Graduate Converting JJ Thomson's q/m Units to Modern Standards

  • Thread starter Thread starter adamws
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Units
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the conversion of the q/m ratio reported by J.J. Thomson in 1897 from "electrostatic units" to the modern accepted units of C/kg. Historical measurements of q/m converge around 1.76x10^7, but the current accepted value is significantly different at 1.75882001076(53)×10^11 C/kg. It is suggested that Thomson likely used the electromagnetic charge unit, specifically the absolute Coulomb, leading to a conversion factor discrepancy of 10. The conversation highlights the importance of using SI units for clarity and accuracy in scientific measurements. Understanding these conversions is crucial for interpreting historical data in the context of modern physics.
adamws
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
How to convert from the units used to report q/m by JJ Thomson to the units used in the now accepted form of q/m.
Summary: How to convert from the units used to report q/m by JJ Thomson to the units used in the now accepted form of q/m.

Referencing the below paper... The q/m measurement was first done in 1897 and reported by JJ Thomson. Numerous others measured the same in the early 1900's. The paper below gives a chronicle of those measurements which appear to converge on a value of 1.76x10^7 and they refer to units of this measurement as "electrostatic units". Today's accepted value is different by several orders of magnitudes; 1.75882001076(53)×10^11 C/kg. This leads me to believe that "electrostatic units" are not the same as C/kg but I cannot find a source that can confirm the conversion. It appears that one can just multiply by 10,000 but that is conjecture... I really would like to have a source.

https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall05/frs119/papers/smith97_thomson.pfg.pdf
 
  • Informative
Likes BvU
Physics news on Phys.org
It's obviously not in electrostatic units. In the original paper

https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449708621070
Thomson quote the value for ##m/e## of being around ##0.5 \cdot 10^{-7}## (without giving a unit; he'd not pass the intro lab in our university today ;-)). Let's see which units he most probably has used. In matters of absolute values the SI is the save ground to start from: ##m/e \simeq 5.70 \cdot 10^{-12} \text{kg} \, \text{C}^{-1}##. Now in science even in England masses were measured in grams. So we have ##m/e \simeq 5.70 \cdot 10^{-9} \text{g} \, \text{C}^{-1}##. Now there's only a discrepancy of a factor of 10.

Checking Wikipedia for historical units of electromagnetism, we find that thus he must have used the electromagnetic charge unit, the socalled absolute Coulomb. Now ##1 \; \text{C} \widehat{=}0.1 \, \text{abC}##, i.e., we have ##m/e \simeq 5.70 \cdot 10^{-8} \text{g} \, \text{abC}^{-1}=0.570 \cdot 10^{-7} \text{g} \, \text{abC}^{-1}## in accordance with Thomson's measurements.

Unfortunately the English Wikipedia has not that very useful table the German Wikipedia has:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elektromagnetische_Maßeinheiten#Elektromagnetische_Einheiten_in_verschiedenen_Systemen

The most convenient system of units for electromagnetism, used today in theoretical high-energy physics, are the rationalized Gaussian units, also known as Heaviside-Lorentz units (usually taken in natural units, where ##\hbar=c=1##. In the letter form it's identical with the SI setting ##\mu_0=\epsilon_0=1##. If it comes to concrete numbers, the one and only system is of course the modern SI units with all the (now exactly defined!) values for the fundamental constants left intact.
 
  • Like
Likes adamws
Makes complete sense! Thank you kindly for your effort and well written response.
 
Thread 'What is the pressure of trapped air inside this tube?'
As you can see from the picture, i have an uneven U-shaped tube, sealed at the short end. I fill the tube with water and i seal it. So the short side is filled with water and the long side ends up containg water and trapped air. Now the tube is sealed on both sides and i turn it in such a way that the traped air moves at the short side. Are my claims about pressure in senarios A & B correct? What is the pressure for all points in senario C? (My question is basically coming from watching...

Similar threads

Replies
128
Views
34K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
46K