640
DOCS.
614,
615
SEPTEMBER
1918
that
reduces
the
light
just
as strongly as
the
dark
part
of the
plate. Naturally,
my
view
can
be
proven securely by analyzing
the
plate photometrically
with
a
Hartmann
microphotometer. Unfortunately
we
do
not
have such
an
instrument
at
the
Institute, otherwise I
would have
done
so.
But there
is certainly
one
available
in Berlin.
The
whole
thing
incidentally
reminds
me
of
the
observations
by Haga
and
Wind
(around
1900)
on
the
diffraction of
X
rays by
a
conical
slit.-[7]
I
hope
that
I
can
send
you
favorable
news
about the
lectures
very
soon.
Until
that
time,
I
am,
with
the
most cordial
regards, yours,
Edgar
Meyer.
615. To
Lise Meitner
[Berlin,
before
14 September
1918][1]
Dear
Miss
Meitner,[2]
This afternoon
I
told Mr.
Hopf[3]
about
our
problem.
I
realized
then that the
execution of
our
fluctuation
experiment
would be of
great importance
after
all,
because
Meyer’s
result is
seen as secure
and
as
virtual
proof
of
the
continuous
nature of
absorption
processes.[4]
They say
it
is
somewhat
like
this:
A1 A2
If
the fluctuations
of
the
ionizations
in
A1
and
A2
reveal
a
partial
coherence,
this
proves
that the
same
elementary
7-radiation
phenomenon (at
least
sometimes)
af-
fects
not
only
A1
but
also
A2.
This
is
conceivable
only
for
a
continuous-absorption
property.
Conversely,
the
independence
of
the
ionizations in
A1
from those in
A2
would
prove (albeit
less
stringently)
that
an
elementary
act
can generate a sec-
ondary
process only
either
in
A1
or
in
A2,
but
cannot affect
both
simultaneously.
To achieve
this
goal we
do not need such
great
precision,
so we
may safely
give
it
a try.
What
do
you say? Telephone
me
sometime
about what
you
think
of it. Even
though,
as
I
see it,
the
result
is
beyond question,
just
about
all
the
other
physicists
do
think
otherwise
about the
matter.
Best
regards, yours,
Einstein.
It
suffices
if
we
prove
that the
coherence in
the
ionizations
drops rapidly
with
the
relative
distance
between
A1
and
A2.
Previous Page Next Page