D O C U M E N T S 1 4 1 , 1 4 2 D E C E M B E R 1 9 2 5 1 6 1 141. To Rudolf Ladenburg [Berlin,] 29 December 1925 Dear Mr. Ladenburg, I see from your letter[1] that in our conversation we misunderstood each other. I do not doubt that the ¢friction² apparent “friction term” that is defined by the radi- ation (scattering) can be obtained in Minkowski’s way. My notion of your statement was the following: If the shortened duration of the free lengths of path appears, then there is a line-broadening (Lorentz’s). Even then, at a sufficient distance away, is still valid. Until now there was no possibility for a difference of opinion. But now two things are possible: a) constant A does not depend on the Lorentz broadening b) " " " indeed " " " " " I tended toward opinion (a) and believed you meant (b). It appears, though, that I wrongly ascribed a statement about it to you.— Be that as it may, one cannot know for certain, a priori but I still am quite con- vinced of (a). Please forgive my procrastination. I work the whole day like a slave at my desk and am nevertheless always behind. Kind regards, yours, A. Einstein 142. To Judah L. Magnes Berlin, 29 December 1925 Dear Dr. Magnes, I am in possession of the minutes of the Munich meeting of the Board of Gov- ernors that you sent out and feel it is my duty, as participating president at the meet- ing, to protest most resolutely against the issuance of this second set of minutes.[1] First of all, against the mere fact of sending them. It goes against every administra- tive practice that, after the minutes have already been sent out by the managing secretary, a member should presume the right to issue to the members another report, that differs on essential points, and claiming that these were the official min- utes of the meeting.[2] Your special position as chairman of the executive of the Board of Governors, and chancellor, certainly makes no difference here. The n n0)2 ( ---------------------A =
Previous Page Next Page