Establishing Quantum Physics in Berlin

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
Hubert Goenner
Giuseppe Castagnetti
Establishing Quantum
Physics in Berlin
Einstein and the Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute
for Physics, 1917–1922
SpringerBriefs in History of Science
and Technology
Series Editors
Gerard Alberts, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Theodore Arabatzis, University of Athens, Athens, Greece
Bretislav Friedrich, Fritz Haber Institut der Max Planck Gesellschaft, Berlin,
Germany
Ulf Hashagen, Deutsches Museum, Munich, Germany
Dieter Hoffmann, Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, Germany
Simon Mitton, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
David Pantalony, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Matteo Valleriani, Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science, Berlin,
Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10085
Hubert Goenner Giuseppe Castagnetti
•
Establishing Quantum
Physics in Berlin
Einstein and the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
for Physics, 1917–1922
123
Hubert Goenner Giuseppe Castagnetti (Deceased)
Fakultät für Physik Research Scholar
Institut für Theoretische Physik Berlin, Germany
(emeritus) Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen
Göttingen, Germany
ISSN 2211-4564 ISSN 2211-4572 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in History of Science and Technology
ISBN 978-3-030-63121-5 ISBN 978-3-030-63122-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
1 Einstein Comes to Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1 Relations Between Einstein and Berlin Physicists . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Einstein’s Recruitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.3 What Was Expected from Einstein? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 A New Way of Organizing Research in Physics? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2 The Foundation of the KWI für Physik . . . . . . . . . ............. 23
2.1 The Preliminaries. A First Unsuccessful Attempt
to Establish the Institute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2 Einstein’s First Years in Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 The Opening of the KWI für Physik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3 The KWI für Physik Under Einstein’s Directorship 1917–1922 . . . . 39
3.1 A First Phase of Scarce Activity (1917–1919) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 The Real Start. The Period 1919/20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3 The Period 1920/21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.4 The Period 1922/23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
3.5 Einstein Ends His Activities at the KWI für Physik . . . . . . . . . . . 85
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4 Einstein’s Directorship: An Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.1 The Institute’s Spending Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.2 The Scientists Funded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
4.3 How Effective Was the Funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.4 The Scientific Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.5 The Scientific Programs of the Direktorium Members . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.6 Einstein’s Research Program and the KWI Für Physik . . . . . . . . . 109
4.7 Einstein and Scientific Research as a Collective Enterprise . . . . . . 112
4.8 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
v
vi Contents
4.9 Research Projects Supported by the KWI für Physik from

October 1917 to March 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Uncited References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Chapter 1
Einstein Comes to Berlin
Abstract This chapter shows how a group of prominent physicists, with whom
Einstein had interacted scientifically during previous years, promoted his call to
Berlin, and the establishment of a research institute under his directorship in the
expectation that Einstein and the institute would take the lead in advancing quantum
physics in its early phase. It explores the expectations placed upon him in the context
of his achievements, the establishment of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society, and the state
of physics during the first decades of the twentieth century.
Keywords Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische Forschung · Hugo Andres

Krüss · Fritz Haber · Walter Nernst · Max Planck · Ruebens · Emil Warburg
1.1 Relations Between Einstein and Berlin Physicists
The call of Einstein to Berlin was the result of efforts made by several members
of the Berlin scientific community over a period of years and must be seen in the
context of institutional as well as purely scientific interests.1
There is evidence that as early as 1910 Walther Nernst had thought of a way to
bring the thirty-one-year-old extraordinary professor of theoretical physics from the
University of Zurich to the center of physics research in Germany (Fölsing 1993, 337;
Kormos Barkan 1999, 183, note 3). However, the first concrete step in this direction
was made, as far as we know, by Emil Warburg in April 1912 when he offered
Einstein, visiting Berlin at the time, a position at his institute, the Physikalisch-
Technische Reichsanstalt (Imperial Institute for Physics and Technical Standards).2
In fact, the scientific relations between Einstein and some senior Berlin physicists
dated some years back. As early as 1906 a lively correspondence began with Max
Planck, which was later followed by others. Einstein had also met several German
1 On Einstein’s call to Berlin, see Schulmann (1995). Our succinct biographical notes concerning
Einstein are based on the detailed narratives given by Fölsing (1993), Frank (1949), Hermann
(1994), Seelig (1960). As to the course of Einstein’s scientific activities, we refer to Pais (1982).
2 Einstein (1993b, 415, 480, 511). On the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, see Cahan (1989).
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

H. Goenner and G. Castagnetti, Establishing Quantum Physics in Berlin,
SpringerBriefs in History of Science and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2_1
2 1 Einstein Comes to Berlin
colleagues at congresses or private meetings between 1909 and 1911, so that when he
traveled to Berlin in April 1912 in order to “talk shop with various people”3 he was
already an acknowledged figure. The program of his visit included meetings with
Fritz Haber, Nernst, Planck, Heinrich Rubens, Warburg, and the young astronomer
Erwin Freundlich (Einstein 1993a, 581; Einstein 1993b, 467). It is worth expounding
in some detail the scientific aspects of these personal relations, bearing in mind that
their intensity and cordiality were at that time anything but obvious.
Haber4 was director of the newly opened Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalis-
che Chemie und Elektrochemie (Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physical Chemistry and
Electrochemistry) and professor of physical chemistry at the University of Berlin. He
was known worldwide for his and Bosch’s method for the synthesis of ammonia. In
addressing problems in his discipline, Haber paid keen attention to the development
of physical theories concerning the constitution of matter, like the new quantum the-
ory (Bonhoeffer 1953, 5). He first met Einstein in September 1911 at the congress
of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte (Society of German Scien-
tists and Physicians) in Karlsruhe. He felt so stimulated by the discussions he had
there with Einstein that he felt compelled to write to him afterwards that “no one has
taught me more than you,” and to ask him to “continue teaching me through your
criticism.”5 The ensuing correspondence dealt with solid-state theory, in particular
Haber’s hypothesis concerning the relative proper frequencies of electrons and atoms
in crystals. Haber had also worked on the energy balance in chemical reactions and
suggested a possible connection with the quantum hypothesis, namely with the quan-
tized energy carried by electrons in such reactions. Einstein, however, did not believe
Haber’s results, and in general had mixed feelings towards Haber’s work in physics,
although he granted him an “abundance of ideas.”6 Haber had also shown interest
in the precision electrometer that Einstein had developed with Richard Conrad and
Paul Habicht (Einstein 1993b, 383).
Nernst7 was professor of physical chemistry at the University of Berlin and direc-
tor of the corresponding institute. He enjoyed international reputation for his contri-
butions to the new developments in physical chemistry and for his heat theorem. For
several years, Nernst had been the only major scientist to address the theoretical and
experimental consequences for physical chemistry of the concept of the quantization
3 Einstein to Besso, 26 March [1912], in Einstein (1993b, 437, doc. 377). For quotations from
texts published in the Collected Papers of Albert Einstein we adopt the translations, with slight
modifications, from Einstein (1995b, 1998a, 2004a). In all other cases, the translations are by the
authors.
4 On Haber, see Bonhoeffer (1953), Stoltzenberg (1994), Szöllösi-Janze (1998). Unless otherwise
noted, bio-bibliographical information is drawn from the Poggendorffs bibliographies (Weinmeister

1925–1926; Stobbe 1936–1940; Zaunick and Salié 1956–1962).
5 Haber to Einstein, 19 December 1911, in Einstein (1993b, 337, doc. 329).
6 Einstein to Heinrich Zangger, undated [20 December 1911], in Einstein (1993b, 379, doc. 330);
see also Einstein (1993b, docs. 308, 364, 368).

7 On Nernst, see Kormos Barkan (1999), Bartel and Huebener (2007), Bodenstein (1942), Hiebert
(1978).
1.1 Relations Between Einstein and Berlin Physicists 3
of energy introduced by Einstein’s paper, which explained the specific heat of solids
by the use of Planck’s black-body radiation formula.8 And it was mainly because
of Nernst’s publications that Einstein’s paper became known among physicists. Ein-
stein’s theoretical result, namely that specific heats vanish at absolute zero, confirmed
Nernst’s heat theorem. Hence Nernst embarked on an extensive program of measure-
ments of specific heat of solids at low temperature, a program in which Rubens and
some of his collaborators also took part. In 1911 this research led Nernst to con-
firm Einstein’s predictions concerning the specific heat of solids at low temperatures
except for certain discrepancies. Meanwhile, in March 1910 Nernst visited Einstein
in Zurich and was so impressed that he called him a “Boltzmann redivivus.”9 It was
on Nernst’s initiative that the First Solvay Congress was convened in autumn 1911
in Brussels, at which a selected group of the most prominent European physicists of
the time discussed developments in radiation theory in light of the quantum hypoth-
esis.10 Of course, the young and still little-known Einstein was also invited and, on
that occasion, made his official entrée into the inner circle of the international physics
community. Whereas Nernst was almost enthusiastic in his appreciation of Einstein
during this period, for his part Einstein was more skeptical about Nernst’s qualities
as a theoretician11 and criticized his repeated attempts to derive the heat theorem
from thermodynamics. He later insisted that quantum theory would be necessary in
order to do this.
Planck12 was professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin and a
widely recognized authority among German physicists. In June 1912, shortly after
Einstein’s visit, he was appointed as one of the four “Permanent Secretaries” of the
Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Prussian Academy of Sciences), that is,
he became a leading figure of the most prestigious scientific institution in the coun-
try. Although Planck became co-editor of the Annalen der Physik only in 1906, in
view of his function as scientific adviser to the journal since 1895, he had prob-
ably already played a role in the publication of Einstein’s first papers in 1901. In
autumn 1905, immediately after the publication of Einstein’s “Zur Elektrodynamik
bewegter Körper,” expounding the theory of special relativity, (Einstein 1905) Planck
had given a report on it to the “physical colloquium” at the University (Fölsing 1993,
227). Planck became an “enthusiastic relativist” and was “instrumental in securing
the swift acceptance” of special relativity among physicists (Heilbron 1986, 28). In
addition to his own reflections on the subject, between 1905 and 1914 Planck also
supervised seven doctoral dissertations directly or indirectly concerning special rela-
tivity (Hoffmann 1984, 60). In spring 1906 at the latest, he began to correspond with
8 Einstein (1907). For Nernst’s contribution to quantum physics and his relationship with Einstein,
see Kormos Barkan (1999, 164–207). See also Einstein (1993b, docs. 199, 270, 364, 366, 384).
9 Nernst to Arthur Schuster, 17 March 1910, quoted in Kormos Barkan (1999, 183).
10 Kormos Barkan (1999, 181–207), Mehra and Rechenberg (1982, 127–136). For the proceedings,
see Langevin and de Broglie (1912).

11 Privately, Einstein considered Nernst “a fabulous technician.” Einstein to Zangger, 20 May 1912,
in Einstein (1993b, 467, doc. 398).

12 On Planck, see Born (1948–1949), Heilbron (1986).
Einstein on various problems at the forefront of physics research (Einstein 1993b,

docs. 36, 47, 64, 118, 160, 161, 172, 211). In addition to the question of an empiri-
cal verification of special relativity, black-body radiation and Planck’s first quantum
hypothesis were also discussed from the very beginning of their exchange. Einstein
met Planck as well as Rubens, Arnold Sommerfeld, and Wilhelm Wien, for the first
time in September 1909, at the congress of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher
und Aerzte in Salzburg where he gave a lecture on the nature of radiation (Einstein
1909, 1993b, 227). Planck and Einstein differed on Einstein’s hypothesis of the cor-
puscular nature of electromagnetic waves.13 Their discussion continued unabated
during the First Solvay Congress in 1911, at which Planck presented his second
quantum hypothesis and strove to shift the emphasis from quantization of energy to
the quantization of action in phase space (Planck 1914). Privately, Einstein rejected
Planck’s second theory as “almost worthless.”14 While “Planck had the very greatest
admiration for Einstein’s work, which he liked to compare with Copernicus,” (Heil-
bron 1986, 31) Einstein tended to consider Planck a stubborn conservative because
of his skepticism towards new physical theories.15
Rubens was professor of experimental physics at Berlin University and director
of the university’s Physical Institute.16 For many years he had worked systemati-
cally on Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism and contributed to the emergence of
quantum physics. Under Rubens’s supervision, a doctoral thesis confirming special
relativity had been completed in 1909 (Einstein 1993b, 186–187, note 9). As men-
tioned, Einstein and Rubens met shortly thereafter at the congress in Salzburg. At
the time, Rubens was working with Nernst on the experimental proof of Einstein’s
predictions concerning the specific heat of solids.17 In January 1912, Einstein and
Rubens corresponded about Rubens’s measurements of the wavelengths of residual
rays, from which it was thought that the optical characteristic frequencies of crystals
could be obtained. This in turn was needed to verify Einstein’s formula for the tem-
perature dependency of the specific heat of a solid. Einstein at first misinterpreted
Rubens’s results and wrote a paper on the subject but withdrew it due to Rubens’s
criticism.18
Warburg19 was the President of the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, one
of the major institutes for experimental physics in Germany. Since at least 1907,
following the formulation of the light quantum hypothesis by Einstein, Warburg had
been doing theoretical work concerning the energy balance of photochemical reac-
tions, besides continuing investigations into chemical reactions caused by electric
discharges in gases. Einstein met Warburg for the first time in autumn 1911 at the
13 Einstein to Johannes Stark, 31 July 1909, in Einstein (1993b, 202, doc. 172).
14 Einstein to Wien, 17 May 1912, in Einstein (1993b, 464, doc. 395).
15 See, e.g., Einstein (1993b, 349, 588–589).
16 On Rubens, see Kangro (1975).
17 Einstein to Jakob Laub, 16 March 1910, in Einstein (1993b, 232, doc. 199).
18 For a reconstruction of this controversy, see Kox (1995); see also Einstein (1993b, docs. 313, 331,
343, 344, 354, 377).

19 On Warburg, see Ramser (1976).
1.1 Relations Between Einstein and Berlin Physicists 5
Solvay Congress, during which they occasionally discussed photochemistry. Ein-

stein disagreed with some of Warburg’s conclusions concerning the photochemical
energy balance.20 It was allegedly during these conversations that Einstein found a
theoretical proof, based on thermodynamical reasoning, of the quantum nature of
light absorption in photochemical phenomena, which became known as the law of
photochemical equivalence. A few weeks later, he published a paper on the subject
(Einstein 1912). Warburg, on the other hand, started a series of experiments lasting
for several years that indeed verified Einstein’s law of photochemical equivalence
under certain conditions. He occasionally reported his results to Einstein and the two
also discussed the subject during their meeting in April 1912 in Berlin. It is quite clear
that their common interest in the photochemical energy balance, and the scientific
exchange that stemmed from it, were behind Warburg’s decision to invite Einstein to
join his institute. In all likelihood, the invitation was also part of Warburg’s plan to
reform the Reichsanstalt and to broaden the scope of its research, in order to bridge
the increasing gap between the traditional concerns of the Reichsanstalt in technical
physics and new developments in pure physics (Cahan 1989, 176–187).
Erwin Freundlich21 became an assistant at the Sternwarte, the Berlin Astronom-
ical Observatory, in 1910. In August 1911, he came into contact with Einstein, at
the time professor at the German University in Prague, who was enquiring among
astronomers about the possibility of empirically testing the influence of gravitation
on the propagation of light as predicted by his relativistic theory.22 In particular, one
question raised was whether it would be possible to observe a deflection of light
rays in the gravitational field of the sun.23 Freundlich immediately took up “with
passion” the verification of this phenomenon.24 A long correspondence began, from
which regrettably very few of Freundlich’s letters still exist.25 The two most proba-
bly met for the first time in April 1912 during Einstein’s visit to Berlin. Freundlich
was the first and for a long time “the only colleague in that profession [astronomy]
until now to support [Einstein’s] efforts effectively in the area of general relativity.”26
Not only did he work for years on several ways to test Einstein’s theory, but it was
also thanks to his publications that “the astronomers […] started to show interest
20 On this subject and on Einstein’s relations with Warburg, see the editorial comment “Einstein on
the Law of Photochemical Equivalence” in Einstein (1995a, 109–113). See also Einstein (1993b,
docs. 308, 354, 362, 366, 385, 386).
21 For bio-bibliographical information on Freundlich, see Forbes (1972). Exhaustive treatments of
the relations between Einstein and Freundlich are given in Hentschel (1992, 1994), see also Pyenson
(1985, 228–236).
22 Käthe Freundlich to Lewis Pyenson, 29 April 1973, copy in Albert Einstein Archives [hereafter
AEA], 11–241; Pyenson (1985, 230).

23 For the history of the research concerning the gravitational redshift, see Hentschel (1998), Earman
and Glymour (1980).

24 Einstein to Zangger, 20 September 1911, in Einstein (1993b, 325, doc. 286).
25 For the period 1911–1921, see the letters published in Einstein (1993b, 1998b, 2004b, 2006,
2009).
26 Einstein to Sommerfeld, 2 February 1916, in Einstein (1998b, 256, doc. 186).
in the important question about the bending of light rays.”27 Freundlich “became
Einstein’s mouthpiece among astronomers,” (Hentschel 1994, 154) which was not
without consequences for his academic career, since he often confronted hostility or
at least strong skepticism. In December 1913, shortly after his election to the Prus-
sian Academy of Science but before his move to Berlin, Einstein asked Planck to
support Freundlich’s request for financial help from the Academy for an expedition
to Crimea, to observe the stars near the sun during the solar eclipse of August 1914.
The expedition was so important to Einstein that he even envisaged borrowing money
from a private donor or contributing from his own savings.28
Einstein also had important links to Berlin outside the scientific community. Some
of his relatives lived in this city, among them his cousin Elsa Einstein. During his
visit in April 1912, Einstein fell in love with her; they married in 1919. For the time
being though, this love affair was not enough to convince Einstein to move to Berlin,
as he hinted in a letter to Elsa written immediately after his return home, in which
he complained: “It is such a pity that we don’t live in the same town. The chances of
my getting a call to Berlin are, unfortunately, rather slight, as I must admit to myself
when I think about it clearly.”29
It is not clear why Einstein declined Warburg’s offer. Although in the quoted
letter to his cousin he regrets that he had a slim chance of being called to Berlin,
we know that he himself did not want to take Warburg’s offer into consideration
nor the call to Vienna received at about the same time, allegedly because he did
not want to behave incorrectly towards the Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule
(ETH, Federal Polytechnic) of Zurich. Einstein had just been appointed professor
of theoretical physics at the ETH in January 1912 and had moved from Prague
to Zurich the following summer (Einstein 1993b, 630–631). In addition, a later
allusion by Haber30 to Einstein’s refusal gives some reason to believe that he probably
did not want to be tightly bound to an institute like the Physikalisch-Technische
Reichsanstalt, whose institutional obligations included standard measurements for
technical applications in a great range of fields. After all, Einstein was satisfied with
the institute “in [his own] head” and needed “in addition at most a few books.”31
27 Einstein to Freundlich, undated [August 1913], in Einstein (1993b, 550, doc. 468), Hentschel
(1992, 26).
28 Einstein to Freundlich, 7 December 1913, in Einstein (1993b, 581, doc. 492). In fact, the Academy
granted 2,000 marks or about one third of the expedition costs on the recommendation of Planck,
Rubens and Karl Schwarzschild. The director of the Sternwarte, Hermann Struve, also supported the
project, although he explicitly doubted that the observations would provide conclusive evidence (see
Freundlich’s application to the Academy, 7 December 1913, Archiv der Berlin-Brandenburgischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften [hereafter AAdW], Berlin, II–VII, Bd. 157, p. 137; minutes of the
meeting of the mathematical-physical class, 11 December 1913, AAdW, II–V, Bd. 132, p. 117). See
also Hentschel (1992, 51–52).
29 Albert Einstein to Elsa Einstein, undated [30 April 1912], in Einstein (1993b, 456, doc. 389).
30 Haber to Hugo Andres Krüss, 4 January 1913, in Einstein (1993b, 511, doc. 428).
31 “Statement of Reasons for Leaving Prague,” 3 August 1912, in Einstein (1993b, 499, doc. 414).
1.2 Einstein’s Recruitment 7
1.2 Einstein’s Recruitment
Warburg’s offer to Einstein was probably made on his own initiative and not in agree-
ment with the other leading physicists. Indeed, the name Einstein had not even been
mentioned during a meeting concerning the foundation of an institute for physical
research held just a couple of months earlier, in February 1912.32 In any case, after
Warburg’s first attempt other members of Berlin’s scientific establishment joined the
effort to recruit Einstein.
Eight months after Einstein’s visit, in a letter33 to an official in the Prussian Min-
istry of Education, Hugo Andres Krüss, Haber took up a suggestion that Krüss had
made some time earlier, namely “whether there could not be created a position for
this extraordinary man in the institute in my charge.” Haber not only strongly backed
this idea but had meanwhile discussed it with Krüss’s superior in the Ministry, Min-
isterialdirektor Friedrich Schmidt-Ott, and also with the financier Leopold Koppel
who was willing to support Einstein’s recruitment to Berlin financially.34 Following a
remark by Schmidt-Ott that the theorist Einstein would not need an institute with lab-
oratories, Haber agreed that Einstein be given a special status in his institute: “Even
a theoretical physicist of his orientation is in need of certain resources in order to
study experimentally one topic or another from time to time, or to have it studied by
an assistant or collaborator” (Einstein 1993b, 511). In his preliminary calculations,
Haber estimated that a single expenditure of 50,000 marks for scientific equipment
would be sufficient and a yearly salary of 15,000 marks adequate for Einstein. This
was a high salary for a young professor. Interestingly enough, in support of the plan
Haber argued that Einstein was to be treated like a scientific successor to Jacobus
van’t Hoff, the famous physical chemist who had held the first research professorship
established at the Prussian Academy of Science. Before any further action was taken,
it was considered appropriate that the colleague scientifically closest to Einstein, the
theoretical physicist Planck, should be approached (Einstein 1993b, 513–514; vom
Brocke 1990, 87). Apparently, Planck was not yet involved and Haber’s initiative,
like Warburg’s, was still a personal one, not a concerted action.35
Through the interaction between Haber, Planck, and Nernst during the first half
of 1913, the original Krüss-Haber plan was changed dramatically (Einstein 1993b,
529, note 1). It was no longer envisioned that Einstein would become a researcher
32 Minutes of the meeting of 5 February 1912, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A,
Nr. 116, pp. 16–17.

33 Haber to Krüss, 4 January 1913, in Einstein (1993b, 510–514, notes and doc. 428).
34 In 1905, Koppel contributed considerable funds to a Koppel-Stiftung (Koppel Foundation) aimed
at supporting philanthropic and educational schemes under the patronage of Kaiser Wilhelm II.
The Koppel-Stiftung was the largest contributor to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (see below,
Sect. 1.4) from its foundation and single-handedly funded Haber’s KWI für physikalische Chemie
und Elektrochemie. On Koppel and the Koppel-Stiftung, see vom Brocke (1990, 98–102).
35 In the correspondence between Albert Einstein and his cousin Elsa Einstein there is evidence that
she also personally recommended Einstein to Haber (Einstein 1993b, 544–546, docs. 465, 466). It
is not known what kind of relationship existed between Elsa Einstein and Haber at that time, but
Elsa’s intervention was not a decisive factor in Haber’s initiative.
with special status in Haber’s institute but rather a member of the scientific Olympus,
(Einstein 1993b, 259) the Prussian Academy of Science. On 12 June 1913 Planck
read to the physical-mathematical class of the Academy a proposal he had formulated
himself, which was also signed by Nernst, Rubens, and Warburg, to elect Einstein as
a member.36 On that occasion Nernst informed the Academy members that half of
Einstein’s exceptional yearly salary of 12,000 marks would be provided by Koppel
(Einstein 1993b, 529, note 2). The usual annual honorary remuneration for members
was 900 marks. From 12 to 14 July 1913, Planck and Nernst visited Einstein in Zurich
and offered him a membership in the Academy with a joint honorary professorship
at the University of Berlin under the conditions mentioned. He would be free to
continue his research with the right but no obligation to teach, that is, he would have
the same status as van’t Hoff, as Haber had suggested. Although the establishment
of a KWI for physical research under Einstein’s directorship was not mentioned in
the documents of the Academy, references to it in Einstein’s letters indicate that the
project had certainly been discussed, at least in general terms, during the meeting in
Zurich (Einstein 1993b, docs. 451, 453, 478, 482, 509).
This time the conditions were convincing and Einstein accepted the offer. In his
private correspondence he mentioned the wish to be closer to his cousin Elsa as one
of the main reasons for his decision.37 Einstein’s relationship with his wife Mileva
had become so wretched (Einstein 1993b, docs. 489, 497, 498) that he intentionally
headed for a situation that would make things worse, apparently without being aware
of the consequences, as later became evident. Einstein’s private remarks are not
always to be taken at face value, though. Beside the financial aspects of the new
position, the decisive reasons for Einstein’s move to Berlin were probably—as he
also hinted—the dispensation from teaching obligations, the possibility of working
with junior collaborators in his own institute, and the prospect of fruitful scientific
exchange with his senior colleagues (Einstein 1993b, docs. 453, 454, 455, 482, 484,
488, 513).
The physical-mathematical class of the Prussian Academy had already elected
Einstein on 3 July 1913, that is, before Nernst’s and Planck’s visit to Zurich, with
21 votes to one, six members being absent.38 The election was confirmed at the
plenary session of the Academy on 24 July 1913 with 44 votes to two. This time,
two members abstained and eleven were absent.39 With his formal acceptance of the
nomination Einstein announced his intention to move to Berlin at the beginning of
April 1914. He actually arrived on 29 March 1914 (Einstein 1993b, 582; Einstein
1998b, 11). Since the new institute had not yet been established, Einstein was given
an office in Haber’s institute (Einstein 1993b, 604; Einstein 1998b, 13).
36 Kirsten and Treder (1979, 95–97, vol. 1), Einstein (1993b, 526–528, doc. 445). Haber was not
among the signers because he became a member of the Academy in 1914.
37 Einstein (1993b, docs. 454, 465, 488, 509), Einstein (1998b, docs. 2, 94). This question is also
discussed in Fölsing (1993, 374–378).

38 Minutes of the meeting, AAdW, II–V, Bd. 132, pp. 93–94; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 98, vol. 1).
39 Minutes of the meeting, AAdW, II–V, Bd. 89, pp. 57–59.
1.3 What Was Expected from Einstein? 9
1.3 What Was Expected from Einstein?
For what reasons did the most prominent physicists and chemists in Berlin so dearly
want Einstein to become their colleague? In order to answer this question we must
take into consideration the state of physics during the first decades of the twentieth
century.40 The crisis in theoretical physics had not yet subsided. It is true that special
relativity and classical mechanics had already been reconciled with one another in
a new mechanics (Laue 1911). However, quantum physics was a mixture of theo-
retical hypotheses and a multitude of little-understood empirical findings related to
Planck’s energy quantum. Both the wave theory of light as described by Maxwell’s
equations and Bohr’s atomic model still presented formidable obstacles. With the
concept of ether banished, what supports the oscillations of light waves? What about
Einstein’s photons? The atomic model that Bohr suggested in 1913 was in con-
flict with Maxwell’s electrodynamical theory: in their accelerated motion around
the nucleus electrons should have radiated but did not. Everyone in the scientific
community was aware of this critical situation. Einstein still described it in dramatic
terms in his “Autobiographical Notes”: “It was as if the ground had been pulled out
from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere upon which one could
have built” (Einstein 1979, 42–43). Haber, in a memorandum for the foundation of
the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische Forschung, used the following words:
With each month more evidence accumulates that the fundamental concept introduced by
Planck into theoretical physics with the so-called elementary quantum of action is indis-
pensable for [understanding] all the processes of the molecular world. But, until now, it was
not possible to reconcile this concept in a satisfactory manner with the concepts of classi-
cal theoretical physics. Physics therefore needs very urgently new experimental research in
order to obtain a usable basis for the physical understanding of nature. The importance of
this task cannot be overestimated.41
As to Einstein’s role, we noted already that he had interacted scientifically with all
the main Berlin physicists during the previous years. The range of fields around
which they had met ran from relativity to quantum theory, from thermodynamics to
photoelectricity and photochemistry. Nernst “surely hoped that Einstein would con-
tinue to be as close to experiment as he had been” (Kormos Barkan 1999, 186) up to
that time, thus helping him in the effort to integrate quantum theoretical concepts
in a molecular theory of chemical processes. Haber’s hope was that Einstein could
play a similar role for theoretical chemistry as van’t Hoff, who had introduced to it
thermodynamics. In Haber’s opinion, Einstein was precisely the person to achieve
a similar success by putting to use “the radiation theory and electromechanics” to
advance chemistry. By “electromechanics” we may understand “the theory of the
electron” or, more broadly, the interaction of atoms and electromagnetic radiation,
40 Forthe history of physics of this period, see Mehra and Rechenberg (1982), Jungnickel and
McCormmach (1986, vol. 2), Kragh (1999).
41 “Gegen Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts …” Staatsbibliothek Berlin [hereafter SBB], Acta
Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI. The typewritten

document is not signed but, on 25 April 1914, Krüss added: “received from privy councilor Haber.”
the quantum mechanical nature of which was largely unexplored and not well under-
stood. “This fundamental task—Haber concluded—can be incomparably advanced
by having Mr. Einstein join our institute.”42
The expectations indirectly expressed by Planck in the proposal of June 1913 for
Einstein’s membership in the Academy were much higher, and based upon a better
knowledge of Einstein’s scientific production (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 95–97, vol.
1; Einstein 1993b, 526–528). Planck, of course, considered the theory of special rel-
ativity as a fundamental achievement, but he also thought that its consequences were
“at the very limit of the measurable” and consequently of lesser interest than Ein-
stein’s contributions to other fields of physics. In his words “much more significant
[than the theory of special relativity] for experimental physics is his tackling of other
problems that are at the moment at the center of attention.” Among the contributions
Planck enumerated the first was the application of the “quantum hypothesis” to the
“atomic and molecular motions” and its consequences for the “development of the
new kinetic atomistics.”43 Second, he mentioned the “verifiable relationships” that
Einstein had established between the “quantum hypothesis” and the “lightelectric and
photoelectric effects,” and, finally, the “kinship” Einstein had pointed out “between
the constants of elasticity and those of the optical proper vibrations of crystals.” Not
only in the “formulation and critique of new hypotheses” should Einstein be consid-
ered a “master,” according to Planck, but also in the “deepening of classical theory.”
Here, Einstein’s “preferred field of research is the kinetic theory of matter and its
relation to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics,” a field in which his contri-
butions had opened up new directions for experimental research. While remarking
that “among the big problems which are so abundant in modern physics, there is
hardly one in which Einstein did not take a position in a remarkable manner,” Planck
could kindly excuse as juvenile “speculations” Einstein’s “light quantum hypothe-
sis” or skeptically report on his attempts to develop “a new theory of gravitation.”
For Planck, the most important aspect of Einstein’s scientific personality was his
“talent for quickly getting to the bottom of other scientists’ newly emerging views
and assertions, and for assessing their relationship to each other and to experience
with surprising certainty.”
Thus, it seems clear to us that Einstein was brought to Berlin in order to bring
fresh inspiration for the further theoretical and experimental development of quan-
tum physics and its applications to material science and physical chemistry, and not
at all to work on a generalization of special relativity towards a relativistic theory of
gravitation. Einstein must have understood this; in a letter to his friend Michele Besso
he comments: “The fraternity of physicists behaves rather passively with respect to
my paper on gravitation. […] Laue is not open to the fundamental considerations,
and neither is Planck.”44 Of course, in speaking of quantum theory, we must not
understand the term as we do today. For Planck, the “core of the quantum hypoth-
esis as well as of Nernst’s heat theorem” consisted merely in the thermodynamical
42 Haber to Krüss, 4 January 1913, in Einstein (1993b, 511, doc. 428).

43 Emphasis in the original.
44 Einstein to Besso, undated [January 1914], in Einstein (1993b, 588–589, doc. 499).
1.3 What Was Expected from Einstein? 11
principle that the entropy of a system does not diminish without boundary but
becomes zero at the minimum temperature (Planck 1913, vii). Nernst seems to
have wavered between considering the quantum, at some moments, a mere “calcu-
lation rule”45 and, at others, a very powerful instrument for understanding physical-
chemical phenomena that should be incorporated in a new molecular theory of the
solid state (Nernst 1913, 254–268; Kormos Barkan 1999, 166, 174–179).
Even if the establishment of a physics institute had been considered during the
Zurich meeting in July 1913, the Berliners did not link the expectations they placed in
Einstein’s “talent” to the project of giving him a leading function in such an institute,
at least not at that time. Until early 1914 they were undecided as to the organization,
the purpose, and even the directorship of the new institute they envisaged. In autumn
1913 Einstein was informed that the matter had been postponed until his arrival
and he did not hear any more about it until then (Einstein 1993b, docs. 482, 509,
513). Only on 9 January 1914 did a meeting concerning the planned institute take
place between Planck, Nernst, Haber, the representatives of the Prussian Ministry
of Education Schmidt-Ott and Krüss, and the financier Koppel. On that occasion,
Planck still pleaded to wait until Einstein had adjusted to the circumstances in Berlin
and suggested instead supporting him with “astronomical works” in the field of
research in which he was primarily engaged at the time, namely gravitation theory.
Nernst had a totally different opinion and maintained that it was “time to attack
the theory of the solid state with massive support,” pointing to Max von Laue’s
and William Henry Bragg’s research in unraveling the structure of crystalline bodies
using X-ray scattering. In order to carry out this “attack” he suggested two alternative
“ways”: either the establishment of a small institute under the direction of Hans
Geiger, a physicist working at the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, that would
undertake research in that field as well as on “radiology,” or the appointment of a
committee including Planck, Einstein, Haber, Warburg, Beckmann, Rubens, Laue,
and himself, which would allocate funds for research done by others: “the committee
has the [financial] means. Cheapest way. It is likely that the topic will be exhausted
within four to five years.”46
It was at this stage that a way was found to integrate Einstein into the structure of
a new institute that would tackle the problems singled out by Nernst and Haber. At
the beginning of February 1914, Haber, Nernst, Planck, Rubens, and Warburg sub-
mitted to the Prussian Government, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung
der Wissenschaften (Kaiser Wilhelm Society for the Advancement of Science) and
the Koppel-Stiftung a proposal for the foundation of a “Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für
physikalische Forschung” (for physical research, hereafter KWI für Physik) with
Einstein as the “permanent honorary secretary” of the scientific steering board.47 As
one of the “first tasks” of the new institute the initiators, following Nernst’s sug-
45 Nernst’s quotation in Kormos Barkan (1999, 174).

46 Minutes of the meeting, 9 January 1914, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Berlin [hereafter GStA], I. HA,
Rep. 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 18 r–v; Wendel (1975, 197).
47 Kirsten and Treder (1979, 146–148, vol. 1), Wendel (1975, 198–199). The only original specimen
of the proposal that we were able to find was sent by Nernst to Schmidt-Ott on 4 February 1914
gestion, set the “investigation of radioactive processes and further research into the
structure of crystalline bodies with the help of X-rays.” The study of radioactivity
was considered one of the avenues that might possibly lead to an understanding of
atomic structure.
1.4 A New Way of Organizing Research in Physics?
A further argument for our supposition that Einstein was recruited for his assumed
ability to lead a coordinated research effort in what we now call the microscopic
theory of matter follows from the particular manner in which the new institute was to
operate. As the founding proposal of February 1914 remarked, the envisaged manner
of organizing research was “almost new in physics” (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 147,
vol. 1; Kant 1996, 228).
In the last decades of the nineteenth century, German universities and their insti-
tutes had been systematically expanded to “large-size enterprises” in order to satisfy
the needs of a rapidly changing society.48 Because of the social and technical devel-
opment that had taken place in Germany in the second half of the century, scientific
knowledge had become an integral part of the production processes. Not only the
demand for technical staff in industry increased, but also the need for new products
and for improving existing products and production techniques. As a consequence,
the support for scientific research became a matter of public interest. The state was
now willing to allocate more money for higher education. Larger buildings with up-
to-date equipment were built especially for the institutes for chemistry and physics,
and the number of staff increased.49
Nevertheless, the work organization in the new university institutes did not change
dramatically. Their main tasks were still the transmission of knowledge to the students
through lectures and practical training, as well as the assessment through examina-
tions of the knowledge acquired, the correction of papers, the supervision of theses,
and the like. Furthermore, a considerable part of a professor’s income came from the
fees that the students had to pay for almost every course, practicum, and examination.
The ordinary professor, who as a rule was also the director of the institute, usually
reserved for himself the mandatory courses, which were attended by a large numbers
of students and therefore brought more money. These courses, though, were also
more general in content and required more preparation time. The more specialized
courses were instead given by subordinate staff, like extraordinary professors or Pri-
vatdozenten, who had the right to teach but no permanent position and also a lower
(GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 3–5). On the foundation of the
KWI für Physik and its preliminaries, see Sect. 2.1 below.
48 Vom Brocke (1990, 85–86), vom Brocke (1996, 4–6). For the history of the university institutes
in Germany, see also Riese (1977), Scheuch and von Alemann (1978). In particular, for the physical
research institutes, see Forman (1968, 59–125), Hermann (1978), Kant and Hoffmann (1981). On
the history of large-scale scientific research in Germany, see Ritter (1992).
49 See, e.g., Riecke (1905), Wiener (1906).
1.4 A New Way of Organizing Research in Physics? 13
income. Concerning the research work, the institute’s chief was a kind of monarch in
whom all power was invested. He decided on the allocation of money, the research
subjects, the use of the instruments, the work of the assistants, and so on. The Privat-
dozenten needed the director’s consent in order to pursue their research and thereby
launch their own academic careers, which almost always required a call to another
university. In practice the institute’s director, because of his institutional obligations,
had almost no time for research, while the junior staff had no liberty to do as they
liked. Furthermore, due to the differences in professional perspectives and research
programs, and also because of the increasing differentiation and specialization within
the disciplines, teamwork was unusual. On the contrary, rivalries and conflicts were
not infrequent. As a consequence university institutes were unable to keep up with
the development of increasingly complex research requiring cooperation between
scholars.50
The foundation of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (hereafter KWG) and its insti-
tutes in 1911 was intended to remedy this situation.51 The Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes
(hereafter KWI) had as their only stated task the performance of research. The direc-
tors and collaborating scientists were given better working conditions than those
at the university, and also had no teaching obligations.52 The leading scientists,
the researchers at the intermediate level, and the technical staff had permanent or
long-term positions allowing them to work with continuity. The laboratories were
generously equipped with more and more modern instruments. Furthermore, before
the economic crisis of the early twenties, the institutes of the KWG received financial
support not only from the state, which initially provided only the director’s salary,
but also from private donors, especially from industrial and financial companies,
both directly and through the KWG, and thus had a larger budget than university
institutes.53
Concerning the organization of personnel, the “monarchic” character was accen-
tuated in comparison to that of a university institute. Following what became known
as the “Harnack-Prinzip,” a Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was built around a strong sci-
entific personality chosen because of his outstanding results and promising research
program. In order to realize this program, the statute of a KWI guaranteed the direc-
tor the disposal over staff and the necessary financial means (vom Brocke 1996,
50 Forman (1968, 66–79, 92–100), Hermann (1978), Burchardt (1988), vom Brocke (1996, 8–9).
For contemporary references on tasks and organization of university institutes, see, e.g., Festschrift
(1909, 24–69), Ramsauer (1913), von Staa (1930). On income and tuition, see also Jastrow (1930).
51 For the history of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft, see Burchardt (1975), Vierhaus and vom
Brocke (1990), vom Brocke and Laitko (1996), Wendel (1975), Wendel (1984). The Kaiser-
Wilhelm-Gesellschaft was the predecessor of the present Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
52 In fact, all the directors of the KW Institutes were also university professors, though not always
full professors. It goes beyond the scope of this study to examine how teaching and research work
were actually integrated. The concordant evidence is that teaching and institutional obligations were
seen as hampering factors.
53 On the foundation, structure, and financing of the KWG, see vom Brocke (1990).
18–20).54 On the one hand, there was no more reason for rivalry at the higher levels;
on the other though, the director had to be a person capable of organizing people for
a common task if he wanted to make profitable use of his power.
However, the organizational structure of the new KWI für Physik did not corre-
spond to this model. According to the founding proposal of February 1914, it was
to be built on three bodies: a Kuratorium (administrative board) with one represen-
tative each from the Prussian Government, the KWG, and the Koppel-Stiftung; a
“wissenschaftliches Komitee” (scientific committee) with a “permanent honorary
secretary” (i.e., Einstein) and eight physicists elected for a period of three years—
half of them from Berlin and half from elsewhere; and finally an “Arbeitsausschuss”
(working committee). The intention was that the scientific committee should suggest
to the Kuratorium research projects, the researchers to be selected, and the sums to
be spent. The Kuratorium would then make the final decision concerning the fund-
ing of research projects and fellowships. The working committee would include all
cooperating scientists funded by the institute and was to assemble at least once a
year. The institute would not have a laboratory of its own.
The purpose of this institute should be to form various groups of particularly competent
researchers for the solution of important and urgent physical problems—either one after the
other or simultaneously—in order to systematically bring the respective problems towards
a possibly exhaustive solution through mathematical-physical examinations as well as by
means of experimental investigations to be performed in the laboratories of the involved
researchers.55
Clearly, the second “way” as suggested by Nernst during the meeting of 9 Jan-
uary 1914 had been taken. The model for this structure came from the Prussian
Academy of Science. At the time, learned academies had become more or less “halls
of fame” from which expert advice on the organization and support of research
could be obtained and through which a certain amount of funds for research were
still distributed. In fact, in the Berlin Academy, a “Geldverwendungs-Ausschuss”
(appropriations committee) composed of five members of each of its two classes
administered the capital endowed to the Academy by private donors. It backed appli-
cations for research projects by single persons as well as the joint efforts by groups of
people, such as exploratory expeditions or the compilation of scientific dictionaries
(Hartkopf and Wangermann 1991, 19, 24–27, 140–142). To us, it seems that the new
KWI für Physik was conceived in analogy to the Geldverwendungs-Ausschuss and
that its organization was modeled on an undertaking called Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. This was a long-term editorial project for the publication of the sources
of German history, promoted by the Academies of Berlin, Vienna, and Munich, and
involving in a grand collaboration historians from all German-speaking countries
(Grau 1975, 166). The Monumenta was given as an example in the proposal of
February 1914:
54 For a discussion of the “Harnack-Prinzip” and its concrete application, see Grau (1996), Laitko
(1996), Vierhaus (1996). Adolf von Harnack was the founder and the first president of the Kaiser-
Wilhelm-Gesellschaft.
55 Kirsten and Treder (1979, 146, vol. 1). The emphasized part is underlined in original.
1.4 A New Way of Organizing Research in Physics? 15
Such a cooperation of different scientists of a field is probably almost new in physics, but it
is long since customary in other disciplines; in particular the committee for the “Monumenta
Germaniae Historica” established by the Royal [Prussian] Academy of Science shall be
remembered. (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 147, vol. 1)
The main structures of the Monumenta were a central directory board, composed
of a minimum of eight members and a chairman, and a yearly plenary meeting of the
board together with all leading editors. The Berlin members of the central directory
board formed a steering committee in charge of everyday business between the
plenary meetings. The general scientific and organizational questions were to be
decided upon at the plenary meetings. The working agenda was then set by the
central directory board and handed over to the scholars responsible for research and
editorial work, who could hire junior collaborators themselves. They were all paid
either a fixed salary or given funds for specific projects (Hartkopf and Wangermann
1991, 417–421). Thus, the organization of the KWI für Physik resembled that of the
Monumenta Germaniae Historica.
Why was the organization chosen for Einstein’s institute so different from that of
the previously established KW Institutes, which were built around one or two creative
scientists functioning as powerful directors?56 We could speculate that the initiators
were aware of Einstein’s lack of experience in leading a large institute, but this would
not explain the foundation of an institute with no laboratory at all. Of course, the
proposers might just have been trying to obtain more funds for their own particular
fields of research through the reputation of the young and promising director. After
all, it must have been implicit from the beginning that they would become members of
the leading boards of the new institute, as actually happened three years later. Through
those committees they would then be able to influence the distribution of funds. This
special structure must be seen against the background of the conflicts between the
Prussian Academy, of which all the promoters, except Haber, were members, and
the growing KWG. The Academy did not look favorably on the establishment of
research institutes outside its control, but at the same time it was unable to adapt
to the needs of advanced research (vom Brocke 1996; Grau 1993, 206–209). Since
most of the members of the steering committees of the new KWI were to be de facto,
if not de jure, members of the Academy, this particular structure would allow them
and the Academy to command a greater budget and greater prestige. In a sense, the
KWI für Physik was in fact an Academy Institute under the umbrella of the KWG.
But also this explanation is unsatisfactory and only partial, since it would reduce the
new foundation to mere maneuvering and ignore the long-running preliminaries and
the scientific rationale cited in the founding documents.
Thus, on a less trivial note, we also should consider the assumption underlying
the founding proposal, that in order to elaborate and pursue a research plan on the
borderline between physics and physical chemistry, a collegial directorship would
fare better than a single person. This interdisciplinary and discursive approach to
56 The organizational difference from the other KWG institutes was even emphasized in the presen-
tations of the KWI für Physik at the time of its foundation (see, e.g., Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft
1918, 35).
research belonged to the constitutive tradition of the learned academies. Moreover,

all undertakings of the Academy were organized in the form of working committees,
like that of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Even undertakings in the natural
sciences were not research institutes with their own laboratories, but “commissions”
aimed at collecting and describing empirical data, like the “Catalogue of the Animal
Kingdom” or the “History of the Firmament” (vom Brocke 1996, 9; Grau 1975,
154–156, 251–252). As for the internal scientific reasons for a collegial directorship,
let us recall that, at least before Einstein’s move to Berlin, a strong overlap existed
between the research interests of the promoters and of Einstein, concentrating on the
physical structure of matter. The hints coming in from so many subfields of physics
that quantum phenomena would play an important role in the understanding of matter
suggested the need for a cooperative effort, for an undertaking that could not possibly
be led by just one creative scientist:
Nowadays modern physics presents such important and vast problems, and in all probability
this will be even more the case in future, that their ample treatment surpasses not only the
forces of a single researcher but even those of a large physics institute.57
The scientific committee of the new KWI was meant to be the place to discuss
these problems and to develop a research program to address them. This was the same
expectation that Nernst, the original source of this kind of organizational solution,
had nurtured towards the Solvay Congress of 1911.58 Well aware of the contradic-
tions between the new quantum theory and the classical molecular and kinetic theory
of matter, he also believed, with a good dose of optimism, “that a personal discussion
among researchers,” (Kormos Barkan 1999, 189) theoreticians as well as experimen-
talists, would bring if not solutions at least indications as to the path to be followed.
The letter of invitation to the congress, which had been drafted by Nernst, advocated
“a conspicuous cooperative effort” in this sense between people working in different
disciplines and using different approaches.
As for the leader of the cooperation, we have reason to believe that the promoters
hoped that Einstein might provide inspiration for a breakthrough in the nebulous land
of the mysterious quantum. It is too reductive to say that Einstein’s “only task was
to take part in the organization of research in the Academy as well as in the Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute” (Frank 1949, 180), if we understand this only in the narrow sense
of managing the staff’s activities. Of course, to a certain extent, this was also part
of Einstein’s duties. Definitely, a managerial effort was required to start and follow
through on a research project in which more than one scientist in possibly more
than one location would take part. On the other hand, at the time, other important
scientists were already known to be effective in this kind of work, while Einstein’s
organizational as well as experimental abilities were still untested. It seems to us
that Einstein was chosen to become head of the institute above all because the new
physics appearing on the horizon seemed to require a new step in the conceptual
57 Foundation
proposal, February 1914, in Kirsten and Treder (1979, 147, vol. 1).
58 On
Nernst’s activities in the organization of scientific research and institutions, see Bartel and
Huebener (2007, 206–229).
1.4 A NewWay of Organizing Research in Physics? 17
coordination of research. Because of his earlier work on the atomistic nature of

matter and the quantum aspects of radiation, Einstein was believed to be capable of
providing scientific leadership for the research carried out by other physicists.
Einstein himself was not entirely convinced of his ability to fulfill what was
required of him and even worried about losing his job and income, if “sooner or later
it turns out that I am not the right man for the direction of the institute and for the
work connected with the fund to be established, so that I would feel obliged to resign
my post.”59 He was evidently aware of the fact that becoming the Director of the
KWI für Physik would involve scientific as well as administrative work and would
not just mean obtaining an honorary title.
References
Bartel, Hans-Georg and Rudolf P. Huebener (2007). Walther Nernst. Pioneer of Physics and Chem-
istry. Singapore: World Scientific.
Bodenstein, Max (1942). “Walther Nernst, 25.6.1864–18.11.1941”. In: Berichte der Deutschen
Chemischen Gesellschaft, Abteilung A 75, pp. 79–104.
Bonhoeffer, Karl-Friedrich (1953). “Fritz Habers wissenschaftliches Werk”. In: Zeitschrift für Elek-
trochemie 57, pp. 2–6.
Born, Max (1948–1949). “Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck”. In: Obituary Notices of Fellows of the
Royal Society 6, pp. 161–188.
Burchardt, Lothar (1975). Wissenschaftspolitik im Wilhelminischen Deutschland. Vorgeschichte,
Gründung und Aufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Burchardt, Lothar (1988). “Naturwissenschaftliche Universitätslehrer im Kaiserreich”. In: Deutsche
Hochschullehrer als Elite 1815–1945. Ed. by Klaus Schwabe. Boppard am Rhein: Boldt, pp. 151–
214.
Cahan, David (1989). An Institute for an Empire. The Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt 1871–
1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Earman, John and Clark Glymour (1980). “The Gravitational Red Shift as a Test of General Rela-
tivity: History and Analysis”. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11, pp. 175–214.
Einstein, Albert (1905). “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”. In: Annalen der Physik 17, pp.
891–921. Reprinted in (Einstein 1989, doc. 23).
Einstein, Albert (1907). “Die Plancksche Theorie der Strahlung und die Theorie der spezifischen
Wärme”. In: Annalen der Physik 22, pp. 180–190. Reprinted in (Einstein 1989, doc. 38).
Einstein, Albert (1909). “Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die
Konstitution der Strahlung”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 10, pp. 817–825. Reprinted in (Einstein
1989, doc. 60).
Einstein, Albert (1912). “Thermodynamische Begründung des photochemischen Äquivalentgeset-
zes”. In: Annalen der Physik 37, pp. 832–838. Reprinted in (Einstein 1995a, doc. 2).
Einstein, Albert (1979). Autobiographical Notes. Ed. by Paul Arthur Schilpp. La Salle and Chicago:
Open Court Publishing Company. Translated and edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp.
Einstein, Albert (1993a). The Collected Papers. Vol. 3: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1909–1911. Ed.
by Martin J. Klein et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
59 Einstein to Planck, 7 July 1914 (Einstein 1998b, 40, doc. 18; Kirsten and Treder 1979, 104, vol.
1).
Einstein, Albert (1993b). The Collected Papers. Vol. 5: The Swiss Years: Correspondence, 1902–
1914. Ed. by Martin J. Klein, Anne J. Kox, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.
1914. Princeton: Princeton University Press. English translation by Anna Beck.
Einstein, Albert (1998a). The Collected Papers. Vol. 8: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914–
1918. Princeton: Princeton University Press. English translation by Ann M. Hentschel.
Einstein, Albert (1998b). The Collected Papers. Vol. 8: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914–
1918. Ed. by Robert Schulmann et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert (2004a). The Collected Papers. Vol. 9: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January
1919–April 1920. Princeton: Princeton University Press. English translation by Ann M. Hentschel.
Einstein, Albert (2004b). The Collected Papers. Vol. 9: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January
1919–April 1920. Ed. by Diana Kormos Buchhwald et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert (2006). The Collected Papers. Vol. 10: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, May–
December 1920 and Supplementary Correspondence, 1909–1920. Ed. by Diana Kormos Buch-
hwald et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert (2009). The Collected Papers. Vol. 12: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January–
December 1921. Ed. by Diana Kormos Buchhwald et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Festschrift zur Feier des 500jährigen Bestehens der Universität Leipzig. 4. Band, 2. Teil: Die Insti-
tute und Seminare der philosophischen Fakultät an der Universität Leipzig. Die mathematisch-
naturwissenschaftliche Sektion (1909). Leipzig: Hirzel.
Fölsing, Albrecht (1993). Albert Einstein. Eine Biographie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Forbes, Eric G. (1972). “Freundlich, Erwin Finlay”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed. by
Charles C. Gillispie. Vol. 5. New York: Scribner, pp. 181–184.
Forman, Paul (1968). The Environment and Practice of Atomic Physics in Weimar Germany. Ann
Arbor (Michigan): UMI.
Frank, Philipp (1949). Einstein. Sein Leben und seine Zeit. Munich: List.
Grau, Conrad (1975). Die Berliner Akademie der Wissenschaften in der Zeit des Imperialismus.
Teil 1: Von den neunziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zur Großen Sozialistischen Oktober-
revolution. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Grau, Conrad (1993). Die Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Eine deutsche
Gelehrtengesellschaft in drei Jahrhunderten. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Grau, Conrad (1996). “Genie und Kärrner—zu den geistesgeschichtlichenWurzeln des Harnack-
Prinzips in der Berliner Akademietradition”. In: Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
und ihre Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom Brocke and Hubert Laitko. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 139–
144.
Hartkopf, Werner and Gert Wangermann, eds. (1991). Dokumente zur Geschichte der Berliner
Akademie der Wissenschaften von 1700 bis 1990. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Heilbron, John L. (1986). The Dilemma of an Upright Man: Max Planck as Spokesman for German
Science. Berkeley (Cal.): University of California Press.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992). “Einstein’s Attitude towards Experiments: Testing Relativity Theory
1907–1927”. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23, pp. 593–624.
Hentschel, Klaus (1994). “Erwin Finlay Freundlich and Testing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”.
In: Archive for History of Exact Sciences 47, pp. 143–201.
Hentschel, Klaus (1998). Zum Zusammenspiel von Instrument, Experiment und Theorie. Rotver-
schiebung im Sonnenspektrum und verwandte spektrale Verschiebungseffekte von 1880 bis 1960.
Hamburg: Kovac.
Hermann, Armin (1978). “Geschichte der physikalischen Institute im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhun-
derts”. In: Das Forschungsinstitut. Formen der Institutionalisierung von Wissenschaft. Ed. by
Erwin K. Scheuch and Heine von Aleman. Erlangen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für zeitgeschichtliche
Fragen, pp. 95–118.
References 19
Hermann, Armin (1994). Einstein. Der Weltweise und sein Jahrhundert. Munich: Piper.
Hiebert, Erwin N. (1978). “Nernst, Hermann Walther”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed.
by Charles C. Gillispie. Vol. 15, Supplement I. New York: Scribner, pp. 432–453.
Hoffmann, Dieter (1984). “Max Planck als akademischer Lehrer”. In: Berliner Wissenschaftshis-
torische Kolloquien VIII: Die Entwicklung der Physik in Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wis-
senschaften der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft, pp.
55–71.
Jastrow, Ignaz (1930). “Kollegiengelder und Gebühren”. In: Das akademische Deutschland. Band
III: Die deutschen Hochschulen in ihren Beziehungen zur Gegenwartskultur. Ed. by Michael
Doeberl et al. Berlin: Weller, pp. 277–284.
Jungnickel, Christa and Russell McCormmach (1986). Intellectual Mastery of Nature. Theoretical
Physics from Ohm to Einstein. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (1918). “Die Institute und Unternehmungen der Kaiser-Wilhelm-
Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften”. In: Die Naturwissenschafen 6, pp. 34–35.
Kangro, Hans (1975). “Rubens, Heinrich”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed. by Charles
C. Gillispie. Vol. 11. New York: Scribner, pp. 581–585.
Kant, Horst (1996). “Albert Einstein, Max von Laue, Peter Debye und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut
für Physik in Berlin (1917–1939)”. In: Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre
Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom Brocke and Hubert Laitko. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 227–243.
Kant, Horst and Dieter Hoffmann (1981). “Die Physik in Berlin von der Universitätsgründung
bis zur Jahrhundertwende—Institutionalisierung, Hauptarbeitsgebiete, Wechselwirkung mit der
Industrie”. In: Berliner Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien III: Die Entwicklung Berlins als
Wissenschaftszentrum (1870–1930). Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für
Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft, pp. 129–175.
Kirsten, Christa and Hans-Jürgen Treder, eds. (1979). Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913–1933. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Kormos Barkan, Diana (1999). Walther Nernst and the Transition to Modern Physical Science.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kox, Anne J. (1995). “Einstein, Specific Heats, and Residual Rays: The History of a Retracted
Paper”. In: No Truth Except in the Details. Ed. by Anne J. Kox and Daniel Siegel. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic, pp. 245–257.
Kragh, Helge (1999). Quantum Generations. A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.
Laitko, Hubert (1996). “Persönlichkeitszentrierte Forschungsorganisation als Leitgedanke der
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft: Reichweite und Grenzen, Ideal und Wirklichkeit”. In: Die Kaiser-
Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom Brocke and Hubert
Laitko. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 583–632.
Langevin, Paul and Maurice de Broglie, eds. (1912). La théorie du rayonnement et les quanta.
Rapports et discussions de la Réunion tenue à Bruxelles, du 30 octobre au 3 novembre 1911,
sous les Auspices de M. E. Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Laue, Max (1911). Das Relativitätsprinzip. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Mehra, Jagdisch and Helmut Rechenberg (1982). The Historical Development of Quantum Theory.
Vol. 1: The Quantum Theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and Sommerfeld: Its Foundation and the
Rise of Its Difficulties 1900–1925. New York: Springer.
Nernst, Walther (1913). Theoretische Chemie vom Standpunkte der Avogadroschen Regel und der
Thermodynamik. 7th ed. Stuttgart: Enke.
Pais, Abraham (1982). “Subtle is the Lord ...” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Planck, Max (1913). Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Wärmestrahlung. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Barth.
Planck, Max (1914). “Die Gesetze der Wärmestrahlung und die Hypothese der elementaren
Wirkungsquanten”. In: Die Theorie der Strahlung und der Quanten. Verhandlungen auf einer
von E. Solvay einberufenen Zusammenkunft (30. Oktober bis 3. November 1911). Ed. by
Arnold Eucken. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Bunsen-Gesellschaft für angewandte physikalis-

che Chemie, 7. Halle an der Saale: Knapp, pp. 77–108.
Pyenson, Lewis (1985). The Young Einstein. The Advent of Relativity. Bristol: Hilger.
Ramsauer, Carl (1913). “Das physikalisch-radiologische Institut der Universität Heidelberg”. In:
Frankurter Zeitung 145, 25 July 1913. Reprinted in (Auer 1984, 57–62).
Ramser, Hans (1976). “Warburg, Emil Gabriel”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed. by
Charles C. Gillispie. Vol. 14. New York: Scribner, pp. 170–172.
Riecke, Eduard (1905). “Das neue physikalische Institut der Universität Göttingen”. In: Physikalis-
che Zeitschrift 6, pp. 881–892.
Riese, Reinhard (1977). Die Hochschule auf dem Wege zum wissenschaftlichen Großbetrieb. Die
Universität Heidelberg und das badische Hochschulwesen 1860–1914. Stuttgart: Klett.
Ritter, Gerhard A. (1992). Großforschung und Staat in Deutschland. Ein historischer Überblick.
Munich: Beck.
Scheuch, Erwin K. and Heine von Aleman, eds. (1978). Das Forschungsinstitut. Formen der Institu-
tionalisierung von Wissenschaft. Erlangen: Deutsche Gesellschaft für zeitgeschichtliche Fragen.
Schulmann Robert (1995) “From Periphery to Center: Einstein’s Path from Bern to Berlin (1902–
1914)”. In: No Truth Except in the Details. Ed. by Anne J. Kox and Daniel Siegel. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic, pp. 259–271.
Seelig, Carl (1960). Albert Einstein. Leben und Werk eines Genies unserer Zeit. Zurich: Europa
Verlag.
Stobbe, Hans (1936–1940). J. C. Poggendorffs biographisch-literarisches Handwörterbuch. Band
VI: 1923 bis 1931. Berlin: Verlag Chemie.
Stoltzenberg, Dietrich (1994). Fritz Haber: Chemiker, Nobelpreisträger, Deutscher, Jude; eine
Biographie. Weinheim: VCH.
Szöllösi-Janze, Margit (1998). Fritz Haber 1868–1934. Eine Biographie. Munich: Beck.
Vierhaus, Rudolf (1996). “Bemerkungen zum sogennanten Harnack-Prinzip. Mythos und Real-
ität”. In: Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom
Brocke and Hubert Laitko. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 129–138.
Vierhaus, Rudolf and Bernhard vom Brocke, eds. (1990). Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Poli-
tik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max Planck-Gesellschaft.
Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.
vom Brocke, Bernhard (1990). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Kaiserreich. Vorgeschichte,
Gründung und Entwicklung bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs”. In: Forschung im Span-
nungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-
Planck-Gesellschaft. Ed. by Rudolf Vierhaus and Bernhard vom Brocke. Stuttgart: Deutsche
Verlagsanstalt, pp. 17–162.
vom Brocke, Bernhard (1996). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute
zwischen Universität und Akademie. Strukturprobleme und Historiographie”. In: Die Kaiser-
Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom Brocke and Hubert
Laitko. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1–32.
vom Brocke, Bernhard and Hubert Laitko, eds. (1996). Die Kaiser Wilhelm-/Max Planck-
Gesellschaft und ihre Institute. Berlin: de Gruyter.
von Staa, Meinhard (1930). “Aufbau und Bedeutung der deutschen Universitätsinstitute und
Seminare”. In: Das akademische Deutschland. Band III: Die deutschen Hochschulen in ihren
Beziehungen zur Gegenwartskultur. Ed. by Michael Doeberl et al. Berlin: Weller, pp. 263–276.
Weinmeister, Paul (1925–1926). J. C. Poggendorffs biographisch-literarisches Handwörterbuch.
Band V: 1904 bis 1922. Leipzig: Verlag Chemie.
Wendel, Günter (1975). Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 1911–1914. Zur Anatomie einer imperi-
alistischen Forschungsgesellschaft. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Wendel, Günter (1984). “Die Berliner Institute der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft und ihr Platz im
System der Wissenschaftspolitik des imperialistischen Deutschland in der Zeit bis 1933”. In:
Berliner Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien X: Zur Geschichte der Deutschen Staatsbibliothek
sowie zu Tendenzen der Wissenschaftspolitik im imperialistischen Deutschland. Berlin: Akademie
References 21
der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft,
pp. 27–69.
Wiener, Otto (1906). “Das neue physikalische Institut der Universität Leipzig und Geschichtliches”.
In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 7, pp. 1–14.
Zaunick, Rudolf and Hans Salié (1956–1962). J. C. Poggendorffs biographisch-literarisches Hand-
wörterbuch der exakten Naturwissenschaften. Band VIIa: Berichtsjahre 1932 bis 1953. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Chapter 2
The Foundation of the KWI für Physik
Abstract This chapter addresses the failed attempt to open the Kaiser-Wilhelm-
Institut für physikalische Forschung (KWI für Physik) in Berlin in 1914, Einstein’s
early years in Berlin, and the successful foundation of the institute in 1917. The devia-
tion of the organizational structure of this new institute from existing Kaiser Wilhelm
Institutes is also discussed as being due to changes in the conceptual coordination of
research, which began to be steered by the scientific community.
Keywords Albert Einstein · Fritz Haber · Adolf von Harnack · Philipp Lenard ·
Walter Nernst · Max Planck · Heinrich Rubens · Prussian Ministry ·
Koppel-Stiftung
2.1 The Preliminaries. A First Unsuccessful Attempt to

Establish the Institute
As early as 1906, the experimental physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Philipp Lenard
had submitted to the Prussian Ministry of Education a memorandum concerning
the establishment of an “Institute for Physical Research.”1 Lenard argued that pure
physics research was necessary for technological development. In particular, he men-
tioned the development of the electrotechnical industry with its applications in trans-
port and communications systems and illumination techniques. But, in his opinion,
the way in which research was organized and carried out in the university institutes
and the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt was inadequate. In order to be more
effective, “a number of able personalities ought to be joined in a specially established
institute with the necessary financial means, an Institute for Physical Research.” “The
task of the institute should be the productive cultivation of physical research through
1 Burchardt (1975, 22), Kant (1987, 129–130). For the history of the KWI für Physik, see Heisenberg
(1971), Kant (1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1996), Schlüter (1994, 1995). The bulk of the documents
relating to the KWI für Physik are kept at the Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
[hereafter AMPG] in Berlin, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1649–1671; the documents of the KWI für Physik
itself are in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2_2
24 2 The Foundation of the KWI für Physik
continuous experimental investigations.”2 Nowhere in Lenard’s memorandum were

the most recent developments in radiation physics or radioactivity mentioned.
Lenard’s memorandum was not acted upon in Berlin.3 Nevertheless, discussions
continued about the necessity of a specialized institute for advanced research in
physics, unrestrained by the universities’ institutional duties. A new suggestion was
made in 1908 by Nernst, who proposed the foundation of a “Research Institute for
Radioactivity and Electronics” aimed “at the latest developments on the borderland
between physics and chemistry” (Kant 1987, 130; Burchardt 1975, 27). But the plan
became more concrete only after the foundation of the KWG in 1911. In a meet-
ing on 5 February 1912, Schmidt-Ott and Krüss, as representatives of the Prussian
Ministry of Education, discussed with Nernst, Haber, Koppel, Emil Fischer,4 and
the President of the KWG, Harnack, the foundation of a “Radiological Institute”
to be built around Rutherford, in whom Fischer in particular was interested. How-
ever, neither Haber and Nernst nor Harnack were enthusiastic about this proposal;
a “general physics” institute was more to their liking and Wien was mentioned as
its director. Nernst expressed a preference for Wien rather than Lenard because of
Wien’s broader interests. On this occasion, Einstein had not yet been mentioned.5
Only in 1913 did the idea emerge to combine the plan for a new physics institute with
the aim of recruiting Einstein to Berlin. Nevertheless, alternatives were kept open
up until the meeting of 9 January 1914. On that occasion, as we have seen, Nernst
again suggested the establishment of an “Institute for Radiology” with Geiger as
a possible director or, alternatively, the constitution of a scientific committee with
Einstein among its members.6 This was the solution that was finally adopted.
As mentioned earlier, on 4 February 1914 Nernst and his colleagues sent a proposal
to the Prussian Ministry of Education, to the KWG, and to the Koppel-Stiftung
concerning the establishment of a KWI “für physikalische Forschung” (for physical
research). In addition to an exposition of the aims and organization of the new
institute, the proposal also gave a first estimate of 75,000 marks for its annual budget
(Kirsten and Treder 1979, 146, vol. 1). In the following months, the different aspects
of the plan were worked out in coordination with the proposers and representatives of
the institutions concerned. A few weeks later, Harnack communicated to the Koppel-
Stiftung his preliminary approval for the project and presented a financial plan for the
first ten years of the institute. It amounted to splitting the financial support into three
equal parts of 25,000 marks to be provided by the KWG, by the Koppel-Stiftung, and
2 “Denkschrift und Entwurf zu einem deutschen Institut für physikalischen Forschung,” December
1906, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 92 Althoff, A I, Nr. 123, pp. 66–76. The sentences quoted are on pp. 5
and 12 respectively.
3 An institute in accordance with Lenard’s suggestions was opened in 1913 in Heidelberg (Auer
1984).
4 Fischer was professor of chemistry at the University of Berlin and member of the steering board
of the KWG.
5 Minutes of the meetings, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 16–17.
6 Minutes of the meetings, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 18
r–v; Wendel (1975, 197).

2.1 The Preliminaries. A First Unsuccessful Attempt to Establish the Institute 25
by the Prussian government. Furthermore, Harnack welcomed Koppel’s intention to

take over the costs for the construction of the institute’s building.7
On 2 March 1914, Nernst provided Krüss at the Ministry of Education with an
additional explanatory exposé as an aid to negotiations with the Ministry of Finance.8
The main argument for the new foundation was that the institute would be able to
better allocate the resources and concentrate efforts on tackling “bigger experimental
works” which were beyond the reach of a single university institute. Furthermore,
as Lenard had done, Nernst pointed out the benefits of the advancement of physics
research for German industry, namely for the improvement of precision mechanics
and the production of X-ray instruments. In passing, the proposed institute was called
“Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für theoretische Physik” (for theoretical physics) instead
of “für physikalische Forschung” as in the February proposal.
On another front, Harnack too explained the main points of the foundation plan to
Gustav Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, the chairman of the famous steel company
Krupp and vice president of the KWG.9 Harnack stressed that the new institute
would not itself perform the “research on theoretical physics now essential to this
science,” but entrust it to the existing university institutes. It would buy the necessary
instruments and lend them to the laboratories for as long as they were needed. The
Koppel-Stiftung would also donate a “small, but beautiful building” to the KWG as
the main office for the steering committees of the new institute, and as a storehouse for
its instruments. This building would also serve as a meeting point for the scientists of
the other KW Institutes situated nearby in Berlin-Dahlem, and would feature a large
hall for the official gatherings of the KWG.10 In light of this generous offer, Harnack
concluded that the KWG should take up the project and delay the establishment of
an institute for history.
On 21 March 1914, the administrative committee and the “Senat” (steering board)
of the KWG decided to accept the offer of the Koppel-Stiftung to contribute a build-
ing and one third of the running expenses for ten years and thus to establish the new
institute. The KWG would take over another third of the costs while the State of
Prussia would finance the remaining third.11 An architect was contacted soon there-
after for the construction of a building on the grounds of the KWI für Chemi.e.12
The steering board of the Koppel-Stiftung first discussed the project officially on 2
April 1914. In addition to the annual contribution for ten years, it decided to bestow
7 Von Harnack to Koppel-Stiftung, 26 February 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 92 Schmidt-Ott, B LXXVI,
Bd. 4, pp. 17–19; Burchardt (1975, 118–119), Wendel (1975, 199).

8 “Im nachfolgenden beehre ich mich …,” 2 March 1914, SBB, Acta Preussische Staatsbibliothek,
Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI. The typewritten document is not signed, but the
corrections are by Nernst’s hand.
9 Von Harnack to Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach, 4 March 1914, Historisches Archiv Krupp, Essen,
FAH 4 E 277, pp. 20–21.

10 This idea was realized in 1929 with the opening of the “Harnack-Haus” (Henning 1996).
11 Minutes of the meeting, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 89 (2.2.1.), Nr. 21289, pp. 180–184; Burchardt (1975,
118).
12 Carl Duisberg to Verwaltungsrat of the KWI for Chemistry, 1 April 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 92
Schmidt-Ott, C, Bd. 84, pp. 15–16; Kirsten and Treder (1979, 67, vol. 2).
a total of 625,000 marks upon the institute at the end of this period, on the condition
that the Prussian government and the KWG would then guarantee their support for
an unlimited period of time.13
Towards the end of April 1914, Haber gave Krüss another memorandum concern-
ing the KWI “für theoretische Physik,” most probably as an aid for the formulation of
the proposal that the Ministry of Education had to submit to the Ministry of Finance.14
With arguments similar to those of Nernst, Haber explained that this kind of institute
would allow a better distribution of the available funds. In particular, the document
pointed out the theoretical crisis affecting physics as well as the urgent need for new
experimental investigations in order to obtain “clear physical knowledge.” A more
coherent theoretical system of the “foundations” of physics would also support the
development of technology as well as improve the use of X-rays in medicine. The
emphasis put on the need for progress in theoretical physics explains the institute’s
name, adopted by both Haber and Nernst, and reveals an implicit consent among the
promoters. To us, the fact that the name of the new institute had become “for theo-
retical physics” instead of the previously suggested “for physical research,” which
in Lenard’s original use meant experimental physics only, is a further indication of
the prominent role ascribed by the Berlin chemistry and physics professors to the
theoretician Einstein.15
On 5 June 1914 the KWG and the Koppel-Stiftung submitted the official joint
proposal for the establishment of a KWI “für theoretische Physik” to the Prussian
Ministry of Education. The rationale for the new institute was taken from the February
memorandum, stressing that “in the field of theoretical physics important and basic
questions are awaiting a solution.” The financial plan was the one agreed upon by the
KWG and the Koppel-Stiftung. Koppel reiterated his intention to personally take over
the costs for the construction of the building.16 Finally, a month later, the Prussian
Minister of Education submitted the project to the Prussian Ministry of Finance.17
First of all, it was pointed out that the new institute under Einstein’s directorship
would carry out almost no research work of its own but rather distribute its funds to
existing laboratories. Haber’s arguments were then taken up verbatim, starting with
a short history of theoretical physics of the last decade.
13 Minutes of the meeting, Bundesarchiv Berlin, REM, Nr. 1153, pp. 277–278; Wendel (1975, 199).
In order to finance the KWI für Physik, the Foundation gave up the plan to establish a home for female
workers and Koppel personally added 85,000 marks to the fund (Report of the Koppel-Stiftung to
Kaiser Wilhelm II, 6 June 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 89 (2.2.1.), Nr. 20008, pp. 188–194).
14 “Gegen Ende des vorigen Jahrhunderts …” SBB, Acta Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Gen-
eraldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI. The document was received by Krüss on 24 April.

15 However, the institute opened in October 1917 as “Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische
Forschung” (see Sect. 2.3). The name “Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik” was finally suggested
by Harnack, probably in analogy with the more general name of the other KW Institutes, and
approved by Kaiser Wilhelm II in December 1917 (GStA, I. HA, Rep. 89 (2.2.1.), 21306, pp.
37–40).
16 Von Harnack and Koppel to Prussian Minister of Education, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt.
2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 6–8.

17 Prussian Minister of Education to Prussian Minister of Finance, 2 July 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep.
76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 21–24; Wendel (1975, 199–200).
2.1 The Preliminaries. A First Unsuccessful Attempt to Establish the Institute 27
About ten years ago it was discovered that the until then apparently secure basic principles of
theoretical physics were in deep contradiction with new experimentally acquired results. This
discovery has been supported by the fundamental research of the German scientist Planck,
who established that the observations in the field of heat radiation were accountable only
with the help of a basic idea totally at odds with the previous theory of nature. […] Einstein
then demonstrated that this basic idea has far-reaching consequences in the field of the
molecular properties of matter and Nernst could finally bring forth the evidence confirming
those consequences, which would never have been believable before.
After the scientific explanations the Minister upped the ante with a hint at the
positive effects that basic research would have on technical progress and with an
appeal to national pride. More funds were needed in order to develop truly German
discoveries and thus catch up with England and France in the scientific race. These
arguments, however, did not convince the Ministry of Finance. On 31 July 1914,
one day before the First World War began, it turned down the plan with formal and
fiscal reasoning. Even if the need for additional funds for physical research had to
be acknowledged,
[…] the obvious course of action would be to hand out the state funds directly to the con-
cerned state and university institutes and to avoid making the totally unnecessary and in
principle contestable detour through funding the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft. The idea of
a systematic and uniform approach toward the envisaged aims could also fully be achieved
in this way.18
Nernst had foreseen this argument in his note to Krüss of 2 March 1914. According
to him, the obvious solution, that is, an increase in the budgets of the university
institutes, would not work. First of all, the money for this would be lacking. The
KWG was able to collect funds from private donors, thus considerably surpassing
the means the state could allocate for pure research. Second, the state was also
supporting institutes in which research was stagnating. In contrast, the KWI would
be able to invest the money “where real personalities are working who would make
good use of it.”19 The same argument had been used in the joint proposal of the
Berlin physicists of February 1914: “[O]bviously, only such physical laboratories
which house lively scientific activities would enjoy the benefits of the new institution
since only industrious and successful researchers will be involved in collaboration”
(Kirsten and Treder 1979, 147, vol. 1).
In fact, the Minister of Finance loathed the idea of having another KWI. His refusal
is a fine example of misunderstanding and mistrust of goings-on among scholars. At
the same time as he denied funding a new research institute in Berlin, he took the
occasion to clear away another physics-related initiative in Göttingen:
18 Prussian Minister of Finance to Prussian Minister of Education, 31 July 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep.
76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 25–27; Wendel (1975, 201).
19 “Im nachfolgenden beehre ich mich …” 2 March 1914, SBB, Acta Preussische Staatsbibliothek,
Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI.

By the way I remark that Professor Hilpert [sic] from Göttingen made mention in my Ministry
of an initiative seemingly in the same field [as the Berlin initiative] by the local Academy of
Sciences, for which funds were also to be requested. I assume that these plans will now be
taken up in general by the Association for Theoretical Physics [Vereinigung für theoretische
Physik] and that thereby the particular project for Göttingen will be superseded.20
In contrast, the Minister hinted at his eventual willingness to supply further finan-
cial support through the existing structures, though without making any commitment.
Although nothing in the letter indicates it, the Ministry, in view of mounting ten-
sions in international politics, might just have been playing it safe, namely by not
spending money. In any case, on 12 August 1914, following the outbreak of the First
World War, the administrative committee of the KWG decided to postpone several
projects, among them the establishment of the “KWI für Physikalische Forschung.”21
In October, the KWG and the Koppel-Stiftung both informed the Ministry of Edu-
cation that the new institute would not be opened for the time being.22
2.2 Einstein’s First Years in Berlin
Einstein’s first six months in Berlin were clouded by two disasters.

In June 1914, Einstein’s marriage was definitely over. His wife Mileva left Berlin
and returned to Zurich with their two sons (Fölsing 1993, 383; Hermann 1994, 211).
A few weeks later, the First World War began. Einstein reacted to these private
and public turmoils by taking refuge in his scientific work and in the relationship
with his cousin Elsa. His letters from that time contain numerous expressions of his
satisfaction with the working conditions and the Berlin environment. Of course, he
hated the chauvinistic attitude of many of his colleagues and felt isolated by them and
thus associated with pacifist circles (Nathan and Norden 1968, 1–2; Fölsing 1993,
393–395; Goenner and Castagnetti 1996).
Although Einstein still continued to speak about Nernst’s heat theorem and a ther-
modynamic derivation of Planck’s radiation formula in July 1914 (Einstein 1914a),
after his arrival in Berlin his scientific work was at first almost unilaterally directed
toward the completion of general relativity. Six of his nine research papers written
from 1914 to 1915 in Berlin deal with this topic (Einstein 1914b, c, 1915a, b, c, d).
In autumn 1915, Einstein finally obtained the famous field equations of general rela-
tivity after months of pursuing an arduous and convoluted path, thus revolutionizing
thinking about space, time, and gravitation.23 During this time he also tried to discern
possible consequences of general relativity and to find a way to test it empirically
20 Prussian Minister of Finance to Prussian Minister of Education, 31 July 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep.
76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 25–27. “Hilpert,” of course, is David Hilbert. The loose
group of Berlin initiators has become a non-existent “association.”
21 Minutes of the meeting, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 89 (2.2.1.), Nr. 21289, p. 232; Wendel (1975, 350).
22 Von Harnack and Koppel to Prussian Minister of Education, 3 October 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep.
76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, p. 28.

23 In fact, as we now know, he returned to them (Renn and Sauer 2007; Janssen and Renn 2007).
2.2 Einstein’s First Years in Berlin 29
(Hentschel 1992a, b, 1994). At the same time, Einstein worked as a guest scientist
in the laboratory of the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, where, together with
Wander J. de Haas, he performed an experiment on magnetism and discovered what
is now called the Einstein-de Haas effect (Hoffmann 1980, 91–92; Einstein and de
Haas 1915).
Only in 1916 did Einstein return to problems in the quantum theory of radiation,
on which some of his Berlin colleagues had been busily at work. The general the-
oretical context was as follows24 : Since 1913 Bohr’s atomic model had been able
to account, to some degree, for the observations of the line spectrum of hydrogen.
In 1915 Sommerfeld, in Munich, improved the model by exchanging Bohr’s special
circular orbits of the electron around the hydrogen nucleus with the more general
elliptical orbits and by taking into account the velocity dependence of the elec-
tron’s mass. As a result, the fine structure of spectra, that is, line multiplets, could
be explained. In Berlin, Planck proposed a quantum condition in phase space for
molecules with several degrees of freedom. Similarly, the astronomer Schwarzschild
tried to find the proper coordinates for which the quantization conditions applied to
systems with several degrees of freedom and looked at the Stark effect, that is, the
splitting of spectral lines in an electrical field. Rubens and his assistant Gerhard Het-
tner investigated the long-wavelength side of the spectrum of hydrogen vapor and
tried to interpret the measurement’s results by means of quantum theory (Rubens
and Hettner 1916). Warburg continued his experiments concerning photochemistry
in gases (Warburg 1916). Einstein worked on spontaneous and induced emission and
absorption, deriving afresh Planck’s radiation formula by means of these concepts
(Einstein 1916). In 1917, he took up what he called “the Sommerfeld-Epstein for-
mulation of quantum theory”25 and dealt with the question of the correct coordinates
for the action integrals to be quantized; he gave a quantization condition independent
of the choice of the coordinates (Einstein 1917b).
Since autumn 1916 Einstein’s thinking had also been occupied by questions con-
cerning the large-scale distribution of stars, or what is now called cosmology. He
had extended discussions and correspondence on this subject with Willem de Sitter,
Besso, and others.26 In February 1917 he then published his seminal paper intro-
ducing the cosmological constant and containing the first cosmological model, later
named the Einstein cosmos (Einstein 1917a).
Meanwhile, Einstein must have given up hope that he would get an institute of his
own. Although a university professor and Academy member, he had no institutional
power whatsoever and no place to work apart from his own flat. He apparently did
not use the office at his disposal in Haber’s institute. Einstein’s efforts to test general
relativity with the help of Freundlich were hampered by Freundlich’s director at the
24 For a detailed account and the bibliography, see Kragh (1999), Mehra and Rechenberg (1982);
see also Jungnickel and McCormmach (1986, vol. 2).
25 Einstein to Besso, 29 April 1917, in Einstein (1998, 442, doc. 331).
26 See the editorial comment “The Einstein-de Sitter-Weyl-Klein-Debate” in Einstein (1998, 351–
357), and the documents referred to therein. See also Kerszberg (1989).
Sternwarte—and Einstein’s colleague in the Academy—Hermann Struve (Hentschel

1992a, 52–55). German astronomers at that time were almost all anti-relativists. Since
1915 Einstein had tried unsuccessfully to have Freundlich released from his duties,
so that he could devote himself to the observation of light deflections produced
by gravitational fields, but Struve would not allow Freundlich to work freely. In
November 1915 Einstein complained to Sommerfeld that “the intrigues of miserable
people” were hindering Freundlich in this work.27 Only in December 1916 was
Einstein appointed to the scientific steering board of the Physikalisch-Technische
Reichsanstalt at the suggestion of its President, Warburg (Hoffmann 1980, 92–93).
This was only a partial remedy to Einstein’s isolation, of which his colleagues were
probably aware.
2.3 The Opening of the KWI für Physik
The situation changed in January 1917, as the Berlin industrialist Franz Stock joined
the KWG by donating the considerable entry fee of 540,000 marks; 500,000 marks
were in the form of war bonds, the return of which was earmarked for physics
research.28 The KWG took this opportunity to reconsider opening the institute
promised to Einstein. On 6 July 1917, after an exchange of letters between Harnack,
the Koppel-Stiftung, and the Ministry for Education, and after a discussion with the
“Berlin physicists” had taken place on 26 June, the Senat of the KWG decided to
establish a KWI for physical research as of 1 October 1917.29 Its yearly budget would
amount, as foreseen, to 75,000 marks,30 the KWG now contributing one-third for an
unlimited period of time and also taking over for ten years the share originally to
be provided by the Prussian government. As promised in 1914, the Koppel-Stiftung
would contribute the remaining 25,000 marks for ten years, so that for the time being
the new institute would be financed entirely by private donors. Einstein would be
made director with an annual salary of 5,000 marks. The construction of a building
for the new institute was no longer mentioned (Table 2.1).
In comparison with some of the other Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes already in exis-
tence, the budget of the KWI für Physik was not very large. Haber’s KWI für
physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemie had an annual budget of 100,000 marks
and received from the Koppel-Stiftung a starting endowment of more than one mil-
lion marks. The KWI für Chemie had a yearly budget of 133,700 marks and a starting
fund of 1,100,000 marks. Also the KWI für Biologie (140,000 marks), für Kohlen-
27 Einstein to Sommerfeld, 28 November 1915, in Einstein (1998, 208, doc. 153).

28 Von Harnack to the Senat members, 18 January 1917, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit.
23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, p. 33.
29 Minutes of the Senat meeting, 6 July 1917, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 1. See also von
Harnack to Schmidt-Ott, 15 February 1917, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 92 Schmidt-Ott, B LXXVI, Bd. 4,
p. 20; von Harnack to Schmidt-Ott, 12 September 1917, in Kirsten and Treder (1979, 148–149, vol.
1), Wendel (1975, 223, 358–359), Burchardt (1990, 177).
30 “[A]bout 15,000 USD at the time” (Forman 1968, 259).
2.3 The Opening of the KWI für Physik 31
Table 2.1 Promised annual contributions to the KWI für Physik at its start
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 25,000 marks for an unlimited period of time
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 25,000 marks for ten years
Koppel-Stiftung 25,000 marks for ten years
forschung (“for research on coal,” 176,000 marks), and für experimentelle Therapie
(“for experimental therapy,” 94,000 marks) had larger budgets, whereas the KWI für
Arbeitsphysiologie (for research on the physiology of work activities of the human
body) received just over 40,000 marks per year. On the other hand, if compared
with the university institutes, the KWI für Physik had a considerable amount of
money at its disposal. Before the First World War, the average budget of a univer-
sity’s chemistry institute amounted to 37,000 marks and that of a physics institute
to 14,500 marks per year.31 In 1917, Planck’s Institute for Theoretical Physics at
the University of Berlin had one extraordinary professor (Max Born), one assistant,
and a budget of only 700 marks. Nernst’s Physicochemical Institute at the same uni-
versity had, besides the director, four research staff, three other employees, and a
19,525 mark budget for non-personnel spending. The staff of the Physical Institute
directed by Rubens and Arthur Wehnelt, the biggest university institute for physics
in Germany, included besides the two directors, six assistants, one technician, and
two other employees. The budget for non-personnel spending amounted to 30,274
marks per year.32 Thus, Einstein’s institute had more money to support research than
all three physics institutes of the University of Berlin taken together (Table 2.2).
In a deviation from the structure laid out in 1914, the new institute was built on
two bodies only: (a) the Kuratorium (administrative board) of six members, three of
whom were to come from the KWG, two from the Koppel-Stiftung, and one from the
Ministry of Education; and (b) the Direktorium (scientific steering board) the mem-
bers of which would be Berlin physicists for the duration of the war. This structure,
together with the by-laws taken from the original founding proposal, was provisional
and intended only to launch the institute. The Senat of the KWG nominated its own
members to the Kuratorium, the industrialist Wilhelm von Siemens, Nernst, and
Planck as a substitute for the donor Franz Stock, who did not accept the position.
The Ministry for Education chose as its representative Schmidt-Ott, who was at that
time the Minister, and as his deputy, Krüss. The Koppel-Stiftung nominated Koppel
and Haber. The Direktorium was to consist of Einstein and all five of the scientists
who proposed the foundation of the institute: Haber, Nernst, Planck, Rubens and War-
burg.33 Consequently, there was a sizeable overlap between the two boards: Haber,
Nernst and Planck sat on both. All members of the Direktorium were also members
31 All the reported data are taken from vom Brocke (1990a, 87, 145–148). The sums given do not
include the salaries of directors or professors.
32 For the institutes of the University of Berlin, see Haushalt (1917, 141), Hoffmann (1984).
33 Minutes of the Senat meeting, 6 July 1917, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 1; Wendel
(1975, 358).
Table 2.2 Yearly budgets of some research institutes around 1917

KWI für Arbeitsphysiologie 40,000 marks
KWI für Biologie 140,000 marks
KWI für Chemie 133,700 marks
KWI für experimentelle Therapie 94,000 marks
KWI für Kohlenforschung 176,000 marks
KWI für Physik 75,000 marks
KWI für Physikalische Chemie und 100,000 marks
Elektrochemie
Institute for Physical Chemistry, University of 19,525 marks
Berlin
Institute for Physics, University of Berlin 30,274 marks
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of 700 marks
Berlin
University Institute for Chemistry (average) 37,000 marks
University Institute for Physics (average) 14,500 marks
of the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.34 On 26 November 1917 the first

joint constitutive meeting of the boards took place under the presidency of Harnack
in his office at the State Library: per the founding proposal, the purviews of the two
boards were such that “the scientific initiative and its consequences are entrusted”
to the Direktorium while the Kuratorium “has to supervise the budget and therefore
each appropriation must be submitted to it for approval until a yearly budgetary plan
is presented—to the extent that such a plan is feasible at all.”35 Siemens and Einstein
were elected Chairmen of the Kuratorium and Direktorium, respectively.
Table 2.3 Direktorium of the KWI für Physik until 1931

Albert Einstein, Director From 1917 (de facto resigned in 1922)
Fritz Haber From 1917
Max von Laue From 1921, Deputy Director from 1922
Walther Nernst From 1917
Friedrich Paschen From 1924
Max Planck From 1917
Heinrich Rubens 1917–1922
Emil Warburg 1917–1931
34 Haber had been elected to the Academy in November 1914.

35 Minutes of the meeting, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 9; Kirsten and Treder (1979, 150,
vol. 1).
In the following years, several changes took place in the composition of the two
boards (Tables 2.3 and 2.4). Following a suggestion by Einstein, Laue became a
member of the Direktorium in December 1921 and Deputy Director of the insti-
tute in October 1922.36 Of the original Direktorium members, Rubens died in June
1922 and Warburg in July 1931. In October 1924, the Direktorium elected as a new
member Friedrich Paschen, who had just become President of the Physikalisch-
Technische Reichsanstalt.37 As to the Kuratorium, after the death of Siemens in
October 1919, the KWG appointed Schmidt-Ott, who was no longer Prussian Minis-
ter of Education. Schmidt-Ott became chairman of the Kuratorium after the interim
chairmanship of Planck in March 1919.38 In December 1921, the by-laws of the
KWG were changed which led to increased participation of both the National and
the Prussian governments in the leading boards of the KWG and its institutes. Thus,
besides Krüss representing the Prussian Ministry of Education, the high ministerial
official Max Donnevert also entered the Kuratorium as representative of the National
Ministry of the Interior.39 In addition, since 1919 the managing director of the KWG,
Friedrich Glum, was also present at the meetings.40 In April 1931, at the suggestion
of the KWG, Planck took over the chairmanship of the Kuratorium from Schmidt-
Ott. The KWG also nominated, as additional Kuratorium members, the physicists
James Franck (Göttingen), Wilhelm Hausser (Heidelberg), Heinrich Konen (Bonn),
and Jonathan Zenneck (Munich), so that the dominance of the Berlin scientists was
reduced.41 A month later, at the suggestion of Planck, the KWG nominated as fur-
ther Kuratorium members Erwin Schrödinger (Berlin) and the industrialist Albert
Vögler.42
On 16 December 1917 the establishment of the KWI für Physik was made public
in the advertising section of the Berlin newspaper Vossische Zeitung:
On October 1, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische Forschung was born. Its task is
to initiate and support the systematically planned pursuit of important and urgent physical
problems by gaining and funding especially qualified researchers.
The selection of problems, methods, and laboratories is made by the undersigned members
of the Direktorium. Nevertheless, suggestions made to the Direktorium by other physicists
will also be examined and, if approved, the proposed projects will be supported.
36 See page 86.

37 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 15 October 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1661.
38 Minutes of the Senat meeting, 28 October 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 99a;
Schmidt-Ott to Planck, 2 March 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 120.
39 Vom Brocke (1990b, 211); von Harnack to Schmidt-Ott, 7 April 1922, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 92
Schmidt-Ott, C, Bd. 84, p. 493.

40 On Glum and his activities in the KWG, see vom Brocke (1990b, 251–266), Glum (1964, 229–
339).
41 Circular letter of the KWG, 20 April 1931, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1655, pp. 3–5.
42 Minutes of the Senat meeting, 12 May 1931, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 71, p. 365.
Although the institute can of course become fully effective only after the end of the war,
nonetheless work is to be started now. Inquiries for detailed information should be addressed
to the co-signer and chairman of the Direktorium, Professor Einstein (Haberlandstr. 5, Berlin-
Schöneberg).
The Direktorium.
Einstein. Haber. Nernst. Rubens. Warburg.43
Table 2.4 Kuratorium of the KWI für Physik until 1931

Max Donnevert (nominated by the National Ministry of the From 1922
Interior)
James Franck (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
Friedrich Glum (nominated by the KWG) From 1919
Fritz Haber (nominated by the Koppel-Stiftung) From 1917
Wilhelm Hausser (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
Heinrich Konen (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
Leopold Koppel (nominated by the Koppel-Stiftung) From 1917
Hugo A. Krüss (nominated by the Prussian Ministry of Education From 1917
Walther Nernst (nominated by the KWG) From 1917
Max Planck (nominated by the KWG) From 1917,
Chairman from 1931
Friedrich Schmidt-Ott (nominated by the Prussian Ministry From 1917
of Education, later by the KWG) Chairman 1919–1931
Erwin Schrödinger (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
Wilhelm von Siemens (nominated by the KWG) 1917–1919, Chairman
Albert Vögler (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
Jonathan Zenneck (nominated by the KWG) From 1931
The address given is Einstein’s private one, confirming the fact that the new insti-
tute had no building of its own. Einstein evidently preferred to work at home. The
fact that the institute’s launch was advertised in just this way is not trivial. The word-
ing had even been discussed in a specially convened meeting of the Direktorium.44
Clearly, from the outset, the founders had a two-sided strategy in mind. On the one
side, the leadership the Direktorium would exert by taking the initiative and determin-
ing the research program was emphasized. On the other side, the institute declared
43 Vossische Zeitung, 16 December 1917, Morgen-Ausgabe, Nr. 641, 2. Beilage “Finanz- und Han-
delsblatt,” [p. 3]. The same announcement appeared in the Berliner Tageblatt, 20 December 1917,
evening edition; and in the Frankfurter Zeitung, 21 December 1917, second morning edition.
Planck’s name is missing under the announcement because Einstein forgot it (see Planck to Einstein,
29 December 1917, in Einstein (1998, doc. 423)). The institute’s opening was also later made public
in various journals: Elektrotechnische Zeitschrift, 39 (1918), p. 179; Die Naturwissenschaften, 6
(1918), pp. 34–35; and Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19 (1918), p. 16.
44 Planck to von Harnack, 16 November 1917, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 6.
Fig. 2.1 Announcement of

the establishment of the KWI
für Physik, Vossische
Zeitung, 16 December 1917
its readiness to consider external suggestions. This was very unusual in that none of
the other KW Institutes had publicly appealed to the scientific community for help in
deciding the direction of their research. But precisely this open-mindedness towards
what was going on in the physics community and the awareness that cooperation was
needed had been the mainspring for the institute’s foundation and specific mode of
organization.45 In the announcement, no hint was given to the extent of the support
of either experimental or theoretical physics (Fig. 2.1).
45 Two years later, concluding a speech at the general meeting of the KWG, Planck restated that
the KWI für Physik was doing pioneering work at the forefront of physics and was therefore open
to external suggestions. “The name of its director Albert Einstein guarantees that every suggestion
[…] promising some success would be most carefully examined and eventually strongly supported”
(Planck 1919, 909). In the version later published in a collection of speeches, Einstein’s name is
omitted. Planck probably did not want to offend Nazi sensibilities (Planck 1943, 51).
References
Auer, Barbara (1984). Das physikalische Institut in Heidelberg. Heidelberg: Kunsthistorisches Insti-
tut der Universität Heidelberg.
Burchardt, Lothar (1975). Wissenschaftspolitik im Wilhelminischen Deutschland. Vorgeschichte,
Gründung und Aufbau der Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften. Göt-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Burchardt, Lothar (1990). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Ersten Weltkrieg (1914–1918)”.
In: Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-
Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Ed. by Rudolf Vierhaus and Bernhard vom Brocke. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, pp. 163–196.
Einstein, Albert (1914a). “Beiträge zur Quantentheorie”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft 16, pp. 820–828. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 5).
Einstein, Albert (1914b). “Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinenRelativitätstheorie”. In: Sitzungs-
berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 1030–1085. Reprinted in
(Einstein 1996, doc. 9).
Einstein, Albert (1914c). “Kovarianzeigenschaften der Feldgleichungen der auf die verallgemeinerte
Relativitätstheorie gegründeten Gravitationstheorie”. In: Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik
63, pp. 215–225. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 2).
Einstein, Albert (1915a). “Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 844–847. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 25).
Einstein, Albert (1915b). “Erklärung der Perihelbewegung des Merkur aus der allgemeinen Rela-
tivitätstheorie”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,
pp. 831–839. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 24).
Einstein, Albert (1915c). “Zur allgemeinenRelativitätstheorie”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 778–786. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 21).
Einstein, Albert (1915d). “Zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie (Nachtrag)”. In: Sitzungsberichte
der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 799–801. Reprinted in (Einstein
1996, doc. 22).
Einstein, Albert (1916). “Strahlungs-Emission und -Absorption nach der Quantentheorie”. In: Ver-
handlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 18, pp. 318–323. Reprinted in (Einstein
1996, doc. 34).
Einstein, Albert (1917a). “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”.
In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 142–152.
Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 43).
Einstein, Albert (1917b). “Zum Quantensatz von Sommerfeld und Epstein”. In: Verhandlungen der
Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 19, pp. 82–92.
Einstein, Albert (1996). The Collected Papers. Vol. 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914–1917. Ed.
by Anne J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert (1998). The Collected Papers. Vol. 8: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, 1914–
1918. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert and Wander J. de Haas (1915). “Experimenteller Nachweis der Ampèreschen
Molekularströme”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 17, pp. 152–
170. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 13).
Glum, Friedrich (1964). ZwischenWissenschaft,Wirtschaft und Politik. Erlebtes und Erdachtes in
vier Reichen. Bonn: Bouvier.
Goenner, Hubert and Giuseppe Castagnetti (1996). “Albert Einstein as Pacifist and Democrat during
World War I”. In: Science in Context 9, pp. 325–386.
References 37
Haushalt (1917). “Haushalt des Ministeriums der geistlichen und Unterrichts-Angelegenheiten für
das Rechnungsjahr 1917”. In: Anlagen zum Staatshaushaltsplan für das Rechnungsjahr 1917
[Prussia]. Vol. 2. 31. Berlin: Reichsdruckerei.
Heisenberg, Werner (1971). “Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik. Geschichte eines Instituts”.
In: Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, pp. 46–89.
Henning, Eckart (1996). “Das Harnack-Haus in Berlin-Dahlem”. Berichte und Mitteilungen 2/1996.
Munich: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992a) Der Einstein-Turm: Erwin F. Freundlich und die Relativitätstheorie.
Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992b). “Einstein’s Attitude towards Experiments: Testing Relativity Theory
Hentschel, Klaus (1994). “Erwin Finlay Freundlich and Testing Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”.
In: Archive for History of Exact Sciences 47, pp. 143–201.
Hoffmann, Dieter (1980). “Albert Einstein und die Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt”. In:
Berliner Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien I: Über das persönliche und wissenschaftliche
Wirken von Albert Einstein und Max von Laue. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR.
Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft, pp. 90–102.
Hoffmann, Dieter (1984). “Die Physik an der Berliner Universität in der ersten Hälfte unseres
Jahrhunderts. Zur personellen und institutionellen Entwicklung sowie wichtige Beziehungen mit
anderen Institutionen physikalischer Forschung in Berlin”. In: Berliner Wissenschaftshistorische
Kolloquien VIII: Die Entwicklung der Physik in Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften
der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft, pp. 5–29.
Janssen, Michael and Jürgen Renn (2007). “Untying the Knot: How Einstein Found His Way Back
to Field Equations Discarded in the Zurich Notebook”. In: The Genesis of General Relativity.
Vol. 2. Ed. by Jürgen Renn. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 839–925.
Kant, Horst (1987). “Das KWI für Physik—von der Gründung bis zum Institutsbau”. In: Berliner
Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien XII: Beiträge zur Astronomie- und Physikgeschichte. Berlin:
Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der
Wissenschaft, pp. 129–141.
Kant, Horst (1989). “Denkschriften für ein Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik in Berlin”. In: Wis-
senschaft und Staat. Denkschriften und Stellungnahmen von Wissenschaftlern als Mittel wis-
senschaftspolitischer Artikulation. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für
Kant, Horst (1993). “Peter Debye und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik in Berlin”. In: Natur-
wissenschaften und Technik in der Geschichte. 25 Jahre Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der Natur-
wissenschaft und Technik am Historischen Institut der Universität Stuttgart. Ed. by Helmuth
Albrecht. Stuttgart: Verlag für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, pp. 161–
177.
Kant, Horst (1996). “Albert Einstein, Max von Laue, Peter Debye und das Kaiser-Wilhelm- Institut
für Physik in Berlin (1917–1939)”. In: Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft und ihre
Institute. Ed. by Bernhard vom Brocke and Hubert Laitko. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 227–243.
Kant, Horst (1992). “Institutsgründung in schwieriger Zeit. 75 Jahre Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-
Institut für Physik”. In: Physikalische Blätter 48, pp. 1031–1033.
Kerszberg, Pierre (1989). The Invented Universe. The Einstein-De Sitter Controversy (1916–17)
and the Rise of Relativistic Cosmology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kirsten, Christa and Hans-Jürgen Treder, eds. (1979). Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913–1933.
Akademie-Verlag, Berlin
Kragh, Helge (1999). Quantum Generations. A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Prince-
ton: Princeton University Press.
Nathan, Otto and Heinz Norden (1968). Einstein on Peace. New York: Schoken.
Planck, Max (1919). “Das Wesen des Lichts”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 7, pp. 903–909.
Planck, Max (1943). Wege zur physikalischen Erkenntnis. Reden und Vorträge. Leipzig: Hirzel.
Renn, Jürgen and Tilman Sauer (2007) “Pathways Out of Classical Physics: Einstein’s Double
Strategy in His Search for the Gravitational Field Equation”. In: The Genesis of General Relativity.
Vol 1. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 113–312.
Rubens, Heinrich and Gerhard Hettner (1916). “Das langwellige Wasserdampfspektrum und seine
Deutung durch die Quantentheorie”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, pp. 167–183.
Schlüter, Steffen (1994). “Albert Einstein als Direktor des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts für Physik”.
MA thesis. Berlin: Institut für Geschichtswissenschaft, Bereich Archivwissenschaft, Humboldt-
Universität.
Schlüter, Steffen (1995). “Albert Einstein als Direktor des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts in Berlin-
Schöneberg”. In: Jahrbuch für Brandenburgische Landesgeschichte 46, pp. 169–185.
vom Brocke, Bernhard (1990a). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im Kaiserreich. Vorgeschichte,
Gründung und Entwicklung bis zum Ausbruch des Ersten Weltkriegs”. In: Forschung im Span-
vom Brocke, Bernhard (1990b). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft in der Weimarer Republik. Aus-
bau zu einer gesamtdeutschen Forschungsorganisation (1918–1933)”. In: Forschung im Span-
Warburg, Emil (1916). “Über den Energieumsatz bei photochemischen Vorgängen in Gasen. VI.
Photolyse des Brennwasserstoffs”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften, pp. 314–329.
Wendel, Günter (1975). Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 1911–1914. Zur Anatomie einer imperi-
alistischen Forschungsgesellschaft. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Chapter 3
The KWI für Physik Under Einstein’s
Directorship 1917–1922
Abstract This chapter presents a detailed study of the activities of the Kaiser-
Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische Forschung up to 1922. It considers why the large-
scale scientific research projects envisaged from the outset were soon replaced with
a larger number of separate research projects. Both the accepted and the rejected
proposals are discussed, as well as the annual reports issued at the end of each fiscal
year. Albert Einstein relinquished the directorship in 1922, officially in March 1923,
and his reasons for stepping down are also addressed.
Keywords X-rays · Spectroscopy · Radiation phenomena · Planck’s quantum

radiation · Zeitschrift für Physik
3.1 A First Phase of Scarce Activity (1917–1919)
At first, the organizational effort put into the new institute remained minimal, with
the secretarial work being done in Einstein’s flat by Ilse Einstein, the eldest daughter
of Elsa Einstein and her first husband, Max Löwenthal.1 There is no indication
whatsoever that the Direktorium met formally in Einstein’s flat. Most probably, the
meetings took place in the rooms of the Academy after its sessions.2 Their number
was kept to a minimum: only one in 1919, three meetings in both 1920 and 1921
and four in 1922. The frequency of meetings increased only after Laue took over
the managing directorship. Then, if necessary, the Direktorium convened as much
as three times a month. The decisions taken by the Direktorium were conveyed by
1 Fölsing (1993, 461–462). In December 1917, Ilse Einstein was engaged for 50 marks monthly as
personal secretary to Albert Einstein for three half-days per week, (Einstein 1998, 570, doc. 409).
On a postcard of 12 May 1918 to Ilse, at that time out of Berlin, Albert writes “Some things have in
fact arrived for the institute, although nothing worth mentioning. I’ll save it all up until you come,
so that you feel right in your element. Then we’ll piece together the awful balance viribus unitis.”
He signed “Dein Prinzipal [Your Principal]” (Einstein 1998, 758, doc. 536).
2 See, e.g., minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 26 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
Almost all the Direktorium meetings took place on the same days as the Academy sessions (see
calendar of the Academy sessions in Kirsten and Treder (1979, 232–251, vol. 2).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2_3
40 3 The KWI für Physik Under Einstein’s Directorship 1917–1922
Einstein to the Kuratorium in the form of notes containing the name of the recipient,
a definition of his research project, and the sum given. No documents have been
found reporting scientific discussions among the Direktorium members concerning
the projects or the reasons for their approval.
The director had very little autonomy in spending the funds. Einstein paid for the
advertisement himself, but at about the same time wrote to Siemens:
I think that, toward achieving the simplest possible accounting, it would be beneficial if small
sums were put regularly at my disposal for the defrayal of running disbursements. It would
probably be best for me to have an institute cashbox at my home containing a few hundred
marks and to render an account of it at specified intervals.3
With this little money and Ilse’s help, Einstein started the institute.
Erwin Freundlich Becomes a Researcher at the KWI für Physik
At first the institute took only one initiative, not in the field of radiation or quantum
physics, but in general relativity.4 In February 1918 Freundlich was appointed for
three years with the task of conducting “experimental and theoretical astronomic
research for testing the theory of general relativity and related questions.”5 After
years of struggle, the establishment of the new institute at last allowed Einstein to
concentrate forces on the experimental testing of his gravitational theory. Freundlich
left the Sternwarte and continued his research as a staff member of the KWI für Physik
on the premises of the Astrophysikalisches Observatorium (Astrophysical Observa-
tory) in Potsdam near Berlin (Hentschel 1992b, 45, 51–58). Here, after training in
photographic techniques (Müller 1919, 250), he worked on methods to detect the
redshift in the spectral lines of fixed stars and made some first observations6 that
greatly pleased Einstein.7 He was also very busy developing new apparatuses of his
own conception.8
First Applications for Grants
Reaction to the opening announcement was immediate but not of the kind desired.
Aside from requests for further information and mail from obvious cranks, most
of the incoming letters sought support for the development of technical inventions
or for research in fields outside physics. The suggestions ranged from developing
techniques for melting materials with a high melting point, to designing special
3 Einstein to von Siemens, undated [December 1917], in Einstein (1998, 570, doc. 409). Einstein
even needed the Kuratorium’s permission to buy a typewriter for 900 marks (Einstein to Bank
Mendelssohn, 22 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 52; and von Siemens to Bank
Mendelssohn, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn).
4 For a list of the research projects supported from the institute’s inception until the budget year
1922/23, see Appendix.

5 Contract between KWI für Physik and Freundlich, 4 February 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
2, folder Freundlich.
6 Freundlich to Einstein, 27 March 1919 (Einstein 2004, 25–26, doc. 14).
7 Einstein to Freundlich, 29 March 1919 (Einstein 2004, 27, doc. 15).
8 Freundlich to Einstein, 31 October 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Freundlich.
3.1 A First Phase of Scarce Activity (1917–1919) 41
machines for use in coal mines, to the development of procedures to manufacture

hollow structures made of concrete.9
Of particular interest were the letters from Hermann Fricke, an examiner at the
Patent Office who in the following years wrote many books and articles against
Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In his first letter Fricke asked Einstein to
referee for publication an enclosed paper expounding his pretended “discovery” of
a proportional relation between the temperature of the solar surface and gravitation.
Fricke hoped for an unbiased examination of his theory. Einstein answered probably
with an elaborate rejection of which, unfortunately, only one sentence quoted by
Fricke in his last letter remains: “According to all we know, the release of energy
by celestial bodies in proportion to the product of surface and absolute temperature
seems totally impossible.”10
Only two proposals were worthy of consideration. Dr. med. Gustav Bucky, of
the X-ray department at the Practical School for Public Health Service of the Berlin
University, wanted to do research on the reaction of biological systems to X-rays and
suggested the establishment of “a special department for radiological research.” As
he wrote:
[W]e medical doctors are convinced that mainly the theoretical foundations and, in partic-
ular, the precise measurement of radiation according to quantity and quality are absolutely
necessary for fruitful work. Without this foundation, it is impossible to gain a clear insight
into the healing effect, and […] to advance the methodology of irradiations.11
Apparently, Einstein was not in favor of adding a department for radiation research
to his institute, but Bucky insisted and asked Einstein’s opinion about an “interme-
diary institute” in which topics “at the borderline between physics and physiology”
would be systematically investigated “by the joint work of physicists, zoologists,
botanists, and physicians.” Topics of “electromedicine” could also be the subject
of research. In Bucky’s opinion, industry would be very interested in such investi-
gations.12 We do not know Einstein’s response, but Bucky’s plan did not gain the
Direktorium’s approval because it clearly did not fall into the category of research it
wanted to support, that is, fundamental theoretical and experimental research on the
molecular theory of matter—despite the vague reference to cancer research recurring
in the documents prior to the institute’s foundation.
Only the project submitted by Peter Debye corresponded particularly well with
the declared intentions of the KWI für Physik. Debye was at the time director of the
Physical Institute of the University of Göttingen. Einstein held Debye in high esteem
and had even recommended him as his successor at the University of Zurich in 1911
(Einstein 1993b, 290–291). Debye now asked Einstein for a grant of 16,030 marks
9 Einstein (1998, 1013–1030). Einstein’s answers are missing.

10 Quotation from Fricke to Einstein, 10 February 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Fricke.
See also Fricke to Einstein, 18 February and 15 March 1918, ibid.; (Einstein 1998, 1018–1019;
Goenner 1993, 127–128). For Fricke’s bibliography, see Hentschel (1990, xxx–xxxi).
11 Bucky to Einstein, 11 May 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 1, folder Bucky.
12 Bucky to Einstein, 18 May 1918, ibid. Einstein and Bucky became friends for life and later
developed a joint patent on a shutter for X-ray cameras (Bucky 1991, 12–15).
to buy instruments for generating “X-rays of arbitrary wave length and of sufficient
intensity.” He had spoken about his research with Born and Sommerfeld and had
been advised by the Prussian Minister of Education at that time, Schmidt-Ott, to
apply to the KWI für Physik and to Einstein.13 In his application Debye enclosed a
paper concerning the structure of the atom in crystals, in particular the number and
position of electrons and the “size of the planetary system of electrons belonging
to the atom” (Debye and Scherrer 1918, 120). While at the beginning of the paper
the question was posed whether chemical valency is related to Planck’s quantum of
action, the authors noted at the end that:
[A]ll the considerations were made with the help of classical foundations. We do not know
of any experience which would put into doubt the conclusions drawn from these foundations
in the range of wavelengths we have used. However, for much smaller wavelengths in the
range of γ -rays observations of absorption seem to point to new aspects. (Debye and Scherrer
1918, 120)
Debye took up these new aspects in his proposal. The method of investigation he
suggested made use of X-ray scattering off a crystal (diamond). The incoming ray
would be absorbed by the electrons and then reradiated. From intensity measurements
“inferences can be made about the number of electrons and the distance between
them” in the atom. As hinted at in the paper, Debye was particularly interested in
X-rays with very short wavelengths, that is, high energies, for which he expected
“a fault in classical electrodynamics. (I am thinking here of a quantization of the
radiation emitted from a free electron).”14
Einstein received Debye’s application during his vacation at the Baltic Sea. Prob-
ably assuming that the other Direktorium members were still in Berlin, he forwarded
the letter to Planck adding a short note in which he expressed strong support, without
commenting on the scientific aspects:
The letter speaks for itself. I believe that there could be no better use of our money than by
placing the desired apparatus at Debye’s disposal (purchase and loan them out to him for as
long as he would like to have them. […] we have just one Debye and his life span is < ∞.15
He then concluded: “I ask you now to convene a meeting of the Direktorium as

soon as possible and to confer on the matter. Then I request a brief report on the
outcome, so that I can negotiate further with Debye.” Planck, after expressing his
satisfaction with the fact that “the KWI für Physik gets such a fine opportunity to
demonstrate its usefulness,” gave a mild but polite rebuke: “But I believe that for the
moment we can do without a Direktorium meeting (which, incidentally, I am not at all
authorized to convene); because the Direktorium members will surely be grateful for
not becoming involved in person.” Presumably, they were also on vacation. Planck
then proposed handling the matter in the same way as with Freundlich. He suggested
13 Debye to Einstein, 2 July 1918, in Einstein (1998, doc. 577).

14 Debye to Einstein, 2 July 1918, in Einstein (1998, 820–822, doc. 577). On Debye’s research
project, see also Kant (1993, 163–164).
15 Einstein to Planck, undated, addition to the letter of Debye to Einstein, 2 July 1918, in Einstein
(1998, 823, doc. 578). Emphasized text is underlined in the original by Einstein.
that Einstein draft a contract with Debye which the other members would approve
by mail.16 And so it happened without disagreement.17
Planck, bearing in mind that the institute intended to initiate research of its own,
remarked: “Pondering the fact that we are concerned here with a good and promising
project with every guarantee for a very valuable scientific success, we must put aside
the reservation that the KWI appears here only as a source of money.”18 Nernst also
gave his signature with an interesting comment: “I […] agree all the more, as it
was originally a program in the same direction as the one now proposed by Debye
that led to the establishment of the [Kaiser Wilhelm] Institute for Physics.”19 While
Planck and Nernst hinted at the need for a rationale for the institute, Director Einstein
seemed satisfied with shuffling the papers.
Debye received the money he had applied for roughly three months later. As it
turned out, the manufacturer Siemens could not provide the needed high-voltage
transformer until summer 1920, and then for a price which had quadrupled due to
post-war inflation. When the instrument was sent to Göttingen, Debye had already left
for an appointment in Zurich. In the end, he returned the grant plus the accumulated
interest.20
The First Annual Report
During 1918 the institute did not financially support any other research projects,
though not because of a lack of money. As already reported, the institute had an
annual budget of 75,000 marks.21 Einstein received an annual remuneration of 5,000
marks, his secretary Ilse 600 marks, and Freundlich 6,000 marks. At the end of 1918,
the bank statement showed a balance of 66,156 marks.22 Three months later, at the
end of the budgetary year 1918/19, the institute still had a surplus of 82,374 marks.
Only 28,435 marks had been spent, including salaries, running costs, the grant for
16 Planck to Einstein, 8 July 1918, in Einstein (1998, 830, doc. 584).

17 Contract between KWI für Physik and Debye, 27 August 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 1,
folder Debye; Einstein to Planck, 19 July 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 35. See also
Einstein (1998, 1025).
18 Addition by Planck, 21 July 1918, to the letter of Einstein to Planck, 19 July 1918, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 35.

19 Addition by Nernst, 24 July 1918, see footnote 18.
20 Debye to Einstein, 7 June 1920, 20 December 1920, and 1 February 1921, all in AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 1, folder Debye; von Siemens to Bank Mendelssohn, 10 October 1918, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn.
21 See Table 2.1. For a survey of incomes and expenditures until the budget year 1922/23, see
Table 3.1. Table 3.2 gives the repartition of expenditures. The sums of the tables are in marks and
calculated on the basis of the available documents. They should be considered only as indicative;
due to discrepancies and errors in the administrative documents (see, e.g., the survey for 1921/22,
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 59), it is not possible to reconstruct the actual situation with
certainty.
22 Bank statement 1 April–31 December 1918, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
Table 3.1 Survey of incomes and expenditures

Budgetary year Previous balance Income Expenditure New balance
1917/18 0 37,891 4,693 33,198
1918/19 33,198 77,611 28,435 82,374
1919/20 82,374 78,111 76,559 83,926
1920/21 83,926 146,845 89,476 141,295
1921/22 141,295 164,730 108,074 197,951
1922/23 197,951 923,572 918,521 203,002
Table 3.2 Repartition of expenditures

Budgetary year Einstein’s Expenditure for scientific Miscellaneous Total
salary purposes (incl. Freundlich’s (incl. admin.
salary) personnel
costs)
1917/18 2,500 1,500 693 4,693
1918/19 5,000 22,530 905 28,435
1919/20 5,000 66,050 5,509 76,559
1920/21 10,000 76,100 3,376 89,476
1921/22 15,000 88,675 4,399 108,074
1922/23 33,505 879,013 (366,000 for the 6,003 918,521
Deutsches Entomologisches
Museum)
Debye, and 500 marks for reimbursement of expenses for Freundlich.23 However,
there were reasons for this restraint. First and foremost, almost all the people who
could have been taken into consideration as grant recipients were either drafted into
the armed forces or required to work towards the war effort in some other way. The
war and the following revolution of November 1918, with the accompanying general
turmoil, certainly did not allow the elaboration and implementation of a systematic
research program. Finally, a long illness prevented Einstein from working for almost
a year (Fölsing 1993, 462–463).
In the first annual report for the budgetary year 1918/1919 the situation becomes
obvious:
23 Survey of income and expenditure 1 April 1918–31 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A,
Nr. 1665, pp. 18–19; bank statement 1 January–31 March 1919, ibid., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder
Mendelssohn.
Since the number of colleagues who were able to devote themselves to goals in pure science
during the past year was minimal because of the war, the largest amount of the money
available for the budgetary year 1918/19 was set aside for the present one [1919/20]. Thus
only two researchers were working for the institute.24
Einstein then reports about Freundlich’s work concerning the displacement of

both stellar and solar spectral lines and of Debye’s investigation into the constitution
of matter by X-rays.
3.2 The Real Start. The Period 1919/20
While the Direktorium had not officially convened since the constitutive meeting
of November 1917, on 15 March 1919 it suddenly sent a letter to the heads of the
physics institutes of all universities “of Germany and of German-speaking Austria”
notifying them of the availability of means for financing research projects.
On the occasion of the new start of scientific research in physics, we would like to direct
the attention of our colleagues to the fact that the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics
has at its disposal considerable means, which can be given to scientific institutions as well
as to individual colleagues in order to make possible or to facilitate scientific research. In
particular, we shall consider
1. the purchase of instruments to be used for special scientific investigations;

2. fellowships for the pursuit of definite scientific research projects.
Proposals with statements explaining the planned scientific investigations as well as the
funds needed are to be sent to Prof. Einstein […]. The only criterion for the distribution of
funds will be that of reviving physics research.25
In sharp contrast to the intentions declared in the press announcement of Decem-

ber 1917, the implementation of a planned specific research program of its own was
no longer at the top of the institute’s agenda. The money accumulated by this time
was now to be distributed according to the suggestions coming from the physics
community, with only the quality of the research to be refereed by the Direktorium,
and not its subjects. The KWI für Physik was thus taking on a more general task
of backing the state in supporting ongoing research. Actually, as we will see, the
Direktorium decided to reserve a considerable amount of money to support research
on a fundamental problem of quantum physics and to that extent did set its own
24 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1918–31 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665,
p. 33. The report was sent to the Kuratorium in June 1919 (Einstein to Kuratorium, 16 June 1919,
ibid., Nr. 1656, p. 64), after Siemens’s complaints (see page 58).
25 Direktorium of the KWI für Physik to “Kollege,” AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13. Some versions
of this circular were probably dated “18 March 1919” (see, e.g., Lehmann to Einstein, 26 March
1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Lehmann; Steubing to Einstein, 6 April 1919, ibid.,
Nr. 10, folder Steubing) or “19 March” (see Jensen to Einstein, 14 May 1919, ibid., Nr. 5, folder
Jensen).
priorities. Nevertheless, a shift from an initiating role to a more passive one is evi-
dent if we recall the repeated statements about the institute’s aims in the founding
documents. The reasons for this change are not easy to discern. The impression is
that the Direktorium members were uncertain and looking around for ideas. In 1919,
Einstein justified the new policy of broadly distributing funds by referring to the
“difficulties with which the physics institutes [of the universities] have to struggle
because of the economic situation,”26 but, as we will argue later, this was probably
not the entire truth.
Scientists Funded and Their Projects
In reaction to the Direktorium’s invitation, in the following weeks the institute
received twenty grant applications.27 A first series of allocations was decided upon
at a Direktorium meeting on 24 April 1919. The next day, Einstein sent the list of
grants to the Kuratorium for approval, adding to each name and sum a very vague
justification but no detailed explanation of the project.28
The largest sum, 20,000 marks, corresponding to a third of the total grants, was set
aside “for a new precision measurement of the spectral law,” that is, Planck’s radiation
law. Clearly, this meant that the question was considered of primary importance. In
fact, the very day after the Direktorium meeting Nernst presented at a meeting of the
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft (German Physical Society) the results of his and
Theodor Wulf’s critical examination of the measurements taken since 1900 in support
of Planck’s law. Through new calculations they had obtained values for emissivity
showing a small but systematic deviation from the values predicted by the law, thus
coming to the conclusion that Planck’s radiation formula was not a “strict natural law”
and that a corrective factor should be added.29 Of course, the Direktorium was well
aware of the serious consequences that a discrepancy, however small, would have
for the radiation theory and for quantum physics, which is based on the “absolute
and exact validity of Planck’s formula” (Hettner 1922, 1037). It was necessary to
ascertain whether the discrepancy was due to measurement errors or instead revealed
a real inadequacy of the formula. A new series of precise experimental observations
had to be undertaken.
Two months after the Direktorium meeting, Einstein arranged that, from the
money set aside for testing Planck’s formula, 5,000 marks were to be remitted to
Rubens and 4,000 marks to Warburg.30 The delay between the decision to support
research concerning Planck’s law and the actual transfer of funds could mean that
the Direktorium had decided immediately that the question was worth tackling, but
26 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56.
27 Itmust be noted that the archives do not contain applications for every project supported, nor is
there a response to every existing application.
28 E.g., “for instruments for spectroscopic research” or “for spectroscopic research on X-rays,” etc.
(Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56). Examples
of Direktorium dispositions are given by Kant (1987, 133). The motivations given in the Appendix
are taken from the available correspondence.
29 Nernst and Wulf (1919), see also Hettner (1922, 1037).
30 Einstein to KWG, 27 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 77.
3.2 The Real Start. The Period 1919/20 47
did not yet know who should perform the experiments. Perhaps Rubens and Warburg
were first asked to look for suitable collaborators or to define what kind of instru-
mentation they needed for their respective institutes before a precise sum could be
allocated. Both had already worked on the subject and their results had been exam-
ined by Nernst and Wulf in their paper. As is well known, the observations by Rubens
and Ferdinand Kurlbaum into the variations of radiation intensity with temperature
in the infrared spectrum had provided Planck experimental bases for the enuncia-
tion of his spectral law in 1900. Immediately thereafter, Rubens and Kurlbaum had
contributed to the confirmation of Planck’s law by performing measurements cov-
ering an extended range of wavelengths (Hettner 1922, 1035–1037; Kangro 1970,
200–207). As for Warburg, in the years 1913–1915 he had carried out with his co-
workers a series of precision measurements of what they called “the constant c of the
Wien-Planck radiation law,” which is known today as the second radiation constant
c2 (Warburg et al. 1913; Warburg and Müller 1915).
Whereas Warburg soon reported that he could not do the intended research because
of unspecified “hindrances,”31 Rubens started, with his collaborator Gerhard Michel,
a new series of extremely precise measurements of isochromates which, thanks to
the new instruments he had developed, led to the confirmation of Planck’s formula.32
Rubens’s work continued to be funded by the KWI für Physik in the following years
and was mentioned by Einstein in the activity report for the year 1921/22 as one of
the most important research projects supported by the institute, precisely because of
its consequences for the foundations of quantum physics.33
Nernst was most probably the sponsor of a grant of 2,000 marks for Paul Günther,
an assistant at the Institute for Physical Chemistry at Berlin University, “for ther-
mal research on amorphous solids.”34 Concurrent with his examination of Planck’s
formula, Nernst had renewed his interest in his hypothesis of gas degeneracy at
extremely low temperatures. In a recent paper he had derived from this hypothesis
some consequences that could be detected experimentally (Nernst 1919). And in fact
Günther spent the money—in accordance with Nernst’s wishes, as he reported—for
a viscosimeter and the pertaining liquid hydrogen used to perform measurements on
the temperature dependence of the coefficient of viscosity that confirmed Nernst’s
prediction.35
31 Warburg to Kuratorium of the KWI für Physik, 10 July 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656,
p. 79.
32 Rubens and Michel (1921a, b). The deviation calculated by Wulf and Nernst was therefore prob-
ably due to unprecise measurements, see also Hettner (1922, 1037–1038).

33 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1921–1931 March 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1665, pp. 57–58.

34 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; see also
Einstein to Bank Mendelssohn, 22 May [recte June] 1919, ibid., pp. 67–68.
35 Günther to KWI für Physik, 27 March 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Günther; (Gün-
ther 1920, 1924b). See also the note concerning (Günther 1920) in Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1920, p. 575.
Only the application by Leonhard Grebe and Albert Bachem, both Privatdozen-
ten at the University of Bonn, had been solicited by Einstein.36 He and Grebe had
met in Berlin probably at the beginning of April 1919, and discussed a program
of investigations designed to verify the gravitational redshift of the sun’s spectral
lines, which was considered to be evidence for general relativity. Grebe, a special-
ist in spectroscopy, had already been working for some months with Bachem on
the cyanogen bands of the solar spectrum and found that while some lines showed
“with sufficient approximation” the displacement predicted by the theory, others pre-
sented anomalies that could not be due to observational errors. In order to explain
these anomalies Grebe and Bachem wanted to analyze the structure of the lines with
a Koch microphotometer.37 They received an initial sum of 2,000 marks from the
KWI für Physik but evidently needed more, since Einstein later helped arrange a
further 2,000 marks from a private donor, the publisher and philanthropist Richard
Fleischer.38 Still, the money was not enough to buy either the Koch instrument or a
cheaper one, so it was eventually spent on research visits, in summer 1919 and dur-
ing the Easter vacation 1920, to the Astrophysikalisches Observatorium in Postdam,
where Grebe and Bachem used the Koch microphotometer installed by Freundlich.39
Judging from the existing correspondence and in comparison with the slight inter-
est he showed for other research supported by his institute, Einstein followed Grebe
and Bachem’s work with exceptional attention. As early as June 1919, although the
required analysis had not yet been done, Einstein pressured them to publish a paper
on the preliminary research, which could at least support the conclusion that “the
existence of the Einstein effect receives a high degree of probability.”40 After an
initial investigation performed in Potsdam, Grebe and Bachem sent Einstein a paper
in which they claimed that “the Einstein gravitational shift in the solar field is really
there both as to the direction and the amount” (Grebe and Bachem 1920b, 54). This
conclusion was essentially based on the data of a particular, small group of spectral
lines and a great part of the paper was dedicated to justifying the selection criteria.
36 We cannot reconstruct how Einstein became acquainted with Grebe who, with his application,
was reacting to an “Aufforderung” (invitation) by Einstein.

37 Grebe to Einstein, 17 April 1919, (Einstein 2004, 37–38, doc. 25). The research results are
presented in Grebe and Bachem (1919, 1920a, b), and in Grebe (1920, 1921). A detailed account
of Grebe and Bachem’s work is given by Hentschel (1992c); see also Earman and Glymour (1980,
194–196), Hentschel (1998, 514–535).
38 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Fleischer
to Einstein, 21 and 29 December 1919 (Einstein 2004, 319, doc. 227 and 331–332 doc. 238,
respectively); Einstein to Fleischer, 17 January 1920, quoted in L’Autographe (1992, 18, lot 42).
On Fleischer, see Starkulla (1971).
39 Grebe to Einstein, 6 June 1919 (Einstein 2004, 86–87, doc. 57); Grebe and Bachem to Einstein,
26 January 1920 (Einstein 2004, 385–386, doc. 283); Einstein to Grebe, 9 July 1920, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grebe; Grebe to Einstein, 12 July 1920, AEA, 6–048; Grebe to Laue, 10
March 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grebe; Freundlich, “Bericht über die Tätigkeit
im Jahre 1919,” AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Freundlich (Grebe and Bachem 1920b, 51).
40 Grebe and Bachem (1919, 464); see also Grebe to Einstein, 29 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep.
34, Nr. 3, folder Grebe.

Furthermore, since the first investigation had been disturbed by a technical defect
in the Koch microphotometer, Grebe and Bachem planned to repeat the measure-
ments and deferred the publication of the microphotometric pictures to a conclusive
paper (Einstein 2004, 324–325 and 385–386). Nevertheless, Einstein immediately
announced the favorable outcome to the physics community.41 He also insisted on
the publication of the observational results: “Without such publication the colleagues
would hardly attribute any evidential value to your work.”42 Unfortunately, the second
series of microphotometric measurements was also unsatisfactory because of other
disturbing effects caused by the instrument. This led Grebe and Bachem to publish
all the photograms together with the displacement data of the previous paper, while
sticking to their conclusion (Grebe and Bachem 1920a). Although Einstein agreed
on the narrow lines’ selection, he was now less convinced of the conclusiveness of
Grebe and Bachem’s work which, in his words, “does not yet prove the existence of
the redshift but makes it at least probable.”43 Nonetheless, Grebe presented his work
on the gravitational shift in support of the theory of general relativity at the annual
meeting of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte in September 1920,
where his talk was followed by a heated discussion between Einstein, Lenard, and
others.44
In addition to Grebe and Bachem, in this fiscal year the KWI für Physik supported
two other researchers working for Einstein. Freundlich received an additional 2,300
marks as a cost-of-living allowance and 550 marks for reimbursement of expenses,
in particular for the installation of the Koch microphotometer which was accom-
plished in summer 1919.45 During this year, Freundlich continued his systematic
investigation of the displacement of solar and stellar spectral lines, which did not
yet lead to conclusive results because of several technical and observational prob-
lems.46 Most probably, Einstein himself requested 1,200 marks for Jakob Grommer
as compensation for “mathematical work.”47 Grommer, a mathematician and former
student of Hilbert without an academic position, is known to have been working
with Einstein at least since 1916 because his help was acknowledged in the “Kos-
mologische Betrachtungen” of early 1917.48 After that he collaborated with Einstein
41 Hentschel (1992c, 33); see also, e.g., Einstein (2004, 342, 353).
42 Einstein to Grebe, 9 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grebe.
43 “Durch diese Arbeit wird die Existenz der Rotverschiebung zwar noch nicht sicher bewiesen, aber
doch schon wahrscheinlich gemacht” (Einstein to Lorentz, 4 August 1920 (Einstein 2006, 364–365,
doc. 98)). See also Einstein (2006, 337, 346).
44 Grebe (1920). Grebe had been invited by Sommerfeld (Einstein and Sommerfeld 1968, 69).
45 Einstein (2004, 107, 447, 591); Einstein to Kuratorium, 20 December 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep.
1 A, Nr. 1657, 109.

46 Freundlich, “Bericht über die Tätigkeit im Jahre 1919,” undated [January 1920?], AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Freundlich; see also Müller (1920, 117).
47 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; (Einstein
2004, 560).
48 Einstein (1917a, 146). In summer 1917, Einstein had even “authorized” Grommer to complete
his lectures on relativity theory at the Berlin University during his absence (Einstein to Ehrenfest,
22 July 1917, in Einstein (1998, 484, doc. 362)). On Grommer, see Pais (1982, 487–488), Einstein
for more than ten years on problems relating to general relativity, quantum theory,
and unified field theory. Between spring and early summer 1919 Grommer worked,
certainly at Einstein’s request, on a problem pertaining to the mathematical proof of
the energy conservation law in the theory of general relativity. In his paper on the
energy conservation law published in the previous year, Einstein had left one par-
ticular assumption in his derivation of the law without proof (Einstein 1918, 457).
This proof was provided by Grommer in July 1919 in a letter to Einstein, in which
he also acknowledges receipt of the institute’s money.49 Grommer’s paper was then
submitted by Einstein to the Prussian Academy for publication in November 1919
(Grommer 1919).
As to the other applications, most of them came either from well-known colleagues
or from their assistants, but some were also from young scholars at the beginning
of their careers. The fields of research were quite diverse. A considerable group
of proposals was concerned with spectroscopy of single atoms or molecules. Both
optical and X-ray line spectra reflect the structure of atoms, band spectra the internal
degrees of freedom of molecules. In particular, with his refinement of Bohr’s atomic
model, Sommerfeld had been able to show how the series of line spectra of hydrogen
and helium could be understood. The research proposals addressed new ideas as well
as old questions.
First it is worth noting the great support given to Ernst Wagner, extraordinary
professor of physics at the University of Munich. Wagner, a specialist on X-ray spec-
troscopy, had recently been able to obtain a more precise determination of Planck’s
constant h through an improvement of the experimental setup.50 Now he needed a
high-voltage battery in order to extend his systematic investigation, for which he was
granted 10,000 marks.51 The sum was one of the largest distributed that year. This
fact, together with the support for Rubens’s measurements concerning the spectral
law, confirmed the interest of the Direktorium members in research in this field.
Wagner’s work continued to be supported in the following years.
Hugo Seemann, a guest scholar at the University of Würzburg (where he enjoyed
the patronage of Wien), proposed measurements of the polarization of X-rays which,
in principle, could test Sommerfeld’s theory of “Bremsstrahlung,” that is, continuous
radiation emitted by decelerated electrons. Being deaf, he had neither a position
nor a chance for an academic career, so he asked for a fellowship.52 Nobel Prize
laureate Laue also backed Seemann’s application by pointing out his experimental
skills and industriousness.53 However, in violation of the conditions stated in the
(1998, 485, note 1). An autobiographical note by Grommer, probably written in November 1926,
is preserved in the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, R 73, Nr. 16393.
49 Grommer to Einstein (2004, 100–101, doc. 67).
50 Wagner (1918). On Wagner, see Valentiner (1929), Mehra and Rechenberg (1982, 322, vol. 1,
pt. 1).
51 Wagner to Einstein, 5 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wagner; Einstein to
Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Einstein (2004, 560).
52 Seemann to Einstein, 26 March 1919 (Einstein 2004, 21–24, doc. 13).
53 Laue to Einstein, 7 April 1919 (Einstein 2004, 30–31, doc. 18).
March circular, the Direktorium decided not to give fellowships and instead granted
3,000 marks to buy unspecified “instruments for spectroscopic research on X-rays.”54
Privately, Einstein offered his help to obtain a position at the Physikalisch-Technische
Reichsanstalt in Berlin, but Seemann refused because at the Reichsanstalt he would
not have been free to pursue his own research interests.55 Seeman later abandoned
the initial project and instead used the money to buy and improve a special X-ray
spectrograph.56
Walter Steubing, Privatdozent of physics at the Technische Hochschule (technical
university) of Aachen, needed special equipment to broaden his prewar investigation
of the attenuation of the fluorescence of iodine vapor in a magnetic field. In his
application he mentioned his recent paper on the subject, in which he argued that the
phenomenon was not connected to the Zeeman effect and suggested that it could be
due to an attenuation of the electron oscillations, caused by the magnetic field. He
wished to investigate the influence of magnetic fields on the oscillation in the spectra
of other substances.57 Georg Wendt, too, assistant at the Physics Institute of the same
Technische Hochschule, wished to continue his prewar investigation on the influence
of an electric field on the triplet series of mercury and the doublet series of aluminium
in order to contribute to the theoretical explanation of the Stark effect. Furthermore, he
wanted to extend his research on the canal rays of carbon, silicon, and boron to other
substances such as magnesium, calcium, and strontium in order to advance atomic
theory and knowledge of the light emission mechanism.58 Given that Steubing and
Wendt belonged to the same institute and both needed instruments for spectroscopic
analysis, the KWI für Physik allocated 10,000 marks to be shared between them,
but at first only 2,050 marks were disbursed for the objective of a spectrograph.59
For many years Steubing had been a close collaborator of Stark in several important
investigations, for example, on the Stark effect and on the Doppler effect. Wendt had
also been assistant of Stark, with whom he published several papers on canal rays
and the Stark effect (Mehra and Rechenberg 1982, 103, vol. 1; Weinmeister 1925–
1926, 1196–1198, vol. 2, s.v. “Stark, Johannes”). A few months after the grant was
approved, Wendt left the institute and was replaced by Heinrich Kirschbaum, also
a former private assistant of Stark, who then worked with Steubing on the behavior
54 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Einstein
to Seemann, 28 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Seemann; Einstein (2004, 560,
561).
55 Seemann to Einstein, 11 May 1919 (Einstein 2004, 60–63, doc. 38).
56 Seemann to Einstein, 2 May 1919 and 12 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder
Seemann; (Seemann 1921).

57 Steubing to Einstein, 6 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Steubing; (Steubing
1919b). See also Steubing (1919a).

58 Wendt to Einstein, 14 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wendt; (Wendt and
Wetzel 1916; Wendt 1917).

59 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; (Einstein
2004, 560); Einstein to Steubing, 27 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Steubing;
Einstein to Wendt, 27 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wendt; Einstein to KWG,
9 September 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 91.
of the nitrogen spectral lines in an electric field.60 As Steubing explained in a later

paper, this work was aimed not only at the systematic collection of data on the Stark
effect but also at a better understanding of the atomic structure (Steubing 1922, 427).
In early 1920, the KWI für Physik disbursed a further 500 marks for this research.61
Two applicants suggested the spectroscopic investigation of properties of materi-
als. Friedrich Krüger, professor of physics and director of the Physics Institute at the
Technische Hochschule of Danzig, applied for a fellowship for his assistant Helge
Bohlin. Bohlin had developed a technique for X-ray spectroscopy which improved on
the Debye-Scherrer powder method. The fellowship would allow him to continue the
research on the crystallographic structure of metals and metal alloys that he had been
performing for a year with this new promising method. As in the case of Seeman,
the Direktorium decided to grant him 2,000 marks to buy instruments rather than
granting a fellowship. Since Krüger had already bought the instruments he needed
with the support of another foundation, he refused the money for the equipment
and suggested to Einstein that he could hand over the instruments to the KWI für
Physik in exchange for a fellowship of the same amount. Einstein, probably already
annoyed by this kind of bureaucratic correspondence, took note of the refusal and did
not respond to Krüger’s suggestion. In the end, Krüger did not receive any money.62
From the same Physics Institute of the Technische Hochschule of Danzig came the
application of Karl Försterling, Privatdozent of theoretical physics, who received
2,000 marks for a project concerning the temperature dependency of the indices of
refraction and absorption of metals in the infrared part of the spectrum. Försterling
planned to extend to high temperatures the systematic measurements taken at low
temperatures by Laue and Friedrich Franz Martens, adopting a method similar to
theirs. The interesting theoretical rationale of his research was that “from the depen-
dency of n [refractive index] and k [absorption index] upon temperature it would be
possible to deduce the corresponding dependence of the number of electrons in the
unit volume.”63
Rudolf Seeliger, extraordinary professor of theoretical physics at the University
of Greifswald, had in mind a broad research program on light emission by atoms,
in particular he planned to work on “light emission in cathode dark space,” “light
emission in dissociated gases,” “dependency of the spectrum of emitted light on
the electron velocity,” “determination of the critical excitation potential of selected
60 Steubing to Einstein, 19 September 1919 and 30 January 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10,
folder Steubing; Wendt to Einstein, 2 October 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wendt;
Einstein to Steubing, 11 October 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Steubing.
61 Einstein to KWG, 12 March 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 122.
62 Krüger to Direktorium, 31 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Krüger; Einstein
to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Krüger to Einstein,
25 May, 2 June, and 18 August 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Krüger; Einstein to
Krüger, 25 May 1919, ibid.; Krüger to Laue, 8 February 1924, ibid. On Bohlin’s new technique,
see Bohlin (1920).
63 Försterling to Einstein, 8 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Försterling; Einstein
to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56. On the method, see
Laue and Martens (1907).
lines,” and “light emission in proximity of the anode of a glow current.” He had
already obtained the support of other donors to buy the necessary equipment, and
needed only the mercury to fill a Gaede pump.64 Seeliger was a recognized expert
on glow discharges in gases. An experiment he had performed with Ernst Gehrcke
some years earlier had shown that “the emission of light of determined wavelengths
is tied to a determined threshold electron velocity,” that is, as Franck and Gustav
Hertz later proved, to the exchange of an energy quantum.65 The KWI fulfilled
Seeliger’s moderate request with 1,000 marks for which it was thanked in a paper on
the excitation conditions of mercury spectral lines.66
In his letter asking for support for the investigation of “photoelectric effect and
X-rays,” Robert W. Pohl, extraordinary professor of experimental physics at the
University of Göttingen, did not even bother to explain his work in detail but took it
for granted that Einstein already knew about it. Indeed, Pohl was well known to the
Direktorium members since he had been a student of Warburg and worked until 1916
as Privatdozent at the Physical Institute of the Berlin University. Furthermore, he
had already worked with Peter Pringsheim on the photoelectric properties of alkaline
metals and published a book on this subject. Not surprisingly, Pohl was given 5,000
marks for unspecified “material and instruments for scientific research.”67 The major
focus of Pohl’s research became at that time the effects of light irradation on the
electrical conductivity of solids, in particular of crystals, on which he and his student
(and later assistant) Bernhard Gudden worked in the following years with repeated
support from the KWI für Physik.68
Two applications asked for support for measurements concerning the electrical
properties of different materials. Wilhelm Hammer, assistant at the University of
Freiburg im Breisgau, had developed a new method for measuring capacitances and
constants of dielectricity by means of electric oscillations, which yielded results that
were three times more precise than before. This improvement would allow the solu-
tion of several pending questions which were mentioned in a letter of support by
Hammer’s superior, the ordinary professor of physics Franz Himstedt. He and Ham-
mer intended to test, for example, the Clausius-Mosotti relation in gases and liquids
at different pressures, as well as a hypothesis by Debye concerning pre-existing
dipoles in the material in contrast to the dipole moments induced by the electro-
64 Seeliger to Einstein, 31 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Seeliger.
65 Hoffmann (1986, 279); see also Wilhelm (1987).
66 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April and 2 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56
and 57 respectively; Seeliger to Einstein, 29 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder
Seeliger; (Seeliger 1920).
67 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; see also
Pohl to Einstein, 16 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Pohl; (Pohl and Pringsheim
1914).
68 For a bibliography of Pohl’s and Gudden’s scientific papers on photoelectric conductivity and
other effects of light irradiation, in many of which the authors thanked the KWI für Physik for
financial support, see s.v. “Pohl, Robert” and “Gudden, Bernhard” in Weinmeister (1925–1926)
and in Stobbe (1936–1940). See also Gudden (1944, 167), Gerlach (1978, 217–218), Hund et al.
(1988, 189–190).
magnetic field. Hammer was given 5,000 marks for “instruments for measurement
of electric oscillations.”69 Walther Kaufmann, professor of experimental physics
at the University of Königsberg, received 3,000 marks for equipment to generate
short-wave electromagnetic signals, with which he intended to perform vacuum and
magnetic measurements in high-frequency fields. In particular, he wanted to measure
the frequency dependence of, again, the constants of dielectricity and absorption at
high frequencies. The support of the KWI für Physik was later acknowledged in
two papers reporting measurements of pressure in vacua by means of ionization cur-
rents of hot cathodes, and of the reversible magnetic permeability of iron at high
frequencies.70 More than ten years earlier, Kaufmann had done pioneering work on
the velocity dependence of the inertial mass of electrons. His measurements seemed
to contradict special relativity theory, and both Einstein and Planck disputed their
theoretical implications.71
An application concerned with a much-debated problem came from the profes-
sor of physics at Berlin’s Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule (Agriculture College),
Erich Regener,72 whom Einstein, some years earlier, had lauded as one of “the best
young physicists in Germany” along with Johann Koenigsberger and Edgar Meyer.73
Although often labeled a measurement of the “elementary quantum” at the time,
Regener’s investigation had nothing to do with Planck’s quantum. Remember that
in 1910–1911 Felix Ehrenhaft and his collaborators at the University of Vienna had
claimed to have measured electric charges with different values on small particles
of different materials, including values much lower than the charge of an electron,
and therefore assumed the existence of “subelectrons.” On the other hand, in those
same years Robert A. Millikan of the University of Chicago was improving his mea-
surement of the electric charge on individual droplets and collecting considerable
evidence for the existence of a definite elementary charge. This became a controver-
sial question, not yet resolved in the late twenties.74 There were more disbelievers
than adherents to Ehrenhaft’s results—which Einstein, too, considered “illusory.”75
Besides its strictly-speaking physical aspects, the controversy was also, indirectly,
about the underlying assumptions concerning the constitution of matter and elec-
tricity, namely atomism or continuum theory (Holton 1978, 222). Planck, Warburg,
Rubens as well as many others took part in the debate at congresses or published data
69 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Hammer
to Einstein, 27 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hammer; Himstedt to Einstein,
27 March 1919, ibid., folder Himstedt. On the new method, see Hammer (1919–1920). We could
not find any report on the envisaged measurements.
70 Kaufmann to KWI für Physik, 8 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 6, folder Kaufmann;
Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; (Kaufmann
and Serowy 1921; Urbschat 1921).
71 Einstein (1989, 270–272) editorial comment “Einstein on the theory of relativity.”
72 Regener to Einstein, 14 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Regener.
73 Einstein to Laub, 10 August 1911, in Einstein (1993b, 308, doc. 275).
74 On the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute, see Holton (1978).
75 Quotation from “Discussion du rapport de M. Perrin” in Langevin and de Broglie (1912, 251),
Einstein (1993a, 509, doc. 25).

of their own. Regener too had, in 1911, arrived at results supporting Millikan’s view
on the definite value of the smallest electric charge (Holton 1978, 200, note 115). In
his application, he now proposed to look closely at the statistics of the methods used
for measuring the elementary charge and further to determine it afresh by counting
and by measuring charge in canal rays. In May 1919—that is, after the Direktorium
meeting of 24 April at which the grants had been approved—Ehrenhaft also inquired
about funds from the KWI für Physik, remarking that Einstein was well aware of
his research.76 A response from Einstein is not documented, but Ehrenhaft did not
receive money, whereas Regener received 7,000 marks with which he bought several
instruments.77
Regener’s is one of the few research projects supported by the KWI für Physik
about which a scientific comment can be found in Einstein’s correspondence. Prob-
ably at the beginning of June 1920, Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest:
Moreover, under Regener an investigation concerning the Ehrenhaft question has been made
by use of droplets; it shows that the apparently lower values of the elementary quantum are
produced by mobilities that are too small; these are, probably, caused by gas layers increasing
the hydrodynamically effective radius of the droplet.78
Regener’s paper expounding the conclusions mentioned by Einstein in his letter

had just been presented on 3 June 1920 at a meeting of the Academy of Science
(Regener 1920), while the results of the measurements taken by Regener’s co-worker
Ernst Radel appeared a few weeks later (Radel 1920).
The only research on thermodynamics supported was proposed by Alfred Magnus,
Privatdozent of physical chemistry at the University of Tübingen, who wanted to
continue his series of measurements of specific heat coefficients of solids for high
temperatures, in particular carbon, silicon, and silicon carbide. In order to improve
the precision of his measurements he needed different kinds of thermometers, for
which he received 3,000 marks. Unfortunately, a year later Magnus reported that he
could not buy all the instruments needed due to inflation and could not complete the
planned measurements because of teaching duties. Very correctly, he returned some
of the money.79
Finally, one project concerning classical kinetic theory was sponsored: Wilhelm
Westphal, extraordinary professor of physics at the University of Berlin and former
student of Rubens, received 3,000 marks for the continuation of experimental work
aimed at “shedding light upon the little-known theory of the radiometer at higher pres-
sure and on Knudsen’s accommodation coefficient.”80 It seems that Einstein played
76 Ehrenhaft to Einstein, 28 May 1919 (Einstein 2004, 73, doc. 46). The previous year Einstein and
Ehrenhaft had corresponded on the subject (Einstein 1998, 861–862, 902–905, docs. 605, 630).
77 Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56; Regener
to Einstein, 12 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Regener.
78 Einstein to Ehrenfest, undated [6 June 1920], in Einstein (2006, 297, doc. 46).
79 Magnus to Einstein, 7 April 1919 and 11 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Magnus;
Einstein to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56.
80 Westphal to Einstein, 16 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Westphal; Einstein
to Kuratorium, 25 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 55–56.
a role, at least indirectly, in Westphal’s initiative. In February 1919 Westphal had

submitted to the journal Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft
a paper expounding a theory of the radiometer at high gas pressure, with a formula
for the momentum of gas molecules hitting the radiometer (Westphal 1919a). The
theory was said to be in accordance with experimental data on which Westphal lec-
tured a few weeks later, at a meeting of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
held on 14 March 1919 under Einstein’s chairmanship.81 On that occasion Westphal
again expounded his “attempt at a theoretical interpretation,” thus probably eliciting
some reflections from Einstein. In fact, in a short note retracting his previous theory
while announcing a new systematic investigation, Westphal declared some months
later: “Mr. Einstein in particular was so kind as to make me aware of a contradic-
tion concerning the momentum formula” (Westphal 1919b). Westphal had based his
formula on the inadmissible assumption of a uniform molecular velocity in small
spaces. In three subsequent papers, in which he duly thanked the KWI für Physik for
its support, Westphal dealt with the dependency of the radiometric effect upon gas
pressure, but no longer attempted to develop a theoretical interpretation (Westphal
1920a, b, 1921).
With respect to the original motivation for the foundation of the institute, we found
it particularly odd that in January 1920 some of the funds were also spent to support
the journal Physikalische Berichte.82 In the winter of 1919 an ad hoc committee of
the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, of which Haber and Einstein among others
were members, brought about a radical change in the editorial policy concerning the
physics journals. Due to the difficult financial situation of the association, the scope
of its free publication, the Verhandlungen, was considerably reduced and instead
the new subscription journal Zeitschrift für Physik was published starting in Jan-
uary 1920. At the same time, both the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft and the
newly established Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Physik (German Society of
Technical Physics) launched the Physikalische Berichte as a journal of abstracts on
both German and foreign physics literature, pure and applied.83 The KWI für Physik
and the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft gave 5,000 marks each for this new
journal, while the Prussian Academy contributed 10,000 marks in compliance with
an application submitted by Einstein, Nernst, Planck, Rubens, and Warburg.84
81 “[Bericht über die] Sitzung vom 14. März 1919” Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen
Gesellschaft 21 (1919, 69); Westphal and Gerlach (1919).

82 Einstein to Kuratorium, 28 January 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 114.
83 “Neuordnung des Zeitschriftenwesens der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft,” Verhandlun-
gen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 21 (1919), pp. 673–675. On the editorial changes in
the physics press, see Forman (1968, 171–205), Dreisigacker and Rechenberg (1995, F136–F138),
Hermann (1995, F79–F80).
84 Minutes of the meeting of the physical-mathematical class, 23 October 1919, AAdW, II–V, Bd.
134, p. 112; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 124–125). The grant was approved by the appropriation
committee of the Academy on 6 November 1919 (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 235, vol. 2). The main
support amounting to 65,000 marks came from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Physik
(Hoffmann and Swinne 1994, 37, 48–49).
Rejected Proposals
Some projects were not funded because they did not belong to physics proper, at
least not in the opinion of the Direktorium: Himstedt, who was mentioned above
as supporting Hammer’s application, had asked for instruments for meteorological
measurements.85 Hans Rosenberg, professor of astronomy at the University of Tübin-
gen, wished to apply a new photoelectrical method to astronomical measurements.86
Hermann Starke, professor of physics at the Technische Hochschule of Aachen,
needed new costly instruments to continue his investigation on electric resonance,
relaxation effects, and distortions in current-voltage curves at high frequencies.87
Einstein responded that the institute had decided to support only “purely scientific
(not more or less technical)” research.88
An interesting project, which was probably rejected for scientific reasons, was
suggested by Otto Lehmann, professor of physics at the Technische Hochschule of
Karlsruhe. Lehmann proposed studying the molecular directional forces exerted on
liquid crystals by a magnetic field. He was nearing retirement, but intended to con-
tinue his investigations privately.89 Lehmann is regarded as the discoverer of the
liquid crystals on which he had worked almost exclusively for thirty years. Although
his vitalistic explanations of the phenomena were disputed, his empirical studies on
the subject were highly esteemed (Schleiermacher and Schachenmeier 1923; Brauns
1934). His “famous publications” had even been cited by Jean Perrin in his talk at the
First Solvay Congress in 1911 (Perrin 1912, 227). Nevertheless, Lehmann’s pending
retirement was not the only reason for the refusal, as Einstein, in his letter turning
down the proposal, not only deplored the lack of funds but also admitted that he had
not understood Lehmann’s “remark on the magnetic-electric induction” and com-
mented that “the molecular structure is not essential for the theoretical interpretation
of these phenomena.”90
Finally, two applications were rejected because they asked for fellowships. While
it is understandable that Einstein refused to support a student who wanted to develop
“military-technical inventions,”91 it is highly surprising that the application of Wil-
helm Lenz, assistant to Sommerfeld at the University of Munich, was also rejected.
Lenz wanted “to take up again the theory of mono-atomic gases under the point
85 Himstedt to Einstein, 27 March 1919, and Einstein to Himstedt, 26 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Himstedt.

86 Rosenberg to Einstein, 11 April 1919, and Einstein to Rosenberg, 26 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Rosenberg.

87 Starke to Einstein, 8 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Starke.
88 Einstein to Starke, 26 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Starke.
89 Lehmann to Einstein, 26 March, 13 April, 16 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder
Lehmann.
90 Einstein to Lehmann, 28 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Lehmann; (Einstein
2004, 562).
91 Georg Krakow to Einstein, undated [March 1919] and 1 May 1919, and Einstein to Krakow, 6
May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Krakow.

of view of the quantization of the collision processes.”92 In this context, that is, in
dealing with the quantum theory of non-periodic processes, he intended to look at
the nature of continuously distributed X-rays. Lenz also envisaged investigating the
nuclear structure from the angle of quantum theory. Despite the recommendation for
Lenz by Sommerfeld, and his remarks that Sommerfeld had “discussed the matter a
year ago with Einstein and Planck,” Einstein answered that the KWI had decided not
to award fellowships and did not even offer Lenz money to buy instruments.93 As a
reason for the refusal Einstein referred to the difficult financial situation of the uni-
versity institutes and to the large number of applications received,94 as if fellowships
claimed an inordinate part of the funds and thus hindered a broader distribution. Yet
Einstein’s justifications are not convincing, not only because in the cases of Bohlin
and Seemann the KWI allocated money for instruments instead of the requested
fellowships, but also because at the end of September 1919, when all the grants
approved in April had been paid, the institute still had about 65,000 marks left to
distribute.95 For whatever reason, the leaders of the institute did not want to support
research projects under Sommerfeld’s supervision.
Negative Reactions to the Institute’s Policy. Annual Report 1919/20
The distribution policy of the Direktorium did not meet with the unconditional
approval of all members of the KWI für Physik. Commenting on Einstein’s commu-
nication about the grants approved on 24 April 1919, the chairman of the KWI für
Physik, Siemens, complained that, unlike the procedure of the other KW Institutes,
no discussion on the research projects had taken place in the KWI für Physik and
that a report on the institute’s activities for the fiscal year 1918/19 had not yet been
delivered. He also criticized the budgetary plan for 1919/20.96 As for Krüss, the
representative of the Prussian Ministry of Education, he criticized the fact that “the
distribution of the funds was based on the criterion of the needs of the university
institutes.” For reasons of national prestige, he would have preferred a concentration
of the available money “in order to possibly also engage one day in a larger endeavor
(measurement of radiation in another climate or the like).” However, he gave his
approval “because, apparently, the majority of the projects approved are directed at
the same field of radiation theory.”97 The three scientific members of the KWI für
Physik obviously had no objections since they were also members of the Direkto-
rium. The decisions of the Direktorium were approved almost two months later, on
92 Lenz to Einstein, with a postscript by Sommerfeld, 25 March 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
8, folder Lenz; (Einstein 2004, 18–19, doc. 11). See also Sommerfeld to Einstein, 25 March 1919,
in Einstein (2004, 20, doc. 12).
93 Einstein to Lenz, 26 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Lenz.
94 See also Einstein to Krüger, 25 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Krüger, and
Einstein to Seemann, 28 April 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Seemann.
95 Bank statement 1 April–31 December 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn.
96 Von Siemens to Glum, 14 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, pp. 27–30; see also von
Siemens to Glum, 2 May 1919, ibid., p. 24.

97 Krüss to von Siemens, 5 June 1919, addition to the circular letter of von Siemens to the Kuratorium
members, 2 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, p. 63.

16 June 1919, much to the annoyance of Einstein, who meanwhile had complained
twice about the delay and also had to provide further explanations concerning the
plan for 1919/20.98
In the report on the institute’s activities for the period April 1919 to March 1920
it is clear that the original idea had been diluted:
The task of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik is primarily the support of large-scale
scientific research projects which cannot be carried out with the means of the single [uni-
versity] institutes. However, the difficult economical situation and the scarcity of funds for
research of the various institutes resulting therefrom made it necessary to stray somewhat
away from this plan and to support a larger number of separate research projects. The Direk-
torium believed that in this way it could best serve the continuation and improvement of
physical research.99
The report then mentions that a group of fifteen projects had been funded, “a large
part of which was devoted to spectroscopy,” and goes on to describe in some further
detail the work of Freundlich in testing general relativity.
In summary, we may say that most of the projects were indeed concerned with
spectroscopy and radiation phenomena, in which the new concept of Planck’s quan-
tum played a dominant role. Others dealt with properties of material systems and
with molecular physics. A number of subfields of physics were not present at all, for
example, hydrodynamics, acoustics, or pure optics. One possible explanation for the
concentration of research projects in the fields mentioned could be that these were
becoming subjects of increasing interest among physicists; this was not an entirely
new trend though, since in many cases the proposals aimed at the continuation of
research programs that had already started before the war. It must also be considered
that spectroscopic research probably required the purchase of expensive equipment,
for which the university institutes lacked money. This would explain the greater need
to apply for outside support as compared to research in other fields.
In any case, only the testing of Planck’s formula and the research sponsored
by Nernst and Einstein had been directly initiated by Direktorium members. Thus
only the testing of Planck’s formula can be regarded as a step in a research strategy
directed toward quantum physics, and this was limited to measurements and did not
address new ideas. The other two initiatives corresponded to the particular interests
of their initiators at the time. Nernst abandoned his research on gas degeneracy
in the following years. As for Einstein, it is quite clear that he was utilizing the
institute’s funds solely for research on relativity theory. Einstein was certainly also
interested in the testing of Planck’s law and in other problems of quantum physics,
but not so interested as to initiate research in this field. On the other hand, the other
Direktorium members seemed unwilling to support research on relativity theory with
98 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 May and 16 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1656, pp. 59 and
64 respectively; von Siemens to Einstein, 16 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13; Einstein,
“Erläuterungen zu dem Haushaltsplan,” undated [sent to von Siemens on 9 May 1919], AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
99 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1919–31 March 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p.
48; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 152–153, vol. 1). The report was sent to the Kuratorium in September
1920 (Einstein to Schmidt-Ott, 13 September 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 45).
all the necessary funds. Einstein had to turn to a private donor to support Grebe and
Bachem even though the institute still had funds available.
In fact, the KWI was intentionally holding back its funds. As Einstein declared
in the explanations relating to the plan for 1919/20, the Direktorium had decided to
distribute only the new income while the previous surplus was to be kept in reserve.100
Therefore, during that fiscal year the institute spent only 76,559 marks, 66,050 of
which were allocated for “scientific purposes.” At the end of the period the bank
statement still showed a surplus of 83,926 marks, that is, more than the amount
handed out during the past twelve months.101
3.3 The Period 1920/21
The applications for equipment to be provided by the KWI für Physik kept coming
in at a steady but not growing rate. Fourteen applications were submitted from May
1919 to April 1920, a further seven came in before the end of November 1920.
The Direktorium did not meet until 22 April 1920 so that some applicants—for
example, Wilhelm Hallwachs and Peter Paul Koch—had to wait for almost a year
before receiving an answer. At that meeting, six research projects were approved.
Seven further projects were approved at the Direktorium meetings of 8 July and 2
December 1920. Five applications were rejected for various reasons.102 In one case,
that of Reinhold Fürth, the decision was postponed until more precise explanations
could be submitted. For four inquiries there is no record of any official decision on
the part of the Direktorium.
Old Projects and New Proposals
Again, the majority of approved applications concerned spectroscopy, light emission
from atoms through the inelastic scattering of electrons, the photoelectric effect, and
the elementary electric charge. Some of the allocations allowed the continuation of
projects already supported. Continuing his work on testing the theory of relativity,
Freundlich, in Potsdam, investigated the cyanogen bands with a spectroscopic oven
endowed not by the KWI für Physik but by Carl Bosch, the managing director of the
Badische Anilin- und Sodafabrik (B.A.S.F.).103 Freundlich also worked on stellar
statistics and, “in collaboration with Einstein,” on different methods of determining
100 Einstein, “Erläuterungen zu dem Haushaltsplan,” undated [sent to von Siemens on 9 May 1919],
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.

101 Bank statement 1 January–31 March 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn;
survey of income and expenditure 1 April 1919–1931 March 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1665, pp. 46–47. See also Tables 3.1 and 3.2. The new balance given in Table 3.1 includes the cash.
102 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April, 3 May, 14 September and 7 December 1920, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, pp. 125–126, 146, 151; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 151–153, vol. 1; Kant 1987,
133).
103 Freundlich to Einstein, 12 August 1920, in Einstein (2006, 371–372, doc. 101); see also Fre-
undlich to von Harnack, 15 December 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, pp. 106–107.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 61
stellar masses (Müller 1921, 118–119). Steubing received a further 6,300 marks,
from the 10,000 assigned in 1919, to continue the investigation of nitrogen spectral
lines in an electric field conducted in collaboration with Kirschbaum, who in a later
paper acknowledged the support of the KWI. With the apparatus financed by the KWI
Steubing also worked on the influence of temperature on the iodine spectral band.104
Similarly, Wagner’s X-ray spectroscopy was supported by an additional 1,500 marks.
Both Wagner and his student, Helmuth Kulenkampff, later thanked the KWI in papers
on the relation between wavelength and the intensity of X-ray reflection from crys-
tals, and on the continuous X-ray spectrum.105 Pohl, who had meanwhile become
a full professor and director of one of the two institutes for experimental physics
at the University of Göttingen, obtained 8,000 marks to continue with his assistant,
Gudden, the investigation of the photoelectric effect. By studying the increase of the
dielectric constant of solids due to light irradiation, they had discovered that the latter
elicits eigenvibrations of electrons in the solid’s interior. In order to establish whether
this was a general effect, they needed new instruments to extend the investigation to
diamonds and other crystals.106 Seeliger, too, worked on the same kind of problems
as before, namely on the emission of light through the collision of electrons with
hydrogen atoms, and recently also with helium atoms. He was granted an additional
2,000 marks to buy a set of high-voltage accumulators.107 The support, continued in
the following years, was acknowledged in several articles.108 Another 5,000 marks
went to Otto von Baeyer for the continuation of Regener’s and Radel’s work con-
cerning the determination of the elementary electric charge. Baeyer was to become
the new director of the Physical Institute of the Landwirtschaftliche Hochschule in
Berlin, replacing Regener, who had moved to Stuttgart. Von Baeyer wanted to bring
to an end the series of measurements on droplets, under different high pressures and
with the “Einstein-Weiss method.”109 The work, done by doctoral candidate Kurt
Wolter, led to the confirmation of Millikan’s and Regener’s results but also showed
the “inaccuracy” of the “Einstein-Weiss method” (Wolter 1921, 351).
The question of the elementary electric charge intrigued others as well. We have
already mentioned the request made by Ehrenhaft in May 1919, which should have
104 Einstein to Bank Mendelssohn, 27 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 144;
(Kirschbaum 1923; Steubing 1921).
105 Wagner to Einstein, 18 June and 14 August 1920, and Einstein to Wagner, 1 July 1920, all in
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wagner; Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 December 1920, AMPG,
I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 151; (Wagner and Kulenampff 1922; Kulenkampff 1922).
106 Pohl to “Geheimrat,” 3 July 1920, and to Einstein, 14 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
9, folder Pohl; Einstein to Pohl, 10 July 1920, ibid.; Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 December 1920,
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 151.
107 Seeliger to Einstein, undated [January 1920] and 2 May 1920, and Einstein to Seeliger, 30 April
1920, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Seeliger; Einstein to Kuratorium, 3 May 1920,
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 126; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 152, vol. 1).
108 See, e.g., Seeliger and Mierdel (1921), Seeliger and Thaer (1921), Seeliger (1922a, b).
109 Von Baeyer to Einstein, 30 June and 15 November 1920, and Einstein to O. von Baeyer, 30 July
1920, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 1, folder Baeyer; Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 December
1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 151.
been dealt with at a Direktorium meeting of the current fiscal year 1920/21. Unfor-
tunately there is neither mention of such a discussion in the minutes of the meetings
nor an official reply. But the Direktorium certainly discussed the question in relation
to the proposal submitted in October 1920 by Fürth, Privatdozent of physics at the
German University of Prague, in the same period as the support for measurements
taken under von Baeyer’s supervision was approved. Until then Fürth, a student
of Philipp Frank and Anton Lampa, had worked in particular on Brownian motion
and had published many papers on the subject.110 In the context of his research on
microscopic particles, he had come to doubt the evidence for the elementary electric
charge for reasons relating, among other things, to the method of measurement and
to the statistics of the results (Fürth 1920). According to him, the dynamics of small
moving particles, in the usual experimental procedure according to Millikan’s and
Ehrenhaft’s methods, was too complicated. He now wanted to determine the ele-
mentary electric charge with a torsion balance of the Eötvös type in a static setup,
that is, without measuring the mass of the charge carriers. In the application Fürth
enclosed a sketc.h of a “torsion balance for the measurement of the smallest charges”
and explained how it worked.111 Einstein replied that the Direktorium “could not yet
come to a decision for giving you the means requested in your communication,
because it had doubts as to whether your plan could be carried out” and asked for
further information with which the experiment’s feasibility could be assessed. As a
postscript he added: “I admit that I myself have not supported your proposal because
I believe that the expected success of the investigation will be small, in comparison
with the difficulties to be overcome.”112 Fürth and Einstein must then have met during
the latter’s visit to Prague in January 1921 and discussed the matter because, in his
renewed application to the KWI für Physik, Fürth refers to the “verbal agreement”
reached by them.113 His request of 2,000 marks was finally approved in the following
budget year.114 Einstein’s initial skepticism was justified: As late as February 1926
1926 Fürth’s measurements had not yet come to an end.115
New projects addressing questions of quantum physics were also proposed. In one
particular case, the Direktorium showed considerable interest, approving a project
even before the application was submitted. On 8 July 1920 10,000 marks were granted
to Gerhard Hettner, Rubens’s assistant at the Physical Institute of the University of
Berlin, for the purchase of instruments to be used for an “investigation into the struc-
ture of infrared gas spectra.”116 In his subsequent application Hettner explained that
he wanted to find out “whether an electric field has any effect on the two [absorption]
bands of gases [like HCl] in the infrared,” adding that “the investigation would be of
110 Later Fürth also edited a collection of Einstein’s papers on Brownian motion (Einstein 1922a).
111 Fürth to Einstein, 19 October 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Fürth.
112 Einstein to Fürth, 10 December 1920, ibid. (see footnote 111).
113 Fürth to Einstein, 21 January 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Fürth; see also Fürth
to Einstein, 18 December 1920, ibid. On Einstein’s visit to Prague, see Fölsing (1993, 560).
114 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, pp. 166–167.
115 Fürth to Laue, 12 July 1924 and 15 February 1926, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Fürth.
116 Einstein to Kuratorium, 14 September 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 146.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 63
great importance because Bohr’s theory and Planck’s second quantum theory lead to
different effects, so that a decision between them would be possible.”117 In fact, in an
enclosed paper Hettner calculates the effect expected according to Bohr’s theory but
defers to a later paper the calculation in accordance with Planck’ second quantum
theory (Hettner 1920a).
It is likely that Hettner received support even before he asked for it because his
work had already been discussed in the Berlin physics community in the previous
months and attracted the attention of the Direktorium members. In his correspondence
Einstein himself expressed particular interest in the experimental research that had
led Hettner to formulate the hypothesis mentioned in his application. In that work
Hettner
[…] has shown that the gas spectra in the infrared H Cl and H2 O can be explained completely
by (quasi)elastic eigenvibrations as well as by combined frequencies. If, e.g., ν1 and ν2 are
absorption frequencies then 2ν1 , 2ν2 , ν1 + ν2 also occur, as is to be expected by the quantum
theory of imperfectly elastic vibrations.118
Unfortunately, Hettner did not carry out the planned research but instead shifted his
interest to radiometer physics.119 The promised paper, which was to handle infrared
gas spectra in an electric field according to Planck’s second quantum theory, never
appeared. The theory was abandoned but not because of any contributions by Hettner.
Christian Füchtbauer, extraordinary professor at the University of Tübingen,
received 7,000 marks to buy several special optical devices that would allow him
to continue with higher precision a series of measurements of the intensity and width
of spectral lines. He had developed a method for obtaining not just a few lines but
the entire spectrum of an atom, by exposing mercury vapor to the light of an intense
mercury lamp. With his measurements he wished to tackle several questions. First,
he wanted to establish whether the frequency of electronic transitions depends upon
the variations in the line width with the gas density. Second, he wanted to determine
whether the Stark effect was a sufficient explanation of the line broadening.120
Koch had submitted his application in June 1919, immediately after being
appointed professor of experimental physics at the Physikalisches Staatslaborato-
rium of Hamburg.121 He wished to continue his investigations into “the intensity
distribution in spectral lines” which, he explained, “are closely connected with theo-
retical problems resulting from Sommerfeld’s extension of Bohr’s [atomic] theory.”
117 Hettner to Einstein, 20 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hettner.
118 Einstein to Ehrenfest, undated [June 1920] (Einstein 2006, 297, doc. 46). The paper referred to
is Hettner (1920b). Einstein also mentioned Hettner’s work in a letter to Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
of the same period (Einstein 2006, 313).
119 See s.v. “Hettner, Gerhard” in Stobbe (1936–1940, 1105, vol. 2).
120 Füchtbauer to Kuratorium, 2 November 1920 and 31 January 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34,
Nr. 2, folder Füchtbauer; Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 December 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1657, p. 151; (Mehra and Rechenberg 1982, 653, vol. 1). For the results of Füchtbauer’s work, see
Fuchtbauer and Joos (1922), Fuchtbauer et al. (1923).
121 The State Laboratory of Physics was about to become an institute of the newly established
university (Fouquet 1999, 160–162).

In addition, he also envisaged conducting research on the effects of light on silver bro-
mide.122 Koch, a student of Röntgen, had worked for many years at the University of
Munich, where Sommerfeld also taught. He was a specialist on the intensity of spec-
tral lines and thus in photometry. He had previously developed a new spectrograph
for mapping line profiles that measured the degree of blackening of photographic
plates using photocells (Koch 1912). In 1919, Freundlich installed such an instru-
ment at the Astrophysikalisches Observatorium in Potsdam, possibly for his daylight
measurements of light deflection at the solar limb. The same spectrograph was also
used by Grebe and Bachem for their measurements of the gravitational redshift of
the cyanogen bands.123 Only in April 1920 did the KWI für Physik give Koch the
12,800 marks he had requested, that is, the biggest sum distributed in this fiscal
year.124 Judging from his later papers though, Koch seems to have abandoned the
first topic mentioned in his letter and concentrated his research almost exclusively
on photographic processes.125
Franck, who in 1920 was still head of a department in Haber’s KWI für physikalis-
che Chemie und Elektrochemie in Berlin, first received 2,000 marks and later a further
10,000 for the continuation of his research on the collision of electrons with atoms.126
As is well known, the experiments on the collision of electrons with gas atoms per-
formed before the war by Franck and Hertz at Haber’s institute had unwittingly led to
the confirmation of the quantum relationship between energy and frequency and of
the Bohr-Sommerfeld atomic theory (Mehra and Rechenberg 1982, 197–200). In his
first application to the KWI für Physik, Franck asked for support for the improvement
of a newly conceived photoelectric method of “fixing,” that is, registering the spectral
lines emitted by the collision of electrons with gas molecules. With this method it
was possible to narrow the gap in the spectral range between optical and X-ray lines,
which was inaccessible to experimentalists at the time. Recent experiments even
“let it appear promising to apply this procedure to the impact of electrons on the
surface of solids.”127 In a second application, some months later, Franck asked for a
greater sum that would allow his assistant, Paul Knipping, to implement a method for
122 Koch to Einstein, 8 June 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Koch; see also Koch to
Kuratorium, 24 May 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 134.
123 “Bericht über die Tätigkeit im Jahre 1919,” AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Freundlich;
Grebe to Einstein, 17 April 1919, in Einstein (2004, 37–38, doc. 25); Einstein to Grebe, 26 April
1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grebe; (Hentschel 1992c, 24–26). Also Steubing and
Füchtbauer used a Koch microphotometer (Steubing 1921; Füchtbauer and Joos 1922).
124 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 125; Einstein to
Koch, 5 June 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Koch.
125 See s.v. “Koch, Peter Paul” in Weinmeister (1925–1926), Stobbe (1936–1940), Zaunick and
Salié (1956–1962).
126 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 125; Franck to
Einstein, 4 November 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Franck.
127 Franck to Einstein, 17 April 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Franck.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 65
“automatic registration of voltage curves,” which Knipping himself had invented.128

Despite the hint of a possible extension of the research to the impact of electrons on
solids, the equipment was mainly used in the investigation of the collisional excita-
tion of atoms in gases.129 It is worth stressing that in both cases Franck submitted
his application “in agreement with” Haber and that the grants for Franck supported
research undertaken at Haber’s KWI für physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemie
which, at the time, was in serious financial trouble, whereas the KWI für Physik in
December 1920 still had 77,000 marks available.130
Hallwachs, ordinary professor of physics at the Technische Hochschule in Dres-
den and one of the discoverers of the photoelectric effect, had applied as early as May
1919 for 900 marks to purchase an electrometer to be used by a doctoral candidate to
determine “the influence of gas on the long-wave limit of the photoelectric effect.”131
For that purpose he received 1,000 marks in April 1920.132 Hallwachs’s main concern
was the systematic collection of data for the purpose of giving as exhaustive a picture
as possible133 ; another investigation on the photoelectric effect suggested by Hedwig
Kohn, assistant at the Physics Institute of the University of Breslau, addressed new
problems of quantum physics. Kohn wanted to perform measurements of the pho-
toelectric effect in gases and vapors in the hope “of testing some consequences of
quantum theory and of Bohr’s atomic model.” For this she needed a high-luminosity
quartz spectrograph, which had to be made to order. The application was supported
by the institute’s director, Otto Lummer, who estimated the costs at between 5,000
and 10,000 marks.134 In September 1919, Kohn spoke to Einstein about her project
and, some months later, sent, together with another supporting letter by Lummer, a
more detailed application in which she explained that she wanted to check.
[…] if the photoelectric effect, i.e., ionization, occurs only under irradiation with the light of
the ultraviolet limiting line n ∞ of the [spectral] series of the unexcited atoms. This should
be the case from the perspective of Bohr’s atomic model according to the quantal equation
e · V = h · n ∞ .135
128 Franck to Einstein, 4 November 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Franck. On the
methods, see Franck and Knipping (1919, 1920), Knipping (1923). On Knipping, see Stintzing
(1938).
129 See e.g., Franck (1921), Franck and Grotrian (1921), Knipping (1921).
130 Schmidt-Ott to Kuratorium members, 14 December 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p.
152. The KWI für physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemie received 35,000 marks per year both
from the Prussian State and the Koppel-Stiftung. In April 1920 it had a deficit of 146,279 marks
(vom Brocke 1990, 231, 233).
131 Hallwachs to Einstein, 2 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hallwachs.
132 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 125. Actually,
with this money Hallwachs purchased, with Einstein’s approval, mercury for a McLeod gauge
(Hallwachs to Einstein, 13 July 1920, and Einstein to Hallwachs, 19 July 1920, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hallwachs).
133 For Hallwachs’s and his student’s research, see Suhrmann (1922).
134 Kohn to Einstein, with addition by Lummer, 2 August 1919, in Einstein (2004, 124–125, doc.
83).
135 Kohn to Einstein, 2 January 1920, in Einstein (2004, 337–338, doc. 241); see also Einstein to
Kohn, 23 August 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kohn.
Lummer, a well-known expert in optics and photometry who had made impor-
tant contributions to early research on black-body radiation, also wished to use the
spectrograph to extend his investigations using the interference spectroscope in the
ultraviolet region, in order to study the “Zeeman phenomenon” and the “dispersion
of [light emitted by] gases.”136 At the meeting of 22 April 1920, the Direktorium
granted Kohn 7,000 marks. Later on, since the price of the apparatus would proba-
bly be higher than previously estimated, the KWI promised to pay any supplement
necessary up to a total of 10,000 marks.137
In a separate letter Lummer also suggested relaunching research on acoustics,
which he considered to be completely neglected in Germany. He estimated that 40–
50,000 marks would be needed to equip a well functioning acoustics laboratory,
but—aware of the impossibility of receiving such a large sum—asked for only 3,000
marks on behalf of the department of his colleague at the University of Breslau, Erich
Waetzmann.138 Although Einstein expressed a polite interest in Lummer’s “valuable
suggestions,”139 they were not taken into consideration at the time. Only in the period
1924/25 was Waetzmann’s research on acoustics funded.140
The only new area of research receiving money in this period was photochem-
istry. Fritz Weigert, extraordinary professor of photochemistry at the University of
Leipzig, had studied the interaction of linearly polarized light with light-sensitive lay-
ers of dye colloids and discovered a new effect: the originally isotropic layers, after
illumination, showed permanent properties such as double refraction and dichroism
(Weigert 1919a, b, c). In January 1920 he apparently wrote or personally spoke to
Einstein about his first observations and, shortly thereafter, applied to the KWI für
Physik: “For further quantitative research into the new effects, a very weak double
refractiveness must be measured precisely.” For this he needed strong mercury light
sources and large polarization prisms.141 Although the subject of photochemistry is
closely connected with quantum physics, at this point Weigert did not speak of quan-
tum effects. His observations occurred in what he called the “micellar region,” that
is, a region of length scales between the molecular dimensions and the wavelength
of light, which “is somewhat outside the main area of interest in present physics:
the dimensions of atom and nucleus.”142 In fact, the interaction of light with clusters
of molecules seemed to be important. Following its policy of diffuse support, the
136 Lummer to Einstein, 2 January 1920, ibid.; (Mehra and Rechenberg 1982, 39–40, vol. 1).
137 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April and 7 December 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, pp.
125, 151. See also Kohn to Kuratorium, 2 June 1920, and Kohn to Einstein, 11 July 1920, AMPG,
I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kohn.
138 Lummer to Einstein, 4 August 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Lummer.
139 Einstein to Lummer, 23 August 1919, ibid.
140 Minutes of the Direktorium meetings, 29 May and 3 July 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1660, pp. 113 and 131 respectively.

141 Weigert to Einstein, 15 February 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Weigert.
142 Weigert to Einstein, 24 May 1920, AEA, 45–215.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 67
Direktorium granted Weigert 5,000 marks “for his photochemical research.”143 In

the following months Weigert published further articles on the new effect.144 An inci-
dental comment about his own research, “We do not really deal with photochemical
processes here,” (Weigert 1921, p. 410) is revealing when compared to the Direkto-
rium’s motivation. Later, Weigert continued his research on polarized fluorescence
in dye solutions and acknowledged the support of the KWI für Physik (Weigert and
Käppler 1924).
As something of a curiosity, Rubens was granted an additional 1,000 marks
because the money he had previously received for the verification of Planck’s law
had been stolen.145
Rejected Proposals
Again, four applications were rejected because they concerned areas at the fringes
of physics. But the opinions among the Direktorium’s members about what should
be considered “pure physics” were not unanimous. If personal relationships were
also a factor, Einstein’s favor was clearly not decisive, as highlighted in the case of
Seemann, an independent scholar already supported in the previous financial year.
Seemann had moved to the X-ray department of the medical clinic at the University of
Freiburg and was now working on the “quantitative refinement of the X-ray spectral
analysis for therapeutical dosimetry.” He needed salt crystals of the highest purity
and a Gaede pump.146 As in May 1919, also on this occasion Einstein was inclined
to support Seemann, but the Direktorium voted down his “favorable opinion” and
rejected Seemann’s application because its purpose was not a “purely physical”
one.147
In order to enable comparisons with later Direktorium decisions, it is useful to
stress the case of Christian Jensen, professor at the Physikalisches Staatslaborato-
rium of Hamburg, who planned extensive research on polarization of skylight, its
causes, its connection to atmospheric electricity, the influence of solar activity, and
so on.148 Jensen had made his request in May 1919, immediately after the first large
distribution of money, and received a negative reply due to lack of funds.149 He then
insisted, but his application was definitively rejected a year later “because the KW
Institute for Physics must limit itself to the support of investigations of purely phys-
ical relevance.”150 In the other cases the rejection was apparently not controversial:
Friedrich Schuh, assistant at the Mineralogical-Geological Institute of the University
of Rostock, had asked for a scholarship and an Eötvös torsion balance for gravity and
143 Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 April 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 125.
144 See s.v. “Weigert, Fritz” in Weinmeister (1925–1926, 1345–1346, vol. 2).
145 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 December 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1657, p. 151.
146 Seemann to Einstein, 12 July and 28 November 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder
Seemann. Quotation from the latter.

147 Einstein to Seemann, 10 December 1920, ibid.
148 Jensen to Einstein, 14 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 5, folder Jensen.
149 Einstein to Jensen, 16 May 1919, ibid.
150 Jensen to Einstein, 10 June 1919, and Ilse Einstein to Jensen, 7 May 1920, ibid. Quotation from
the latter.
magnetic measurements in the field.151 Siegfried Valentiner, professor of physics at

the Bergakademie (School of Mining Engineering) of Clausthal, needed an electric
furnace for investigations of the heat conductivity of insulating materials relevant to
industry.152
Only the project suggested by Gabriele Rabel was rejected for scientific reasons.
Rabel had just completed her doctoral dissertation on spectroscopy under Stark’s
supervision at the University of Greifswald but had previously studied at the Uni-
versity of Berlin, where she had become acquainted with Einstein, and worked on
photochemistry (Rabel 1919). In order to explain a phenomenon discovered in her
previous research, she planned an experiment with canal rays, that is, beams of pos-
itive hydrogen ions deflected by electric and magnetic fields in a vacuum. Usually,
Rabel argued, the light seen in such beams resulted from the interaction of the ions
with the atoms of the remaining gas in the tube, and not from the interaction of the
ions among themselves. With the experimental setup explained in a sketc.h enclosed
with the letter, she wanted to establish if light could be emitted by the collision of
the hydrogen ions alone. Stark was skeptical about her project but would not hin-
der her in doing the experiment. According to Rabel he even “generously refrains
from requesting funds from the [Kaiser-Wilhelm-] Gesellschaft in favor of those
researchers who are not institute directors and are therefore in an even worse situa-
tion than he himself.”153 Einstein reacted negatively because a calculation convinced
him that the mutual collisions of the hydrogen ions were not abundant enough to lead
to an observable emission of light. “To me it appears almost impossible to obtain,
by the method you sketc.hed, such a concentration of canal rays that a generation of
light by mutual collisions could be observed.”154
Among the applications left unanswered was one from Born, who had just become
director of the Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of Frankfurt am
Main. In his new position he wanted to start a broad program, including measurements
of metal vapor pressures with the Knudsen method and experimental investigations
of isotopes of chemical elements with the diffusion method, of molecular speed, and
of Maxwell’s velocity distribution. Also “Tammann’s theory of mixed crystals” and
“Haber’s theory of metals,” that is, theories on the structure of solids were to be tested
by X-rays. Considering the very limited equipment at his disposal, Born asked for
an exceptionally “large sum” without specifying the amount.155 Two months later
Einstein privately let his favorable intentions be known, although he delayed the
allocation, waiting for a better time: “I shall happily try to wangle K. W. Institute’s
funds for your husband when it is possible—when we again have something to
151 Schuh to Einstein, 17 October 1919, Einstein to Schuh, 6 November 1919, and Ilse Einstein to
Schuh, 7 May 1920, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Schuh.
152 Valentiner to Einstein, 16 May 1919, and Einstein to Valentiner, 20 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Valentiner.

153 Rabel to Einstein, 3 November 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Rabel.
154 Einstein to Rabel, 20 November 1919, ibid.
155 Born to Einstein, 1 July 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 1, folder Born.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 69
distribute.”156 In fact, as already reported, at the end of September 1919 the KWI still
had roughly 65,000 marks to spend, but the Direktorium had probably decided not to
supply the entire laboratory equipment of a university institute, after the criticism it
had received from Siemens and Krüss regarding the previous distribution. Born must
have found another way to get the money, since Ilse Einstein later noted on Born’s
application “not needed any longer” and the request was not taken into consideration
at the Direktorium meeting of 22 April 1920.
Finally, a “secret” project “the aim of which is to gain electric energy directly
from heat” was proposed by a supporting member of the KWG.157 Einstein was
willing to referee the project because he thought “it improbable but not absolutely
impossible that a useable idea is presented here for a solution of the problems raised
in the letter.”158 The idea must have been discarded, though, for there is no further
correspondence relating to it.159
Annual Report 1920/21
The report concerning the period from 1 April 1920 to 31 March 1921 is remarkable
for its lack of commitment:
The amount of 59,800 marks distributed during the budget year 1920/21 is relatively small.
We preferred to increase in this way the stock of the available funds, in order to be able
eventually to cope with some single larger and more expensive tasks. The sum spent was
used to enable a greater number of important physical investigations. In most of the cases,
the money was used for buying equipment which remains the property of the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute.160
The declared intention was still the support of large-scale scientific research, but
since such research, involving more than one institution, had neither been proposed
from the outside nor by the Direktorium itself, the original plan became only a hope
for the future.
This time nobody in the KWI für Physik made any trouble. Siemens had died
in October 1919. In the following years all Direktorium decisions continued to be
approved without objection. If we exclude Freundlich, none of the projects supported
in 1920/21 had been directly suggested by Einstein, who only showed particular
interest in the work of Hettner and the measurements of Regener and Baeyer. Only
in two cases, those of Hettner and Franck, can we establish a direct relation between
an application and a member of the Direktorium. As mentioned, Hettner was an
assistant to Rubens and had been working with him for many years. Franck was
156 Einstein to Hedwig Born, 1 September 1919, in Einstein and Born (1969, 30).
157 Josef Kaiser to KWG, 5 March 1920, and von Harnack to Einstein, 31 March 1920, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 6, folder Kaiser.
158 Einstein to von Harnack, 5 April 1920, ibid.
159 The other unanswered requests were those of Ehrenhaft (see page 49) and of Lummer concerning
acoustics (see page 60).

160 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1920–31 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12. The
report was sent to the KWG on 13 July 1921 (see Einstein to von Harnack, 13 July 1921, AMPG,
I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13).
a collaborator of Haber and had discussed his project with him before submission.
However, this does not prove that the research had been suggested by Rubens or Haber
themselves. All the other projects were clearly proposed by university researchers
on their own initiative. The institute thus confirmed its role as a grant distributor
without priorities.
Freundlich, after three years on the payroll of the KWI für Physik, had finally
obtained a permanent position. Einstein, in the annual report referred to above, lacon-
ically stated:
The only scientific member of the institute until now, Dr. Freundlich, continued the work
mentioned in the last report; he left the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute at the end of the calendar
year 1920 and continued his work in the position of an observer at the Astrophysikalisches
Observatorium in Potsdam.161
In fact, an agreement had been reached between the Observatory’s director, Gustav
Müller, and the Prussian Ministry of Education according to which “Freundlich, until
further notice, will be charged primarily with the work on Einstein’s relativity theory
and will be employed for other tasks only to the extent that these will not hinder him
in his main duty.”162
During the fiscal year 1920/21 the institute had spent little more than in the
previous one,163 that is a total of 89,476 marks, of which 71,600 were for “scientific
purposes” and 4,500 marks for Freundlich’s salary for the period April–December
1920.164 In March 1921 the KWG doubled its contribution from 50,000 to 100,000
marks, retroactively for the year 1920/21 and for the following one.165 In June 1920
Einstein’s annual salary had already been doubled from 5,000 to 10,000 marks as
of 1 April 1920.166 Taking into account the latest transfers by the KWG, but not the
grants approved on 3 March 1921, at the end of March 1921 the institute’s account
showed a balance of 138,794 marks.167 Meanwhile, inflation had started to erode the
value of the capital bestowed to the KWG. Since April 1920, the revenue coming
from interest on the capital and membership fees was not enough to cover the running
expenses of the KW Institutes. Increasing allocations by German big business, by
the newly founded Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft, and mainly by the
national and the Prussian governments, helped to ease the science funding situation
161 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1920–31 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
162 Prussian Ministry of Education to Müller, 1 June 1920, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 1,
Tit. 11, Teil 2, Nr. 6 b, Bd. 8, p. 165.
163 For comparison see Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
164 Survey of income and expenditure 1 April 1920–31 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
13. The survey, dated 9 June 1921, was sent to the KWG on 13 July 1921 (see Einstein to von
Harnack, 13 July 1921, ibid.). We cannot explain the discrepancy between the report and the survey
concerning expenditures for scientific purposes.
165 Von Harnack to Einstein, 16 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
166 Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 23 June 1920, ibid.
167 Bank statement 1 January–31 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 71
in 1921.168 While almost all the research institutes showed increasing deficits, the
KWI für Physik was accumulating interest.
The Period 1921/22. Projects Funded
In the following budgetary period, April 1921–March 1922, the cautious fund distri-
bution continued. The Direktorium held four meetings on 3 March, 7 July, 12 October
1921, and 26 January 1922.169 Only an application from an unknown inventor was
rejected; all other requests received were granted, a total of twelve grants.
Some allocations concerned holdovers from the previous year. Fürth at last
received the 2,000 marks he had requested for his measurements of the elementary
electric charge. Rubens’s “radiation measurements” were financed with an additional
1,000 marks. The journal Physikalische Berichte again received 5,000 marks, but “for
the last time.”170 A further 850 marks from the grant approved in 1919/20 were paid
out to Steubing, who also made a new request: he asked for a high-voltage rectifier
for a new investigation of the Stark effect in band spectra and subsequently received
10,000 marks.171 Wagner’s new request for support to continue his investigation of
the “influence of potential and anticathode material on the emission of X-rays”172
was also granted an additional 2,500 marks.173
Försterling, “because of the circumstances” in Danzig, had not yet been able to
perform his research on the temperature dependence of constants in metals, for which
he had received a grant in 1919. As he was about to move to Jena, where it would
not be possible to carry out the original project, he asked whether he could spend the
money for a different investigation and proposed two alternatives: either he might
study the Paschen-Back effect in hydrogen spectra or the dilatation of N aCl and
similar crystals at very low temperatures.174 The first topic would have complemented
spectroscopic research supported in other cases: the Paschen-Back effect consists in
the merging, caused by a strong magnetic field, of the anomalous Zeeman splitting
of spectral lines into a normal splitting (normal Zeeman effect). The Direktorium
granted Försterling “total freedom” in the use of the money, thus proving that it set
no priorities itself.175 Försterling then worked on the Zeeman/Paschen-Back effect
168 Witt (1990), vom Brocke (1990, 227–238). On the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft,
see Marsch (1994), Richter (1972).

169 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 March, 20 October 1921, and 28 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep.
1 A, Nr. 1658, pp. 166–167, 181, 188 [bis] respectively; minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 26
January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; KWI für Physik to Försterling, 16 July 1921, AMPG,
I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Försterling; (Kirsten and Treder 1979, 153–154, vol. 1).
170 For all these allocations, see Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A,
Nr. 1658, pp. 166–167.

171 Einstein to Kuratorium, 28 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 188 [bis].
172 Wagner to Einstein, 22 October 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wagner. Wagner
refers to the work exposed in Kulenkampff (1922).

173 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 26 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
174 Försterling to Einstein, 3 April 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Försterling.
175 KWI für Physik to Försterling, 16 July 1921, ibid.
in hydrogen and published his results two years later in a paper in which he thanked
the KWI für Physik (Försterling and Hansen 1923).
Another new project in spectroscopy, which turned out to have important conse-
quences for quantum physics, was supported with 10,000 marks.176 The request for
support for an “investigation on the band spectra of mono-atomic metal vapors”177 —
that was not further explained—was submitted by Walther Gerlach, an expert on
thermal radiation, who had just been appointed as extraordinary professor of exper-
imental physics at the University of Frankfurt am Main (Hoyer 1993). He had been
advised to apply to the KWI für Physik by Franck and by Born, who was leaving
Frankfurt for Göttingen. In the summer of 1921, Gerlach and Otto Stern, a former
collaborator of Einstein in Prague and Zurich and now extraordinary professor of
theoretical physics in Frankfurt, were using such a metal vapor, specifically one con-
sisting of silver atoms, to check a prediction made by Stern. By deflecting beams of
silver atoms with magnetic fields they wanted to test whether the magnetic moment
generated by an orbiting electron in an atom led to directional quantization.178 The
tests were carried out mainly by Gerlach until spring of 1922, as Stern had taken
over a chair in Rostock. The results of this well-known “Stern-Gerlach experiment”
confirming the quantum-theoretical prediction were published in three consecutive
papers and a recapitulating report, in which the authors thanked the KWI für Physik,
and especially its Director Einstein, for the support received, as well as other donors
(Gerlach and Stern 1922a, b, c, 1924).
Another investigation that would allegedly be of “utmost importance for the foun-
dations of quantum theory” was proposed by Max Trautz, extraordinary professor of
physical chemistry at the University of Heidelberg.179 Trautz planned a series of mea-
surements of the specific heat of many gases and for large temperature ranges using a
new, very precise, and quickly working method of his own invention. To make it very
clear who was and who might be interested, he added to his letter: “Nernst, to whom,
next to Einstein and Planck, we probably owe the greatest advancement of research
on specific heats in the past decades, is informed in detail about our investigations
and aims.”180 However, name dropping was not enough to obtain approval. Trautz
was asked for more detailed information about his method and in the end received
only half of the 6,000 marks he had requested.181 A short handwritten note by Ein-
stein on Trautz’s first letter, “More precise information about the method. Evaluation
176 Einstein to Kuratorium, 20 October 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 181.
177 Gerlach to Einstein, 27 July 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Gerlach.
178 For the history of the experiment, see Mehra and Rechenberg (1982, 433–443, pt. 2, vol. 1).
179 Trautz to Einstein, 25 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Trautz.
180 Ibid.
181 KWI für Physik to Trautz, 16 July 1921; Trautz to Einstein, 5 December1921; Einstein to Trautz,
30 January 1922, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Trautz; minutes of the Direktorium
meeting, 26 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
3.3 The Period 1920/21 73
to me,”182 gives an insight into the decision procedures of the Direktorium. Trautz’s
systematic collection of data lasted for several years and was supported by the KWI
für Physik again in 1923.183
As to research on the properties of specific material systems, an investigation
initiated by Clemens Schaefer, ordinary professor of experimental physics at the
University of Marburg, was supported with 10,000 marks.184 Schaefer, a former stu-
dent of Warburg and assistant of Rubens, was an esteemed theoretical as well as
experimental physicist. He had been working on the infrared spectroscopy of crys-
tals for a couple of years (Bergmann 1958). In particular, his ongoing investigation
focused on the infrared eigenvibrations of crystalline silicates, in order to draw con-
clusions concerning the structure of the material.185 At first, Schaefer had applied
for money to Planck as the Secretary of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, who in
turn suggested that he apply to Einstein and the KWI für Physik. There was some
bitter haggling with Schaefer, who felt unduly constrained by the conditions set by
the Direktorium as to the use of the funds. While Schaefer wished to use them for
running costs and for buying crystals, the KWI insisted that they could be used only
for buying equipment, of which it would retain ownership, and promised more money
only if needed.186 Perhaps this was the reason why Schaefer did not acknowledge
the institute’s support in his paper on silicates (Schaefer and Schubert 1922).
In view of the KWI’s inflexibility with Schaefer, it is surprising how smoothly the
grant for Albert Wigand was approved. Wigand, extraordinary professor of atmo-
spheric physics at the University of Halle, had asked for money to cover the run-
ning costs “for the continuation of my physical investigations during air flights.”187
Nernst, Wilhelm Wien, and Gustav Mie had advised him to approach the KWI für
Physik. Wigand was the leader of a team of researchers working for many years
on atmospheric physics. During flights with balloons and airplanes, they performed
systematic measurements of a wide range of phenomena, focusing in the last years
on atmospheric electricity and radioactivity in particular (Hergert 1993; Kolhörster
1933; Wigand 1924). At that time Nernst was taking an increasing interest in atmo-
spheric electricity as well as in cosmic ray physics. Not accepting the idea of the
unavoidable “heat death” (Nernst 1921a, 1) of the universe, he was looking for any
phenomenon suggesting the existence of a balance between energy degradation and
energy creation in the cosmos.188 We may assume that this was the reason why
182 Written on the letter of Trautz to Einstein, 25 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11,
folder Trautz.
183 Laue to Kuratorium, 6 July 1923, AMPG, I. Abt. Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 41a. The method and
some first results are exposed in Trautz and Grosskinsky (1922).

185 Schaefer to Einstein, 9 January 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Schaefer.
186 Schaefer to Schmidt-Ott, 13 May 1921; Schmidt-Ott to Planck, with additions by Planck and
Einstein, 25–29 May 1921; KWI für Physik to Schaefer, 16 July 1921; and Schaefer to Einstein, 11
August 1921, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 10, folder Schaefer; Planck to Schaefer, 14 June
1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 180.
187 Wigand to Einstein, 9 January 1922, AMPG I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 11, folder Wigand.
188 See also Bartel and Huebener (2007, 306–326), Gunther (1924a), Hiebert (1978, 448–449).
Wigand received 2,000 marks for research that could have easily been considered
not of “purely physical relevance,” as in the case of Jensen’s investigation of skylight
polarization.
Einstein, too, used institute funds, albeit moderately, for his own scientific inter-
ests. His collaborator Grommer was paid 2,000 marks for “theoretical research in
the field of relativity theory.”189 It is not possible to establish a direct connection
between this “research” and Einstein and Grommer’s paper on Theodor Kaluza’s
unified field theory published in 1923 (Einstein and Grommer 1923); nevertheless, it
seems plausible that Grommer’s help was needed for solving mathematical problems
arising from the extension of general relativity towards a unified field theory, toward
which Einstein was working at this time.190 In January 1922, Einstein granted to
himself the modest sum of 579.85 marks “for a mercury condensation pump.”191 In
all likelihood, the pump had been used for an experiment suggested by Einstein and
carried out in December 1921 by Geiger and Walther Bothe in the laboratory of the
Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt.192 Since the summer of 1921, Einstein had
been pondering an experiment that he hoped would disprove the wavelike nature of
the radiation field.193 The reasoning went like this: According to corpuscular theory,
the frequency of emitted light should not depend upon the state of motion of the emit-
ting particle. According to the wave theory, though, the frequency, and therefore the
color of light emitted by a moving particle, depends on the direction of the emission
because of the Doppler effect. Einstein proposed to check whether the light emitted
by canal rays shows a continuous spectrum of colors or is monochromatic (Einstein
1921). It turned out that, in Einstein’s words and interpretation,
[…] the light emitted by the moving canal ray particle is strictly monochromatic while,
according to the wave theory, the color of the elementary emission should be different in
the different directions. By that it is positively proved that the undulatory field has no real
existence and that the Bohr emission is an instantaneous process in the proper sense.194
However, Laue and Ehrenfest objected strongly to this interpretation by pointing to

the fact, among others, that, according to the wave theory, light is emitted in short
pulses which would explain why a color shift is not observable. After some hesita-
tion, Einstein finally admitted that it was not possible to draw from the experiment
“consequences about the nature of the elementary emission process” (Einstein 1922c,
22).
190 Pais (1982, 328–329). For an exposition of Einstein’s work towards a unified field theory in the
scientific context of the time, see Goenner (2004).
191 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 26 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein
to Kuratorium, 28 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 188 [bis].
192 See the bill for the pump addressed to Geiger on 28 December 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34,
Nr. 3, folder Geiger.

193 See, e.g., Einstein to Sommerfeld, 27 September 1921, in Einstein and Sommerfeld (1968, 91).
For a description of the experiment and its interpretation, see Mehra and Rechenberg (1982, 516–
518, vol. 1).
194 Einstein to Born, 30 December 1921, in Einstein and Born (1969, 95–96).
3.3 The Period 1920/21 75
Finally, in this period, a very important decision regarding the distribution policy
was made that would definitively change the institute’s rationale. Franck, who had
become ordinary professor for experimental physics in Göttingen, had to leave most
of his equipment in Berlin. Therefore, he asked for 20,000 marks in order to “continue
research on the collision of electrons and fluorescence.”195 The reason for the large
sum was that he wanted to perform a parallel investigation by optical means, but
the money granted by the Prussian Ministry of Education for the modernization of
the University’s equipment was insufficient. Einstein received Franck’s request a
few days after the first Direktorium meeting of the new fiscal year, in which 20,000
marks had been distributed. But the institute still had more than 60,000 marks at its
disposal196 and at the end of the month, as mentioned above, the budget was doubled.
Nevertheless, in what seems a recurrence of Grebe and Bachem’s case of December
1919 and probably because of Krüss’s criticism concerning the distribution policy
from April 1919, Einstein took pains to ask the industrialist Franz Oppenheim to
provide not only 20,000 marks to Franck but also 10,000 marks to the engineer H.
Boas of Berlin, for the construction of “a new kind of spectral heliograph important
for physical astronomy.”197 At the same time, in spring 1921, Born also joined
Franck and Pohl in Göttingen as ordinary professor for theoretical physics.198 Soon
after he, too, applied to the KWI für Physik for 25,000 marks in order to buy X-
ray instruments.199 At first, the Direktorium asked for more details on the planned
research and for a list of the apparatuses needed.200 Einstein, although inclined to
support Born, asked for patience because the requested sum “would gobble” the
greater part of the budget.201 Some months later, in October, Born again asked the
“powerful Director” of the KWI für Physik, also in Franck’s and Pohl’s name, for a
large sum of money. A quick decision had become necessary because the instruments
had already been ordered in the hope that the KWI would agree.202 This time, the
objections that still hindered a decision in Franck’s favor in March must have been
overcome and the grant was approved, as we may conclude from Born’s letter of
thanks.203 The Direktorium allocated 100,000 marks.204 The grant was not connected
195 Franck to Einstein, 9 March 1921, AEA, 40–137.

196 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, pp. 166–167;
Schmidt-Ott to Kuratorium members, 16 March 1921, ibid., p. 168.
197 Einstein to Oppenheim, 15 March 1921, in Einstein (2009, 143, doc. 99). We do not have more
information about Boas and his project.

198 On their work in Göttingen, see Hund et al. (1988).
199 KWG to Einstein, 6 June 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 178. Born’s application
is missing.
200 Ilse Einstein to Born, 16 July 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 1, folder Born.
201 Einstein to Born, 22 August 1921, in Einstein and Born (1969, 85).
202 Born to Einstein, 21 October 1921, ibid., pp. 86–88. See also Born’s comments on the difficult
economical situation, ibid., pp. 88–89.

203 Born to Einstein, 29 November 1921, ibid., pp. 91–93. There is no document attesting to a formal
decision.
204 “Verzeichnis der im Rechnungsjahre 1921/1922 bewilligten Zuwendungen,” AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 13; Laue to Schmidt-Ott, 15 January 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 20.
to a specified research project but, in evident breach of the declared funding policy,
was given to a university institute for whatever its research activities might require.205
Two applicants were asked for further details.206 The correspondence relating to
Seeliger’s new application is not available. His request was approved in the follow-
ing fiscal year. Koenigsberger, extraordinary professor of mathematical physics at
the University of Freiburg, had preliminarily asked Einstein whether his application
would stand a chance. He wanted to continue his research “also covering to some
extent geophysics,”207 which was his main area of interest. As he claimed, he was
boycotted, probably “because of my political stand,” by Lenard, who decided about
the appropriations of the Academy of Science of Heidelberg. Furthermore, Koenigs-
berger had to “fight against many difficulties” in his institute. He was one of these
professors who suffered under the undivided power of the director of the institute
to which he belonged (Jungnickel and McCormmach 1986, 287–289, vol. 2). The
hint at the political background of his difficulties was not casual: Koenigsberger was
member of the local parliament for the Social Democratic Party (Schröder 1995, 559)
and knew that Einstein was a political friend. Both he and Einstein had been members
of the pacifist organization Bund Neues Vaterland (New Fatherland League) during
the First World War.208 In addition, ten years earlier Einstein had ranked Koenigs-
berger as one of the best young physicists in Germany (Einstein 1993b, 308, doc.
275). For all of these reasons, perhaps, Einstein did not give an immediate negative
answer but instead suggested to Koenigsberger that he submit an application with
“a more precise characterization of your planned research (putting the stress on the
mere physical aspects).”209 His case was approved in the following fiscal year.
The Rejected Proposal
The only application rejected came from an outsider. In February 1921, Eduard
Schweigler from Vienna, probably an engineer, submitted a project for the construc-
tion of a “Sehzelle” (vision cell), an apparatus for the production and transmission
of light signals using the photoelectric effect.210 Within a week Einstein replied that
the KWI für Physik could “support only purely scientific aims” and added:
Privately, I must observe that I have not understood the purpose and functioning of your
“organ for vision.” Normal light does not remove electrons from a silver mirror. Even if
particular surfaces sensitive to light were to be used, it would be very difficult to reach
sufficient sensitivity.211
205 In view of this substantial support, it is somewhat surprising that of twenty-five publications by
Franck’s group between 1922 and 1924, none contains an acknowledgment of the KWI für Physik
whereas other donors are thanked several times.
206 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 26 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
207 Koenigsberger to Einstein, 2 November 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Königsberger.
208 Invitation to the meeting of Bund Neues Vaterland of 16 August 1915, Bundesarchiv Koblenz,
NL 199 Wehberg, Nr. 14, p. 166. On Einstein’s pacifist activities in the Bund, see Goenner and
Castagnetti (1996).
209 Einstein to Koenigsberger, 23 January 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Königsberger.
210 Schweigler to Einstein, 11 February 1921, in Einstein (2009, 78–79, doc. 46).
211 Einstein to Schweigler, 17 February 1921, in Einstein (2009, 87–88, doc. 51).
3.3 The Period 1920/21 77

In the report212 for the period April 1921–March 1922 Einstein, after declaring that
the institute had supported research “in the most different fields of physics,” singles
out three investigations, pertaining to atomic physics and black-body radiation, and
situates them in the broader scientific context:
Whereas Laue’s method of X-ray interference leads to the knowledge of the geometrical
constitution of solids, the investigation of spectral properties in the infrared, brought forward
particularly by Rubens, may give us information about the dynamical behavior of atoms.
Clemens Schaefer […] has set out to ascertain in this way the chemical structure of silicates
important for the constitution of the Earth’s crust.
Thereafter, Einstein mentions Wagner’s “outstanding precision work” in the “quan-
titative investigation of the generation of X-rays by cathode rays,” which is “of
high importance for atom theory and the fundamental questions of quantum theory.”
Finally, Einstein explains that “[a]fter a critical investigation by Nernst and Wulf
had raised doubts about the strict validity of the fundamentally important Planck’s
formula, a test as precise as possible seemed imperative.” Therefore, the institute
financed the “precision measurements by the method of isochromates in the infrared”
through which Rubens “has verified Planck’s formula with higher precision than hith-
erto possible.” All three undertakings had been funded for more than one budgetary
period. As to the other research projects, most of them, despite Einstein’s intro-
ductory remarks, concerned quantum physics either directly or indirectly. As in the
previous years, the projects were not proposed by the Direktorium members but by
university researchers and were a clear sign of the shifting interests of the physics
community.
In the end, the sum distributed for scientific purposes was very small: about 88,000
marks.213 On 31 March 1922, the surplus amounted to 197,000 marks. This has to be
compared to the 306,000 marks at the institute’s disposal during that year, including
the balance of the previous year. The KWI für Physik had not even been able to
support research amounting to the total of its incoming funds, not to mention its
reserves.
Shortly before the end of the budget year, the KWG increased its contribution
to the research funds of 50,000 marks retroactively as of 1 October 1921, and to
261,000 marks yearly for the budget year 1922/23. Einstein’s salary was also raised
from 10,000 to 20,000 marks (18,000 marks net) and that of his secretary Ilse from
3,000 to 8,000 marks, both as of 1 October 1921.214 Including the annual 25,000
212 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1921–31 March 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665,
pp. 57–58. The report was sent to the KWG in May 1922 (see Einstein to von Harnack, 22 May
1922, ibid., p. 56). Underlining by Einstein.
213 The survey of income and expenditure 1 April 1921–31 March 1922 (AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1
A, Nr. 1665, p. 59) gives other figures than those we have calculated but, as a KWG auditor noted
on the document, the survey is not correct and its data do not fit those of the bank statements. The
survey was sent to the KWG in May 1922 (see Einstein to von Harnack, 22 May 1922, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 56).
214 The increments were decided by the Senat of the KWG on 24 March 1922 (von Harnack to
Einstein, 28 March 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Einstein).
marks from the Koppel-Stiftung, but not the interests on the money saved from the
previous years, for the period 1922/23 the KWI für Physik could therefore reckon
with 314,000 marks in new income.
3.4 The Period 1922/23
The budgetary period from April 1922 to March 1923 turned out to be different from
the previous ones. Einstein acted as the director of the institute only until July 1922.
From then on he traveled until March 1923, and Laue, who had become a member
of the Direktorium not long before,215 took over his duties. At the start of the period,
the Direktorium increased the frequency of its meetings and met on 18 May, 15
June, and 13 July 1922, that is, once a month. However, after Einstein’s departure
further applications were approved by correspondence or in informal meetings at the
Academy. Eleven single researchers or groups were supported with grants of varying
amounts, ranging from 1,500 to 300,000 marks.216 This difference in the nominal
value is not particularly significant, since inflation was accelerating dramatically.217
Only one request was not granted during this period.
Projects Funded
Overall business continued as usual. In several cases the appropriations were just
supplements to grants issued in previous years. The scientists needed extra funding
because of rising inflation. For his work on the Stark effect Steubing received 2,500
marks in addition to the sum granted shortly before.218 Schaefer also received an
additional 7,500 marks for the instrument already approved in March 1921.219 Pohl,
and with him the Physics Institute of Göttingen University, was supported with an
215 Laue was co-opted by the Direktorium on 3 October 1921 (Einstein to Kuratorium, 20 October
1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 181). His election was approved by the Kuratorium
some weeks later (Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 2 December 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder
Laue).
216 Minutes of the Direktorium meetings, 18 May and 15 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
12; Einstein to Kuratorium, 26 and 28 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, pp. 203a
and 205 respectively; Einstein to Kuratorium, 15 September 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1659, p. 1 bis; Ilse Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 November 1922, ibid., p. 11; Laue to Kuratorium,
15 January and 8 March 1923, ibid., pp. 20 and 26 respectively.
217 The exchange rate rose from 7.43 marks for 1 US$ at the end of the First World War in November
1918 to 10.39 marks in March 1919, 83.89 marks in March 1920, 62.45 marks in March 1921, and
to 284.19 marks in March 1922. In July 1922 the rate was already 493.22 marks, in November
7,183.10 marks, in January 1923 17,972 marks, in March 21,190 marks. The cost-of-living index,
set to 1 in 1913, rose from 9.6 in March 1920 to 11.4 in March 1921, 29 in March 1922, 2,854
in March 1923 (Laursen and Pedersen 1964, 133–135). For the consequences of inflation on the
financing of scientific research, see Forman (1968, 206–358). As to the impact of inflation on the
KWG, see vom Brocke (1990, 198–201).
218 Minutes of the Direktorium meetings, 18 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein
to Kuratorium, 12 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 197.

219 Einstein to Kuratorium, 28 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 205.
3.4 The Period 1922/23 79
additional 90,000 marks.220 Kohn, too, requested more money because the price for
the quartz spectrograph had soared to six times the amount approved for its purchase
in 1920.221 The manufacturer had very cleverly inserted into the sales contract a
clause which left the price open until delivery.222 After some debate in which Warburg
argued against further support,223 and after an unsuccessful attempt by Einstein to
negotiate a rebate,224 the Direktorium supplied an additional 43,000 marks.225 The
instrument was finally delivered in August 1923,226 but the research was still not
concluded as late as March 1926.227 What in 1919 had seemed to be an advanced
research project worthy of support, was in 1926 no longer of particular benefit to the
new quantum theories of Heisenberg and Schrödinger.
In a few other cases, the applicants were old acquaintances with new projects
aiming to continue research programs that had already been approved in previous
years. Seeliger was given 1,500 marks for a high-voltage battery for his systematic
investigation of glow discharges in gases.228 Stern, who meanwhile had become
extraordinary professor of theoretical physics at the University of Rostock, also asked
for 20,000 marks to continue his “experiments concerning the magnetic properties of
silver atoms.”229 An application with a detailed outline of the project is missing, but
the Direktorium granted the sum for “apparatuses for magnetic and electric research
on molecular beams.”230 Actually, during 1922, Stern thought about whether the
directional quantization could also be detected as the effect of an inhomogeneous
electric field (Stern 1922). The planned experimental work started only after Stern
moved to Hamburg in January 1923 and led to fundamental results for quantum
physics (Estermann 1976, 42–43).
Another continuation of research previously funded by the KWI für Physik, that is,
Franck’s experiments involving the collision of electrons with atoms, was suggested
by two assistants at Haber’s institute, Hartmut Kallmann and Knipping, whom we
already know from the research project under Franck’s supervision supported in the
period 1920/21. They needed a highly sensitive electrometer for detecting the ions
formed by the impact of the electrons. Haber recommended the application with a
220 Laue to Kuratorium, 15 January 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 20.
221 Kohn to Einstein, 20 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kohn.
222 Kohn to Haber, 31 May 1922, ibid.
223 Warburg to Einstein, 2 June 1922, ibid.
224 Einstein to Schmidt & Haensch, 17 June 1922, ibid.
225 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 15 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein to
Kuratorium, 26 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 203a.

226 Kohn to Laue, 16 August 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kohn.
227 Kohn to Laue, 20 March 1926, ibid. Other documents concerning this case are in the same folder.
228 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 18 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein to
Kuratorium, 12 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 197.

229 Einstein to the Direktorium members, 14 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
230 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 18 May 1922, ibid.
note written on the proposal.231 Nernst and Warburg objected to the purchase because
of the high price of 40,000 marks, while Laue and Einstein were in favor.232 In the
end, three months later, Haber received only half of the requested amount,233 despite
his protest: “In my opinion 100 dollars is not too much for such an instrument. 40,000
marks, today, corresponds to 100 dollars and will likely mean even less in three to
four months.”234 He ordered the instrument on the same day and sent a copy of the
order to the KWI für Physik.
The new research planned by Koenigsberger, too, fit with the other investigations
on the atomic structure funded in the preceding years. As reported, Koenigsberger
had been advised by Einstein to stress in his application “merely the physical aspects”
of his intended research. Therefore, instead of working on geophysics he decided to
resume experiments with beams of positive hydrogen ions (canal rays) scattered by
gas atoms. Such investigations, he thought, “could perhaps provide information on
the distribution of the electrons around the nuclei of simple atoms and supplement
the conclusions drawn from X-ray interference images in lithium.”235 With this moti-
vation, Koenigsberger was immediately granted the requested 4,000 marks to buy a
transformer.236 In fact, the experiments, which brought new insights into the absorp-
tion of canal rays by gases, were carried out some years later by Koenigsberger’s
student Conrad (Conrad 1926a; Conrad 1926b).
Although there is no written application giving more information, we can reason-
ably suppose that the research for which Pringsheim received the institute’s support
concerned topics relating to the quantum theory of light. The KWI granted him 6,530
marks to buy quartz absorption cells for “his work on light absorption in mercury
vapor.”237 Pringsheim, a former student of Röntgen, was extraordinary professor
of physics at the University of Berlin and a highly esteemed member of the Berlin
physics community. In the preceding years, together with Pohl and Franck, he had
eminently contributed to deepening the knowledge on luminescence on the basis of
atomic and quantum theory.238 In 1922 in particular, he was working on fluorescence
phenomena whose quantum theoretical interpretation was a subject of controversy
231 Kallmann and Knipping to KWI für Physik, with addition by Haber, 3 June 1922, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 6, folder Kallmann.
232 Einstein to the Direktorium members, with addition by Nernst, 1–4 July 1922; Laue to KWI
für Physik, 3 July 1922; Warburg to Einstein, 7 July 1922, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13;
Einstein to Laue, 12 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Einstein.
233 Einstein to Kuratorium, 15 September 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 1 bis.
234 Haber to KWI für Physik, 6 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13. On Kallmann and
Knipping’s letter of thanks Haber wrote: “The instrument costs 100,000 marks. Consequently,
a claim by the KWI für Physik for joint possession of the instrument would be unfulfillable.”
(Kallmann and Knipping to KWI für Physik, with addition by Haber, 2 October 1922, AMPG, I.
Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 6, folder Knipping).
235 Koenigsberger to Einstein, 8 February 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Koenigsberger.
236 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 18 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein to
Kuratorium, 12 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 197.

237 Ilse Einstein to Kuratorium, 30 November 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 11.
238 On Pringsheim, see Hanle (1956), Hoffmann (2001).
3.4 The Period 1922/23 81
between himself and Weigert (Pringsheim 1922, 1923; Weigert 1922). In the follow-
ing years, the KWI für Physik repeatedly funded research undertaken by Pringsheim
and his co-workers.239
The application submitted by Werner Kolhörster, a physics teacher at a Berlin
Gymnasium and guest scholar at the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt, con-
cerned a totally different kind of research. Kolhörster requested an unspecified
amount of money in order to continue investigations into “penetrating rays” that
he had initiated before the war, as assistant to Wigand at the University of Halle.240
The “penetrating rays,” at the time also known as “Hess’s radiation,” “altitude radia-
tion,” or “ultragamma radiation,” later became known as cosmic rays. They consist of
very energetic heavy particles entering the Earth’s atmosphere from all directions in
space, whose origination, except for those coming from the sun, is not yet completely
known. In the twenties, the study of cosmic rays was still in its incipient stage.241
Nernst, in the context of his reflections on cosmological and astrophysical problems,
had found in radioactivity a possible cause for solar heat. Tentatively, he related the
radioactive processes with the penetrating rays, whose possible sources might be,
according to him, young giant stars in the Milky Way or in nebulae (Nernst 1921a,
36, 59). In order to test this hypothesis, Nernst, who in the spring of 1922 had taken
over the directorship of the Reichsanstalt from Warburg, encouraged Kolhörster to
resume his observations, offered him a position in the Reichsanstalt, and helped him
to raise the necessary funds for expeditions (Kolhörster 1977, 34–36; Mendelssohn
1973, 113–114). In June 1922, Kolhörster received from the KWI für Physik 10,000
marks, not only for equipment but also for operating expenses.242 Because inflation
was rapidly reducing the value of money, he was given an additional 100,000 marks
in March 1923, and a further two million marks in July 1923, in the following fiscal
year.243 For this funding he duly thanked the KWI, and above all Nernst, in his final
report (Kolhörster 1923, 377). After a campaign of measurements taken under water
and on Mount Jungfraujoch in Switzerland, Kolhörster came to the conclusion that
“the source of the radiation seems to be near the Milky Way or at least to reach a
maximum there,” (Kolhörster 1923, 377) thus supporting Nernst’s hypothesis. In the
following years, he continued his research on cosmic radiation with further support
from the KWI244 and became a recognized authority in the field.
239 See, e.g.., minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 15 May 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr.
1660, pp. 107–108; minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 23 July 1925, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V
c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 139.
240 Kolhörster to Einstein, 1 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kolhörster. On
Kolhörster and his research, see Kolhörster (1977), Flügge (1980), Hergert (1993).
241 On the state of the art at that time, see Kolhörster (1924), Wigand (1924).
242 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 15 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12; Einstein to
Kuratorium, 26 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 203a.

243 Kolhörster to Direktorium, 7 March (with note by Nernst) and 26 June 1923, and Laue to the
Direktorium members, 2 July 1923, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kolhörster; Laue
to Kuratorium, 8 March 1923 and 6 July 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, pp. 26 and 41
respectively.
244 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 3 July 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1660, p. 131.
In the spring of 1922, around the time that Kolhörster was encouraged by Nernst
to resume his research, Egon von Schweidler, ordinary professor of physics and
director of the Physical Institute of the University of Innsbruck in Austria, requested
the support of the KWI für Physik for “experimental investigations into penetrat-
ing electrical, corpuscular radiation of cosmic origin.”245 Schweidler was an expert
on radioactivity and atmospheric electricity, and had already done research on the
possible origins of “the Hess radiation,” coming to the conclusion that this radiation
probably originates from matter evenly distributed in the cosmos, a view quite sim-
ilar to Nernst’s.246 Nonetheless, the Direktorium was not convinced and postponed
its decision “because a closer look at his project has to be made,”247 thus practically
rejecting the request. It is not possible to say what the reason for this skepticism
was because there are no other documents related to the case, the only project to be
refused support in this budgetary period. In the following years as well, Schweidler
never received support from the KWI. On the other hand, during the years 1924/26,
the KWI für Physik repeatedly financed another investigation concerning cosmic
rays initiated by Gerhard Hoffmann, professor at the University of Königsberg.248 In
fact, Hoffmann had been invited by Nernst himself to submit his request to the insti-
tute.249 Presumably, he and Kolhörster enjoyed Nernst’s trust, whereas Schweidler
did not.
Finally, a large allocation should be reported that related in principle to both Fre-
undlich’s and Einstein’s interests in testing general relativity and to the collection of
spectroscopic data for understanding the quantum processes in atoms. On the sur-
face, Einstein played a role as director of the KWI für Physik, but in reality he was
involved only with the administrative paperwork. In spring of 1922, Walter Grotrian,
Privatdozent for experimental physics at the University of Göttingen and specialist in
spectroscopy, was appointed as observer at the Astrophysikalisches Observatorium
of Potsdam with the understanding that he would receive extra funding to equip his
new laboratory. The intent was that he should work in astrophysics with newly devel-
oped physical methods. In the previous years, Grotrian had worked at the Physical
Institutes of the Universities of Frankfurt and Göttingen under the direction of Born
and Franck, and had also spent a short time at Haber’s KWI für physikalische Chemie
und Elektrochemi.e. His call to the Observatory was not due to Einstein’s interven-
tion, but rather to the support of his former teachers and of Planck.250 In March 1922,
245 Einstein to the Direktorium members, 14 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12. Schweidler’s
application is missing.
246 Schweidler (1915). See also Kolhörster (1924, 65–66).
247 Minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 18 May 1922, in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 12.
248 Hoffmann to KWI für Physik, 10 May and 18 December 1924, 11 February 1926; Hoffmann to
Laue, 19 December 1924, 28 February 1925; KWI für Physik to Hoffmann, 1 March 1925; Laue
to Hoffmann, 19 February 1926; all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hoffmann; minutes of
the Direktorium meeting, 15 May 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1660, pp. 107–108a.
249 Hoffmann to KWI für Physik, 18 December 1924, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hoff-
mann.
250 The documents related to Grotrian’s appointment are in GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 1,
Tit. 11, Teil 2, Nr. 6 b, Bd. 8, pp. 333–341. See also minutes of the meeting of the Kuratorium of the
3.4 The Period 1922/23 83
at the end of the fiscal year 1921/22, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft had a balance
of 300,000 marks which, in a period of galloping inflation, had to be disposed of very
quickly.251 At the suggestion of Westphal, who had meanwhile become an official
of the Prussian Ministry of Education and its representative on some boards of the
Gesellschaft, the KWG decided to spend the sum for Grotrian. For statutory reasons,
the money had to go through the KWI für Physik. Therefore, Planck took the trouble
to write to Einstein, who was lecturing in Paris at the time, that the KWI für Physik
had to make a formal request to the KWG. On the other hand, Grotrian should submit
his application to the KWI.252 And so it happened. The KWI’s Direktorium gave its
formal approval in May, after the return of Einstein, who had even received a phone
call from the Ministry concerning the matter. Ironically enough, Einstein had to send
to the administration of the KWG a second request with more detailed scientific
justifications because his first one lacked an exposition of motivation.253 He then
explained: “It is intended to recruit Grotrian, one of our best spectroscopists, to the
Astrophysikalisches Observatorium in Potsdam in order to introduce the application
of modern methods of physical research into astronomical problems,” and asked the
KWG for 300,000 marks for the laboratory equipment.254 In December 1922, Gro-
trian applied for additional funding because inflation had devoured the entire sum
without him being able to buy all the required apparatuses.255 Laue, after discus-
sion within the Directorium during Einstein’s absence, approved another 100,000
marks.256 Thus the largest sum during this period went to Grotrian. In the following
years, Grotrian repeatedly received grants from the KWI für Physik and used them
to buy more than one hundred different instruments.257 As it turned out, his research
did not contribute to the testing of general relativity but produced valuable data about
the constitution of atoms and the nature of the solar corona.258
Astrophysikalisches Observatorium, 5 [recte 4] March 1922, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sect. 1,

Tit. 11, Teil 2, Nr. 6 6 h, pp. 12–13.
251 As to the cost of living, 300,000 marks in March 1922 corresponded to 10,345 marks in 1913,
see Laursen and Pedersen (1964, 134).

252 Planck to Einstein, 5 April 1922, AEA, 19–296; Grotrian to Einstein, 12 May 1922, AEA, 40–
145; Grotrian to Director of the KWI für Physik, 12 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3,
folder Grotrian.
253 Einstein to von Harnack, 19 April 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13; Glum to Einstein, 22
April 1922, ibid.; minutes of the Direktorium meeting, 18 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
12; Einstein to Kuratorium, 12 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, p. 197.
254 Einstein to Glum, 28 April 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grotrian; see also
Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 5 May 1922, ibid.; von Harnack to Westphal, 5 May 1922, GStA, I. HA,
Rep. 76 76 V c, Sect. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, p. 79.
255 Grotrian to KWI für Physik, 14 December 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 3, folder Grotrian.
256 Laue to Ilse Einstein, 15 December 1922, ibid.
257 All the documents relating to Grotrian for the following years are in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34,
Nr. 3, folder Grotrian.

258 On Grotrian and his work, see Kienle (1954), von Klüber (1966).

We have been unable to find an annual report of the KWI für Physik similar to those
discussed above, signed by the director and covering the period April 1922 to March
1923. Only an incomplete list was found showing sums spent on projects between
October 1922 and July 1923, with Grotrian, Kallman and Knipping, Koenigsberger,
Kolhörster, Pohl, and Pringsheim as recipients up to March 1923.259 However, there
is an official report of the KWG covering a different period, namely the time from
October 1922 to December 1923. The section on the KWI für Physik (von Harnack
1923, 24) reports that a “series of research works” had been supported and mentions
at first two undertakings considered to pertain to astronomy, namely an expedition
to Mexico “for the further testing of the solar light deflection and the investigation
of the solar corona”—in connection with the solar eclipse of September 1923—and
Kolhörster’s research on cosmic radiation. The expedition, led by the director of Pots-
dam’s Astrophysikalisches Observatorium, Hans Ludendorff, was financed with two
million marks granted by the KWI für Physik in May 1923, that is, in the budgetary
year 1923/24.260 The report then goes on: “All the other supported investigations are
connected to atomic physics.” In addition to Grotrian’s new spectroscopic labora-
tory, funds were dispensed for research with X-rays by Pohl in Göttingen and by
Georg Jaeckel and Walther Kutzner, assistants of Baeyer at the Landwirtschaftliche
Hochschule in Berlin, as well as for the study of the emission of electrons through the
action of α-rays undertaken by August Becker, extraordinary professor of physics
at Lenard’s institute at the University of Heidelberg. Even Trautz’s measurements
of the specific heat of gases were labelled “atomic physics.” Finally, a fellowship is
listed for a collaborator of Sommerfeld in Munich, “for the calculation of spectra.”
Apart from the appropriations for Grotrian and Pohl, all others were decided after
March 1923.261 The fellowship for Sommerfeld’s assistant indicates that a change
of policy had taken place, but no discussion on the question is recorded.
The means available during the year amounted to 1,121,523 marks, 918,521 marks
of which were expended.262 At the end of March 1923, there was a balance of 203,002
marks but this sum corresponded, if related to the cost of living, to only 71.13 marks
in 1913.263 A little less than 40,000 marks had been expended on the salaries of the
director—augmented from 20,000 to 60,000 marks a year as of July 1922264 —and his
secretary. As to expenditures for scientific purposes, more than half a million marks
was provided for research grants, while 366,000 marks were spent for a purpose not
covered by the aims and rules of the KWI für Physik and, what is more, without a
259 “Verzeichnis der im Jahre 1923 bewilligten Zuwendungen,” AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
260 Von Laue to Kuratorium, 17 May 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 29.
261 Von Laue to Kuratorium, 22 June and 6 July 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, pp. 36a
and 41a respectively.

262 Balance sheet 1 April 1922–31 March 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 61. The
document is signed by Laue and was sent to the KWG in February 1924 (see ibid., p. 65). See also
above, Tables 3.1 and 3.2.
263 Set 1 for 1913, the cost of living index had risen to 2,854 (Laursen and Pedersen 1964, 135).
264 Von Harnack to Einstein, 30 October 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Einstein.
3.4 The Period 1922/23 85
related decision being made by the Direktorium: the sum was given in March 1923
to the Deutsches Entomologisches Museum (German Entomological Museum).265
Due to inflation, this institution had lost its capital and was taken over by the KWG as
of 1 October 1922, under the condition that no extra costs would arise for the KWG
(vom Brocke 1990, 247–248). Apparently, this promise could not be kept and the
new burden was, probably, counterbalanced by financial transfers from other KW
Institutes initiated by the central administration of the KWG.
The way in which the support for Grotrian had been decided, and also the way in
which funds were transferred to the Entomological Museum, show not only that the
lack of a spending initiative at the KWI für Physik under Einstein’s directorship had
been noticed by the KWG administration, but also that someone else had started to
make decisions in place of the institute’s Direktorium, in particular with regard to
the distribution of the much needed money. Nernst’s support policy also gives the
impression that he considered the institute little more than a source of funding.
3.5 Einstein Ends His Activities at the KWI für Physik
Laue Takes over

In the meeting of 3 March 1921, the Direktorium decided to elect Laue as a new
member. The KWI für Physik did not give its approval until December and conse-
quently Laue attended his first Direktorium meeting only on 26 January 1922.266 On
12 July 1922, Einstein informed Laue that in October he would go on a trip “for
heaven knows how long” and therefore asked him to act as deputy director of the
KWI für Physik from 1 October for an indefinite period of time. Of course, Laue
would then receive the director’s salary in lieu of Einstein. Einstein had “so to say
officially already left” Berlin and would not be present at the Direktorium meeting
scheduled for the next day.267 On the same day, Einstein also wrote to Planck: “I
asked Laue to take over the directorship provisionally, on condition of approval by
the Direktorium of the KW-Institute for Physics.”268 This arrangement was accepted
without further ado by everyone but was at first believed to be a temporary measure
lasting only until Einstein’s return.269
265 Balance sheet 1 April 1922–31 March 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 61; bank
statement 1 January–31 March 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn.
266 Einstein to Kuratorium, 7 March and 20 October 1921; Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 2 December
1921, all in AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1658, pp. 166–167, 181, and 184 respectively (Kirsten
and Treder 1979, 154, vol. 1).
267 Einstein to Laue, 12 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Einstein.
268 Einstein to Planck, 12 July 1922, AEA, 19–304.
269 Schlüter (1994, 97–99; 1995, 184–185); Laue to von Harnack, 14 October 1922, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 5; von Harnack to Laue, 16 November 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 8,
folder Laue.
In fact, after his return to Berlin in March 1923, Einstein turned over the admin-
istration of the institute to Laue although he kept the formal position of director of
the KWI für Physik. In the following years he occasionally attended the meetings of
the Direktorium, but we do not have any document signed by him in his function as
director after October 1922. We can therefore assert that Einstein essentially stepped
down from his managing position. However, he continued to function as a figurehead
for the institute. The official publications of the KWG as well as its annual reports,
published in the journal Die Naturwissenschaften, continue to list Einstein as director
and Laue as deputy director until 1932.270 As Laue explained: “On the one hand, I
am deputy director although Einstein’s directorship is used only as a decoration. On
the other hand, grants are decided by the Direktorium as a whole.”271 After Laue’s
entrance into the Direktorium, administrative activities increased immediately. As
already noted for 1922, the Direktorium meetings took place more frequently,272
the minutes of the meetings became more detailed, and a new secretary replaced
Einstein’s stepdaughter.273 Whether the funding policy also changed is yet to be
studied.
Why Did Einstein Give Up His Managing Directorship?
In the summer of 1922, Einstein decided that he would withdraw from the managing
of the KWI für Physik. What reasons did he have? Officially, Einstein justified the
decision with his absence from Berlin for an indefinite time. In fact, he planned to
accept an invitation to lecture in Japan and would thus be away for several months.
He wanted to leave Germany for a time in order to escape public attention because
he felt his life was in danger (Seelig 1960, 305–307; Fölsing 1993, 594–597). Since
the end of 1919—that is, since the results of the famous British expeditions had been
made known, which seemingly verified his predictions concerning the deflection
of solar light—Einstein, to his discomfort (Fölsing 1993, 504) was at the center
of public interest: “Guilty for the whole mess is in the end the English expedition
of 1919 […] Since then I have become a kind of flag.”274 In 1920 he had become
the target of public and, to a great extent, politically motivated attacks in the press
and in meetings.275 In June 1922, the German Minister for Foreign Affairs, Walther
Rathenau, had been murdered by anti-semitic nationalists, and Einstein, who was
already known as a pacifist and internationalist, was also in great danger: “I received
trustworthy information that local nationalist circles are attempting at my life […].
270 See, e.g., Harnack (1928, 180).

271 Laue to Hoffmann, 30 January 1926, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hoffmann.
272 E.g., on 15 May, 14 June, 5 July, 26 July, and 1 November 1923 (see von Laue to Kuratorium,
17 May, 14 June, 6 July, and 27 July 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, pp. 29, 35, 41a, and
50 respectively; von Laue to Kuratorium, 6 November 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1660,
p. 60).
273 Hildegard Bathe was engaged as the new secretary starting from 1 July 1923 (Laue to Kuratorium,
16 June 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 43).

274 Einstein to Planck, 12 July 1922, AEA, 19–304.
275 Fölsing (1993, 519–522); on the controversy over relativity and the campaign against Einstein,
see Goenner (1993), Wazeck (2009).

3.5 Einstein Ends His Activities at the KWI für Physik 87
However, being a little fond of my life, I decided to secure my corpse at once.”276

He then canceled his course at the University and his promised appearance at the
meeting of the Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte to be held in Leipzig
in September. In fact, on 5 July 1922 Einstein left Berlin for Kiel where he stayed
for a couple of days.277 For a while, longing for a “normal human life in peace
and quiet,”278 he pondered in earnest withdrawing from the Academy and leaving
Berlin for good, but he finally came back, having decided to give up only his “official
charges.”279 The long journey abroad was an ideal pretext.
Thus, at first sight, we could suppose that Einstein resigned from the directorship
of the KWI für Physik for political reasons: he no longer wanted to play an official
role, at least for the time being. But was this the real reason? We think not. First of
all, already on 1 August 1922 Einstein took part in a pacifist demonstration in Berlin
(Nathan and Norden 1968, 54). Moreover, his function as director of the institute
did not require a public presence. And, anyway, after he returned from his extended
trip in 1923, Einstein was still meeting the other Direktorium members almost every
Wednesday at the “physical colloquium” of the University and almost every Thursday
at the sessions of the Academy. Most of the meetings of the Direktorium of the KWI
für Physik took place after the Academy sessions.280
We suggest that the main reasons for Einstein’s resignation were his discontent
with the burdens the administration of the institute entailed and with the ongoing
practice of research financing adopted by the Direktorium. We also suggest that his
decision was made possible by his attainment of private financial independence.
While Einstein was tired of his administrative duties, Laue was willing and able to
take on such tasks and enjoyed the trust of the physics community: in March 1922
he had been elected chairman of the newly constituted steering committee at the
Astrophysikalisches Observatorium281 and, in the following May, chairman of the
sectional committee on physics of the Notgemeinschaft.282
Complaints about the bureaucratic duties to be carried out for the KWI für Physik
are recurrent in Einstein’s correspondence. Immediately after the start of the institute
276 Einstein to Planck, undated [6 July 1922], AEA, 19–300; see also Nathan and Norden (1968,
53–54). For an account of the episode as well as of Einstein’s reaction, see Fölsing (1993, 595–597).
277 Einstein to Anschütz-Kämpfe, 1 July 1922, in Lohmeier and Schell (1992, 167).
278 Einstein to Anschütz-Kämpfe, 12 July 1922, in Lohmeier and Schell (1992, 171).
279 Elsa Einstein to Anschütz-Kämpfe, 16 July 1922, in Lohmeier and Schell (1992, 175).
280 See, e.g., Laue to the Direktorium members, 11 June 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder
Koch; Laue to the Direktorium members, 26 June and 29 October 1923, ibid., Nr. 1, folder Becker;
Laue to the Direktorium members, 29 January 1924, AEA, 40–153; Laue to Glum, 3 April 1924,
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1660, p. 96; Laue to Schmidt-Ott, 29 June 1924, ibid., p. 124; minutes
of the Direktorium meeting, 26 February 1925, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt.
A, Nr. 116, p. 130.
281 Minutes of the meeting of the Kuratorium of the Astrophysikalisches Observatorium, 5 [recte
4] March 1922, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sect. 1, Tit. 11, Teil 2, Nr. 6 6 h, pp. 12–13.
282 Laue to Schmidt-Ott, 18 May 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Notgemeinschaft;
(Richter 1972, 16).

he wrote: “The K. W. Institute involves quite a large amount of correspondence.”283

Shortly thereafter, he expressed disappointment because “nothing worth mentioning”
had arrived in response to the KWI’s public call for research proposals.284 He felt like
a “slave of the damned postman”285 wasting his time: “At the moment, my [scientific]
work is not up to much. I’m dissipating my forces, I have to clear a huge amount
of correspondence, evaluate, advise, patronize, but I’m not progressing on the big
problems.”286 He had no understanding for the necessity of bureaucratic procedures.
We have already reported that Einstein only bothered to write a report on the institute’s
activities and to set up a budget after a complaint from the KWI für Physik chairman.
It seems that he would actually have preferred to avoid the Direktorium meetings
altogether: “The K.W.I. is quite sluggish, since I have always to round up all my dear
…for one grant.”287 One of Einstein’s closest friends commented at the very moment
of his withdrawal: “Einstein is tired of Berlin with all that it implies concerning visits
and official matters and, horribile scriptu, wants to change over to technology.”288
We have reason to believe that Einstein, at least during the last period of his direc-
torship, was very discontent with the funding policy of his institute. In the summer
of 1922, Einstein learned from the German-American physiologist, Jacques Loeb,
a member of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, that the Rockefeller
Foundation intended to support educational institutions and scientific research in
Germany. Einstein wrote to Loeb that he hoped that “you will not give your money
to organizations, which are bound to thousands of considerations, but directly to
those who are able to make something worthwhile of it. Otherwise the money will
be spread in little ineffective portions to support superfluous mediocrity.”289 It seems
that the question really troubled him because a little later he wrote again: “If you
want to give something for the sake of science in Germany, absolutely do not give
it to organizations, which always take their decisions according to the principle of
minimal odium, but give it in accordance with your free judgment to a few capable
people.”290 Clearly, in writing this Einstein had his own institute in mind.
On the other hand, Einstein would not have been so foolish as to give up a consid-
erable salary without compensating revenue, especially since he had to maintain two
households.291 As of April 1922 Einstein’s salary at the KWI für Physik had been
raised to 18,000 marks net.292 In addition, he still received a special salary from the
283 Einstein to Besso, 5 January 1918, in Einstein (1998, 598, doc. 428).
284 “nichts Vernünftiges” (Albert Einstein to Ilse Einstein, 12 May 1918, in Einstein (1998, 758,
doc. 536).
285 Einstein to Born, 22 August 1921, in Einstein and Born (1969, 85).
286 Einstein to Besso, 26 July 1920, in Einstein and Besso (1972, 152–153).
287 Einstein to Born, 22 August 1921, in Einstein and Born (1969, 85). Dots by Einstein.
288 Anschütz-Kaempfe to Sommerfeld, 12 July 1922, in Lohmeier and Schell (1992, 170).
289 Einstein to Loeb, 14 August 1922, AEA, 15–192.
290 Einstein to Loeb, 22 September 1922, AEA, 15–193.
291 His first wife Mileva with two sons in Zurich and his second wife Elsa with two stepdaughters
in Berlin.
292 Von Harnack to Einstein, 28 March 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 2, folder Einstein.
3.5 Einstein Ends His Activities at the KWI für Physik 89
Academy which, since April 1922, had also been raised to 75,000 marks per year.293
But at least by 1920 his other sources of income were quite remarkable, as is already
apparent from a still only preliminary collation of documental sources. For example,
Einstein received 2,000 marks for a single talk given in Kiel in September 1920.294
A few months later, Sommerfeld offered him the same sum for a lecture in Munich:
“From Anschütz I hear that you have obtained 2,000 marks in Kiel; we can give you
this as well.”295 In January 1921, the industrialist and inventor of the gyrocompass,
Hermann Anschütz-Kaempfe, must have paid to Einstein under the table 20,000
marks for his contribution to the development of a new model of gyrocompass: “I
write explicitly hand over and not transfer, otherwise inquiries concerning taxes will
come up.”296 This payment was followed by others.297 In a couple of weeks, Ein-
stein earned from these “other” activities a little less than half of his annual academic
salaries, which at the time (end of 1920) amounted to 10,000 marks from the KWI
and 36,000 marks from the Academy.298 One talk alone amounted to twenty per cent
of his annual director’s salary. In addition, Einstein was a very successful author. His
“popular account” of the theory of relativity (Einstein 1917a; Gutfreund and Renn
2015) went through fourteen editions from 1917 to 1922, a total of 65,000 copies,
more than 45,000 of which were sold in 1920 alone for a price between 2.80 and 4
marks (Oberschelp and Gorzny 1976–1981, 240, vol. 31 and 588, vol. 138; Hermann
1994, 250–251). For this book Einstein received twenty per cent of the selling price,
(Fölsing 1993, 558) which means more than 25,000 marks in royalties in just one
year.
In summer 1922, Einstein probably earned as much or even more money from
his books, public lectures, and from his work on the gyrocompass than he received
from the Academy and the KWI: “Materially, I am rather independent, to the extent
that the remuneration I get from the Academy is practically negligible so that I can
renounce it without disturbing the equilibrium.”299 We thus conclude that Einstein
was tired of doing all the administrative work for the institute with little benefit to
his own research and felt financially independent enough to withdraw.
293 This was the basic salary of an ordinary university professor; in addition Einstein also received
a “local bonus” and an allowance for children (G. Roethe to Einstein, 20 October 1921, and Krüss
to Prussian Academy of Sciences, 6 June 1922, AAdW, II–III, Bd. 39, pp. 37 and 108 respectively).
294 The talk was on “Space and time in the light of relativity theory” (Lohmeier and Schell 1992,
117).
295 Sommerfeld to Einstein, 29 December 1920, in Einstein and Sommerfeld (1968, 76).
296 Anschütz-Kaempfe to Einstein, 28 December 1920, in Lohmeier and Schell (1992, 115).
297 In the correspondence with Anschütz-Kaempfe there are indications that, from the end of 1921,
the money coming from Kiel was regularly transferred to Einstein’s children in Switzerland. In
October 1926, a contract was arranged between Anschütz-Kaempfe’s firm and Einstein so that he
would receive one percent of the selling price for each gyrocompass and three percent of the license
fees should foreign patents be issued (Lohmeier and Schell 1992, 56, 58).
298 Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 23 June 1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13; Prussian Ministry of
Education to Prussian Academy of Sciences, 12 November 1920, AAdW, II–III, Bd. 38, p. 171.
299 Einstein to Loeb, 22 September 1922, AEA, 15–193.
References
Bergmann, Ludwig (1958). “Clemens Schaefer zum 80. Geburtstag”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften
45, pp. 121–122.
Bohlin, Helge (1920). “Eine neue Anordnung für röntgenkristallographische Untersuchungen von
Kristallpulver”. In: Annalen der Physik 61, pp. 421–439.
Brauns, Reinhard (1934). “Kristalle, flüssige”. In: Handwörterbuch der Naturwissenschaften. Vol.
5. Ed. by Rudolf Dittler, Georg Joos, and Eugen Korschelt. 2nd ed. Jena: Fischer, pp. 1159–1179.
Bucky, Peter A. (1991). Der private Albert Einstein. Gespräche über Gott, die Menschen und die
Bombe. Düsseldorf: Econ.
Conrad, Richard (1926a). “Über die Streuungsabsorption von Wasserstoffkanalstrahlen beim
Durchgang durch Wasserstoff”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 38, pp. 465–474.
Conrad, Richard (1926b). “Über die Streuungsabsorption von Wasserstoffkanalstrahlen beim
Durchgang durch Wasserstoff und Helium”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 35, pp. 73–99.
Debye, Peter and Paul Scherrer (1918). “Atombau”. In: Nachrichten von der Königlichen
Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen: Mathematisch-physikalische Klasse, pp. 101–120.
Dreisigacker, Ernst and Helmut Rechenberg (1995). “Karl Scheel, Ernst Brüche und die Publika-
tionsorgane”. In: 150 Jahre Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. Ed. by Theo Mayer-Kuckuk.
Weinheim: VCH Verlagsgesellschaft. F 135–F 142.
Earman, John and Clark Glymour (1980). “The Gravitational Red Shift as a Test of General Rela-
tivity: History and Analysis”. In: Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 11, pp. 175–214.
Einstein, Albert (1917a). “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”.
In: Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 142–152.
Einstein, Albert (1917b). Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie (Gemeinver-
ständlich). Braunschweig: Vieweg. Reprinted in (Einstein 1996, doc. 42).
Einstein, Albert (1918). “Der Energiesatz in der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”. In: Sitzungs-
berichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 448–459. Reprinted in
Einstein, Albert (1921). “Über ein den Elementarprozeß der Lichtemission betreffendes Exper-
iment”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 882–883.
Einstein, Albert (1922a). “Emil Warburg als Forscher”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 10, pp. 823–
828.
Einstein, Albert (1922b). “Theoretische Bemerkungen zur Supraleitung der Metalle”. In: Het Natu-
urkundig Laboratorium der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden in de jaren 1904–1922: Gedenkboek
aangeboden aan H. Kamerlingh Onnes. Leiden: Ijdo, pp. 429–435.
Einstein, Albert (1922c). “Zur Theorie der Lichtfortpflanzung in dispergierenden Medien”. In:
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Physikalisch-Mathematische
Klasse, pp. 18–22.
Einstein, Albert (1989). The Collected Papers. Vol. 2: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900–1909. Ed.
by John Stachel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Press.
by Michel Janssen et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
References 91
Einstein, Albert (2004). The Collected Papers. Vol. 9: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January
1919–April 1920. Ed. by Diana Kormos Buchhwald et al. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert and Michele Besso (1972). Correspondance 1903–1955. Paris: Hermann. Trans-
lated and edited by Pierre Speziali.
Einstein, Albert and Max Born (1969). Briefwechsel 1916–1955. Kommentiert von Max Born.
Munich: Nymphenburger.
Einstein, Albert and Jakob Grommer (1923). “Beweis der Nichtexistenz eines überall regulären
zentrisch symmetrischen Feldes nach der Feld-Theorie von Th. Kaluza”. In: Scripta Universitatis
atque Bibliothecae Hierosolymitanarum: Mathematica et Physica 1. VII.
Einstein, Albert and Arnold Sommerfeld. (1968). Briefwechsel. Sechzig Briefe aus dem goldenen
Zeitalter der modernen Physik. Ed. by Armin Hermann. Basel: Schwabe. Herausgegeben und
kommentiert von Armin Hermann.
Estermann, Immanuel (1976). “Stern, Otto”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 13. Ed. by
Charles C. Gillispie. New York: Scribner, pp. 40–43.
Flügge, Siegfried (1980). “Kolhörster, Werner”. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 12. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, pp. 460–461.
Försterling, Karl and G. Hansen (1923). “Zeemaneffekt der roten und blauenWasserstofflinie”. In:
Zeitschrift für Physik 18, pp. 26–33.
Fouquet, Dörte (1999). Die Gründung der Hamburgischen Universität. Potsdam: Verlag für Berlin-
Brandenburg.
Franck, James (1921). “Über Lichtanregung und Ionisation von Atomen und Molekülen durch
Stöße langsamer Elektronen”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, pp. 388–391, 409–414, 441–448,
466–471.
Franck, James and Walter Grotrian (1921). “Bemerkungen über angeregte Atome”. In: Zeitschrift
für Physik 4, pp. 89–99.
Franck, James and Paul Knipping (1919). “Die Ionisierung des Helium”. In: Physikalische
Zeitschrift 21, pp. 481–488.
Franck, James and Paul Knipping (1920). “Über die Anregungsspannungen des Heliums”. In:
Füchtbauer, Christian and Georg Joos (1922). “Über Intensität und Verbreiterung von Spek-
trallinien”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 23, pp. 73–80.
Füchtbauer, Christian, Georg Joos, and Otto Dinckelacker (1923). “Über Intensität, Verbreiterung
und Druckverschiebung von Spektrallinien, insbesondere der Absorptionslinie 2537 des Queck-
silbers”. In: Annalen der Physik 71, pp. 204–227.
Fürth, Reinhold (1920). “Bemerkungen zu Herrn E. Radels Arbeit: Ladungsbestimmungen an
Nebelteilchen”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 3, pp. 422–424.
Gerlach, Walther (1978). “Robert Wichard Pohl”. In: Jahrbuch der Bayerischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, pp. 214–219.
Gerlach, Walther and Otto Stern (1922a). “Das magnetische Moment des Silberatoms”. In:
Gerlach, Walther and Otto Stern (1922b). “Der experimentelle Nachweis der Richtungsquantelung
im Magnetfeld”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 9, pp. 349–352.
Gerlach, Walther and Otto Stern (1922c). “Der experimentelle Nachweis des magnetischen
Moments des Silberatoms”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 8, pp. 110–111.
Gerlach, Walther and Otto Stern (1924). “Über die Richtungsquantelung im Magnetfeld”. In:
Annalen der Physik 74, pp. 673–699.
Goenner, Hubert (1993). “The Reaction to Relativity Theory I: The Anti-Einstein Campaign in
Germany in 1920”. In: Science in Context 6, pp. 107–133.
Goenner, Hubert (2004). “On the History of Unified Field Theories”. In: Living Reviews in Relativity
7.2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2004-2 (accessed 12/21/2020).
Goenner, Hubert and Giuseppe Castagnetti (1996). “Albert Einstein as Pacifist and Democrat during
World War I”. In: Science in Context 9, pp. 325–386.
Grebe, Leonhard (1920). “Über die Gravitationsverschiebung der Fraunhoferschen Linien”. In:
Physikalische Zeitschrift 21, pp. 662–668.
Grebe, Leonhard (1921). “Sonnengravitation und Rotverschiebung”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 4,
pp. 105–109.
Grebe, Leonhard and Albert Bachem (1919). “Über den Einsteineffekt im Gravitationsfeld der
Sonne”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 454–464.
Grebe, Leonhard and Albert Bachem (1920a). “Die Einsteinsche Graviationsverschiebung im Son-
nenspektrum der Stickstoffbande λ = 3883 AE”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 2, pp. 415–422.
Grebe, Leonhard and Albert Bachem (1920b). “Über die Einsteinverschiebung im Graviationsfeld
der Sonne”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 1, pp. 51–54.
Grommer, Jakob (1919). “Beitrag zum Energiesatz in der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie”. In:
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 860–862.
Gudden, Bernhard (1944). “R. W. Pohl zum 60. Geburtstag”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 32, pp.
166–169.
Gutfreund, Hanoch, and Jürgen Renn, eds. (2015). Relativity: The Special and the General Theory,
100th Anniversary Edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Günther, Paul (1920). “Über die innere Reibung des Wasserstoffs bei tiefen Temperaturen”. In:
Günther, Paul (1924a). “Die kosmologischen Betrachtungen von Nernst”. In: Zeitschrift für ange-
wandte Chemie 37, pp. 454–457.
Günther, Paul (1924b). “Über die innere Reibung der Gase bei tiefen Temperaturen”. In: Zeitschrift
für physikalische Chemie 110, pp. 626–636.
Hammer, Wilhelm (1919–1920). “Die Messung kleiner Kapazitäts- und Selbstinduktions- Änderun-
gen mittels ungedämpfter Schwingungen”. In: Berichte der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu
Freiburg im Breisgau 22.2, pp. 1–6.
Hanle, Wilhelm (1956). “Peter Pringsheim 75 Jahre”. In: Physikalische Blätter 12, pp. 126–127.
Hentschel, Klaus (1990). Interpretationen und Fehlinterpretationen der speziellen und der allge-
meinen Relativitätstheorie durch Zeitgenossen Albert Einsteins. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992a). Der Einstein-Turm: Erwin F. Freundlich und die Relativitätstheorie.
Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992b). “Einstein’s Attitude towards Experiments: Testing Relativity Theory
Hentschel, Klaus (1992c). “Grebe/Bachems photometrische Analyse der Linienprofile und die
Gravitations-Rotverschiebung: 1919 bis 1922”. In: Annals of Science 49, pp. 21–46.
Hamburg: Kovac.
Hergert, Wolfram (1993). “Physik im Freiballon. Forschungen zur Höhenstrahlung und zur Physik
der Atmosphäre am Physikalischen Institut der Universität Halle in den Jahren 1910–1937”. In:
Physikalische Blätter 49, pp. 1007–1010.
Hermann, Armin (1995). “Die Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft 1899–1945”. In: 150 Jahre
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. Ed. by Theo Mayer-Kuckuk. Weinheim: VCH Verlagsge-
sellschaft. F 61–F 105.
References 93
Hettner, Gerhard (1920a). “Über den Einfluß eines äußeren elektrischen Feldes auf das Rotation-
sspektrum. Ein Analogon zum Starkeffekt”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 2, pp. 349–360.
Hettner, Gerhard (1920b). “Über Gesetzmäßigkeiten in den ultraroten Gasspektren und ihre Deu-
tung”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 1, pp. 345–354.
Hettner, Gerhard (1922). “Die Bedeutung von Rubens Arbeiten für die Plancksche Strahlungs-
formel”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 10, pp. 1033–1038.
Hiebert, Erwin N. (1978). “Nernst, Hermann Walther”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Ed.
by Charles C. Gillispie. Vol. 15, Supplement I. New York: Scribner, pp. 432–453.
Hoffmann, Dieter (1986). “Pionier der Plasmaphysik. Zum 100. Geburtstag des Greifswalder
Physikers Rudolf Seeliger”. In: Wissenschaft und Fortschritt 36, pp. 278–280.
Hoffmann, Dieter (2001). “Pringsheim, Peter”. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 20. Berlin:
Hoffmann, Dieter and Edgar Swinne (1994). Über die Geschichte der “technischen Physik” in
Deutschland und den Begründer ihrer wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft Georg Gehlhoff. Berlin:
ERS-Verlag.
Holton, Gerald (1978). “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute”. In:
Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9, pp. 161–224.
Hoyer, Ulrich (1993). “Walther Gerlach (1889–1979)”. In: Naturwissenschaften und Technik in
der Geschichte. 25 Jahre Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und Technik am
Historischen Institut der Universität Stuttgart. Ed. by Helmuth Albrecht. Stuttgart: Verlag für
Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, pp. 133–141.
Hund, Friederich, Heinz Maier-Leibnitz, and Erich Mollwo (1988). “Physics in Göttingen—with
Franck, Born and Pohl”. In: European Journal of Physics 9, pp. 188–194.
Kangro, Hans (1970). Vorgeschichte des Planckschen Strahlungsgesetzes. Wiesbaden: Steiner.
Kant, Horst (1987). “Das KWI für Physik—von der Gründung bis zum Institutsbau”. In: Berliner
Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien XII: Beiträge zur Astronomie- und Physikgeschichte. Berlin:
Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der
Wissenschaft, pp. 129–141.
Kant, Horst (1993). “Peter Debye und das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik in Berlin”. In: Natur-
wissenschaften und Technik in der Geschichte. 25 Jahre Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der Natur-
wissenschaft und Technik am Historischen Institut der Universität Stuttgart. Ed. by Helmuth
Albrecht. Stuttgart: Verlag für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, pp. 161–
177.
Kaufmann, Walther and Fritz Serowy (1921). “Druckmessung mittels Glühkathodenröhren”. In:
Kienle, Hans (1954). “Nachruf auf Walter Grotrian”. In: Jahrbuch der Deutschen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 370–374.
Kirschbaum, Heinrich (1923). “Über die Intensitätsverteilung und den Ursprung des Bandenspek-
trums von Stickstoff”. In: Annalen der Physik 71, pp. 289–316.
Kirsten, Christa and Hans-Jürgen Treder, eds. (1979). Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913–1933, 2 vols.
Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Knipping, Paul (1921). “Die Ionisierungsspannungen der Halogenwasserstoffe”. In: Zeitschrift für
Physik 7, pp. 328–340.
Knipping, Paul (1923). “Registrierapparat zur automatischen Aufnahme von Ionisierungs- und
anderen Kurven”. In: Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde 43, pp. 241–256.
Koch, Peter P. (1912). “Über ein registrierendes Mikrophotometer”. In: Annalen der Physik 39, pp.
705–751.
Kolhörster, Editha (1977). Mein Leben an der Seite eines Wissenschaftlers und Forschers.
Darmstadt-Eberstadt: Kolhörster.
Kolhörster, Werner (1923). “Intensitäts- und Richtungsmessungen der durchdringenden

Strahlung”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Physikalisch-
mathematische Klasse, pp. 366–377.
Kolhörster, Werner (1924). Die durchdringende Strahlung in der Atmosphäre. Hamburg: Grand.
Kolhörster, Werner (1933). “Albert Wigand zum Gedenken”. In: Meteorologische Zeitschrift 50,
pp. 60–62.
Kulenkampff, Helmuth (1922). “Über das kontinuierliche Röntgenspektrum”. In: Annalen der
Physik 69, pp. 548–596.
L’Autographe (1992). Lettres autographes. Documents historiques. Photos signées. Catalogue 24.
Geneva.
Langevin, Paul and Maurice de Broglie, eds. (1912). La théorie du rayonnement et les quanta.
Rapports et discussions de la Réunion tenue à Bruxelles, du 30 octobre au 3 novembre 1911,
sous les Auspices de M. E. Solvay. Paris: Gauthier-Villars.
Laue, Max and Friedrich Franz Martens (1907). “Bestimmung der optischen Konstanten von glühen-
den Metallen aus der Polarisation der seitlich emittierten Strahlung”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift
8, pp. 853–856.
Laursen, Karsten and Jørgen Pedersen (1964). The German Inflation 1918–1923. Amsterdam:
North-Holland.
Lohmeier, Dieter and Bernhardt Schell, eds. (1992). Einstein, Anschütz und der Kieler Kreiselkom-
paß. Der Briefwechsel zwischen Albert Einstein und Hermann Anschütz-Kaempfe und andere
Dokumente. Heide in Holstein: Westholsteinische Verlagsanstalt Boyens.
Marsch, Ulrich (1994). Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft. Gründung und frühe
Geschichte 1920–1925. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Mendelssohn, Kurt (1973). The World of Walther Nernst. The Rise and Fall of German Science
1864–1941. London: Macmillan Press.
Müller, Gustav (1919). “[Jahresberichte der Sternwarten für 1918] Potsdam (Astrophysikalisches
Observatorium)”. In: Vierteljahrsschrift der Astronomischen Gesellschaft 54, pp. 246–252.
Nernst, Walther (1919). “Einige Folgerungen aus der sogenannten Entartungstheorie der Gase”. In:
Nernst, Walther (1921a). Das Weltgebäude im Lichte der neueren Forschung. Berlin: Springer.
Nernst, Walther (1921b). Theoretische Chemie vom Standpunkte der Avogadroschen Regel und der
Thermodynamik. 8th–10th ed. Stuttgart: Enke.
Nernst, Walther and Theodor Wulf (1919). “Über eine Modifikation der Planckschen Strahlungs-
formel auf experimenteller Grundlage”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen
Gesellschaft 21, pp. 294–337.
Oberschelp, Reinhard and Willi Gorzny, eds. (1976–1981). Gesamtverzeichnis des deutschsprachi-
gen Schrifttums (GV): 1911–1965. Munich: Saur.
Pais, Abraham (1982). “Subtle is the Lord . . . ” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford:
Perrin, Jean (1912). “Les preuves de la réalité moléculaire (étude spéciale des émulsions)”. In: La
théorie du rayonnement et les quanta. Rapports et discussions de la Réunion tenue à Bruxelles,
du 30 octobre au 3 novembre 1911, sous les Auspices de M. E. Solvay. Ed. by Paul Langevin and
Maurice de Broglie. Paris: Gauthier-Villars, pp. 153–250.
Pohl, Robert W. and Peter Pringsheim (1914). Die lichtelektrischen Erscheinungen. Braunschweig:
Vieweg.
References 95
Pringsheim, Peter (1922). “Über die Zerstörung der Fluoreszenzfähigkeit fluoreszierender Lösungen
durch Licht und das photochemische Äquivalentgesetz”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 10, pp. 176–
184.
Pringsheim, Peter (1923). “Über die photochemische Umwandlung fluoreszierender Farbstofflö-
sungen”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 16, pp. 71–76.
Rabel, Gabriele (1919). “Farbenantagonismus oder die chemische und elektrische Polarität des
Spektrums”. In: Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Photographie, Photophysik und Photochemie
19, pp. 69–128.
Radel, Ernst (1920). “Ladungsbestimmungen an Nebelteilchen; ein Beitrag zur Frage der Existenz
des elektrischen Elementarquantums”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 3, pp. 63–88.
Regener, Erich (1920). “Über die Ursache, welche bei den Versuchen von Hrn. F. Ehrenhaft die
Existenz eines Subelektrons vortäuscht”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, pp. 632–641.
Richter, Steffen (1972). Forschungsförderung in Deutschland 1920–1936. Dargestellt am Beispiel
der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft und ihrem Wirken für das Fach Physik. Düs-
seldorf: VDI-Verlag.
Rubens, Heinrich and Gerhard Michel (1921a). “Beitrag zur Prüfung der Planckschen Strahlungs-
formel”. In: Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 590–610.
Rubens, Heinrich and Gerhard Michel (1921b). “Prüfung der Planckschen Strahlungsformel”. In:
Schaefer, Clemens and Martha Schubert (1922). “Ultrarote Eigenfrequenzen der Silikate”. In:
Zeitschrift für technische Physik 3, pp. 201–204.
Schleiermacher, August and Richard Schachenmeier (1923) “Otto Lehmann”. In: Physikalische
Zeitschrift 24, pp. 289–291.
Schlüter, Steffen (1994). “Albert Einstein als Direktor des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts für Physik”.
MA thesis. Berlin: Institut für Geschichtswissenschaft, Bereich Archivwissenschaft, Humboldt-
Universität.
Schlüter, Steffen (1995). “Albert Einstein als Direktor des Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituts in Berlin-
Schöneberg”. In: Jahrbuch für Brandenburgische Landesgeschichte 46, pp. 169–185.
Schröder, Wilhelm H. (1995). Sozialdemokratische Parlamentarier in den Deutschen Reichs- und
Landtagen 1867–1933. Düsseldorf: Droste.
Seelig, Carl (1960). Albert Einstein. Leben und Werk eines Genies unserer Zeit. Zurich: Europa
Verlag.
Seeliger, Rudolf (1920). “Über die Anregungsbedingungen der Quecksilberlinien”. In: Zeitschrift
Seeliger, Rudolf (1922a). “Anregung der Atome zur Lichtemission durch Elektronenstoß. V. Das
Verhalten von Kombinationslinien”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 11, pp. 197–200.
Seeliger, Rudolf (1922b). “Über die Lichtemission der Glimmentladung”. In: Annalen der Physik
67, pp. 352–358.
Seeliger, Rudolf and Georg Mierdel (1921). “Anregung derAtome zur Lichtemission durch Elek-
tronenstoß II. Spektroskopische Studien an der Neon-Glimmlampe”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 5,
pp. 182–187.
Seeliger, Rudolf and Dorothea Thaer (1921). “Die Bogen- und Funkenspektra der Alkalien, Erdal-
kalien und Erden”. In: Annalen der Physik 65, pp. 423–448.
Seemann, Hugo (1921). “Ein Präzisions-Röntgenspektrograph”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 22,
pp. 580–581.
Starkulla, Heinz (1971). “Fleischer, Richard”. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 5. Berlin:
Stern, Otto (1922). “Über den experimentellen Nachweis der räumlichen Quantelung im elek-
trischen Feld”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 23, pp. 476–481.
Steubing, Walter (1919a). “Eine diamagnetische Erscheinung in leuchtendem Stickstoff und mag-
netisches Verhalten seiner Bandenspektra”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 20, pp. 512–519.
Steubing, Walter (1919b). “Spektrale Intensitätsverschiebung und Schwächung der Jodfluoreszenz

durch ein magnetisches Feld”. In: Annalen der Physik 58, pp. 55–104.
Steubing, Walter (1921). “Temperatur und Bandenspektrum”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 22, pp.
507–511.
Steubing, Walter (1922). “Die Spektra von Argon, Jod und Stickstoff im elektrischen Feld”. In:
Stintzing, Hugo (1938). “25 Jahre Röntgen-Strahlen-Beugung. Dem Andenken Paul Knippings,
ihres Mitentdeckers und Gründers des Röntgeninstituts der Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt”.
In: Zeitschrift für technische Physik 19, pp. 104–105.
Suhrmann, Rudolf (1922). “Rote Grenze und spektrale Verteilung der Lichtelektrizität des Platins
in ihrer Abhängigkeit vom Gasgehalt”. In: Annalen der Physik 67, pp. 43–68.
Trautz, Max and Otto Großkinsky (1922). “Die Messung der spezifischen Wärme Cv von Gasen
mittels der Differentialmethode. I. Mitteilung”. In: Annalen der Physik 67, pp. 462–526.
Urbschat, Rudolf (1921). “Die reversible magnetische Permeabilität des Eisens bei hohen Frequen-
zen”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 7, pp. 260–267.
Valentiner, Siegfried (1929). “Ernst Wagner”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 30, pp. 281–290.
vom Brocke, Bernhard (1990). “Die Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft in der Weimarer Republik. Aus-
bau zu einer gesamtdeutschen Forschungsorganisation (1918–1933)”. In: Forschung im Span-
von Harnack, Adolf (1923). Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften.
Bericht Oktober 1922–Dezember 1923. Burg/Magdeburg: Hopfer.
von Harnack, Adolf ed. (1928). Handbuch der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der
Wissenschaften. Berlin: Hobbing.
von Klüber, Harald (1966). “Grotrian, Walter”. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 7. Berlin:
von Schweidler, Egon (1915). “Über die möglichen Quellen der Hessschen Strahlung”. In: Arbeiten
aus den Gebieten der Physik, Mathematik, Chemie. Festschrift Julius Elster und Hans Geitel zum
sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern. Braunschweig: Vieweg, pp. 411–
419.
Wagner, Ernst (1918). “Spektraluntersuchungen an Röntgenstrahlen. Über die Messung der
Planckschen Quantenkonstante h aus dem zur Erzeugung homogener Bremsstrahlung notwendi-
gen Minimumpotential”. In: Annalen der Physik 57, pp. 401–470.
Wagner, Ernst and Helmuth Kulenkampff (1922). “Die Intensität von Röntgenstrahlen verschiedener
Wellenlänge an Kalkspat und Steinsalz”. In: Annalen der Physik 68, pp. 369–413.
Warburg, Emil, Gustav E. Leithäuser, et al. (1913). “Über die Konstante c des Wien-Planckschen
Strahlungsgesetzes”. In: Annalen der Physik 40, pp. 609–634.
Warburg, Emil and Carl Müller (1915). “Über die Konstante c des Wien-Planckschen Strahlungs-
gesetzes”. In: Annalen der Physik 48, pp. 410–432.
Wazeck, Milena (2009). Einsteins Gegner. Die öffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitätstheorie
in den 1920er Jahren. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.
Weigert, Fritz (1919a). “Über einen neuen Effekt der Strahlung in lichtempfindlichen Schichten
(Erste Mitteilung)”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 479–
491.
Weigert, Fritz (1919b). “Über einen neuen Effekt der Strahlung (Zweite Mitteilung)”. In: Verhand-
lungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 615–622.
Weigert, Fritz (1919c). “Über einen neuen Effekt der Strahlung (Dritte Mitteilung)”. In: Verhand-
lungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 623–631.
Weigert, Fritz (1921). “Über einen neuen Effekt der Strahlung (Vierte Mitteilung)”. In: Zeitschrift
References 97
Weigert, Fritz (1922). “Über Fluoreszenz, photochemische Wirkung und das Einsteinsche Gesetz”.
In: Zeitschrift für Physik 10, pp. 349–351.
Weigert, Fritz and Gerhard Käppler (1924). “Polarisierte Fluoreszenz in Farbstofflösungen”. In:
Wendt, Georg (1917). “Spektralanalytische Untersuchungen an Kanalstrahlen von Kohlenstoff,
Silicium und Bor”. In: Annalen der Physik 52, pp. 761–774.
Wendt, Georg and R. A. Wetzel (1916). “Beobachtungen über den Effekt des elektrischen Feldes
auf die Tripletserien des Quecksilbers und die Dubletserien des Aluminiums”. In: Annalen der
Physik 50, pp. 419–432.
Westphal, Wilhelm (1919a). “Über das Radiometer”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalis-
chen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 129–143.
Westphal, Wilhelm (1919b). “Zur Theorie des Radiometers”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, p. 669.
Westphal, Wilhelm (1920a). “Messungen am Radiometer”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 1, pp. 92–100.
Westphal, Wilhelm (1920b). “Messungen am Radiometer II”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 1, pp. 431–
438.
Westphal, Wilhelm (1921). “Messungen am Radiometer III. Über ein Quarzfaden-Radiometer”. In:
Westphal, Wilhelm and Walther Gerlach (1919). “Über positive und negative Radiometerwirkun-
gen”. In: Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 21, pp. 218–226.
Wigand, Albert (1924). “Die durchdringende Strahlung”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 25, pp. 445–
463.
Wilhelm, Johannes P. (1987). “Rudolf Seeliger und die Plasmaphysik”. In: Sitzungsberichte der
Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Mathematik-Naturwissenschaft-Technik 3.N, pp. 1–32.
Witt, Peter-Christian (1990). “Wissenschaftsfinanzierung zwischen Inflation und Deflation: Die
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft 1918/19 bis 1934/35”. In: Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik
und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Ed.
by Rudolf Vierhaus and Bernhard vom Brocke. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, pp. 579–656.
Wolter, Kurt (1921). “Über Ladungsbestimmungen an Nebelteilchen bei 1 bis 9 Atm. Gasdruck”.
In: Zeitschrift für Physik 6, pp. 339–351.
Zaunick, Rudolf and Hans Salié (1956–1962). J. C. Poggendorffs biographisch-literarisches Hand-
wörterbuch der exakten Naturwissenschaften. Band VIIa: Berichtsjahre 1932 bis 1953. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Chapter 4
Einstein’s Directorship: An Evaluation
Abstract This final chapter evaluates the activities of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut

für physikalische Forschung and its role in the advancement of physics. It is con-
cluded that the institute only partially fulfilled the expectations of its promoters
because of the waning interest in quantum physics on the part of its director and
board, and also because of Einstein’s refusal to exert scientific leadership.
Keywords Einstein’s research 1917–1922 · Science policy in Germany
4.1 The Institute’s Spending Policy
First let us consider the institute’s funding policy from a financial and quantitative
point of view.1 As a matter of fact, the KWI für Physik did not implement the
originally intended policy of employing, in Nernst’s words, “major funding”2 for
“experimental works on a larger scale,”3 although the intention to operate in this
way was never formally abandoned; on the contrary it was often restated. Since the
beginning, the funds were quite conspicuous, certainly enough to finance a major
research program,4 but it was soon decided to follow a policy of saving in order
to have more money for eventual larger research projects. In the spring of 1919—
at the real start of the institute’s activity after the war and concurrently with the
decision to distribute funds with the sole aim of relaunching physics research—the
Direktorium decided to spend only as much as would become available during the
1 For an analysis, from a different point of view, of the support policy for physical research in
Germany from 1920 on, see Forman (1974).
2 Minutes of the meeting, 9 January 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr.
116, p. 18.
3 “Experimentelle Arbeiten grösseren Stils” (“Im nachfolgenden beehre ich mich …” 2 March 1914,
SBB, Acta Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI).

4 Remember that, at the beginning, the annual income of 75,000 marks largely exceeded the incomes
of the physics and chemistry institutes of the Berlin University, at which Rubens and Nernst carried
out their systematic investigations (see Sect. 2.3 and Tables 2.1 and 2.2).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2_4
100 4 Einstein’s Directorship: An Evaluation
ongoing fiscal year and not to use the surplus from the previous one.5 For the entire
period 1919–1922, the annual reports and other documents reiterated that funds
had been set aside “in order to be able to cope with some single larger and more
expensive task,”6 “as a reserve for large-scale endeavors,”7 the intention being “to
make available the existing funds, possibly undivided, for important investigations.”8
This was probably the reason why Einstein put some applicants off with the excuse of
deficient funds, although money was largely available.9 It would also explain why it
was so controversial to give Kohn as well as Kallmann and Knipping the extra funds
they needed.10 As a consequence of this policy, during the period under examination
expenditures were always inferior to incomes and the institute had more money at
the end of every fiscal year than at the beginning.11 Therefore sufficient funds were
always available to launch a major research program. It was not the lack of funds
that hindered the KWI für Physik in supporting more scientific research, but rather
its lack of scientific initiative and the inability of the Direktorium to fulfill its task
of suggesting and organizing large-scale research. As the institute never started any
consistent research program of its own, the money was dispersed among many small
projects. The declarations in the annual reports were mere lip service.
That Einstein himself was far removed from thinking in terms of large-scale
research can be seen in his attitude towards research on the subject that mattered
to him most. Despite his keen interest in the experimental testing of the theory of
general relativity, he did not consider that expensive instrumentation or even a whole
new research group would be necessary.12 In view of the lack of adequate instruments
in German observatories, and taking advantage of the public interest provoked by the
successful English solar eclipse expeditions of May 1919, in December 1919 a public
5 Einstein, “Erläuterungen zu dem Haushaltsplan,” undated [sent to von Siemens on 9 May 1919],
AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
6 Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1920–31 March 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
7 Einstein to von Harnack, 13 July 1921, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13.
8 “Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik,” 28 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 13; Kaiser-
Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (1922, 28–29). See also Report of the KWI für Physik 1 April 1919–31 March
1920, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1665, p. 48; Kirsten and Treder (1979, 152, vol. 1).
9 For example, due to a lack of money Einstein put Hallwachs and Jensen off in May 1919 and Born
in September 1919 although the institute still had 65,000 marks to distribute at the end of September
1919 after disbursing all the grants approved at the Direktorium meeting of 24 April 1919 (Einstein
to Hallwachs, 16 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 4, folder Hallwachs; Einstein to Jensen,
16 May 1919, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 5, folder Jensen; Einstein to Hedwig Born, 1 September
1919, in Einstein and Born (1969, 30); bank statement 1 April–31 December 1919, AMPG, I. Abt.,
Rep. 34, Nr. 8, folder Mendelssohn).
10 See page 79. The grants for Kohn and for Kallmann and Knipping were decided in July and
September 1922 respectively. At the end of September 1922, the institute still had more than
300,000 marks to spend (Bank statement 1 April–30 September 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr.
8, folder Mendelssohn).
11 See Table 3.1. For 1922/23 this is true only in nominal terms, because of inflation.
12 In fact, Einstein “knew nothing of the astrophysical literature of the time” and was totally depen-
dent upon the advice of friendly experts in order to understand the technical and theoretical problems
relating to astrophysical observations (Hentschel 1998, 469).
4.1 The Institute’s Spending Policy 101
appeal for contributions to an “Einstein-Spende” (Einstein Donation) was initiated by

Freundlich and signed by Haber, Harnack, Müller, Nernst, Planck, Rubens, Struve,
and Warburg.13 The money was to be used for the construction of an observatory
whose single explicit task was to collect empirical data to test Einstein’s theory of
gravitation. In a very few months, a considerable amount of money was gathered
from private sources as well as from the Prussian Government (Hentschel 1992, 66–
67). But Einstein, moved by altruistic feelings in the difficult economical situation
at the time, had doubts about the need for large funds, as may be seen from his letter
of thanks to the Prussian Minister of Education:
Will such a decision [to allocate to the Einstein-Spende 150,000 marks from the state budget],
in the present times of utter misery, not arouse bitter feelings among the public? I think that we
could effectively support research in the field of general relativity even without additional
state funds if only the astronomical observatories and astronomers of the country would
employ part of their instruments and manpower to this end.14
Returning to the KWI für Physik, once the decision to follow a restrictive dis-
tribution policy had been taken, it seems that no further discussion in this respect
ever took place. It may be too simplistic, but a hint in a letter from Warburg makes
it plausible to suppose that the Direktorium members did not really know how much
money they had at their disposal. Expressing his disapproval at having to pay more
for the notorious apparatus needed by Kohn, Warburg argued that Kohn’s research
subject (photoelectric effect in gases) did not seem very interesting to him “as to
expend almost the entire annual income of the institute (I think 70,000 marks)” for
it.15 Warburg did not know that the yearly endowments had been increased twice
since the beginning, the last time in March 1922 to a total of 314,000 marks. It
is doubtful whether Einstein reported regularly on the bank statements sent to him
every three months.
On the other hand, it must be noted that, once a project had been approved,
the applicant almost always received the amount he had requested. The cases of
Trautz, Kohn, and Kallmann and Knipping, in which the grants did not match the
request (Trautz) or were controversial, were exceptions. It was not the institute but
the researchers themselves who determined, by the amount of their requests, the
funding policy.
The great majority of funds remained in the State of Prussia: less than ten per
cent of total expenditure went to researchers outside the state.16 Within Prussia,
Berlin and Göttingen got the biggest pieces of the pi.e. This was not the result of a
policy preference, for which there is no documental evidence anyway, but rather a
consequence of the fact that a little less than half of all German universities, among
them some of the most important, were situated in Prussia (Minerva 1920; Forman
1968, 59a–59b). The universities of the other German states also had their own local
13 “Albert Einstein-Spende,” GStA, I. HA, Rep. 76 76 V c, Sect. 1, Tit. 11, Teil 5 c, Nr. 55, pp. 8–9;
Kirsten and Treder (1979, 177, vol. 1).

14 Einstein to Konrad Haenisch, 6 December 1919, in Einstein (2004, 274).
15 Warburg to Einstein, 2 June 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 7, folder Kohn. See page 79.
16 See Appendix.
sources of public and private support, so that their researchers had at first no reason
to approach the KWI für Physik for funds. Feelings of local pride could also have
prevented scientists from asking for help from an institution that even in its name
gave testimony to the Prussian dynasty and hegemony.
4.2 The Scientists Funded
Most of the 48 scientists funded by the KWI für Physik during Einstein’s direc-
torship were ordinary or extraordinary professors (26, more than 50%) and Pri-
vatdozenten (12); fewer were assistants or had no academic position (10). Many
of those belonging to junior group (Privatdozenten and assistants) later obtained
decent academic positions within the German universities, so that roughly 80% of
the total number of recipients were or became acknowledged members of the physics
community. In contrast, Einstein’s closest collaborators, Freundlich and Grommer,
met with less success in German academia. Freundlich had to face the opposition
of his colleagues; he became director of a department of the Astrophysikalisches
Observatorium, dubbed the Einstein-Institut, but never obtained a chair in Germany
(Hentschel 1992). Grommer had a precarious existence until his move to Minsk in
1928, where he became professor and member of the local Academy of Sciences
(Pais 1982, 487–488). Bachem and Kohn, too, had the chance of an academic career
only after emigration. Since all four of them were Jews, it is likely that anti-Semitism
may also have thwarted their ambitions. Only Wendt left scientific research and is
not recorded in the Poggendorffs bibliographies (Weinmeister 1925–1926; Stobbe
1936–1940; Zaunick and Salié 1956–1962).17
A major portion of the scientists supported by the KWI für Physik were already
successful researchers, whose achievements were acknowledged by their contempo-
raries: Roughly 40% of the scientists supported are referred to in the eighth edition
of Nernst’s textbook on physical chemistry (Nernst 1921b), a third in Sommerfeld’s
seminal presentation of the state of the art in atomic physics (Sommerfeld 1922),
20% in Born’s book concerning the application of Bohr’s atomic model to solid state
physics (Born 1923), and 20% in Pringsheim’s much more specialized review of
fluorescence (Pringsheim 1928).
As we showed, funds did not go to a preselected group of excellent scientists but
rather to various people who, for different reasons, needed help and felt they could
get it from the KWI für Physik. Some of them were involved directly or indirectly in
research initiated by Direktorium members; some, like Franck and Hettner, certainly
knew that their requests would be favorably received. But most of the applicants
turned to the institute as one possible way to obtain funds without having any partic-
ular connection to its steering board. It is therefore not possible to speak about any set
of supported scientists as a group forged by scientific connections. Nevertheless, it is
17 Biographical and bibliographical information is taken from the Poggendorffs bibliographies
(Weinmeister 1925–1926; Stobbe 1936–1940; Zaunick and Salié 1956–1962).

4.2 The Scientists Funded 103
worth establishing, so to say post factum, possible relations among the scientists as a
contribution to understanding the course of physics research at that time and the role
played by the KWI für Physik. We will consider the “educational kinship” given by
writing a doctoral thesis or by being an assistant under someone’s supervision, and
the “scientific relationships” determined by similar working methods, by the use of
the same measuring procedures or instruments, or by very close scientific interests.
Of course, most of the scientists will not present a “pure” affiliation but belong to
more than one such network. Research projects similar to those funded by the KWI
für Physik could have developed in all of these loosely defined scientific networks.
With regard to student-teacher relationships, let us first consider those relating
to members of the Direktorium. Several scientists were former students of Warburg
and Rubens. Warburg tutored Franck, Schaefer, and Pohl—who in turn was the Dok-
torvater (doctoral advisor) of Gudden. Rubens tutored Koenigsberger and Hettner,
who was still his assistant. Westphal was also a former student of Rubens although
he obtained his Ph.D. under Wehnelt’s supervision, while Regener, who had been
supervised by Drude, was a former student of Warburg. Günther and Krüger had been
students of Nernst, with whom Günther still worked, and finally Kallmann had been
tutored by Planck. As to constellations outside the Direktorium, some clusters can
be detected. Many applicants came from Roentgen’s school in Munich: Knipping,
Koch, Magnus, Pringsheim, and Wagner. Bachem and Grebe had been students of
Kayser in Bonn; Debye and Seeliger attained their degrees in Munich with Som-
merfeld; Füchtbauer and Trautz with Ostwald in Leipzig; Gerlach and Wendt had
been students of Paschen. Considering—without claim to completeness—the pro-
fessional relations established after obtaining doctoral degrees, a group takes shape
around Stark, with whom Kirschbaum, Steubing, and Wendt worked as assistants in
Aachen. Baeyer, Franck, Pohl, Pringsheim, Regener, and Westphal had been assis-
tants at the Physics Institut of Berlin University under the direction of Warburg or
Rubens (Hoffmann 1984). Born had worked with Lummer in Breslau, and Stern with
Einstein in Zurich. Before going to Potsdam, Grotrian worked as assistant in Göttin-
gen with Born and Stern. Himstedt had been assistant to Warburg at the time when the
latter was professor in Freiburg, and Koenigsberger in turn had been assistant there
under Himstedt’s direction some years later. Kallmann and Knipping worked with
Franck at Haber’s institute in Berlin. Before the war, Kolhörster had been assistant to
Wigand in Halle, and Wigand, in turn, assistant to Hallwachs in Dresden. Schaefer
had been assistant to Rubens in Berlin and Privatdozent in Breslau with Lummer.
Seeliger worked for several years at the Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt in
Berlin under Warburg’s direction. Weigert had for several years been Privatdozent
for physical chemistry at Nernst’s institute in Berlin. Not surprisingly, these networks
show frequent intersections at the names of Röntgen, Rubens, Stark, and Warburg,
who had actually founded their own schools and were among the major figures in
physics at the beginning of the century.
Concerning the relations built upon common scientific interests and methods, it
appears that some of the supported scientists were very versatile people, who hap-
pened to work in the same field, if at different times. Einstein, Freundlich, Grebe,
and Bachem were brought together by their interest in testing the spectral redshift
predicted by general relativity. Of course, Einstein, Haber, Nernst, Born, and Debye
were thoroughly linked, not only through their work concerning specific heats of
materials. Einstein shared a common interest in photochemistry with Pringsheim,
Warburg, and Weigert. Franck, Nernst, Pringsheim, Warburg, and Weigert were all
concerned with fluorescence. Gerlach, while bound closely to Stern and molecular
beams, joined Born in an investigation of lattice theory and also used the Debye-
Scherrer method of X-ray diffraction. Like Westphal and Einstein, he also worked on
radiometer physics. Kirchner, Kirschbaum, Knipping, Seemann, and Wagner worked
in X-ray research; Försterling, Franck, Füchtbauer, Hettner, Kohn, Schaefer, Seeliger,
and Steubing worked in one or the other aspect of atomic and molecular spectroscopy.
The photoelectric effect brought together Einstein, Gerlach, Koch, Pohl, Pringsheim,
and Hallwachs. A close network of interrelations becomes apparent from the mutual
references in published papers.18 Two focal points in the sense of the greatest inter-
action can be detected: Warburg and Nernst. Around Warburg are grouped Franck,
Pohl, Pringsheim, Schaefer, and Weigert. Around Nernst is a circle formed by Gün-
ther, Kolhörster, Magnus, Trautz, and Wigand. A sub-focus could be seen in the work
of Franck who has links to Born, Gerlach, Seeliger, and Steubing. Rubens is directly
connected with Warburg due to the precision measurements of black-body radiation.
He influenced the scientific problems studied by Hettner and Schaefer. Försterling
refers to the research interests of Rubens, Nernst, Debye, and Born among others.
Almost everyone refers to Einstein in one publication or the other.
4.3 How Effective Was the Funding?
As mentioned, Einstein did not agree with the funding policy of the Direktorium and
his words to Loeb can be considered testimony to the fact that the money was not
always allocated according to the criteria of scientific excellence. Nevertheless, Ein-
stein’s implicit accusation that the money was wasted is an exaggeration stemming
from his own bitterness. In view of the group of outstanding people forming the core
of those supported by the institute, the funds were surely not wasted. This is con-
firmed by the number of papers published. On the basis of references in documents,
acknowledgments in articles, and the strict connection between proposed projects
and content of publications, we calculate that about 75 papers resulted from work
supported by the KWI für Physik during Einstein’s period, to which a dozen papers
by Grotrian and about 25 papers by Franck’s group should be added. The results
were impressive not only in their numbers: among the supported research projects
were some of the most important of the time because of their consequences for the
advancement of physical knowledge, like the Stern-Gerlach experiments. Of course,
the KWI was not the only donor and not always the largest. The universities as well as
18 We systematically searched Annalen der Physik, Physikalische Zeitschrift, Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Zeitschrift für Physik, and Zeitschrift für Physikalische
Chemie.
4.3 How Effective Was the Funding? 105
public and private donors gave their contribution, so that it is not possible to establish
anything like a cost/benefit ratio relating only to the institute’s funds. Nevertheless, it
is clear that the KWI für Physik contributed substantially to the progress of physics in
Germany. Still, in some cases the financing did not have satisfactory effects. Some-
times, the research came to a conclusion only after many years, so that its results
were obsolete in the face of newly arising questions. Sometimes the researchers, as
in the cases of Fürth, Hettner, and Kohn, were never able to complete their ambitious
projects. The difficulties caused by inflation had surely hampered their work, but
possibly also a lack of experimental skill.
4.4 The Scientific Program
This analysis of the institute’s activities leads us to conclude that the KWI für Physik
under Einstein’s directorship did not fulfill one of the specific tasks envisaged by its
founding fathers. Remember that the institute had been created for the purpose of
concentrating funds, efforts, and human resources into a few, well-defined clusters of
new questions arising in physics (Heisenberg 1971, 46–47). From this perspective,
the Direktorium ought to have been a kind of “think tank” in charge of discussing
and formulating research projects to be carried out by others. In fact, instead of being
the motor for a research program at the forefront of new physics it became a funding
agency without priorities.
The projects supported from 1918 to 1922 covered a wide range of topics that can
be categorized as following:
• gravitation (spectral redshift, light deflection, solar eclipse expeditions);
• kinetic theory and radiation (specific heats, thermodynamics, non-equilibrium
thermodynamics in chemical reactions, radiometry, thermometry, ultramicro-
scopic particles);
• materials science (X-ray structure analysis, magnetic properties of metals and
alloys, optical, elastical and thermal constants;
• nuclear physics (cosmic rays, radioactivity);
• physics of the atmosphere;
• physical chemistry (photochemistry);
• quantum theory (Planck’s radiation law, directional quantization in a magnetic
field);
• radiation and the quantum (cathode/anode rays, X-rays, photoeffect, emission by
collision of electrons and atoms, thermal emission, fluorescence);
• spectroscopy (line/band spectra, absorption, dispersion, broadening of spectral
lines, influence of electric and magnetic field).
Since support for research in these fields was not distributed according to a planned
strategy, it appears post factum that the funding policy of the KWI für Physik was
only defined by a sort of “exclusion principle”: no liquid crystals, no meteorology, no
astrometry, etc. Nevertheless, the bulk of the proposed projects concerned research
on subjects relating to quantum physics, thus reflecting the spontaneous development

of interests within the physics community: Of all the projects supported from 1918
until 1922, research on spectroscopic subjects represented roughly 40% and research
on other topics related to the quantum nature of matter amounted roughly to another
36%. Therefore three quarters of the funded projects, in principle and to at least a
limited extent, contributed to the development of quantum physics. The result was
an increase in empirical data concerning the quantum structure of matter. From this
point of view, the KWI für Physik at least partially accomplished its task in that its
money contributed to the advancement of physical knowledge in the direction set by
the initiators. But the fact remains that they themselves were not able to show the
way and take the lead.
The Direktorium members had many opportunities to meet and work out a com-
mon research program. After all, they belonged to a small, close-knit community of
scholars meeting several times a week to hear lectures and reports on the advancement
of physics. Besides the Academy meetings every Thursday and those of the Deutsche
Physikalische Gesellschaft every other Friday, every Wednesday they attended the
“physics colloquium for advanced students” at the Berlin University, an open sem-
inar on the latest experimental and theoretical developments under Rubens’s and
later Laue’s chairmanship. During this colloquium Einstein and Nernst were lively
protagonists in discussions extending from questions of quantum physics to thermo-
dynamics, from relativity to astrophysics (Frank 1949, 192–193; Kallmann 1966,
490–492; Rompe 1979; Rompe 1980). Even though we have no records to support
our conjecture, it is plausible to suppose that in this context ideas and suggestions
for a research program to be implemented with the help of the KWI für Physik could
easily have been taken under consideration.
4.5 The Scientific Programs of the Direktorium Members
In the first section of this study we pointed out that there were several points of contact
regarding the scientific interests among the five initiators of the KWI für Physik
and its first director. Of course, each Direktorium member had his own specialty
and therefore his own specific research questions. The step that needed to be taken
was to integrate these questions into a common program. Actually, this integration
did not take place because the paths taken by the various Direktorium members
diverged. Each had his own view on the kind of questions that needed to be addressed
urgently in order to surmount the crisis affecting classical physics. Some members
even abandoned their interest in this crisis altogether. The composition and, so to
speak, democratic functioning of the Direktorium, where all members were peers, as
well as Einstein’s lack of personal leadership, did not allow the determination of the
kind of unitary policy that would have been possible in a hierarchically structured
institute.
We cannot give here an exhaustive characterization of the paths taken by the
Direktorium members in pursuit of their scientific goals. Nevertheless, the following
4.5 The Scientific Programs of the Direktorium Members 107
brief discussion may be enough to explain why a common research program was
impossible. Einstein’s interests alone will be presented in greater detail.
After Einstein, Haber was the youngest member of the Direktorium, having been
born in 1868. His intended role in the Direktorium was probably that of expert orga-
nizer and link to the development of physical chemistry. Doubtless, Haber expected
Einstein’s theoretical help and suggestions for the advancement of his own discipline,
but, immediately after the war, he “at first did not return to pure scientific research.”19
Instead he became occupied mainly with the reorganization of his institute—which
during the war had been fully dedicated to research for the military—and with other
administrative activities for the German national and Prussian governments. Later,
from 1920 until 1926 Haber’s main engagement was the search for a suitable method
to obtain gold from sea water in order to contribute to the payment of Germany’s
war reparations. Nevertheless, even if he did not take the scientific lead in day-
to-day work, Haber had gathered in his institute a group of excellent scientists,
some of whom, like Franck and Hertz, had already made their own contributions
to the advancement of quantum physics some years earlier. Haber was certainly not
expected to supply a research program for the KWI für Physik and in the post-war
years was probably, because of his other priorities, not even interested in the for-
mulation of such a program. But when he realized that the Direktorium was simply
distributing money without a rationale, Haber obviously took advantage of this for
his own collaborators. As reported above, due to his recommendation, first Franck,
and then later Kallmann and Knipping received financial help from the KWI für
Physik for research done at the KWI für physikalische Chemie und Elektrochemi.e.
Haber would probably have been able to make fruitful use of the entire budget of
Einstein’s institute, if only he had been allowed to dispose of it freely.
Nernst20 was fifteen years older than Einstein and still very active in the years after
the First World War. Since the enunciation of his heat theorem at the end of 1905,
Nernst’s major interest had been to test it. For this purpose, he mobilized his insti-
tute’s entire staff for a decade, harvesting more than a hundred papers on experimental
results. Nernst’s experience and ideas about directing a research institute certainly
stood behind the declaration that the new KWI für Physik should promote the “work-
ing out of important and urgent physics problems according to a plan.”21 After the
publication of his monograph on the heat theorem in 1918, Nernst turned his mind
to problems of photochemistry and chemical kinetics. In the context of his efforts to
prove the validity of his heat theorem as a general law of nature, Nernst worked on
the problem of gas degeneracy and encouraged young co-workers like Günther to do
experimental research on the hypothesis he had formulated. As mentioned, Günther’s
work was supported by the KWI für Physik. For a short period after the First World
19 Bonhoeffer (1953, 5). For detailed accounts on Haber’s activities at this time, see the related
chapters in Stoltzenberg (1994), Szöllösi-Janze (1998).
20 These considerations regarding Nernst are based on Bartel and Huebener (2007), Bodenstein
(1942), Hiebert (1978).

21 Press announcement of the establishment of the KWI für Physik, Vossische Zeitung, 16 December
1917, Morgen-Ausgabe, Nr. 641, 2. Beilage “Finanz- und Handelsblatt,” [p. 3].
War, Nernst took up the question of whether Planck’s formula is a strictly valid law.
As reported, Nernst and Wulf’s calculations concerning this formula induced the
KWI für Physik to support with one of its first grants a series of new measurements
under the supervision of Rubens and Warburg. However, the true focus of Nernst’s
attention during the twenties became the so-called “heat death of the universe” as an
unavoidable consequence of the increase of entropy in the system (Nernst 1921a).
Nernst began looking for any possible source of new energy that would impede
entropic degeneration, and therefore became more and more interested in the study
of cosmic rays and other astrophysical phenomena. For this purpose, he recruited
Kolhörster and other researchers to work on “altitude radiation,” also providing them
with support from the KWI für Physik. Throughout Nernst’s scientific career there
appears a pattern: he first identified theoretical problems (mostly in the application
of physical principles to chemistry), then set out his goals and subsequently initiated
a research program to attain them. He also knew how to employ the means and staff
of an institute in order to pursue his program and was willing to do it. But the other
Direktorium members were probably not convinced that Nernst’s research program
on cosmic rays was worth supporting continuously and with increasing funds, so they
supported it only sporadically. In fact, the KWI für Physik remained as uncommitted
with regard to Nernst’s research interests as it was with regard to Einstein’s.
Before Laue’s appointment, only two of the six Direktorium members, Einstein
and Planck, were theoretical physicists. At the start of the KWI für Physik in 1917,
Planck22 was already 59 years old, the second eldest after Warburg. His formation as
a physicist had taken place during the zenith of what is called classical physics, in the
second half of the nineteenth century. Although his discovery of the radiation law in
1900 had contributed to the upset of this very system, during the first decades of the
new century Planck directed his efforts mainly to integrate the new developments of
physics into the old theoretical structure. As was his custom, he pursued this task
working alone and never set doctoral candidates or co-workers to work on these
new questions. Of course, his hypotheses from this time were debated, opened the
way for new insights, and were also taken up in experimental research. But after the
First World War the new physics took a different direction and Planck stood on the
sidelines as a critical spectator.
Rubens was 14 years older than Einstein and a recognized “old master of the art of
experimenting and measuring.”23 His lifework until 1917 had been the exploration
of the far infrared region in order to prove the validity of the electromagnetic wave
theory of light. It was because of his precision measurements of the distribution
of radiation energy that Planck arrived at his own radiation law. In the subsequent
years until his death in 1922, Rubens applied his experimental ability to problems
relevant to quantum physics, especially to the confirmation of Planck’s radiation law.
As reported, for these measurements he repeatedly received financial support from
22 For these considerations regarding Planck, see Born (1948–1949), von Laue (1948), von Laue
(1958).
23 Franck and Pohl (1922a, 378); see also Kangro (1975).
4.5 The Scientific Programs of the Direktorium Members 109
the KWI für Physik. The guiding rationale of Rubens’s experimental physics was, of
course, not the mere collection of facts but consisted in “confronting a theoretically
founded world view, testing it in the light of experience in order to confirm or to
disprove it” (Franck and Pohl 1922b, 1030). On the other hand, in all likelihood
nobody would expect from Rubens ideas or experiments suited to building a new
theoretical system on the ruins of the old one.
Warburg,24 born in 1846, was the eldest Direktorium member. For many years,
he worked systematically on the testing of Einstein’s law of photochemical equiva-
lence. Concurrently, together with a group of co-workers, he also made experimental
measurements concerning Planck’s radiation law. However, by the time the KWI für
Physik had started its activities, Warburg was no longer at the peak of his scientific
productivity. Although still interested in theoretical problems of quantum physics,
his contribution to the institute’s direction could only come from his great experi-
ence as a “master of the art of experimenting” (Franck 1931, 993) (as he, too, was
considered) and as organizer of a major scientific institute. As we know, in 1919
he could not take part in the program of new measurements of Planck’s radiation
formula supported by the KWI and instead continued to study gas discharges and
other photochemical phenomena until his death in 1931.
4.6 Einstein’s Research Program and the KWI Für Physik
Einstein’s scientific work25 during the period 1917—1922 was dominated by four
great themes, the pursuit of which constituted what we can call his research program:
• the theoretical consolidation and the experimental testing of general relativity;
• the extension of general relativity towards a unified theory including gravitation
and electromagnetism;
• the explanation of the quantum phenomena through overdetermination of partial
differential equations, in order also to derive the quantum theory from a unified
field theory;
• the resolution of the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation.
The work on each of these particular topics was inspired by a more general motivation,
rooted in Einstein’s natural philosophy (Renn 2006, 130). As he himself put it, “the
real goal of [his] research has always been the simplification and unification of the
system of theoretical physics” (Dukas and Hoffmann 1979, 12).
At the beginning of his directorship Einstein was concerned almost exclusively
with the theoretical foundation and the experimental verification of the theory of
general relativity. To the first concern belongs the work on the energy conservation
law. We have seen that the KWI für Physik in 1919 granted Grommer compensation
24 For these considerations regarding Warburg, see Einstein (1922a), Grüneisen (1926), Franck
(1931), Ramsauer (1913).
25 For a comprehensive exposition of the development of Einstein’s scientific work, see Pais (1982).
almost certainly for his contribution to the proof of the energy conservation law. To
the second concern belong the measurement of light deflection and the detection of
the redshift of spectral lines in the gravitational field of a celestial body. Besides
the scholarship for Freundlich and the support for Grebe and Bachem, the KWI für
Physik financed research on relativistic gravitation only in the case of Ludendorff’s
eclipse expedition in September 1923,26 after the end of Einstein’s directorship.
In my spare time, I continually brood over the quantum problem from the point of view
of relativity. I don’t believe that the theory can dispense with the continuum. But I am
not able to give tangible form to my pet idea of interpreting quantum structure through an
overdetermination with differential equations.27
At about the same time, he complained that “the electric field still stands unrelated
[to the gravitational field]” because “an overdetermination does not turn out.”28 One
year later, he communicated to Sommerfeld that he had found “a kind of supplement
for the foundations of general relativity which is akin to Weyl’s”29 and to Lorentz that
he had “made an attempt at a generalization of the theory [of relativity]”—which he,
however, regarded with skepticism.30 Thus, Einstein embarked on his long journey
towards a classical field theory of matter by pointing out the possibility that the
constituent particles of matter may be built out of a combination of gravitational and
electromagnetic fields.31 The KWI für Physik supported Einstein’s research in this
field only with the grant given to Grommer in 1921.
Throughout 1921, Einstein thought intensively about the wave-particle duality
in electromagnetism and devised more than one experiment to rule out one aspect
or the other. One way was to try to disprove Maxwell’s theory and thus the wave
aspect. At first Einstein reasoned that in high-temperature radiation the field intensity
predicted by the theory should produce a Stark effect, that is, a broadening of the
spectral lines emitted by the atoms in the field, large enough to be perceptible.32
Some months later he devised the canal rays experiment carried out by Geiger and
Bothe, for which Einstein received from his institute only 579.85 marks while in the
same period Born, Franck, and Pohl secured 100,000 marks to buy equipment for
their Physics Institute at the University of Göttingen.
Besides these main focuses of scientific activity, there were other subjects that
attracted Einstein’s attention. For example, in the spring of 1919, he took an interest
in radiometer physics, pointing out a flaw in Westphal’s theory, as discussed earlier.
26 Laue to Kuratorium, 17 May 1923, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 1 A, Nr. 1659, p. 29; Hentschel (1992,
134).
27 Einstein to Born, 3 March 1920, in Einstein (2004, 459–460, doc. 337).
28 Einstein to Ehrenfest, 7 April 1920, in Einstein (2004, 497–498, doc. 371).
29 Einstein to Sommerfeld, 9 March 1921, in Einstein and Sommerfeld (1968, 78).
30 Einstein to Lorentz, 30 June 1921, in Einstein (2009, 206–207, doc. 136).
31 See Goenner (2004, sects. 4.3.2, 7.3, and 11).
32 Einstein to Lorentz, 1 January 1921, in Einstein (2009, 22–24, doc. 3); Einstein to Sommerfeld, 4
January 1921, in Einstein and Sommerfeld (1968, 77–78); Einstein to Ehrenfest, 20 January 1921,
in Einstein (2009, 46–47, doc. 24); Einstein to Born, 31 January 1921, in Einstein and Born (1969,
77–78).
4.6 Einstein’s Research Program and the KWI Für Physik 111
Feeling the need to investigate the matter more closely, he suggested to his cousin,
Edith Einstein, that she write a doctoral dissertation on the subject and gave her
scientific advice. He finally wrote a paper on the subject himself.33 In 1920, he
returned to the kinetic theory of gases, one of his main areas of research since his
dissertation, with a paper on the propagation of sound in partially dissociated gases
(Einstein 1920). Between 1921 and 1922, he also thought about the phenomenon of
superconductivity in metals. For this reason, he suggested to Ehrenfest an experiment
to find out whether the current is carried by chains of molecules whose electrons
continually interchange, and finally published a paper containing his reflections on
the subject.34 At the same time, he collaborated with Grommer to seek a way to test
the existence of zero-point energy.35
This summary exposition of Einstein’s scientific interests is by no means complete.
Nevertheless, it shows toward how many different areas Einstein directed his attention
during these years. All the more striking appears how seldom the KWI für Physik
supported research initiated by Einstein, who, for his part, never tried to combine
his theoretical work and his suggestions for experiments in a program for a team of
researchers that could be supported by his institute.
Clearly, only in very few cases of research projects suggested by other scientists
did Einstein feel a connection with his own interests. He therefore followed those
projects with special attention and wrote about them in his letters. One such case
is Hettner’s investigation into the structure of infrared gas spectra. Einstein was
highly interested in this research project, as it extended his work on quantization
of molecular eigenvibration from solids to gases, and he mentioned it in a letter
to Ehrenfest.36 Another case, mentioned in the same letter, is Regener’s work on
the determination of the elementary electric charge. Although it had never been the
subject of direct investigation by Einstein, the question often drew his attention37
because a “point-like quantity of electricity” (Einstein 1905, 909; Einstein 1989,
294, doc. 23) played a role in his early verification of the theory of special relativity
and because, for a time, Einstein supposed a connection between the “quantum of
electricity” and the quantum of energy (Einstein 1909, 822; Einstein 1989, 577,
doc. 60). He probably saw the unitary electric charge as evidence for the atomistic
conception of matter and electricity. In 1922, Einstein took an active interest in the
Stern-Gerlach experiment. In a paper co-authored with Ehrenfest he suggested two
explanations for the experimental result and raised a problem:
33 Edith Einstein to Albert Einstein, 29 April 1919, in Einstein (2004, 47, 48, doc. 31); Paul Epstein
to Einstein, 2 May 1919, in Einstein (2004, 49, 50, doc. 32); Edith Einstein to Albert Einstein, 4
December 1921, in Einstein (2009, 366, doc. 310); Edith Einstein to Albert Einstein, 5 March 1922,
AEA, 9–196; E. Einstein (1922), Einstein (1924).
34 Einstein to Ehrenfest, 2 September 1921, in Einstein (2009, 270–271, doc. 225); Einstein to
Ehrenfest, 21 January 1922, AEA, 10–011; Einstein (1922b).

35 Einstein to Ehrenfest, 1 September 1921, in Einstein (2009, 264–265, doc. 219); Einstein to
Ehrenfest, 20 February 1922, AEA, 10–023.

36 Einstein to Ehrenfest, undated [6 June 1920], in Einstein (2006, 297–298, doc. 46). See also
Einstein to Lorentz, 15 June 1920, Einstein (2006, 312–313, doc. 56).

37 See, e.g.., Einstein to Ehrenhaft, 20 August 1918, in Einstein (1998, 861–862, doc. 605).
The most interesting thing at present is the experiment by Stern and Gerlach. The orientation
of atoms without collisions cannot be explained by means of radiation, according to current
reasoning; an orientation should, by rights, last more than a hundred years. I made a little
calculation about it with Ehrenfest.38
And yet, although his research program and the KWI’s support policy did not coin-
cide, Einstein did not have a merely bureaucratic attitude towards the scientific aspects
of the grant applications. On the contrary, he took his function as referee very seri-
ously. Although we do not have records of discussions on the projects, the existing
correspondence with Fürth, Rabel, and Trautz shows that Einstein always examined
the experimental setups proposed by the applicants. He even took pains to examine
the “organ for vision” devised by the obvious outsider Schweigler, as well as Kaiser’s
“secret” plan to gain electric energy from heat.
4.7 Einstein and Scientific Research as a Collective

Enterprise
After having compared the institute’s activities in the first five years with the initial
intentions concerning the scale of the research projects and the scientific program to
be pursued, let us finally consider the purpose of organizing research as a collective
enterprise. Not only in the founding proposal of February 1914, but also in other
related documents, we read that the institute “will use the largest part of the sums at
its disposal for the support of work carried out in other scientific institutions.”39 As
we argued, this manner of organizing research, involving scientists operating at the
borderline between physics and physical chemistry, was probably the way in which
the institute’s promoters thought it would be possible to find a solution to the crisis
produced in physics by the discovery of Planck’s quantum.
At an early stage, Einstein was in principle well disposed towards the idea of team
work: “The matter of an institute for me has been postponed until after my coming
to Berlin. In fact, it would be good if I were to get some sort of institute; I could then
work together with others instead of only by myself. This would be much more to
my liking.”40 It seems, though, that he was not aware of the intrinsic need for the
particular way of promoting and organizing research that was envisaged. The point
was not only that one should work together with others, but also that the leader of the
enterprise ought to formulate a working program (a conceptual task) and assemble
people to work it out (an organizational problem). The story went differently.
The fact is that Einstein, because of his conception of knowledge production as
being mainly due to individual creativity, did not really feel the need for collective
scientific work and even less the need to plan work for a team. On many occasions
38 Einstein to Born, undated [May 1922], in Einstein and Born (1969, 102); Einstein and Ehrenfest
(1922).
39 Prussian Ministry of Education to Prussian Ministry of Finance, 2 July 1914, GStA, I. HA, Rep.
76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 21–24.

40 Einstein to Elsa Einstein, undated [7 November 1913], in Einstein (1993, 565, doc. 482).
4.7 Einstein and Scientific Research as a Collective Enterprise 113
Einstein asserted that, to his mind, the most important factor in science is the indi-
vidual researcher with excellent ideas and skills, with creativity and intuition.41 Of
course, he was aware that, in view of the constant expansion and specialization of
physical knowledge, there were problems that surpassed the capabilities of a single
researcher. We know that throughout his scientific life Einstein worked with others
on tackling specific questions as well as on writing papers.42 It seems, though, that
Einstein’s collaborations almost always consisted in unequal relations between one
person generating ideas and another elaborating on them, be it through calculational
help or through experimental expertise: something very different from teamwork.
Einstein’s stress on individual creativity prevented him from developing an interest
in structural questions connected with cooperative efforts in science. In talking to
Rockefeller he once said “I put my faith in intuition” while the industrialist replied “I
[…] on organization” (Nathan and Norden 1968, 157). Einstein left the organizational
problems to others.
This was not without consequences for his attitude towards the institute and its
tasks. In his answer to a circular from the President of the Notgemeinschaft inquiring
about scientific projects to be supported, Einstein wrote: “I would however not dare
to point to problems whose tackling seems to require support in the first place; this
would be presumptuous. Nevertheless, I can give you names of researchers who,
I think, promise important contributions.”43 He then listed Kossel, Franck, Stern,
“Vollmer,” and Gerlach: promising younger scholars, either experimental or theoret-
ical physicists, working in very different fields.44 For Einstein, an excellent physicist
by definition brought with him excellent research projects. It is therefore understand-
able why he did not care to elaborate a research program for the KWI für Physik.
It was not only that the scientific interests of the Direktorium members diverged
considerably, making difficult the formulation of a program convincing to everyone.
It was not only that Einstein was insensitive to the need for a collective effort. But,
even more, he did not want to exert either scientific or managerial guidance. He
was not willing to suggest what should be done. He considered it a “presumption.”
Years later, Einstein made a remark in which he presented himself as even less inter-
ested in the directorship of the KWI für Physik than we have assumed up to now.
In commenting on a passage in the autobiography of his old friend János Plesch, he
wrote:
The story with the institute is another gracious lie. It is true, however, that I always knew
how to manage it so that de facto I did not have the institute on my back. I just wanted to
41 See, e.g., Einstein (1954, 13–14, 73–74, 77); Moszkowski (1921, 180–181). On Einstein’s quasi-
romantic conception of scientific activity, see also Einstein (1918).

42 On Einstein’s early scientific collaborations, see Pyenson (1985, 215–246).
43 Draft of Einstein’s letter to Schmidt-Ott, undated, written on the letter by Schmidt-Ott to Einstein,
19 July 1922, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Notgemeinschaft. Besides being Chairman of
the Kuratorium of the KWI für Physik and of many other committees, Schmidt-Ott was also the
President of the Notgemeinschaft since its establishment in October 1920 (Marsch 1994, 79).
44 Walther Kossel had worked with Sommerfeld on X-rays and atomic structure (Möllenstedt 1980).
Max Volmer, whose name Einstein misspelled, had worked with Stern on photochemistry (Blumtritt
1985).
have my head free, and I also did not want to have command over the activities of others
(nothing of the “Führer”).45
Einstein’s aversion to leadership is also confirmed by the fact that he made scant
use of his institutional power to engage scientists for research that mattered to him.
As we have seen, after the initial effort to assure a position for Freundlich and
aside from the minor financial support provided to Grommer, Grebe and Bachem,
Einstein did not use KWI für Physik’s funds for people who worked for him. In
February 1922, although Grommer still had no academic position, Einstein did not
seize the offer of an assistantship extended to him by the Notgemeinschaft.46 During
his time as director of the KWI für Physik, Einstein had no doctoral students and
no assistants at the university. There is a distinct discrepancy between Einstein’s
public acclaim and the little actual influence he exerted. In general, we have no
hint of his ever having shaped the career of others with the aim of expanding his
personal sphere of influence, be it in terms of scientific ideas or of leadership in the
physics community. In contrast to other colleagues such as Nernst47 in Berlin and
Sommerfeld48 in Munich, he did not found a “school” either in the sense of a group
of people sharing his general, theoretical, and methodological approach nor in the
sense of former students strategically placed as professors in various universities. It
seems that Einstein never thought in terms of power; he was a man of inner values
and did not engage in the power plays typical of politics of any sort. Of course, he
was eager to promote his ideas and was pleased when other people took them up.
Indeed, the only influence he exerted, and barely another physicist in Germany at
that time had a comparable public status, was that of someone setting benchmarks
for excellence in the field. But he stood aside from the petty struggles for positions
and rank, being by disposition an “Einspänner,” a loner (Pyenson 1985, 58–79).
4.8 Conclusion
The evidence is that the establishment of the KWI für Physik under Einstein’s direc-
torship had two major motivations: first of all, the awareness of a theoretical crisis
in physics and the wish to respond to it with a concerted effort; secondly, the wish
to bring to Berlin a great physicist who promised to contribute considerably to the
scientific effort as well as to add luster to the prestige of Berlin and Prussia. The
particular structure of the KWI für Physik was the result of a hybrid combination of
45 Einstein to J. Plesch, 3 February 1944, displayed at the Stargardt auction, Berlin, 21–22 March
1996; see Stargardt (1996, 189–190, lot 443). The quoted sentence is not reported in the catalogue.
See also Plesch (1949, 135).
46 Schmidt-Ott to Einstein, 28 February 1922, and draft of Einstein’s letter to Schmidt-Ott, undated,
on the same page, AMPG, I. Abt., Rep. 34, Nr. 9, folder Notgemeinschaft.
47 On the Nernst school, see Kant (1974).
48 On the Sommerfeld school, see Eckert (1993), von Meyenn (1993), Seth (2010, 47–70), and
Eckert’s contribution to this volume.

4.8 Conclusion 115
these endeavors with the agenda and idiosyncrasies of the individual actors. On the
one hand, the aim of attacking a broad range of the conceptual problems presented
by early quantum physics necessitated a cooperation between institutes and scien-
tists from different disciplines. On the other hand, there were most probably doubts
about Einstein’s abilities to direct a research institute because of his professional
specialization as a theoretician, without experience in experimental physics or in
guiding collaborators. Finally, the promoters certainly wished to direct the institute’s
research program as well as its support policy in favor of their own collaborators.
For all these reasons, the institute consisted at first only of a group of great scientists
who were expected to formulate a common research program.
Meanwhile, at the time when the institute was established in October 1917 and
even more so in 1919, when it effectively started its activities after the war, a shift
in the scientific interests and research strategies of the institute’s leaders had taken
place. They were also losing touch with the advances in quantum physics. Above all,
Einstein was neither willing nor able to exert scientific leadership in the expected
sense, namely in a concerted attempt to solve the questions of quantum physics.
Einstein’s dedication to the fields of general relativity and, later, unified field theory,
outweighed his interest and work in any other area of physics. He came more and more
to rely solely on his own ideas and thus isolated himself from the physics community,
losing technical competence. Even in fields close to his scientific interests like the
testing of general relativity, he did not assume a leadership position. Moreover,
because of the particular constitution of the steering board, in which six people with
equal authority, equally great scientific self-esteem, and diverging perspectives had
to share all decisions, a common research strategy could not be elaborated, and the
institute became a funding agency without priorities. This change of function was
in part also an emergency measure in the face of the poor economic situation in
Germany after the lost war.
The proposals solicited by the KWI für Physik from the physics community were
concerned with many different subfields of physics, notably with areas of current
interest at that time such as spectroscopy, radiation, and the atomistic structure of
matter. A few projects established a direct connection to the research interests of
members of the Direktorium; others seemed to follow the paths long trodden by
their proponents. If a leading, though not strictly applied criterion may be detected
through the analysis of all the projects supported up to 1922/23, this was to exclude
research outside the field of physics proper. Almost all the requests for reasonable
purposes, even if controversial or of minor interest, were granted. This means that
the funding policy of the KWI für Physik merely reacted to suggestions coming from
ongoing physics research at the university institutes. In terms of science funding in
general, however, the KWI für Physik did not fail: it even served as a model for the
foundation of the Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft. On the other hand,
its role in this respect diminished after the establishment of the new funding agency.
At the first possible moment, that is, after gaining financial independence, Einstein
withdrew himself from management of the institute. He had no interest in and very
little influence on science politics relating to physics in Germany. Haber, Nernst,
Planck, and Laue were the leaders in this field in Berlin; elsewhere Sommerfeld and
others patiently wove the threads of their nets. Einstein seems to have been happy to
be the ingenious theoretical physicist following the train of his creative ideas, and to
pose as a public idol for the value of science.
4.9 Research Projects Supported by the KWI für Physik

from October 1917 to March 1923
1 January 1918 – 31 December 1920
Scientists Topic Amount

E. Freundlich Experimental and theoreti- 18,000 marks (6,000 marks
(Potsdam, Prussia) cal astronomical annually for three years)
research to test the theory of
general
relativity and related ques-
tions
Fiscal year 1918/19

P. Debye Research by means of X- 16,030 marks
(Göttingen, Prussia) rays on the
electron distribution inside
the atom in
crystals, in particular in dia-
mond
E. Freundlich Testing the theory of general 500 marks (reimbursement
(Potsdam, Prussia) relativity of expenses)
4.9 Research Projects Supported by the KWI für Physik … 117
Fiscal year 1919/20

E. Freundlich Testing the theory of general relativity 2,850 marks (550 marks as reim-
(Potsdam, Prussia) bursement of expenses, 2,300
marks as extra pay)
K. Försterling Dependency upon temperature of the indices of refrac- 2,000 marks
(Danzig, Free City; tion and absorption of metals in the infrared (project
from 1921 Jena, later abandoned); Zeeman/Paschen-Back effect in the
Saxony-Weimar) hydrogen spectrum
L. Grebe, A. Bachem (Bonn, Prus- Spectroscopic measurements on the cyanogen bands of 2,000 marks
sia) the solar spectrum to verify the gravitational redshift
J. Grommer Mathematical proof of the energy conservation law in 1,200 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) the theory of general relativity
P. Günther Viscosity of hydrogen and helium at low temperature; 2,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) temperature dependence of the coefficient of viscosity
W. Hammer, Application of a new method for measuring capacities 5,000 marks
F. Himstedt and constants of dielectricity in solving several prob-
(Freiburg, Baden) lems; among others: testing of the Clausius-Mosotti
relation in gases and liquids at different pressures; test-
ing of a hypothesis of Debye concerning pre-existing
dipoles
W. Kaufmann Measurements of the vacuum in transmitting tubes 3,000 marks
(Königsberg, through ionization; magnetic measurements in high-
Prussia) frequency fields; measurements of constants of dielec-
tricity and absorption at high frequencies
F. Krüger, H. Bohlin Research with a new X-ray technique on the crystallo- 2,000 marks allocated but not dis-
(Danzig, Free City) graphic structure of metals and metal alloys bursed
A. Magnus Specific heat coefficients of solids for high temperatures 3,000 marks
(Tübingen,
Württemberg)
R. Pohl Photoelectric effect and X-rays; influence of light on the 5,000 marks
(Göttingen, Prussia) electrical conductivity of crystals
E. Regener Determination of the elementary electric charge 7,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia)
H. Rubens, Verification of Planck’s radiation law Appropriated jointly: 20,000
E. Warburg (Berlin, Prussia) (War- marks; disbursed to Rubens during
burg later renounced) this period: 5,000 marks
R. Seeliger Emission of light by atoms in gases; excitation condi- 1,000 marks
(Greifswald, tions and critical excitation potential of selected lines
Prussia)
H. Seemann Measurements of the polarization of X-rays to test Som- 3,000 marks
(Würzburg, Bavaria) merfeld’s theory of “Bremsstrahlung,” i.e., continuous
radiation emitted by decelerated electrons
W. Steubing, Influence of a magnetic field on electron oscillations Allocated jointly 10,000 marks;
G. Wendt (Steubing) Influence of an electric field on the spectral disbursed during this period: 2,550
(Aachen, Prussia). (In October lines of mercury and aluminium; research on the canal marks
1919 Wendt was replaced by H. rays of different substances to advance the atomic the-
Kirschbaum) ory and the knowledge of the light emission mechanism
(Wendt) Influence of an electric field on nitrogen spec-
tral lines (Kirschbaum and Steubing)
E. Wagner Research on X-ray spectra to obtain a more precise 10,000 marks
(Munich, Bavaria) determination of Planck’s constant h
W. Westphal Radiometric forces at high pressure; Knudsen’s accom- 3,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) modation coefficient
Physikalische Berichte Running expenses 5,000 marks
Fiscal year 1920/21

O. von Baeyer Determination of the elementary 5,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) electric charge of droplets under
different high pressures; determina-
tion of mobility and charge with the
Einstein-Weiss method
J. Franck, Collision of electrons with gas 12,000 marks
P. Knipping atoms
(Berlin, Prussia)
C. Füchtbauer Intensity of spectral lines; depen- 7,000 marks
(Tübingen, dency of the frequency of electronic
Württemberg) transitions upon line width; causes
of line broadening
W. Hallwachs Influence of gas on the photoelectric 1,000 marks
(Dresden, Saxony) effect
G. Hettner Influence of an electric field on the 10,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) absorption bands of gases in the
infrared; testing of Planck’s second
quantum hypothesis
P. P. Koch Intensity distribution in spectral 12,800 marks
(Hamburg, lines; light effects on silver bromide
Free City)
H. Kohn, O. Lummer Photoelectric effect in gases and 7,000 marks
(Breslau, Prussia) vapors; testing of Bohr’s atomic
model (Kohn)
Zeeman effect, dispersion of light
by gas atoms in the ultraviolet
region (Lummer)
R. Pohl, B. Gudden Photoelectric effect in crystals; 8,000 marks
(Göttingen, Prussia) dependency of the constant of
dielectricity upon irradiation by
light; eigenvibrations of electrons in
solids
H. Rubens Verification of Planck’s radiation 1,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) law
R. Seeliger Continuation of research on light 2,000 marks
(Greifswald, emission through collision of elec-
Prussia) trons with atoms in dissociated
gases
W. Steubing, Influence of an electric field on 6,300 marks (disbursed from the
H. Kirschbaum nitrogen spectral lines; influence of sum allocated in the previous bud-
(Aachen, Prussia) temperature on the iodine spectral get year)
band
E. Wagner Spectroscopic research on X-rays 1,500 marks
(Munich, Bavaria)
F. Weigert Interaction of linearly-polarized 5,000 marks
(Leipzig, Saxony) light with light-sensitive layers of
dye colloids
Fiscal year 1921/22

M. Born, J. Franck, R. Pohl Collision of electrons and flu- 100,000 marks
(Göttingen, Prussia) orescence (Franck) Photoelec-
tric conductivity (Pohl)
Dynamics of the crystal lattice
(Born)
A. Einstein Experiment with light emit- 579.85 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) ted by canal rays to decide
between the wave theory and
the light-quantum theory of
radiation
R. Fürth Measurement of the elemen- 2,000 marks
(Prague, tary electric charge with the
Czechoslovakia) Eötvös torsion balance
W. Gerlach, O. Stern (Frank- Influence of a magnetic field 10,000 marks
furt, Prussia) on band spectra of metal
vapors
J. Grommer Theoretical research in the 2,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) field of relativity theory, prob-
ably for the extension of gen-
eral relativity towards a unified
field theory
H. Rubens Verification of Planck’s radia- 1,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) tion law
C. Schaefer Research on the infrared 10,000 marks
(Marburg, Prussia) eigenvibrations of crystalline
silicates to draw conclusions
concerning the chemical
structure of the material
W. Steubing, H. Kirschbaum Spectroscopic research 850 marks (from the sum
(Aachen, Prussia) allocated in the budget year
1919/20)
W. Steubing Stark effect in band spectra 10,000 marks
(Aachen, Prussia)
M. Trautz Measurements of the specific 3,000 marks
(Heidelberg, Baden) heat of many gases and for
large temperature ranges with
a new method
E. Wagner Influence of potential and anti- 2,500 marks
(Munich, Bavaria) cathode material on the emis-
sion of X-rays
A. Wigand Atmospheric electricity and 2,000 marks
(Halle, Prussia) radioactivity
Physikalische Berichte Printing costs 5,000 marks
Fiscal year 1922/23

Deutsches Entomologisches 366,000 marks
Museum
(Berlin, Prussia)
W. Grotrian Spectroscopic equipment 400,000 marks
(Potsdam, Prussia) of the Astrophysikalisches
Observatorium Astrophysical
research with new spectro-
scopic methods
H. Kallmann, Ionization by electron bom- 20,000 marks
P. Knipping bardment
(Berlin, Prussia)
J. Koenigsberger Scattering of hydrogen canal 4,000 marks
(Freiburg, Baden) rays by gas atoms; absorption
of canal rays by gases
H. Kohn Photoelectric effect in gases 43,000 marks
(Breslau, Prussia) and vapors
W. Kolhörster Penetrating rays, i.e., cosmic 110,000 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) radiation
R. Pohl, Photoelectric conductivity 90,839.20 marks
B. Gudden
(Göttingen, Prussia)
P. Pringsheim Absorption of light in mercury 6,530 marks
(Berlin, Prussia) vapor
C. Schaefer Infrared eigenvibrations of 7,500 marks
(Marburg, Prussia) crystalline silicates
R. Seeliger Glow discharges in gases 1,500 marks
(Greifswald,
Prussia)
O. Stern Magnetic properties of silver 20,000 marks
(Rostock, atoms; magnetic and electric
Mecklenburg) deflection of molecular beams
W. Steubing Stark effect in band spectra 2,500 marks
(Aachen, Prussia)
References
Blumtritt, Oskar (1985). Max Volmer 1885–1965. Eine Biographie. Berlin: Technische Universität
Berlin.
Bodenstein, Max (1942). “Walther Nernst, 25.6.1864–18.11.1941”. In: Berichte der Deutschen
Chemischen Gesellschaft, Abteilung A 75, pp. 79–104.
Bonhoeffer, Karl-Friedrich (1953). “Fritz Habers wissenschaftliches Werk”. In: Zeitschrift für Elek-
trochemie 57, pp. 2–6.
Born, Max (1923) Atomtheorie des festen Zustandes (Dynamik der Kristallgitter). Leipzig: Teubner.
Born, Max (1948–1949). “Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck”. In: Obituary Notices of Fellows of the
Royal Society 6, pp. 161–188.
Dukas, Helen and Hoffmann Banesh, eds. (1979). Albert Einstein. The Human Side. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Eckert, Michael (1993). Die Atomphysiker: Eine Geschichte der theoretischen Physik am Beispiel
der Sommerfeldschule. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Einstein, Albert (1905). “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”. In: Annalen der Physik 17, pp.
891–921. Reprinted in (Einstein 1989, doc. 23).
Einstein, Albert (1909). “Über die Entwicklung unserer Anschauungen über das Wesen und die
Konstitution der Strahlung”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 10, pp. 817–825. Reprinted in (Einstein
1989, doc. 60).
Einstein, Albert (1918). “Motive des Forschens”. In: Zu Max Plancks sechzigstem Geburtstag.
Ed. by Emil Warburg et al. Karlsruhe: Müllersche Hofbuchhandlung, pp. 29–32. Reprinted in
Einstein, Albert (1920). “Schallausbreitung in teilweise dissoziierten Gasen”. In: Sitzungsberichte
der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 380–385. Reprinted in (Einstein 2002, doc.
39).
Einstein, Albert (1922a). “Emil Warburg als Forscher”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 10, pp. 823–
828.
Einstein, Albert (1922b). “Theoretische Bemerkungen zur Supraleitung der Metalle”. In: Het Natu-
urkundig Laboratorium der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden in de jaren 1904–1922: Gedenkboek
aangeboden aan H. Kamerlingh Onnes. Leiden: Ijdo, pp. 429–435.
Einstein, Albert (1924) “Zur Theorie der Radiometerkräfte”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 27, pp. 1–6.
Einstein, Albert (1954). Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown Publishers.
Einstein, Albert (1989). The Collected Papers. Vol. 2: The Swiss Years: Writings, 1900–1909. Ed.
by John Stachel. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert (1993). The Collected Papers. Vol. 5: The Swiss Years: Correspondence, 1902–
Press.
Einstein, Albert (2004). The Collected Papers. Vol. 9: The Berlin Years: Correspondence, January
1919–April 1920. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Einstein, Albert and Max Born (1969). Briefwechsel 1916–1955. Kommentiert von Max Born.
Munich: Nymphenburger.
Einstein, Albert and Paul Ehrenfest (1922). “Quantentheoretische Bemerkungen zum Experiment
von Stern und Gerlach”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik 11, pp. 31–34.
Einstein, Albert and Arnold Sommerfeld (1968). Briefwechsel. Sechzig Briefe aus dem goldenen
Zeitalter der modernen Physik. Ed. by Armin Hermann. Basel: Schwabe. Herausgegeben und
kommentiert von Armin Hermann.
Einstein, Edith (1922). “Zur Theorie des Radiometers”. In: Annalen der Physik 69, pp. 241–254.
Forman, Paul (1974). “The Financial Support and Political Alignement of Physicists in Weimar
Germany”. In: Minerva 12, pp. 39–66.
Franck, James (1931). “Emil Warburg zum Gedächtnis”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 19, pp. 993–
997.
Franck, James and Robert Pohl (1922a). “Heinrich Rubens †”. In: Physikalische Zeitschrift 23, pp.
377–382.
Franck, James and Robert Pohl (1922b). “Rubens und die Quantentheorie”. In: Die Naturwis-
senschaften 10, pp. 1030–1033.
Frank, Philipp (1949). Einstein. Sein Leben und seine Zeit. Munich: List.
Goenner, Hubert (2004). “On the History of Unified Field Theories”. In: Living Reviews in Relativity
7.2. https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2004-2 (accessed 12/21/2020).
Grüneisen, Eduard (1926). “Emil Warburg zum achtzigsten Geburtstage”. In: Die Naturwis-
senschaften 14, pp. 203–207.
Heisenberg, Werner (1971). “Das Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik. Geschichte eines Instituts”.
In: Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften, pp. 46–89.
Hentschel, Klaus (1992). Der Einstein-Turm: Erwin F. Freundlich und die Relativitätstheorie. Hei-
delberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Hamburg: Kovac.
Hiebert, Erwin N. (1978). “Nernst, Hermann Walther”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol.
15, Supplement I. Ed. by Charles C. Gillispie. New York: Scribner, pp. 432–453.
Hoffmann, Dieter (1984). “Die Physik an der Berliner Universität in der ersten Hälfte unseres
Jahrhunderts. Zur personellen und institutionellen Entwicklung sowie wichtige Beziehungen mit
anderen Institutionen physikalischer Forschung in Berlin”. In: Berliner Wissenschaftshistorische
Kolloquien VIII: Die Entwicklung der Physik in Berlin. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften
der DDR. Institut für Theorie, Geschichte und Organisation der Wissenschaft, pp. 5–29.
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (1922). Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wis-
senschaften. Jahresbericht April 1921–Oktober 1922. Burg/Magdeburg: Hopfer.
Kallmann, Hartmut (1966). “Von den Anfängen der Quantentheorie. Eine persönliche Rückschau”.
In: Physikalische Blätter 22, pp. 489–500.
Kangro, Hans (1975). “Rubens, Heinrich”. In: Dictionary of Scientific Biography. Vol. 11. Ed. by
Charles C. Gillispie. New York: Scribner, pp. 581–585.
Kant, Horst (1974). “Zum Problem der Forschungsprofilierung am Beispiel der Nernstschen Schule
während ihrer Berliner Zeit von 1905 bis 1914”. In: NTM Schriftenreihe für Geschichte der
Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin 11, pp. 58–68.
Kirsten, Christa and Hans-Jürgen Treder, eds. (1979). Albert Einstein in Berlin 1913–1933. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Marsch, Ulrich (1994). Notgemeinschaft der DeutschenWissenschaft. Gründung und frühe
Geschichte 1920–1925. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
Minerva. Jahrbuch der gelehrten Welt (1920). Vol. 24. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Möllenstedt, Gottfried (1980). “Kossel, Walther”. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie. Vol 12. Berlin:
Moszkowski, Alexander (1921). Einstein. Einblicke in seine Gedankenwelt. Hamburg/Berlin: Hoff-
mann und Campe/Fontane.
Nernst, Walther (1921a). Das Weltgebäude im Lichte der neueren Forschung. Berlin: Springer.
Nernst, Walther (1921b). Theoretische Chemie vom Standpunkte der Avogadroschen Regel und der
Thermodynamik. 8th–10th ed. Stuttgart: Enke.
Pais, Abraham (1982). “Subtle is the Lord . . . ” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford:
Plesch, János (1949). János. Ein Arzt erzählt sein Leben. Munich: List.
Pringsheim, Peter (1928). Fluoreszenz und Phosphoreszenz im Lichte der neueren Atomtheorie. 3rd
ed. Berlin: Springer.
Pyenson, Lewis (1985). The Young Einstein. The Advent of Relativity. Bristol: Hilger.
Ramsauer, Carl (1913). “Das physikalisch-radiologische Institut der Universität Heidelberg”. In:
Frankurter Zeitung 145, 25 July 1913. Reprinted in (Auer 1984, 57–62).
Renn, Jürgen (2006). Auf den Schultern von Riesen und Zwergen. Einsteins unvollendete Revolution.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Rompe, Robert (1979). “ ‘... eine faszinierende Persönlichkei’ ”. In: Wissenschaft und Fortschritt
29, pp. 46–48.
Rompe, Robert (1980). “Max von Laue und das Berliner physikalische Kolloquium”. In: Berliner
Wissenschaftshistorische Kolloquien I. Über das persönliche und wissenschaftliche Wirken von
Albert Einstein und Max von Laue. Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. Institut für
Seth, Suman (2010). Crafting the Quantum. Arnold Sommerfeld and the Practice of Theory, 1890–
1926. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sommerfeld, Arnold (1922). Atombau und Spektrallinien. 3rd ed. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Stargardt, J. A. (1996). Autographen aus allen Gebieten. Auktion am 21. und 22. März 1996. Katalog
663. Berlin.
Stoltzenberg, Dietrich (1994). Fritz Haber: Chemiker, Nobelpreisträger, Deutscher, Jude, eine
Biographie. Weinheim: VCH.
Szöllösi-Janze, Margit (1998). Fritz Haber 1868–1934. Eine Biographie. Munich: Beck.
von Laue, Max (1948). “Max Planck”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 35, pp. 1–7.
von Laue, Max (1958). “Zu Max Plancks 100. Geburtstage”. In: Die Naturwissenschaften 45, pp.
221–226.
von Meyenn, Karl (1993). “Sommerfeld als Begründer einer Schule der Theoretischen Physik”.
In: Naturwissenschaft und Technik in der Geschichte. 25 Jahre Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der
Naturwissenschaft und Technik am Historischen Institut der Universität Stuttgart. Ed. by Helmuth
Albrecht. Stuttgart: Verlag für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und der Technik, pp. 241–261.
Zaunick, Rudolf and Salié Hans (1956–1962). J. C. Poggendorffs biographisch-literarisches Hand-
wörterbuch der exakten Naturwissenschaften. Band VIIa: Berichtsjahre 1932 bis1953. Berlin:
Akademie-Verlag.
Appendix
Abbreviations
AAdW Archiv der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften,

Berlin
AEA Albert Einstein Archives, The Jewish National and University Library,
Jerusalem
AMPG Archiv zur Geschichte der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin
GStA Geheimes Staatsarchiv, Berlin
ETH Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule, Zurich
SBB Staatsbibliothek Berlin
KWG Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft
KWI Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut
Archival Sources
Archiv zur Geschichte der The documents of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft relating to

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik are in I. Abt., Rep. 1 A,
Berlin Nr. 1649–1671; the documents of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut
für Physik itself are in I. Abt., Rep. 34
Geheimes Staatsarchiv, The documents relating to the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft and
Berlin the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für Physik are for the great part in
the files of the Preussisches Kultusministerium (I. HA, Rep. 76),
the Geheimes Zivilkabinett (I. HA, Rep. 89), and of the Nachlass
Schmidt-Ott (I. HA, Rep. 92 Schmidt-Ott)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2
126 Appendix
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Dieter Hoffmann, Michel Janssen, Horst Kant, Christoph Lehner,
Jürgen Renn, Matthias Schemmel, and Skuli Sigurdsson for their suggestions and
criticism, of which we took great advantage. Particular thanks go to Lindy Divarci
and Jeremiah James for their patient work in correcting our English. For their help
in archival research we would like to thank the staff of the Archiv zur Geschichte der
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Berlin, and the staff of the Albert Einstein Archives at the
Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem. This study was made possible
by a grant from the Berlin Senate and by the hospitality of the Max Planck Institute
for the History of Science.
Uncited References
Albrecht, Helmuth, ed. (1993). Naturwissenschaften und Technik in der Geschichte. 25 Jahre
Lehrstuhl für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaft und Technik am Historischen Institut der Uni-
versität Stuttgart. Stuttgart: Verlag für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik.
Doebler, Michael et al., eds. (1930). Das akademische Deutschland. Band III: Die deutschen
Hochschulen in ihren Beziehungen zur Gegenwartskultur. Berlin: Weller.
by Anne J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and Robert Schulmann. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Eucken, Arnold, ed. (1914). Die Theorie der Strahlung und der Quanten. Verhandlungen auf einer
von E. Solvay einberufenen Zusammenkunft (30. Oktober bis 3. November 1911). Abhandlungen
der Deutschen Bunsen-Gesellschaft für angewandte physikalische Chemie, 7. Halle an der Saale:
Knapp.
Goenner, Hubert, Jürgen Renn, Jim Ritter and Tilman Sauer, eds. (1999). The Expanding Worlds of
General Relativity. Boston: Birkhäuser.
Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft (1922). Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wis-
senschaften. Jahresbericht April 1921–Oktober 1922. Burg/Magdeburg: Hopfer.
Kox, Anne J. and Daniel Siegel, eds. (1995). No Truth Except in the Details. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic.
Mayer-Kuckuk, Theo, ed. (1995). 150 Jahre Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. Weinheim: VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft. Special issue of Physikalische Blätter, 51 (1995), F 1–F 240.
Renn, Jürgen, ed. (2007). The Genesis of General Relativity, 4 vols. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schwabe, Klaus, ed. (1988). Deutsche Hochschullehrer als Elite 1815–1945. Boppard am Rhein:
Boldt.
Warburg, Emil, Max von Laue, et al. (1918). Zu Max Plancks sechzigstem Geburtstag. Karlsruhe:
Müllersche Hofbuchhandlung.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63122-2

Establishing Quantum Physics in Berlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Establishing Quantum Physics in Berlin

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Establishing Quantum Physics in Berlin

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN HISTORY OF SCIENCE

ISSN 2211-4564 ISSN 2211-4572 (electronic)

1 Einstein Comes to Berlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

4.9 Research Projects Supported by the KWI für Physik from

Keywords Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institut für physikalische Forschung · Hugo Andres

1.1 Relations Between Einstein and Berlin Physicists

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 1

noted, bio-bibliographical information is drawn from the Poggendorffs bibliographies (Weinmeister

see also Einstein (1993b, docs. 308, 364, 368).

see Langevin and de Broglie (1912).

in Einstein (1993b, 467, doc. 398).

Einstein on various problems at the forefront of physics research (Einstein 1993b,

343, 344, 354, 377).

Solvay Congress, during which they occasionally discussed photochemistry. Ein-

AEA], 11–241; Pyenson (1985, 230).

and Glymour (1980).

1.2 Einstein’s Recruitment

Nr. 116, pp. 16–17.

discussed in Fölsing (1993, 374–378).

1.3 What Was Expected from Einstein?

Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI. The typewritten

42 Haber to Krüss, 4 January 1913, in Einstein (1993b, 511, doc. 428).

45 Nernst’s quotation in Kormos Barkan (1999, 174).

1.4 A New Way of Organizing Research in Physics?

research belonged to the constitutive tradition of the learned academies. Moreover,

coordination of research. Because of his earlier work on the atomistic nature of

Arnold Eucken. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Bunsen-Gesellschaft für angewandte physikalis-

2.1 The Preliminaries. A First Unsuccessful Attempt to

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 23

continuous experimental investigations.”2 Nowhere in Lenard’s memorandum were

r–v; Wendel (1975, 197).

by the Prussian government. Furthermore, Harnack welcomed Koppel’s intention to

Bd. 4, pp. 17–19; Burchardt (1975, 118–119), Wendel (1975, 199).

FAH 4 E 277, pp. 20–21.

eraldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI. The document was received by Krüss on 24 April.

2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, pp. 6–8.

Generaldirektion, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Institute XXVI.

2.2 Einstein’s First Years in Berlin

Einstein’s first six months in Berlin were clouded by two disasters.

76 76 V c, Sekt. 2, Tit. 23, Litt. A, Nr. 116, p. 28.

Sternwarte—and Einstein’s colleague in the Academy—Hermann Struve (Hentschel

2.3 The Opening of the KWI für Physik

27 Einstein to Sommerfeld, 28 November 1915, in Einstein (1998, 208, doc. 153).

Table 2.2 Yearly budgets of some research institutes around 1917

of the Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften.34 On 26 November 1917 the first

Table 2.3 Direktorium of the KWI für Physik until 1931

34 Haber had been elected to the Academy in November 1914.

36 See page 86.

Schmidt-Ott, C, Bd. 84, p. 493.

Table 2.4 Kuratorium of the KWI für Physik until 1931

Fig. 2.1 Announcement of

Keywords X-rays · Spectroscopy · Radiation phenomena · Planck’s quantum

3.1 A First Phase of Scarce Activity (1917–1919)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 39

1922/23, see Appendix.

machines for use in coal mines, to the development of procedures to manufacture

9 Einstein (1998, 1013–1030). Einstein’s answers are missing.

He then concluded: “I ask you now to convene a meeting of the Direktorium as

13 Debye to Einstein, 2 July 1918, in Einstein (1998, doc. 577).

16 Planck to Einstein, 8 July 1918, in Einstein (1998, 830, doc. 584).