DOCS.
219,
220 MAY 1916 213
I
hope you’re
enjoying
the
lecture
course.[6] I
still recall
very
well
that
a
hefty
push
is
needed to
overcome an
initial
aversion and
that
one
always
thinks
everything
one
has
to
say
is
obvious.
But
this
is
an
optical
illusion. Do
you
remember how in
Berne
you always
used to
attend
mine
so nicely?[7]
And
now
I
can’t
reciprocate.
I
have
another
quite
amusing
expert
opinion
to
give
for
a
patent case.[8]
When
we see
each
other
again
I’ll
tell
you
about
it.
At
the
moment
I’m
working quite moderately,
so
I’m
feeling nicely
well
and
am
living peacefully along
without
any
discord.
In
gravitation I’m
now
looking
for the
boundary
conditions
at
infinity;
it
certainly
is
interesting
to
consider to
what
extent
a
finite
world
exists,
that
is, a
world of
naturally
measured finite
extension in which all
inertia
is truly relative.[9]
The funeral for
Schwarzschild,
director
of
the
observatory
in
Potsdam, was
held
today.[10]
Surely
I
have
already
told
you
about
him;
he
is
a
real
loss. He
would have been
a
gem,
had
he been
as
decent
as
he
was
clever.[11]
Of
the
photographs,
keep one,
give
one
to
Maja, one
to
Zangger,
and
save
the
remainder.
You
may
also
give
them
away,
though,
if
you
believe
you
could make
someone happy
with it.
I
discovered
a
neat
simplification
of
the
thermodynamic
derivation
of
the
photochemical
hv
law,
somewhat in
the
manner
of Van’t
Hoff.[12]
I’m
glad
that
my boys
are
in
good spirits
and
that
you
are
concerning yourself
with
them.
Now
I
can soon
send
you
the
detailed
paper
on
gravitation
in which
everything
is
calculated
explicitly.[13]
Affectionate
greetings
also to
Anna
and
Vero,
yours,
Albert.
220. To Paul
Ehrenfest
[Berlin,
24
May
1916]
Dear
Ehrenfest,
I have such
an
urge
to
see
you
all
again
that
I
can
scarcely
wait
for
peace
without
having
at least made
an
attempt
at
coming
to
visit
you.
I’ll try to
do
so
during
summer
vacation.
My
specialization
of the frame of reference
is
not
based
solely
on
laziness.[1] I
might present
the
matter
once
also
without the
spe-
cialization,
somewhat
like
Lorentz in his
paper.[2]
Hilbert’s
description
doesn’t
appeal
to
me.[3]
It
is
unnecessarily specialized regarding “matter,”[4]
is
unnec-
essarily complicated,
and
not
straightforward
(=
Gauss-like)
in
set-up (feigning
the
super-human through
concealment
of
the
methods).
I
am
receiving only
20
offprints
of
the
paper.[5]
In
return,
Ambr[osius]
Barth
was willing
to
have
the
paper appear
as a
pamphlet
in
the
book
trade.[6]
It
will probably
be
appearing
in
the
next few
days.
It
is
better this
way
than
if I
had received
100
offprints
Previous Page Next Page