Abstract
IN an earlier letter1 I suggested that some (or all) of the determinations of the specific electronic charge, e/m, disagreed with the value deduced from Sir Arthur Eddington's M/m = 1847.6 theory (namely, 1.7703 × 107 B.M.U.) because they were really measurements of Prof. Birge2 stated that the measurements agreed with my hypothesis even better than I had suggested; and Sir Arthur Eddington3 suggested that, on theoretical grounds, the ratio would be expected to be very nearly 136/137.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
W. N. Bond, NATURE, 133, 327; 1934.
R. T. Birge, NATURE, 133, 648; 1934.
A. S. Eddington, NATURE, 133, 907; 1934.
C. D. Shane and F. H. Spedding, Phys. Rev., 47, 33; 1935.
R. T. Birge, loc. ci.
W. N. Bond, Proc. Phys. Soc., 44, 374; 1932.
R. T. Birge, Phys. Rev., 40, 319; 1932. (Prof. Birge amended my calculation of e, but owing to a numerical mistake he obtained too small a value for the probable error, namely, ± 0.000,048 in place of ± 0.000,43.)
E. Bäcklin, NATURE, 135, 32; Jan. 5, 1935.
M. Söderman, NATURE, 135, 67; Jan. 12, 1935.
A. E. Ruark, Phys. Rev., 47, 316; Jan. 12, 1935.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
BOND, W. The Ratio 136/137 in Atomic Physics. Nature 135, 825 (1935). https://doi.org/10.1038/135825a0
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/135825a0
