510 DOC. 25
SOLVAY DISCUSSION
REMARKS
VII. Nernst
Einstein's
first comment
on
Nernst's lecture
(Nernst
1914)
refers to
the
difficulties
of
generalizing
the
quantum hypothesis
to
more
than
one
dimension. Einstein
con-
fronted
an
objection
raised
by
Lorentz
against
Nernst's
decomposition
of
a
classical
three-dimensional oscillation into three circular
components.
Nernst
not
only
used
this
decomposition
to
infer the
equality
of kinetic and
potential energy
for each of
the
circular
components,
but also
to
attempt
to
make the different
roles of kinetic and
potential energy
in his
understanding
of
the
quantum hypothesis plausible.
According
to Lorentz, however,
Nernst's
decomposition
of
an
elliptic
oscillation into three
mu-
tually perpendicular
circular oscillations
is
"artificial"
("gekünstelt")
and
does
not
correspond
to
a
decomposition
of the
energy
into three additive
components.
No.
149
(Nernst et
al.
1914, pp.
235-236;
Nernst
et
al.
1912,
p.
293)
7)
Es ist
mehrfach
hervorgehoben worden,
dass
die
Anwendung
der
Quan-
tenhypothes
auf Gebilde mit mehr als einem
Freiheitsgrade
auf
Schwierig-
keiten
begri[fflicher]
formaler Art
stösst, mag
man
die
Quanten
als
Energie-
Quanten
oder als unteilbare
Elementarbereiche der
q-p-Mannigfaltigkeit
ansehen. Modifiziert
man
die
von
der
statistischen Mechanik für
die
mittlere
Energie
E eines
dreidimensionalen Oszillators
gelieferte Gleichung
-
_\E3e~ElKTdE
E~]E2
e~E'KTdE
dadurch dass
man
statt
der
Integrale
Summen
einführt,
indem
man
E der
Reihe
die
Werte
0,
hv,
2hv etc.
gibt,
so
gelangt
man
nicht
zum
Dreifachen der
Energie
des
linearen Planck'schen Oszillators. Die
Quantentheorie
in ihrer
bisherigen
Gestalt führt also auf
Widersprüche,
sobald
man
sie
auf Gebilde
mit mehreren
Freiheitsgraden
anzuwenden sucht.
In
his
second
comment,
Einstein
attempted to
explain
the
temperature independence
of what he
interpreted
as
the
damping
of ionic oscillations within
a
crystal, referring
to
observations of residual
rays reported
in
the
preceding
comment
by
Rubens.
Einstein's
comment is
related
to
an
extended
controversy among himself,
Rubens,
and
Nernst
about
the
interpretation
of the
experiments
on
residual
rays performed by
Rubens and
his
group.
Nernst
in his
lecture and Rubens in
his comment
argued
that
the results of these
experiments
are
in
conflict with Einstein's
interpretation
of the
Nernst-Lindemann formula for
specific
heats
as
being
the
consequence
of
a
strong
damping
of the
elementary
oscillators
constituting
the solid
body;
see
Einstein
1911g
(Doc.
21),
p.
679.
Rubens
argued
that
the results of
his measurements
can
be inter–