J.J. Thomson's cathode ray experiment

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

J.J. Thomson's cathode ray experiment established that the charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) for electrons is significantly smaller than that of ionized atoms, as noted in Rohlf's Modern Physics textbook. The discussion clarifies that the confusion between q/m and m/q arises from differing terminologies used in physics. It is definitively established that the mass of the electron is much smaller than that of ionized atoms, confirming that q/m for electrons is indeed smaller due to their lower mass.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) and mass-to-charge ratio (m/q)
  • Familiarity with basic concepts of atomic structure and electron properties
  • Knowledge of J.J. Thomson's cathode ray experiment
  • Basic physics terminology related to electrostatics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical context and implications of J.J. Thomson's cathode ray experiment
  • Study the differences between charge-to-mass ratio (q/m) and mass-to-charge ratio (m/q)
  • Explore the significance of electron properties in modern physics
  • Investigate the methods used to measure charge-to-mass ratios in various particles
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in the foundational experiments that shaped atomic theory and the understanding of electron properties.

jcortez91
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
In Rohlf's Modern Physics textbook it reads: "The value of q/m for the electron determined by Thomson wan substantially smaller than the values of q/m determined by electrolysis, that is, q/m for the electron is much smaller than for ionized atoms. There were two extreme possibilities: (1) The electron charge is much smaller than the charge of an ionized atom, or (2) the electron mass is much smaller than the mass of an ionized atom (or both!) " (Rohlf 12).

Of course we know the mass to be much smaller but is the book description correct? It seems to me that m/q should be smaller for electrons, not q/m, because either the mass is smaller or the charge is larger. Could someone shed light on this?


Thanks,
Alex
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks like Rohlf has it backwards - good catch.
The confusion may arise because some refer to m/q and some to q/m.
 
Okay thanks. It was bugging me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
10K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K