216 DOCUMENT 161
DECEMBER 1915
TTrL
(GyBAW,
Sternwarte
Babelsberg,
Nr.
65, pp.
30-33). Kirsten
and
Treder
1979a,
pp.
167-168.
[82 120].
The word
“Abschrift!” appears at
the
head of
the document.
Enclosed
in
a
letter from
Otto
Naumann
to
Hermann
Struve, 16
December 1915.
[1]Two
weeks
earlier,
Einstein had
requested
of
Naumann that he consult
Max
Planck in the matter
of
freeing
Erwin
Freundlich of
routine tasks
at
the
Royal
Prussian
Observatory
(see
Doc.
151).
[2]Einstein
had
a
meeting
with Naumann
on
24 November
(see
Doc.
151).
[3]See
Freundlich
1915a,
which
uses
observations
made
by
William
Wallace
Campbell
(1862-
1938)
of
the
Lick
Observatory
(see
Doc.
59, note 2,
for
more on
this
paper).
Earlier,
Einstein had been
less cautious about Freundlich’s confimation
of
the existence
of
the
gravitational
redshift
(see
Docs. 87 and
152).
[4]The
idea
of
using
binary stars
had occurred to Einstein in
early February (see
Doc.
53).
[5]See
Einstein 1915h
(Vol. 6,
Doc.
24).
[6]The
participants
in the
expedition were
taken
prisoner
and
detained
for
several weeks
(see
Doc.
34).
[7]One
of
the
experts was
Frederick Slocum
(see
Doc.
353).
The formulation in this
paragraph sug-
gests
that the idea
of
using Jupiter
to test the effect
was only developed
after the
unsuccessful solar
eclipse expedition
to Russia. See Doc.
2, however,
for
evidence that the
idea
had been conceived
earlier.
[8]Five
days
earlier,
Einstein
had met with Struve
at
the Prussian
Academy
to
discuss the
question
of
granting
Freundlich
a
leave
of
absence
of
two
to three
years,
without
informing
Struve that he had
already
discussed
the
matter
personally
with
Naumann
(see
Struve
Aktenvermerk,
after
10
December
1915,
GyBAW,
Sternwarte
Babelsberg,
Nr.
65,
p.
27, reprinted
in Kirsten
and
Treder
1979a,
pp.
168-
169).
In
an
official
response
to this document
(Hermann
Struve to Otto
Naumann,
20 December
1915,
GyBAW,
Sternwarte
Babelsberg,
Nr.
65,
pp.
38-40,
reprinted
in Kirsten
and
Treder
1979a, pp.
169-
171),
Struve
commented
on
Einstein’s three
points.
He first
argued
that his
observatory
did not have
the
means
to
make observations
on
stellar
redshift.
Concerning
the second
point,
he claimed that the
perihelion
shift
of
Mercury
could be
explained
in the
framework
of
Newtonian
gravitation.
On the
third
point
Struve
was more positive:
he
declared himself
willing
to participate
in
an expedition
to
observe the next
solar
eclipse,
but added that
it
would be
pointless
to
try
to
observe the deflection
of
light passing by Jupiter.
He then
expressed
himself
in
strongly negative
terms about the abilities and
work
of
Freundlich, claiming
that he had
“totally neglected” (“ganz
und
gar
vernachlässigt”)
his
official task
of
making
observations with the meridian circle. In
conclusion,
Struve stated that it
would be in Freundlich’s
interest,
as
well
as
in that
of
the
observatory,
if
a
position
could be found for
him that would
better
suit his talents.
161. To
Arnold
Sommerfeld
[Berlin,]
9.
XII.
15.
Lieber
Sommerfeld!
Hier bekommen Sie die beiden
Manuskripte zurück,
die ich
mit
Interesse durch-
gesehen
habe.[1]
Planck
arbeitet auch
an
einem ähnlichen
[P]roblem
wie Sie
(Quantelung
des Phasenraumes
von Molekularsystemen).[2]
Auch
er
bemüht sich
um
Spektralfragen.
Die
allgemeine
Relativität
kann Ihnen
kaum
Hilfe
bringen,
da
sie für diese
Probleme
praktisch
mit
der
Relativitätstheorie im
engeren
Sinne
zu-
sammenfällt.[3] Soviel ich
von
Hilberts
Theorie
weiss,
bedient
sie sich eines Ansat-
zes
für das
elektrodynamische Geschehen,
der
sich
[a]bgesehen
von
der
Behand–