Talk:Robert Andrews Millikan

The Quantum Aspect
I'd suggest that the quantum aspect of Millikan's oil drop experiment needs to be emphasised. Although, at the time of the oil-drop experiment, J.J. Thomson had measured the charge/mass ratio of the electron, the idea that electron beams really were corpuscles was by no means accepted by all. (See, e.g. [http://www.aip.org/history/electron/jjelectr.htm]. Nowadays many have come to think of an electron as a sort of tiny billiard ball, which of course it isn't. At the time of the oil-drop experiment, charge was seen rather more as a continuous variable in Maxwwell's equations. Hence I suggest:

The oil drop experiment was the first practical demonstration that charge is quantised.

I did find a scanned version of a book of biographies of scientists a couple of years ago, but an hour or so of Google hasn't turned it up yet. Edison at the time believed that charge was a continuous phenomenon, and it was only after seeing Millikan's apparatus for himself that he changed his mind. If anyone can find a reference to this ... it seems quite relevant. Davy p 00:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of the oil drop experiment
According to both Britannica and the IoP the oil drop experiment does appear to have been done first in 1909. Davy p 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I added some more text, and three references regarding the time line. Feel free to improve those. Awolf002 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first edition of his "A first course in Physics" Copyright 1906, with Henry Gale, He credits J. J. Thomson with an extension to a current "electron theory" to be that the cathode (ray) particles are the primordial constituents of the discovered 70 odd elements. They speculate that the element Hydrogen contains about 2000 electrons (sic) and the Mercury atom 400000.WFPM (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert-millikan-stamp.jpg
Image:Robert-millikan-stamp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a fair use rationale. Hopefully that takes care of it. Dicklyon (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous book? or wrong date?
The Photoelectric effect section cites "his 1958 Book of discoveries on science experiments" as finally accepting Einstein's interpretation of the photoelectric effect. Since Millikan died in 1953, this must be either a posthumous book (or posthumous edition) or an incorrect date. Can someone trace the date when Millikan actually wrote the words which are quoted? It would be interesting to know how long it took him to accept Einstein's interpretation in print. Dirac66 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - this was corrected on 21 May 2011. The correct source is his 1950 autobiography.Dirac66 (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen or Glenn?
Glen (Glenn) Allan Millikan the inventor of oximetry - he was Robert's son, right? But what is the correct spelling of his first name? Googlebooks has examples of both, in an uncertain proportion. East of Borschov 16:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Data selection controversy
Is this really important? Who cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.247.22 (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's important because Millikan is listed in some locations as a fraudster. Goodstein actually read the paper and explained it in simple fashion. Goodstein's work seems to be an adequate counter-balance to the fraud charges. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Famous Quote
This article provides no citation or reliable source for Milliken's statement supposedly given at 1928 in some Chemists' Club in New York. His book,however does provide an authoritative quote that perhaps has been misquoted over the years.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 04:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Move to "Robert A. Millikan"
The current article title is "Robert Andrews Millikan" while ""Robert Millikan", "Robert A. Millikan", and "R. A. Millikan" are all redirects here. Naming conventions (people) suggests to use just first name and last name unless there's a good reason why not. Millikan published as "R. A. Millikan". Not clear what the best title is here. Seems to me the title most consistent with our naming conversions would be "Robert Millikan" but since he used his middle initial in publications maybe "Robert A. Millikan" is best. What seems not the most consistent with the naming convention is using his full name. I propose we move the page to "Robert A. Millikan". Jason Quinn (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Carl Anderson is missing
According to all sources, including Wikipedia itself, Carl David Anderson was a student of Millikan. Why is he not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aschellekens (talk • contribs) 13:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the omission. I have just added him to the infobox. Dirac66 (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Possible name removal?
Is the "Possible name removal from secondary schools during the 21st century" subsection really necessary before the decision has been made? JezGrove (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"association with eugenics"
Article mentions of his "association with eugenics" - but does not explain, what/when/how was this association ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that amongst other things he was a trustee of the Human Betterment Foundation (HBF). JezGrove (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have now clarified this somewhat by joining the eugenics sentence with a dash to the Human Betterment Foundation sentence into a single sentence, which should suggest that HBF is related to eugenics so for more details follow the link to HBF. Dirac66 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)