D O C U M E N T S 1 3 3 , 1 3 4 D E C E M B E R 1 9 2 5 1 5 5 133. To the Nobel Committee for Physics Berlin, 19 December 1925 To the Nobel Committee for Physics Gentlemen, With reference to the request, of which I am in receipt, I permit myself to pro- pose for the 1926 Nobel Prize Mr. A. H. Compton (Chicago).[1] Through the discovery of the effect predicted by him and Mr. Debye[2] (Physical Review, pp. 409–413, [issue] no. 5 of November 1923),[3] Compton showed that ¢light² radiation is scattered into hv-quanta with the transfer of a corresponding im- pulse to the scattering electron. He thus has found a fundamentally important fact for our knowledge about the essence of radiation. A. Einstein 134. From Émile Meyerson 16 Rue Clément Marot VIII, 20 December 1925 Dear Professor, Messrs. Klatzkin and Goldmann brought me your very kind letter.[1] This work so warmly recommended by you does really interest me[2] and I hope to be able to do something for it, as Mr. Klatzkin will report to you soon or has perhaps already reported to you. First of all, however, I feel the urge to express to you my enthusiastic apprecia- tion of what you say about my book.[3] Mr. Klatzkin then further clarified by ver- bally repeating statements you made. I can imagine, though, that he—naturally with the best of intentions—rendered them rather too colorfully. But if even only part of it expresses your considered judgment, that already is of great importance to me. By now taking the liberty to express my most cordial thanks for it, I venture to make a request at the same time. Namely, since you took the trouble to read the book (I must say, I had hardly expected it), or at least to flip through it, would you not be inclined to devote another brief quarter of an hour to writing me about it? Did I misunderstand you, here and there, with respect to opinions and motives at- tributed to you that were in reality alien to you? What is your opinion of the view of relativity conceived by me, which is very different from the broadly propagated one (at least among philosophers)? Which points in the book struck you as objec- tionable (I presume from the outset that there were some), and which, on the other