Famous Experiments: Cathode Rays |
that dealt with the glowing paths revealed when currents of electricity provided by high voltage sources passed through evacuated glass tubes. He was to eventually declare that these mysterious "cathode rays" were actually beams of electrons, small building blocks of matter. is on the left. It is where the electrons originate. The anode, or positive terminal, is on the right and is the electrode towards which the electrons are being accelerated by the electric potential placed across the tube. A metal plate coated by phosphors is positioned inside the tube to detect the path of the electrons. It emits a green glow when struck by electrons. , his work with the discharge of electricity in gases earned him the . AVI film clip (1.2 Meg) | ||
| ||
pictures courtesy of |
| |
| |
|
Copyright © 1997-2024 All rights reserved. Application Programmer Mark Acton |
Appendix 7: evidence for a new entity: j.j. thomson and the electron.
In discussing the existence of electrons Ian Hacking has written, “So far as I’m concerned, if you can spray them then they are real” (Hacking 1983, p. 23). He went on to elaborate this view. “We are completely convinced of the reality of electrons when we set out to build—and often enough succeed in building—new kinds of device that use various well-understood causal properties of electrons to interfere in other more hypothetical parts of nature” (p. 265).
Hacking worried that the simple manipulation of the first quotation, the changing of the charge on an oil drop or on a superconducting niobium sphere, which involves only the charge of the electron, was insufficient grounds for belief in electrons. His second illustration, which he believed more convincing because it involved several properties of the electron, was that of Peggy II, a source of polarized electrons built at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center in the late 1970s. Peggy II provided polarized electrons for an experiment that scattered electrons off deuterium to investigate the weak neutral current. Although I agree with Hacking that manipulability can often provide us with grounds for belief in a theoretical entity, [ 1 ] his illustration comes far too late. Physicists were manipulating the electron in Hacking’s sense in the early twentieth century. [ 2 ] They believed in the existence of electrons well before Peggy II, and I will argue that they had good reasons for that belief.
The position I adopt is one that might reasonably be called “conjectural” realism. It is conjectural because, despite having good reasons for belief in the existence of an entity or in the truth of a scientific law, we might be wrong. At one time scientists had good reason to believe in phlogiston and caloric, substances we now have good reason to believe don’t exist. My position includes both Sellars’ view that “to have good reason for holding a theory is ipso facto to have good reason for holding that the entities postulated by the theory exist” (Sellars 1962, p. 97), and the “entity realism” proposed by Cartwright (1983) and by Hacking (1983). Both Hacking, as noted above, and Cartwright emphasize the manipulability of an entity as a criterion for belief in its existence. Cartwright also stresses causal reasoning as part of her belief in entities. In her discussion of the operation of a cloud chamber she states, “…if there are no electrons in the cloud chamber, I do not know why the tracks are there” (Cartwright, 1983, p.99). In other words, if such entities don’t exist then we have no plausible causal story to tell. Both Hacking and Cartwright grant existence to entities such as electrons, but do not grant “real” status to either laws or theories, which may postulate or apply to such entities.
In contrast to both Cartwright and Hacking, I suggest that we can also have good reasons for belief in the laws and theories governing the behavior of the entities, and that several of their illustrations implicitly involve such laws. [ 3 ] I have argued elsewhere for belief in the reality of scientific laws (Franklin 1996). In this section I shall concentrate on the reality and existence of entities, in particular, the electron. I agree with both Hacking and Cartwright that we can go beyond Sellars and have good reasons for belief in entities even without laws. Hacking and Cartwright emphasize experimenting with entities. I will argue that experimenting on entities and measuring their properties can also provide grounds for belief in their existence.
In this section I will discuss the grounds for belief in the existence of the electron by examining J.J. Thomson’s experiments on cathode rays. His 1897 experiment on cathode rays is generally regarded as the “discovery” of the electron.
The purpose of J.J. Thomson’s experiments was clearly stated in the introduction to his 1897 paper.
The experiments discussed in this paper were undertaken in the hope of gaining some information as to the nature of Cathode Rays. The most diverse opinions are held as to these rays; according to the almost unanimous opinion of German physicists they are due to some process in the aether to which—inasmuch as in a uniform magnetic field their course is circular and not rectilinear—no phenomenon hitherto observed is analogous: another view of these rays is that, so far from being wholly aetherial, they are in fact wholly material, and that they mark the paths of particles of matter charged with negative electricity (Thomson 1897, p. 293).
Thomson’s first order of business was to show that the cathode rays carried negative charge. This had presumably been shown previously by Perrin. Perrin placed two coaxial metal cylinders, insulated from one another, in front of a plane cathode. The cylinders each had a small hole through which the cathode rays could pass onto the inner cylinder. The outer cylinder was grounded. When cathode rays passed into the inner cylinder an electroscope attached to it showed the presence of a negative electrical charge. When the cathode rays were magnetically deflected so that they did not pass through the holes, no charge was detected. “Now the supporters of the aetherial theory do not deny that electrified particles are shot off from the cathode; they deny, however, that these charged particles have any more to do with the cathode rays than a rifle-ball has with the flash when a rifle is fired” (Thomson 1897, p. 294).
Thomson repeated the experiment, but in a form that was not open to that objection. The apparatus is shown in Figure 14. The two coaxial cylinders with holes are shown. The outer cylinder was grounded and the inner one attached to an electrometer to detect any charge. The cathode rays from A pass into the bulb, but would not enter the holes in the cylinders unless deflected by a magnetic field.
Figure 14. Thomson’s apparatus for demonstrating that cathode rays have negative charge. The slits in the cylinders are shown. From Thomson (1897).
When the cathode rays (whose path was traced by the phosphorescence on the glass) did not fall on the slit, the electrical charge sent to the electrometer when the induction coil producing the rays was set in action was small and irregular; when, however, the rays were bent by a magnet so as to fall on the slit there was a large charge of negative electricity sent to the electrometer…. If the rays were so much bent by the magnet that they overshot the slits in the cylinder, the charge passing into the cylinder fell again to a very small fraction of its value when the aim was true. Thus this experiment shows that however we twist and deflect the cathode rays by magnetic forces, the negative electrification follows the same path as the rays, and that this negative electrification is indissolubly connected with the cathode rays (Thomson 1897, p. 294–295, emphasis added).
This experiment also demonstrated that cathode rays were deflected by a magnetic field in exactly the way one would expect if they were negatively charged material particles. [ 4 ]
Figure 15. Thomson’s apparatus for demonstrating that cathode rays are deflected by an electric field. It was also used to measure \(\bfrac{m}{e}\). From Thomson (1897).
There was, however, a problem for the view that cathode rays were negatively charged particles. Several experiments, in particular those of Hertz, had failed to observe the deflection of cathode rays by an electrostatic field. Thomson proceeded to answer this objection. His apparatus is shown in Figure 15. Cathode rays from C pass through a slit in the anode A, and through another slit at B. They then passed between plates D and E and produced a narrow well-defined phosphorescent patch at the end of the tube, which also had a scale attached to measure any deflection. When Hertz had performed the experiment he had found no deflection when a potential difference was applied across D and E. He concluded that the electrostatic properties of the cathode ray are either nil or very feeble. Thomson admitted that when he first performed the experiment he also saw no effect. “on repeating this experiment [that of Hertz] I at first got the same result [no deflection], but subsequent experiments showed that the absence of deflexion is due to the conductivity conferred on the rarefied gas by the cathode rays”. [ 5 ] On measuring this conductivity it was found that it diminished very rapidly as the exhaustion increased; it seemed that on trying Hertz’s experiment at very high exhaustion there might be a chance of detecting the deflexion of the cathode rays by an electrostatic force (Thomson 1897, p. 296). Thomson did perform the experiment at lower pressure [higher exhaustion] and observed the deflection. [ 6 ]
Thomson concluded:
As the cathode rays carry a charge of negative electricity, are deflected by an electrostatic force as if they were negatively electrified, and are acted on by a magnetic force in just the way in which this force would act on a negatively electrified body moving along the path of these rays, I can see no escape from the conclusion that they are charges of negative electricity carried by particles of matter. (Thomson 1897, p. 302) [ 7 ]
Having established that cathode rays were negatively charged material particles, Thomson went on to discuss what the particles were. “What are these particles? are they atoms, or molecules, or matter in a still finer state of subdivision” (p. 302). To investigate this question Thomson made measurements on the charge to mass ratio of cathode rays. Thomson’s method used both the electrostatic and magnetic deflection of the cathode rays. [ 8 ] The apparatus is shown in Figure 15. It also included a magnetic field that could be created perpendicular to both the electric field and the trajectory of the cathode rays.
Let us consider a beam of particles of mass \(m\) charge \(e\), and velocity \(v\). Suppose the beam passes through an electric field F in the region between plates D and E, which has a length \(L\). The time for a particle to pass through this region \(t = \bfrac{L}{v}\). The electric force on the particle is \(Fe\) and its acceleration \(a = \bfrac{Fe}{m}\). The deflection d at the end of the region is given by
Now consider a situation in which the beam of cathode rays simultaneously pass through both \(F\) and a magnetic field \(B\) in the same region. Thomson adjusted \(B\) so that the beam was undeflected. thus the magnetic force was equal to the electrostatic force.
This determined the velocity of the beam. Thus,
Each of the quantities in the above expression was measured so the \(\bfrac{e}{m}\) or \(\bfrac{m}{e}\) could be determined.
Using this method Thomson found a value of \(\bfrac{m}{e}\) of \((1.29\pm 0.17) \times 10^{-7}\). This value was independent of both the gas in the tube and of the metal used in the cathode, suggesting that the particles were constituents of the atoms of all substances. It was also far smaller, by a factor of 1000, than the smallest value previously obtained, \(10^{-4}\), that of the hydrogen ion in electrolysis.
Thomson remarked that this might be due to the smallness of \(m\) or to the largeness of \(e\). He argued that \(m\) was small citing Lenard’s work on the range of cathode rays in air. The range, which is related to the mean free path for collisions, and which depends on the size of the object, was 0.5 cm. The mean free path for molecules in air was approximately \(10^{-5}\) cm. If the cathode ray traveled so much farther than a molecule before colliding with an air molecule, Thomson argued that it must be much smaller than a molecule. [ 9 ]
Thomson had shown that cathode rays behave as one would expect negatively charged material particles to behave. They deposited negative charge on an electrometer, and were deflected by both electric and magnetic fields in the appropriate direction for a negative charge. In addition the value for the mass to charge ratio was far smaller than the smallest value previously obtained, that of the hydrogen ion. If the charge were the same as that on the hydrogen ion, the mass would be far less. In addition, the cathode rays traveled farther in air than did molecules, also implying that they were smaller than an atom or molecule. Thomson concluded that these negatively charged particles were constituents of atoms. In other words, Thomson’s experiments had given us good reasons to believe in the existence of electrons.
Return to Experiment in Physics
Copyright © 2023 by Allan Franklin < allan . franklin @ colorado . edu > Slobodan Perovic < sperovic @ f . bg . ac . rs >
Mirror sites.
View this site from another server:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University
Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054
suggested that they do. He advanced the idea that cathode rays are really streams of very small pieces of atoms. Three experiments led him to this.: of an 1895 experiment by Jean Perrin, Thomson built a ending in a pair of metal cylinders with a slit in them. These cylinders were in turn connected to an electrometer, a device for catching and measuring electrical charge. Perrin had found that cathode rays deposited an electric charge. Thomson wanted to see if, by bending the rays with a magnet, he could separate the charge from the rays. He found that when the rays entered the slit in the cylinders, the electrometer measured a large amount of negative charge. The electrometer did not register much electric charge if the rays were bent so they would not enter the slit. As Thomson saw it, the negative charge and the cathode rays must somehow be stuck together: you cannot separate the charge from the rays. | ||
. | when physicists tried to bend cathode rays with an electric field. Now Thomson thought of a new approach. A charged particle will normally curve as it moves through an electric field, but not if it is surrounded by a conductor (a sheath of copper, for example). Thomson suspected that the traces of gas remaining in the tube were being turned into an electrical conductor by the cathode rays themselves. To test this idea, he took great pains to extract nearly all of the gas from a tube, and found that now the cathode rays did bend in an electric field after all. | |
from these two experiments, "I can see no escape from the conclusion that [cathode rays] are charges of negative electricity carried by particles of matter." But, he continued, "What are these particles? are they atoms, or molecules, or matter in a still finer state of subdivision?" | ||
. | sought to determine the basic properties of the particles. Although he couldn't measure directly the mass or the electric charge of such a particle, he could measure how much the rays were bent by a magnetic field, and how much energy they carried. From this data he could calculate the of the mass of a particle to its electric charge ( / ). He collected data using a variety of tubes and using different gases. | |
. | Just as Emil Wiechert had reported earlier that year, the mass-to-charge ratio for cathode rays turned out to be far smaller than that of a charged hydrogen atom--more than one thousand times smaller. Either the cathode rays carried an enormous charge (as compared with a charged atom), or else they were amazingly light relative to their charge. was settled by . Experimenting on how cathode rays penetrate gases, he showed that if cathode rays were particles they had to have a mass very much smaller than the mass of any atom. The proof was far from conclusive. But experiments by others in the next two years yielded an independent measurement of the value of the charge ( ) and confirmed this remarkable conclusion. | the hypothesis that "we have in the cathode rays matter in a new state, a state in which the subdivision of matter is carried very much further than in the ordinary gaseous state: a state in which all matter... is of one and the same kind; this matter being the substance from which all the chemical elements are built up." |
1897 Experiments |
Revision note.
) | |
Unlock more, it's free, join the 100,000 + students that ❤️ save my exams.
the (exam) results speak for themselves:
Did this page help you?
Expertise: Physics
Dan graduated with a First-class Masters degree in Physics at Durham University, specialising in cell membrane biophysics. After being awarded an Institute of Physics Teacher Training Scholarship, Dan taught physics in secondary schools in the North of England before moving to SME. Here, he carries on his passion for writing enjoyable physics questions and helping young people to love physics.
JJ Thomson discovered the electron in 1897 and there are tons of videos about it. However, most videos miss what JJ Thomson himself said was the motivating factor: a debate about how cathode rays move. Want to know not only how but why electrons were discovered?
The start of jj thomson, how thomson discovered electrons: trials and errors, thomson’s conclusion.
A short history of Thomson: Joseph John Thomson, JJ on papers, to friends, and even to his own son [1] , was born in Lancashire, England to a middle class bookseller. When he was 14 years old, Thomson planned to get an apprenticeship to a locomotive engineer but it had a long waiting list, so, he applied to and was accepted at that very young age to Owen’s college.
Thompson later recalled that, “the authorities at Owens College thought my admission was such a scandal – I expect they feared that students would soon be coming in perambulators – that they passed regulations raising the minimum age for admission, so that such a catastrophe should not happen again.
[2] ” While in school, his father died, and his family didn’t have enough money for the apprenticeship. Instead, he relied on scholarships at universities – ironically leading him to much greater fame in academia. In 1884, at the tender age of 28, Thomson applied to be the head of the Cavendish Research Institute.
He mostly applied as a lark and was as surprised as anyone to actually get the position! “I felt like a fisherman who…had casually cast a line in an unlikely spot and hooked a fish much too heavy for him to land. [3] ” Suddenly, he had incredible resources, stability and ability to research whatever he wished.
He ended up having an unerring ability to pinpoint interesting phenomena for himself and for others. In fact, a full eight of his research assistants and his son eventually earned Nobel Prizes, but, of course, like Thomson’s own Nobel Prize, that was in the future.
Why did J. J. Thomson discover the electron in 1897? Well, according to Thomson: “the discovery of the electron began with an attempt to explain the discrepancy between the behavior of cathode rays under magnetic and electric forces [4] .” What did he mean by that?
Well, a cathode ray, or a ray in a vacuum tube that emanates from the negative electrode, can be easily moved with a magnet. This gave a charismatic English chemist named William Crookes the crazy idea that the cathode ray was made of charged particles in 1879!
However, 5 years later, a young German scientist named Heinrich Hertz found that he could not get the beam to move with parallel plates, or with an electric field. Hertz decided that Crookes was wrong, if the cathode ray was made of charged particles then it should be attracted to a positive plate and repulsed from a negative plate.
Ergo, it couldn’t be particles, and Hertz decided it was probably some new kind of electromagnetic wave, like a new kind of ultraviolet light. Further, in 1892, Hertz accidentally discovered that cathode rays could tunnel through thin pieces of metal, which seemed like further proof that Crookes was so very wrong.
Then, in December of 1895, a French physicist named Jean Perrin used a magnet to direct a cathode ray into and out of an electroscope (called a Faraday cylinder) and measured its charge. Perrin wrote, “the Faraday cylinder became negatively charged when the cathode rays entered it, and only when they entered it; the cathode rays are thus charged with negative electricity .
[5] ” This is why JJ Thomson was so confused, he felt that Perrin had, “conclusive evidence that the rays carried a charge of negative electricity” except that, “Hertz found that when they were exposed to an electric force they were not deflected at all.” What was going on?
In 1896, Thomson wondered if there might have been something wrong with Hertz’s experiment with the two plates. Thomson knew that the cathode ray tubes that they had only work if there is a little air in the tube and the amount of air needed depended on the shape of the terminals.
Thomson wondered if the air affected the results. Through trial and error, Thomson found he could get a “stronger” beam by shooting it through a positive anode with a hole in it. With this system he could evacuate the tube to a much higher degree and, if the vacuum was good enough, the cathode ray was moved by electrically charged plates, “just as negatively electrified particles would be.
[6] ” (If you are wondering why the air affected it, the air became ionized in the high electric field and became conductive. The conductive air then acted like a Faraday cage shielding the beam from the electric field.)
As stated before, Heinrich Hertz also found that cathode rays could travel through thin solids. How could a particle do that? Thomson thought that maybe particles could go through a solid if they were moving really, really fast. But how to determine how fast a ray was moving?
Thomson made an electromagnetic gauntlet. First, Thomson put a magnet near the ray to deflect the ray one-way and plates with electric charge to deflect the ray the other way. He then added or reduced the charge on the plates so that the forces were balanced and the ray went in a straight line.
He knew that the force from the magnet depended on the charge of the particle, its speed and the magnetic field (given the letter B). He also knew that the electric force from the plates only depended on the charge of the particle and the Electric field. Since these forces were balanced, Thomson could determine the speed of the particles from the ratio of the two fields.
Thomson found speeds as big as 60,000 miles per second or almost one third of the speed of light. Thomson recalled, “In all cases when the cathode rays are produced their velocity is much greater than the velocity of any other moving body with which we are acquainted. [7] ”
Thomson then did something even more ingenious; he removed the magnetic field. Now, he had a beam of particles moving at a known speed with a single force on them. They would fall, as Thomson said, “like a bullet projected horizontally with a velocity v and falling under gravity [8] ”.
Note that these “bullets” are falling because of the force between their charge and the charges on the electric plates as gravity is too small on such light objects to be influential. By measuring the distance the bullets went he could determine the time they were in the tube and by the distance they “fell” Thomson could determine their acceleration.
Using F=ma Thomson determine the ratio of the charge on the particle to the mass (or e/m). He found some very interesting results. First, no matter what variables he changed in the experiment, the value of e/m was constant. “We may… use any kind of substance we please for the electrodes and fill the tube with gas of any kind and yet the value of e/m will remain the same.
[9] ” This was a revolutionary result. Thomson concluded that everything contained these tiny little things that he called corpuscles (and we call electrons). He also deduced that the “corpuscles” in one item are exactly the same as the “corpuscles” in another. So, for example, an oxygen molecule contains the same kind of electrons as a piece of gold! Atoms are the building blocks of matter but inside the atoms (called subatomic) are these tiny electrons that are the same for everything .
The other result he found was that the value of e/m was gigantic, 1,700 times bigger than the value for a charged Hydrogen atom, the object with the largest value of e/m before this experiment. So, either the “corpuscle” had a ridiculously large charge or it was, well, ridiculously small.
A student of Thomson’s named C. T. R. Wilson had experimented with slowly falling water droplets that found that the charge on the corpuscles were, to the accuracy of the experiment, the same as the charge on a charged Hydrogen atom! Thomson concluded that his corpuscles were just very, very, tiny, about 1,700 times smaller then the Hydrogen atom [1] . These experiments lead Thomson to come to some interesting conclusions:
The first three are still considered correct over one hundred years later. The forth theory, the “plum pudding model” named after a truly English “desert” with raisins in sweet bread that the English torture people with during Christmas, was proposed by Thomson in 1904.
In 1908, a former student of Thomson’snamed Ernest Rutherford was experimenting with radiation, and inadvertently demolished the “plum pudding model” in the process. However, before I can get into Rutherford’s gold foil experiment, I first want to talk about what was going on in France concurrent to Thomson’s experiments.
This is a story of how a new mother working mostly in a converted shed discovered and named the radium that Rutherford was experimenting with. That woman’s name was Marie Sklodowska Curie, and that story is next time on the Lightning Tamers.
[1] the current number is 1,836 but Thomson got pretty close
[1] p 14 “Flash of the Cathode Rays: A History of JJ Thomson’s Electron” Dahl
[2] Thompson, J.J. Recollections and Reflections p. 2 Referred to in Davis & Falconer JJ. Thompson and the Discovery of the Electron 2002 p. 3
[3] Thomson, Joseph John Recollections and Reflections p. 98 quoted in Davis, E.A & Falconer, Isabel JJ Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron 2002 p. 35
[4] Thomson, JJ Recollections and Reflections p. 332-3
[5] “New Experiments on the Kathode Rays” Jean Perrin, December 30, 1985 translation appeared in Nature, Volume 53, p 298-9, January 30, 1896
[6] Nobel Prize speech?
How the inquisition led to the vacuum pump.
How in the world would the inquisition lead to the invention of the vacuum pump? …
On May 1, 1729 a retired clothing dyer noticed a single feather moving in a…
How did gold lead to the first rules of electricity? And, why is it ½…
Am I really going to light a fire with my bare finger? Of course, I…
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
394 Accesses
Poincaré’s work on dynamics of the electron provides a classical theory of subatomic charged particles to accompany the experimental work done over the decade following Jean Perrin’s work in 1895 . This chapter is the first of two parts that look at the discovery of the electron, the experimental work that established that electrical charge is discrete and that electrons have a mass that is small compared to hydrogen.
J. J. Thomson measured the charge-to-mass ratio of cathode rays, establishing that they were particles (not radiation) and providing a distinctive property with which to identify the same particle in other contexts, including ionized gases and the photoelectric effect. This is an interpretation of what we mean when we say that he discovered the electron.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Another aspect of Jean Perrin’s paper is worth noting. He wrote that he looked for positive charges corresponding to the negatively charged cathode rays and writes, “I think I found them in the same region where the cathode rays form.” (Perrin, 1895 ) These could be the channel rays (kanalstrahlen) discussed by Poincaré in (Poincaré, La dynamique de l’électron, 1908) section III and translated on page 107 of this book.
https://data.bnf.fr/fr/12744499/henri_pellat/
When I, in an undergraduate physics laboratory many years ago, measured the mass-to-charge ratio of an electron, glasswork and vacuum pumps were not involved; I was shown an instrument on a laboratory table, told “do this,” “measure that,” and given a handout with more information.
For information on who the Maxwellians were and what they did, see (Hunt, 1991 ). Notably, Oliver Heaviside, whose contribution to mathematical notation is discussed in Chap. 6 , is among them.
To provide a relevant example, but without suggesting that it is more or less deserving of critique, consider the first chapter provided by A. B. Pippard from the University of Cambridge for the book Electron: a Centenary Volume (Springford, 1997 ). The adjective continental is used three times in the first 10 pages.
An English adaptation of this paper was published within two months in The Electrician (Kaufmann , The Development of the Electron Idea, 1901b ). The adaptation does not include this list of references.
A commercial gas mixture used for lighting.
Falconer, I. (1987). Corpuscles, Electrons and Cathode Rays: J. J. Thomson and the ‘Discovery of the Electron’. British Journal for the History of Science , 241–276.
Google Scholar
Halley, E. (1705). Synopsis of the Astronomy of Comets. London.
Hunt, B. J. (1991). The Maxwellians. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kaufmann, W. (1897). Die magnetische Ablenkbarkeit der Kathodenstrahlen und ihre Abhängigkeit vom Entladungspotential. Annalen der Physik, ser. 3, 61 , 544–552.
Article ADS Google Scholar
Kaufmann, W. (1901a). Die Entwicklung des Electronenbegriffs. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 3 (1), 9–15.
Kaufmann, W. (1901b, November 8). The Development of the Electron Idea. The Electrician, 48 , 95–97.
Larmor, J. (1893). A Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 54 , 438–461.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.-a). CODATA Value: electron charge to mass quotient . Retrieved November 12, 2019, from https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (n.d.-b). CODATA Value: proton-electron mass ratio . Retrieved July 6, 2019, from https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?mpsme
Nobel Media AB 2019. (n.d.). The Nobel Prize in Physics 1906. Retrieved March 16, 2019, from NobelPrize.org : https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1906/summary/
Perrin, J. (1895, December). Nouvelles propriétés des rayons cathodiques. Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 121 , 1130–34.
Poincaré, H. (1906). Sur la dynamique de l’électron. Rendiconti del circolo matematico di Palermo, 21 , 129–176.
Article MATH Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. (1908). La dynamique de l’électron. Revue générale des sciences pures et appliquées, 19 , 386–402.
MATH Google Scholar
Smith, G. E. (2001). J. J. Thomson and the Electron. 1897–99. In J. Z. Buchwald, & J. Warwick, Histories of the Electron: The Birth of Microphysics (pp. 21–76). Cambridge, MA: Dibner Institute for the History of Science and Technology.
Springford, M. (Ed.). (1997). Electron: a Centenary Volume. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stoney, G. J. (1891). On the Cause of Double Lines and of Equidistant Satellites in the Spectra of Gases. Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, IV , 563–680.
Stoney, G. J. (1894). Of the “Electron” or Atom of Electricity. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Fifth Series, 38 , 418–420.
Article Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1897a, October). Cathode Rays. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Fifth Series, 44 , 293–316.
Thomson, J. J. (1897b, May 21). Cathode Rays. The Electrician, 39 , 104–9.
Thomson, J. J. (1897c, February). On the cathode rays. Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 9 , 243–4.
Thomson, J. J. (1898). On the Charge of Electricity Carried by the Ions Produced by Röntgen Rays. Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, Fifth Series, 46 , 528–45.
Thomson, J. J. (1899). On the Masses of Ions and Gases at Low Pressures. Philosophical Magazine, Fifth Series, 48 , 547–567.
Wiechert, E. (1897a). Über das Wesen der Elektricität. Schriften der Physikalisch-Ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Königsberg., 38 , 3–20.
Wiechert, E. (1897b). Ueber das Wesen der Elektricität. Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, 12 , 237–239.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Norwood, MA, USA
Bruce D. Popp
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Reprints and permissions
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Popp, B.D. (2020). Discovery of the Electron: Cathode Rays. In: Henri Poincaré: Electrons to Special Relativity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48039-4_7
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-48039-4_7
Published : 05 August 2020
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-48038-7
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-48039-4
eBook Packages : Physics and Astronomy Physics and Astronomy (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.
Q&A for work
Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.
From where do the electrons making cathode rays come? How is the gas in a discharge tube ionised? Do cosmic radiations affect it?
Cathode Rays
First, here's a diagram of a cathode ray tube:
Cathode rays were named as such because they were emitted from the negative electrode, or cathode, of a high voltage generator. This was done in a vacuum tube. In the diagram, you can see the cathode, from which the rays (really electrons) were emitted. You can also see a tube that went to a vacuum pump. At the other end is the anode of the power supply. So, to answer your first question,
To release electrons into the tube, they first must be detached from the atoms of the cathode. In the early cold cathode vacuum tubes, called Crookes tubes, this was done by using a high electrical potential between the anode and the cathode to ionize the residual gas in the tube; the ions were accelerated by the electric field and released electrons when they collided with the cathode.$^1$
So what little gas was left in the vacuum tube was ionized. The particles of gas were then accelerated by the electric field, hit the cathode, and knocked electrons off of the cathode.
Discharge Tube
Below is a diagram of a discharge tube:
The ions were just naturally present in the air of the tube. The air around us has some ions in it, weakly ionized from cosmic rays or other sources. These ions were then accelerated from the anode to the cathode, creating a glow throughout the tube.
Cosmic Rays
Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Cosmic rays weren't really a part of the experiment.
Hope this helps!
You can read more about cathode rays and discharge tubes here .
Sign up or log in, post as a guest.
Required, but never shown
By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy .
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Nature Electronics ( 2024 ) Cite this article
Metrics details
Neuromorphic computing based on memristors could help meet the growing demand for data-intensive computing applications such as artificial intelligence. Analogue memristors with multiple conductance states are of particular use in high-efficiency neuromorphic computing, but their weight mapping capabilities are typically limited by small on/off ratios. Here we show that memristors with analogue resistive switching and large on/off ratios can be created using two-dimensional van der Waals metallic materials (graphene or platinum ditelluride) as the cathodes. The memristors use silver as the top anode and indium phosphorus sulfide as the switching medium. Previous approaches have focused on modulating ion motion using changes to the resistive switching layer or anode, which can lower the on/off ratios. In contrast, our approach relies on the van der Waals cathode, which allows silver ion intercalation/de-intercalation, creating a high diffusion barrier to modulate ion motion. The strategy can achieve analogue resistive switching with an on/off ratio up to 10 8 , over 8-bit conductance states and attojoule-level power consumption. We use the analogue properties to perform the chip-level simulation of a convolutional neural network that offers high recognition accuracy.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
111,21 € per year
only 9,27 € per issue
Buy this article
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.
Lanza, M. et al. Memristive technologies for data storage, computation, encryption, and radio-frequency communication. Science 376 , eabj9979 (2022).
Article Google Scholar
Kendall, J. D. & Kumar, S. The building blocks of a brain-inspired computer. Appl. Phys. Rev. 7 , 011305 (2020).
Rao, M. et al. Thousands of conductance levels in memristors integrated on CMOS. Nature 615 , 823–829 (2023).
Zhao, M., Gao, B., Tang, J., Qian, H. & Wu, H. Reliability of analogue resistive switching memory for neuromorphic computing. Appl. Phys. Rev. 7 , 011301 (2020).
Zhang, W. et al. Neuro-inspired computing chips. Nat. Electron. 3 , 371–382 (2020).
Tang, B. et al. Wafer-scale solution-processed 2D material analogue resistive memory array for memory-based computing. Nat. Commun. 13 , 3037 (2022).
Rana, A. M., Ismail, M., Akber, T., Nadeem, M. Y. & Kim, S. Transition from unipolar to bipolar, multilevel switching, abrupt and gradual reset phenomena in a TaN/CeO 2 /Ti/Pt memory devices. Mater. Res. Bull. 117 , 41–47 (2019).
Gawai, U., Kumar, D., Singh, A., Wu, C.-H. & Chang, K.-M. Oxygen vacancies controlled highly stable bilayer analogue synapse used for neuromorphic computing systems. ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 4 , 4265–4272 (2022).
Mohanty, S. K. et al. Uniform resistive switching and highly stable synaptic characteristics of HfO x sandwiched TaO x -based memristor for neuromorphic system. Ceram. Int. 49 , 16909–16917 (2023).
Lu, X. F. et al. Exploring low power and ultrafast memristor on p-type van der Waals SnS. Nano Lett. 21 , 8800–8807 (2021).
Yang, Y. et al. Electrochemical dynamics of nanoscale metallic inclusions in dielectrics. Nat. Commun. 5 , 4232 (2014).
Wu, F. C. et al. Interface engineering via MoS 2 insertion layer for improving resistive switching of conductive-bridging random access memory. Adv. Electron. Mater. 5 , 1800747 (2019).
Ismail, M., Abbas, H., Choi, C. & Kim, S. Controllable analogue resistive switching and synaptic characteristics in ZrO 2 /ZTO bilayer memristive device for neuromorphic systems. Appl. Surf. Sci. 529 , 147107 (2020).
Li, S. et al. Wafer-scale 2D hafnium diselenide based memristor crossbar array for energy-efficient neural network hardware. Adv. Mater. 34 , 2103376 (2021).
Li, Y. et al. In-memory computing using memristor arrays with ultrathin 2D PdSeO x /PdSe 2 heterostructure. Adv. Mater. 34 , 2201488 (2022).
Xu, J. et al. Tunable digital-to-analogue switching in Nb 2 O 5 -based resistance switching devices by oxygen vacancy engineering. Appl. Surf. Sci. 579 , 152114 (2022).
Saleem, A. et al. Transformation of digital to analogue switching in TaO x -based memristor device for neuromorphic applications. Appl. Phys. Lett. 118 , 112103 (2021).
Hu, L. X. et al. Ultrasensitive memristive synapses based on lightly oxidized sulfide films. Adv. Mater. 29 , 1606927 (2017).
Belmonte, A. et al. Voltage-controlled reverse filament growth boosts resistive switching memory. Nano Res. 11 , 4017–4025 (2018).
Jeon, H. et al. Resistive switching behaviors of Cu/TaO x /TiN device with combined oxygen vacancy/copper conductive filaments. Curr. Appl. Phys. 15 , 1005–1009 (2015).
Chen, S. et al. Wafer-scale integration of two-dimensional materials in high-density memristive crossbar arrays for artificial neural networks. Nat. Electron. 3 , 638–645 (2020).
Kadhim, M. S. et al. Existence of resistive switching memory and negative differential resistance state in self-colored MoS 2 /ZnO heterojunction devices. ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 1 , 318–324 (2019).
Ahn, W. et al. A highly reliable molybdenum disulfide-based synaptic memristor using a copper migration-controlled structure. Small 19 , 2300223 (2023).
Xie, J., Afshari, S. & Sanchez Esqueda, I. Hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) memristor arrays for analogue-based machine learning hardware. npj 2D Mater. Appl. 6 , 50 (2022).
Pan, C. B. et al. Coexistence of grain-boundaries-assisted bipolar and threshold resistive switching in multilayer hexagonal boron nitride. Adv. Funct. Mater. 27 , 1604811 (2017).
Yeon, H. et al. Alloying conducting channels for reliable neuromorphic computing. Nat. Nanotechnol. 15 , 574–579 (2020).
Google Scholar
Weng, Z. et al. High-performance memristors based on few-layer manganese phosphorus trisulfide for neuromorphic computing. Adv. Funct. Mater. 34 , 2305386 (2023).
Weng, Z. et al. Reliable memristor crossbar array based on 2D layered nickel phosphorus trisulfide for energy-efficient neuromorphic hardware. Small 20 , 2304518 (2023).
Zhou, J. et al. Layered intercalation materials. Adv. Mater. 33 , 2004557 (2021).
Gonzalez-Rosillo, J. C. et al. Lithium-battery anode gains additional functionality for neuromorphic computing through metal–insulator phase separation. Adv. Mater. 32 , 1907465 (2020).
Zhu, X. J., Li, D., Liang, X. G. & Lu, W. D. Ionic modulation and ionic coupling effects in MoS 2 devices for neuromorphic computing. Nat. Mater. 18 , 141–148 (2019).
Seo, S. et al. Artificial van der Waals hybrid synapse and its application to acoustic pattern recognition. Nat. Commun. 11 , 3936 (2020).
Xu, Y. B. et al. In situ, atomic-resolution observation of lithiation and sodiation of WS 2 nanoflakes: implications for lithium-ion and sodium-ion batteries. Small 17 , e2100637 (2021).
Peng, X., Huang, S., Jiang, H., Lu, A. & Yu, S. DNN+NeuroSim V2.0: an end-to-end benchmarking framework for compute-in-memory accelerators for on-chip training. IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst. 40 , 2306–2319 (2021).
Peng, X. et al. DNN+NeuroSim: an end-to-end benchmarking framework for compute-in-memory accelerators with versatile device technologies. In 2019 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM) 32.5.1–32.5.4 (IEEE, 2019).
Burr, G. W. et al. Neuromorphic computing using non-volatile memory. Adv. Phys. X 2 , 89–124 (2017).
Kresse, G. & Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal–amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. Phys. Rev. B 49 , 14251–14269 (1994).
Blöchl, P. E. Projector augmented-wave method. Phys. Rev. B 50 , 17953–17979 (1994).
Hammer, B., Hansen, L. B. & Norskov, J. K. Improved adsorption energetics within density-functional theory using revised Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof functionals. Phys. Rev. B 59 , 7413–7421 (1999).
Henkelman, G. & Jonsson, H. Improved tangent estimate in the nudged elastic band method for finding minimum energy paths and saddle points. J. Chem. Phys. 113 , 9978–9985 (2000).
Sheppard, D., Terrell, R. & Henkelman, G. Optimization methods for finding minimum energy paths. J. Chem. Phys. 128 , 134106 (2008).
Download references
This work is supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (no. 2018YFA0703700 (J.H.)), National Natural Science Foundation of China (nos. U23A20364 (J.H.) and 62204175 (Y.L.)), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (no. BK20220280 (Y.L.)) and Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province (no. 2022CFB735 (Y.L.)). We also acknowledge the Center for Electron Microscopy of Wuhan University for their substantial support.
These authors contributed equally: Yesheng Li, Yao Xiong.
Key Laboratory of Artificial Micro- and Nano-structures of Ministry of Education, and School of Physical and Technology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Yesheng Li, Xiaolin Zhang, Lei Yin, Yiling Yu, Hao Wang & Jun He
Suzhou Institute of Wuhan University, Suzhou, China
School of Science, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China
State Key Laboratory for Chemo/Biosensing and Chemometrics, College of Semiconductors (College of Integrated Circuits), Hunan University, Changsha, China
Wuhan Institute of Quantum Technology, Wuhan, China
Institute of Semiconductors, Henan Academy of Sciences, Zhengzhou, China
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
This project was supervised and directed by J.H. and Y.L. Y.L. conceived this work. Y.L. and Y.X. designed the experiments. Y.L. and L.Y. conducted the device fabrication and electrical measurements. Y.L., H.W., Y.Y. and L.L. performed the material characterization. X.Z. conducted the density functional theory calculation. Y.X. performed the image recognition. All authors contributed to the discussion and analysis of the results. Y.L. wrote the manuscript.
Correspondence to Yesheng Li or Jun He .
Competing interests.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information.
Nature Electronics thanks Wenjing Jie, Huajun Sun and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information.
Supplementary Figs. 1–39, Tables 1–4, Notes 1–5 and References.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Cite this article.
Li, Y., Xiong, Y., Zhang, X. et al. Memristors with analogue switching and high on/off ratios using a van der Waals metallic cathode. Nat Electron (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-024-01269-y
Download citation
Received : 23 November 2023
Accepted : 27 September 2024
Published : 21 October 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41928-024-01269-y
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Cathode Ray Tube - The Cathode Ray Experiment by J.J.Thomson helped to discover electrons. Cathode ray tube is the heart of the oscilloscope and it generates the electron bean, accelerates the beam and deflects the beam. Visit BYJUS to learn more about it.
The cathode ray tube experiment performed by J.J. Thomson demonstrated the existence of the electron. Scientist had believed in the existence of a negative particle for some time. So much so, that George Stoney (1891) proposed the name electron for the particle. However, it wasn't till about 1898 that the electron was shown to exist by J.J ...
Cathode rays form when electrons emit from one electrode and travel to another. The transfer occurs due to the application of a voltage in vacuum. Thomson also determined the mass to charge ratio of the electron using a cathode ray tube, another significant discovery. Cathod ray tube, which was used by Thomson to discover the electron
Thomson's First Cathode Ray Experiment. Thomson had an inkling that the 'rays' emitted from the electron gun were inseparable from the latent charge, and decided to try and prove this by using a magnetic field. His first experiment was to build a cathode ray tube with a metal cylinder on the end. This cylinder had two slits in it, leading ...
The cathode ray tube experiment conducted by J.J. Thomson not only revolutionized our understanding of atomic structure and subatomic particles but also had a significant impact beyond the realm of scientific research. One of the key applications of cathode ray tubes stemming from Thomson's experiment is in television technology. These ...
Cathode Ray Experiment, also known as the Crookes tube experiment, is a historically significant experiment in the field of physics that helped scientists understand the nature of electrons.English scientist Sir J.J. Thomson performed an experiment using a Cathode Ray Tube, which led to the discovery of an electron.. In this article, we will discuss this significant experiment, including ...
Thomson's First CRT Experiment. Thomson took a cathode ray tube, and at the place where the electron beam was supposed to strike, he positioned a pair of metal cylinders having slits on them. The pair, in turn, was connected to an electrometer, a device for catching and measuring electric charges. Then, on operating the CRT, in the absence of ...
The British physicist Joseph John "J. J." Thomson (1856-1940) performed a series of experiments in 1897 designed to study the nature of electric discharge in a high-vacuum cathode-ray tube, an area being investigated by many scientists at the time.
Cathode Ray Tube Experiment - J.J. Thompson, conducted the cathode ray tube experiment to prove that rays emitted from an electron gun are inseparable from the latent charge. He built his cathode ray tube with a metal cylinder on the other end.
Cathode Ray Experiments. A cathode ray tube is a glass tube with wiring inserted on both ends, and as much air as possible pumped out of it. Cathode rays were discovered to travel in straight lines, just like waves do. Physicists knew that the ray had an electric charge, and they were trying to figure out if that electric charge could be ...
Understand the cathode ray definition and how it works. Discover which scientist used the cathode ray tube. Learn about JJ Thomson's experiments on...
In the 1970's-1990's, computer monitors were large and extremely heavy CRTs, or cathode ray tubes. They were also based on the previous technology of television picture tubes. LCD and plasma television screens emerged in the mass market around 2009. In recent years, these monitors and screens have become lighter, larger, and less expensive.
In this section I will discuss the grounds for belief in the existence of the electron by examining J.J. Thomson's experiments on cathode rays. His 1897 experiment on cathode rays is generally regarded as the "discovery" of the electron. The purpose of J.J. Thomson's experiments was clearly stated in the introduction to his 1897 paper.
irst, in a variation of an 1895 experiment by Jean Perrin, Thomson built a cathode ray tube ending in a pair of metal cylinders with a slit in them. These cylinders were in turn connected to an electrometer, a device for catching and measuring electrical charge. Perrin had found that cathode rays deposited an electric charge.
Revision notes on 12.1.4 Significance of Thomson's Experiment for the AQA A Level Physics syllabus, written by the Physics experts at Save My Exams. Home. ... 9.2.12 Supernovae & Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) 9.2.13 Supernovae as Standard Candles; ... 12.1.1 Cathode Rays; 12.1.2 Thermionic Emission; 12.1.3 Specific Charge Experiments;
In 1896, Thomson wondered if there might have been something wrong with Hertz's experiment with the two plates. Thomson knew that the cathode ray tubes that they had only work if there is a little air in the tube and the amount of air needed depended on the shape of the terminals. Thomson wondered if the air affected the results.
The introduction to the experiment described in the first section of (Thomson, Cathode Rays, 1897a), "Charge Carried by the Cathode Rays," reinforces this perspective. The description starts with a reference to an experiment done by Jean Perrin. J. J.
The introduction to the experiment described in the first section of (Thomson, Cathode Rays, 1897a), "Charge Carried by the Cathode Rays," reinforces this perspective. The description starts with a reference to an experiment done by Jean Perrin. J. J. Thomson does not provide a reference; however, it seems unambiguous
Cathode Rays. First, here's a diagram of a cathode ray tube: Cathode rays were named as such because they were emitted from the negative electrode, or cathode, of a high voltage generator. This was done in a vacuum tube. In the diagram, you can see the cathode, from which the rays (really electrons) were emitted.
His experiments were all conducted with what is known as a cathode ray tube, so firstly I will try to explain what this is and how it works. A cathode ray tube is a hollow sealed glass tube which is under vacuum (has had all the air sucked out of it). Inside at one end is an electrical filament (which is actually called the cathode in this experiment) just like the one inside a light bulb. At ...
First, to verify the Ag permeation in the vdW-cathode, cross-sectional (CS) transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images as well as the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) mapping of the ...