Kenneth D.

Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

REFLECTION PAPER ON LANDMARK EXPERIMENTS IN PHYSICS

1. Millikan Oil Drop Experiment

The experiment was performed by Robert A. the charge on the oil droplet. By repeating the

Millikan and Harvey Fletcher in 1909 to determine experiment for many droplets, they confirmed that

the elementary electric charge (the charge of the the charges were all small integer multiples of a

electron). The experiment entailed observing tiny certain base value, which was found to be

electrically charged droplets of oil located between 1.5924(17)×1019 C, about 0.6% difference from the

two parallel metal surfaces, forming the plates of a currently accepted value of 1.602176487(40)×1019

capacitor. The plates were horizontally orientated C. They proposed that this was the positive version

with one plate above the other. A mist of atomized of the negative charge of a single electron. Figure 1.1

oil drops was introduced through a small hole in the shows the set-up for this experiment.

top plate. First, with zero applied electric field, the

velocity of a falling droplet was measured. At

terminal velocity, the drag force (resisting force)

equals the gravitational force. As both forces depend

on the radius in different ways, the radius of the

droplet, and therefore the mass and gravitational

Figure 1.1 The set-up for the oil drop experiment
force, could be determined (using the known density
The apparatus used has a parallel pair of
of the oil). Then, a voltage, inducing an electric field,
horizontal metal plates. A uniform electric field is
was applied between the plates and adjusted until the
created between them. The ring has three holes for
drops were suspended in mechanical equilibrium,
illumination and one for viewing through a
indicating that the electrical force and the
microscope. A specific type of oil is sprayed into the
gravitational force were in balance. Using the known
chamber, where drops become electrically charged.
electric field, Millikan and Fletcher could determine
 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

The droplets enter the space between the plates and data he had thrown out, the standard error of the

can be controlled by changing the voltage across the mean would have been within 2%. Even if this have

plates. (Boundless, 2016) The simplified scheme of resulted in Millikan having measured the value of e

the experiment is shown below. better than anyone else at that time, the slightly larger

uncertainty might have allowed more disagreement

with his results within the physics community. While

Franklin left his support for Millikan's measurement

Figure 1.2 Simplified scheme of the experiment with the conclusion that concedes that Millikan may
However, there is one main ethical problem
have performed "cosmetic surgery" on the data,
in this experiment and that is the alleged fabrication
David Goodstein investigated the original detailed
of data by Millikan. The controversy was raised by
notebooks kept by Millikan, concluding that
historian Gerald Holton (1978) who pointed out that
Millikan plainly states here and in the reports that he
Millikan recorded more measurements in his journal
included only drops that had undergone a "complete
than he included in his final results. Holton suggested
series of observations" and excluded no drops from
these data points were omitted from the large set of
this group of complete measurements (Goodstein,
oil drops measured in his experiments without
2000). Reasons for a failure to generate a complete
apparent reason. However, Allan Franklin, a high
observation include annotations regarding the
energy physics experimentalist and philosopher of
apparatus setup, oil drop production, and
science at the University of Colorado, rebutted this
atmospheric effects which invalidated, in Millikan's
claim stating that the exclusions of data did not
opinion (borne out by the reduced error in this set), a
significantly affect his final value of e, but it did
given particular measurement. This ethical error is
reduce the statistical error around this estimate e
considered controversial as this might have resulted
(Franklin, 1997). This enabled Millikan to claim that
in erroneous or invalid results, or humiliation in the
he had calculated e to better than one half of one
researchers’ part. It also affects the credibility of the
percent; in fact, if Millikan had included all of the
 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

experiment which was not applied in this research

experiment.

2. Fizeau Experment

The Fizeau experiment was carried out by of light traveling along each leg of the tube. The

Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative experimental set-up is shown in Figure 2.1.

speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a

special interferometer arrangement to measure the Figure 2.1 Set-up of the Fizeau Experiment
effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of According to the theories prevailing at the

light. time, light traveling through a moving medium

A light ray emanating from the source S′ is (object regarded as the means of transmission of

reflected by a beam splitter G and is collimated something) would be dragged along by the medium,

(made) into a parallel beam by lens L. After passing so that the measured speed of the light would be a

the slits O1 and O2, two rays of light travel through simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the

the tubes A1 and A2, through which water is medium’s speed. Fizeau indeed observed a dragging

streaming back and forth as shown by the arrows. effect, but the strength of the effect that he observed

The rays reflect off a mirror m at the focus of lens L′, was far lower than expected. His results seemingly

so that one ray always propagates in the same supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of

direction as the water stream, and the other ray Fresnel [aether (“proposed” medium in which light

opposite to the direction of the water stream. After travels) is partially dragged by matter], a situation

passing back and forth through the tubes, both rays that was disturbing to most physicists.

unite at S, where they produce interference fringes Although Fresnel's hypothesis was

that can be visualized through the illustrated experimentally successful in explaining Fizeau's

eyepiece. The interference pattern (overall pattern results, many experts in the field, including Fizeau

that results when two or more waves interfere with himself (1851), Éleuthère Mascart (1872), Ketteler

each other) can be analyzed to determine the speed (1873), Veltmann (1873), and Lorentz (1886) were
 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

united in considering Fresnel's partial aether- Aside from the the problems of the partial

dragging hypothesis Fresnel's partial aether-dragging aether-dragging hypothesis, another major problem

hypothesis to be on unstable theoretical grounds. For arose with the Michelson–Morley experiment

example, Veltmann (1870) demonstrated that (1887). In Fresnel's theory, the aether is almost

Fresnel's formula implies that the aether would have stationary, so the experiment should have given a

to be dragged by different amounts for different positive result. However, the result of this

colors of light, since the index of refraction depends experiment was negative. Thus from the viewpoint

on wavelength; Mascart (1872) demonstrated a of the aether models at that time, the experimental

similar result for polarized light traveling through a situation was contradictory: On one hand, the

birefringent medium (medium with two distinct aberration of light [phenomenon which produces an

indices of refraction). In other words, the aether must apparent motion (motion of celestial objects about

be capable of sustaining different motions at the their true positions, dependent on the velocity of the

same time. (Stachel, 2005) Half a century later, observer], the Fizeau experiment and the repetition

Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity by Michelson and Morley in 1886 appeared to

satisfactorily explained Fizeau’s unexpected support partial aether-dragging. On the other hand,

measurement. He later pointed out the importance of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 appeared

the experiment for special relativity, in which it to prove that the aether is at rest with respect to Earth,

corresponds to the relativistic velocity-addition apparently supporting the idea of complete aether-

formula when restricted to small velocities. Fizeau dragging (aether is completely dragged by matter)

showed his dissatisfaction with his experiment in his (Janssen & Stachel, 2010). Thus, the success of

conclusion to his report. Despite the dissatisfaction Fresnel's hypothesis in explaining Fizeau's results

of most physicists with Fresnel's partial aether- helped lead to a theoretical crisis, which was not

dragging hypothesis, repetitions and improvements resolved until the development of the theory of

to his experiment were made by other physicists and special relativity.

confirmed his results to high accuracy.

 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

In this experiment, the issue is all about the validity of the hypothesis and makes it unworthy of

questionability of the Fresnel’s partial Aether- being a theorem in its own right. Fortunately, Albert

dragging hypothesis because the Michelson-Morley Einstein explained this in his theory of special

experiment produces negative results while this one relativity.

produces positive results. This might affect the

3. Trouton-Rankine Experiment

The Trouton–Rankine experiment was an modified. FitzGerald and Lorentz, independently of

experiment designed to measure if the Lorentz– each other, proposed a length contraction of the

FitzGerald contraction of an object according to one experimental apparatus in the direction of motion

frame (as defined by the aether) produced a (with respect to the Luminiferous aether) that would

measurable effect in the rest frame of the object, so explain the almost null result of the Michelson

that the aether would act as a "preferred frame". The Morley experiment. The first attempts to measure

experiment was first performed by Frederick Thomas some consequences of this contraction in the lab

Trouton and Alexander Oliver Rankine in 1908. frame (the inertial frame of reference of an observer

The outcome of the experiment was negative, co-moving with the experimental apparatus) were

which is in agreement with the principle of relativity made in the Experiments of Rayleigh and Brace

(and thus special relativity as well), according to (1902, 1904), though the result was negative. By

which observers at rest in a certain inertial reference 1908, however, the then-current theories of

frame, cannot measure their own translational electrodynamics, Lorentz ether theory (now

motion by instruments at rest in the same frame. superseded) and Special Relativity (now generally

Consequently, also length contraction cannot be accepted, and doesn't include an aether at all),

measured by co-moving observers. The famous predicted that the Lorentz–FitzGerald contraction

Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 showed that (phenomenon of a decrease in length of an object as

the then-accepted aether theory needed to be measured by an observer who is traveling at any non-
 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

zero velocity relative to the object) is not measurable Frederick Thomas Trouton, (after conducting

in a co-moving frame, because these theories were the Trouton–Noble experiment in 1903), instead did

based on the Lorentz transformation. the calculations using his own interpretation of

In the Trouton–Rankine experiment, it was electrodynamics, calculating the length contraction

expected that length changes due to Lorentz– according to the velocity of the experimental

FitzGerald contraction would result in detectable apparatus in the aether frame, but calculating the

changes in the measured voltage across a Wheatstone electrodynamics by applying Maxwell's equations

bridge [electrical circuit used to measure an and Ohm's law in the lab frame. According to

unknown electrical resistance by balancing two legs Trouton's view of electrodynamics, the calculations

of a bridge circuit (electrical circuit in which two then predicted a measurable effect of the length

circuit branches (usually in parallel with each other) contraction in the lab frame. Together with

are "bridged" by a third branch connected between Alexander Oliver Rankine, he set out to verify this in

the first two branches at some intermediate point 1908 by attempting to measure the change of the

along them), one leg of which includes the unknown resistance of a coil as they changed its orientation to

component as the circuit is rotated]. the "aether velocity" (the velocity of the lab through

The experimental set-up is shown in the the luminiferous aether). This was done by putting

figure below. four identical such coils in a Wheatstone bridge

configuration which allowed them to precisely

measure any change in resistance. The circuit was

then rotated through 90 degrees about its axis as the

resistance was measured. Because the Lorentz–

FitzGerald contraction is only in the direction of

Figure 3.1 In the Trouton–Rankine experiment, it
was expected that length changes due to Lorentz– motion, from the point of view of the "aether frame"
FitzGerald contraction would result in detectable
changes in the measured voltage across a the length of the coils depended on their angle with
Wheatstone bridge as the circuit is rotated.
respect to their aether velocity. Trouton and Rankine
 Kenneth D. Ligutom Grade 12 - Block C Physics AM

therefore believed that the resistance as measured in complete Lorentz transformation, like special

the rest frame of the experiment should change as the relativity, are still valid (Trouton & Rankine, 1908).

device was rotated. However their careful The results of this experiment was negative

measurements showed no detectable change in but there is no ethical problem here as the researchers

resistance. explained this in the results. This was further

This showed that if the Lorentz–FitzGerald supported by Einstein’s theory of relativity later on.

contraction existed, it was not measurable in the rest The theory explains new concepts and also agrees

frame of the object – only theories containing the with the results of the Fizeau experiment which

yielded negative results.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boundless. (2016, May 26). Millikan's Oil Drop Experiment. Retrieved August 22, 2017, from Boundless.

Franklin, A. (1997). Millikan's Oil Drop Experiments. The Chemical Educator, 2(1), 1-14.

doi:10.1007/s00897970102a

Goodstein, D. (2000). In defense of Robert Andrews Millikan. Engineering and Science, 63(4), 30-38.

Janssen, M., & Stachel, J. (2010). The Optics and Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies. (J. Stachen, Ed.) Springer.

Stachel, J. (2005). Fresnel's (dragging) coefficient as a challenge to 19th century optics of moving bodies. (A. J.

Kox, & J. Eisenstaedt, Eds.) The Universe of General Relativity, 1-13. Retrieved August 20, 2017

Trouton, F. T., & Rankine, A. O. (1908). On the electrical resistance of moving matter. Proc. Roy. Soc, 80(402),

420. doi:10.1098/rspa.1908.0037