D O C U M E N T S 3 5 7 , 3 5 8 N O V E M B E R 1 9 2 4 3 5 5
reasons in a comment that appeared at the same time as your
Namely, your
law is not compatible with the following two conditions:
1. The absorption coefficient is independent of the radiation density.
2. The behavior of a resonator in a radiation field must result as a limiting case
from the laws of statics.
We can discuss the details on this together when you come here.
Kind regards, yours
357. To Thomas Greenwood
Berlin, 3 November 1924
Esteemed Sir,
What I just said to you during your visit reflected my momentary way of think-
ing about the state of unsolved problems. I politely but resolutely request that you
not publish anything about this conversation, because its content is not worthy of
With my compliments as your colleague.
358. To Kurt Joël[1]
Berlin, 3 November 1924
Esteemed Mr. Joël,
In the reports that reached
it is correct that it concerns a conflict between
a theory postulated by Bohr & Kramers and a conception of the constitution of light
represented by
Both reports seem, incidentally, to originate from a poorly in-
formed person. A written controversy over the subject did not take place.
Very respectfully
359. To Robert A. Millikan
Berlin, 3 November 1924
[See documentary edition for English text.]
Previous Page Next Page