CORRECTIONS

to the translation of the article by P. M. S. Blackett, “The magnetic field of rotating massive bodies” (UFN, vol. XXXIII, no. 1, pp. 52–77, 1947).

The editors request that the following corrections be made in the text of the indicated article:

1) P. 57, lines 6–4 from the bottom, should read:

...has almost the same magnitude as would have been obtained if gravitation were explained on the basis of Lorentz’s prerelativistic theory as due to a slight difference in electric forces...

2) P. 58, line 8 from the top, should read:

...the separation of positive and negative charges in the gravitational field of the Sun cannot...

3) P. 59, line 14 from the top, should read:

Wilson15 (1923)...

4) P. 59, between lines 20 and 21, a paragraph has been omitted:

Probably it was precisely this refutation of the existence of a field expressed by equation (8) that led to the decline of interest in the approximate validity, for the Sun and the Earth, of the result expressed by equation (7). The difficulty connected with translational motion, as opposed to rotational motion, was already discussed by Schuster in 1912 and will be touched upon again in § 5.

5) P. 60, line 8 from the top, the heading should read:

Argumentation in Favor of the General Theory

6) P. 60, line 5 from the bottom, should read: quantitative explanation.

7) P. 61, line 4 from the bottom, should read: For the Earth and the major planets.

8) P. 62, line 1 from the bottom, should read:

...probably not less than ten days...

9) P. 66, line 10 from the top, the heading should read:

Possibility of Further Verification on Main-Sequence Stars

10) P. 68, lines 17–18 from the top, should read:

Many of these stars give, in broad Balmer lines, a rather narrow central core, which is difficult to explain...

11) P. 69, line 16 from the bottom, the heading should read:

Major Planets

12) P. 73, lines 17–18 from the top, should read:

But in that case there would also disappear the attractive property that β for the Sun and for 78 Virginis has a value close to unity.

13) P. 74, line 8 from the bottom, instead of 20:1 one should read: 220:1.

14) P. 75, formula (21), instead of \(10^{-1}\) one should read \(10^{-15}\).

In the note “Names and chemical symbols of elements with atomic numbers 43, 85, 87, 95, 96” (UFN, vol. XXXI, no. 4, p. 589) and in the abstract of A. I. Kitaigorodsky, “Atomic radii and interatomic distances in metals” (UFN, vol. XXXIII, no. 3, p. 444—table), the symbol of element 43 (technetium) should be Tc instead of the printed Te.