DOC.
3
RESPONSE TO
PLANCK 1910A
143
Doc.
3
Response
to
Manuscript
of Planck 1910a
[Before
18 January
1910]
On
page
6
of
your manuscript
you
say:
"If,
therefore,
the
oscillations
of the
emitting
particles
are
subjected
to
certain
fluctuations,
these fluctuations
will
also manifest
themselves in
the
intensity
of the
emitting
light."
Here
you
refer
to the
very
point
that
first and
foremost
makes it
seem
to
me
that
an explanation
of the
fluctuations
of the
radiation
by
the
quantum
character of the
emission alone
is
out
of the
question.
For,
obviously,
there
must not exist
any
dependence
of the
statistical
properties
of radiation
on
the
distance
of the
emitting
wall.
Let
us
compare
the
two
cases:
A receives
radiation
one
time from the
surface
f
and
another
time from F.
Suppose
that
f
and F
are
made of the
same
material and
are
at the
same
temperature.
If the radiation
is produced
in
quanta
of
the
same
finite
magnitude
at
f
and
F,
but
is
distributed
over
the
space
in
spherical waves,
then the
fluctuations will be
smaller
in
the
second
case
than
in
the
first,
because
a greater
number of
quantum-like
acts
of
emission,
with
a
smaller
percentage
of the
energy
for
each individual
act,
will work
together.
One
candle
produces
at
a
distance
of
1 m a
strongly flickering light;
100
candles
of
the
same
kind
produce
at
a
distance
of
10
m light
of the
same
intensity
but
with less flicker. Further,
I
did
not
introduce the
constant
h
in
the dimensional
argument
that
was
to
yield
the fluctuation
of the radiation
pressure,
because
this constant
just
does not
belong
in
the
pure undulatory theory
of radiation.
As
far
as
I
see it, even
at
an
arbitrary
distance
from the
emitting
wall,
the latter
theory
does not allow
for
any
fluctuations
other than the
fluctuations
due
to
interference. One
of these
days
I will
recommend
a more
exact
investigation
of
this
problem
to
a
doctoral
candidate.
Further,
you
consider
it
a
weakness
of the
quantum conception
that
one
cannot
see
how to conceive
of
static and
stationary
fields.
In
this matter I
am definitively
of the
opinion
that the
development
of
relativistic
electrodynamics
will
lead
to
a
localization
of
energy
different from the
one we are now
accustomed
to
assume
without
any good
reason.
Without
an
ether,
energy
continuously
distributed
in
space
seems
to
me an
absurdity.
It
can
also
easily
be shown
that the
localization
of
energy as
the old
action-at–
a-distance
theory
had
it
is
compatible
with Maxwell's
theory;
one
of these
days
I will
publish
this in
connection
with
some
other material.
Though Faraday's
intuitive
representation
rendered
important
services in
the
development
of
electrodynamics,
one
cannot
conclude from
this,
in
my
opinion,
that
it must be
retained
in all its details.