Appendix A: Electron Diffraction Data

Diffraction Measurements Bulb Radius, R (mm): 64.2 Target-Screen Distance, l (mm): 136.4 VA VF Vheater velec sin sout in out in out (kV) (V) (V) Ie(mA) (m/s) (mm) (mm) (rad.) (rad.) (rad.) (rad.) 1.5 8.2 6 0.120 2.30E+07 19 36 0.296 0.561 0.0696 0.1317 1.7 9.3 6 0.120 2.45E+07 18.5 35 0.288 0.545 0.0678 0.1281 1.9 9.3 6 0.150 2.59E+07 18 33 0.280 0.514 0.0660 0.1208 2.1 16.1 6 0.060 2.72E+07 17.5 31 0.273 0.483 0.0641 0.1135 2.3 18.1 6 0.060 2.84E+07 17 29 0.265 0.452 0.0623 0.1062 2.5 23.9 6 0.030 2.97E+07 16.4 28 0.255 0.436 0.0601 0.1025 2.7 27.2 6 0.020 3.08E+07 16 27.5 0.249 0.428 0.0586 0.1007 2.9 29 6 0.022 3.19E+07 15.3 26.5 0.238 0.413 0.0561 0.0971 3.1 29 6 0.039 3.30E+07 14.9 25.8 0.232 0.402 0.0546 0.0945 3.3 29 6 0.045 3.41E+07 14.5 25.2 0.226 0.393 0.0531 0.0923 3.5 29 6 0.064 3.51E+07 14.3 24.9 0.223 0.388 0.0524 0.0912 3.7 35.3 6 0.026 3.61E+07 14 24.2 0.218 0.377 0.0513 0.0886 3.9 35.3 6 0.042 3.70E+07 13.6 23.8 0.212 0.371 0.0498 0.0872 4.1 35.3 6 0.061 3.80E+07 12.8 22.9 0.199 0.357 0.0469 0.0839 4.3 42.9 6 0.021 3.89E+07 12.1 21.8 0.188 0.340 0.0443 0.0799 4.5 42.9 6 0.040 3.98E+07 11.5 20.5 0.179 0.319 0.0421 0.0751 4.7 42.9 6 0.050 4.07E+07 11 20.1 0.171 0.313 0.0403 0.0736 4.9 48.2 6 0.030 4.15E+07 10.1 19.3 0.157 0.301 0.0370 0.0707

Uncertainty
Measurement VA (kV) VF (V) Vheater (V) Ie(mA) sin (mm) sout (mm) R (mm) l (mm) Std. Dev. 10 0.75 0.1 0.005 1 1 0.2 0.2

Appendix A (cont'd.): Determination of Interatomic Spacing

Sin vs. 1/V

0.16 0.14 y = 5.1315x + 0.0015 0.12 0.1 Sin 0.08 0.06 y = 2.6832x + 0.0046 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 1/V (V-1/2) 0.02 0.025 0.03

Inner Theta Outer Theta

Appendix B: Charge-to-Mass Ratio Data

Ve (V) 210 220 230 240 250 Im (A) 1.42 1.35 1.20 1.40 1.80 D (cm) 8.35 9.40 11.40 9.88 8.75 B (T) 0.001107 0.001052 0.000935 0.001091 0.001403 Mean e/m (C/kg) 1.97E+11 1.80E+11 1.62E+11 1.65E+11 1.33E+11 1.67E+11 v (m/s) 8.59E+06 8.80E+06 8.99E+06 9.19E+06 9.38E+06

Uncertainty
Measurement Ve (V) Im (A) D (cm) Std. Dev. 2 0.05 0.1

Wave-Particle Duality A. Tarr and L. Jia Physics 4321, February 14, 2012 I. Introduction
For centuries, scientists have debated the nature of light and matter. Prior to the 20th century, it was generally believed that light behaved as a wave and matter behaved as particles. With the discovery of the photoelectric effect1 and the quantization of black-body radiation2 in the early 1900's, strong evidence for the particle nature of light was presented, and the foundations for quantum mechanics were laid. Since light exhibited both wave and particle behavior, physicists began wondering if matter could also behave as wave. In 1924, Louis de Broglie presented his thesis on quantum theory3, which proposed that all matter has wave-like behavior, and the wavelength is related to momentum by = h/p, where h is Planck's constant and p is the momentum. Experimental evidence of de Broglie's postulate came in 1927 with the DavissonGermer experiment4, which observed the electron diffraction pattern in nickel. This experiment will confirm the validity of de Broglie's claim by investigating both the wave and particle nature of an electron. The wave nature of an electron will be examined by demonstrating that electrons interfere with themselves as if they were waves, and the particle nature will be examined by determining the charge-tomass ratio of an electron, which is a common property of particles. The electron diffraction experiment serves to demonstrate the wave-like properties of electrons, since diffraction is a common property of waves. Similar to Davisson-Germer experiment, an electron beam is fired from a high voltage (HV) gun and focused towards a graphite target. If the electrons truly behave as waves, the waves will scatter off the target only at certain angels, and a diffraction pattern will be seen on the detector. The schematic for the experiment setup is shown below in Fig. 1. The setup consists of the following equipment, which can be referred to below in Fig. 1: a 5000V Leybold power supply used the accelerate the electron beam, a voltmeter to measure the voltage on the Leybold supply, a 7 VAC power supply and Variac transformer to control the heater on the HV gun, a milliammeter to measure the anode current, denoted as Ie in Fig. 1, and a focus control to control the fineness and

II. Apparatus and Experimental Procedure

A. Electron Diffraction Experiment

Figure 1. Electron Diffraction Experiment Schematic

brightness of the electron beam. The focus control consists of a 50 V power supply, voltmeter, and 10k pot. Additionally, digital

calipers are used to measure the dimensions of the bulb surrounding the graphite target. The Leybold power supply must initially be set to 0 V before turning any of the equipment on for safety reasons. The focus supply is then turned on and set to 25 V. The heater supply is also set to 6 V, and the cathode of the electron gun is given 1 minute to heat up. After the cathode has heated up, the Leybold supply is turned on and set to an initial value of 3000 V. This voltage is then varied from 1.5 kV to 4.9 kV in 18 equally spaced steps. For each voltage, a diffraction pattern should be seen on the bulb. Because of the geometry of the atomic structure of graphite, this diffraction pattern will appear as two concentric rings. The lights must be off in order to observe this pattern. The arc length of each ring is measured for each of the 18 voltages using a metric scale located on the center of the top of the bulb. This quantity is given as s in Fig. 2 below, which defines the geometric quantities of the diffraction experiment. Additionally, the brightness and fineness of the diffraction patterns are controlled by the

The second part of the experiment examines the particle nature of the electron by measuring the charge-to-mass ratio, a common property of particles. An electron placed in a magnetic field will orbit in a plane perpendicular to the field as dictated by classical physics. The radius of orbit can then be used to determine the charge-tomass ratio of the electron. The equipment used in this experiment is: a Klinger e/m tube, two Helmholtz coils to supply the magnetic field, a power supply to control the magnetic field and ammeter for feedback, a 6.3 VAC power supply to control the gun filament current in the e/m tube, and a 300 V power supply to accelerate the electrons in the tube. The measurements were made using a heads-up display (HUD) with a metric scale. The schematic for the experimental setup is shown below in Fig. 3 for reference.

Figure 3. Schematic for the experimental setup for the measurement of the e/m ratio.

Figure 2. Electron diffraction bulb defining important geometric quantities used in calculations and measurements.

focus voltage and anode current, but the anode current must be kept below 0.2 mA in order to avoid damaging the equipment. Referring to Fig. 2 above, the quantities l and R are measured using digital calipers.

B. Electron Charge-to-Mass Ratio Experiment

Before turning any of the equipment on, the gun supply voltage must initially be set to 0 for safety precautions. The gun supply is then turned on and allowed to heat the e/m tube for about a minute. The filament current must remain at its default value. After the tube has heated, the Helmholtz coils and 300 V power supply are turned on. The 300 V power supply is set to an initial value of 200 V. With the lights turned off, the trajectory of the electron should be visible inside e/m tube. The accelerating voltage must be increased until

the trajectory closes in on itself, forming the electron's orbit. Using the HUD, the metric scale must be calibrated so that the scale is projected into the electron's orbital plane, allowing accurate measurements of the diameter of orbit. Measurements are taken for 5 different accelerating voltages, ranging from 210 V - 250 V, and the current through the Helmholtz coils is changed for each of the voltages. For each combination of accelerating voltage and coil current, the diameter is measured at 0 and 90 degrees rotation of the projected scale, allowing for the diameter to be averaged to reduce errors from non-uniform field effects.

wavelength that can be determined from its velocity. Substituting (3) into the equation for de Broglie's wavelength gives:

This wavelength can be used as a basis of comparison to the wavelength given by Bragg's law5, which gives the angles for coherent and incoherent scattering in a crystal lattice: where n is an integer (1,2,3,...) and d is the is the interatomic spacing of the crystal. The geometry that determines Bragg's law is shown below in Fig. 4. Using the given by the de Broglie wavelength and the found from the diffraction patterns in the experiment, the interatomic spacing of the crystal can be determined. If the value for d matches the published value, then the wave nature of electrons will be proved. The diffraction pattern in the experiment showed that there are two concentric rings. This corresponds to two arc lengths, sinner and souter , which consequently corresponds to two d values.

III. Results and Analysis

A. Electron Diffraction Experiment Theoretical Background and Results
The results and uncertainties for the electron diffraction experiment can be found at the end of this paper in Appendix A. Referring to Fig. 2 above, the angle, , that corresponds to the measured arc lengths from the diffraction patterns, s, can be found using the geometric formula: and the formula for is given by:

Figure 4. Bragg scattering geometry.

The velocity of the electron can be determined from conservation of energy, which yields:

where V is the accelerating voltage and e/m is the charge-to-mass ration of the electron. According to de Broglie's hypothesis, the electron should have an associated

This can be explained by the geometry of the graphite target, which the electrons beam scattered from. Fig. 5 on the following page shows the two interatomic spacings for graphite, which has a hexagonal structure. A rigorous calculation of these spacings will be examined in the following section.

data using a least squares fit, the slopes of the lines can be determined. Referring to the plot in Appendix A, the interatomic spacings can then be solved for in terms of the slopes as follows:

Figure 5. Hexagonal lattice structure. Note that a0 is the bonding distance between atoms.

Determination of Interatomic Spacings

The relation between and the interatomic spacing is found by combining (2) with (4), which gives: This relation tells us how with the accelerating voltage. By plotting sin vs. 1/V, the value for d can be determine by finding the slope of the curve. Since there are two measurements for , there will be two characteristic curves. From Bragg's law it can easily be seen that the smaller angles correspond to the larger d for a given . The plots for these curves are given below in Fig. 6. A more accurate view of the plot is include in Appendix A with the results of this experiment. From Fig. 6, the linear nature is evident. By fitting a trendline to the

where d1 and d2 correspond to the values shown in Fig. 5 on the left. Evaluating (7) and (8) gives a value of 2.29 for d1 and a value of 1.20 for d2. The bonding distance, a0, can be calculated from the geometry of graphite by: Evaluating this gives a value of 1.38 . Comparing to the published value of 1.42 6, our calculated value is in excellent agreement, with only 2.83% error. Additionally, the ratio of the interatomic spacings will tell us about the structure of graphite. For a hexagonal structure, the ratio of the larger atomic spacing to the smaller one should be 3, while for a cubic structure it should be 2. Equating d1/d2 gives a value of 1.91, which is slightly larger than 3 by roughly 10.41%. While this error is larger than the error for the bonding distance, it is still a good indicator that our observations are in good agreement with the published values and that the structure of graphite is indeed hexagonal. Errors in these values arise from human error introduced by manual measurements, difficulty in observing the diffraction rings due to ambient light, and the non-ideal conditions that exist within the atomic structure of graphite. However, the accuracy of our results provide substantial support for de Broglie's hypothesis of the wave-like nature exhibited by matter. Our experiment has successfully used the wave behavior of

Sin vs. 1/V

0.15
outer ring

Sin

0.1 0.05
inner ring

0 0 0.01 1/V 0.02 (V-1/2) 0.03

Figure 6. Plot showing the linear relationship between and the accelerating voltage.

electrons to determine the atomic structure of graphite through diffraction, a property exhibited only by waves.

B. Charge-to-Mass Ratio Experiment Theoretical Background and Results

The results and uncertainties for the chargeto-mass ratio experiment can be found at the end of this paper in Appendix B. Referring to this table, the columns listed from left to right represent the accelerating voltage, the current in the Helmholtz coils, the averaged diameter of the electron's orbit, the chargeto-mass ratio, and the velocity of the electron. The first three columns represent the measured quantities, while the last three columns are calculated. The magnetic field inside the bulb is given by:

It is important to note that these quantities were derived using non-relativistic equations for the motion of the electron. Referring to the calculated velocities in Appendix B, this is a reasonable assumption. The highest calculated velocity is 9.38106 m/s (~0.03c), which is small enough to assume nonrelativistic equations. Using (13) to calculate e/m for the five different voltages and currents and taking the average gave an experimental value of 1.671011 C/kg. This is in excellent agreement with the published value of 1.761011 C/kg7, with a percent error of 4.91%. The source of this error comes mostly from human error in making the measurements. Additional error may also arise from the use of non-relativistic equations. In lieu of this error, the accuracy in the measured value of the charge-to-mass ratio still indicates that electrons also exhibit particle-like behavior.

where N is the number of turns in one Helmholtz coil and a is the spacing between coils. The values for these quantities can be found in Fig. 3. Once the magnetic field has been calculated, the velocity of the electron in its trajectory can be calculated using classical physics. The magnetic force on a moving charge is given by the Lorentz force and the centripetal force acting on an object in orbit is

IV. Conclusion
The results of these two experiments have given strong evidence to support the wave-particle duality of matter. The wavelike behavior of electrons was observed in the diffraction pattern of the first experiment. Additionally, the electron diffraction experiment was carried out under the assumption that de Broglie's matter wave theory was correct, and this lead to the correct determination of the atomic structure for graphite. The bonding length was determined to be 1.38 , within 2.83% of the published value, and the ratios of the interatomic spacings was found to be 1.91, which was within 10.41% of the correct value. The errors in this experiment arise from human error in measurement taking and from the imperfections in the atomic structure of graphite

From conservation of energy, we also know

Solving (13) for v allows us to find the velocity in terms of the accelerating voltage. Equating (11) and (12) and substituting in the result from (13) gives the equation for the charge-to-mass ratio:

The particle nature of electrons was observed in the second experiment, which measured the charge-to-mass ration of an electron by calculating its radius of orbit. This part of the experiment was carried out under the key assumption that Newtonian physics described the motion of the electron, which indicates that electrons also exhibit particle-like behavior. Under these assumptions, the e/m ratio was found to be 1.671011 C/kg, which was within 4.91% of the published value. The error in this part of the experiment again arises from human error as well as the assumption that electron motion is non-relativistic. To improve the results of the charge-to-mass ratio experiment, more data should be taken at different accelerating voltages and coil currents. Additionally, better methods for measure the radius of orbit for the electron should be implemented.

References
1. A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik 17, 132-148 (1905). 2. M. Planck, P. Press, Verh Deutsch Phys Ges 237, 1-8 (1900). 3. L. V. D. Broglie, thesis, (1924). 4. C. Davisson, L. H. Germer, Physical Review, Vol. 30, No. 6. (1927). 5. Bragg, W.L., Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc 17, 4357 (1913). 6. P. Delhaes Graphite and Precursors., CRC Press. (2001). 7. NIST Database, (2012).