Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In a couple months, I'll do the Millikan experiment. Then, I'll end up with a number of charge measurements and their errors $$((q_i, \Delta q_i))_{i \in \mathbb N}.$$ The idea is that all those $q_i$ can be represented as a multiple of a fixed elementary charge $e$ like $$q_i = n_i e.$$

Now I do not know $e$ in advance. Is there some method to get $(e, \Delta e)$ out of the sequence of measurements?

I found this question on StackOverflow, but it does not have any answers that solve the problem in a stable way.

share|cite|improve this question
No you can't. Assume you have measurments (6,0.1) (12,0.1), (24,0.1). The only thing you can conclude is that this values are multiples of $3$, $2$ or $6$ – Norbert Aug 8 '12 at 22:04
@Norbert That's not true. $e$ doesn't have to be an integer. For example, if $e=1/2$, then $n_1=12$, $n_2=24$, and $n_3=48$. – Jonathan Gleason Aug 8 '12 at 22:29
I don't know, but this is actually a question I wondered about when I first learned about the Millikan experiment. It's possible that you can just get enough data not to worry about it. If you're really curious you might go and find the original paper and see whether Millikan worried about it. – Michael Lugo Aug 8 '12 at 23:21
It turns out that $e$ is not the elementary charge but that $e/3$ is it. But that is just the physical interpretation. I am just worried with the math here. – Martin Ueding Aug 9 '12 at 14:01
You may be interested in this paper: – student Jan 20 '13 at 20:07
up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is how you would do it if there were no experimental error: Let $q_0$ be your smallest measured value for the charge and enumerate the other charges $q_1,\dotsc,q_n$. By assumption, $q_k=en_k$ for some positive real $e$ and $n_k$ an integer. Thus, $\frac{q_k}{q_0}$ is rational for all $k$. Write all of these rationals is reduced form and let $\ell$ be the least common multiple of all the denominators. Take $e=q_0/\ell$. Then, by construction, $q_k/e$ is an integer for all $k$ and $e$ is the smallest positive real number such that this is true.

The problem with this, however, is that, when you calculate $\frac{q_k}{q_0}$, you are only getting an estimate, and so $\ell$ is going to be completely off. In practice, I think you just have to hope that $\frac{q_k}{q_0}$ is (approximately) an integer for all $k$, and if that's not the case, go back to the lab and take more data until this is the case.

Of course, as pointed out, if $e$ works, so will $e/2$, and $e/3$, etc. The best you will ever be able to do here is calculate the probability that you measured your value of $e$ (call it $e_0$) was indeed the correct value of $e$ under the assumption the true value of $e$ is $e_0/2$, $e_0/3$, etc.

share|cite|improve this answer
Okay, this makes sense for exact data. The problem is that the $q_0$ has to be really exact, otherwise all the $q_k/q_0$ ratios will be way off. I'll try this approach, maybe it works with the data that I will be gathering. – Martin Ueding Aug 9 '12 at 13:59

Generally, computing approximate integer gcds is hard. In fact, a couple of years ago an encryption scheme was introduced whose security depends on such hardness, see Fully Homomorphic Encryption over the Integers by van Dijk, Gentry et al. Chasing references to this should turn up much of interest.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.