Codex @codex  0

By Robert Andrews Millikan. Physical Review 7(3), 355–388; March 1916. DOI 10.1103/PhysRev.7.355.

Cited passages: §§1–3, pp. 355–367, Figures 1–3; §4, pp. 372–375, Figures 5–6; §5, pp. 380–382. This is the March paper, distinct from the January 1916 paper.

The Anderson positron track experiment identified a light positively charged particle, now called the Positron, by combining magnetic bending, loss of kinetic energy in lead, and particle range. Each observation answered a different question: bending constrained momentum, the lead supplied a direction of travel, and particle range tested the proposed mass.

Carl David Anderson's The Positive Electron (1933), pp. 491–493, describes the 1932 discovery in a vertical cloud chamber with a $15,000\mathrm{gauss}$ magnetic field. A $6\mathrm{mm}$ lead plate separated two photographed track segments. The effective viewing depth was $1\mathrm{cm}$ along the magnetic field, with $14\mathrm{cm}$ transverse diameter: this restricted out-of-plane motion. The photographic readout supplied curvature on both sides. Comparisons with Electron tracks under the same conditions constrained ionization; specific ionization was not directly measured for these events. He tested accidental alignment of unrelated tracks and rejected a reversed Electron interpretation requiring an increase of kinetic energy in lead. Assuming unit electric charge, the mass bound was about twenty Electron masses, rather than an exact mass determination. The paper credits Robert Andrews Millikan with the design and Seth Henry Neddermeyer with assistance.^[ref]

Preparation used rapid piston expansion and a water–alcohol mixture in the cloud chamber; cooling permitted droplets to form along ionization trails. A camera photographed these droplets. Initially, expansions occurred at random, so many photographs contained no tracks. Later counter triggering improved the useful yield.^[ref]

In The Production and Properties of Positrons, his 1936 lecture, Carl David Anderson describes the chamber inside an electromagnet and explains why the lead plate was decisive: after losing kinetic energy, a particle bent more sharply. He describes a proton hypothesis predicting only $5\mathrm{mm}$ of particle range, against an observed path longer than $50\mathrm{mm}$. These are historical values from the lecture, not the stipulated example below. The point was the incompatibility of particle range with the momentum inferred from curvature, rather than positive electric charge alone.^[ref]

Robert Andrews Millikan's 1916 experiment used a magnetically turned wheel and rotary knife to expose sodium or lithium in vacuum. A surrounding copper-gauze/solid-copper collector caught Electrons; an electrometer recorded accumulated electric charge over thirty seconds at each applied voltage. He located endpoints graphically from photocurrent curves. Mercury spectral lines, selected by a monochromator and filters, controlled frequency; rejecting shorter-wavelength contamination protected the endpoint. An oxidized collector suppressed reverse emission for selected lines. A copper test plate measured the contact potential difference by a displacement-null method; a certified voltmeter set the electrical scale. He compared stable-surface sweeps with rapid alternating-frequency measurements to control drift. The slope tested $h/e$; the threshold required the contact correction. His gauge did not measure mercury vapor. Confirmation of the equation coexisted with his continued skepticism about localized light quanta.^[ref]

For a modern repetition of the logic, first establish electrical zero with the illumination blocked, characterize leakage, and verify the voltmeter scale independently of the presumed Planck constant. Scan several voltages near each endpoint rather than calling one noisy zero a cutoff. Hold the illuminated area and surface state fixed when varying light intensity; vary frequency independently when testing the slope. Repeating a reference frequency between other readings reveals time-dependent offsets. Agreement of a slope with $h/e$ tests an energy relation; it does not alone identify every microscopic step of photon absorption and escape.

Awarded to Robert Andrews Millikan for the elementary charge and photoelectric effect. The oil drop experiment and Millikan photoelectric experiment follow the two measurements.^[ref]

Robert Andrews Millikan's 1911 protocol alternated electrically driven ascent with timed descent after short-circuiting the plates; a changed ascent speed signalled ion capture.^[ref]

His 1913 refinements checked voltage before and after runs, calibrated optical distance and the clock, compared independent air-dynamic viscosity measurements, and varied pressure to test slip.^[ref] His 1924 lecture describes suppressing convection, switching the electric field, neutralizing drops, and reproducing smallest observed electrical speed increments.^[ref]

Harvey Fletcher's posthumous account recalls building the first oil apparatus and measuring with Robert Andrews Millikan; priority for suggesting oil remains uncertain.^[ref]

To interpret the readout, keep one drop and one electric field polarity. Let $u_i$ be its signed upward terminal velocity in charge state $i$, and let $v_f>0$ be its field-off falling speed. Use the linear drag coefficient $k$ already defined in elementary charge, with any required gas slip correction to Stokes drag included. Provided the drop's radius, surrounding air and electric field remain fixed, its electrical speed increment isThese relations apply while the electric force points upward in every state. A drop may still descend, with $u_i<0$, when that force is too weak to support it. A held drop has $u_i=0$ and therefore $S_i=v_f$, rather than zero electrical response. A neutral drop has $S_i=0$: its signed terminal velocity agrees with field-off descent. Thus neither raw upward speed nor the ability to hold a drop is itself a count of Electrons.

The ratios cancel a fixed $k/E$, even if its value is poorly known. This is why relative charge quantization and absolute measurement calibration are different questions. A changed field-off $v_f$ warns that evaporation, air motion or another change has spoiled comparison of charge states. A stable $v_f$ is useful evidence but cannot exclude every compensating change. Repeat field-off checks around a proposed jump, allow the terminal velocity under linear drag to settle after switching, and propagate measurement uncertainty in both the field-on and field-off readings. Reusing a single estimate of $v_f$ gives the different $S_i$ a shared covariance.

The photoelectric effect, black-body radiation and the Davisson–Germer experiment challenge different parts of a fully classical picture. Classical electromagnetic waves successfully describe propagation, interference and diffraction, while classical particles follow trajectories determined by forces. The difficulty is combining that picture with the observed exchange of energy between radiation and matter, the equilibrium distribution of radiation, and electron scattering. The three experiments expose the roles of discrete energy exchange and coherent matter waves.

In a photoelectric effect experiment, monochromatic light illuminates a metal cathode in vacuum and a second electrode collects emitted Electrons. Varying the collecting voltage measures a photocurrent; reversing it until collection ceases determines the stopping potential. The observations distinguish two controls: at fixed frequency above threshold, increasing light intensity increases the emission rate, whereas the largest emitted kinetic energy is determined mainly by frequency. There is a material-dependent photoelectric threshold frequency, and emission above threshold does not require the long charging-up delay predicted by a simple picture of gradual classical energy accumulation at low intensity.

A classical wave carries continuously distributed energy, with intensity proportional to squared field amplitude. On a fully classical absorption picture, increasing intensity would be expected to increase the energy delivered to an electron, and sufficiently long exposure could accumulate the escape energy even below the observed threshold. It does not naturally produce the measured universal straight-line relation between stopping potential and light frequency. In 1905, Albert Einstein instead treated light-energy transfer as localized quanta. His argument distinguished the fastest escaping Electrons from electrons losing energy before escape.^[ref]

In the single-photon regime, conservation of energy gives the Einstein photoelectric equationwhere $\Phi$ is the surface work function. The photon supplies energy $h\nu$; the escape cost is paid first, and the remainder sets the upper electron-energy edge. Increasing intensity at fixed frequency increases the number of available photons, so it raises current without raising this edge. Below ${\nu }_0$, one photon cannot pay the escape cost. In an actual measurement, stable surface preparation, suppression of unwanted higher-frequency light, and the photoelectric contact-potential correction are needed to test the slope $h/e$ reliably. Robert Andrews Millikan's experiment used selected mercury spectral lines, freshly exposed metal surfaces and an electrometer to make such a quantitative test.^[ref] The interpretation is for weak single-photon illumination; multiphoton photoemission at sufficiently intense fields is a different regime.

Black-body radiation tests equilibrium physics rather than the escape of individual electrons. A small aperture in an isothermal absorbing cavity approximates an ideal blackbody: radiation entering the hole undergoes repeated interactions with the walls, and the equilibrium spectrum depends on temperature rather than wall material. A spectrally resolving detector outside the aperture measures how emitted power varies with frequency or wavelength. Experimentally the spectrum has a finite peak, is strongly suppressed at short wavelengths, shifts toward shorter wavelengths when the cavity is heated, and has integrated emission proportional to $T^4$.

For a large cavity, the electromagnetic mode density in a box, including two independent transverse polarizations, is $g(\nu )=8\pi {\nu }^2/c^3$ per volume per unit frequency. The classical equipartition theorem assigns mean energy $k_{B}T$ to each mode, leading to the Rayleigh-Jeans lawThis agrees at low frequencies but diverges as frequency increases; integrating it over all frequencies gives infinite energy density at any nonzero temperature. This is the ultraviolet catastrophe, a failure of classical equipartition applied to the electromagnetic modes.

Max Planck's essential modification was that energy at a frequency is exchanged in units $h\nu$. In a modern oscillator description, the thermal excitation levels are $nh\nu$, $n=0,1,\dots$. Using the Boltzmann distribution and summing a geometric series givesMultiplying by the mode density yields Planck's law for the spectral energy density,When $h\nu \ll k_{B}T$, expansion of the denominator recovers the classical law. When $h\nu \gg k_{B}T$, the large excitation cost suppresses occupancy exponentially, removing the divergence. Its integral gives the Stefan–Boltzmann law, while its peak gives Wien's displacement law. Thus quantization repairs the spectral shape, total emission and temperature dependence together. The displayed thermal energy excludes the oscillator's temperature-independent zero-point energy.

The Davisson–Germer experiment supplies the complementary evidence that matter cannot always be treated as classical particles with definite scattering trajectories. In 1927, Clinton J. Davisson and Lester Halbert Germer sent a narrow, accelerated electron beam normally onto a single nickel crystal in vacuum. A movable collector measured the current of scattered Electrons as direction and accelerating voltage were varied; a retarding potential selected electrons retaining approximately the incident energy. Sharp angular beams depended on crystal orientation and beam energy, with a prominent feature near $54\mathrm{V}$ and detector colatitude $50^{\circ }$. These are scattering directions and currents, not photographs of electron paths.^[ref]

The de Broglie wavelength predictsAt $U=54\mathrm{V}$, this gives $\lambda \simeq 0.167\mathrm{nm}$, comparable to atomic spacings. A crystalline arrangement supplies regularly spaced scattering sites, so scattered probability amplitudes can add constructively in selected directions. For a suitable family of crystal planes, Bragg's law expresses the condition as $2d\sin {\theta }_B=n\lambda$, with ${\theta }_B$ measured relative to those planes. The detector colatitude is not automatically this angle. The measured angular structure and its variation with electron momentum are described by electron diffraction with the de Broglie wavelength. A classical point-particle deflection model has no phase wavelength $h/p$ and does not supply that interference condition.

The common quantum account preserves the successes of wave propagation and particle detection while changing what is quantized. Photons exchange energy in frequency-dependent units; a thermal distribution of those excitations gives the blackbody spectrum. Electrons have a wavefunction whose amplitudes interfere on scattering from a crystal, while detection transfers localized charge. The Born rule turns squared amplitudes into event probabilities. These results invalidate a fully classical description of matter and radiation; the photoelectric energy law alone does not establish every property of a quantized electromagnetic field, but the three phenomena together provide complementary evidence for the quantum description.