286 DOC.
299
FEBRUARY
1917
claim
a privileged position
in the
theory.
Thus
a
four-dimensional continuum
can
still be
maintained
and,
in
upholding
the postulate of
general covariance,
it
then
has
the
advantage
of
circumventing
the arbitrariness
in
the
choice of coordinates.
However, you
have also
understood
correctly
the
disadvantage
attached
to
a
continuum. If the
molecular
interpretation of
matter
is
the
correct
(practicable)
one,
that
is,
if
a
portion
of
the
world
must
be
represented
as a
finite number of
moving points,
then the
continuum in modern
theory
contains much
too
multi-
farious
possibilities.
I
also believe
that this
multifariousness
is to blame for
the
foundering
of
our
tools
of
description
on
quantum
theory.
The
question
seems
to
me
to be
how
one
can
formulate statements
about
a
discontinuum
without
resorting
to
a
continuum
(space-time);
the latter
would
have
to
be banished from
the
theory
as an
extra construction
that
is
not
justified by
the
essence
of the
problem
and that
corresponds
to nothing
“real.”
But
for
this
we
unfortunately
are
still
lacking
the mathematical
form.
How
much
I have toiled in
this
direction
already![3]
Indeed,
I
see
principal
difficulties here
as
well.
Electrons
(as points)
would
be final conditions
(building blocks)
in such
a
system.
Do
final
building
blocks
exist at
all?
Why are
they
all
similar in
size?
Is it
adequate
to
say:
God in His
wisdom has made them all
the
same size,
each
like
any
of
the
others,
because
He
so
wished? If it had suited
Him,
He
could also have made
them
dissimilar. Thus
we are
better
placed
with
the
continuum
conception,
because
elementary building
blocks to not have
to
be
provided
from the
outset. The
old
question
of
the
vacuum
notwithstanding!
But
these reservations
must
pale
against
this
glaring
fact:
The
continuum
is
more
comprehensive
than the
objects
to
be
described
.........
Dear
Dällenbach,
what
help
is
all this
argumentation,
when
we
do not
come
through
with
a
satisfactory
interpretation?
But this
is
devilishly
difficult.
There
will
have to
be
a
hard
struggle
before
the
step
we
have in mind
is
actually
taken.
So,
tax
your
brain,
maybe you
can
master it.
I
am
sending
all
of
you
herewith
a
copy
of
the
quantum
paper[4]
and
one on
the
cosmic
gravitational field.[5]
This
latter
subject is
a
bit
daring but,
without
a
doubt,
worth consideration.
Best
regards,
yours,
Einstein.
P.
S.
In
principle,
it
certainly
is
correct
that the
local
system defining
the ds's
is
chosen from such motion
constraints
as cause
the
gravitational
field forces to
vanish. For
we
obviously
do not know
whether
the
field
forces
rouv,
or
acceleration,
do not
(in principle)
affect
the
yardsticks
and
clocks
directly.
Best
regards
to
Wohlwend.[6]
I
am
very pleased
that
he
wants
to write
me.
I
do not
yet
know
when
exactly
I’ll
be
traveling
to Switzerland.
(Healthwise,
I
am feeling
decidedly
Previous Page Next Page