DOC. 6 RESPONSE TO

A

COMMENT BY

J.

STARK

125

Doc.

6

Response

to

a

Comment

by

J. Stark:

"On

an

Application

of Planck's Fundamental Law ..."

by

A. Einstein

[Annalen

der

Physik

38

(1912):

888]

J.

Stark has

written

a

comment

on

a

recently published paper

of

mine1

for the

purpose

of

defending

his intellectual

property.2

I

will

not

go

into the

question

of

priority

that he has

raised,

because this would

hardly

interest

anyone,

all the

more so

because the law of

photochemical equivalence

is

a

self-evident

consequence

of the

quantum hypothesis.3

But

I

see

from Stark's remark

that I did

not

bring

out

the

purpose

of

my paper clearly enough.

The

paper

was

supposed

to

show that the

derivation of the

law of

photochemical equivalence

does not

require

the

quantum

hypothesis,

but that

it

can

be

deduced from certain

simple assumptions

about the

photochemical process by way

of

thermodynamics.

Prague,

30

May

1912

(Received

on

30

May

1912)

1A.

Einstein,

Ann.

d.

Phys. 37(1912):

832.

2J.

Stark,

Ann.

d.

Phys.

38

(1912):

467.

3Besides,

for the

case

where the

photochemically

sensitive molecule is

split

into

ions,

I

already

enunciated this law

distinctly as

far back

as

in

my

first

paper

on

the

quantum

hypothesis

(Ann.

d.

Phys.

17 [1905]:

148).