1 7 4 D O C U M E N T 1 5 7 J A N U A R Y 1 9 2 6 This thing does not constitute any substantial advance, also because, in the end, almost everybody has worked with the variational principle here. The point for me in the “Invariant Variation Problems” was just a precise formulation of the scope of the principle and, above all, its inversion, which does not play a part here. I cannot judge how much the integration of the conservation laws is of physical interest. If this should be the case, that short section could perhaps be accepted in a physics journal—with reference to Bessel-Hagen and it could also be included there, with explanatory text with reference to the rendition of my theorems in the Courant-Hilbert (yellow collection), p. 216,[5] one of the last issues. But here I must leave the assessment of its merit to physicists. With best wishes for 1926 and with best regards, yours sincerely, Emmy Noether 157. From André Metz[1] Antony (Seine), 45 Rue de Verrières, 8 January 1926 Dear Professor, There is a great deal of commotion at the moment in “anti-relativist” circles about declarations you presumably made in the journal Science (from Washington, I believe) regarding Miller’s experiments, and you are represented as being close to abandoning the theory of relativity.[2] It seems to me that all of this must be quite exaggerated. For the rest, Miller’s conclusions on the ether being dragged by the earth are contradicted by the observations on the subject of aberration and by Michelson and Gale’s experiment done in Chicago in early 1925,[3] which show the rotation of the earth being detected by a displacement of the interference fringes (this is Sagnac’s experiment,[4] made with the Earth as support). Some time ago I came into contact with Mr. Meyerson,[5] whose works on phi- losophy of science you have appreciated (from what I have understood to be said) [6] I have become his disciple, and I work, under his direction, to spread his ideas. As he sometimes faces quite some opposition, particularly regarding his under- standing of your theories, it would be very nice to have a word from you approving his point of view. But naturally all of this is subject to any spare time you may have, and I imagine it must be very scarce... My best wishes for 1926, respectfully yours, André Metz
Previous Page Next Page