1 4 2 D O C U M E N T 1 5 0 A P R I L 1 9 2 2 E. H. Synge himself is, God knows what.[9] He published in the Philosoph. Magaz. in March 1922 (pg. 528) “A Definition of Simultaneity and the Aether” (3 pages), a machinery with which absolute synchronicity is establishable.[10] Droste was unable to fight his way through it.[11] To me “it smells of F. Adler.”[12] —So some caution is in order. Another Synge (J. L. Synge) also planted some other sort of relativity cactus in Nature (27 Oct. 1921).[13] Every day I fearfully check in the papers whether you hadn’t let yourself be interviewed about your Parisian impressions. I hope that the absence of such just proves that you are “sensible” and not, perhaps, that you’re sick. Heartfelt greetings to all of you and to a happy reunion.—Lorentz is coming back in mid-May.[14] —Yours, P. E. 150. To Peter Debye Berlin, 18 April 1922 Dear Debye, Don’t get so excited.[1] You do know Nernst and his temperament. I only asserted that in the empirical equations of state, which are currently being viewed as the summary of experience, there is no term in the attraction term that does not vanish for . The question of how much your polarization forces count against the ones based on mere orientation ultimately comes down to whether or not this behavior expressed in the formulas for corresponds to reality. I cannot acknowledge as correct your argument that the polarization attraction is absolutely the only theoretically possible one for the noble gases. Thus one could also wish to prove that a monatomic body could not be paramagnetic. There can, however, very well be a statistic for orientation, without, therefore, there having to be rotational degrees of freedom in the sense of molecular dynamics (e.g., Bohr’s monatomic hydrogen the Ag-atom according to the Stern-Gerlach experiments also).[2] Best regards, yours. T = T =
Previous Page Next Page