7 6 D O C U M E N T S 9 4 , 9 5 M A R C H 1 9 2 1
94. To Arnold Berliner
[Berlin,] 12 March 1921
Dear Mr. Berliner,
I think that the
is not worth a public discussion and, like you, con-
sider it better if you answer Mr.
on the basis of the following indications.
There can be no question of an equivalence between the time dimension and the
spatial dimensions, according to the theory of relativity. It is true that by introduc-
ing an imaginary time coordinate a mathematical equivalence is formally achieved;
however, precisely in this necessity to introduce the imaginary into the temporal
extension but not into the spatial one lies an unbreachable disparity, along with
their entirely different character.
From the argument of similarity, therefore, it is by no means legitimate to con-
clude, respecting the finiteness issue, that the universe should have to be similarly
conceivable spatially as temporally.
The theory of relativity, similar to classical mechanics, allows itself the possibil-
ity of a temporal finiteness (equivalent with the hypothesis of the periodicity of
world events); but the data in thermodynamics and radioactivity absolutely do not
fit with such a hypothesis.
With kind regards, yours.
95. To Hermann Anschütz-Kaempfe
[Berlin,] 13 March 1921
Dear Mr. Anschütz,
I agree with your and Mr. Schuler’s
The source of the trouble is
that the field is too little localized, i.e., that we get a powerful field in the zone
This can easily be remedied, however, by making sure that
the sum of the Ampère windings totals zero. I would there-
fore like to suggest a duplication of the ring magnet, that is,
instead of the ring cross-section: