520
DOC.
495
MARCH
1918
Third,
this intramaterial
repulsive
effect
of
gravitation,
that
is,
the
“impene-
trability
of
matter,” seems
to be confirmed
by
some
results in
radioactive research:
deflection
[Knickung]
of
ct-rays
(Rutherford), high velocity
of
B-rays
emitted
from
the
“nucleus,”
etc. Here
I
lay
as a
basis
a conception
of the
atom
differing
from
the
common
view,
however.
According
to
this
view,
not
electrical
forces,
as
for
J.
J.
Thomson and
Bohr,
but
gravitational
forces would be
the normal
bonding
forces
for the
atom;
the
nucleus would
normally
be at
an
electrical
equilibrium
and
neutral, etc.
This
interpretation
would,
in
my opinion, explain
Bohr’s
mechanism
(comp.
the
radiationlessness of
the
planetary
orbits
in
the
cosmos, etc.).
4)
As
concerns
the
relativity
of
acceleration,
finally,
I
request you
read
the
quote
from Poincaré
(§33),
not because
I
would
like
to hide behind
an
authority,
for
instance,
but
because
I
hope
that
Poincaré
is
more
comprehensible
than
I.[25]
Although
you kindly suggest
a
verbal
discussion,
I
doubt whether
my
oral
expression
could become clearer
than the written
form. In
this
connection,
do
permit
me,
nevertheless,
to take
the
liberty
of
stressing
that
the inner
consistency,
which based
on
my
intuition
is
not
lacking
in
my papers,
offers
a
certain
guarantee
that
they
would
not
seem
to be
entirely
worthless. Yet
I
am
convinced
that the
ideas defended
by me
would have done
better
not to have
sought
out
me
but
another
as
their
advocate who
possessed
a
better talent
for
presentation,
and
who
possibly might
also have
had
more
luck.
Then
they
could
certainly
have
come
further,
instead of
enjoying very
extensive
disregard today.
But
from
you,
Professor,
whom
I
know to be
very
objective
and
to
have
already
adopted
other
unconventional
theories,
I
hope
that,
while
obviously
maintaining
the distinct
differences
in
fundamental
outlook, you
will not
ignore my depiction
without
an
attempt
at
extracting
its intrinsic value.
I
can
say only subjectively,
of
course:
I
believe it
is
worth
the
effort. Does
any
objective gauge
of value exist
at
all?
You
said
to
me
in Vienna
after the
scientific
convention:[26]
“Nothing
is true,
of
course!”
Allow
me
to add: “But
something
must
be most
probable.”
This
seems
to
me
to
be
both the
goal
and limit of all
research.
Knowing
this,
there
can
be
no
polemics,
thus
no
fight
over
the
truth,
which
does not
exist,
rather
only
a
communal effort toward
probability.
My
letter
has become
lengthy;
for
this
I
must
beg your pardon.
As
concerns
my
current
activities,
about
which
you were so
kind
as
to
ask,
I
am
still
per-
severing
in
arranging
the
mentioned
study
trip to
Berlin
regarding
the
Mintrop
apparatus,[27]
for which I
have been
temporarily
withdrawn from
the
field
and
appointed
to
the
Technical
Military
Committee.
Maybe
it
really
will
happen;
it would
then
be
a
particular
pleasure
for
me, assuming your complete recovery,
to visit
you,
not
just
to discuss
my papers
with
you,
but
also to
receive
fruitful
advice
myself.