DOC.
404
JUNE
1912
305
404.
To
Paul Ehrenfest
Prague, 3
June
[1912]
Dear
Mr. Ehrenfest,
I
cannot
imagine why
Mr. Weiss
behaves
so
underhandedly
toward
me!
He
put
me
off until such
a
time
as
I could
personally
intervene
in
Zurich
on
behalf of
your
Habilitation,
and
writes
you
a
sort
of
rejection
letter without
saying anything
to
me.[1]
The
position
in Basel
is
now
vacant all
right,[2]
but
the
fellows
there
are corrupt
swine-if
I
may say
so.
They
love to back
impotent
bunglers.[3]
If
I gain any influence, you
will be
going
there.[4]
In
any
case,
be
sure
to accept
Sommerfeld's
offer![5]
First of
all,
this
is
advantageous
to
you
for
all the
usual
reasons
and, second,
Sommerfeld's
milieu
is
a
delight
for
a man
like
you.
Besides,
by
habilitating
with
Sommerfeld,
you
will also win
the well-deserved
respect
of
my jellyfish
compatriots.
Your letter
brought
again clarity
to
the radiation
question.[6]
We
simply
misunder-
stood each other.
By "light
in
motion remains
in
motion," I
understood the
hypothesis,
(1)
incident
moving light
veloc.
c
+
v
c+v
You
understand
by
this the
hypothesis
(2)
incident
moving light
vel.
c
+
v
c-v
C
deflected
light
c+v
Resonator
(at rest)
deflected
light
c
+
v
resonator at rest
Expressed
in words:
1.
In
all directions,
deflected
light
has
the
velocity
of the incident
light.
2.
The
centers
of the deflected
spherical
waves move
like
the
light
source.
But
your hypothesis (2)
also
leads
to
an
observable
consequence
that
can
hardly
come
true,
that
is
to
say, one
that
contradicts
the
law
of
reflection.