DOCS.
233,
234
JULY
1916 231
Affectionate
greetings
to
you
and
your
family,
yours,
Albert.
Cordial
greetings
and
many
thanks
for
now
to
Zangger,
likewise
to
the
Zurchers.[5]
234.
From Théophile
de
Donder
[Brussels,]
14 July 1916
S[ir]
and
esteemed
Colleague,
I
acknowledge receipt
of
your
letter
of
the 8th
instant;[1]
I. I
was
happy
to
note
that the
eqs.
(371)
of
my
chap.
VII
are
identical to
yours (2a,
p. 845, 1915)
when
you set;[2]
V-g(Tki)Einstein
=
(Tik)DeDonder.
However,
then
I
note
your
eq.
(14)
p.
782
(XLIV,
1915)
must be modified in
the
following
manner;[3]
E
0K)Einstein
dxv
etc.,
in
other
words, among
these
4
relations
the
Iki’s
(i.e., my
Tik's)
must
appear.
I
have verified
this
fact
very carefully
in
3
different
ways.
II. You
note
that
in
the
case
where
V-g
=
1
and where
T
=
0
my
(tAu)DeD
must
coincide,
according
to
your
indications,
with
your
(tuA)Einst;
hence,
as
I
wrote
you
in
my
first
letter,[4]
this coincidence
does not
take
place.
I have verified
this
with the
ds2
which
appears
on p. 194, eq.
(4)
(report by
the late
K.
Schwarzschild
1916).[5]
This still leaves
me
perplexed?-.
III.
I
found
d(tXu
-
tAV)/dxu
=0
The
tAu’g
diff.
from
the
tAu’s
and
(tuA)Einst =
general
case??
IV.
It
is
accurate to
say
that
of your
ten
equations my
eleven
eqs. can
be
deduced, i.e.,
those
that
result
from[6]
////
D(dx1...dx4)
=
0
and from
the
compl.
eq.
l
=
1/2E
Tkk.
Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)


DOCS.
233,
234
JULY
1916 231
Affectionate
greetings
to
you
and
your
family,
yours,
Albert.
Cordial
greetings
and
many
thanks
for
now
to
Zangger,
likewise
to
the
Zurchers.[5]
234.
From Théophile
de
Donder
[Brussels,]
14 July 1916
S[ir]
and
esteemed
Colleague,
I
acknowledge receipt
of
your
letter
of
the 8th
instant;[1]
I. I
was
happy
to
note
that the
eqs.
(371)
of
my
chap.
VII
are
identical to
yours (2a,
p. 845, 1915)
when
you set;[2]
V-g(Tki)Einstein
=
(Tik)DeDonder.
However,
then
I
note
your
eq.
(14)
p.
782
(XLIV,
1915)
must be modified in
the
following
manner;[3]
E
0K)Einstein
dxv
etc.,
in
other
words, among
these
4
relations
the
Iki’s
(i.e., my
Tik's)
must
appear.
I
have verified
this
fact
very carefully
in
3
different
ways.
II. You
note
that
in
the
case
where
V-g
=
1
and where
T
=
0
my
(tAu)DeD
must
coincide,
according
to
your
indications,
with
your
(tuA)Einst;
hence,
as
I
wrote
you
in
my
first
letter,[4]
this coincidence
does not
take
place.
I have verified
this
with the
ds2
which
appears
on p. 194, eq.
(4)
(report by
the late
K.
Schwarzschild
1916).[5]
This still leaves
me
perplexed?-.
III.
I
found
d(tXu
-
tAV)/dxu
=0
The
tAu’g
diff.
from
the
tAu’s
and
(tuA)Einst =
general
case??
IV.
It
is
accurate to
say
that
of your
ten
equations my
eleven
eqs. can
be
deduced, i.e.,
those
that
result
from[6]
////
D(dx1...dx4)
=
0
and from
the
compl.
eq.
l
=
1/2E
Tkk.

Help

loading