D O C U M E N T 2 5 9 M A Y 1 9 2 4 2 5 3
to the success of its work. If I should not be elected—which in view of what has
passed would be entirely justified—I should nevertheless be glad to work for the
Committee on occasion.
259. To Paul Ehrenfest
[Berlin,] 31 May
Dear Ehrenfest,
I congratulate you on your happy return and honestly admire that, after touring
around for so long now, you can already think of going to California with
For me it’s the other way around, however. As I’m a bit unsociable, the thought of
such a journey is quite unsettling, beautiful though it may be over there. Moreover,
I promised the South Americans that my next trip outside Europe would be to go
I should have gone there this year already but couldn’t resolve to do so.
I declined Naples (philosophical conference), after having already
tell the people (that is, Millikan) that I find it very kind of them to have thought of
me, but that I request they not invite me for the time
It’s touching of you that you thought, completely of your own accord, of being
my advocate for a salary raise for Mr.
who is helping me in the battle
over the Quantum Princess (that’s how
tends to call my hobby). He
gets 200 M a month. That would correspond to an annual salary of 600 dollars; it
would be a great favor to me if the stipend were raised to this amount. The man de-
serves it for his industriousness. He is also financially disadvantaged by his terrible
illness (acrocephaly).
The equations from December did not hold
I’m following another track,
still along the lines of an overdetermination. But I can’t find my way out of the di-
lemma: a superposition of the waves in empty space requires Maxwell’s equations.
But via Huygens’s principle these necessarily require the emission of the electrons
circling in Bohr’s stationary orbits. As soon as I substitute nonlinear equations for
Maxwell’s (or complete them), I lose the possibility of superposing the light waves.
Recently I reviewed the paper by Bohr, Kramers, and Slater in the
This idea is an old acquaintance of mine, whom I don’t consider to be the real Mc-
Coy. Main
1) Nature seems to retain the conservation laws strictly (Franck-Hertz, Stokes’s
rule). Why should action-at-a-distance be excluded?
2) Mirror box in a radiation-free empty space with internal radiation ought al-
ways to execute increasing Brownian motion.
Previous Page Next Page