Using a Geiger–Müller tube to prove inverse square law

AI Thread Summary
The experiment using a Geiger–Müller tube aimed to demonstrate Newton's Inverse Square Law in the context of radioactivity by measuring clicks from Strontium-90 at halved distances. The results indicated that the number of clicks appeared to double as the distance was halved, contradicting the expected inverse square relationship. Participants were encouraged to consider the constant of proportionality and how it might affect the results. A suggestion was made to plot the data on a logarithmic scale to better analyze the relationship. This approach could clarify whether the observed pattern aligns with a power law.
beatlemaniac
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Today our class used a Geiger–Müller tube for the first time, and we conducted a short experiment to prove that Newton's Inverse Square Law also applies to radioactivity. We recorded the number of clicks from a small sample of Strontium-90 for ten seconds at halved distances, as shown below...


Distance from sample (m) = 0.24
No. of clicks = 5, 6, 7, 3, 2
Average = 4.6

Distance from sample (m) = 0.12
No. of clicks = 5, 13, 5, 4, 6
Average = 6.6

Distance from sample (m) = 0.06
No. of clicks = 18, 21, 21, 27, 28
Average = 23

Distance from sample (m) = 0.03
No. of clicks = 42, 30, 45, 50, 44
Average = 42.2

Distance from sample (m) = 0.015
No. of clicks = 114, 97, 82, 96, 94
Average = 96.6


As you can see the number of clicks seems to be doubling as the distance is halved, not squaring as we expected. Any ideas on we were doing wrong?

Homework Equations



\textit{Bq}\propto\frac{1}{d^2}

The Attempt at a Solution



?

This is my first post on the site so I hope I have adhered to all your conventions and what not :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
beatlemaniac said:
As you can see the number of clicks seems to be doubling as the distance is halved, not squaring as we expected. Any ideas on we were doing wrong?

That may be due to the constant of proportionality. Can you think of a sure way to test if a given set of points follow a power law?

Hint: It involves plotting them in a special kind of chart with special scales on the axes ;)
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top