3 0 6 D O C U M E N T S 1 9 3 1 9 5 N O V E M B E R 1 9 2 0
193. To Edgar Wöhlisch
[after 7 November
By no means can it be expected that [this] theorem be generally valid, even
though, under otherwise identical conditions, the closer together a molecule’s at-
oms are, the smaller must be its potential energy. The reason why the theorem
could not be generally valid is that the nature of atoms surely must play a role,
along with the atomsÊ more exact relative geometric orientations. Although it is
very probable today that all molecular forces are of an electr. nature, we are far too
badly informed about the constitution of atoms and molecules to be able to address
this problem theor. in a quantitative
194. To Jolán Kelen-Fried[1]
Berlin, 8 November 1920
Through many
I have been informed about the distressing situation
in which the engineer Kelen finds himself in Budapest. I would like to undertake a
drive together with Viennese colleagues in the profession to help him. A very fa-
vorable opinion by the professor of electrical engineering in Delft exists as
I herewith declare myself ready to come to this valuable man’s defense every-
where in written form. For now you may make free use of this letter, if you have
occasion to do so for this purpose.
It is one of the most important obligations of our day to protect good and valu-
able people like Kelen against political persecution [Parteiwut]. His papers demon-
strate to me that he is a discerning
That is why I feel justified and obliged
to stand up for him.
With greetings,
A. Einstein.
195. To Carl Runge
[Berlin,] 8 November 1920
Esteemed Colleague,
You are completely right with your correction. This error does indeed originally
appear in my Annalen
It has already been rectified, however, in Teubner’s
Previous Page Next Page