1 4 2 D O C U M E N T 1 5 0 A P R I L 1 9 2 2
E. H. Synge himself is, God knows
what.[9]
He published in the Philosoph.
Magaz. in March 1922 (pg. 528) “A Definition of Simultaneity and the Aether” (3
pages), a machinery with which absolute synchronicity is
establishable.[10]
Droste
was unable to fight his way through
it.[11]
To me “it smells of F.
Adler.”[12]
—So
some caution is in order.
Another Synge (J. L. Synge) also planted some other sort of relativity cactus in
Nature (27 Oct.
1921).[13]
Every day I fearfully check in the papers whether you hadn’t let yourself be
interviewed about your Parisian impressions. I hope that the absence of such just
proves that you are “sensible” and not, perhaps, that you’re sick.
Heartfelt greetings to all of you and to a happy reunion.—Lorentz is coming
back in
mid-May.[14]
—Yours,
P. E.
150. To Peter Debye
Berlin, 18 April 1922
Dear Debye,
Don’t get so
excited.[1]
You do know Nernst and his temperament. I only
asserted that in the empirical equations of state, which are currently being viewed
as the summary of experience, there is no term in the attraction term that does not
vanish for . The question of how much your polarization forces count
against the ones based on mere orientation ultimately comes down to whether or
not this behavior expressed in the formulas for corresponds to reality.
I cannot acknowledge as correct your argument that the polarization attraction
is absolutely the only theoretically possible one for the noble gases. Thus one could
also wish to prove that a monatomic body could not be paramagnetic. There can,
however, very well be a statistic for orientation, without, therefore, there having to
be rotational degrees of freedom in the sense of molecular dynamics (e.g., Bohr’s
monatomic hydrogen; the Ag-atom according to the Stern-Gerlach experiments
also).[2]
Best regards, yours.
T =
T =
Previous Page Next Page