Go back
Question about photons

Question about photons

Science

1 edit
Vote Up
1
Vote Down
-1

@metal-brain said
Was the electron always considered to be a particle?
From the time of its discovery, yes.
And now, thanks to later science showing that its also a wave, it is considered to also be a wave.
Your point?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
Was the electron always considered to be a particle?
It's more the other way around, we confirmed that electrons exist and called those particles "electrons." The notions of current and charge are older.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

I heard someone say the guy that discovered the electron resisted the notion that an electron was a particle until before he was given the nobel prize.

Is that true or is it a myth?

2 edits
Vote Up
2
Vote Down
-1

@Metal-Brain
Whether true or no, it was 123 years ago so he (J J Thomson) would have not known a whit about quantum physics and the particle physics of the day was basically non-existent also. Seems a moot point to me.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@humy said
From the time of its discovery, yes.
And now, thanks to later science showing that its also a wave, it is considered to also be a wave.
Your point?
Sonhouse doesn't seem confident you are giving factual information. He says they would not have known because it was so long ago.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Whether true or no, it was 123 years ago so he (J J Thomson) would have not known a whit about quantum physics and the particle physics of the day was basically non-existent also. Seems a moot point to me.
When did J J Thomson decide to accept the electron was a particle? Is it true that it was right before he received the Nobel prize?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
He says they would not have known because it was so long ago.
"known" what?

Vote Up
Vote Down
-2

@humy said
"known" what?
That an electron is a particle. He claimed that was too long ago to determine that. None of you guys can even agree on it. All of you obviously don't know and are merely guessing as if that is science. Let me know when you all stop contradicting each other.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
This is why he was awarded the Nobel prize:
"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1906 was awarded to Joseph John Thomson "in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases."

It was not because he said electrons were particles. Why are you even on this course of logic anyway? They didn't even know particles could also be considered waves back then so is a moot point whatever JJ thought electrons were.

This is what they figured out decades later: Wave-particle duality.

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Wave-Particle_Duality

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
This is why he was awarded the Nobel prize:
"The Nobel Prize in Physics 1906 was awarded to Joseph John Thomson "in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases."

It was not because he said electrons were particles. Why are you even on this course of logic anyway? They didn't ev ...[text shortened]... stry)/Quantum_Mechanics/09._The_Hydrogen_Atom/Atomic_Theory/Electrons_in_Atoms/Wave-Particle_Duality
I simply asked if it was true or a myth. I never asserted a damn thing! If you don't know the answer just say so. I never claimed I knew the answer. Stop assuming!

Did JJ Thomson believe electrons were waves and not particles until right before he was awarded the Nobel prize or not?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
You weren't reading very carefully it seems. There WAS no such debate in the 19th century or later when he got the prize so he could have said it was a particle but he would not have had enough scientific background to even pose the question.
So the answer would be NO. You could have answered that yourself if you had done even a modicum of research. But of course you are intellectually lazy and want everyone else to do your research for you.

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
You weren't reading very carefully it seems. There WAS no such debate in the 19th century or later when he got the prize so he could have said it was a particle but he would not have had enough scientific background to even pose the question.
So the answer would be NO. You could have answered that yourself if you had done even a modicum of research. But of course you are intellectually lazy and want everyone else to do your research for you.
"There WAS no such debate in the 19th century or later when he got the prize so he could have said it was a particle but he would not have had enough scientific background to even pose the question."

What is your source of information?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
Again you are intellectually lazy wanting us to do your research for you, I guess you are unable to just google '
the history of quantum physics'
ttps://www.bing.com/[WORD TOO LONG]

Vote Up
Vote Down
-1

@sonhouse said
@Metal-Brain
Again you are intellectually lazy wanting us to do your research for you, I guess you are unable to just google '
the history of quantum physics'
ttps://www.bing.com/[WORD TOO LONG]
"There WAS no such debate in the 19th century or later when he got the prize so he could have said it was a particle but he would not have had enough scientific background to even pose the question."

What is your source of information?

Vote Up
1
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics
This one links. It shows proposals in 1877 about discreteness of particle energies but not till well after 1900 was that given serious thought.