the photoelectric effect

what is light?

photons and gravity

I've been giving this lecture to first-year classes for over twenty-five
years. You'd think they would begin to understand it by now.English
mathematician John Littlewood
Recallphotoelectric effect, classical theory and
observations:
Predict Observe
PA2, PI Eelectron Ilight N(e-) Ilight, Ee- independent of
Ilight
Eelectron (flight)2 Eelectron (flight)
Vextinction (flight)2 Vextinction (flight)
tescape = very long tescape = instantaneous
no limit to electron KEmax, there is a maximum electron
no Imin to produce e- KE,
there is an Imin needed to
produce e-

Theorists: your comments?

Experimentalists: your comments?
Heres a plot of the maximum photoelectron energy
versus frequency of incident light:

straight line; y = mx + b

remember, well use f, not

The plots of Kmax vs. f obey the relationship
Kmax= hf - hf0 ,
where h is a constant, f is the frequency of the incident
light, and f0 is the threshold frequency below which no
photoelectrons are emitted.
The constant h has the same value for all metals, but f 0
depends on the metal. Plancks constant = h =
6.63x10-34 Js = 4.14x10-15 eVs.
It sounds like were on to something, doesnt it, but
keep inthis
mindis an empirical equation; i.e., it fits the
experiment, but we haven't explained anything.

Have you heard the term empirical parameter? What does it

mean?
So what is the real meaning of the term empirical parameter?
So we have a theory full of holes (Rayleigh/Jeans)

and an empirical equation that works only because

weve thrown in a fudge factor.

Who you gonna call for help?

Einstein's hypothesis and explanation for the
photoelectric effect.
Einstein postulated that a beam of light consists of
small bundles of energy, called "light quanta" or
"photons." The energy of a photon is given by E=hf.
An electron can absorb all of a photon's energy or none
of it, but nothing in between.
Ephoton = hf .
Some electrons may acquire enough energy to escape
from the illuminated metal surface (the escape energy
is called the work function of the surface). Electrons
escaping from the metal may or may not use up
additional energy in escaping.
The maximum energy electrons can leave the metal
with is equal to hf minus the work function. Light of
frequency f can't give an electron any more energy
than hf.
 Thus, according to Einstein, the empirical equation for
the photoelectric effect really says*

hf = Kmax + hf0 ,
energy you start with energy you leave with energy you use to escape

where Kmax is the maximum photoelectric energy and

hf0 is the work function energy.

The equation is just an expression of conservation of

energy; the big deal is the idea of the photon.

Einstein won the 1921 Nobel Prize for explaining the photoelectric
effect. He never won a Nobel Prize for his work in relativity!

*This may look like just a rearrangement of our previous equation.

The difference is that this equation is part of a testable theory.
Huge difference!
Einstein brilliantly explained all of the features of the
photoelectric effect, but his ideas were so revolutionary
in 1905 that they werent really accepted until 1916
when Millikan provided conclusive experimental
verification.
Actually, Millikan viewed Einsteins
explanation of the photoelectric effect as a
direct attack on the wave nature of
electromagnetic waves, and worked very
hard for a decade to prove Einstein wrong.

Instead, Millikan proved Einstein right.*

*If its any consolation, Millikan won the 1923 Nobel Prize for
proving Einstein right.
Example. Homework Problem 2.11. The maximum
wavelength for photoelectric emission in tungsten is
230 nm. What wavelength of light must be used in
order for electrons with a maximum energy of 1.5 eV to
be ejected?
The first step is to interpret the problem. Photons with
>230 nm are lower in energy than 230 nm photons.
The problem has given you the minimum energy
photon required to eject an electron.

This minimum energy is equal to the work function:

hc
= hf0= .
0

Remember, for an E&M wave, c =

f .
c = f , E&M wave.
Now you can use our OSE:

hf = Kmax + hf0

hc
hf = Kmax +
0

hc hc
= Kmax +
0

hc This is not the only

=1 way to solve it. I do
hc
Kmax +
0
suggest you do the
algebra first, then
plug in numbers at
the end.
 hc

hc
Kmax +
0

Plug in the numbers, get the answer!

Now we have light (and E&M waves) all figured out.

It (light) has all the properties of a wave

except sometimes it has the properties of a particle.

2.4 What is Light
Remember relativity, where we found that Newtonian
mechanics was an approximation to the generally
correct theory of relativity?
Now we have the wave theory of light and the particle
theory of light. Who can tell me which one is correct?

All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no

nearer to the answer to the question, What are light quanta?
Light has physical reality. Different experiments see
different aspects of that reality. Some experiments see
wave-like aspects of light. Others see particle-like
aspects of light.

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong or unreal

about light. Our senses just aren't equipped to fully
appreciate all aspects of the physical reality of light.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/two-slit3.html
We can do experiments involving the wave nature of
light (reflection, refraction, interference, diffraction)
diffraction)
or we can do experiments involving the particle nature
of light (photoelectric effect).
Recently weve even developed
experiments involving both at
once.*
But the experiments cant tell us
whether light is a wave or a
particle. Is there something
wrong with us? Are most of the
experiments wrong? Is
something wrong with light?
No, no, and no. Our senses and intuition are the
problem. Dont try to make light into something black
and white!

*http://www.nobel.se/physics/articles/ekspong/
We have been talking about light, but light is just E&M
waves from a relatively narrow band of the spectrum.
All of our conclusions about light apply to E&M
radiation.
If you use an equation with
Planck's constant in it, you
are doing quantum
mechanics. An equation
without Planck's constant
can be derived using only
classical physics.

The equations for photon momentum and energy

(which I will summarize on the next slide) contain both
wave and particle aspects together.
 The mathematics of light.

photon energy E = hf photon momentum p =h /

photon rest mass m= 0 photon charge = 0
photon velocity v =c "particle intensity" I = n h f
E&M wave speed c=f wave speed v=f

E hf h
* photon "mass" m= 2 = 2 =
c c c

*Of course, a photon doesnt really have any mass.

Dont even think about walking outside these halls and

telling everybody photons have mass. No. No. No.
Where did pphoton=h/ come from?
0
E =p c + mc
2 2 2

2 2

E=pc

E=pf
but Einstein says: E=hf
hf =pf
pf =hf

p =h
h
p=

Sections we are skipping

2.5 X-rays
X-rays are E&M radiation of a higher energy than visible
light. Of course, they are also photons.
A common way to produce x-rays: bombard a metal
surface with high energy electrons. Some of the
resulting x-rays form a more or less continuous
spectrum. Others have very specific energies. We will
study the latter x-rays in Chapter 7.

2.6 X-ray Diffraction

Because x-rays are waves, they can be diffracted. X-
ray diffraction is an extremely powerful technique for
investigating condensed matter.
2.7 The Compton Effect
The increase in x-ray wavelength upon scattering by
matter can be explained only by the quantum theory of
light.
Comptons theory was initially met by some doubt, but
upon experimental verification, it convinced remaining
doubters of the particle aspect of light, and won
Compton the Nobel Prize in 1927.

2.8 Pair Production

In the presence of a nucleus,* a photon (pure energy)
can materialize into an electron and a positron
(particles).
Also, an electron and a positron can annihilate and
become pure energy (a photon).

*Required for conservation of energy and momentum.

2.9 Photons and Gravity; Black Holes
What is mass?
The thing that goes into F = dp/dt?

The thing that goes into F = Gm1m2/r2?

Are these two things (inertial mass and gravitational

mass) the same?

OR! Is there theoretical or experimental basis for

demanding they are the same?
 Winter 2005, skip
Interesting digression digression.

Hungarian physicist, Lorand Etvs,

carried out precise experiments
between 1906 and 1909 to compare
gravitational and inertial mass.

He concluded the two were the same

to within 1 part in 200,000,000 (give or
take a factor or 2).

A 1964 experiment1 showed the two were the same to

within 1 part in 100,000,000,000

1. P. G. Roll, R. Krotkov, R. H. Dicke, Annals of Physics, New York,

26, 442, 1964.
This experimental result is the basis for one of the
postulates of general relativity.
The Principle of Equivalence: an observer in a
closed laboratory cannot distinguish between the
effects produced by a gravitational field and those
produced by an acceleration of the laboratory.

uniform gravitational
force field, downwards

a=g w = mg
uniform upward
acceleration = g

Well return to consequences of this, after I finish my digre

 The original Etvs experiment was designed to
measure the ratio of the gravitational mass to the
inertial mass of different substances.
Etvs found the ratio to be one, to within
approximately one part in a million.

Fischbach and his collaborators reanalyzed1 Etvs'

data and found a composition dependent effect, which
they interpreted as evidence for a Fifth Force.

What do you think of this?

Remember: right now we believe there are only four
fundamental forces: strong, weak, E&M, and
gravitational.
1. E. Fischbach et al., Phys. Rev. Letters, 56, 2424, 2426, 1986; E.
Fischbach, D. Sudarsky, A. Szafer, C. Talmadge, S. H. Aronson, 57,
1959, 1986.
Quotes from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-
experiment/notes.html#A4-1.
Fischbach and his collaborators reanalyzed1 Etvs'
data and found a composition dependent effect, which
they interpreted as evidence for a Fifth Force.

If this is true, two 1-kilogram masses of copper attract

each other with a different force than two 1-kilogram
masses of aluminum!
Revolutionary! Instant Nobel Prize (on confirmation)!
Your name goes down in the annals of physics next to
Newton, Maxwell, and Einstein!

Two experiments carried out in 1987 gave conflicting

results: one for the fifth force, one against it.

Whats a responsible physicist to do?

Suspend judgment until experiment (supported by
theory) offers conclusive evidence.

Ultimately, many experiments were carried out which

demonstrated conclusively that there is no fifth force.
In the reanalysis of the Etvs
experiment, a trend in the
data which suggested the fifth
force turned out to be a result
of statistical fluctuations. The
data had a trend, but it was
accidental and statistically
insignificant.
Physics works!

Interesting discussion: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physics-

experiment/app4.html.
End of digression. Back to Physics 107. The upshot of
all this is that mass is mass, and the Principle of
Equivalence still works.
So we investigate some consequences of the Principle
of Equivalence.

Inertial mass and gravitational mass of an object are

the same, as far as we can tell.

Light, like other good particles, should be affected by

gravity, because
2 hf
E = hf and E = mc so m= 2 .
c
In other words, a photon doesn't have a rest mass, but it
has an "inertial mass" as suggested above, so it ought
to be affected by gravity.
Experimental evidence for effect of gravity on photons:

Light from distant star is

deflected by the sun's
gravitational field; first
observed during solar
eclipse, not long after
Einstein proposed the
theory.

The deflection observed

was exactly that
predicted by Einstein.

Graphic from http://hyperphysics.phy-

astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/grel.html.
If I drop a book, what does it
Duh, falls down.
do?
If I drop a photon, what does it Has to fall
do? down!
Where do you know of photons In this room!
falling?

What happens when you drop Accelerates.

the book?

What happens when you drop Accelerates.

the photon?

What else happens when you Gains KE.

drop the book?

What else happens when you Gains Energy.

drop the photon?
In 1960, Pound and Rebka measured the increase in
frequency of photons from the time they were emitted
at the top of a 22.5 m tower to the time they were
detected at the ground.*
*Sorry, but I have to get on my soapbox for a minute.

Unfortunately, if you do a search for Pound and Rebka, one of the

first sites you hit is by the Absolute Motion Institute. They use
impressive-sounding arguments to explain why this experiment,
and virtually everything we have studied so far, is nonsense.

If you read their arguments carefully, and with understanding, you

find flaw after flaw.

It is good to constantly question the validity of accepted science

theories and experiments.

It is not good to use falsehoods to prove ideas you dislike are

incorrect.

Use Internet sources of information with extreme care!

A photon of initial energy hf ought to gain an energy
equal to mgH when it falls through a height H. Its
not really mass, hence m.

Since the photon's "mass" is m=hf/c2, the energy

gain is (hf/c2)gH. This gives
gH
hf = hf ( 1 + 2
).
c
energy gained
Ef Ei (when multiplied
by hf)
Page 86 gives a sample calculation for a photon falling
22.5 meters. Caution: if you plug the numbers into
the above equation, your calculator precision will
probably result in no difference between hf and hf '.
You have to do the algebra and solve for f ' f first, as
on page 86.
Gravitational red shift and black holes.
Consider a photon with
gravitational mass equal to its
inertial mass. Suppose it was
emitted at a distance R from an
object of mass M, and it had an
initial frequency f0.

When the photon is at a distant point infinitely

removed from the object of mass M, its kinetic energy
is equal to its initial kinetic energy minus the
gravitational potential energy (GM1M2/R) at R:
M hf
hf = hf - G 2 ,
R c

GM
hf = hf 1 - 2 .
c R
 GM

hf = hf 1 - 2
c R
Note that the photon has been shifted to a lower
frequency. Lower frequency means more red, so this is
a "gravitational red shift."

This is not to be confused with the "red shift" due to

the Doppler effect, which you have probably heard of
before. The gravitational red shift is a very weak effect,
barely measurable.
 GM

hf = hf 1 - 2
c R

Note that if GM/c2R=1, the photon has its frequency

shifted to zero.

If GM/c2R is greater than 1, a photon can never

escape from the object, because it didn't have
enough energy to overcome the gravitational field

You can solve for R, which is the radius from which

light cannot escape from an object of mass M. We
wont, because

The above argument was a classical one. To get the

right answer, you must use general relativity.
The result from general relativity has an extra 2 in the
numerator.

2GM
Rs = 2
c
This is called the Schwarzshild radius. It
is the radius inside which light can
never escape -- hence "black hole." The
sphere of radius RS is called the "event
horizon." Nothing, not even light, can
pass the event horizon (from inside to
out, of course).

Graphic from http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/blackhole.html.

http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org
/hu/db/1995/47/images/b/fo
rmats/large_web.jpg

Light falling into a very

deep gravitational
potential has a blue shift,
and light escaping from
a very deep gravitational
potential has a red shift.

Keep in mind that photons have momentum but not

mass. When we talk about photon "mass" we are
really referring to the mass of an "ordinary" particle
having the same momentum as the photon.
Homework Problem 2-14
A silver ball is suspended by a string in a vacuum
chamber and ultraviolet light of wavelength 200 nm is
directed at it. What electrical potential will the ball
acquire as a result.
Electrons will be ejected from the silver ball.

If the ball is in a vacuum, suspended by a

nonconducting string. As electrons are ejected, the
ball acquires a positive charge and positive potential.
The ball will build up a positive charge until no
electrons have enough KE to escape, at which point a
steady-state situation will exist and the potential will
not change.
Kmax = hf - hf0 = hf -
Electrons stop escaping when

Kmax = eV = hf -

hf -
V=
e

c
h -
V=
e

3108
m/s
-15
4.1410 eVs -9
20010 m
- 4.7eV
V=
e
 3108
m/s
-15
4.1410 eVs -9
20010 m
- 4.7eV
V=
e

V =1.51 V

symbol units

My mathcad solution is rather sloppy.

Suppose that a 60 W light bulb radiates primarily at a
wavelength of 1000 nm, a number just above the
optical range. Find the number of photons emitted per
second.
power = total energy/time

power = (energy/photon) (N of photons/time)

(N of photons/time) = power / (energy/photon)

n = power / (energy of a photon)

n = P / hf = P / (hc/)

n = 60 / [(6.63x10-34)(3x108)]/(1000x10-9)

If you stick with SI units, n will be in units of s-1; i.e.

photons/s.
The Big Winners, Chapter 2:
Planck, Nobel Prize, energy quanta, 1918.

Einstein, Nobel Prize, law of the photoelectric effect, 1921.

Millikan, Nobel Prize, charge of electron and photoelectric

effect, 1923.
 Chapter 2 OSEs

Ephoton = hf hf = Kmax + hf0

pphoton = hf / c = h / c=f
2GM
Rs =
c2
All our other equations are derived from these, the
equations of relativity, and the equations of classical
physics.
I will give you more than these few equations on your
quiz.