2 0 0 D O C U M E N T S 6 4 , 6 5 J U N E 1 9 2 0
64. From Niels Bohr
[Copenhagen,] 37 Stockholmsgade, 24 June 1920
Dear Professor Einstein,
I cannot tell you how great a joy it was for me to hear that you are coming to
Copenhagen and with what expectations we are all looking forward to your
lecture.[1]
For me it was one of the greatest experiences ever to meet you and speak
with you, and I cannot tell you how thankful I am for all the friendliness you
showed toward me during my visit to Berlin, and for your kind letter, which I am
ashamed not to have answered
yet.[2]
You do not know how great a stimulus it was
for me to have the long-wished-for chance to hear from you personally your views
on the problems with which I have been occupying myself. Never shall I forget our
discussions on the way from Dahlem to your
house,[3]
and I very much hope that
during your visit here, occasion will present itself to take up that discussion again.
Unfortunately, my wife has been at the clinic for the last few days to give birth to
a
son,[4]
which luckily went well, and we must, therefore, deny ourselves the plea-
sure of seeing you at our home until your return to Copenhagen. If, however, during
your current sojourn here you should have the time and inclination to take a walk
alone with me in the beautiful environs of Copenhagen and along the lake, or per-
haps have a meal together with a few close friends, it would be a specially great
pleasure for me.
With most cordial greetings also from my wife, yours very truly,
Niels Bohr.
65. To Hans Thirring, Adolf Smekal, and
Ludwig Flamm
Copenhagen, 25 June 1920
My dear Friends & Colleagues,
First I would like to say that by no means did I put in my word about the ticklish
Ehrenhaft problem at my own initiative but felt compelled, after a number of in-
quiries, to offer my
opinion.[1]
It revolved around the issue of whether Ehrenhaft
should receive or retain the possibility of doing independent scientific research. To
me there could be no doubt about that, for E. is diligent and enterprising and has
undoubtedly helped advance progress.
Now, it seems to me from your letter that the faculty has found a quite fortunate
solution, in that it has given E. an autonomous sphere of activity without the danger
of his personality or approach having too much of an influence. I never did doubt
the inaccuracy of E’s interpretations of his own experiments, and I also believe that