4

DOCS.

FOR

VOLS.

1

&

5

JULY 1901-FEBRUARY

1909

But

now, my

greetings

and kisses from the bottom

of

my

heart,

and write

back

soon.

Yours,

D[ollie]

Miss

Popova

is

jealous

of

me

about

Miss

Engelbrecht,[13]

which

naturally

amuses

me,

and whenever

we

3

meet she

gets annoyed.

Vol.

5,

136a. From Dmitry Mirimanoff[1]

Parade

la

Ferme, Cannes, 5

February 1909

Sir,

Allow

me

to make

some

remarks

about

the

note

that

you kindly

directed to

me.[2]

It

is

exactly

right

that

vector Q

is

none

other

than

Minkowski's vector

m,

which

you

denote

by

the letter h.

I

thought

it

was

obvious. In

my paper,

however,

the

l[etter][3]

h

denotes Lorentz’s vector.

It

is

clearly

this that

I

say

on

p.

193:

“But,

vector

Q does

not

signify

the

magnet. energy”

(for

Lorentz,

of

course,

not

for

Minkowski).[4]

And

it

is

precisely

in order to avoid confusion

that

I

assigned a

different

letter

to

this

vector. For

I

take Lorentz’s

point

of

view. I

advance

the

following

hypotheses:

(1)

I

assume as

true

Lorentz’s

differ.

equats.

(I

do

not

say

that

I

believe

them

to

be

true;

my personal opinion

is of

little

importance.)[5]

I

suppose

that

vectors

E,

h,

etc.,

exist

(an

indep.

defin.

of

the

princ.

of

relativity).

I

apply to

these

equ.

Lorentz’s

transf.

and

[...]

approximately,

one can

find transform. forms. such

that

Lorentz’s

equats.

are

not

modified

by

the transf.

I

give

these forms.

(2)

I

assume

true

the

principle

postulate

of

relativity,

in

other

words,

I

suppose

that

Lorentz’s

equats.

are

not

altered

by

Lorentz’s transforms.

And

I

intend

to find

the

relations

that

together

form

a

link

with the

fundam.

quant[ities]

before and

after transformation.

I have

no

other aim.

I know

that the

problem presents

no

difficulty

at all and

that the

solution

is straightforward,

but

I

thought

it

not

unhelpful

to

present

it. Vector Q

plays only

an

ancil. role in

my

pap[er].

I

could have

omitted

it,

just

as

I

could

h[ave]

omitted

vector

U,[6]

since

the transf.

form[ula]s can

be

obtained

in

a more

direct

man[ner].

They

certain[ly]

can

be derived from those

of

Mink.,

but

actually they

follow

from

the

fund.

th.

of Lorentz-Poincaré

(th.

of

relat.).

Is

it

necessary

to

add

that

I

do

not

propose any

new

th[eory]?

The

equats.

I-IV

are

those

of Lorentz;

the

transf.

forms. for

B,

M,

etc.,

are

the

necessary