228
DOCS.
313,
314
NOVEMBER
1911
hold for
the
rotating
dipole.
Or
in
other
words: An
ensemble of
rigid
dipoles
will
probably not
be
distributed
according
to
Maxwell's law in
a
Jeans radiation field.-
I
am
working
on
the
case
of
damped
resonators; it
involves
quite
a
lot
of
calculation.[7]
The
case
of
the
electrons
in
the
magnetic field,
which
I
already
mentioned
in
Brussels, is interesting,
but
not
as
much
as
I
had
thought
in
Brussels.[8]
Electrons
in
a spatially
variable
magnetic
field
are
oscillators
with variable
frequency.
If
one neglects
the
radiation,
then
statistical mechanics
yields
the
distribution
law at
every
location
if
it
is known at
one
location.
If that location
is
field-free,
then
Maxwell's
distribution
holds
there;
from this
one
concludes
that
it
must hold
everywhere.
This leads
of
course
to
Jeans's formula.
Nevertheless,
to
me
the
thing seems
to
show
that
mechanics does not
hold
even
in
the
case
of the electron
moving
in
the
magnetic
field. I
am
telling you
this
as an
argument
against
the
view
that
mechanics
ceases
to
hold
at
the
point
where
more
than
two
things
interact
with
each other.
Anyway,
the
h-disease
looks
ever more
hopeless.
Still,
I believe that
the
purely
mechanical
side will be
the
first to be
cleared
up.
I
beg you again
with all
my
heart
to
remain
well
disposed
toward
me.
You
cannot
imagine
how
painful
I find
the
thought
that
I
might
have
made
you angry
or even
upset.
If
you
do
not
answer
this
letter,
I will
assume
that
you
do not
harbor the
slightest
ill-
feeling
toward
me.
But if
you
feel
any
anger
toward
me, please
tell
me so
that
I
can
try
to regain
your friendly
feelings.
With
kindest
regards to
you, your
esteemed
wife,
and
your
children
(also
from
my
wife),
I
remain
your
devoted
A.
Einstein
314.
From
Willem Julius
Utrecht, 25
November
1911
Highly
esteemed
Colleague,
I
am
extremely
pleased
that
you
will
take the trouble of
providing me
with
a
comparative
evaluation of
the
accomplishments
of
Debije
and
Keesom.[1]
The
opinions
of
physicists
of
great competence
will
serve,
of
course,
as
the
strongest argument
of
our
faculty
in this
affair.[2]
Of
course,
I also asked
Lorentz
for his
opinion.[3]
To
be
sure,
it
is
a
somewhat
ticklish matter for him
to
discuss
the
matter
among
a
wider
circle,
because
Keesom
is
closer
to him
as a
student,[4]
but
if
necessary
he will do it all
the
same.
You will find all
of Keesom's
papers
in
the
Proc.
Roy.
Acad. Amsterdam
IV, 293,
659;
V,
236; VI, 532, 541, 545, 565,
577,
593;
IX,
508,
660;
and
Kamerlingh
Onnes
and
Keesom:
IX, 501,
786;
X,
231, 274, 603,
611.-[5]
The
paper
on
opalescence,
Ann.
d. Phys.
35,
591,
you surely know.[6]
Previous Page Next Page