ARTICLE

ALBERT EINSTEIN’S INTERACTION WITH INDIAN PHYSICISTS - AND ’S REACTION

RAJINDER SINGH*

About hundred years ago, British astrophysicists confirmed Albert Einstein’s hypothesis that sun’s gravitational field deflects light. Indian English daily “The Statesman” in its Nov. 12, 1919 edition reported the results. Publication of the news is often mentioned in M.N. Saha’s biographies, who with S.N. Bose, in those days was translating A. Einstein’s and Hermann Minkowski’s papers in English, which were later published in the form of a book titled “The principle of relativity”. Einstein’s correspondence with Indian men of science are available. Results of its analysis will be explored in a forthcoming book. In the present communication, the exchange of ideas between Indian scientists and Einstein on the theory of relativity, and reception of the theory by Indian scientific community are explored. Also, it is argued that in the beginning of the 20th century Indian men of science were well equipped, and did not work in isolation.

Introduction s far as the research related to the theory of relativity is concerned, India is a global player, Aas is evident from different articles.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 One of the well-known works in the post independent India is the equation given by Indian physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri9; which describes the motion of nearby bits of matter. “The Raychaudhuri equation is central to the understanding of gravitational attraction in astrophysics and cosmology, and in particular underlies the famous singularity theorems of theory.”10 There are a number of biographies and articles, which deal with various aspects of Albert Einstein’s life.11,12,13,14,15,16 However, to the best of my knowledge, his interaction with Indian men of science remains unexplored. This will be done in future. The present article deals with the following:

z The working condition of Indian scientists in the Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri. Credit: INSA. beginning of the 20th century. z Einstein’s communication and connections with some of the Indian scientists, and * Research Group: Physics Education and History of Physics, Physics Institute, University of Oldenburg, Germany. E-mail: z Reception of the theory of relativity by the Indian [email protected] scientific community.

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 71 In order to understand the background, in the In his paper on ‘Special Theory of Relativity’, Einstein following section a short review of the origin of the theory did not refer to the previous research work. In 1914, L. of relativity is given. Silberstein, in the “Preface” of his book “The theory of relativity” stated that “Einstein’s theory of relativity was The Origin of Albert Einstein’s Theory of directly derived” from Lorentz work.22 About two months Relativity before his death, Einstein confessed that before he wrote Most of the physics textbooks give an impression that his own paper in 1905, he had read two papers of the Einstein waved the magic stick and theory of relativity was Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz from the year 1892 and 23 born. Study of historical literature shows that it was not 1895; but they had no influence on his work. the case. For instance, it is: (i) the British physicist James It is well known that after finishing his education at C. Maxwell, for the first time in 1877, used “the doctrine the university, Einstein did not get an appointment at a of relativity of all physical phenomena’ in the sense in university. Due to his friend Michele Besso, an Engineer, which we understand” today.17(ii) The French he got a position at a patent office in Bern, where he mathematician J.H. Poincare in 1898 proposed that “There worked from 1902 to 1909. During this period he continued is no absolute time”, and two years later, in an article he his research career. In 1914, before he came to Berlin, he used the words; “The principle of relative motion (emphasis had taught at different universities such as Zürich and in original), to signify that it is possible to ascertain only Prague. Einstein’s diary shows that he worked hard to give the relative motions of bodies.”18 final form to the theory of relativity. More importantly, his In 1905, without referring to any article, Einstein friends Marcel Grossmann (Mathematician) and Michele wrote the ‘Special Theory of Relativity’, which dealt with Besso helped him. For instance, “In collaboration with his electrodynamic phenomenon based on the following lifelong friend Michele Besso, Einstein studied the hypotheses. (a) Principle of constancy of light in a moving perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of the “Entwurf” 24 as well as stationary medium. (b) Principle of invariance [Draft] theory.” of physical laws. With the hypotheses he questioned the Special theory of relativity, applied to the phenomenon absoluteness of space, time and mass. That is, they vary of gravitation led to the introduction of the General Theory depending on, whether the observer is at rest or in motion.19 of Relativity in 1916.25 The three cardinal points of Also, he established the equivalence of mass and energy; Einstein’s theory were: (a) the determination of the and change of mass with velocity.20,21 perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit by the concept that the gravitation was mediated by the curvature of space and time. (b) Prediction of the deflection of stars’ light by the Sun and (c) the gravitational redshift of light in heavenly bodies like stars.26,27 Even before Einstein, J. Soldner in 1804 in his paper “On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes” had discussed the concept of deflection of light by celestial bodies.28 Einstein showed that the deflection value given by Soldner was only half than as it should be.29 In May 1919, the British astronomers, F.W. Dyson, A.S. Eddington, C. Davidson and their colleagues performed experiments; and published their results in 1920. They showed the correctness of Einstein’s prediction. However, they suggested the repetition of experiments in future.30 As far as the discovery of the theory of relativity is concerned, historical researches show that Poincare gave credit to H.A. Lorentz and Lorentz to A. Einstein.31 Now, the question to be asked is: What was Einstein’s contribution in the creation of the theory of relativity? Albert Einstein. Credit: “Wiki-Public domain.” According to the physicist, Wolfgang Pauli: “The formal

72 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 gaps left by Lorentz’s work were filled by Poincare. He London“, “Physikalische Berichte“, “Zeitschrift für Physik“, stated the relativity principle to be generally and rigorously “Physikalische Zeitschrift“ and “Annalen der Physique”. valid. It was Einstein, finally, who in a way completed the The library of the IACS possesses the acquisition basic formulation of this discipline.’”32 record of different books, journals and proceedings. Einstein’s geniality lies in the fact that he combined Unfortunately, date of buying the literature is missing the previous experimental and theoretical knowledge from (Figure 1). It can be assumed that the books procured are various fields to give “The fundamentals of the general from the 19th century or beginning of the 20th century. theory of relativity.”33 Figure 1 shows that the IACS possessed almost all newly published books on the theory of relativity. Some of them Indian Physicists and the Early Phase of the to be mentioned are: Theory of Relativity 1. Einstein A., Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Research Facilities - Availability of literature on Relativitätstheorie (The fundamentals of general relativity : The report of the Indian Association for the theory of relativity), Verlag Johann Ambrosius Cultivation of Sciences (IACS) from the year 1915 (which Barth, Leipzig 1916. was published in 1917, thus contained information from 2. Silberstein L. The theory of relativity, Macmillan the year 1916) shows that the Association, which was still and Co. Ltd. London 1914. not a center of science (as after 1920s), was getting scientific journals from Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Japan, 3. Cunningham E., Relativity and the electron theory, U.S.A. and Hungary.34 There was no German Journal at Longmans, Green and Co., London 1915. the Association in the said year. G. Prasad, a professor of 4. Max von Laue, Vol. 1. Das Relativitätsprinzip der mathematics at the , in his lecture at Lorentztransformation (The relativity principle of the IACS referred to Einstein’s article from the year 1916. Lorentz transformation. Vol. 2. Die allgemeine This leaves no doubt that the University subscribed German Relativitätstheorie und Einsteins Lehre von der journals. Schwerkraft (The general theory of relativity and In 1917, C.V. Raman reported the working at the Einstein’s doctrine of gravity), Druck und Verlag Physics Department, University College of Science. In the von Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn, Braunschweig 1921 report we find that S.N. Basu taught “Elasticity and Molecular Physics, & Theory of Relativity”; whereas M.N. Saha “Thermodynamics and Quantum Theory”. Bose himself later recalled that Asutosh Mookherjee asked him to teach theory of relativity. “There were some books in English on relativity – we got hold of them.”35 In 1920, the library of the Association was getting important international journals, especially German journals like “Physikalische Zeitschrift”.36 According to the Annual Report – IACS of 1921, library bought several important books and 18 periodicals for the library. The list contains important international journals from the U.S.A., U.K., Germany and France. A few of them to be mentioned are: “American J. Sci.”, “Physical Review”, “Nature”, “Phil. Mag.” “Astrophysical J.“, “Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society Figure 1: A page of library register showing books on the theory of relativity. Credit: IACS.

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 73 5. Weyl H., Space-time-matter, (translated from “The arrival of John Evershed in 1907 (…) heralded German by Henry L. Brose), Methuen & Co. Ltd., the observatory’s golden age. Choosing to come to London 1922 (first edition published in 1918). India, no doubt to work in solitary splendor, Evershed made Kodaikanal into a world-class, state- Saha in his article: “Time and space - The new of-the-art observatory. He put the newly acquired scientific theory”, which was published in “The Statesman” spectroheliography into working order, made a in 1919 (Figure 2), gave a summary of work done by H. prismatic camera using the prisms he had brought Lorentz, H. Minkowski, H. Weyl, W. de Sitter and A. with him, and assembled a number of spectrographs. Eddington.37 This suggests that Saha had enough literature In 1911 he finally constructed an auxiliary on theory of relativity. Without it he would not have known spectroheliography and bolted it to the existing the scientific work of other physicists. instrument so that now the sun could be photographed not only in the light of calcium K spectral lines but also in hydrogen alpha.”43 However, the foundation of the Astronomical Society of India is related to observation of the famous Halley’s Comet, which was observed in India during April - May 1910. In the Journal of Astronomical Society of India (founded in 1910), in its first volume we see under “Extract from Publications” that Indian men of science was informed about A. Eddington while explaining De Sitter’s mathematically loaded paper before the Royal Astronomical Society, explained the Principle of Relativity as applied to Astronomy.44 This example definitely shows that the members of the Society as well as readers of the journals were aware of the theory of relativity. Figure 2: Headlines of Saha’s article in “The Statesman”. Longer version of the article is to be found in reference (R. Kochhar and J. Narlikar, In order to be informed about the national and 1985, p. 23) international researches in the field, the Society subscribed Not only the study of journals, but also the question journals from: Royal Astronomical Society London, papers of the University of Calcutta show, how important Astronomical Society of Italy, Royal Observatory of was the teaching of the theory of relativity. For instance, Belgium, Paris Observatory and others. With a donation (i) Within two years of the verification of Einstein’s theory, of Rupees 100 from the Maharaj Rana Bahadur Sir the University of Calcutta in a question paper asked its Bhawani Singh a set of back issues of the “Monthly Notices students “Explain the fundamental principles of the of the Royal Astronomical Society” from 1867 were 45 generalised (gravitational) theory of relativity and give a purchased. About a decade later it was reported that: short account of the evidence in favour of this theory.”38 “The library now contains about three hundred (ii) In 1922 we find: “Enunciate Einstein’s Principle of volumes including several recent publications on equivalence and explain clearly why it has been called the Astronomy. … It is council’s intention to enlarge fundamental hypothesis in generalised theory of the Library to represent astronomical researches to relativity.”39 (iii) In 1930 there was a complete paper with both past and present and thus to make it worthy of 9 questions (5 to be attempted by students) on Relativity. consultation.”46 The paper setters were P.C. Mahalanobis and S.N. Bose.40 The “Journal of the Astronomical Society” of India Astrophysical researches in India and working started appearing shortly after the foundation of the Society. condition : The construction of solar observatories is In it a brief summary of the new discoveries outside India known in India, even before the advent of the British-India were reported. The journal was circulated widely within Empire., as shown by different authors.41,42 Due to various India and abroad. It was exchanged with ”The Royal reasons (such as its southern, dust free, high altitude Astronomical Society”, “The British Astronomical location), the British men of science started construction Association”, “The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada”, of “modern” observatories at Kodaikanal. As far as the “The Astronomical Society of Barcelona” Leeds, working conditions were concerned: Greenwich, and “The Vatican Observatory, Rome.47 In the

74 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 annual report of the ASI for the year 1919-1920 it was that in spite of war, scientific work was going on. In reported: “Professor Einstein’s memoir entitled, - ‘The formal foundation of the general relativity-theory.’ – The author “The year opened with cash balance of Rs. 1806- first gives the fundamental notions of the general relativity- 15-6 which came to Rs. 2678-4-8 at its close. In theory and then develops the foundation of the absolute addition to this the Society holds Government differential calculus.”54 Evidently, before M.N. Saha and Promissory Notes and Port Trust Debentures to a S.N. Bose, Prasad began with the theory of relativity at nominal value of Rs. 1200. This asset over the the University of Calcutta, though his work was not as liabilities of the 30th September 1920 stood at Rs. extensive as Bose’s, who had to teach the subject. 1062-13-8 against 2919-5-8 in the previous year.”48 M.N. Saha and S.N. Bose, who were appointed in Obviously, the ASI had sound financial conditions. the Department of Applied Mathematics (later shifted to However, the research work was not satisfactory, because Department of Physics), authored the book “The principle most of the members had their own profession, thus little of relativity”, which was published in 1920, by the time was left for original investigations.49 University of Calcutta. The book is based on four articles Theoretical work on the theory of relativity from A. Einstein and H. Minkowski from the years 1916 and 1908 respectively. Bose translated Einstein’s article G. Prasad, M.N. Saha and S.N. Bose : M.N. Saha’s from the year 1916. P.C. Mahalanobis, Presidency College and S.N. Bose’s interactions and communications with A. Calcutta, wrote “Foreword”, and some “Notes” in the 50,51 Einstein are explored elsewhere. Thus, in the following book.55 Obviously, Bose and Saha had original articles from these details are not included. the years 1908 and 1916. After the end of 1920s none of them communicated with Einstein to discuss about the theory of relativity, nor they extensively worked in this field. Not in the sense as N.R. Sen who later came to known as the founder of the “Calcutta School of Relativity” (detail later). Before exploring these details, in the following paragraphs we shall see some of their contemporaries. One such example is that of Jyotirmay Ghosh, who interacted with Einstein to get feedback. J. Ghosh and Albert Einstein : J. Ghosh was born on Jan. 1, 1896 in village Ghasiara of the Magura subdivision of District Jessore (now in ). He took his B.A. degree from Presidency College, Calcutta in 1916. He obtained his M.A. degree of Calcutta University in 1918 in Mixed Mathematics. Three years later he was

Ganesh Prasad. Credit: ISNA.

Ganesh Prasad, Rashbehari Ghosh Professor of Applied Mathematics, Head of the Mathematics Department; University of Calcutta; studied in U.K. and Germany.52 In Göttingen his PhD guide was the well-known German mathematician Christian Felix Klein. Prasad also came in contact with the mathematician David Hilbert and physicist and mathematician Arnold Sommerfeld. Prasad, in 1910, translated the first two parts of Hermann Minkowski’s paper “Raum und Zeit” (Space and time) from the year 1909, and published in the “Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society”, 1, 135-141, 1910.53 At the IACS, Ganesh Prasad while delivering lecture “Mathematics and Mathematical Physics in 1916” told about the progress of Mathematics in Europe. He stateed Jyotirmay Ghosh. Credit: INSA

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 75 appointed as Lecturer in Mathematics at the Dhaka distribution of masses, but this appears to be University. In 1925, for higher studies he went to the difficult.”62 University of Edinburgh and obtained PhD degree in 1927, It seems that Ghosh sent his article to Einstein, who “On some problems in elasticity and on radially symmetric in a long letter of Aug. 26, 1935, discussed about the gravitational field in continuous matter.” He returned to interpretation of his own equation. Einstein told Ghosh that India and was appointed a Reader in Mathematics in the his (Ghosh’s) Ansatz lacks general validity. He also University of Dhaka.”56 informed him that with N. Rosen he has written an article Jyotirmay Ghosh was one of the few Indian physicists dealing with such aspects.63 In it the atomic phenomena who communicated with Einstein. J. Ghosh, from was discussed by the method of general relativity. It is Edinburgh, on Feb. 8, 1927, wrote to A. Einstein: “I send based on the idea of removing the singularities of the herewith a short paper which contains certain types of solutions of the field equations by a simple modification.64 radially symmetric solutions of the new equations of N.R. Sen, who also worked on the theory of relativity gravitation which you have suggested in the in the 1920s-1930s is better known to the scientific “Mathematische Annalen” (Dec., 1926).”57 Ghosh requested community than J. Ghosh, as we shall see below. to communicate the note to “Mathematische Annalen” or any other journal, with his comments or alterations, if N.R. Sen and Kolkata School of Relativity : Nikhil necessary. Ranjan Sen (also written as Nikhilranjan Sen), did D.Sc. from the Calcutta University in the year 1921. In final In reply, on Feb. 23, 1927, Einstein wrote that his examinations at the Presidency College, N.R. Sen was on equation R – ¼ q R= – k1 T was not meant that T ik ik ik ik the third place, while S.N. Bose and M.N. Saha were first represent the electromagnetic Tensor, whose scalar identity and second respectively. vanishes. As in your work you do not say anything on Tik; I cannot imagine, which physical problems can be solved with it. I can recommend the paper to the “Annalen” only if I get a clear idea on solving of the problem.58 J. Ghosh took nearly six years to solve the problem. The detail was published in “Zeitschrift für Physik”59 and in a short note in “Nature”. For the radically symmetric field he gave an equation. However, he was unable to interpret a part of the proposed equation.60 Two years later he came out with a complete solution61, about which the “Nature” wrote that on June 2, 1935, it received a short letter from Prof. Ghosh. “To make it intelligible to a wider range of readers it seems advisable to incorporate it with some reference to Einstein’s own work.” The gravitational equations (Rpq – 1/2 gpqR = – 8Π Epq) originally proposed represent a law of conservation of momentum or mass and energy. Einstein later “gave electromagnetic and Nikhil Ranjan Sen. Credit: INSA. cosmological reasons for suggesting that the coefficient ½ should be replaced by ¼.” “Nature” wrote that Professor Sen went to Europe on study leave; and studied in Ghosh: Berlin, Munich and Paris. In Berlin his PhD guide was Max von Laue, Friedrich Wilhelms-University Berlin. Sen’s “has investigated the solutions of the new equation investigations in the general theory of relativity and in four cases, corresponding to empty space, a single cosmology earned him the Ph.D. degree.65 His thesis was particle, an electron, and a rather more general published under the title: “Über die Grenzbedingungen des system with radial symmetry. The results all contain Schwerefeldes an Unstetigkeitsflächen“ (About the a term belonging to [Willem] de Sitter’s world. Thus boundary conditions of the gravitational field at the new field equations automatically involve the discontinuous surfaces) in “Annalen der Physik”, as is cosmological constant, which is usually introduced evident in a footnote.66 With Max von Laue, N.R. Sen as a special hypothesis. It is desirable that Prof. critically discussed the de Sitter’s world.67,68 Sen also Ghosh’s work should be extended to a more general discussed the problem of expanding universe. His article

76 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 “On Fresnel’s convection in general relativity” was is no evidence that V.V. Narlikar and Ramji Tiwari communicated by A.S. Eddington.69,70 “Sen gave a communicated with Einstein. However, Albert Einstein derivation of Fresnel’s convection coefficient in general Archive possesses their article “On Einstein’s Generalised relativity from Maxwell’s equations in generalized space Theory of Gravitation” which was sent to Einstein by Hans by assuming plane electromagnetic waves in the Freistadt, U.S.A., on Nov. 3, 1949.76 In a short note to gravitational fields inside a uniformly moving material.”71 “Current Science” Narlikar and Tiwari informed the readers The author U.R. Burman wrote: that that they had “outlined a method of successive “Sen’s investigations on the model of the universe approximations for working out the interaction between a have shown that models not perfectly spherical can gravitational field and an electromagnetic field.” They also be in exact equilibrium and form a static obtained ten gravitational field equations showing how the universe, but the total mass of such a configuration gravitational potentials … are modified on account of the would exceed that of a uniform Einstein world. In electrostatic and electromagnetic potentials.”77 the light of this result the phenomenon of the Ratan Lal Brahmachry and Albert Einstein : A expanding universe could easily be understood.” 72 14 year old young boy Ratan Lal Brahmachari from the No doubt, G. Prasad, M.N. Saha, S.N. Bose and C.V. St. Paul’s College, Calcutta, on Sept. 4, 1945 wrote a letter Raman began with theory of relativity in Kolkata; but N.R. to Einstein and sent a manuscript of about 18 pages. He Sen73 was the person to establish “Kolkata school of wanted to prove the existence of the aether as a material Relativity”.74 substance (detail later). He proposed the following transmutation: Not only in , but also in other parts of the India research work was being done on relativity by other Matter → radiation → matter → (a)ether → matter scientists. One such example is that of V.V. Narlikar, who In the letter he mentioned that he came to particular established this field in Benares. conclusions after a talk with Mr. S.N. Bose “(You Vishnuv V. Narlikar and Benares School of remember his light quantum statistics in Zeitschrift für Relativity : V.V. Narlikar the founder of “Benares School Physik, 1924) at Dacca.”78 of Relativity” studied at the University of Cambridge. He It is unknown whether Einstein replied the letter. begun research work on relativity under A.S. Eddington. List of his publications shows that during his stay in Brahmachari studied physics under S.N. Bose. While Cambridge he wrote 10 articles. Two of them in association working at the Indian Institute of Statistics, Calcutta, he with the renowned British physicist Joseph Larmor.75 There wrote on: “A Solution of the combined gravitational and mesic field equations in general relativity”79, and spend some time in Hamburg, Germany, as his publication indicates.80 He was better known for his researches in biochemistry; in particular tiger pheromone studies.

Experimental Work on the Theory of Relativity As in the U.S.A. and Europe, in India the study of relativity was closely related to the astrophysical researches. For instance, the Kodaikanal Observatory (founded in 1899) was well-equipped otherwise J. Evershed et al. would not have been able to perform world class observations, and discover the Evershed effect, which describes, “the radial flow of gas across the photospheric surface of the penumbra of sunspots from the inner border with the umbra towards the outer edge.”81 Like most of the other astrophysicists, J. Evershed and his colleagues did not think of theory of relativity to interpret their results. This was done by others

V.V. Narlikar. Credit: INSA. (detail later).

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 77 J. Evershed, T. Royds and A.A.N. Ayyar - Walker – Director General of the Observatories in India Observation of the red-shift in India : From historical were Vice-Presidents of the Society. For about 15 years, point of view, the red-shift was observed by L.E. Jewell the Society acted as a platform for astrophysicists to (1896), G.E. Hale and W.S. Adams (1907), H. Buisson and exchange ideas and coordinate research. M.N. Saha G. Fabry (1910) in the case of double star Sirius B.82,83 It delivered lectures, which were based on his research work. seems that these results were unknown to Einstein, who in C.V. Raman was much more active, as he occupied different 1911 predicted the gravitational redshift in spectrum of positions. He came in contact with British astrophysicists, light. As far as the Indian contribution is concerned, at the who communicated his papers at the initial stage. These Kodaikanal Observatory, in 1913, J. Evershed studied the details are explored elsewhere.90 effect of gravitational field and observed the displacement We have seen that F.W. Dyson, A.S. Eddington, C. in solar spectra. He attributed the effect to the motion of Davidson et al. in a paper on “A determination of the solar material.84 A year later T. Royds from the same deflection of light by the sun’s gravitational field, from Observatory, attributed the effect to changes of density. In observations made at the total eclipse of May 29, 1919” Berlin, their results were interpreted by Erwin F. Freundlich suggested repetition of experiments in future.91 The as red-shift.85 In 1915 A.A. Narayana Ayyar (also written opportunity for it came about three years later. In order to as Aiyar) studied “the displacement at the Sun’s limb of observe solar eclipse, which was going to occur in lines sensitive to pressure and density”.86,87 The British September 21, 1922, in Wallal, West Australia, Gilbert T. Journal “Nature” reported that A.A. Narayana Aiyar, first Walker, planned an expedition, which was supported by assistant at the Kodaikanal studied the “Spectral line the Government of India with a grant of Rs. 4500. J. displacement at the Sun’s limb” and published results in Evershed wrote that the previous results had a certain Bulletin No. 44 of the Kodaikanal Observatory. He verified ambiguity, “and we had at Kodaikanal a 12-inch photo- Evershed’s and Royds’ results that pressure and density are visual lens which is particularly well adapted for this lower at the limb than at the centre of the disc. Also, he problem giving a large field of good definition and a large found out that “certain lines, particularly those of calcium scale than the lenses used previously, or that would be and sodium, are much more sensitive to pressure and likely to be used by other expeditions.”92 The other cause density than iron lines, and that therefore the limb shifts for the justification of the expedition was: of such lines should provide a much more rigorous test as to whether there is a large difference of pressure and “The results of previous eclipses gave values of the density between the sun’s limb and centre.”88 angular rotation in the coronal region largely in excess of the mean values obtained from sunspots In 1922, from the U.S.A., Charles Edward St. John, and from displacements of lines in the reversing who belonged to the anti-relativistic group (other important layer, and seemed to indicate a very remarkable law persons to be mentioned are: D.C. Miller, H. Shapley …) for the angular rotation at different levels; but, owing doubted Einstein’s theory. Later John changed his opinion. to the low dispersion hitherto used at eclipses, the This story is explored in detail by the German historian of values obtained are not very reliable, hence the science K. Hentschel in: “The conversion of St. John: A desirability of repeating the measures with more case study on the interplay of theory and experiment”. powerful instruments such as were available at Therein we read: Kodaikanal or could be constructed without much “.. in the general euphoria about St. John’s results, difficulty.”93 it would be forgotten that it was he [Evershed] who Initially C.V. Raman, University of Calcutta was a had, already in 1918, obtained tentative member of the Indian team. He promised to assist the confirmations of GRS (Gravitational Red Shift) at expedition. In the end, due to lack of funds, only three the Kodaikanal Observatory, but at that time no one persons: Walker, Mrs. J. Evershed and Prof. Maclean of had taken him seriously due to his conflict with St. Wilson College Bombay were in the team. Shortly before John’s results of 1917.”89 departure, the latter became ill and had to stay at home. Before departure the required instruments like the Einstein Observation of Solar eclipse in Australia and camera were constructed at the Kodaikanal, and a 16-inch India’s contribution coelostat (which was to be used with Einstein Camera) was According to the Report of the Meeting of the borrowed from the Joint Eclipse Committee of the Royal Astronomical Society of India of October 26, 1910, M. Astronomical Society and the Royal Society. Smith – Director of the Kodaikanal Observatory, and G.T.

78 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 The team left Madras on July 28, 1922, and arrived In 1920 Raman and Nihal Karan Sethi, Benares Hindu Broome on Aug. 18, 1922; and awaited for 8 days for the University, performed experiments to test the theory of arrival of the team from America and Canada. On 28th of relativity. The project was supported with a special grant August the various parties arrived: From Perth (William by the Calcutta University.101 Raman and Sethi found Wallace Campbell and his wife Elisabeth Campbell – Michelson-Morley apparatus, which disapproved the Director of Lick Observatory, California), Dr. and Mrs. existence of either, too complicated. They adopted similar Adams of New Zealand – Members of the Canadian and experimental setup as H. Fizeau’s (Figure 3). Instead of Australian team. The expedition party consisted of 35 water as medium, they decided for air. From size and persons from Australia, India and Canada.94 “On April 12, observations point of view they improved the apparatus. 1923, Campbell confirmed Einstein’s theory of relativity, About their motivation Raman and Sethi wrote: with measurements from over 100 stars. His cable to British astronomer Frank Dyson ended with the words “We need “More recently it has gained additional importance not repeat Einstein text next eclipse.”” 95 The contribution on account of the fact that this law [Fresnel of Indian team was not encouraging. They developed the hypothesis] follows as a matter of course from photographic plates, but did not find proper results. The Einstein’s remarkable principle of the relativity of expedition was evaluated as a complete failure.96 As far as space and time, and its experimental verification is J. Evershed is concerned, his “final view was that the now looked upon as one of the proofs of the Einstein effect account for most of the red-shift at the limb correctness of his theorem of the addition of but there remained a definite unexplained 25 residual velocities and consequently of the special principle shift.”97 of relativity.“103 In the above paragraphs we see that Raman did not The preparation of the construction of apparatus began accompany the team. The reason seems to be his visit to in July 1920 and was complete in January 1921. To the U.K. in 1922 as he mentioned in his article on the measure the convection of light in moving gases, 200-foot theory of relativity (detail below). (60.96 meter) long pipes were taken (Figure 4). To keep them straight, they were supported by many pillers, each From Heaven to Earth - C.V. Raman’s at a distance of 10 ft. A pressure-blower of a 3-h.p. gas Laboratory Experiments to Test the Theory engine was applied; which was supposed to produce of Relativity velocity of 50 m/s. (In Michelson-Morley it was 25 m/ s).104 E. Cunningham in “Relativity and the electron”98 about the introduction of the concept of aether and relativity, wrote: “since all astronomical observations are made by optical means, that the Figure 3: H. Fizeau’s experiment to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water.102 frame of reference in practice must be actually the medium relative to which light is propagated. Thus arose the attempt to determine the velocity of the earth relative to the aether.”99

In 1810 French scientist D. Arago Figure 4: Set up of Raman’s experiment. AB and CD Pipes: of length 200 feet (60.96 meter) performed experiments to determine the each. Galvanised-iron popes of 1.5 inches internal diameter. A large refracting telescope with velocity of the earth relative to aether.100 a 7 inch object-glass and a focal length of over 7 feet, mounted on a brick piller. L2R – His countryman A.J. Fresnel hypothesized reflecting arrangement. R – Reflecting mirror. L2 – Lens. P – Plane-parallel glass plate. S – Source of light. Credit: Indian Academy of Sciences. that aether outside a moving body remains stationary, while inside a body drifts with diminished Raman and Sethi wrote that the fringes obtained were velocity. He gave an equation for the dragging coefficient, excellent and steady, “though the light itself ‘boiled’ very with its dependence on the refraction index. H. Fizeau badly, except in the cool mornings.” The engine and blower, experimentally detected the dragging effect, but the which should draw the air through the pipes were observed magnitude was much lower than expected. ineffective. The attained speed of air/gases was not 50 m/

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 79 s as expected, but only 20 m/s. To make observations only over the world to combine light from optical telescopes on two evening weather was favourable. They noted: separated by large distances.”108 “the fringes were seen very steadily, and appeared Criticism of Einstein’s Ideas by Shah M. to show a slight but unmistakeable shift on reversing Sulaiman the direction of the air-current. On the second occasion an attempt was made to estimate the In Germany, criticism of Einstein’s work is often magnitude o[ the shift by setting a cross wire on interpreted as anti-Semitic. Authors G.O. Mueller and K. the fringes and comparing the shift observed on Kneckebrodt analysed publications on relativity from the reversing the air-current with that produced by years from 1920 to 1944; and came to the conclusion that flexure of the microscope tube by a known small the number of publications, which are motivated by anti- load. The shift was estimated to be about 1/20th Semitic is less than one percent.109 From historical point part of a fringe, which was of the right order of of view, Einstein’s great supporters like Max Planck and magnitude and in the direction indicated by Max von Laue belong to those persons who did not believe theory.”105 in his ideas immediately. They took time to accept the reality. Not only the German community, but also the The expected fringe shift was one tenth of a fringe. Swedish men of science were reluctant to the theory of The authors admitted that the results are not conclusive. relativity. For instance, in the 1920s, the Swede S. They hoped, in future, to have favourable conditions and Arrhenius “claimed that the results of the British eclipse to install a more powerful blower with steady electric drive. experiment could not be admitted as evidence, as questions Raman also mentioned that the experiment had to be remained on their degree of exactness.”110 None of the five discontinued as he got invitation to visit Europe. Here he members of the Physics Nobel Prize Committee “approved meant his first visit to U.K. to attend a conference of British of relativity theory or had been convinced that the eclipse Empire, where he was sent to represent the University of experiment had yielded proof in its favour.”111,112 In Calcutta. ”Interpretation and misinterpretation of special and the D.C. Miller, President of the American Physical general theory of relativity by Albert Einstein’s Society, repeated Michaelson-Morley experiments with contemporaries”113 different cases are discussed, however, improved instruments. His measurements were much more it did not go in detail about the criticism by the Indian extensive. He believed to have observed drift.106 He was jurist Shah M. Sulaiman. convinced that the previous observations do not support Einstein’s theory of relativity. After Raman came to know about these results, for the year 1926-1927, he asked for a grant of Rs. 10,000 from the University of Calcutta. A part of it was to be utilized, as told by Raman, to prove the correctness of Einstein’s theory of relativity (Figure 5).107 Which experiments he performed, remains unknown as in his or that of his associates’ publications there is no indication of such experiments.

Figure 5: Grant for Raman for to test the theory of relativity. Credit: University of Calcutta.

Independent of the results, Raman’s experiment was “big science” experiment before the construction of cyclotron in Kolkata. Years later, the author S. Ramaseshan wrote about Raman’s experiment as follows: “The Shah Muhammad Sulaiman. Credit: “Sci. Cult.”. experiment would probably be considered ambitious even Shah Muhammad Sulaiman was a jurist and today since efforts on a similar scale are under way all educationist. He obtained Mathematical and Law Tripos

80 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 from Cambridge. He was awarded the Doctor of Law gives the right results. Same is true in the case of the degree by the University of Dublin. He was the Chief eccentricities of relative orbits of double stars. Justice of the Allahabad High Court (1932-1937) and the Sulaiman’s conclusion was that numerous corrections Vice Chancellor of Aligarh Muslim University (1938-1941). must be introduced in Newton’s mechanics to explain the In “Science and Culture” Sulaiman wrote a number results, before we declare it as failed. of articles to criticise Einstein’s theory as well as to show “Similarly, in view of the great uncertainty as to the strength of his own theory.114,115,116,117,118 In one of the the values for the perihelion and the spectral shift papers, under the subtitle “The perihelion of Mercury” he and in view of the proved excess in the value of discussed the value of the perihelion of Mercury found by the deflection of light, it can no longer be asserted different scientists. He opined: that General Relativity has been verified. And “In view of the great uncertainty of the various therefore there is no necessity to accept its assumptions made in the calculations, it cannot be extraordinary postulates.”121 seriously maintained that the unexplained residue in From theoretical point of view Sulaiman criticised the advance of the perihelion of one solitary planet Einstein for: in any way confirm General Relativity.”119 “(1) denying the absoluteness of space, time and Regarding the “spectral shift”, he stated: “According motion, (2) making the velocity of light absolute, to Einstein’s theory the spectral shift of light from the Sun independent of the motion of observers, (3) giving should be 0.00844 A° for a wavelength of 4000A° U. …”. to space curvature and other properties, (4) making The observations by J. Evershed, Charles Edward St. John, space finite and yet making its finite limit incapable Leonard Grebe and Albert Bachem suggest that the actual of being attained, (5) denying reality to force and observed value may be up to half for the centre and a making it a property of space, (6) for introducing a little more for the limb. Further: “Relativity is unable to cosmological force of repulsion with the consequent explain the deficiency at the centre or the excess of shift expansion of the universe.”122 at the limb. Some of the Indian authors in “Current Science” Generally, it was believed that the observation of the attacked Sulaiman for his “too simple” theory, which did spectrum of white dwarf Sirus B confirm Einstein’s theory. not contain mathematical tensor. He tried to refute his However, in 1933 it was criticized so far the temperature opponents.123,124,125,126,127,128 Raman while writing was ignored. If it is taken into account, the discrepancy Sulaiman’s obituary for “Nature” stated that his scientific was far away from the predicted values. Sulaiman’s argued ideas were semi-classical. Not surprisingly his hypothesis that even if, the values agree with Einstein’s theory, the were scarcely recognised.129 In contrast, M.N. Saha “relativity theory cannot claim any credit for it, because it appreciated the success of Sulaiman’s semi-classical has been shown … that the same value can be deduced theory.130 Even, the international journals like “Science” from the strict Newtonian law without any new assumption wrote encouraging reviews of his theory. For instance, the whatsoever.”120 Here he meant his own theory, which “Science” in its Nov. 30, 1934, issue reported that a explained the observations. “The deflection of light” was Cambridge trained mathematician and jurist has proposed considered the main proof of the theory of relativity. Such “A new mathematical theory of relativity, which may values were measured in 1919, 1922 and 1929 by three overthrow the world-famous theories of Professor Albert independent groups. Erwin Finlay Freundlich from Germany Einstein.” It is a sane borderline between Newton’s and analysed all the results and came to the conclusion that Einstein’s concepts. About his criticism of Einstein’s law the actual corrected value in all the three cases was about of gravitation, the journal wrote that Shah says, “Relativity 2’’.20 and was far from Einstein’s value (1’’.74). Sulaiman denies the absoluteness of space, time and motion, but can gave his semi classical theory, which gave the value 2’’.24 hardly deny the absoluteness angular motion or sudden as given by E.F. Freundlich, a friend and supporter of change of motion.”131 Einstein. Some of the Indian physicists supported Sulaiman’s Sulaiman’s other argument was that Simon Newcomb, scientific ideas. M.N. Saha was one of them. A.C. Banerjee U.S.A., has observed the eccentricities of the orbits of and M.N. Saha nominated him for the Fellowship of the Venus, Earth and Mars, were increasing, while that of National Institute of Sciences of India (today known as Mercury were decreasing. These can be explained neither INSA). According to the nomination letter: “Sir S M by Newton’s nor by Einstein’s theory; whereas his theory

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 81 Sulaiman has formulated an intensely original Theory of worked on the theory of relativity visited U.K., France and Relativity, which has attracted widespread attention in Germany for higher studies; and worked under renowned Europe and America.’ Dr Shapley, the renowned physicists like Max von Laue, Albert Einstein, A.S. Astronomer, has characterized this theory as ‘one of the Edington and many more. Obviously, they were not highlights of Astronomy during the past year (1934)’.” “isolated” from the scientific world. This type of transfer Sulaiman was elected as Fellow in 1937. of scientific man-power might have been not of the same level as that of the USA scientists to Europe in the M.N. Saha, while writing Sulaiman’s obituary stated beginning of the 20th century. But, on the international that his most interesting contribution was the explanation level, India was definitely not in the worst position as of the variation in red-shift observed across the solar disc. compare to Africa, Latin America and other Asian countries. He predicted that the shift for the light from the edge should For instance, if we see the history of the Physics Nobel be about double of Einstein’s value. Indeed this was Prize (from 1901-1964), only 24 countries were involved. observed by T. Royds at the time of solar eclipse in 1936. In the list: “India is on 13th place. India’s four Physics He announced the results in July 1937.132,133 nominees got 28 proposals. Compared to the European Conclusions countries like Germany, France and U.K., this number seems to be quite low; but compared to Canada and Albert Einstein’s contribution to the theory of relativity Australia this number is reasonably good. In fact, India is is undisputed. However, it is wrong to give him sole credit at the top if we compare the country with all other colonies as the founder of the theory of relativity, as is done in of the British Empire. Only ten European countries most of the textbooks. Knowingly or unknowingly Einstein (including Russian Federation) are ahead of India.”135 ignored Poincare’s and Lorentz’s contributions, on which “Japan and India are the only two countries from the Asian the theory was based. It is questionable that without continent. There is not a single candidate from Africa. From previous knowledge, Einstein could have developed the Latin American only two countries appear, that is, Brazil theory. The lesson to be learnt from the story is that in and Peru.” If Indian men of science would have had “poor” order to come closer to the truth, such as the discovery of working conditions and worked in “isolation”, they would the theory of relativity, one needs to study the contribution not have achieved such position. of the contemporaries. They will show that any discovery in the world is not a one man show. It is always based on Shah M. Sulaiman’s example could be revealing for the existing knowledge from the past. young Indian scientists. Unlike, most of his countrymen, he did not follow Einstein blindly. He was criticized. But A short history of the theory of relativity in Indian with his own limited ideas he developed his theory which context shows that the mathematician G. Prasad, University successfully explained the experimental observations, which of Calcutta, was the first to translate, in 1910, H. were not explained by Newton’s and Einstein’s theories. Minkowski’s article on “Space and Time”. M.N. Saha and Why his theory did not get international fame and was S.N. Bose, who began their research career in Prasad’s adopted, needs further research. Department, translated Minkowski’s and Einstein’s articles to write “The principle of relativity.” Definitely, they were Bengali men of science like Saha appreciated not the first persons to write on the theory of relativity. Sulaiman’s work, and nominated him for the Fellowship of the INSA. This would suggest the broadminded approach In some Indian circles, some scientists, particularly, of Saha and his colleagues to the contemporary science. It India’s Nobel Laureate C.V. Raman, took pride by telling is further supported by the fact that “Science and Culture”, about the poor working conditions. C.V. Raman for his a journal founded by Saha, gave Sulaiman chance to experimental work on theory of relativity got huge grant. publish his disputed views in the journal. In contrast, the This reconfirms my thesis that Raman was not a poor “Current Science” was much more critical. Its main 134 scientist. Not only Raman, but other scientists working approach was to ignore Sulaiman’s theory and publish on astronomy and theory of relativity had all possible criticism for criticism sake. journals, and equipments which they required for research work. Whenever they planned visits abroad they were Today, in the field of theory of relativity, India is a financed privately (in the from of Scholarships from the global player. It is not surprising because from the very University of Calcutta) or grants sanctioned by the British- beginning Indian scientists were involved in the field of India Government. relativity. This suggests that the success of a subject depends not only on money, but also to start a particular In the 1920s and 1930s most of the physicists who subject at the right time.

82 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019 Acknowledgements 27. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity, Nov. 17, 2018. I thank Prof. S.C. Roy, Editor-in-Chief “Science and 28. J. Soldner, Berliner Astronomisches Jahrbuch, 161-172 (1804). Culture” and Member of the “Commission of History of 29. C.M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity 4, 7-117 (2014). Science” INSA, for commenting and correcting the early 30. F.W. Dyson, A.S. Eddington, C. Davidson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. version of this paper; and sending articles published by 220, 571-581 (1920). S.M. Sulaiman in “Sci. Cult.”. I am thankful to the 31. G.H. Keswani, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 16, 19-32 (1965). archivists and librarians for the following institutions for 32. G.H. Keswani, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 15, 286–306 (1965). sending me, here, referred to documents: Albert Einstein 33. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 49, 769-822 (1916). archive – Hebrew University, Niels Bohr archive 34. Annual Report IACS 1915. Copenhagen, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library Delhi, 35. G. Venkataraman, Saha and his formula (University Press (India) Asiatic Society Kolkata, University of Calcutta, Indian Ltd., Hyderabad, 1995), p. 5. Association for the Cultivation of Sciences, Indian National 36. Annual Report IACS, 1920. Science Academy. Last but not least, I thank Prof. Michael 37. S. Chatterjee, Collected works of Meghnad Saha (Orient Blackswan Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 1982), Vol 1, pp. vi-vii. Komorek and Members of the Research Group: Physics 38. G. Gangopadhyay, A. Kundu, First 20 years of the department: Didactics and History of Physics, University of Oldenburg, From the archive of the university syndicate, in: CU Physics for their kind support. 100, Eds. G. Gangopadhyay, A. Kundu (University of Calcutta, Calcutta, 2016), pp. 23-51. References 39. G. Gangopadhyay, A. Kundu, Ibid. 40. G. Gangopadhyay, A. Kundu, Ibid. 1. B.R. Iyer, Curr. Sci. 109, 2230-2235 (2015). 41. S.K. Sen, K.S. Shukla, (Eds.), History of Astronomy in India 2. B. Mukhopadhyay, Curr. Sci. 109, 2250-2257 (2015). (Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1985). 3. T.P. Singh, Curr. Sci. 109, 2258-2264 (2015). 42. J.C. Bhattacharyya, A. Vagiswari, Astronomy in India in the 20th 4. T. Padmanabhan, Curr. Sci. 109, 1215-1219 (2015). century, in: S.K. Sen, K.S. Shukla, (Eds.), History of Astronomy 5. J.V. Narlikar, Curr. Sci. 109, 2214-2219 (2015). in India (Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1985), pp. 403-435. 6. N. Dadhich, Curr. Sci. 109, 2220-2229 (2015). 43. R. Kochhar, J. Narlikar, Astronomy in India – A perspective 7. V. Natarajan, D. Sen, Resonance 10, 32-50 (2005). (Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1985), pp. 18- 8. V. Natarajan, V. Balakrishnan, N. Mukunda, Resonance 13, 843- 19. 865 (2008). 44. Anonymous, Journal of Astronomical Society of India 1, 180- 9. J.V. Narlikar, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 30, 169-180 (2006). 181 (1910-1911). 10. G.F.R. Ellis, Pramana – Journal of Physics 69, 15-22 (2007). 45. Annual Report of the Astronomical Society of India (abb. ASI), 11. A. Pais, ´Subtle is the Lord …´ -The science and the life of 1911-1912. Albert Einstein (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1982). 46. Annual Report ASI, 1919-1920. 12. J. Neffe, Einstein - Eine Biographie (Rowohlt Verlag GmbH, 47. Annual Report ASI, 1919-1920. Reinbek bei Hamburg, 2005). 48. Annual Report ASI, 1919-1920. 13. A. Pais, Ich vertraue auf Intuition - Der andere Albert Einstein 49. Annual Report ASI, 1919-1920. (Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1998). 50. R. Singh, Sci. Cult. 84, 293-301 (2018). 14. R. Highfield, P. Carter, The private lives of Albert Einstein (Faber and Faber, London, 1993). 51. R. Singh, Asian J. Phys. 27, 193-202 (2018). 15. A. Fölsing, Albert Einstein Biographie (Suhrkamp Verlag, 52. N.R. Sen, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 5, 40-45 (1935). Frankfurt am Main, 1993). 53. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Space_and_Time, Nov. 19, 2018. 16. A. Ghatak, Albert Einstein: The story of a genius (Viva books 54. Annual Report IACS, 1915. private Ltd., New Delhi, 2016). 55. Saha M.N., Bose S.N., The principle of relativity (University of 17. G.H. Keswani, C.W. Kilmister, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 34, 343-354 Calcutta, Calcutta, 1920), pp. 165-172, & 177-178. (1983). 56. M.C. Chaki, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 16, 13-16 (1965). 18. G.H. Keswani, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 15, 286–306 (1965). 57. J. Ghosh to A. Einstein, Feb. 8, 1927 (letter). 19. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 891-921 (1905). 58. A. Einstein to J. Ghosh, Feb. 23, 1927 (letter). 20. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 18, 639–643 (1905). 59. J. Ghosh, Zeitschrift für Physik 58, 511-513 (1933). 21. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 328, 371–384 (1907). 60. J. Ghosh, Nature 132, 170 (1933). 22. L. Silberstein, The theory of relativity (Macmillan and Co. Ltd., 61. J. Ghosh, Zeitschrift für Physik 94, 411-412 (1935). London, 1914). 62. Anonymous, Nature 136, 151 (1935). 23. G.H. Keswani, Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 16, 19-32 (1965). 63. A. Einstein, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 48, 73-75 (1935). 24. N. Straumann, Annalen der Physik 523, 488–500 (2011). 64. A. Einstein to J. Ghosh, Aug. 26, 1935 (letter). 25. N. Straumann, Ibid. 65. U.R. Burman, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 1, 127-136 (1963). 26. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 49, 769-822 (1916).

VOL. 85, NOS. 3–4 83 66 N.[R.] Sen, Annalen der Physik 379, 365-396 (1924). 100 E. Cunningham, Relativity and the electron theory (Longmans, 67 M. von Laue M., N.[R.] Sen, Annalen der Physik 379, 252-254 Green and Co., London, 1915), pp. 11-12. (1924). 101 S. Ramaseshan, (Ed.), Scientific papers of C.V. Raman, Optics 68 M. von Laue M., N.[R.] Sen, Annalen der Physik 380, 182-188 (Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, 1988), Vol. III, pp. (1924). 115-126. 69 N.R. Sen, Proc. R. Soc. 116, 73-80 (1927). 102 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment#/media/ File:Fizeau-Mascart1_retouched.png, Dec. 21, 2018. 70 N.R. Sen, Zeitschrift für Physik 40, 667-674 (1927). 103 C.V. Raman, N.K. Sethi, Phil. Mag. 43, 447-455 (1922). 71 U.R. Burman, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 1, 127-136 (1963). 104 C.V. Raman, N.K. Sethi, Ibid. 72. U.R. Burman, Ibid. 105 C.V. Raman, N.K. Sethi, Ibid. 73 J.V. Narlikar, Curr. Sci. 109, 2214-2219 (2015). 106 D.C. Miller, Science LXIII, 433-443 (1926). 74 J.V. Narlikar, General relativity and astrophysics, in: Astronomy in India: A Historical Perspective, Platinum jubilee special 107 Minutes of Syndicate, 1926, Part 1 (University of Calcutta, volume, T. Padmanabhan, (Ed.), (Indian National Science Calcutta, 1926), pp. 600-602. Academy, New Delhi, 2014), pp. 49-60. 108 S. Ramaseshan, (Ed.), Scientific papers of C.V. Raman, Optics 75 P.C. Vayida, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 19, 121-126 (1991). (Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, 1988), Vol. III, pp. xiii-xiv. 76 http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Search/Results? lookfor=Narlikar&type= AllFields&submit=Find, Dec. 2, 2018. 109 G.O. Mueller, K. Kneckebrodt, 95 years of criticism of the special theory of relativity (1908-2003), Preliminary manuscript delivery 77 V.V. Narlikar, R. Towari, Curr. Sci. 17, 355-356 (1948). for testing purposes Germany, May 2006 (https://www.ekkehard- 78 R.L. Brahmachary to A. Einstein, Sept. 4, 1945 (letter). friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf, Dec. 2, 2018). 79 R.L. Brahmachary, Progress of Theoretical Physics 23, 749-750 110. R.M. Friedman, The politics of excellence – Behind the Nobel (1960). Prize in Science (A.W.H. Freeman Book, New York, 2001), pp. 80 R.L. Brahmachary, Nuovo Cim. 4, 1216-1218 (1956). 119-140. 81 J. Evershed, Monthly Notices Royal Astron. Soc. 69, 454–458 111. R.M. Friedman, Ibid. (1909). 112. A. Elzinga, Einstein’s Nobel Prize – A glimpse behind closed 82 N.S. Hetherington, Quarterly Journal 21, 246-252 (1980). doors (Science history publications, Sagamore Beach, 2006). 83 K. Hentschel, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological 113. K. Hentschel, Interpretationen: und Fehlinterpretationen der Sciences 23, 219-277 (1993). speziellen und der allgemeine Relativitätstheorie durch Zeitgenossen Albert Einsteins (Birkhäuder Verlag, Bassel, 1990). 84 J. Evershed, A new interpretation of the general displacement of the lines of the solar spectrum towards the red, Bull. Kodaikanal 114. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 1, 445-449 (1936). Observatory 36, in: Annual Report of the Director Kodaikanal 115. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 2, 343-346 (1936). and Madras Observatories for the year 1913, p. 8. 116. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 3, 155-157 (1937). 85 N.S. Hetherington, Quarterly Journal 21, 246-252 (1980). 117. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 5, 336-338 (1939). 86 A.A.N. Ayyar, Kodaikanal Observatory Bulletin XLIV 44, 113- 118. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 5, 601 (1940). 116 (1915). 119. S.M. Sulaiman, Sci. Cult. 1, 445-449 (1936). 87 T. Royds, Kodaikanal Observatory Bulletin 39, 71-82 (1914). 120. S.M. Sulaiman, Ibid. 88 Anonymous, Nature 94, 571-572 (1915). 121. S.M. Sulaiman, Ibid. 89 K. Hentschel, Science in Context 6, 137-194 (1993). 122. R. Siddiqi, Curr. Sci. 10, 145-148 (1941). 90 R. Singh, Sci. Cult. 79, 366-372 (2013). 123. B.S.M, Curr. Sci. 4, 145-151 (1935). 91 F.W. Dyson, A.S. Eddington, C. Davidson, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 220, 571-581 (1920). 124. S.M. Sulaiman, Curr. Sci. 4, 394-402 (1935). 92 J. Evershed, Kodaikanal Observatory Bulletin LXXII, 45-51 125. Z. Husain, Curr. Sci. 6, 291-293 (1937). (1923). 126. S.M. Sulaiman, Curr. Sci. 6, 457-459 (1938). 93 J. Evershed, Ibid. 127. Z. Husain, Curr. Sci. 6, 502-503 (1938). 94 Atlas Obscura, Aug. 11, 2017. 128. S.M. Sulaiman, Curr. Sci. 6, 511-513 (1938). 95 Atlas Obscura, Ibid. 129. C.V. Raman, Nature 148, 336-337 (1941). 96 J. Evershed, Kodaikanal Observatory Bulletin LXXII, 45-51 130. M.N. Saha, Sci. Cult. 6, 644-648 (1941). (1923). 131. Anonymous, Science 80, 13 (1934). 97 J.C. Bhattacharyya, A. Vagiswari, Astronomy in India in the 20th 132. M.N. Saha, Sci. Cult. 6, 644-648 (1941). century, in: S.K. Sen, K.S. Shukla, (Eds.), History of Astronomy 133. D.S. Kothari, Biog. Mem. Fell. INSA 10, 142-147 (1941). in India (Indian National Science Academy, New Delhi, 1985), pp. 403-435. 134. R. Singh, C.V. Raman’s laboratory and discovery of the Raman effect (Shaker Publisher, Aachen, 2018). 98 E. Cunningham, Relativity and the electron theory (Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1915), p. 2. 135. R. Singh R., Chemistry-Physics Nobel Prizes – India’s contribution (Shaker Publisher, Aachen, 2016), pp. 155-166. 99 E. Cunningham, Ibid.

84 SCIENCE AND CULTURE, MARCH-APRIL, 2019