248
DOCS. 338-340
JANUARY
1912
any capacity
for clear
thinking.[3]
He
does have
some
imagination
but
not
the
slightest
critical
ability.
As
for the
rest,
I cannot
presume
to
give
you
advice,
that
is,
to
recommend
someone
else,
since
I
am
not
familiar
enough
with the
literature
in this
area
(phys. chemistry).
But
if
you wish,
I
will ask Prof.
Haber
(Berlin),
whom
I
know
personally
and
who
is
an
outstanding
physical
chemist.
With
best
regards,
yours truly,
A.
Einstein
P.S.
I
beg you
to
do
everything possible
to
prevent B.
from
learning
about
my
harsh
judgment;
it would
hurt
him
deeply.
339. To
Wilhelm
Wien
[Prague,
17 January
1912]
Highly
esteemed
Colleague:
I
am
sending
you
a
paper
on
thermodynamics
for
the
Annalen,
in which I derive
simultaneously your
radiation
law and the law
of
photochemical
equivalents.[1]
With best
regards,
yours
very truly,
A.
Einstein
340.
From Arnold Eucken
Berlin,
23
January
1912
Highly
esteemed Professor Einstein:
I believe that, in
the
meantime,
I have
myself
found
the
key
to
the
problem
about
which I
took the
liberty
of
asking you
for advice.
The solution
is
simplicity
itself: from
the outset,
Planck[1]
considers the
energy quanta
as
the elements
in
the
distribution,
while
you
and
Nernst
start out from
the
velocity
and
spatial components,
respectively.[2]
It
is
something
of
an
accident that
in
one case
the
results
are
the
same
despite
the difference
in
the
points
of
departure-in
any case,
it
is
not
right
to
draw
any
conclusions from this
coincidence,
as
has
been done
in
some
cases,
e.g.,
that the
theory
of
quanta
holds
only
for
linear
oscillators. This
is
what
Nernst, for
example,
states. Since
we
do
not
understand the molecular
mechanics, one
cannot decide which
of the
two points
of
departure
is
physically
correct,
but
as
long
as
one
sticks with the
energy
quanta,
it
surely
seems
more
probable
that these
are
also to be viewed
as
the elements of the
distribution.
Previous Page Next Page