Showing 82 results

Bohr comments on a book by A Pauly (1905) on "Darwinism and Lamarchism". Bohr gives his attitude to the great progress in biology and psychology made in recent time, in the light of the results of atomic physics as regards the description of phenomene.

Bohr is convinced of the significance of Thomas' paper in : "Nature : 117 (1926), pp. 514" and asks for a reply to his questions before reading the proofs of Thomas' paper. He also hopes to see Pauli in Copenhagen in April.

The letter encloses a paper by Jordan published in: Z. Phys. : 44 (1927), pp.473. Bohr discusses it briefly and refers also to Klein's work. Bohr has not yet finished a "small note". He refers to Pauli's visit.

Bohr has sent his manuscript to Naturwissenschaften and asked Berliner to send proofs to Pauli. Most of it is well known to Pauli, but some additions are new. He asks Pauli to send him proofs with critical remarks.

Bohr thanks Pauli for his letter which gave him a welcome occasion for a small heart-outpouring. He has recently returned to his old primitive view on the problems of the electron theory after having been alarmed by Pauli's difficulty with the infinite self-energy of the electrons.

Bohr sends only a few words to say that he has found that a sentence in his Brussels remarks is not correct. It is the sentence that begins with: "Comme on sait, la forme des lignes...". However, this is not important for the point of view that he tries to defend. Now, he thinks that he understands the relation between the theory of dispersion and the problem of line-width.

Bohr has thought about the Einstein article and looked up some of the old literature. He writes about a new book on Einstein's life by Philipp Frank, which may not be too good, either in terms of physics or philosphy, but certainly gives a most interesting picture of Einstein's personality and the unbalanced situation in Germany between the wars. Bohr is very interested to learn about the plans for a special issue of "Dialectica" on the epistomological problems and it would certainly be a pleasure to him to contribute with an article. To his mind, the situation is far more clear than generally assumed. He should, however, be glad to wait with a definite answer until he has advanced further with the article on which he is working and which perhaps, if it is not ready in time for the Einstein volume, could be used to some other purpose.

Bohr's reply to Pauli's letter of the 15th November 1948 relates to an article in "Dialectica". He also writes about a discussion he had with Van Hove and about letters by Born and his own scripts concerning the mass problem.

Bohr agrees with almost everything in Pauli's last letter. He reports on a long discussion of Heisenberg's theory and its relation to the earlier quantum theory and on the missing aspects and the future of Heisenberg's theory. His letter has given rise to many changes in Bohr's paper of which he encloses a proof published in: Nature : 116 (1945), 845 and in: Naturwissenschaften : 14 (1926), pp.1.

Bohr has made some arrangements for a room for Pauli from April 4.