4.

2 THE COMPOSITION OF ATOMS 113

EXAMPLE 4.2 Deflection of an Electron Beam

by E and B Fields
Using the accepted e/m e value, calculate the magnetic so
field required to produce a deflection of 0.20 rad in
! (0.050 m)(0.015 "
(200 V)(0.20 rad) 1/2
Thomson’s experiment, assuming the values V " 200 V, B" 11
! " 5.0 cm, and d " 1.5 cm (the approximate values m)(1.76 ! 10 C/kg)
used by Thomson). Compare this value of B to the " [3.03 ! 10#7 V'kg/m2 C]1/2
Earth’s magnetic field. " [3.03 ! 10#7 N 2/(m/s)2 C 2]1/2
Solution Because e/m e " V(/B2!d, solving for B gives " 5.5 ! 10#4 N/(m/s) 'C " 5.5 ! 10#4 T
As the Earth’s magnetic field has a magnitude of about

√
V( 0.5 ! 10#4 T, we require a field 11 times as strong as the
B"
!d(e/m e) Earth’s field.

Exercise 1 Find the horizontal speed v x for this case.

Answer 2.4 ! 107 m/s " 0.080c, where c is the speed of light.

Millikan’s Value of the Elementary Charge

In 1897, Thomson had been unable to determine e or m e separately. However,
about two years later this great British experimentalist had bracketed the ac-
cepted value of e (1.602 ! 10#19 C) with values of 2.3 ! 10#19 C for charges
emitted from zinc illuminated by ultraviolet light and 1.1 ! 10#19 C for
charges produced by ionizing x rays and radium emissions. He was also able to
conclude that “e is the same in magnitude as the charge carried by the hydro-
gen atom in the electrolysis of solutions.” The technique used by Thomson
and his students to measure e is especially interesting because it represents the
first use of the cloud chamber technique in physics and also formed the start-
ing point for the famous Millikan oil-drop experiment. Charles Wilson, one of
Thomson’s students, had discovered that ions act as condensation centers for
water droplets when damp air is cooled by a rapid expansion. Thomson used
this idea to form charged clouds by using the apparatus shown in Figure 4.7a.
Here Q is the measured total charge of the cloud, W is the measured weight of
the cloud, and v is the rate of fall or terminal speed. Thomson assumed that
the cloud was composed of spherical droplets having a constant mass (no
evaporation) and that the magnitude of the drag force D on a single falling
droplet was given by Stokes’s law,
D " 6$a%v (4.8)
where a is the droplet radius, % is the viscosity of air, and v is the terminal
speed of the droplet. The following procedure was used to find a and w, the
weight of a single drop. Because v is constant, the droplet is in equilibrium un-
der the combined action of its weight, w, and the drag force, D, as shown in
Figure 4.7b. Hence, we require that w " D, or
w " 43$a 3&g " D " 6$a%v
114 CHAPTER 4 THE PARTICLE NATURE OF MATTER

Radioactive source
Total charge Q

+ +
+
+ + D
v
+ + + Damp air

+
w
a v

Moveable
piston

(a) (b)

Figure 4.7 (a) A diagram of Thomson’s apparatus for determining e. (b) A single
droplet in the cloud.

so

√
9%v
a" (4.9)
2&g
where & is the mass density of the droplet and g is the free-fall acceleration.
From the droplet radius and the known density we can find w, the weight.
Once w is obtained, the number of drops n (or number of ions) is given by
W/w and the electronic charge e is equal to Q/n, assuming that each droplet
carries only one electronic charge. Although ingenious, this method is inaccu-
rate because the theory applies only to a single particle and the particles are
all assumed to be identical in order to compare the theory to experiments per-
formed on a cloud.
The tremendous advance of Millikan was made possible by his clever idea of
making the experiment “fit” the theory. By observing single droplets he elimi-
nated the problems of assuming all particles to be identical and of making uncer-
tain measurements on a cloud. Millikan’s basic idea was to measure the rate of
fall of a single drop acted on by gravity and drag forces, apply Stokes’s law to de-
termine the drop radius and mass, then to measure its upward velocity in an op-
posing electric field, and hence determine the total charge on an individual
drop.4 A schematic of the Millikan apparatus is shown in Figure 4.8. Oil droplets
charged by an atomizer are allowed to pass through a small hole in the upper
plate of a parallel-plate capacitor. If these droplets are illuminated from the side,
they appear as brilliant stars against a dark background, and the rate of fall of

4Actually, the idea of allowing charges to “fall” under a combined gravitational and electric field was
first applied to charged clouds of water vapor by H. A. Wilson in 1903. Millikan switched from water
to oil to avoid the problems of a changing droplet mass and radius caused by water evaporation.
 4.2 THE COMPOSITION OF ATOMS 115

Oil droplets

Pin hole
Battery
+ –

– 3e
d v

Illumination
View through
eyepiece

Telescope with
scale in eyepiece

Figure 4.8 A schematic view of the Millikan oil-drop apparatus.

individual drops may be determined.5 If an electrostatic field of several thousand

volts per meter is applied to the capacitor plates, the drop may move slowly
upward, typically at rates of hundredths of a centimeter per second. Because the
rate of fall is comparable, a single droplet with constant mass and radius may be
followed for hours, alternately rising and falling, by simply turning the electric
field on and off. The atomicity of charge is shown directly by the observation that
after a long series of measurements of constant upward velocities one observes a
discontinuous change or jump to a different upward velocity (higher or lower).
This discontinuous change is caused by the attraction of an ion to the charged
droplet and a consequent change in droplet charge. Such changes become more
frequent when a source of ionizing radiation is placed between the plates.
The quantitative analysis of the Millikan experiment starts with Newton’s sec- Millikan’s determination of
ond law applied to the oil drop, #Fy " ma y . Because the drag force D is large, a the electronic charge
constant velocity of fall is quickly achieved, and all measurements are made for
the case ay " 0, or #Fy " 0. If we assume that the magnitude of the drag force is
proportional to the speed (D " Cv), and refer to Figure 4.9, we find
Cv # mg " 0 (field off )
q 1E # mg # C v)1 " 0 (field on)
Eliminating C from these expressions gives

q1 "
mg
E $ v *v v) %
1
(4.10)

5Perhaps the reason for the failure of “Millikan’s Shining Stars” as a poetic and romantic image
has something to do with the generations of physics students who have experienced hallucina-
tions, near blindness, migraine attacks, etc. while repeating his experiment!
116 CHAPTER 4 THE PARTICLE NATURE OF MATTER

D =Cv q1E

E
v v1′

q1

mg
w = mg C v1′

(a) Field off (b) Field on

Figure 4.9 The forces on a charged oil droplet in the Millikan experiment.

When the droplet undergoes a discontinuous change in its upward speed from
v)1 to v)2 (m, g, E, and v remaining constant), its new charge q 2 is given by

q2 "
mg
E $ v *v v) %
2
(4.11)

Dividing Equation 4.10 by Equation 4.11 gives

q1 v * v)1
" (4.12)
q2 v * v)2

Robert Millikan (1868 – 1953). Although Millikan (left) studied Greek as an undergrad-
uate at Oberlin College, he fell in love with physics during his graduate training after
teaching school for a few years. He was the first student to receive a Ph.D. in physics
from Columbia University in 1895. Following postdoctoral work in Germany under
Planck and Nernst, Millikan obtained an academic appointment at the University of
Chicago in 1910, where he worked with Michelson. He received the Nobel prize in
1923 for his famous experimental determination of the electronic charge. He is also re-
membered for his careful experimental work to verify the theory of the photoelectric
effect deduced by Einstein. Following World War I, he transferred to the California In-
stitute of Technology, where he worked in atmospheric physics and remained until his
retirement. (Courtesy AIP Emìlio Segrè Visual Archives)
 4.2 THE COMPOSITION OF ATOMS 117

Equation 4.12 constitutes a remarkably direct and powerful proof of the quan-
tization of charge, because if successive speed ratios are ratios of whole num-
bers, successive charges on the drop must be multiples of the same elementary
charge! Millikan’s experimental measurements of speed ratios beautifully con-
firmed this quantization of charge to within about 1% accuracy.6
Up to this point our arguments have been quite general and have assumed
only that the drag force on the droplet is proportional to its velocity. To deter-
mine the actual value of the electronic charge, e, the mass of the drop must be
determined, as can be seen from Equation 4.10. As noted earlier, the droplet
radius a may be determined from the application of Stokes’s law. This value of
a, in turn, can be used to find m from the oil density, &. In this procedure, a is

√
9%v
a" (4.9)
2&g
and the mass of the droplet can be expressed as
m " & 'volume " & 43 $a3 (4.13)
An example of this technique for determining e using Stokes’s law is given in
Example 4.3.

EXAMPLE 4.3 Experimental Determination of e

In a Millikan experiment the distance of rise or fall of a so
droplet is 0.600 cm and the average time of fall (field off)
q1 v * v 1) 0.0286 * 0.0130 3
is 21.0 s. The observed successive rise times are 46.0, " " " 0.618 &
15.5, 28.1, 12.9, 45.3, and 20.0 s. q2 v * v )2 0.0286 * 0.0387 5
(a) Prove that charge is quantized. q2 v * v 2) 0.0286 * 0.0387 4
" " " 1.35 &
Solution Charge is quantized if q 1/q 2, q 2/q 3, q 3/q4, and q3 v * v 3) 0.0286 * 0.0214 3
so on are ratios of small whole numbers. Because q3 v * v 3) 0.0286 * 0.0214 2
" " " 0.666 &
q1 v * v )1 q 2 v * v)2 q4 v * v 4) 0.0286 * 0.0465 3
" , " , etc.
q2 v * v )2 q 3 v * v)3 q4 v * v 4) 0.0286 * 0.0465 9
" " " 1.80 &
we must find the speeds. Thus, q5 v * v 5) 0.0286 * 0.0132 5

+y 0.600 cm q5 v * v 5) 0.0286 * 0.0132

v" " " 0.0286 cm/s " "
+t 21.0 s q6 v * v 6) 0.0286 * 0.0300
" 0.713 & 8/11 or 7/10
+y 0.600 cm
v 1) " " " 0.0130 cm/s
+t 46.0 s (b) If the oil density is 858 kg/m3 and the viscosity of
air is 1.83 ! 10#5 kg/m ' s, find the radius, volume, and
v )2 " 0.600/15.5 " 0.0387 cm/s
mass of the drop used in this experiment.
v 3) " 0.600/28.1 " 0.0214 cm/s
Solution The radius of the drop is
v 4) " 0.600/12.9 " 0.0465 cm/s
v )5 " 0.600/45.3 " 0.0132 cm/s
√
9%v
a"
v )6 " 0.600/20.0 " 0.0300 cm/s 2&g

6R. A. Millikan, Phys. Rev. 1911, p. 349.

118 CHAPTER 4 THE PARTICLE NATURE OF MATTER

! 9(1.83 ! 2(858 "

#5
10 kg/m's)(0.0286 ! 10 #2 m/s) 1/2 Likewise, q 2 " 13.6 ! 10#19 C, q 3 " 10.1 ! 10#19 C, q 4 "
" 3 2 15.2 ! 10#19 C, q 5 " 8.43 ! 10#19 C, and q 6 " 11.8 !
kg/m )(9.81 m/s )
10#19 C.
" [2.80 ! 10#12 m2]1/2
To find the average value of e, we shall use the fact
" 1.67 ! 10#6 m or 1.67 -m that at the time of Millikan’s work e was known to be
The volume is between 1.5 ! 10#19 C and 2.0 ! 10#19 C. Dividing q 1
through q 6 by these values gives the range of integral
V " 43 $a 3 " 1.95 ! 10#17 m3 charges on each drop. Thus, the range of q 1 is 8.39/1.5
The mass is " 5.6 electronic charges to 8.39/2.0 " 4.2 electronic
charges. Similarly, q 2 has 9.1 to 5.8 charges, q 3 has 6.7 to
m " &V " (858 kg/m3)(1.95 ! 10#17 m3) 5.1 charges, q 4 has 10.1 to 7.6 charges, q 5 has 5.6 to 4.2
" 1.67 ! 10#14 kg charges, and q6 has 7.9 to 5.9 charges. Because there
must be an integral number of charges on each drop, we
(c) Calculate the successive charges on the drop, and pick an integer in the middle of the allowed range.
from these results determine the electronic charge. As- Therefore, in terms of the electronic charge e, we con-
sume a plate separation of 1.60 cm and a potential differ- clude that q 1 " 5e, q 2 " 8e, q 3 " 6e, q 4 " 9e, q 5 " 5e, and
ence of 4550 V for the parallel-plate capacitor. q 6 " 7e. Using the preceding values, we find
Solution To calculate the charge on each drop using e 1 " q/5 " 1.68 ! 10#19 C
Equation 4.10, we must first calculate the magnitude of
the electric field, E. Thus, e 2 " q 1/8 " 1.70 ! 10#19 C

V 4550 V e 3 " q 2/6 " 1.68 ! 10#19 C

E" " " 2.84 ! 105 V/m
d 0.0160 m e 4 " q 3/9 " 1.69 ! 10#19 C
Now we can find the charges on the drop: e 5 " q 4/5 " 1.69 ! 10#19 C

q1 " $ mgE %$ v *v v ) %
1 e 6 " q 5/7 " 1.69 ! 10#19 C
Taking the average of these values, we find the value of
"
(1.67 ! 10#14 kg)(9.81 m/s2)
(2.84 ! 105 V/m) $ 0.0286 * 0.0130
0.0286 % the electronic charge to be e " 1.688 ! 10#19 C for this
data set.
" 8.39 ! 10#19 C

Stokes’s law, as Millikan was aware, is only approximately correct for tiny
spheres moving through a gas. The expression D " 6$a%v holds quite accu-
rately for a 0.1-cm radius sphere moving through a liquid or for any case
where the moving-object radius, a, is large compared with the mean free path,
L, of the surrounding molecules. (The mean free path is essentially the aver-
age distance between molecules.) In the Millikan experiment, however, a is of
the same order of magnitude as the mean free path of air at STP. Conse-
quently, Stokes’s law overestimates the drag force, because the droplet actually
moves for appreciable times through a frictionless “vacuum.” Millikan cor-
rected Stokes’s law by using a drag force whose magnitude is
6$a%v
D" (4.14)
1 * ,(L/a)
and found that , " 0.81 gave the most consistent values of e for drops of dif-
ferent radii. Further corrections to Stokes’s law were made by Perrin and
Roux, and corrections to Stokes’s law and the correct value of e remained a
controversial issue for more than 20 years. The currently accepted value of the
magnitude of the electronic charge is
 4.2 THE COMPOSITION OF ATOMS 119

e " 1.60217733 ! 10#19 C Electronic charge

Rutherford’s Model of the Atom

The early years of the 20th century were generally a period of incredible
ferment and change in physics, including the advent of relativity, quantum
theory, and atomic and subatomic physics. Hardly had the reality of pristine,
indivisible atoms been established (“They are the only material things which
still remain in the precise condition in which they first began to exist” wrote
Maxwell in 1872), when Thomson announced their divisibility in 1899: “Elec-
trification essentially involves the splitting of the atom, a part of the mass of
the atom getting free and becoming detached from the original atom.” Fur-
ther daring assaults on the indivisibility of the chemical atom came from the
experimental work on radioactivity by Marie Curie (1867 – 1934, a Polish physi-
cist – chemist), and by Ernest Rutherford (1871 – 1937, New Zealand physicist),
and Frederick Soddy, a British physicist, who explained radioactive transforma-
tions of elements in terms of the emission of subatomic particles. The porosity
of atoms was also known before 1910 from Lenard’s experiments, which
showed that electrons are easily transmitted through thin metal and mica foils.
All these discoveries, plus the suspicion that the intricate atomic spectral lines
(light emitted at a discrete set of frequencies characteristic of each element)
must be produced by charge rattling around inside the atom, led to various
proposals concerning the internal structure of atoms. The most famous of
these early atomic models was the Thomson “plum-pudding” model (1898).
This proposal viewed the atom as a homogeneous sphere of uniformly distrib-
uted mass and positive charge in which were embedded, like raisins in a plum
pudding, negatively charged electrons, which just balanced the positive charge
to produce electrically neutral atoms. Although such models possessed electri-
cal stability against collapse or explosion of the atom, they failed to explain
the rich line spectra of even the simplest atom, hydrogen.
The key to understanding the mysterious line spectra and the correct
model of the atom were both furnished by Ernest Rutherford and his stu-
dents Hans Geiger (1882 – 1945, German physicist) and Ernest Marsden
(1899 – 1970, British physicist) through a series of experiments conducted
from 1909 to 1914. Noticing that a beam of collimated , particles broadened
on passing through a metal foil yet easily penetrated the thin film of metal,
they embarked on experiments to probe the distribution of mass within the
atom by observing in detail the scattering of , particles from foils. These
experiments ultimately led Rutherford to the discovery that most of the
atomic mass and all of the positive charge lie in a minute central nucleus of
the atom. The accidental chain of events and the clever capitalization on the
accidental discoveries leading up to Rutherford’s monumental nuclear theory
of the atom are nowhere better described than in Rutherford’s own essay
summarizing the development of the theory of atomic structure:
. . . I would like to use this example to show how you often stumble upon facts by Rutherford’s nuclear model
accident. In the early days I had observed the scattering of ,-particles, and
Dr. Geiger in my laboratory had examined it in detail. He found, in thin pieces of
heavy metal, that the scattering was usually small, of the order of one degree. One