sign in sign up
<<
Home , Allvar Gullstrand, Nobel Prize in Physics

Allvar Gullstrand, , and a Nobel dilemma revisited

14 The Pharos/Spring 2012 Curtis E. Margo, MD, MPH, and Lynn E. Harman, MD Dr. Margo (AΩA, Emory University, , but an ophthalmologist. How 1974) is Clinical Professor of could a single person derail recognition Ophthalmology and Pathology, and of the most towering intellectual achieve- Director of the Ophthalmic Pathology ment of modern ? Was Pais’s claim Laboratory at the University of South the skewed opinion of a close admirer or an Florida, College of . Dr. Harman accurate appraisal of events? (AΩA, University of South Florida, 1993) is Clinical Assistant Professor of Ophthalmology at the University of South Florida, College of Medicine. Allvar Gullstrand (1862–1930) completed his medical stud- ies in in 1888, and presented his doctoral thesis Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by in 1890. Driven by his frustration with how little was known age eighteen. about the of vision, Gullstrand immersed himself —Attributed to Albert Einstein1p319 in the study of physiological after his appointment as Professor of Ophthalmology at 1894. Inventive and inquisitive, Gullstrand was deft with numbers ne of the enduring mysteries connected with the and had a knack for creating ingenious laboratory devices.3 awarding of the has been the failure of He built on the pioneering work of physiologists like Johann the Royal of to present the Listing and Hermann von Helmholtz. NobelO Prize in Physics to Albert Einstein for what is arguably Gullstrand approached the eye as if it was a miniature his greatest accomplishment—the . In 1982, camera, treating the various solid and liquid tissues as com- Abraham Pais, friend and biographer of Einstein, claimed ponents of an optical instrument. To measure the eye’s param- that Allvar Gullstrand, a member of the for eters accurately and with extraordinary precision, Gullstrand Physics, played a major role in blocking Einstein’s nomina- developed several instruments, including the photokerato- tion.2 The assertion by Pais suggested that something sinister, scope and the slit-beam illuminator.4 He painstakingingly doc- or personal, might have transpired to deny Einstein his due umented the curvatures of the cornea and lens, the refractive reward. Gullstrand, after all, was neither a mathematician nor indices of the ocular media, and the distances separating each refractive surface. When these data were fed into appropriate trigonometric functions, then placed into anatomic context, Inset, Allvar Gullstrand, Courtesy of the National Library of Medicine. Albert Einstein, 1921, © E. O. Hoppe/CORBIS. they resulted in a model of the human eye more sophisticated Above, Nobel Prize for Physics, 1906, SSPL via Getty Images. and versatile than any previously constructed schematic eye.

The Pharos/Spring 2012 15 Allvar Gullstrand, Albert Einstein, and a Nobel dilemma revisited

Gullstrand’s research was published as an appendix in Helmholtz’s Treatise on Physiological Optics, which he edited in 1909.5 The work established him as a luminary in the na- scent specialty of ophthalmology, and convinced the Caroline Institute in Stockholm to select their native son for the 1911 Nobel Prize in or Medicine. A month later, Gullstrand was awarded a second Nobel Prize, this time in physics—for the same work. He declined the second prize, which was eventually given to for formulating laws governing the radiation of heat. For reasons that remain obscure, Gullstrand was appointed to the

The examination of a patient with a slit lamp. © Hulton-Deutsch in his laboratory. Painting by Emil Osterman. © Collection/CORBIS. Bettmann/CORBIS.

Nobel Committee for Physics within the year, despite having as equal to work based on observation and measurement. This no background in the field other than his work in physiologi- reverence for benchwork and experiment was particularly cal optics. He held the position from 1911 to 1929, and rose to evident with Gullstrand, the only member who lacked formal chair the committee of five in 1923.6 training in physics. Essentially self-taught in mathematics, That Gullstrand was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology he excelled in its practical application. The day-to-day use or Medicine and in Physics for the same work reflects just how of mathematics to confer order to physiological optics rein- difficult it had become for the fledgling selection committees forced his confidence in a Newtonian universe, and Euclidean to distinguish one field of science from another. While the geometry was the foundation for this faith. Gullstrand had an boundaries of scientific disciplines were, in general, becoming insular view of the scientific process that may have been nur- more arbitrary, this ambiguity was particularly problematic for tured by his success with laboratory experiments and his rapid the physics committee, since any research richly endowed with rise in academia. In retrospect, it is easy to see the tension that mathematics—from astronomy and biology to mathematics it- Gullstrand brought to the Nobel committee, as it was forced self—might be considered within the sphere of physics. to judge research that was far different from what had defined the field of physics just ten years earlier. Gullstrand the Nobel Committee for Physics To the small and rather elite community of men trying to It was during Gullstrand’s tenure on the Nobel Committee decipher the laws of nature, the physics committee wielded for Physics that many of the revolutionary concepts of modern considerable power in legitimizing particular directions for physics took shape. At a time when research in physics was research. The money and prestige of the prize could make a increasingly dependent on abstract concepts and mathemat- career, but the integrity of the award itself depended on the ics, the committee did not initially accept these contributions perceived fairness of the selection process.7 The scientific

16 The Pharos/Spring 2012 committees deliberated in private, so debates over the merit of either appreciated so quickly or can diffuse through needed nominations remained hidden from public view. layers of assessment that rapidly. Perhaps no better example of the discord surrounding the The Nobel Committee for Physics holds substantial sway prize was the failure to recognize Einstein’s contributions over the final selection for the prize, which is voted on by the to the theory of relativity. Although Einstein won the Nobel Royal Swedish Academy of Science. Although not obligated Prize in 1922 (retroactively dated 1921), it was “for his services to vote for the screened candidate, academy members usually to , and especially for his discovery of the rely on the committee for its technical expertise. Committee law of the .” 6p292 The Academy took the members have the resources to investigate discoveries or unprecedented step of stipulating on his diploma that the inventions, and the time to weigh relative worthiness. By the “theories of relativity did not count towards the prize.” 8p174 time Gullstrand joined the committee in 1911, the group had After 1976, the gave select scholars ac- already demonstrated a bias towards by cess to committee documents more than fifty years old. Aant marginalizing the contributions of theorists.9 Elzinga and Friedman, two science historians, took During the first eight years Gullstrand worked on the com- advantage of this opportunity to independently investigate mittee, another phenomenon further complicated the judg- what transpired during this decisive period in the history of ment of merit. The problem of keeping science separate from science.8,9 international politics increased as Europe plunged into World War I. The position of Swedish neutrality now made state di- The Nobel Prize and the Nobel Committee for plomacy an uncomfortable companion of the selection process. Physics Alfred Nobel, in establishing the Nobel Prize, was not ex- A Nobel dilemma plicit about how the foundation was to arbitrate merit. Before Einstein’s career as a theoretical physicist began explosively the first prize in physics was announced in , in 1905, while he worked as a patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland. the Royal Swedish Academy of Science struggled to interpret Within the span of a single year, he published four seminal what Nobel had meant in his will by “most materially to ben- papers, plus his doctoral dissertation. One paper presented efit mankind,” or the “most important discovery or invention the notion of light quanta (or photons), another supported in the domain of Physics.” 10p13 His stipulation that the prize the theory of atoms based on , a third intro- was to judge work done during the preceding year was virtu- duced the theory of , and the last established ally ignored, since major achievements in science are seldom the equivalence relationship between inertial mass and energy, which eventually led to the famous equation E = mc2.11 The next year Einstein published a follow-up paper on the spe-

cific heat of solids that applied the quantum concept to solid bodies.11 While each of these works was arguably significant enough to be considered for a Nobel Prize, it was in 1915 that Einstein presented to the Prussian Academy of Science what would become his crowning intellectual achievement—the theory of . The theory introduces the gravi- tational field equations that relate inertial mass and energy with a four-dimensional space-time continuum. Relying on non-Euclidian geometry, the dense mathematics ensured the theory would take time to meaningfully critique. When criti- cal assessment finally began to emerge, descriptions of time Albert Einstein, 1921. © E. O. Hoppé/CORBIS. dilation, bending light, and the geodesic shapes of the universe

The Pharos/Spring 2012 17 Allvar Gullstrand, Albert Einstein, and a Nobel dilemma revisited

Göteborg, and one of the scholars who examined the com- mittee documents of the period, summarized early objections to Einstein’s works as manifold.8 With its initial bias towards experimental research, the committee’s view toward any theo- retical study would have been lukewarm. But the theory of special relativity was too radical a departure from traditional physics to receive even that reception.9 It was considered more “epistemology” than science.8p84 The perception that Einstein’s work lacked utility to benefit mankind and was not sufficiently important compared to other scientific findings showed how deep-seated the opposition to Einstein had become.8,9 Einstein’s name continued to appear before the committee, since his papers on atomic and quantum theories were seen as pivotal advances in . It was not until after the theory of general relativity emerged from its first round of scrutiny that a select group of mathematicians and realized that Einstein might have rewritten the laws of clas- sical physics. As most physicists anticipated, the theory was not easy to validate. Results from the famous eclipse study of 1919 to measure the bending of light caused by the mass of the sun were less definitive than hoped, but the study was generally regarded as supportive.2 The news media had sensed a controversial story, so further procrastination by the Nobel foundation would have tarnished its reputation. Something , father of quantum theory, was the winner of the had to be done to break the stalemate. 1918 Nobel Prize for physics. © CORBIS. The Long Report sounded more like science fiction than science. Sublimely, the In 1921, Gullstrand took it upon himself to write a special field equations reduce to Newton’s law of universal gravitation internal report to resolve the dispute over relativity once when objects travel at velocities much less than light. and for all. Unable to decipher the math, he consulted with In 1910, Einstein received his first nomination for a Nobel colleagues such as Carl Oseen, professor of physics, who ex- Prize for his work on special relativity from Wilhelm Ostward, plained among other facets of general relativity the derivation a German Nobel Laureate. By 1922, he had accumulated sixty of the gravitational equations. According to the committee nominations, and his talent was being compared to that of documents, Oseen found Einstein’s methodology compelling, Newton.2,8,9 Although the majority of nominations were for and praised its mathematical elegance.8,9 But this endorsement the theories of relativity (special and general), some were for was to no avail; Gullstrand saw nothing but errors and incon- his work on specific heat, the photoelectric effect, Brownian sistencies. Gullstrand’s conclusions, methodically detailed in motion, or for general contributions to physics.8 Despite inter- his so-called Long Report, were unequivocally negative: the national support, the Nobel committee repeatedly rejected his theory of relativity was an affront to common sense, beyond work as insufficient in one domain of relevance or another.8,12 the limit of experimental error to verify, and not deserving of The gulf between the professional community and the Nobel the prize.8,9,12 committee was beginning to threaten the credibility of the The harmony in Einstein’s theory of general relativity Nobel foundation. was revealed persuasively in non-Euclidian mathematics, a After World War I, the Nobel committee’s objections to language few spoke fluently. Gullstrand, however, found this theoretical physics began to ebb. This was particularly evident geometry to lack tangible meaning, and rejected the math- with regard to quantum theory, even though evidence sup- ematical formalism that was the basis for Einstein’s work.8,9 porting its reality was indirect and far from conclusive. In 1918, Like many laypersons, he saw the three distinct Newtonian Max Planck, the father of quantum theory was awarded the concepts of , mass, and gravity fused into a single Nobel Prize. This shift in position, however, only highlighted concept as counterintuitive. Welding space-time into a single the Nobel committee’s reluctance to recognize Einstein’s four-dimensional continuum amounted to metaphysics. The research. theory of general relativity was a matter of faith, beyond the Aant Elzinga, professor emeritus at the Department of realm of human experience, and not to be legitimized as sci- History of Ideas and Theory of Science of the University of ence.8,12 The committee supported his unflattering assessment

18 The Pharos/Spring 2012 without dissent, and decided to not select a recipient for the in the universe could affect the geometry of space. Like many prize in 1921. scientists before him, Gullstrand placed limits on what was Indeed, for the vast majority of educated persons, accept- knowable to observation. To him, the theories of Einstein ing the theory of general relativity involves a leap of faith. But were invention not discovery. Gullstrand’s position of authority demanded greater insight Linguist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn points out that than he was capable of providing.12 Gullstrand’s distrust of the “Einstein’s general theory attracts men principally on aesthetic higher mathematics that was the foundation for the theory of grounds, an appeal that few people outside mathematics have relativity made his mistaken interpretations inevitable, but the been able to feel.” 13p158 In everyday life, almost all of us de- brash self-confidence he articulated in rejecting the work was pend on Archimedes and Newton more than we do Einstein, hubris. Since pressure on the committee persisted, he issued but that is because scientific revolutions—even of the highest a second critique, which, in Elzinga’s words, only raised “the order—are not absolute. What makes Gullstrand’s fallibility so negativism of the previous year’s report to a higher pitch.” 8p156 revealing is how he dealt with the interface of reason and com- mon sense: when the two perceptions diverged, he ­discarded Compromise reason. By 1922, it was clear that if opposition towards the theory of relativity did not wane, future nominations for Einstein References would be wasted effort. In September 1922, Gustaf Granqvist, 1. Calaprice A, editor. The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Princ- the chair of the physics committee, died. Carl Oseen, who eton (NJ): University of Princeton Press; 2000. had a favorable view of quantum theory and an open mind 2. Pais A. ‘Subtle is the Lord…’ The Science and the Life of towards the theory of relativity, filled the vacancy but not the Albert Einstein. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1982. post as chair. Besides his knowledge of advanced mathematics, 3. Ravin JG. Gullstrand, Einstein, and the Nobel Prize. Arch he brought to the committee a determination to find com- Ophthalmol 1999; 117: 670–72. promise. Oseen knew he could never convince members that 4. Tate GW Jr, Safir A. The Slit Lamp: History, Principles, and the theory of relativity was anything more than philosophy, Practice. In: Tasman W, editor. Duane’s Clinical Ophthalmology. so he approached a solution by emphasizing the prerequisite Volume 1. Philadelphia: JB Lippincott; 1979: 1–44. importance of Einstein’s light quantum theory to the model of 5. Gullstrand A. Appendices. In: Southall JPC, editor. Helm- the atom fashioned by . Many members now viewed holtz’s Treatise on Physiological Optics: Translated from the Third Bohr as a contender for the prize, and any work contributing German Edition. Volume 1. New York: Dover Publications; 1962: to his model would be regarded in a favorable light. By con- 261–482. ceding Einstein the discovery of the law of the photoelectric 6. Einstein. In: Wasson T, editor. Nobel Prize Winners: An H. effect, the committee paved the way for honoring Niels Bohr W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary. New York: H.W. Wilson; 1987. the following year.9 7. Zuckerman H. The sociology of the Nobel Prizes. Sci Am The compromise likely came as a relief to members of the 1967; 217: 25–33. committee, if not to the entire Academy. The skill of Oseen in 8. Elzinga A. Einstein’s Nobel Prize: A Glimpse Behind Closed brokering a deal cannot be underestimated, given the prevail- Doors: The Archival Evidence. Sagamore Beach (MA): Science His- ing attitudes. tory Publications; 2006. 9. Friedman RM. The Politics of Excellence: Behind the Nobel Perceiving reality Prize in Science. New York: Henry Holt; 2001. Notwithstanding the advantage of history, Gullstrand’s 10. Gray GW. The Nobel Prizes. Sci Am 1949; 181: 11–17. fault-finding assessment of the theory of relativity lacked 11. Stachel J, editor. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. the objectivity and fairness one might have expected from a Volume 2: The Swiss Years: Writing, 1900–1909. Princeton (NJ): scientist of his stature. There is no evidence to suggest that Press; 1989. racial enmity clouded his thinking, or that he let personal 12. Friedman RM. Einstein and the Nobel Committee: Authority feelings towards Einstein affect his judgment. Rather, it seems vs. expertise. Europhysics News 2005 Jul/Aug; 36: 129–32. he simply did not understand Einstein’s work, and could never 13. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Resolutions. Third edi- abandon common sense to mathematics. tion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1996. It is difficult for any scientist to ignore preconceived ideas of causality when faced with contradictions as stark as those The author’s address is: proposed by the theory of relativity, yet it was contradic- Department of Ophthalmology tion in scientific observation that first led Einstein to seek University of South Florida, College of Medicine, MDC Box 21 a better explanation of how the universe works. Gullstrand, 12901 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard whose career was built on the linear thinking of Euclidian Tampa, Florida 33612 geometry, was ill-suited to judge whether matter and energy E-mail: [email protected]

The Pharos/Spring 2012 19