Problems with photoelectric effect lab

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on issues encountered in a quantum physics lab involving the photoelectric effect. The experimental setup includes an incandescent light bulb, monochromator, and photodiode, but the results showed a non-linear relationship between stopping potential and dial position, contrary to expectations. Attempts to account for potential errors, such as imperfections in the diffraction grating and recalibrating using a mercury lamp, did not yield a linear relationship when plotting potential against frequency. The participant suspects the detector's construction may be contributing to the discrepancies but lacks detailed information about it. Insights into resolving these measurement issues and understanding the underlying physics are sought.
evangoor
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I am currently taking a quantum physics lab. The results from my most recent lab are troubling me.
A quick description of the lab
The setup includes an incandescent light bulb which feeds light into a monochromator. The monochromator consist of a couple mirrors and a diffraction grating. The diffraction grating is rotated by a dial to select a specific wavelength. The selected light then shines into a photodiode which has a variable potential applied across it. The stopping potential is then measured by varying the voltage until the current is 0.
My problem
When we plotted stopping potential vs. position our result was not linear. The dial position should be directly proportional to wavelength and hence have a linear relationship to frequency. However our measurements showed a relationship of at least the third order.
An attempt at finding the source of the problem
I thought maybe if the diffraction grating wasn't perfectly flat, the relationship between dial position and wavelength wouldn't be perfectly linear. When setting up the experiment we used a mercury lamp for establishing a calibration curve so we could convert dial readings to a wavelength. So to try to account for a distortion caused by the grating, I established a second order fit of our calibration data. I then used that equation to calculate a frequency value for each of the dial positions. I plotted potential vs. frequency and still did not get a linear relationship. At this point I can't think of a reasonable source for this kind of error. I was thinking it probably has something to do with the detector, but unfortunately I cannot get a good description of the exact construction of the detector. I would appreciate any new insight you might be able to offer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
wavelength is proportional to reciprocal frequency.
 
The relation is
\nu=2 \pi \omega=\frac{c}{\lambda}.
The Einstein formula you should fit is
e U=\hbar \omega-E_{\mathrm{B}}.
Here e is the elementary charge, U the stopping potential, and E_{\mathrm{B}} the binding energy of the electrons.
 
Time reversal invariant Hamiltonians must satisfy ##[H,\Theta]=0## where ##\Theta## is time reversal operator. However, in some texts (for example see Many-body Quantum Theory in Condensed Matter Physics an introduction, HENRIK BRUUS and KARSTEN FLENSBERG, Corrected version: 14 January 2016, section 7.1.4) the time reversal invariant condition is introduced as ##H=H^*##. How these two conditions are identical?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K