The story of the electron (1901)

When we are taught the history of physics, it is quite common for major discoveries to be introduced in an abbreviated form that loses much of the very interesting context. We are told “Scientist X discovered Y in year XXXX,” but are often not told about the tortured path of investigations that lead up to Y and the numerous questions that were answered by the new discovery.

A great example of this is the discovery of the electron! The electron was officially discovered in 1897 by British physicist J.J. Thomson using experiments on cathode rays (mysterious “rays” emanating from the cathode in a vacuum tube), in which he was able to estimate both the mass and the charge of electrons. That description is quite abridged, however, and there was a long philosophical discussion about the existence of electrons preceding its discovery and a lot of mysteries that were suddenly unraveled by its existence.

I was thinking about this a lot recently due to two factors. The first is that I wrote a blog post on an early inadvertent test of special relativity investigating the apparent mass of electrons. That paper by Kaufmann gave me a sense of how radical the discovery of the electron was at the time and how eager people were to determine all of its properties. The second factor was… a mistake? Kaufmann’s relativity paper came out in 1901, and was in German, and was about electrons; my first attempt to track it down led me to a 1901 paper by Kaufmann in German about electrons, and I started translating it. About halfway through translation, I realized that the paper was not the one I was looking for, but it was so interesting that I finished translating it anyway!

The paper in question was a public lecture that Walter Kaufmann wrote on “The development of the concept of electrons,” and it is a timely overview of the history of the concept and everything that had been learned since its formal discovery! It is such an interesting read I thought I would share my translation in its entirety in this blog post, with my own annotations and explanations to provide context when needed.

Continue reading
Posted in History of science, Physics | Leave a comment

“Invisibility” reviewed at Nature!

My book Invisibility: The History and Science of How Not to Be Seen has been out for about 4 months now, and activity around it has settled down a lot. So it was a lovely surprise when my friend Liza on Twitter pointed out that it was just given a short review in Nature today, as one of “five of the best science picks!”

The short review can be read at this link, but it might be behind a subscription paywall, so here’s the relevant text about Invisibility:

In 2006, two independent groups of physicists speculated on how to design an ‘invisibility cloak’ by guiding light around an object and then on its way, as if it had met no obstacle. Within six months, this proposal was demonstrated experimentally using microwaves rather than visible light. “The future of invisibility is very hard to see,” admits surprised physicist Gregory Gbur at the end of his tantalizing analysis of the phenomenon, ranging over more than 150 years and including science fiction such as The Invisible Man (1897) by H. G. Wells.

This was really nice to see, and made my day! I put a lot of time and thought into this book, so it’s nice to see some recognition of it come back to me.

PS hopefully you’re not all tired of hearing about the book, but I am using these blog posts to also keep track of the various bits of positive press for my own personal enjoyment!

Posted in Invisibility, Personal | Leave a comment

Sister, Maiden, Monster, by Lucy A. Snyder

One of the absolutely wonderful things that has come from social media, in spite of the many, many downsides (RIP Twitter), has been getting acquainted with and becoming online friends with a lot of great writers. One of those writers I am happy to have met is Lucy A. Snyder, a versatile writer of science fiction, fantasy, and horror. I’ve blogged in the past about one of her short story collections, While the Black Stars Burn (2015), and I believe I wrote about her more recent collection Garden of Eldritch Delights (2018) for Dead Reckonings; both were excellent and filled with truly powerful and weird tales.

So I was delighted to see that Lucy not only has a new novel out — Sister, Maiden, Monster (2023), but that it is very widely available on the shelves in bookstores! I finally got my copy a couple of weeks ago.

It is a relatively short novel and proceeds at a rapid pace. I started reading it on a trip on a Monday afternoon and finished it on the plane on the flight back on Tuesday morning, devouring the last few pages as my plane pulled up to the gate. It is a beautifully, horrifically written book, and I enjoyed it immensely.

Continue reading
Posted in Horror | Leave a comment

What is the Mössbauer effect?

So a few weeks ago I described a 1960 experimental test of time dilation in Einstein’s special theory of relativity that applies the Mössbauer effect to measure precise changes in the frequency of gamma rays. I only briefly described the Mössbauer effect in that post, and it’s a simple enough and interesting enough effect to elaborate upon in a separate post, so here we are!

In short, the Mössbauer effect is the absorption of a gamma ray by an atomic nucleus in a crystal such that the momentum of the gamma ray is absorbed by the entire crystal array, rather than the single nucleus that absorbed the gamma ray. Why this is significant is a longer story, which we now discuss.

Let’s begin with a discussion of spectroscopy and how photons of different energies can be use to study different parts of the structure of atoms. I’ve talked many times about the Bohr model of the atom, usually pictured something like the image below.

The Bohr model. a photon is emitted when an electron “jumps” from one orbit to another.

In the days before we discovered quantum physics and the structure of the atom, researchers couldn’t understand why atoms seemed to absorb and emit light only at very specific discrete frequencies. Niels Bohr proposed a model of the atom in which electrons can only orbit the nucleus at special orbits, labeled by a number n, and would emit or absorb a single photon in jumping from one state to another.

Simulation of the emission spectral lines of hydrogen in the visible spectrum, via Wikipedia. These lines are observed by collimating light coming from a hydrogen source and dispersing it through a prism. An ordinary thermal source would produce a rainbow!

This picture of electrons “orbiting” the nucleus would quickly be supplanted by a picture of electrons as extended waves enveloping the nucleus, but the basic principle introduced by Bohr — of discrete states for electrons and a discrete emission spectrum — holds up. People still use the term “orbits” to describe the states of the electron, despite its inaccuracy, because it gives a decent enough image.

Continue reading
Posted in Physics | Leave a comment

1901: Kaufmann measures relativity and doesn’t know it

The special theory of relativity has been extensively tested ever since Albert Einstein formulated it in 1905, and is essential in understanding numerous fields of physics, from astrophysics to nuclear physics to particle physics. Recently, I’ve been exploring some of these experimental tests, like the 1960 laboratory test of time dilation.

What surprised me, however, was learning about a 1901 experiment that provided evidence of special relativity before Einstein introduced it! Most physicists are familiar with the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to find any variation of the speed of light and really spurred a lot of the work on relativity theory, but this 1901 research is something that one doesn’t see in textbooks.

So, of course, I had to translate the paper, which is in German, and write a blog post about it! For those who want to read my translation, the pdf is here; the original in German can be read on Wikisource. The paper is by Walter Kaufmann, and has the translated title, “The magnetic and electrical deflectability of the Bequerel rays and the apparent mass of the electrons.” It appeared in Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen – Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse of the year 1901, page 143-155.

Continue reading
Posted in History of science, Relativity | Leave a comment

Dead Reckonings #33 is available!

Just a short note to let folks know that issue number 33 of the horror and weird fiction periodical Dead Reckonings is now available, and it includes another review by me!

If you enjoy reading reviews and commentary on horror fiction both old and new, Dead Reckonings is a fun (and inexpensive) option, and regularly includes articles by some really well-known names in the business, such as Ramsey Campbell and Darrell Schweitzer.

Continue reading
Posted in Horror, Personal | Leave a comment

The Einstein Theory of Relativity, by Lillian Lieber

I have been criminally unaware of the works of Lillian Lieber until recently. Somehow, I got wind of one of her books, the extremely unconventional 1945 book The Einstein Theory of Relativity, and from the description I knew I had to read it!

The 1945 edition is in fact an expanded version of the 1936 edition, which only covered the special theory of relativity; the 1945 edition more than doubles the size of the book and includes a detailed discussion of the general theory of relativity.

There are many books on relativity, so why did I absolutely need to read this one? For two very big reasons: its style and its audience. Both of these reasons are evident in the preface to the book, which I include an image of below.

Continue reading
Posted in Physics, Relativity | Leave a comment

Do scientists debate? Not like that they don’t

This is gonna bit a bit of a rant like the old days of blogging. A few days ago we had anti-vaccine crank and poison pill presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. show up on Joe Rogan’s equally cranky podcast to talk about how vaccines are killing us all, or something. This led Professor Peter Hotez, an actual scientist and professor who works on vaccines, to call out the show for spreading misinformation.

Proving that we live in the dumbest of all possible timelines, Joe Rogan was angered by this, and more or less demanded that Hotez appear on his show to “debate” RFKj about vaccines, offering him $100k to do so and badgering him about it. This, in turn, led to antivaxxers showing up at Hotez’s home to yell at him and demand he “debate” on Rogan’s show.

Rogan, of course, full well knows that this sort of harassment is inevitable when he sics his followers on someone; he has nearly 12 million Twitter followers, and they are not exactly what I would call reasonable people, so stalking is a very foreseeable consequence of his actions. Hotez, for his part, was gracious and offered to talk to Rogan directly, but did not fall for the “debate” trap.

And it is a trap. What I want to talk about here, and rant about, is the notion that scientists somehow are obligated to perform public debates. Here’s one Roganbro’s tweet arguing that science is supposed to be “debated.”

Note that, hilariously, the word “debate” does not appear anywhere in his graphic of the scientific method.

Scientists do debate science, but do not do it in the traditional public person-to-person format. And there are very good reasons that we don’t.

Continue reading
Posted in ... the Hell?, General science | Comments Off on Do scientists debate? Not like that they don’t

New collaborative paper on an optical Hilbert’s Hotel!

I need to talk about more of my own research on this blog, and a new collaborative paper that just came out is a good opportunity! This paper presents collaborative work I did with researchers in India at the Physical Research Laboratory and elsewhere, building on some theoretical work I did a few years earlier. (I’ve blogged about some of the theoretical work before, so I will be dipping into that post for some of my images.)

The work in question is titled, “Simple experimental realization of optical Hilbert Hotel using scalar and vector fractional vortex beams,” and it appears in the June issue of APL Photonics. It is also a “featured” article, which means the editor found it interesting enough to feature, and is a “Scilight,” which means that the editor felt that it is interesting enough to have a separate description given!

Continue reading
Posted in Mathematics, Optics | 1 Comment

A blog milestone and some book news!

So yesterday’s blog post marked a silly milestone: I posted 69 days in a row!

Why 69? Because I thought it would be nice?

More seriously, I was posting every day for a while as an excuse to promote my book on invisibility, and I just wanted to have an arbitrary milestone to end it on. Now that I’ve wrapped this up, I’ll probably go back to posting one to three times per week. I’ve been much more in a blogging mood the past few months, so hopefully I’ll keep it up!

Speaking (again) of my book, the audiobook version is available for preorder, and will be released on June 27, two days before my birthday! If you’ve been waiting because you prefer audiobook format, now’s your chance to get it.

Okay, I’m going to take a bit of a break, and be back in a couple of days!

Posted in Personal | Leave a comment