The Born-Einstein Letters 1916-55

by Max Born, Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein and Max Born were great friends. Their letters span 40 years and two world wars. In them they argue about quantum theory, agree about Beethoven's heavenly violin and piano duets (that they played together when they met) and chat about their families. Equally important, the men commiserate over the tragic plight of European Jewry and discuss what part they should play in the tumultuous politics of the time. Fascinating historically, The Born-Einstein Letters is also highly topical: scientists continue to struggle with quantum physics, their role in wartime and the public's misunderstanding. First published by Macmillan in 1971, this book is re-issued, with a substantial new preface by leading US physicists Kip Thorne and Diana Buchwald, as part of 2005's Relativity Centenary celebrations.

Genres: Science, Physics, History, Biography, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History Of Science

235 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1969

About the author

Max Born (was a German-British physicist and mathematician who was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics. He also made contributions to solid-state physics and optics and supervised the work of a number of notable physicists in the 1920s and 30s. Born won the 1954 Nobel Prize in Physics (shared with Walther Bothe).

Reviews

[Manny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Plato was doubtful about artists, and one of his fundamental objections is that it's easier and more entertaining to write about bad people than about good people. Bad people do bad things. We can become indignant and hope they won't get away with it; the dramatic tension necessary to create an interesting story happens by itself. There are always a few bad people who are occupying everyone's attention in this way. Right now, the bad person the world loves to hate is Donald Trump, and it requires a positive effort to talk about anyone else.

At risk of getting off-topic, this book consists of about a hundred letters exchanged between Albert Einstein, Max Born, and Born's wife Hedwig, between 1916 and 1955. Most of the letters have some accompanying commentary, written by Born in the mid 60s when he was a very old man. The truth of Plato's remarks is all too clear: you will be disappointed to learn that the three main characters are remarkably good people, and the book is indeed unpopular on Goodreads. I see fifty-odd ratings and a paltry seven reviews. Most likely I should give up now, but, more out of stubbornness than anything else, I will nonetheless try to convince you that it's worth reading.

I didn't know much about Born before I read this book, and I am very impressed. He was, I realise now, one of the most important people in the development of quantum mechanics. I'd wondered a few times how Heisenberg had managed to carry out the key breakthrough at the tender age of 25, when he was still a PhD student at Göttingen. If I'd had any sense, I'd have realised that it was largely due to Born, who was his supervisor: the critical papers are in fact joint work by Born, Heisenberg and Jordan. We ascribe it to Heisenberg mainly because he was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize for Physics on his own. In one of the few passages in the book where Born displays any sense of bitterness, he says that the Swedish Academy obviously failed to include him because he was Jewish, and they wished to avoid provoking Nazi Germany. He then goes on to say that he long ago forgave his former student, and they are now good friends again. Heisenberg has indeed written the foreword.

Oh, if only I could be more like Born! The world is falling to pieces around him, Hitler's regime has confiscated his property and begun interning his fellow-Jews, and World War II is starting up. He's spending his days on the thankless task of trying to help refugee German physicists, and yet he doesn't lose sight of the truly important thing: finding a consistent interpretation of the notion of probability in quantum mechanics. He and Einstein discuss that more than anything else in their letters, and it's the only topic that every now and then makes them lose patience with each other. Unfortunately, having spent a large part of my life in academia, I can report that this kind of attitude is very rare. As Plato says, most people who call themselves philosophers are actually sophists.

After the war, Born and his wife move back to Germany. They make peace with the German people and tell a sceptical Einstein that not all of them are mass-murders. Einstein is unconvinced; he never again sets foot on German soil. Born is finally awarded his long-overdue Nobel Prize in 1954, for his beloved probabilistic interpretation. He uses his new fame to campaign actively against nuclear weapons, for which he feels considerable personal responsibility. Despite being over 70, he finds time to finish the standard reference on the quantum mechanics of crystal structure, modestly giving the credit for the greater part of the work to yet another of his many students.

I am sorry to have wasted a couple of minutes of your time talking about good people; I hope I mentioned enough bad people that you were at least mildly entertained. Okay, back to Donald Trump.

[Габриела Манова]

Всеки е някак си съвместно отговорен за всичко.

***

Сега и времето е чудесно. Лежа на брега като крокодил, оставям се да бъда изгорен от слънцето, не поглеждам никакъв вестник и пет пари не давам за така наречения свят.

***

Казваш си, че е винаги май и целият свят, пълен със сочна, млада, благовкусна зеленина, е постоянно тук за едного, и изведнъж свръхбързо се озоваваш, с откъснат крак, куцайки и преситен от живота, в калта на просмукания от дъжда междуселски път. Така си мислех първом: аха, ето ме в калта, но сега забелязвам, че въпреки всичко все още е май и че човек не бива да се предава.

***

Не разбирам тази любов, но я прощавам.

[NeDa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Освен физиката и философията,
приятелство и обич, въпреки различията:
Все пак на този свят няма никой, когото да уважавам по-дълбоко и на когото дължа повече от теб. Нашето моментно различие на мненията не променя нищо от това.
*
Ние се развихме като антиподи в нашите научни очаквания. Ти вярваш в бог, хвърляш зарове, а аз в пълната подвластност на закона в един свят на нещо обективно биващо, което търся да уловя по диво спекулативен път.
...
Засега бъди сърдечно поздравен като един от моите най-скъпи антиподи.
от твоя А. Айнщайн
уважение към другото мнение
Ние сме изключително благодарни за твоята критика и след нея променихме спорното място в нашата книга. Наистина ти напълно имаш право, че едно твърдение за бъдещото приемане или отхвърляне на детерминизма не може да бъде логически оправдано.
... Надявам се да стигна до твоите най-нови работи по тези въпроси. Ще ги проуча грижливо и ще ти напиша за моето мнение.
Борн
достигащо до силни признания:
Скъпи Айнщайн,
...
Що се отнася до физиката, дружеските ти думи за моите занимания извират от твоята добра душа. Но аз осъзнавам, че нещата, които правя, са доста всекидневни в сравнение с твоите идеи и тези на Бор. Кутията с моите мисли е доста раздрънкана, вътре не влиза много, а това, което е там, трака навън и навътре, няма устойчива форма и се получава винаги сложно. Небето знае, че твоят мозък изглежда доста по-прегледно. Неговите продукти са прости, ясни и улучват точно нещата. Това ние разбираме по необходимост няколко години по-късно.
оценяване на младите:
Въобще моите млади - Йордан, Хайзенберг, Хунд - са блестящи. Често трябва доста да се напрягам, само за да мога да следвам разсъжденията им.
***
Паули пише:..."Математиката на примера за материална точка между две стени и принадлежащите им вълнови пакети обърнах така в моите лекции, че да да се включи формулата за трансформацията на тета-функцията. Но това е само един детайл."
Това е повече от детайл. То показва, че от дълго време всичко, което имах да кажа, бе познато на Паули. Но това не ме засрами. Защото още от времето, когато беше мой асистент в Гьотинген, аз знаех, че той е гений, сравним със самия Айнщайн...
Борн [Волфганг Паули, австрийски физик, носител на Нобеловата награда за физика през 1943]

споделяне на страшното:
Но най-потискащото беше винаги чувството, че нашата наука, която сама по себе си е толкова красиво нещо, и която можеше да бъде такъв благодетел на човешкото общество, бе принизена до нищо повече от средство за унищожение и смърт.
Борн
лична философия:
Сега ме питате как се справям с обикновения живот. Просто имам повече радост от даването, отколкото от получаването във всяко отношение, не взимам насериозно нито себе си, нито суетенето на тълпите, не се срамувам от слабостите и пороците си и по природа приемам нещата весело и спокойно. Много хора са такива и аз въобще не мога да разбера защо правят от мен един вид идол.
***
Колкото и да са безсилни добрите и справедливи хора, само те правят живота да си струва живеенето.
***
Аз се чувствам толкова солидарен с всичко живо, че ми е все едно къде започва и къде свършва отделният човек.
Айнщайн

защото виждам задачата си повече в това, да създам за децата си един живот, който си струва да се живее, отколкото да съществуват в остатъка от дните си в радости и удобства.
Борн
и не е само физика:
Двамата споделят любов към физиката и музиката. Често свирят заедно - Айнщайн на цигулка, а Борн на пиано.
***
Само веднъж е имало Шекспир, който е бил всичко в едно.
Хеди Борн
хумор между формулите:
Идеята, че един облъчен електрон избира по свободно решение момента и посоката, по която ще се придвижва, ми е непоносима. Ако ще е така, тогава бих искал да съм по-скоро обущар или даже служител в някое казино, отколкото физик.
Айнщайн

Квантите са една безнадеждна свинщина.
Борн
Великани:
През 2016 г. са доказани и гравитационните вълни, предсказани от Айнщайн сто години по-рано. Това носи Нобелова награда на Райнер Вайс, Бари Бариш и Кип Торн през 2017

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good example of agreeing to disagree and remaining civil and kind and friends. We could really use these qualities today.

[BetseaK · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I particularly like about these letters between the two powerful minds is the fascinating insight into what Einstein implied by 'incompleteness' of the quantum theory and Born's misinterpreting it as if Einstein had argued against the admissibility of the theory for not being rigorously deterministic (as clearly explained in the letter 115, from Pauli to Born).
The letters also offer a valuable personal reflections of the academic, political and social situation of their time.
Highly recommended.

[William Bies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Assuming – a big if! – that scientific works of lasting value survive from our era, future historians of science will be confronted with a quandary. Not just that telephone calls, e-mail, social media posts, zoom sessions and so forth represent a less permanent medium than the handwritten letter, people nowadays are not accustomed to pursuing a correspondence and committing one’s thoughts on intellectual matters to writing in this form, as one was formerly. Thus, the gradual unfolding of one’s train of ideas and the circumstances forming the context in which it takes place will be more poorly documented than would have been the case in the past.

Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about the issue in regard to physics during the first half of the twentieth century. The present volume reprints the letters that have survived of the long correspondence between Max Born and Albert Einstein from 1916 to the latter’s death in 1955, along with explanatory commentary by Born. Ever since they met in Berlin, when Einstein had just received a prestigious appointment there and Born was an up-and-coming assistant, the two remained close lifetime friends although they saw each other last in 1933. Their correspondence radiates with human warmth, contains communications between their wives and testifies to Einstein’s respectful friendship with Mrs. Hedi Born, with whom he exchanged letters and poetry. As one could expect, there is a lot on physics, less on politics, a little on philosophy of science and practically nothing on religion or theology.

The interested reader may follow the evolution of the correspondents’ respective views on current subjects such as the status of democracy under the Weimar republic, Communism during the Soviet era, anti-Semitism in academia, the rise of Nazism, Palestine and the Zionist question and, after the second world war, the question of collective responsibility for Nazism on the part of German citizens [see pp. 250, 254, 266-267]. Born, acquainted through his wife with many German Quakers who suffered more under Nazism than his own family had, was inclined to withhold judgment on his fellow Germans while Einstein was not. What looms largest in the first half, up to their emigration from Germany during the early 1930’s, is academic politics, esp. concerning appointments, though there is also some attention to the problem of securing funding and on how to manage under hyperinflation. In later years, the two would fondly recall, for instance, their adventure during the 1919 Berlin revolution, when they intervened with the provisional government in an attempt to protect the university against radical student measures that would have taken away academic freedom—without success, by the way. One notices right away how much less formal university administration was in those days; they were the old boys’ network until their expatriation by the Nazis. There are comments in passing on Wolgang Pauli, Werner Heisenberg and Hermann Weyl (whom Born interacted with as his assistants and later colleagues), among others. In what may come as a surprise, one hears a fair amount about the Hilbert-Brouwer affair [pp. 137-142]. The two pure mathematicians took their clash over philosophy of mathematics quite seriously. The elderly Hilbert was then at the height of his engagement with his formalist program, by which he hoped to provide mathematics with a secure and logically compelling foundation, and saw in L.E.J. Brouwer’s intuitionism a long-term threat to a vital intellectual culture since it would rule out many of the constructions by which he himself had made his name, three decades before. The practical consequence was that Hilbert fired Brouwer from his editorship of the Mathematische Annalen (there were, of course, unavoidable political overtones too, in that Brouwer, though Dutch, tended to support a National-Socialist line in Germany).

After the dismissal of Jewish academics from their posts in Germany from 1932/33 onwards, there is a good amount of back-and-forth on finding suitable positions in western countries for those who were dislocated, young physicists in particular. Einstein himself was secure: on a trip to America, he merely stayed on at the newly founded Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and, fearing for his safety, never returned to Germany to recover his property before it was seized, while Born wandered about for a while until he was offered a permanent post in Edinburgh, Scotland. But the problem was severe and even with his name recognition Einstein was very limited in what he could accomplish.

One’s main impression upon perusing this epistolary exchange: how catholic their interests were; Born, known as an atomic physicist, discusses the general theory of relativity (on which he gave lectures and published an expository account), celestial mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, condensed matter and even pure mathematics (as an outsider). It is impressive besides that Born was still active in textbook writing during the 1950’s: he published highly regarded treatments of the theory of crystal lattices (1954) and the principles of optics (1959). The physics itself was less technical in those days and one could, if one wished to, try one’s hand at interesting outstanding questions outside one’s specialty.

What the contemporary reader is apt to find of greatest interest in these letters is the decades-long debate between Einstein and Born on the interpretation of quantum mechanics in particular. Therefore, we shall reproduce some of the notable passages at length. Einstein volunteers his opinion to Born early on, in 1926:

Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimmer sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt. [pp. 129-130]

In unserer wissenschaftlichen Erwartung haben wir uns zu Antipoden entwickelt. Du glaubst an den würfelnden Gott und ich an volle Gesetzlichkeit in einer Welt von etwas objectiv Seiendem, das ich auf wild spekulativen Wege zu erhaschen suche. Ich glaube fest, aber ich hoffe, daß einer einen mehr realistischen Weg, bezw eine mehr greifbare Unterlage finden wird, als es mir gegeben ist. Der große anfängliche Erfolg der Quantentheorie kann mich doch nicht zum Glauben an des fundamentale Würfelspiel bringen, wenn ich auch wohl weiß, daß die jüngeren Kollegen dies als Folge der Verkalkung auslegen. Einmal wirds sich ja herausstellen, welche instinkive Haltung die richtige gewesen ist. [p. 204]

Meine physikalische Haltung kann ich Dir nicht so begründen, daß Du sie irgendwie vernünftig finden würdest. Ich sehe natürlich ein, daß die prinzipiell statistische Behandlungsweise, deren Notwendigkeit im Rahmen des bestehenden Formalismus ja zuerst von Dir klar erkannt wurde, einen bedeutenden Wahrheitsgehalt hat. Ich kann aber deshalb nicht ernsthaft daran glauben, weil die Theorie mit dem Grundsatz unvereinbar ist, daß die Physik eine Wirklichkeit in Zeit und Raum darstellen soll, ohne Spukhafte Fernwirkungen. Allerdings bin ich nicht fest davon überzeugt, daß es wirklich mit der Theorie eines kontinuierlichen Feldes gemacht werden kann, obwohl ich hierfür eine bisher recht vernünftig erscheinende Möglichkeit gefunden habe. Die rechnerischen Schwierigkeiten sind jedoch so groß, daß ich ins Gras beißen werde, bevor ich selbst eine sichere Überzeugung hierüber erlangt habe. Aber davon bin ich fest überzeugt, daß man schließlich bei einer Theorie landen wird, deren gesetzmäßig verbundene Dinge nicht Wahrscheinlichkeiten sondern gedachte Tatbestände sind, wie man es bis vor kurzem als selbstverständlich betrachte hat. Zur Begründung dieser Überzeugung kann ich aber nicht logische Gründe, sondern nur meinen kleinen Finger als Zeugen beibringen, also keine Autorität, die außerhalb meiner Hand irgendwelchen Respekt einflößen kann. [p. 215]

Aside from general deterministic philosophicial grounds, the reason why Einstein insists on locality in quantum mechanics seems to be a residue of his work on the special theory of relativity from which he could not free himself:

Aber das, was wir als existierend (›wirklich‹) denken, soll irgenwie seit-räumlich loaklisiert sein. D.h. das Reale in einem Raumteil A soll (in der Theorie) irgendwie unabhängig ›existieren‹ von dem, was in einem anderen Raumteil B als real gedacht wird. Wenn ein physikalisches System sich über die Raumteile A und B erstreckt, so soll das in B Vorhandene eine irgendwie von dem in A vorhandenen unabhängige Existenz haben. Das wirklich in B Vorhandene soll also nicht davon abhängen, was für eine Messung im Raumteil A ausgeführt wird; es soll auch unabhängig davon sein, ob in A überhaupt eine Messung gemacht wird oder nicht. [p. 223]

To which Born aptly responds,

Der entscheidene Satz ist dann der, wo er sagt, »daß die Physik eine Wirklichkeit in Zeit und Raum darstellen soll, ohne Spukhafte Fernwirkungen«. Auch ich hatte dies für ein Postulat gehalten, das unbedingte Gültigkeit beanspruchen darf. Aber die Tatsachen der physikalischen Erfahrung haben mich belehrt, daß auch diese Forderung kein Prinzip a prior ist, sondern eine zeitgebundene Regel, die durch eine allgemeinere ersetzt worden muß und kann. [p. 217]

In a mini-essay by Einstein [pp. 229-234] he seems to forget Planck’s quantum of action and, in regard to localizability, to demand too much of physical theory: why couldn’t there be subtle correlations embedded at long distances since we presume the two now spatially separated bodies were once in causal interaction with each other? (As Born points out in his reply pp. 235-236.)

Why Born doesn’t expect quantum mechanics to be replaced the way Einstein does:

Was nun meine Erwartung eines »besseren« betrifft, so bin ich allerdings ganz andrer Meinung als Du. Der Fortschritt in der Physik ist doch immer eindeutig vom Anschaulichen zum Abstrakten gegangen. So wird es wohl auch bleiben. Die Quanten-Mechanik und Quanten-Feldtheorien versagen in entscheidenden Punkten. Aber alle Anzeichen scheinen mir darauf hinzudeuten, daß man sich auf Dinge gefaßt machen muß, die uns älteren Leuten nicht behagen. [p. 237]

Einstein condensed his incredulity towards the completeness of quantum mechanics into a thought-experiment [pp. 252-253], to which Born replies that Einstein’s views on quantum mechanics are inconsistent with what he did in the general theory of relativity [see esp. p. 300 for why]!

Born on Schrödinger, de Broglie, Bohm [pp. 270-271]. Einstein’s verdict on Bohmian quantum mechanics: ‘Der Weg scheint mir zu billig’ [p. 258], despite that, superficially, it would seem to adhere to Einstein’s deterministic spirit – the old master’s dislike reflects, no doubt, the fact that it is such an ad hoc kludge cobbled together out of disparate elements without being illuminated by any satisfying general principles. If it’s so great why haven’t the Bohmians been able to solve the measurement problem in 70 years?

Lastly on pp. 286-287 we get the clearest statement yet by Einstein of his point of view re. quantum mechanics. At this juncture, the exasperated Born decided to pull in Pauli for a judgment, who was then Einstein’s assistant in Princeton and would be able to discuss the matter with him in person. Pauli’s letter to Born, reproduced here, adjudicates the dispute with his trademark critical perspicacity [pp. 289-291 and 293-297], and largely sides with Born – who, in his commentary, reflects on why he and Einstein were talking past each other. In no way did their divergence of views on the scientific question impair their friendship, however.

One wavers between three and four stars. The scientific discussion itself ends up being less trenchant than one might have hoped, for the most part. But, on the other hand, the warmth of their friendship stands out on every page. Let them have the benefit of the doubt! Read this correspondence more to find out what a scientific career was like in those turbulent days than to acquire knowledge of physics or philosophy; for this turn instead to reviews by historians of science who take the trouble to distill stray remarks scattered across decades of letters into coherent positions – unless one be attracted by the prospect of working with the primary sources!

[Mike Ceballos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Existe un cierto grado de voyeurismo al momento de adentrarse en la correspondencia entre dos grandes científicos del siglo XX. La correspondencia entre ellos, nos permite vislumbrar la relación y amistad que existió entre Einstein y los Born; amistad que sobrevivió a grandes eventos en Alemania como la caída de la monarquía, la depresión económica, el surgimiento del Tercer Reich, la bomba atómica y sus consecuencias, y el inicio de la guerra fría.
Así mismo, a través de sus páginas encontramos aclaraciones a sus pensamientos matemáticos y filosóficos. Discusiones que nos permite vislumbrar el enfoque de Einstein hacía la teoría mecánica integradora, y la premisa probabilística de la mecánica cuántica de Born. Llegar a leerlos resulta emocionante, saber que experimentaron y formaron las teorías que definen el pensamiento matemático actual es apasionante. Pero es verdad que algunas de sus misivas son en realidad un gran acertijo matemático, y entender el complejo esquema de las funciones descritas es todo un reto.
Los temas no fueron solamente físicos, sino también sociales y políticos. El compromiso de ellos con la sociedad y el bienestar mundial es un ejemplo de valores humanos. Se puede apreciar la forma en que tuvieron que sobrevivir al Tercer Reich y la persecución de los judíos, y como estuvieron comprometidos a ayudar para salvar y rescatar a sus congéneres.
Este libro está editado con notas aclaratorias de Max Born, y nos permite entender muchas de las cartas que se reproducen en esta edición. Podemos apreciar el gran respeto mutuo que se profesaban, así como la amistad que duró muchos años, hasta la muerte de Einstein.
Nunca había leído un libro basado en una correspondencia, y resultó un buen ejercicio de lectura. Sin embargo, no es recomendable para lectores principiantes. Se recomienda para lectores intermedios, o que les gusta explorar nuevas formas narrativas.

[Todd Pinchevsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely beautiful book. Letters between two giants of physics and great friends. Unfortunately, there's almost no one I can recommend it to, as the discussions are mainly physics oriented, revolving around the implications of quantum mechanics (QM), which, at it's core, comes down to probabilities, which Einstein could not accept (to date, the probabilistic interpretation of QM is generally accepted). I had a hard time following it at various points, and QM is a bit of a hobby of mine.
However, the letters are between the years 1916-1955 and also discuss the personal lives of these men, as well as the historical times they were living through (pre and post WWII). This is now one of my all time favorite books that I have no one to discuss with :-(

[Max Lester · Rating 3 out of 5]

Alot of unnecessary details ('Please Einstein, promote my friend and give him a position for 6 months here, and pull the strings for me there'). Einstein opens up to Born a bit and have philosophical arguments. Their political/state of affairs discussions are actually the most valuable thing in the book (a handful of things happened in the 1916-1955 period)

[Francisco M. Juárez · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brutal.

Un placer leer de primera mano el intercambio de opiniones y vivencias de dos genios de la ciencia en medio de los años tremendos que abarcaron dos guerras mundiales y la creación de la mecánica cuántica.

[Marcos Spinoza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pienso que lo que más me ha impactado del libro es: ser participe de la forma de razonar de grandes mentes. Me fascina el hecho por el cual, de fenómenos tan simples, sean capaces de obtener conclusiones tan profundas del comportamiento primario de la naturaleza. Por ejemplo, se encuentran charlando sobre una pelota que rebota en una pared y de ahí son capaces de argumentar a favor (Born) y en contra (Einstein) de la mecánica cuántica. Simplemente ¡me vuela la mente!, ¡me encanta!. Y así hay infinidad de razonamientos a lo largo de las páginas. Pero no sólo eso, hay poesía, hay música, en una palabra hay cultura. Sin lugar a dudas grandes personas han sido los tres, pues también hay cartas de Hedwig, la que fuera esposa De Max.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

For the most part accessible to layman (to the physical sciences) as the letters mostly deal with politics, philosophy, and the personal lives of Born and Einstein. Towards the end some letters delve more into the physics where the debate over quantum mechanics became more contentions between the two scientists, I skipped these parts as they were Greek to me. It's fun to read about the lives and thoughts of these intellectual giants, they come out as very sagely and thoughtful individuals who are very much engaged in the world around them, much unlike the image of isolated scholars.

The lead-up to the Second World War reveals Born to be a realist and Einstein to be more of an optimist. Interestingly, this seems to flip after the war as Born becomes more amenable to forgiveness of Germany and moves back there, but Einstein becomes hardened in his opinion against his fatherland. I also found it remarkable that they seemed to maintain such an intimate friendship over the decades often with intervening years of no interaction and meeting outside of their written correspondence.

[Ricardo Guerreiro · Rating 4 out of 5]

I LOVE LETTERS! I think they can reveal a great deal about the one who writes them. One of my favourite parts when reading biographies is when the text goes something like "in a letter dated November 5th, 1856, X wrote the following to Z: Dear Z...". Now imagine a compilation of Max Born to Albert Einstein to Max Born letters! Not only do the personalities of these men come to life through their words but also, being myself fond of the subject matter, the themes discussed could not have hooked me much more than what they did.

[Lynn]

Not sure exactly which edition of this I'm reading, but it's in English -- maybe I'll try to tackle the German one someday. According to what I've read, Einstein was a pretty good writer in German, stylistically speaking.

[Casiopeika · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lei este libro porque pense que al tratarse de correspondencia privada podria encontrar algo interesante o intimo en la personaliad de Einstein, pero no. De todas formas vale la pena leerlo.

[Mariela Stancheva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Рядко чета кореспонденция, но тази е изумителна. Книгата е съставена от писма между Макс Борн, съпругата му и Алберт Айнщайн, като коментарите към тях са на Макс Борн. Времето през което са писани тези писма е вероятно най-бурното време в историята на физиката и на Европа (независимо). Очакването в тях да има много формули е неоснователно (казвам го за тези, които се въздържат от математика). В тези писма човек може да види мислите обменени между един отличен и един гениален физик, но и мислите които са вълнували много други учени. Някои от тях гениални математици (като Хилберт например), други фантастични физици (като Нилс Бор, Шрьодингер - онзи с котката за нефизиците - и Паули). Изумително е да разбереш как е действала немската школа във физиката и да видиш нейното влияние върху почти всички университети по света през това време. Кой за кого се е застъпвал на различни етапи. Кой какви добри и не дотам добри научни идеи е имал. Кой какви политически възгледи е имал през различни исторически периоди. И разбира се да проследиш онзи вечен спор за Бог, който не хвърля зарове. За етиката, смелостта и страха в науката.
И се подгответе за вечното оплакване от здравословни проблеми на Макс Борн:).