Cathode Rays Experiment some missunderstood parts

AI Thread Summary
J.J. Thomson's cathode ray experiments aimed to establish the nature of cathode rays, ultimately proving they are negatively charged particles. The first experiment demonstrated that the rays produced a charge detected by an electrometer but did not confirm that the rays themselves carried the charge. The second experiment confirmed that the rays were deflected by an electric field, providing evidence that they were indeed charged particles. The third experiment allowed Thomson to calculate the mass-to-charge ratio of these particles, solidifying their identification as particles. This sequence of experiments clarified misconceptions about the properties of cathode rays and their charge.
Maisara-WD
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
Hi all

I don't know If this is the suitable section for this post.. but at all.. let's see if anybody can make me understand this :):)

You all know of course J.J. Thomsons's three CRT experiments...

The first one was aiming to prove that the appearing rays and the negative charges detected by the electrometer are inseperable and interwined, and that was by exposing them to a magnetic field, observed that the rays were bent and no readings were recorded on the electrometer.. so they proved it well... but please.. isn't that meaning that the rays carry -ve charge?? so what's the aim of the 2nd exp.?
My personal understanding is that the 2nd exp. is to find a solution for the problem of rays being not deflected by electric field and not to prove anything.. BUT

In the second exp. Thomson found a solution for the problem and -I don't know how..- he concluded that the rays are particles -vely chraged... How this differs from the first exp. Does the magnetic field differs physically from the electric field -I mean in attracting charged bodies-? doesn't the attraction by magnet prove that the rays are -vely chraged particles??

I'm Waiting ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The second experiment proved that the rays were deflected by an electric field.
Other workers had failed to find this - leading them to believe that the beam perhaps did not consist of charged particles.

Thompson's first experiment showed that the beam produced charge at the electrometer - it did not prove that the charge was carried by the beam.
The second confirmed that the beam itself carried charge.
The third allowed him to actually calculate the ratio of mass to charge of the particles in the beam. Showing in fact that they were particles.
 
AJ Bentley said:
The second experiment proved that the rays were deflected by an electric field.
Other workers had failed to find this - leading them to believe that the beam perhaps did not consist of charged particles.

Thompson's first experiment showed that the beam produced charge at the electrometer - it did not prove that the charge was carried by the beam.
The second confirmed that the beam itself carried charge.
The third allowed him to actually calculate the ratio of mass to charge of the particles in the beam. Showing in fact that they were particles.

Thank You very very much.. I'm very grateful to u
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'

Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
View full post »

Thread 'Do electron density waves accompany EM waves in coaxial cables?'

Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
View full post »
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'

The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
View full post »

Similar threads

JJ Thomson Discovery of the Electron
Replies
9
Views
2K
J.J. Thomson's Cathode Ray Experiment: Discovery of Electrons
Replies
5
Views
2K
How do we know the mass of an electron?
Replies
28
Views
4K
To which extent cathode rays can be considered as current in a wire
Replies
6
Views
3K
J.J Thompson's Cathode Ray Experiment
Replies
1
Views
4K
Cathode Ray Tube and magnetic field Question
Replies
1
Views
2K
Discovery of electrons - How did Thomson know they were particles?
Replies
16
Views
5K
How Were Canal Rays Explained and When?
Replies
6
Views
3K
How Are Electrons Deflected in Thomson's Experiment With Only a Magnetic Field?
Replies
8
Views
5K
Which Gas Was Used in J.J. Thomson's Cathode Ray Experiment?
Replies
2
Views
10K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top