D O C U M E N T 4 2 6 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 5 6 4 7
426. From Satyendra Nath Bose
17, Rue de Sommerard Paris
Ve, 27th
January ’25
Revered Master:
I received your kind note of
3rd
Nov. in which you mentioned your objections
against the elementary law of
Probability.[1]
I have been thinking about your objec-
tions all along, and so did not answer immediately. It seems to me that there is a
way out of the difficulty, and I have written down my ideas in the form of a paper
which I ¢enclose² send under a separate
cover.[2]
It seems that the one hypothesis
of negative Einstrahlung stands, which as you have yourself expressed, reflects the
classical behaviour of a resonator in a fluctuating field. But the additional hypoth-
esis of a spontaneous change, independent of the state of the field seems to me not
necessary. I have tried to look at the radiation field from a new standpoint, and have
sought to separate the propagation of Quantum of energy from the propagation of
electro-magnetic influence. I seem to feel vaguely that some such separation is nec-
essary if Quantum theory is to be brought in line with the Generalised Relativity
theory.
The ideas about the radiation field, which I have ventured to put forward seem
to be very much like to what Bohr has recently expressed in May Phil mag.
1924.[3]
But it is only a guess, as I cannot say honestly to have exactly understood all what
he means to say, about his virtual fields and virtual oscillators.
I am rather anxious to know your opinion about it. I have shown it to Prof
Langevin[4]
here and he seems to think it interesting, and worth publishing.
I cannot exactly express how grateful I feel for your encouragement and the in-
terest you have taken in my papers. Your first p[ost].
card[5]
came at a critical mo-
ment, and it has more than any other made this sojourn to Europe possible for me.
I am thinking of going to Berlin at the end of this winter, where I hope to have your
inestimable help and guidance.
Yours sincerely,
Sn Bose.
ALS (Wali 2009, pp. 324–325). [6 131].
[1]See Doc. 356.
[2]For an analysis of the likely contents of this missing manuscript, see Ghose 1994, pp. 62–68.
[3]Bohr, Kramers, and Slater 1924a.
[4]Paul Langevin.
[5]Doc. 279.
Previous Page Next Page