been published previously. 5. Qu Jingcheng and Xu Liangying, “Guanyu woguo ‘wenhua dageming’ shiqi pipan Aiyinsitan he xiangduilun yundong de chubu kaocha (A Preliminary Investigation of the Criticism Movement on Einstein and His Relativity during the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in Our Country),” in Aiyinsitan yanjiu (Einstein Studies), ed. Xu Liangying and Fang Lizhi (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1989), 212–251. (Hereafter cited as “Chubu kaocha.”) Qu and Xu’s paper is the first and until 2001 the only examination of the criticism movement. It was originally Qu’s master’s thesis (1983) under the direction of Professor Xu Liangying at the CAS’s Institute for the History of Natural Science. An edited version of the paper was published in ZBTX 6, no. 6 (1984) and 7 no. 1 (1985). The full text of Qu’s thesis was printed in Aiyinsitan yanjiu, cited above. Both publications omitted citations of sources and names of participants in the criticism movement because, as Qu and Xu noted, most sources were classified as “internal materials” that were not publishable, according to official Chinese regulations. Consequently, many relevant primary sources are currently not available. Moreover, most participants in the criticism had realized their “mistake” before the end of the Cultural Revolution and even turned around to defend relativity; many of them are still active in their work, even holding important positions in China. It is therefore not appropriate to reveal some people’s names. Under these circumstances, I also have to treat Qu’s paper as one of the primary sources in this investigation. Note: Although the book Aiyinsitan yanjiu was printed in 1989, it has not been available for general readers. 6. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaucha,” 215. 7. Ibid. 8. My interview with Professor Xu Liangying, September 7, 2000. 9. Ibid. and my interview with Professor Tsao Chang, a junior physicist at the time, who also participated in the criticism campaign but was unable to join as an official member, a great honor then and thus hard to earn. 10. My interview with Xu Liangying, September 7, 2000. Kong Linghua, son of lieutenant general Kong Congzhou (1906–1991), was educated in the Bayi (August First) School in Beijing where he met Mao’s daughter Li Min in the early 1950s. Kong and Li married in August 1959. Between 1956 and 1962, Kong studied at the Beijing Aeronautical Engineering Institute, where he was appointed as an instructor upon his graduation. Li Min was the daughter of Mao and He Zizhen, Mao’s third wife. In the 1960s, Kong was deeply interested in natural dialectics and had discussions with Mao on subjects such as the theory of relativity and philosophy. Chen Boda reportedly learned some of Mao’s remarks before he endorsed and organized the criticism of relativity. (Kong Shujing, Wei shi: wode gege Kong Linghua (Always Seeking the Truth: My Brother Kong Linghua) (Haikou, Hainan province: Hainan Press, 2003), 2, 35, 37, 75, 180, 244). According to my recent interviews with Tsao Chang, two different groups were actually formed in Beijing and competed with each other: one mainly consisted of junior physicists in the CAS and the other included young college faculty members and others like Zhou Youhua. The former met in the CAS’s Physics Institute, whereas the latter congregated at the Beijing Aeronautical Engineering Institue. Kong led the latter group. This picture

236

Notes to Pages 153–158

of the organization of Beijing’s campaign is quite different from that presented in Qu and Xu’s investigation, but it does not seem to affect my main arguments in this chapter. 11. Qin Yuanxun reportedly joined the campaign because of Kong. (Conversations with Xu Liangying) 12. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 215. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid, 216. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid., 216–217. 18. For discussions of the experimental evidence for the light principle, see W. Pauli, Theory of Relativity, trans. G. Field (New York: Pergamon Press, 1958), 5–9; and J. G. Fox, “Evidence Against Emission Theories,” American Journal of Physics 33, no. 1 (1965): 1–17. I am grateful to Professor M. J. Klein for directing me to these sources. 19. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 217. 20. Ibid. 21. Desperately needing more Chinese materials about Einstein and his works, the CAS group sent someone to meet Xu Liangying in Zhejiang in late 1969. 22. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 217. 23. Ibid., 217–218. 24. Ibid., 218. 25. For a detailed discussion and analysis of the Zhen-bao Island incident, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:254–265. 26. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 218. 27. Ibid. Zhu Kezhen, Zhu Kezhen Riji (Zhu Kezhen’s Diary), 1966–1974, vol. 5 (Beijing: Science Press, 1990), 303. 28. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 218–219. 29. For Mao’s indebtedness to Chen Boda, see Raymond F. Wylie, The Emergence of Maoism: Mao Tse-tung, Ch’en Po-ta and the Search for Chinese Theory, 1935–1945 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1980). (Quoted in MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:316, n. 38.) 30. Ye Yonglie, Chen Boda Zhuan (A Biography of Chen Boda) (Beijing: Writer’s Press, 1993), 282. 31. MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:316. According to Chen’s biographer, Ye Yonglie, Chen Boda had become number 4 in the party as early as January 1967 (see Ye, Chen Boda Zhuan, 377). 32. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 219–220. Konstantin S. Stanislavski (1863–1938) was a Russian actor, director, and producer, and founder of the Moscow Art Theatre, which opened in 1898. He is best known for developing the system or theory of acting called the Stanislavski system, or Stanislavski method. 33. Zhang and Yao were younger party propagandists from Shanghai who quickly rose to power in the early years of the Cultural Revolution. Both were members of the so-called Gang of Four; the other two were Mao’s wife Jiang Qing and Wang Hongwen, a leader of the rebelling workers’ organization in Shanghai. 34. Chen and Jiang Qing Mao’s wife conspired and brought down Tao Zhu at the beginning of 1967. See Ye, Chen Boda, 376–377. 35. For a detailed description of the competition for drafting the political re-

Notes to Pages 158–159

237

port, see Ye, Chen Boda, 492–499. Ye’s description is consistent with other sources (see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:196, n. 136, 316. 36. Ye, Chen Boda, 498–499. 37. Chen’s desperate support for Lin Biao in defiance of Mao’s repeated warnings was excellent evidence. 38. I am in debt to Professor Dong Guangbi for his insight on this issue. 39. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 222. 40. Guoji liutilixue he lilun wulixue taolunhui zuzhiweiyuanhui bian (The Organizing Committee of International Scientific Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Theoretical Physics), ed., Kexue jujiang shibiao liufang (Peiyuan Chou: Great Scientist and Reputable Teacher) (Beijing: Zhongguo kexuejishu chubanshe, 1992), 31. (Hereafter cited as Kexue jujiang.) 41. Dong Guangbi, Zhongguo jinxiandai kexue jishu shi lungang (An Outline of the Chinese History of Modern Science and Technology) (Changsha, Hunan: Hunan Education Press, 1992), 157. 42. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 217. 43. Liu Xiyao (1916– ), a veteran party member and major general, served as a liaison for Premier Zhou in the CAS early in the Cultural Revolution. In 1970, Liu became deputy chief of the leading group of the CAS. (See Xu Youchun, ed., Minguo renwu dacidian (Who’s Who in the Republic of China) (Shijiazhuang: Hebei People’s Press, 1991), 1415; and Zhongguo renming dacidian (Who’s Who in China: Current Leaders) (Beijing: Foreign Language Press, 1989), 436–437.) 44. Kexue jujiang, 30–31; Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 220; and Lin Jiazhi, Wu Youxun zhuan (A Biography of Wu Youxun) (Zhengzhou: Henan People’s Press, 1993), 161–162. The date of the meeting is quoted from Qu and Xu’s paper. 45. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 220. “Xiangduilun pipan Beijing taolunhui (Beijing Symposium on the Criticism of Relativity),” Jiluben zhi er (Minute 2), October 23, 1969, unpublished. (Hereafter, “Beijing taolunhui”) 46. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 220; Lin, Wu Youxun zhuan, 162. Wu was vice president of the CAS, and earned his doctorate in physics under A. H. Compton at the University of Chicago in 1926. Compton once told C. N. Yang that Wu was “one of the students he is most proud of in his life.” Wang Ganchang, “In Memory of Prof. Wu Youxun,” in Wu Youxun lunwen xuanji (Selected Works of Wu Youxun), ed. Guo Yiling, Tang Xiaowei, and Wu Tisheng (Beijing: Science Press, 1997), xxvi. Chou was a physics professor and dean of Beijing University; see Chapter 3 for his background. Qian, best known as H. S. Tsien in the United States, received his doctorate in 1936 at Caltech. (All these scientists’ biographical data can be found in volumes of ZXKZ.) 47. Kexue juijang, 31. 48. Hu Jimin, et al., eds., Wang Ganchang he tade kexue gongxian (Wang Ganchang and His Scientific Contributions) (Beijing: Science Press, 1987), 220. Wang received his doctorate under Lise Meitner at the University of Berlin in 1933. 49. Contrary to a widely spread belief, Liu Xiyao did not seem to have attended the meeting on October 23, 1969, as described in Lin, Wu Youxun zhuan, 162. 50. “Beijing taolunhui.” A recent study on He is H. Lyman Miller, “Xu Liangying and He Zuoxiu: Divergent responses to physics and politics in the postMao period,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences (HSPS) 30, no. Part 1 (1999): 89–114.

238

Notes to Pages 159–164

51. “Beijing taolunhui.” 52. Kexue jujiang, 31; Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 220. 53. Kexue jujiang, 31. 54. “Beijing taolunhui.” 55. Ibid.; Kexue jujiang, 146. It may be disappointing for some of us to learn that many of our revered senior scientists did not stand up against the criticism campaign. But it is hard for us to imagine how much pressure they experienced without going through the same dangerous situation as they did. Thus, it should be understandable that they could only do their best. 56. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 221. 57. Kexue jujiang, 31. 58. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 221. 59. “Report on Criticizing the Bourgeoisie Reactionary View in National Scientific Theory from the CAS,” the CAS Archives, Party Committee, no. 18, 1968. Cited in Shuping Yao, “Chinese Intellectuals and Science: A History of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,” Science in Context 3, no. 2 (1989): 465, n. 58. Also see Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 221. 60. Kexue jujiang, 31. 61. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 222. 62. Ibid. 63. Ibid., 222–223. 64. Ibid., 222. 65. Ibid., 223–224. 66. My interview with one of the former members of the CRSC. 67. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 224. 68. Ibid., 227–228. 69. Ibid., 230–231. 70. Ibid., 225. 71. Ibid. The SSCG mainly consisted of journalists from Wenhui Daily, physicists, philosophers, and historians from Fudan University. (James W. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang: A Physicist and the State in China,” HSPS 30, part 1 (1999):73.) 72. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 225. 73. Ibid.; Zhou, known in the West as Tung-Ching Chow, was an expert in optics. He studied with K. T. Compton and received his doctorate at Princeton University in 1932. Zhou return to China in 1933 and taught at several major universities. In 1955, Zhou was elected academician of the CAS. (Dai Nianzu et al., eds., Ershi shiji shangbanye zhongguo wulixue lunwen jicui (Collected Papers of Chinese Physicists in the First Half of the 20th Century) [Changsha: Hunan Education Press, 1993], 589.) 74. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 225. 75. Ibid. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., 225–226. 78. Ibid., 227–228. During this period the SSCG continued to revise their criticism paper, “Einstein and Relativity.” 79. Kexue jujiang, 32. 80. MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:340. 81. ZJKJS, 1633. 82. Chen Ning Yang, Selected Papers 1945–1980 with Commentary (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1983), 77.

Notes to Pages 164–167

239

83. C. K. Jen, Recollections of a Chinese Physicist (Los Alamos, N.M.: Signition Inc., 1990), 170–174. 84. Yang, Selected Papers, 77. See Peiyuan Chou’s memoir in Kexue jujiang, 32. Zhou’s instruction can also be found in Zhou Enlai, Zhou Enlai xuanji (Selected Works of Zhou Enlai), vol. 2 (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1984), 473. 85. Zhou, Zhou Enlai xuanji, 473, 534, n. 367. Salam visited China as the scientific adviser to the president of Pakistan. In 1979, Salam was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics. 86. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 229. 87. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 228. At this time, Chou’s opposition would have been aimed at Chen Boda, instead of the Gang of Four. 88. For a discussion on the power struggle among leaders of the CCP in the post-Lin Biao era and Zhou’s anti-leftist offensive, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15, chap. 4, especially pages 336–342. 89. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 227–228. 90. Ibid., 229–230. 91. Ibid., 230. The four papers were published under the SSCG’s pseudonym Li Ke (homophonic with the Chinese pronunciation of the term li ke, meaning natural sciences): “Ping Aiyinsitan de shikongguan (On Einstein’s View of SpaceTime),” FDXB-ZKB, no. 3 (October 1973): 1–14; “Ping Aiyinsitan de yundongguan (On Einstein’s View of Motion),” FDXB-ZKB, no. 1 (March 1974): 1–20; “Ping Aiyinsitan de wuzhiguan (On Einstein’s View of Matter),” FDXB-ZKB, no. 2 (September 1974): 1–15; “Ping Aiyinsitan de shijieguan (On Einstein’s Worldview),” ZBZZ, no. 3 (1974): 55–74. 92. MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:342. 93. Li, “Shikongguan,” 9–12. 94. Ibid., 14. 95. Ibid. 96. Li, “Wuzhiguan,” 1; Li, “Shijieguan,” 55. 97. Li, “Shijieguan,” 55. 98. Li, “Yundongguan,” 2. 99. Besides Einstein’s works, the most frequently quoted works in the four papers are Lenin’s Materialism and Empirio-Criticism and Engel’s Natural Dialectics. 100. Li, “Wuzhiguan,” 6; Li, “Yundongguan,” 17. A typical proponent of energetics was Wilhelm Ostwald (1853–1922), who “advocated that energetics be substituted for the kinetic and atomic theories as the foundation for all physics. Not matter, he claimed, but energy was the sole real substance in Nature.” (W. F. Bynum, E. J. Browne, and Roy Porter, eds., Dictionary of The History of Science [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981], 123.) Lenin criticized energeticist Ostwald in his Materialism and Empirio-Criticism. 101. Li, “Shijieguan,” 58–60. 102. Li, “Wuzhiguan,” 2. 103. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 232. 104. Fang Lizhi, “Guanyu biaoliang zhangliang zhong han wuzhi ji heitifushe de yuzhoujie (A Cosmological Solution in Scalar-Tensor Theory with Mass and Blackbody Radiation),” Wuli 1, no. 3 (December 1972): 163. 105. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 66, n. 83. 106. Ibid., 66–67. Fang was admitted to the party during his college years, and

240

Notes to Pages 167–171

was chosen in his senior year to receive special training in a new top-secret nuclear physics section. (Ibid., 66.) 107. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 68–69, 70. 108. Fang Lizhi, Memoirs of Fang Lizhi (unpublished paper, 1991), 163. Quoted in Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 71. 109. Williams “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 71. 110. Ibid., 72, 73. 111. Soviet condemnation: Ibid., 73–74. The introduction of Zhdanov’s 1948 speech: Xu Liangying, “Zhenglun conghe er lai? Fenqi hezai? (How Did the Debate Originate? Where Do We Differ?),” ZBTX, no. 5 (1987): 62. Chinese writings on cosmology: Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 74, n. 123. 112. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang, 75. 113. Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 232. 114. Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s big bang,” 73, 75. 115. For more about Deng’s return to the power in 1973 and his second political downfall in 1976, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:347–358. 116. Fang Lizhi et al., “Hewai tianti hongyi shi keyi renshi de (The Extragalactic Redshift Can Be Understood),” ZBTX, no. 4 (1975): 53–69. Quoted in Williams, “Fang Lizhi’s Big Bang,” 75. 117. James H. Williams, ed., Chinese Studies in Philosophy 19, no. 4 (Summer 1988), 95. 118. Ibid., 10, n. 3. 119. Xu Liangying, “Chubanjie he xue shujie de yijian guaishi (A Strange Thing in the Publishing and Academic Circles)” (unpublished manuscript, 1972). 120. Ibid. See the discussion on Xu’s 1965 philosophical paper in Chapter 4 of this book for the full reference and true authorship of the paper. 121. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” 122. Ibid. 123. Ibid. Xu wished to join the criticism because first, he wanted to get back his manuscripts; second, he wanted to know what the SSCG was trying to do and to have a say about the direction of the criticism; and third, he was still critical about Einstein’s political and philosophical ideas at the time, which was evident in his 1965 paper. Telephone interview with Xu Liangying, July 29, 2000. 124. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” On September 17, 1970, only eleven days after the CCP’s official condemnation of Chen Boda at the Lushan meeting, Premier Zhou Enlai instructed the Commercial Press and other publishing houses to resume publication work so as to print more books for young people. Zhou, Zhou Enlai xuanji, vol. 2, 467. For Chen Boda’s condemnation in the Lushan meeting, see Ye, Chen Boda Zhuan, 543. 125. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” 126. Ibid. 127. Ibid. 128. Hu Guohua, “Lüse de wenji (The Collected Papers with a Green Cover),” Liaowang zhoukan (Outlook Weekly), no. 37 (1984): 45. 129. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” 130. Ibid. 131. Ibid. 132. Ibid.

Notes to Pages 171–175

241

133. Ibid. and Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 45. 134. Xu, “Yijian guaishi.” According to Xu’s note on the document, he wrote the letter on October 3 and traveled to Shanghai on October 12. 135. Xu, “Yijian guaishi” and Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 45–46. 136. Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 46. 137. Ibid. 138. Xu Liangying’s letter to this author on March 18, 2000. Also see Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 46. 139. Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 46. Also see Kexue jujiang, 144. 140. Kexue jujiang, 144. 141. Hu, “Lüse de wenji,” 46. 142. Xu’s letter (March 18, 2000), and Qu and Xu, “Chubu kaocha,” 235. See MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:343–347. 143. Kexue jujiang, 146. 144. Ibid., 144–145. 145. Ibid., 147–148. 146. Ibid., 148. 147. Ibid., 148 148. Xu Liangying, “Einstein’s Ideas on Democracy and Human Rights: Their Influence on China” (paper presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Conference, February 1995), 4. Hu Yaobang was a reform-minded party leader who became the party’s general secretary in the early 1980s. Hu was ousted in 1987, allegedly due to his sympathy for Chinese intellectuals and college students’ demands for democracy. Hu’s unexpected death in April 1989 triggered nationwide political protests and demonstrations that summer. 149. Xu Liangying, Zhao Zhongli, and Zhang Xuansan, eds., Aiyinsitan wenji (Collected Works of Einstein), 3 vols. (Beijing: Commercial Press, 1979), vol. 3. Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 4. 150. Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 4. 151. Zhou’s concerns about Chinese science: ZJKJS, 1633. Zhou’s restoration effort in 1972: MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15: Chap. 4, especially pages 336–342. 152. After the summer of 1966, all of China’s scientific periodicals except one, Zhongguo kexue (Scienta Sinicia), ceased publication. The situation began to improve only after the creation of Wuli. For a survey of China’s scientific periodicals, see Yu Mingdi et al., eds., Quanguo zhongwen qikan biaozhun zhulu shouce (A Standard National Catalogue of Chinese Periodicals) (Dalian: Dalian haiyun xueyuan chubanshe, 1993). 153. “Qianyan (Foreword),” Wuli 1, no. 1 (1972). 154. Ibid. 155. Liu Shuzi, “Xuexi Weiwuzhuyi he jingyan pipan zhuyi (Study Materialism and Empirio-Criticism),” Wuli 3, no. 1 (1974): 3. Liu was a high school classmate and close friend of Kong Linghua, Mao Zedong’s son-in-law. See Kong Shujing, Wei shi (Always Seeking the Truth), “Foreword.” 156. V. I. Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism: Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy (New York: International Publishers, 1970), 13. 157. Ibid., 313–314, 370. 158. Ibid., 370–371.

242

Notes to Pages 175–177

159. Liu, “Xuexi weiwuzhuyi he jingyan pipan zhuyi,” 4. 160. Ibid., 5. 161. Dai Shan, “Dangdai ‘wulixue de’ weixinlun de yige biaoben—shiping haisenbao de Wulixue he zhexue (A Contemporary Specimen of ‘Physical’ Idealism— Comments on Heisenberg’s Physics and Philosophy),” Wuli 3, no. 2 (1974): 87–90, 99. 162. Qin Yuanxun, Kongjian yu shijian (Space and Time) (Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 1973). Forty-nine thousand copies were produced in the first print. 163. Conversations with Xu Liangying: Qin was then the only associate professor among the critics. 164. Qin completed his book in Shangcai, Henan province. Qin, Kongjian yu shijian, vi. 165. Qin, Kongjian yu shijian, v–vi and “Content Introduction” on the backcover. Qin’s target readers were those with knowledge of some Newtonian mechanics and primary algebra. 166. Zhen Min, “Jianping Kongjian yu shijian yishu (Remarks on the Book Space and Time),” Wuli 3, no. 4 (1974): 249. 167. Zhen, “Jianping Kongjian yu shijian yishu,” 252. Zhen Min seems to be a pseudonym of one or a group of physicists. Publishing in pseudonym was a popular practice during the Cultural Revolution. 168. Relativistic astrophysics group at the University of Science and Technology of China, “On the Symmetric Principle between Space and Time and Others,” Wuli 3, no. 6 (1974): 373–374. 169. Qin Yuanxun, “Dengsu tiaojian xia de kongshi duicheng lilun (Theory of Symmetry between Space and Time under the Condition of Uniform Velocity),” Wuli 4, no. 1 (1975): 57 (editor’s note). 170. Qin’s paper is regarded as a pioneering Chinese work that challenged Einstein’s theory. Song Zhenghai et al., eds., Xiangduilun zaisikao (Reexamination of the Theory of Relativity) (Beijing: Dizhen chubanshe, 2002), “Qianyan (Preface),” 1. 171. Qin, “Kongshi duicheng lilun,” 62. 172. Xie Jishen, “Xiangduilun yaobuyao dong? Zenyang dong? (Should the Theory of Relativity Be Revised? How?),” Wuli 4, no. 1 (1975): 63. 173. Ka Xinglin and Yang Zhanru, “Buneng likai wuzhi qu taolun shikong xingzhi (One Cannot Explore the Nature of Space-Time without Engaging Matter),” Wuli 4, no. 1 (1975): 63. 174. Interview with Professor Tsao Chang, August 24, 2003. Chang participated the criticism campaigns and remains critical on relativity. Zhu graduated from the physics department at Lanzhou University in 1963 and completed his graduate studies in theoretical physics at the Mathematics Institute of the CAS in 1967 www.itp.ac.cn/JiGouSheZhi/show_user.php?login=ZhuZhongYuan, December 24, 2003). 175. Zhu Zhongyuan, “Zheyang de ‘tixi’ haoma? (Is This Kind of ‘System’ Better?),” Wuli 4, no. 1 (1975): 64. 176. Huang Zhengxin, “Ping Aiyinsitan de ‘guangsu jixianlun’ (A Review on Einstein’s Ultimate Speed of Light),” Wuli 4, no. 5 (1975): 314–317; and Shu Changqing, “Buneng ba xiangduilun jueduihua (Theory of Relativity Cannot Be Regarded as Absolute),” Wuli 5, no. 2 (1976): 127–128. Huang was a sent-down youth in Fujian province. 177. That is why over the years a group of Chinese “relativity dissidents” have

Notes to Pages 178–180

243

complained about the circle of Chinese theoretical physics: “there is still lack of tolerant academic environment for relativity discussions; different academic opinions are often ignored; and papers, hard to be published.” Consequently, they began to hold their own symposiums and conferences in the 1990s and published the first collection of their own papers in 2002. See Song et al., eds., Xiangduilun zai sikao, preface. 178. Fan Dainian, “ ‘Sirenbang’ fan makesizhuyi fan kexue de yige zuizheng— pipan tamen dui Aiyinsitan de suowei ‘pipan’ (Criticism of the Anti-Marxist and Pseudo-Scientific Stand of the ‘Gang of Four’—on Their So-Called Criticism of Einstein),” Wuli 6, no. 6 (1977): 322. 179. Zhou Peiyuan (Peiyuan Chou), “Commemorating the Centenary of the Birth of the Great Scientist Albert Einstein,” in 30 Years’ Review of China’s Science & Technology (1949–1979), ed. World Scientific (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 1981), 139. 180. Xu suggested the idea to Qian Sanqiang (1913–1992), a leader of the CAS, at a meeting denouncing the Gang of Four. Telephone interview with Xu, February 22, 2001; Kexue jujiang, 148–149. Qian Sanqiang received his doctorate in 1940 under Professors Frédéric and Irène Joliot-Curie. As a leading nuclear scientist and organizer, Qian contributed greatly to the making of China’s first atomic bomb. 181. Zhongguo wuli xuehui (Chinese Physical Society), “Guanyu jinian weidade kexuejia Aiyinsitan danchen yibai zhounian huodong de qingshi baogao (The Request for Organizing Commemorations of the Great Scientist Einstein at His Centenary),” Beijing, 21 September 1978). The document I saw has Deng’s and Fang’s handwriting. Hua’s, Ye’s, Li’s, and Wang’s names were circled, meaning that they had read and approved Deng’s instructions on this report. 182. Ibid. Albert Einstein was born March 14, 1879. There were outpouring celebrations and scholarly meetings all over the world in 1979 for the one-hundredth anniversary of Einstein’s birth. The significant meetings and celebrations include those at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (March 4–9), at Berne, Switzerland (March 12–17), and at Jerusalem (March 14–23), all held after Beijing’s celebration. 183. “Shoudu yiqianduoming kexue gongzuozhe longzhong jihui jinian weida kexuejia Aiyinsitan danchen yibai zhounian (More Than 1,000 Scientists Gathered in the Capital to Commemorate the Centennial Birthday of the Great Scientist Einstein),” RMRB, February 21, 1979, 3. 184. Yu Guangyuan, “Jinian Aerbote Aiyinsitan (Commemorating Albert Einstein),” RMRB, February 21, 1979, 3. 185. Xu Liangying helped Chou draft the speech. Kexue jujiang, 149. 186. Zhou, “Commemorating the Centenary,” 145. 187. Ibid., 143. 188. For more about Deng’s new ideology, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:378. 189. Zhou, “Commemorating the Centenary,” 143. 190. Ibid. 191. Ibid. 192. Ibid., 145. 193. Ibid., 145. This was the first time that Einstein’s essay “Why Socialism” was quoted in China. (Telephone interview with Xu Liangying, February 22, 2001) The English original of the quote can be found in Albert Einstein, Out of My Later

244

Notes to Pages 180–185

Years, rev. ed. (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1956), 130–131. The essay “Why Socialism?” was first published in the May 1949 issue of Monthly Review. Sachi Sri Kantha, An Einstein Dictionary (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996), 200. 194. Xu, “Einstein’s Ideas,” 4. 195. Zhou, “Commemorating the Centenary,” 145. 196. Ibid., 146. 197. Since this speech was drafted by Xu Liangying, it is not surprising that it stressed Einstein’s social democratic ideas. As Xu’s writings and actions in the 1980s and 1990s have clearly shown, he has been deeply influenced and inspired by Einstein’s ideas. Because of his active involvement in many of the Chinese democratic movements, Xu became a prominent political dissident in China at the end of the twentieth century. For detailed studies on Xu’s academic works and political activities between the late 1970s and the early 1990s, see H. Lyman Miller, Science and Dissent in Post-Mao China: The Politics of Knowledge (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1996); “Xu Liangying and He Zuoxiu: Divergent Responses to Physics and Politics in the Post-Mao Period” (HSPS) 30, part 1 (1999): 89–114.

Epilogue 1. Tse-tsung Chow, The May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960), 176–182. 2. Three special issues: Gaizao’s “Relativity Issue,” April 1921; Shaonian zhongguo’s “Relativity Issue,” February 1922; and Dongfang zazhi’s “Einstein Issue,” December 1922. 3. Sigeko Nisio, “The Transmission of Einstein’s Work to Japan,” in Japanese Studies in the History of Science (1979), 4, 6. 4. Qu Shipei and Fang Guangwei, “Liuxue he jiaohui daxue de keji jiaoyu (Studing Abroad and Scientific Education at Christian Universities),” in ZJKJS, 347. 5. For the most recent study, see Fan Dainian, “Yige ceng zhili yu renwen yu kexue jiaorong de xueshu tuanti jiqi kanwu—zhonghua xueyi she he Xueyi zazhi de xingshuai (An Academic Organization Devoted to the Unification of Science and Humanities—The Rise and Fall of Chinese Xueyi Society and Its Journal Xueyi),” Kexue Wenhua Pinglun (Science and Culture Review) 1, no. 3 (2004): 68–85. 6. Here I follow Dong Guangbi’s periodization and definition. See ZJKJS, 3. 7. Hans Driesch, Lunlixue shang zhi yanjiu Aiyinsitan shi xiangduilun jiqi piping (Die Relativitaetstheorie Einsteins und Ihre Kritik: Eine Logishe Untersuchung), trans. Zhang Junmai, Shangzhi xuehui congshu (Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1924), Preface. 8. Wei Siluan, “Xiangduilun (The Theory of Relativity),” SNZG 3, no. 7 (February 1, 1922): 1. 9. The first Chinese research paper on relativity: P. Y. Chou, “A Theorem on Algebraic Quadratic Forms and Its Application in the General Theory of Relativity,” American Mathematical Monthly 40 ( January 1928): 21–24. 10. Another early Chinese theorist was Wang Shoujing (1904–1984); he earned his doctorate at Columbia University in 1928 with a dissertation on “The Problem of the Normal Hydrogen Molecule,” which was one of the earliest applications of the quantum mechanics method on problems of molecule structure. Only a few years later, however, because of an increasing threat from Japan, Wang

Notes to Pages 186–189

245

abandoned his physics research in 1933 and turned his attention to industry (ZXKZ, 3:89–91). 11. Ren Nanheng and Zhang Youyu, eds., Zhongguo shuxuehui shiliao (Historical Materials of the Chinese Mathematical Society) (Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Press, 1995), 17–18. 12. Dong, ed., ZJKJS, 1635. 13. Ibid., 1636. 14. Dong, ed., ZJKJS, 1633. Chinese Academy of Sciences: Zhang Liqun et al., eds., Huainian Yaobang (Remember Yaobang), vol. 1 (Hong Kong: Lingtian chubanshe, 1999), 160. Regarding the year in which Chinese colleges resumed teaching and the emphasis of their programs, see MacFarquhar and Fairbank, eds., CHOC, 15:572. 15. Dong, ed., ZJKJS, 1633. 16. For discussion on the Nationalist government’s science policy in the 1930s, see James Reardon-Anderson, The Study of Change: Chemistry in China, 1840–1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), chaps. 8–10. 17. Dong, ed., ZJKJS, 1632. 18. Ibid., 1633–1635. 19. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, ed. Carl Seelis (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), 12. 20. Song et al., ed., Xiangduilun zai sikao, Preface. 21. For discussions on China’s recent campaign to win Nobel Prizes, see Cao Cong, “Zhongguo kexuejie de Nobeier qingjie (The Nobel Sentiment in the Chinese Scientific Circle),” Ershiyi shiji (Twenty-First Century), no. 1 (2003). 22. Otto Nathan and Heinz Norden, eds., Einstein on Peace (New York: Schocken Books, 1960), 402.

Index

Abraham, Max, 52–53, 89 “A Cosmological Solution in ScalarTensor Theory with Mass and Blackbody Radiation” (1973), 167 Algebra, 17 American Mathematical Monthly, 118 Analytical geometry, 17 Anderson, A., 103–104 Annals of Mathematics, 118 Anti-Einstein League, 132–133 Anti-leftist campaign, radical reversal of, 165 Anti-relativity rallies (Germany): Chinese student eyewitnessing of, 108–109; media accounts of, 133–134. See also Anti-Einstein League Anti-scientific campaigns, effect on research, 187 Anti-Semitism (Germany), interpretation of, 133 Astronomy, 12–13 Astrophysics. See Gravitation theory; Space-time interpretations

Basic sciences, Zhou Enlai’s promotion of, 164, 187 Bateman, H., 117–118

Beijing University: China’s first physics department, 92, 127; and Einstein’s cancelled visit, 76; Einstein’s invitation to, 67, 69, 91; lecture series on relativity (1922), table, 79, 80 Bell, Eric T., 118 Berliner Tageblatt, 133 Big-bang cosmology. See Cosmology, relativistic “Bingchen Society,” 48 Black holes, 104 Born, Max, 107, 133 Boxer Protocol, 39 Boxer Scholarship (U.S.), 45 Brahe, Tycho, 12

Cai Yuanpei, 49; condemnation of Japan, 138–139; Einstein’s suspicion of, 78; invitations to Einstein, 66–69; involvement in Einstein’s travel plans, 75–78 Calculus, 17 Calendar (Chinese). See Calendrical reform Calendrical reform, 8–9, 12–13 CAS. See Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)

248 CCP (Chinese Communist Party), 141; and criticism of relativity theory, 152; promotion of criticism campaign, 156 Censorship: in professional journals, 177; of translations under Gang of Four, 169–172 Chen Boda: cultural nationalism of, 158; downfall of, 161–162; motivation of, 157–158, 162, 163 Chen Duxiu, 141 Chiang Kai-Shek, 140; telegraph from Einstein, 141 China, foreign domination of, 135–136 China Youth Daily, 149 Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), 143; Physics Institute reception of Zhou Youhua, 153 Chinese Communist Party. See CCP (Chinese Communist Party) Chinese Communist Youth League, 149 Chinese Physical Society (CPS), formation of, 127 Chongzhen Lishu (calendar), 12. See also Calendrical reform Chou, Peiyuan. See Peiyuan Chou (Zhou Peiyuan) Christianity, as motivation for translators, 17–18 Classical physics (Western), as factor in reception of relativity, 184 Classical Theory of Fields, 168 Collected Works of Einstein: confiscation of, 169; publication of, 172–173 Commercial Press, 60, 149, 169, 170–171; 138 “Controversy of rites,” 13 Copernicus, Nicholas, 12–13, 131 Cosmology, De Sitter’s theory of, 101–102 Cosmology, relativistic, 142, 143; Marxist condemnation of, 167–168 Criticism movement (relativity theory): Beijing branch, 152–162; demagoguery of, 156–157; methods of, 154–155; official condemnation of,

Index 177, 179; origins of, 153–154; power competition within, 157–158; resistance to, 159–160, 167–168 (see also Fang Lizhi; Peiyuan Chou [Zhou Peiyuan]); setbacks in, 160–161; Shanghai branch of, 162–167; split in, 162 Criticizing Relativity Study Class (CRSC), 153–162; motivation of, 153–154; “Relativity Criticism (Draft),” paper, 156–157, 158–160 CRSC. See Criticizing Relativity Study Class (CRSC) Cultural Revolution, 152–153; catastrophic effects of, 180. See also Criticism movement (relativity theory); Mao Zedong

Dai Nianzu, 75 Dai shu xue (Elements of Algebra), 17; translation, 18 Dai wei jo shi ji (Elements of Analytical Geometry and of Differential . . .), 17 Dai Xianxi, 163 Darwinism, social, 38 Debates, academic: about mass of electron, 89; about science and metaphysics, 136–138; influence of relativity on, 137; Wang Guangqi’s reflections on, 134–135 De Morgan, Augustus, 17 Deng Xiaoping, 168, 178 De Revolutionibus, chapters translated in Lishu, 12 De Sitter, Willem, 101–102 Dewey, John, 141 Dialectical materialism, 2–3, 142, 174–175; Einstein’s ignorance of, 166 Dialectics of Nature, attacks on bourgeois cosmology in, 167 Ding Wenjiang, 138 Dongfang zazhi, 133 Dong Guangbi, historical insight of, 186 Driesch, Hans, 137–138

Index Duhem, Pierre, 175 Dynamics: Newtonian vs. nonNewtonian, 51, 57; non-Newtonian, 55–57, 88

Edkins, Joseph, 18 Education reform, Qing government and, 36–42 Education system (China): development of, 184; first modern, 40–42 Einstein, Albert: cancellation of Beijing visit, 72–73, 74–78; centennial commemoration of (1979), Beijing, 178; on China’s development of Western science, 5; communist endorsement of (Zhou Enlai), 61; confirmation of predictions (relativity theory), 60; discussion of lecture tour by, 66; effect of death of, 144; farewell remarks in Shanghai, 72; first invitation to visit China, 66; “idealist world view” of, 143–144, 150; ignorance of dialectical materialism, 166; internationalism of, 159; “language phobia” of, 78; New Year’s Day lecture (Shanghai), 74; official reevaluation of, 178–181; opposition to hydrogen bomb, 159; personal interests of, 132; personality of, 131; philosophical attacks on, 150–151, 152–154 (See also Criticism movement [relativity theory]); plans for travel to China, 68–70; political views of, 132, 180–181; public criticism of Japan, 138; public image of, 130–146, 142–147; public support of National Salvation Movement, 141; as revolutionary figure, 60–62, 130, 131; 1936 seminar on general relativity, 119–120; Shanghai visit (1922), 71–72, 120; social and political ideas of, 140–142; sympathy and support for Chinese people, 120, 138–139, 141; as tool of U.S. imperialism, 149–150; translation of writings by, 149, 169–173; Western criticism of, 132–134; Zhou Enlai’s praise for, 164

249 Einstein, study of, temporary return of, 147–151 Einstein and relativity, attacks on, 142–144, 145–147, 149–151, 156–157, 166–167, 177; support for, 147–148, 173, 177 Einstein’s Worldview (monograph), confiscation of, 169–170 Electromagnetic field theory, 91–92 Electron, electromagnetic mass of, 89 Elementary Treatise on Mechanics. See Zhong xue (An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics) Elements (Euclid). See Elements of Geometry Elements of Algebra, 17 Elements of Geometry, 7–8, 16–17, 19 Emperor Wanli, 6, 10 Engels, F., 166, 168 Ether, 33–34, 87–88, 98 Euclidean geometry, 5, 7–8 Europe, study abroad in, 44

Fan Danian, 177 Fang Lizhi, 129; punishment of, 167; resistance of, 167–169 Fock, V. A., 145 Friedmann, A. A., 145 Friedmann universe, 121 Fryer, John, 25, 26–27; lack of scientific training, 27; letter to Nature (1880), 31–32 Fudan University, 163, 170–171

Gaizao ( journal), 91; publishing of Einstein’s popular book, 93 Galileo, 7, 9 Gang of Four: arrest of, 172, 177; attack on Zhou Enlai and anti-leftist campaign, 165; criticism movement under, 165–167 Gehrcke, Ernst, 133, 134 General relativity: Einstein’s advanced seminar on, 119–120; low point in study of, 119 General Physics (textbook), 129

250 Geometry (Euclidean), 5, 7–8 Germany, cultural mission to China. See Tongji School Gewu Rumen (Natural Philosophy), book translation, 23–24 Gong Yuzhi, 143, 148 Gospels, spreading of, science as aid in, 18 Government instability (China), 76–77; as cause for Einstein’s cancellation, 77 Government schools. See Tong Wen Guan (TWG) Gravitation theory: unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism, 123–125. See also Wei Siluan, essay on gravitation Guang lun (On Optics), book translation, 18 Guang xue (Light), book translation, 33–34 Guan Shixu, 149–150

Hawking, Stephen W., 1–2, 188 Heisenberg, Werner, 118 Heliocentric system, 13, 17 Herschel, John F. W., 21 He Yujie, 44–45 He Zuoxiu, 159 Hobson, Benjamin, 21 Hsin–Pei Soh. See Shu Xingbei Hu Ning, 148 Hu Yaobang, approval of Einstein by, 173

Idealism, “physical,” Lenin’s criticism of, 175 Instruments, optical, 10. See also Optics (Western) Intellectual enthusiasm, resulting from May Fourth Movement, 60 Intellectuals (Chinese), Japanese education of, 80–82, 83–85 Ishiwara Jun, 47, 83–85; Einstein and Relativity, 101; “Einstein’s Cosmology and the Outcome of [Human]

Index Thinking,” 101–102; influence of, 83; level of expertise in physics, 83, 85; research and theories of, 84; writing and publishing career of, 84–85

James, Edmund J., 45 Japan: changing attitude towards, 42; invasion of China by (1931), 121, 138–139; study abroad in, 44; as training ground for Chinese intellectuals, 80–82; translation of books from, 42–44, 80 Jesuits (religious order), 6, 8, 12–13 Jiangnan Arsenal. See Translation Bureau at the Jiangnan Arsenal (TBJA) Jiang Qing, 165 Jihe yuan ben (A First Textbook of Geometry), 7 Journal of Fudan University, publication of criticism papers, 166

Kangxi, Emperor, 13–14 Karpov, M. M., 142–143 Kaufmann, Walter, 89 Kepler, Johannes, 12; laws of planetary motion, 13 Kexue tongbao (Scientia Sinica), 142 Kogler, Ignatius, 13 Kong Linghua, 153, 158 Kreyer, Carl T., 49 Kuwaki, Ayao, 46

Landau, Lev, 167 Langevin, Paul, position on ether, 87–88; and the Chinese Physical Society, 127 Laplace, Pierre-Simon, 20 Laws of motion (Newton’s). See Newton’s laws (of motion) Lectures: as dissemination medium, 183. See Speeches and lectures Lee, T. D., 122 Lenin, V. I.: criticism of idealism, 174; and criticism of “physical” idealism, 175

Index Lewis, Gilbert N., 55 Li Baoheng, 169, 170–171 Li Fangbai, 46, 50–58, 86–89; discoveries elaborated by, 53–55; electromagnetic view of, 88–89; electron theory discussed by, 51–53; ether concept of, 88; impact of relativity speech, 58; mathematical reasoning of, 55–57; publication of relativity speech, 51; speech compared to Xu Chongqing’s essay, 57–58; speech on relativity (1917), 50–57; understanding of Einstein’s STR, 87, 89 Li Fuji (also Fo-Ki Li), 44 Light, gravitational deflection of, 103–104 Light, theories of, 33–34 Light, 32–34 “Light of Love, The,” 82–83 Light transmission, Michelson’s experiment on, 94 Li Shanlan, 16–17, 18–20, 21 Lishu. See Chongzhen Lishu Li Siguang, 144 Li Sze-Kwang. See Li Siguang Liu Shuzi, 149–150, 174 Liu Xiyao, on criticism movement, 160 LMP (London Mission Press), 15–16, 21–22; decline of, 22; long-term effect on China, 22 Lodge, O. J., 74 Logic, 5 London Mission Press (LMP). See LMP (London Mission Press) Loomis, Elias, 17 Lorentz, Hendrik A., 89; and absolute time, 53–55; electron theory of, 87 Lorentz transformations, 98–99, 112, 125–126 “Luminiferous ether.” See Ether Lysenko, T. D., 146 Lysenkoism. See Lysenko, T. D.

Mach, Ernst, 94, 154; principle of, 102 “Machians,” 174–175; Einstein as aligned with, 179

251 Maksimov, A. A., 146 Mao Zedong: concern about Lysenkoism, 146; and Cultural Revolution, 152; and Kong Linghua, 153; “let all flowers bloom policy,” 174; personal interest in particle physics, 147; rectification campaign, 149 Mao Zedong thought, as weapon in criticism campaign, 154–155 Martin, W. A. P., 23 Marxism-Leninism: polemics on the universe, 168; replacement of scientific theories with, 187. See also Lenin, V. I.; Mao Zedong Mass criticism groups, 161, 162–163, 163 Mass-energy equivalence, 94–95 Mass of electron. See Electron, electromagnetic mass of Materialism. See Dialectical materialism Materialism and Empirio-Criticism, 154; political hype about, 174–175 Mathematics, 16–18; algebra, 17; geometry (Euclidean), 5, 7–8; use of in explanation of relativity, 114–116 Maxwell, James C., electromagnetic field theory of, 92 May Fourth Movement, 58–60, 64, 135, 182 Mechanics, 19; introduction of, 10–11; Newtonian, 19; non-Newtonian, 92 Medhurst, Walter H., 15 Mein Weltbild (My Worldview), Chinese response to, 141–142 Michelson, Albert A., 63, 94, 111–112, 117 Michelson-Morley experiment. See Michelson, Albert A. Militarism, Japanese, 138–139 Military defeats (late 1800s), effect on education, 39 Military technology, 23 Minguo Ribao (Republic of China Daily), 75

252 Minkowski, Hermann, 89; contribution to space-time theory, 99–100; Xia Yuanli’s praise for, 95 Missionaries, 13–18; expulsion of, 13–14; Jesuit, 6, 8, 12–13; Protestant, 14–15; role in education reform, 37 Mohai Shuguan. See LMP (London Mission Press) Morrison, Robert, 14

Nationalist regime (China). See Chiang Kai-Shek National Salvation Movement, Einstein’s support for, 141 National Wuchang Higher Normal School (WHN), 50 Natural dialectics, governmentsponsored study of, 146–147 Natural Philosophy, 21 Nature and Philosophical Magazine, publication of papers by Shu Xingbei, 125 Nature, 31, 32; bibliography adapted from, 101 Needham, Joseph, 8 Nelson, Leonard, 107 Nernst, Walter, 133 Newton, Issac, 7 Newtonian dynamics. See Dynamics “Newtonian Dynamics and NonNewtonian Dynamics” (1917), 50–57 Newtonian mechanics, 19; birth of, 12 Newton’s law of gravitation, 116 Newton’s laws (of motion), 19; third law in Li Fangbai’s speech, 57 Non-Newtonian dynamics, 88. See Dynamics

Oliver, Charles H., 36 On Optics. See Guang lun (On Optics), book translation Opium War (first), effect of treaty on missionaries, 14–15

Index Opium War (second), 23 Optics (Western), 33–34; introduction of, 9–10 Outline of Astronomy, 17, 21. See also Tan Tien

Painlevé, Paul, calculations of, 103 Pauli, Wolfgang, 118 Peiyuan Chou (Zhou Peiyuan), 116–121, 172, 187; as acting chairman of CAS, 178–181; on application of general relativity to cosmological studies, 119, 121; article upon Einstein’s death, 144; at Caltech, 117–118; concern about Japan shared with Einstein, 139–140; “Diamagnetism of Free Electrons in Metals” (1931), 119; education and background of, 116–118; with Einstein at Princeton, 119–121; leadership of, 185; memorial essays upon Einstein’s death, 144–146; papers in U.S. journals by, 118; postdoctoral work with Heisenberg and Pauli, 118–119; resistance to criticism movement of, 159, 160; speech rehabilitating Einstein, 179–181 People’s Daily: accusations against Einstein, 149–150; articles upon Einstein’s death, 143; report about natural dialectics program, 147; reports about Einstein, 143–144; reprint of foreward from Collected Works of Einstein, 173 Pfister, Maximilian, 70; 76, 78 Philosophical relativism, confusion with relativity theory, 155 Physicists, Japanese-educated, 183–184 Physicists, theoretical: Ishiwara Jun, 83–85; Li Fangbai, 86–89; Peiyuan Chou, 116–121, 139–140, 144–146; political pressures on, 163; Shu Xingbei, 121–126; Wei Siluan, 105–116; Xia Yuanli, 89–98; Zhou Changshou, 98–105

Index Physics education (China), 40–43, 184; at Beijing University, 127; institutionalization and professionalization of, 126–128; starting point of, 36 Physics (textbook), 129 Physics (Western): in education system, 40–43; Imperial University of Beijing curriculum (table), 41; introduction of, 6; and reception of relativity, 46 Planck, Max, 89, 90, 91, 92 Planetary motion, Kepler’s laws of, omission of, 13 Poincaré, Henri, 48–49, 89, 92, 94, 175 Principia, 88; incomplete translation of, 21 Principle of equivalence (general relativity), 125 Publications about relativity (China): 1917–1926 statistics, 59; 1921 statistics, 64; 1922 statistics, 79

Qian Xuesen (H.S. Tsien), 150, 160 Qing government, 22–23; attitude towards Japan, 42–43; education reform in, 36–40 Qinghua School (later Qinghua University), 46 Qin Yuaxun, 153; publication of Space and Time by, 175–176 Qiqi tushuo, 19 Quian Dingqing, 20 Quianlong, Emperor, 14 Qu Jingcheng, 127

“Rationalist materialism,” 180 Red Flag, 157, 159, 160 Red Guards, manuscript confiscation by, 169 Refraction (optics), 10 “Relativism,” confusion with relativity theory, 155, 161 Relativistic cosmology, SSCG’s criticism of, 167–168

253 “Relativity Criticism” (1969), 156–157; high-level meeting about, 159–160; internal debate about, 158–160; publication of, 161 Relativity Discussion (1970), first issue of, 161–162 Relativity theory, 2; acceptance of (Europe), 114; confused with philosophical “relativism,” 155, 160; discussion about origin of, 93–96; first speech on, 50–57; historical greatness of, 96; influence on metaphysical debate, 137; Japanese introduction to, 47; Marxist views about, 142; political aspects of, 61–62; Soviet critique of, 62; Soviet rejection of, 142–143; and Wei Siluan, 112–113; Western criticism of, 133–134. Weyl’s extension of, 104–105. See also General relativity; Special theory of relativity (STR) Relativity theory (China): assimilation of, 126–129; first book about, 91–93; first published discussion of, 48–50; impact of Russell’s lectures on, 64–65; introduction of, 2–3, 102, 110–111; numbers of publications about (tables), 59, 64, 79; political aspects of, 61; reaction to, 2, 3, 114, 137–138; support among physicists for, 184; university teaching of (table), 128 “Religious Spirit and Communism” (1922), essay, 272 Research, scientific. See Basic sciences Ricci, Matteo, 5, 6–9, 10, 16–17; burial of, 6–7 Robertson, C. H., 70–71 Rubens, Heinlich, 133 Rumen. See Gewu Rumen Russell, Bertrand, 102; criticism of lectures by, 110–111; expository gifts of, 65; impact on intellectuals, 63–64; intentions of, 63, 66; lectures in China, 62–66

254 Sa Bendong (A. Pen-Tung Sah), General Physics, 129 Sato Humitaka, 169 Scalar-sensor theory, 167 Schall, Adam, 9–10 Scholars. See Intellectuals Science, development in China of, 5–6, 186–188 Science education: Qing reforms in, 38–39; “1904 School System,” 40–42; Whewell’s English reform of, 20 Scientia Sinica, on criticism of Einstein, 143 Scientific controversy, cultural aspects of, 114, 136–137 Scientific revolution: parallels with Marxism, 272; proletarian, 154 Scientific theories, need for mass criticism and re–evaluation of, 161 Scientists, Chinese, first generation of, 36 Selected Philosophical Works of Einstein (Chinese translation of), confiscation of, 169 “Self-strengthening,” 6, 22–23, 24 Seven Gentlemen. See National Salvation Movement Shanghai: Einstein’s impressions of, 136; Western image of, 135 Shanghai Science Criticism Group (SSCG), 163–170; confiscation of manuscripts by, 169–173 Shanghai Science Mass Criticism Group. See Shanghai Science Criticism Group (SSCG) Sheng xue (Sound) book translation, 29–31 Shi er lou (The Twelve Mansions), 10 Shimonoseki treaty, 39 Shishi xinbao (Current Affairs), newspaper, 133 Shu Xingbei, 121–126, 140; education and background of, 121–122; failure of unified theory, 124–125; gravitation and electromagnetism theory of, 123–125; leadership of, 185

Index Sino-centrism, Marxism as form of, 158 Sino-Japanese war, 6. See Military defeats (late 1800s); Military defeats (late 1800s) Sino-Soviet relations, effect of rift in, 145–146 Smith, Arthur H., 45 Socialist Education Campaign, 149 Social sciences, Chinese traditions in, 186 Sound, book, 29–32 Southwestern Associated University (SAU), 121 Soviet criticism, of Einstein and his theories, 142–143 Soviet influence (propaganda): decline in, 147, 149; on Peiyuan Chou, 145 Soviet Union, border clashes with, 156–157 Space and Time, 175–176 Space-time interpretations, 95; “A Concise Explanation of Space and Time” (1920); Minkowski’s contribution to, 99–100; political aspects of, 166; of Qin Yuanxun, 175–176 Special theory of relativity (STR): articles by Hu Ning defending, 147–148; first Chinese account of, 49–50; first U.S. account of, 55; Japanese interest in, 183; Li Fangbai’s conception of, 87, 88–89; Minkowski’s mathematical expression of, 113 Speeches and lectures: by Einstein in Shanghai, 71–72; introducing relativity, 79, 80; of Li Fangbai, 50–58; plans for by Einstein, 68–70; rehabilitating Einstein by Peiyuan Chou, 179–181 SSCG. See Shanghai Science Criticism Group (SSCG) Stalinism, 147, 149 STR. See Special theory of relativity (STR)

Index Student movements. See May Fourth Movement Study abroad, 38, 42–46 Su-Ching Kiang, 125 Supplementary Elements of Geometry, 18

Tan Tian (Outline of Astronomy), book translation, 17 TBJA. See Translation Bureau at the Jiangnan Arsenal (TBJA) Teizo, Imori, 43 Telescope, 9 Terrentius, 10–11 The Eastern Miscellany, special “Einstein Issue,” 102 Theory of relativity. See Relativity theory Theory of Relativity, 128–129 Thermometer (quantitative), 11–12 Tian Qu: Theory of Relativity, 128–129 Time (absolute concept): and acceptance of relativity theory, 185; Einstein’s abandonment of, 112 Tolman, Richard C., 55 Tongji Magazine, publication of Wei’s essay (1920), 108 Tongji School, Shanghai, 105–106 Tong Wen Guan (TWG), 23–24 Toyohachi, Fujita, 43 Translation Bureau at the Jiangnan Arsenal (TBJA), 24, 26–30, 34–36; decline of, 34–36 Translation process, 8; failures in, 51; foreign involvement in, 35, 36 Translations, scientific, 14–36, 91; as aid in spreading Gospel, 17–18; Chinese government role in, 22; concerns about quality of, 110–111; of Einstein’s philosophical works, 169; of Einstein’s selected work, 148–149; of Japanese books, 42–44; motivation for, 17–18; at TBJA, 28–30, 34–36. See also Censorship

255 Tychonic system, 12–13 Tyndall, John, 28–29, 30, 32–34

Über die spezielle und die . . . (On the Special and the General Theory of Relativity), 91 Unified field theory, 167 Unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism. See Gravitation theory United States: Chinese study abroad in, 45–46; government approval of Boxer Scholarship, 45; Qinghua School as preparation for, 46 Universities and colleges: increase in number of (table), 126; year of physics department establishment in (table), 127 University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), 167 USTC Center for Astrophysics, accomplishments of, 168–169

Verbiest, Ferdinand, 10, 11 Vocabulary of Physics. See Yuhui (Vocabulary of Physics) dictionary Von Laue, Max, 133

Wang Ganchang (Kan Chang Wang), 159 Wang Guangqi, 107, 111, 133–135 Wang Hongwen, 165 Wang Jilie, 43 Wang Tao, 18 Wang Yiting, 71 Wang Zheng, 10–11 Wanli, Emperor, 6, 10 Warlords. See Government instability (China) Wave theory of light, 33–34 Wei Ding, 105 Wei Siluan, 105–116; “A Concise Explanation of Space and Time” (1920), 108; education and back-

256 Wei Siluan (cont.) ground of, 105–108; essay on gravitation, 114–116; on European prejudice about absolute time, 185; German influence upon, 106–109; at Goettingen University, 107–108; philosophical interests of, 108, 109–110; reviews of relativity literature, 110–111; “The Theory of Relativity” (1922), 111–114; use of mathematics by, 114–116 Western ideas, enthusiasm for, 59 Western mechanics. See Mechanics, Newtonian Western physics. See Physics (Western) Weyl, Hermann, 104–105 Weyland, Paul, 132–133, 134 Whewell, William, 18, 20; influence on British science education, 20 “Why Socialism” (1949), essay, 180 Williamson, Alexander, 18 Wuli: debates on relativity theory in, 175–178; and Mao’s policy, 173–175; political use of, 174–178; publication of Fang Lizhi’s cosmology paper, 167 Wulixue (Physics), 43 Wulixue yuhui (Vocabulary of Physics). See Yuhui (Vocabulary of Physics) Wu Youxun, 160 Wylie, Alexander, 15–19

Xia Yuanli (Yuen-li Hsia), 67, 75, 89–98; Beijing address (1922), 96; education and background, 89–91; ether discussion, 97; studies with Einstein and Planck, 91; transcript in Gaizao of relativity lecture, 93–94; translation of Einstein’s work on relativity, 91 Xinzhi lingtai yixiang zhi (On the NewlyMade Astronomical Instruments of Observatory), 11–12 Xu Chongqing, 46, 47–50; essay compared to Li Fangbai’s speech, 57–58; publication of essay (1917), 48–50 Xueyi, 48, 81; publication of Zhou Changshou’s paper (1921), 101

Index Xu Guangqi, 5, 7–8 Xu Jianyin, 25, 26 Xu Liangying, 141–142; confiscation of manuscripts by, 169–173; struggle with censorship, 170–173; translation of Einstein’s work, 149 Xu Shou, 25–26, 30–32; sound experiments, 31–32 Xu Zhimo, 137

Yan qi tushuo (Illustrated Explanations of the Air-Thermometer), 11 Yao Wenyuan, 157, 163, 165, 187 Yixiang zhi, 11–12 Yongsheng, Emperor, 14, 15 Young China Association (YCA), 106–107 Young China, publication of Wei Siluan’s essays, 109, 111 Yuan-jing shuo (The Telescope), 9–10 Yuanxi qiqi tusho (Illustrated Description of European Mechanical Contrivances), 10–11 Yuen-Li Hsia. See Xia Yuanli (Yuen-li Hsia) Yu Guangyuan, speeches supporting Einstein, 146, 178–179 Yuhui (Vocabulary of Physics), 44

Zhang Chunqiao, 163, 165 Zhang Fuxi, 18 Zhang Junmai, 137–138 Zhao Yuanyi, 33 Zhdanov, Andrei A., 142–143 Zhdanov, Iurii, 143 Zhejiang University, 122, 125 Zheng Fuguang, 10 Zheng Zhenwen, 81–83; publication of popular drama, 82–83 Zhong xue (An Elementary Treatise on Mechanics), 18–20; reprinting of, 19–20 Zhongxue qianshuo (Popular Treatise on Mechanics), 18 Zhou, Peiyuan. See Peiyuan Chou (Zhou Peiyuan)

Index Zhou Changshou, 81, 98–105; “A Synopsis of the Principle of Relativity” (1922), essay, 102–105; on gravitation theory, 100; on Lorenz transformations, 98–99; on Minkowski, 99–100; praise for essays by; on space-time unity, 99–100; summary of Weyl’s theory by, 104–105; “The Origin and Concepts of the Theory of Relativity” (1921), 98–101; translation of Ishiwara’s paper (1922), 101 Zhou Enlai, 187; anti-leftist offensive of, 164–165; and concern about basic

257 research, 174; endorsement of Einstein and relativity, 61; as obstacle to SSCG, 136 Zhou Tongqing, 163 Zhou Youhua, 159; “new theory” of, 153 Zhu Jiahua (Chu Chia-hua): correspondence from Einstein, 68; visit with Einstein, 67 Zhu Zhongyuan, 177 Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu tongxun (Bulletin for Natural Dialectics Research), 147 Zou Boqi, 10