@metal-brain saidFrom the time of its discovery, yes.
Was the electron always considered to be a particle?
And now, thanks to later science showing that its also a wave, it is considered to also be a wave.
Your point?
@metal-brain saidIt's more the other way around, we confirmed that electrons exist and called those particles "electrons." The notions of current and charge are older.
Was the electron always considered to be a particle?
@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.
@sonhouse saidWhen 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?
@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.
@metal-brain said"known" what?
He says they would not have known because it was so long ago.
@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
@sonhouse saidI 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!
@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
Did JJ Thomson believe electrons were waves and not particles until right before he was awarded the Nobel prize or not?
@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.
@sonhouse said"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."
@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.
What is your source of information?
@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]
@sonhouse said"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."
@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]
What is your source of information?
@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.