204
DOCS.
282,
283
SEPTEMBER
1911
Regarding
the
second:
Have
you never come across a case
where there seemed
to
remain the
choice
between
e2
and the
quantum
of
action when
you
wanted
to
introduce
natural units of measure?
So much
for
today.
Cordial
greetings
to Mrs.
Einstein
and
the
children!
Your
Michele
and
A.
Besso[10]
283. To
Michele
Besso
[Prague]
11
September
[1911][1]
Dear
Michele,
Thanks for
your
kind and
detailed
letters.[2]
If
my
answer
is not equally thorough,
it's because
my
twaddle for
the
Brussels
congress weighs
down
on
me.[3]
The
crazy
idea
with
the
T-rays
is
excusable.
After
all,
the
process
of
absorption (ionization
with
large
amount
of
energy liberated)
does
resemble
a
radioactive
process.
If irradiation
is not
to be
thought
of
as
quantized,
but
rather
as a
kind
of
preparation
of the
atom,
then
it
is
not
so
inconceivable
that
this
preparation
leads to
decay only
after
a
certain
time,
after
the
completion
of
an
intra-atomic
process.
The
matter
should be
carefully
investigated
one
of these
days.[4]
Of
course,
in
principle
it does
not
have
to
be
T-rays,
the
same
should hold
for
Röntg.
rays
&
light.
The
energy principle
need
not
be
violated
if
atoms
at
all
stages
of
preparation
are
present at
all times.
The
psychological
need that
gives
rise to this
conception
can
be
explained
in the
following
way.
If
the
similarity
between
radioactive
decay
and
decay
under
the influence
of radiation
is not
only
outwardly
similar
but
essentially
identical,
then the radium
atom must
be
viewed,
eo
ipso,
as a
"prepared"
atom. Since
decay
takes
time,
the
same
should hold for atoms
that
are
made
artificially
radioactive.
The idea
regarding
the Sommerfeld
metal electrons
story,[5]
that the electric
force
might
act
during
a
finite collision
time,[5]
is
very
interesting;
in
any case,
it
should
not be
rejected out
of hand. When
I
can
breathe
again,
I'll
give
it
some
thought.
The idea of
viewing
the
inhomogeneities
as
sources
of electrons
does
not
seem
to
me
at
all
plausible.
Neither
can
I
reconcile
myself
to
the
hypothesis
nX
=
const.[6]
I
haven't read
Lampa's
story,
but
I know
the
thing very well.[7]
Silver
particles produced
by
vaporization
manifest
no
clear-cut
relationship
between
motility (from
Brownian
motion)
and
velocity
of
fall.[8]
They
must
therefore
have
a
great
diversity
of
shapes.
From the
motility
&
velocity
in
the
electric
field
one
obtains
nicely
the
elementary
quantum,
just
as one
does
so
from fall
with
or
without
a
field when
one uses
fluid
particles (Pribram).-[9]
The difference between
e2
and h
is
a
factor of
ca
900.
I have
not
yet
come across
anything
like
that
in dimensional
arguments,
as
far
as
I remember.[10]