DOCS.
255,
256 FEBRUARY
1911 181
service tax
on
the
salary
in the amount
of
1933
crowns
and 34 hellers,
by
withholding
it
from
the
personal
emoluments
in
12
equal
monthly
installments
starting
on 1
April
1911.
This
is
to inform
you
about
this matter.
The
Dean:
Beck
256. To
Edgar
Meyer
Zurich, 26
February
[1911][1]
Dear
Mr.
Meyer:
Only
two
persons
need
to
be considered for
the
position
here. The
first
is
a
pure
theoretician,
the
second
is
you.[2]
I have
already spoken
with
Kleiner[3]
several
times and
have told him
that
it
is
you
who should be
offered the
job,
and
as
far
as
I could
figure
him
out,
he
agreed
with
me.
Strangely
enough, nothing
has
yet
been done
officially
in
this
matter.[4]
What
you
write
about
the
fluctuations
is
very interesting.[5]
If
only
the
interpretation
were
not
so
uncertain.
I believe
that
one
will
get
something
reliable
only
after the
intermediary
processes
by
which
ionization
is
brought
about
are
quantitatively
ascertained. Or
at
least
one
would have
to
know
whether
the
mutual
dependence
of
the
ionizations in
the
two
chambers
is not
due in
essence
to
the fact
that the
wall
is
permeable
to
secondary (Röntgen?)
tt
rays.
The
following might possibly
be
the
case.
A
y
quantum
is
completely
absorbed
in
one
place,
perhaps
in
the
gas
or
in
one
of
the walls. A
great
number of
secondary
rays,
most of which
can
pass
through
the
partition
between
the
two
chambers,
goes
out
from
there
in
various
directions.
Despite
the
complete
localization of the
absorption
of
the
y
quantum &
possibly
despite
the
complete
localization
of
the
absorption
of
secondary rays,
a y
quantum
will
then
produce
almost the
same
chamber
ionization
in
the
two chambers. This would
be
the
case,
in
part,
even
with
the
following ar- Präparat
chamber-
rangement,[6]
in
spite
of
your
earlier
experiment.
At
any
rate,
it
seems
to
me
that
extreme
caution
is
in
order.
I
am
terribly
sorry
that
I cannot
follow
your
experiments
on
the
spot.[7]
Many greetings
from
your prospective
predecessor
A.
Einstein