Exam Question: Relativity/Cathode Rays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spastik_Relativity
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exam Rays
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a test question related to cathode ray tubes, specifically focusing on the charge to mass ratio and velocity of cathode rays as calculated by a student named Albert. There is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of Albert's calculations compared to textbook values, particularly in the context of relativistic effects such as mass dilation and the conditions under which the measurements were taken.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of non-ideal conditions, such as the presence of particle collisions in a non-perfect vacuum, on the calculations. Questions arise about whether the textbook's figures for the charge to mass ratio account for relativistic effects like mass dilation and whether the original measurements by J.J. Thomson are comparable to modern values.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights regarding the potential use of relativistic mass in the textbook calculations and the precision of the velocity values. There is an ongoing exploration of the relationship between the calculated ratios and the historical context of the measurements, with no explicit consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of the units used in calculations and the potential discrepancies due to rounding errors. There is also mention of variability in historical measurements of the charge to mass ratio, which may affect comparisons with current accepted values.

Spastik_Relativity
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
I just did a test yesterday and there was a question about cathode ray tubes, it went soemthing liek this.
Albert calutated the charge to mass ratio of the cathode rays to be 1.3*10^11 and his velocity to be 3*10^8. His answers didnt agree to that of the textbook. Marie another student, explain to Albert why his calculation were probably correct for this situation. What did Marie say?

I wrote that perhaps it wasnt a perfect vacuum so particle collisions may have slowed to electrons. Also mass dilation would have slowed to electron.

Is this correct? I am not sure whether the textbook calcultion already take into account mass dilation. Also my friend suggested length contration/time dilation would have effected its velocity. I wasnt quite sure because its not in an inertial frame of reference because the elctrons were accelerated to that speed. Any input will be useful.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Doesnt anybody have any input? i really do need soem help here.
the main question I am asking is whether the textbooks figures for q/m ratio take into account mass dilation or not
 
Spastik_Relativity said:
Doesnt anybody have any input? i really do need soem help here.
the main question I am asking is whether the textbooks figures for q/m ratio take into account mass dilation or not

Assuming the numbers in the problem are in MKS units, then the ratio certainly suggest the relativistic mass is being used in the calculation. From the ratio you could find the velocity required to increase the mass sufficiently to achieve that ratio. Your velocity number, being rounded off to one decimal place lacks precision, so there is no way you can verify the velocity calculated from the ratio is the stated velocity. To within roundoff error, the velocies would agree.
 
does that mean that the q/m ratio used in the textbooks is not the orignal one discovered by JJ Thompson?
 
Spastik_Relativity said:
does that mean that the q/m ratio used in the textbooks is not the orignal one discovered by JJ Thompson?

There was considerable variability in the values he reported. Here is the information he published.

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/thomson1897.html

Some of the velocities he reported were in the neighborhood of 10% of light speed, but not much higher, so relativistic mass effects are much smaller than the variation in his measurements. The value stated in this problem is considerably different from today's accepted value of 1.759 x 10^11 C/kg

http://www.nyu.edu/classes/tuckerman/honors.chem/lectures/lecture_2/node3.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
those are great sites thanks for the help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
33K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K