The Photoelectric Effect A.

Tarr
The photoelectric effect is examined by two methods. In the first method, different wavelengths of light are incident upon a conducting surface, and the corresponding kinetic energy of the emitted electrons is measured. The second method uses LEDs of varying wavelengths to inject electrons into a PN junction where they recombine with holes to emit light. The ratio is determined from the results of both experiments to verify the theory of the photoelectric effect.

Physics 4321, April 24, 2012

I. Introduction
The photoelectric effect is a quantum behavior of light that results in the emission of electrons from a conducting surface when light is incident upon it. This effect was first observed by Heinrich Hertz in 18871. Hertz observed that the incidence of ultraviolet light on electrodes facilitated the generation of electric sparks. At the time of his discovery, the physics of this effect was not well understood, so little was done to develop a quantitative explanation of the photoelectric effect. In 1902, Phillip Lenard performed an experiment to further develop a qualitative definition of the photoelectric effect2. His experiment used a powerful electric arc amp to cause the emission of electrons in a conducting surface and a retarding potential to control this emission. Lenard observed that the stopping voltage required to stop a current was proportional to the frequency of light and that doubling the intensity of light doubled the current. Working off the recently published Planck radiation law, Albert Einstein developed a quantitative description of the photoelectric effect in 19053. Einstein postulated that light was composed of discrete quanta, known as photons, and that the energy of each photon was equal to the frequency multiplied by Planck's constant. According to Einstein, the emission of electrons in the photoelectric effect is driven by the absorption of discrete quanta of light, which explains the frequency relationship Lenard observed. Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his work in 1921. Our experiment used two methods to observe the photoelectric effect. The first method used a setup very similar to Lenards' to examine the emission of electrons from a conducting surface with light incident upon it. The second method examined the reverse process in which LEDs were used to inject electrons into a PN junction, which then recombine with holes and emit light.

II. Theoretical Considerations

A. The Photoelectric Effect
The photoelectric effect is caused by the incidence of light upon a conducting surface, which stimulates the emission of electrons. Light interacts with electrons via collisions between the electrons and quanta of light, known as photons. Each photon carries energy

where is Planck's constant, and is the frequency of light. From Eq. 1 we see that the observance of the photoelectric effect depends only on the frequency of light used, not the intensity. When a photon collides with an electron, the energy of the photon is absorbed by the electron and converted to kinetic energy. If the energy of the photon is high enough, the electron will be emitted from the surface. Additionally, this result suggests the wave-particle duality of light. The existence of photons suggests particle-like behavior, where each photon contains a quanta of energy given by Eq. 1, and this energy depends on the wavelength of the light, a property of waves.

B. Observation via Stopping Voltage Method

Observation of the photoelectric effect can be achieved using the stopping voltage method. In this method, light is focused through a series of lenses onto a conducting screen inside a photocell, which stimulates the emission of electrons from the screen. A wire biased by a retarding voltage near the screen controls the emission, since the electric field generated by this wire only allows electrons with energy equal to or greater than this voltage to leave the conducting screen. This current can be better understood by Fig. 1 below, which shows the energy diagram for the experimental setup. Fig. 1a. shows two possible transitions for a given bias voltage across the screen and detector Fermi energies. The line in

Figure 1. Energy diagram of the photoelectric effect. (a) Two transitions above and below the threshold retarding voltage, . (b) Threshold transition.

Fig. 1a. represents the potential energy the electron sees with respect to the Fermi energy of the screen; it is determined by the bias voltage and the work function per unit charge , which is the minimum voltage required to remove an electron from a solid to a point immediately outside of the solid. When light is incident upon the screen, it imparts an energy to the electrons. Therefore the kinetic energy of the electron emitted from the Fermi level of the screen is given by

From the energy diagram it is clear that any electron with will have sufficient energy to reach the detector and that electrons emitted below the Fermi level will have less energy than that given in Eq. 2. As the bias voltage is increased, the line moves up and consequently, less electrons are able to reach the detector until the threshold voltage is reached, as shown in Fig. 1b. At this voltage,

, and no electrons have enough energy to reach the detector, which causes the current to go to zero. From Eq. 2, we can therefore express the energy of the photon as

This equation can be verified by observing the electron current induced at a given frequency of light and tuning the bias voltage until the current goes to zero.

C. Observation via LEDs

The photoelectric effect can also be demonstrated using LEDs. In this method, light is generated by the recombination of electrons and holes in a PN junction, which is controlled by an externally applied voltage . Fig. 2 below shows the energy band structure for an unbiased and biased PN junction. From

Figure 2. The electron energy level diagram of a p-n junction light-emitting diode. (a) unbiased diode. The solid circles are electrons and the open circles are positive holes. (b) forward biased diode. The bias voltage is V.

Fig. 2a. we see that when no external voltage is applied, a diffusion potential is generated in the depletion region between the n-type and p-type material. This diffusion potential prevents electrons and holes from leaving the n- and p-region, respectively, and entering the opposite region. This potential is given by

where is the bandgap energy. When an external voltage is applied, the diffusion potential is reduced, as shown in Fig. 2b., which allows some electrons and holes to move across the depletion region. Some of these electrons and holes recombine and annihilate one another, resulting in the emission of light, where the energy of the light is given by

Here, we have assumed all electron energy is converted into light. As the external voltage is increased to , holes and electrons are free to enter into the depletion region, which results in more occurrences of recombination. This results in more photons being emitted, causing an increase in the intensity of light. At this point the LED is considered to be fully turned on and is emitting light at its highest intensity. We can obtain a relationship between and by combining Eq. 4 with Eq. 5 to obtain

Eq. 6 therefore provides us with a way to measure the ratio for a given wavelength of light. This can be achieved by varying an externally applied voltage across an LED to determine when the diode is fully turned on and then substituting this value into Eq. 6.

III. Apparatus and Procedure

A. Stopping Voltage Method
In the stopping voltage method, light was focused onto a photocell and the resulting current was measured. The current was controlled via a retarding voltage located within the photocell, which prevented electrons of certain energies from leaving the screen. The experimental setup used to observe the photoelectric effect is shown below in Fig. 3. For this experiment, a Hg lamp was used to stimulate

Figure 3. Schematic of the stopping potential method apparatus arranged on optical bench. The details of the photocell are shown in Fig. 4.

the photoelectric effect. The first lens shown in Fig. 3 was used to collimate the light, and an adjustable slit was used to vary the intensity of incident light. Since light from the Hg lamp contains multiple spectral components of light, interference filters were used to select one wavelength to examine the photoelectric effect. For this experiment we used a 365 nm, 405 nm, 436 nm, 546 nm, and 578 nm filter. The prism was only used to qualitatively observe the effects of the filters. The second lens shown in Fig. 3 above further focused the light into the detector, where it was received by the photocell. The details of the photocell are shown below in Fig. 4. Incident light upon the photo-target stimulated the emission of electrons, which generated a current , as shown in Fig. 4. This current was suppressed using a retarding ring located next to the screen. The retarding voltage was controlled by the detector unit and measured

with a voltmeter, and a millivoltmeter was used to measure the voltage proportional to the photocell current. For each interference filter, the photocell current-voltage relationship was measured with the equipment described above. After the Hg lamp was turned on, the retarding voltage was slowly varied

Figure 4. Photocell internal schematic drawing and preamplifier electrical connections.

starting at 0 V up to its maximum of 3 V, and the resulting photocurrent was measured with the millivoltmeter and displayed in LabVIEW. For each interference filter, five data sets were taken and averaged together to obtain a more accurate plot. Additionally, the effects of intensity were observed by adjusting the slit and observing the effects on the photocurrent curve.

B. LED Method
In the LED method, an external voltage was applied across an LED to inject electrons into a PN junction to facilitate the emission of light via recombination. The experimental setup for the LED method is shown below in Fig. 5. This part of the experiment examined six different LEDs: 472 nm, 525 nm, 591 nm, 630 nm, 660 nm, and 950 nm. All of these diodes were located on a single board, which included a 100 shunt resistor to limit the current. This is shown by the dotted line in Fig. 5. The voltage supplied

Figure 5. Schematic drawing of the photodiode experiment.

to the circuit was controlled by an adjustable power supply, and the corresponding voltage across the diode was measured with a voltmeter. LabVIEW was used to automatically control the power supply and to obtain the readings of the voltmeter. The circuit shown in Fig. 5 was constructed for each LED, and the voltage across the diode was measured for different power supply voltages. Starting at 0 V, the power supply voltage was increased in steps of 0.1 V until a predefined maximum voltage was reached. The maximum voltage ranged from V and depended on which diode was used; smaller wavelengths had a higher maximum voltage than longer wavelengths.

IV. Data and Analysis

A. Determination of from the Stopping Voltage Method
and the threshold The ratio can be calculated from Eq. 3 for a given set of frequencies voltages . Rearrangement of Eq. 3 gives

From Eq. 7 it is clear that the slope of the vs. curve will give the ratio , and the intercept will give the work function per unit charge. While is known from the interference filters, must be determined from the resulting vs. plots. Recall that is the minimum retarding voltage required to prevent a current between the screen and detector. Since is proportional to this current, this event corresponds to the retarding voltage at which goes to zero. Determination of is not straightforward if the characteristic curve is not well defined. It is best approximated as the point where the derivative of curve changes from approximately zero. Fig. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 below shows the vs. plots for the five interference filters. It is apparent that it is difficult to obtain an accurate derivative from the actual data points because the signal-to-noise ratio is high, so instead the derivative was found from a
0.21 0.16 0.11 Vi (V) 0.06 0.01 -1 -0.04 0 1 VR (V) 2 3 4 Figure 6. Plot of photocurrent voltage as a function of retarding voltage for the 365 nm filter. A fifth order polynomial was found, as shown by the black line.

0.2 0.15 Vi (V)

0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 VR (V) 2 3 4 0 -1 -0.05 0 1 2 3 4

0.05 0

-1 -0.05

Vi (V)

0.1

VR (V)

Figure 7. Plot of photocurrent voltage as a function of retarding voltage for the 405 nm filter. A fifth order polynomial was found, as shown by the black line. 0.4 0.3 Vi (V)

Figure 8. Plot of photocurrent voltage as a function of retarding voltage for the 436 nm filter. A sixth order polynomial was found, as shown by the black line. 0.12 0.1 0.08 Vi (V) 0.06 0.04 0.02

0.2 0.1 0

-1 -0.1

1 VR (V)

0 -1 -0.02 0

1 VR (V)

Figure 9. Plot of photocurrent voltage as a function of retarding voltage for the 546 nm filter. No curve fitting was performed, as the was more welldefined. By inspection of data, this point was determined to be .

Figure 10. Plot of photocurrent voltage as a function of retarding voltage for the 578 nm filter. was determined by extrapolation of linear portion of the curve to zero. By inspection of data, this point was determined to be . This measurement has a high amount of uncertainty.

best-fit polynomial to the plots. was taken to be the voltage at which the derivative was approximately zero and corresponded to the area where the knee of the curve was located. Once the minimum threshold was determined for the all five of the interference filters, it was plotted as a function of frequency, as shown in Fig. 11. The vs. plot shown below clearly demonstrates the linear behavior predicted in Eq. 7. The slope of the line of best fit determined that . 4 Comparing this with the published value of gives an error of only 1.13%, demonstrating

1.80 1.60 1.40 VR,min (V) 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 5E+14 Frequency (Hz) 1E+15

Figure 11. Plot of threshold voltage as a function of frequency. A least squares fit of was found, as shown by the black line.

that the theory presented earlier accurately describes the photoelectric effect. Error in this value arises from the uncertainty in determining the threshold voltage. There was a high level of noise in the all of the voltage curves obtained, particularly in Fig. 10, which had a standard deviation of . Although experimental error was very low, this uncertainty propagates into the calculation of , resulting in a large standard deviation of . The intercept of the plot, which represents the work function in electron volts, was found to be , but no conclusions can be made from this because surface impurities in the screen impart a large amount of deviation from the actual work function for the conducting surface. Qualitative observations of the effects of light intensity on the location of also yielded the expected results: light intensity only changed the magnitude of current, confirming that the energy of the photons is light intensity independent.

B. Determination of

from the LED Method

and the turn-on

The ratio can also be calculated from Eq. 6 for a given set of frequencies voltage for the diode . Rearrangement of Eq. 6 gives the relation

which is comparable to Eq. 7 for the stopping voltage method, except there is no offset for the turn-on voltage. By plotting for several frequencies, the ratio can be found from the line of best fit. Similar to the first experiment, measurement of is not straightforward. This voltage is best described as the voltage at which the diode is fully turned on; the intensity of light emitted is at its maximum, and the linearity of Ohm's law in the circuit breaks down. Thus can be determined from the derivative of the vs. curve. Before the diode is turned on, the derivative will be a constant.

6 5 4 VDiode (V) 3 2 1 0 0 2 4V
Power

472 nm 525 nm 591 nm 630 nm 660 nm 950 nm

(V) 6

10

Figure 12. Plot of diode voltage as a function of power supply voltage for six different LEDs.

The behavior after it is turned on is given by the following argument. Current through the diode when it is on is given by the exponential relation

Since voltage is proportional to the current, it also has an exponential relationship and therefore its derivative is exponential. From this information, the turn on voltage was chosen to be the data at which the derivative was no longer linear and begins to demonstrate exponential behavior. Fig. 12 above shows the plots of the diode voltage for different power supply voltages for all six LEDs. From these plots it is apparent that prior to the diode turning on, the slope is approximately one and . When the voltage is high enough to turn on the LED, the linear relationship breaks down, and begins to exhibit exponential behavior. Determination of from the derivative of each of the characteristic plots yielded the expected relationship between turn on voltage and frequency, as shown below in Fig. 13. Again, the linear relationship predicted by the theory is apparent in this plot. Linear regressive analysis yielded a slope , which is within 10.94% of the published value. Although error in this value is larger than in the stopping voltage method, it is still in strong agreement with the published value. Error in this value can be explained by a number of factors: first, the change from the linear to nonlinear regime in the 472 nm LED is more gradual than the other diodes and thus the turn on voltage is not as well-defined. Additionally, light emitted from the diodes contained a range of spectral components on the order of with respect to the published value, which introduces additional error into the measurement of . Lastly, temperature was ignored in our calculations, but error arises because the diffusion potential is also a function of temperature, which implies that we are not under ideal conditions. The data used to create the plots for determining as well as the associated uncertainties are summarized in the following section.

2.50 2.00 VDiode,Turn-on (V) 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00E+00

5.00E+14 Frequency (Hz)

1.00E+15

Figure 13. Plot of turn on voltage as a function of frequency. A least squares fit of was found, as shown by the black line.

C. Supplemental Data
Frequency (Hz) VR,min (V) 8.21918E+14 1.68 7.40741E+14 1.31 6.88073E+14 1.12 5.49451E+14 0.56 5.19031E+14 0.42
Table 1. Threshold voltage calculations for the five interference filters.

Frequency (Hz) 6.36E+14 5.71E+14 5.08E+14 4.76E+14 4.55E+14 3.16E+14

VDiode,Turn-on (V) 2.29 1.88 1.58 1.48 1.38 0.78

Table 2. Turn on voltage calculations for the six LEDs.

Stopping Voltage Method Measurement Max. Uncertainty Vi (mV) VR,min (V) 20 0.15

LED Method Measurement Max. Uncertainty V (mV) 1 VDiode,Turn-on (V) 950 nm 660 nm 630 nm 591 nm 525 nm 472 nm 0.15 20 15 15 15 15 40

Table 3. Uncertainty in measurements for stopping voltage method.

Table 4. Uncertainty in measurements for LED method.

V. Conclusions
Using the voltage stopping method to observe the photoelectric effect in a photocell, we found that , which is within 1.13% of the published value. The high precision in this measurement demonstrates Einstein's quantitative description of the photoelectric effect. The energy of light was shown to depend only on frequency; intensity only changed the number of electrons emitted. Error in our measurements results from the large amount of uncertainty associated with determining . This error propagates through subsequent calculations causing an in uncertainty of in . For the LED method, we found that , which is within 10.94% of the published value. Although the error in this method is larger, it is still in strong agreement with the theory presented earlier. There are several factors contributing to error obtained in this experiment. First, there is a substantial amount of uncertainty in the determination of . There is also uncertainty in the wavelength for each LED, which further distorts the measurement . Additional error also arises from the temperature dependence of the diffusion potential, which further increases the standard deviation in .

References
1. 2. 3. 4. Hertz, Heinrich (1887). "ber den Einfluss des ultravioletten Lichtes auf die electrische Entladung". Annalen der Physik 267 (8): S. 9831000. Lenard, P. (1902). "ber die lichtelektrische Wirkung". Annalen der Physik 313 (5): 149198. Einstein, Albert (1905). "ber einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt". Annalen der Physik 17 (6): 132148. NIST Database, (2012).