博文
[请教] “0到1”：密立根油滴实验时，知道电子电荷的估计值吗？
|
[请教] “0到1”：密立根油滴实验时，知道电子电荷的估计值吗？
一、密立根油滴实验时，有电子电荷的估计值吗？
密立根（Robert Andrews Millikan）在1909年油滴实验时，知道电子电荷的估计值吗？无论是实验估计，还是理论估计？
只有1897年英国物理学家汤姆森（Joseph John Thomson）实验给出的电子荷质比（specific charge）。
傻的印象（一时没有找到权威的出处）：1909年时的电子电荷数值，既没有任何理论估计值，也没有任何实验估计值？
没有这些电子电荷的数量估计值，密立根是怎么能设计出油滴实验？
密立根实验的设计思想（“清晰的物理图像”），是真正的原创“0到1”。改进电子电荷值的估计方法，是“1到2”吧？
1953 年春天，费米说：
“There are two ways of doing calculations in theoretical physics”, he said. “One way, and this is the way I prefer, is to have a clear physical picture of the process that you are calculating. The other way is to have a precise and self-consistent mathematical formalism.”
“在理论物理学中有两种进行计算的方法”，他说。“一种方式，这是我更喜欢的方式，是对你正在计算的过程有一个清晰的物理图像。另一种方法是拥有精确且自洽的数学形式主义。”
Millikan oil-drop experiment, Encyclopædia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Millikan#ref222606
二、密立根油滴实验：后人、密立根本人的瑕疵？
（1）理查·费曼（Richard Feynman）1974年在加州理工学院的一场毕业典礼演说中“草包族科学”（Cargo cult science）里列举了密立根和后人实验的“瑕疵”：
如果你把在密立根之后、进行测量电子带电量所得到的资料整理一下，就会发现一些很有趣的现象：把这些资料跟时间画成坐标图，你会发现这个人得到的数值比密立根的数值大一点点，下一个人得到的资料又再大一点点，下一个又再大上一点点，最后，到了一个更大的数值才稳定下来。
可信吗？
（2）密立根油滴实验60年后，史学家发现，密立根一共向外公布了58次观测数据，而他本人一共做过140次观测。他在实验中通过预先估测，去掉了那些他认为有偏差，误差大的数据。
可信吗？
参考资料：
[1] 密立根油滴实验 - 百度百科
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E5%AF%86%E7%AB%8B%E6%A0%B9%E6%B2%B9%E6%BB%B4%E5%AE%9E%E9%AA%8C
[2] Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman, From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
[3] Robert Andrews Millikan, The Nobel Prize in Physics 1923
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1923/summary/
"for his work on the elementary charge of electricity and on the photoelectric effect."
[4] Robert Millikan, American physicist,
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Millikan#ref222606
[5] Millikan oil-drop experiment - Encyclopedia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/science/Millikan-oil-drop-experiment
[6] Joseph John Thomson, The Nobel Prize in Physics 1906
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1906/summary/
"in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases."
[7] Freeman Dyson. A meeting with Enrico Fermi [J]. Nature, 2004, 427(6972): 297-297.
https://www.nature.com/articles/427297a
[8] 李世春，2007-06-30，先驱者密立根的思想和方法
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2321-3992.html
[9] 科学出版社，2015-08-10，科学上过分漂亮的结论很有可能是以无中生有的方式编造出来的 精选
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-528739-911890.html
相关链接：
[1] 2021-01-13，[建议] 广泛重复自然科学各个学科中100多年前的那些经典实验
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1267037.html
[2] 2017-07-07，脱离数量级谈物理效应，就是耍流氓？
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1065164.html
感谢您的指教！
感谢您指正以上任何错误！
感谢您提供更多的相关资料！
https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-107667-1306722.html
上一篇：迎春花、杏花蕾、连翘花：卡片机傻拍2021（42）
下一篇：柿子（2020年最后见到的）：卡片机傻拍2020（110）
13 郑永军 杨学祥 刘炜 尤明庆 李宏翰 王安良 范振英 刘钢 史晓雷 宁利中 王从彦 朱林 许培扬
该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (10 个评论)
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[5]杨正瓴
- 原文：
Cargo Cult Science, Richard Feynman, From a Caltech commencement address given in 1974
Also in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!
https://sites.cs.ucsb.edu/~ravenben/cargocult.html
We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher. -
回复 ： Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[3]尤明庆
- "密立根油滴实验60年后，史学家发现，密立根一共向外公布了58次观测数据，而他本人一共做过140次观测。他在实验中通过预先估测，去掉了那些他认为有偏差，误差大的数据。 可信吗？"
我觉得是可信的。
譬如140 个陶器，有58 个的口径、高度以某一“寸长”量测，与整寸差别小于2 mm，那么这个寸长就是可信的。
更为具体说，一件青铜镜，若外径215 mm 设为十寸，而内部六个同心圆纹饰，又有三个的直径与整寸差别小于 2 mm，
那么一寸 就是 21.5 mm。巧合是不容易的。需要分析那些直径不整的同心圆。
以尺“鉴宝”又一例 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-275648-1306032.html
-
回复
|
赞
+1
[1]杨正瓴
- （1）盲法分析的秘密，曹俊，2018-09-09
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-296183-1133842.html
数十年前，包括理查德•费曼在内的一些物理学家注意到了一件令人担忧的事情：对基本物理常数的最新估值常常更接近已经公布的值。这些物理学家意识到，其他研究人员更可能“认可”而非反驳预期的结果，不符合研究人员预期的结果经常会受到系统性的排除或修改。
原文：
Robert MacCoun, Saul Perlmutter. Blind analysis: Hide results to seek the truth [J]. NATURE, 526, 187–189 (08 October 2015), doi:10.1038/526187a
https://www.nature.com/news/blind-analysis-hide-results-to-seek-the-truth-1.18510
More fields should, like particle physics, adopt blind analysis to thwart bias, urge Robert MacCoun and Saul Perlmutter.
Decades ago, physicists including Richard Feynman noticed something worrying. New estimates of basic physical constants were often closer to published values than would be expected given standard errors of measurement1. They realized that researchers were more likely to 'confirm' past results than refute them — results that did not conform to their expectation were more often systematically discarded or revised.
1/1 | 总计:5 | 首页 | 上一页 | 下一页 | 末页 | 跳转 |