Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
R
(degrees/minutes)
= (
R
-
L
)
(degrees)
Red 24/06 335/51 155.90
Yellow 21/03 338/57 158.95
Green 17/54 342/12 162.10
Greenish blue 17/45 342/03 162.28
Bluish green 17/10 343/00 163.00
Blue 16/16 343/54 164.95
DATA TABLE 2: First order spectrometer readings from the Na spectrum
Na Spectrum
L
(degrees/minutes)
R
(degrees/minutes)
Red 22/18 337/12
Yellow 21/12 338/15
Yellowish green 20/30 339/0
Green 1 18/24 341/6
Green 2 17/45 341/48
This data table was recorded during the second part of experiment when the D-lines were observed
from the 2
nd
order spectrum. The two lines were so near that in fact even through observing them
from the 2
nd
order spectrum, they overlapped each other. The recordings were approximations of the
difference in the position of their top left corners.
DATA TABLE 3: Spectrometer readings from observing the sodium D-line split
Measurements with respect to the red line
in the 2
nd
order spectrum and spectrometer
scale 0 initially in line with vernier scale 0
Left side of
spectrometer
(degrees/minutes)
Right side of
spectrometer
R
(degrees/minutes)
L1
R1
Position of telescope with cross hair in line with
the longer wavelength Na D-Line
45/12 312/6
L2
R2
Position of telescope with cross hair in line with
the shorter wavelength Na D-Line
45/6 312/12
Observations of the Zeeman Effect
14
In Part 3 of the experiment, the Zeeman effect was observed. Through the lens of the Fabry-Perot
interferometer, the normal red spectrum of cadmium could be seen. They formed numerous red
circles on a black background with the larger surrounding the smaller in an endless pattern. Although
there was no reproduction of the images seen through the interferometer, a diagram that
approximates the images can be referred to below (Figure 3.1A).
As the current through the electromagnet and consequently the magnetic flux density increases, the
spectrum gradually broke apart into three distinct lines. At 3 A, the spectrum was seen to thicken, but
no distinct lines were prominent. When the current was increased to 6 A, there revealed two visible
lines. When the current was set at the maximum at 9 A, the Lorentz-triplets were clearly discrete.
FIGURE 3.1A (Splitting of Cadmium Spectral Lines)
Figure 3.1B:
The relationship between the
increasing coil current and the
magnetic flux density as
sampled using the digital
teslameter.
15
3.2 Calculations
Due to the numerous steps involved, the calculations have been broken down into two sections Part
1 and Part 2 for clarity.
Part 1 Calibration Using the He Spectrum
The angles in degrees and minutes must first be converted into degrees for further calculations. Then
to obtain , the average of the angles on the left
L
and right
R
must be taken. A sample calculation
for red:
Example Calculation 3.28
L
= 24 06 = (24 + 6/60) degrees = 24.1
R
= 335 55 = (335 + 51/60) degrees = 335.85
Example Calculation 3.27
= |
R
-
L
|
= | 335.85 24.1|
= 155.875 155.9
Then using the relationship of Eq.1.2, the grating constant each particular angle yields can be found.
Sample for red:
Example Calculation 3.26
n = d sin
n
(since the 1
st
order spectrum is being observed, n = 1)
= d sin
n
d = /sin
n
(the value for the corresponding wavelength can be found in the table of
accepted wavelengths for helium in Appendix B)
d = 667.8/(sin 155.9)
d = 1635.4401 1635.4 nm
The mean grating constant can be simply calculated by taking the average of all the grating constants
(i.e. (1635.4 + 1635.9 + 1632.0 .. )/6 or see Appendix A).
CALCULATIONS TABLE 1: Calculating the grating constant d and its standard error from the
He spectrum
He Spectrum = |
R
-
L
|
(degrees)
Grating Constant
d (nm)
Mean Grating
Constant (nm)
Standard Error*
of
(nm)
Red 155.90 1635.4
Yellow 158.95 1635.9
Green 162.10 1632.0 1624.9 4.3579
Greenish blue 162.28 1617.1
Bluish green 163.00 1612.0
Blue 163.95 1617.1
*See Appendix A for statistical methods in calculating the standard deviation and standard error. In this distribution
the standard deviation was 10.6747.
16
The next step is to calculate sin for each angle. This calculation is pretty much straight-forward and
the results are recorded in Calculations Table 2. The two other columns, wavelengths and the angle
are identical and taken from those from Calculations Table 1. This data will be used for the plotting
of the calibration curve.
CALCULATIONS TABLE 2: Data points from the Helium spectrum for the calibration curve
He Spectrum Wavelength*
(nm)
= |
R
-
L
|
(degrees)
Sin
Red 667.8 155.90 0.40833
Yellow 587.6 158.95 0.35918
Green 501.6 162.10 0.30736
Greenish blue 492.2 162.28 0.30437
Bluish green 471.3 163.00 0.29237
Blue 447.1 163.95 0.27648
* Values for the helium spectral wavelengths are taken from the accepted-value figures in Appendix B.
Using the calculations from Calculations Table 2, a calibration curve could be drawn as shown in
Figure 3.2A. The graph plots sin along the x-axis and the corresponding helium wavelengths along
the y-axis. A linear least-squares fit regression has been fitted to the graph.
y = mx + b y = 1684.7x 19.05
The mathematics to find the values of m and b for the linear equation are relatively tedious and
lengthy, thus are not included in this section, although it may be referred to in Appendix A. The
correlation coefficient (r=1.000) indicates a strong correlation between these two variables and
denotes a strong integrity of the regression.
In observation of the procedure and apparatus, it is noted that the graduated circular scale was in
spaced every 0.1 degrees (6 arcminutes), and thus it is highly possible that an estimation error could
occurred within this interval. Accordingly, error bars on the y-axis (sin) have been included to
compensate for this imprecision (sin 0.1 0.001745). Within this margin of error, the regression
accounts for all the data points.
Because of the relationship sin = , the slope of the curve, which is /sin, is equal to d. Hence the
grating constant d can be calculated from this least squares fit.
d = m
d
c
= 1684.7 nm
When we compare the grating constant d
c
to the mean grating constant , we obtain their relative
discrepancies:
Percent error = |E K| x 100
(EK)
aver
= |1623.7 1684.7| x 100
(1684.7+1623.7)/2
Percent error = 3.69 %
The grating constant d
c
from the calibration curve is notably larger than the mean grating constant .
In comparison with the manufacturers value of d=1684nm, d
c
appears to be a more accurate result.
17
The same calculations for percentage errors can be made with respect to the manufacturers value for
the grating constant d
m
(see appendix A).
FIGURE 3.2A (Helium Calibration Curve)
Calculations Table A: Relative percent deviations between the grating constants obtained through
mean value, calibration curve, and manufacturers specification.
Calibrated grating
constant (d
c
=1684.7)
%
Mean grating constant
(=1623.7)
%
Grating constant d
c
- 3.688
Grating constant 3.688 -
Manufactured grating constant
(d
m
=1684nm)
0.04157 3.581
Part 2 Characteristic Wavelengths of the Na Spectrum
Calculations Table 3 ultimately calculates the wavelength of the Na spectrum. The average is taken in
the same manner as was for the helium spectrum (see examples 3.27 and 3.28). The wavelength again
can be determined by using the relation of Eq.1.2 (see example 3.26). The value the grating constant d
18
used in this calculation was the mean grating constant obtained earlier from the helium calibration
trials.
CALCULATIONS TABLE 3: Calculations of the wavelengths in the Na spectrum and their percentage
errors using the 1
st
order diffraction grating equation
Na Spectrum = |
R
-
L
|
(degrees)
Sin Wavelength
( = sin)
(nm)
% error in *
Red 157.45 0.38349 622.7 0.8911
Yellow 158.53 0.36601 594.4 1.020
Yellowish Green 159.25 0.35429 575.3 1.339
Green 161.35 0.31979 519.2 0.9920
Green 162.03 0.30860 501.1 0.4813
*Please see Appendix A for calculations of percentage error.
The calculations done for Calculations Table 4 are similar to those done for Calculations Table 3 with
the exception of the value used for the grating constant d. Instead of using the mean grating constant
, however, the calibration curve was used. As the graph shows, the function
y = 1684.7x -19.05 (Equation 3.2)
resembles Equation 1.2.
= d sin + b
where y = , d = m, sin = x. However, a new factor b has been introduced. This can be treated as the
error factor. It causes the graphs vertical translation. The bias errors that were present in the
experiment are accounted in this constant b. This calibration curve can now be used to calculate the
wavelength of sodium. Equation 3.2 is kept in its form. Since the objective is to calculate , the x in
the equation will vary. Here is a sample calculation for the red wavelength of the sodium spectrum:
y = 1684.7x -19.05 (since sin = x and y = )
= 1684.7(sin) 19.05
= 1684.7(0.38349) 19.05
= 627.0 nm
The following table shows the new values of y that correspond to the different values of x along with
the percent error relative to accepted values of sodium in Appendix B.
CALCULATIONS TABLE 4: Determining the wavelengths in the Na spectrum and their percentage
errors using the calibration curve
Na Spectrum = |
R
-
L
|
(degrees)
Sin Wavelength from
calibration curve
(= sin + b) (nm)
% error in *
Red 157.45 0.38349 627.0 1.588
Yellow 158.53 0.36601 597.6 1.564
Yellowish Green 159.25 0.35429 577.8 1.779
Green 161.35 0.31979 519.7 1.089
Green 162.03 0.30860 500.7 0.4010
*Please see Appendix A for calculations of percentage error.
19
The wavelengths of both the shorter and longer D-lines were calculated using Eq.1.2 and the mean
grating constant was used. The differences between the shorter and longer wavelength were then
calculated and compared.
The average of the shorter wavelength can be calculated as follows:
(575.5 + 601.9)/2 = 588.7 nm
The average of the longer wavelength can be calculated similarly:
(576.5 + 602.9)/2 = 589.7 nm
This method is applied to the right side as well, and produces the results in Calculations Table 5.
CALCULATIONS TABLE 5: Calculating the sodium D-line split
Left side of
spectrometer
(nm)
Right side of
spectrometer
(nm)
Shorter wavelength
1
of sodium D-line 575.5 601.9
Longer wavelength
2
of sodium D-line 576.5 602.9
Difference (
2
-
1
) between the longer and the
shorter wavelength of the sodium D-line
1.0 1.0
Average of wavelength difference (
2
-
1
)
1.0
4. Discussion and Conclusion
In this section, the results will be discussed and analyzed. Due to the large extent of material covered,
this section has also been subdivided into the three experimental parts for organization.
Part 1 Calibration Using the He Spectrum
The calibration using the helium (He) spectrum made the experiment much more accurate and precise.
It is apparent that the value of the mean grating constant d deviates somewhat from the manufactures
specifications, but this is due to many possible biases in the experiment. The calibration curve
effectively accounts for this and amazingly produces a constant that is only 0.04% (Calculations Table
A) from the manufacturers value.
Calculations Table 1 reveals a pattern; as the angle of the spectral lines increases, the deviation of the
calculated d from the mean value increases. As a personal observation, it was noticed that the spectral
lines (or rather distorted squares as viewed through the spectroscope) became increasingly distorted
and vertically translated as the telescope tube was moved from the initial angle. This can explain the
reason for the increase in deviation as the measured angle increases for it becomes increasingly
difficult to judge a top left corner.
To compensate for the up to 3% error (Calculations Table A), there must also be additional sources
of bias elsewhere in the experimental setup, which could include biased inaccuracies of the apparatus
used, or a faulty assumption in the experiment. Nonetheless these errors are consistent (Calculations
Table A), and so the calculated values of d are relatively consistent with each other with a standard
deviation of only 10.67 nm and standard error of 4.3579.
20
Shifting our focus to the calibration curve (Figure 3.2A), we find that again the errors are biased, and
a least squares regression adequately fit the plotted data ( vs. sin ) within the range of the estimated
error bars. This indicates that the procedure used was fairly consistent and precise, and the error bias
is from some other non-procedural source.
The value for the grating constant d
c
obtained from the calibration curve is remarkably similar to the
real value denoted by the manufacturer d
m
(Calculations Table A). Note that in the calculations leading
to d
c
, the helium (He) wavelength was introduced. The grating constant in the calibration curve is
calculated directly from the relationship between the wavelength to the sin of the angle (d = m =
y/x = /sin). Any possible bias errors would have to generally affect all measured values of , which
would result in a vertical translation of the graph (Figure 3.2A). In essence such biases affect only the
y-intercept of the graph or constant b, but not the slope m, which is the relative relationship between
the sin of the angles and the wavelengths. So it comes to a conclusion that the calibration curve yields
a more accurate grating constant.
Part 2 Characteristic Wavelengths of the Na Spectrum
Calculation Tables 3 and 4 calculate the different wavelengths of the sodium (Na) spectrum. Both
results are within remarkably small margin of error, although it is interesting to note that Table 4,
which used the calibration curve, yield slightly higher error percentages. Table 3 produces wavelengths
values slightly greater than the accepted values, but Table 4 produces even more strayed results. This
is opposite to expectations, since the value of the grating constant d
c
from the calibration curve is
shown to be a more accurate estimation in Part 1. The fact that it yields less accurate results with the
sodium (Na) wavelengths is peculiar. This apparent contradiction can possibly be explained by
comparing the nature of the two values of d.
The fact that the experimental procedure is reasonably consistent and causes minimal error must be
emphasized first. The experiment is pretty much static, except for the rotating telescope tube. The
only significant procedural errors possible are the human judgment used when positioning the
crosshair to the top left tip of the spectral line, and the reading of the graduated scale which were
marked in intervals of 0.1 degrees. In the case of this particular experiment in which the same person
performs all the measurements it can be expected that his or her standards for measurement, if he or
she is careful, would more or less be consistent. And although there could be misjudgments, they
would account for very little and on average they would cancel each other. On the other hand, if he or
she is consistent with his or her bias in judgments, it will too contribute to the bias errors.
As a result, virtually all the errors that prevent this experiment from producing realistically perfect
results are from the bias errors. These errors, nevertheless, can easily be removed through an
appropriate calibration process. The calibration process has to be performed with known values, so
that you can obtain some coefficient k that would account for the bias errors.
Since the calibration curve has already been explained, this part will focus only on explaining the
nature of the mean grating constant d. In the derivation of , there is evidence that whatever bias
occurred in sampling the angles would be directly incorporated in the resulting value of as was
calculated by /sin ( of which is a correct value). It can be conjectured that the mean grating
constant is actually the product of the true value d
m
by some bias error constant k.
/sin = k d
m
21
Since, is correct, there is no question about the value of the wavelength. However, there is bias error
in the value of the angles measured as we have discussed. If the two values were perfect, then it
would be expected that this result would yield the true value of d
m
, assuming there was no major
manufacturing defect. But because this is not the case, the constant k can be supposed to account for
the deviation. And so by using this value of d in further experiments one would also take into account
the bias present in the general set up and/or procedure of the experiment. It is also possible that any
other errors present (present in the 2
nd
part but not in the 1
st
) could through good chance be biased
towards yielding the more accurate answer. Nonetheless it must be concluded from the results, but
not without doubt, that the wavelength values in Calculations Table 3 are more accurate than those
using the calibration curve, and yield excellent estimations with the majority of the errors below 1
percent.
Explanation of the Fine Splitting of Sodium D-Lines
Referring back to Section 1.2D and the sodium D-Lines, we can see the quantum background as to
why these two spectral lines are similar in wavelength. And because of this similarity, it is very difficult
to distinguish between the two lines when viewed through the spectroscope. Applications of some
mathematical relationships and simple calculations using the known values of the D-Lines will prove
this point:
n = d sin (from Eq. 1.2)
= sin
-1
(/d) (in the case of a 1
st
order spectrum with n=1) (Equation 4.2)
The difference between the two wavelengths of the D-Lines is (see Appendix B):
(
L
S
) = (589.592 588.995) = 0.597 nm
Take a value of d (for the sake of this discussion, any arbitrary value of d between 1000-2000nm can
be applied as a demonstration), for example d
m
(=1684nm), and substituting this back into Equation
4.2 yields:
= sin
-1
(0.597/1684)
= 0.0203 degrees or 1.22 arcminutes.
Realizing that the graduated circular angle scale on the spectrometer is in intervals of only 0.1 degrees,
and that 1.22 arcminutes is a very small angle to observe, it can be understood why the two D-Lines
cannot be distinguished apart and thus observed in the 1
st
order spectrum. However, if one were to
recalculate this theoretical estimation but use n=2, the 2
nd
order spectrum instead, it would yield:
= sin
-1
(2/d)
= sin
-1
(1.194/1684)
= 0.0406 degrees or 2.44 arcminutes.
Apparently, even this angle is also very small and thus still difficult to observe. Nonetheless, this result
is more realistically possible since it is about half of the 0.1 degree scale-interval and so can be
potentially measured. With the aid of the fine tuning mechanisms, this difference was large enough
for measurements to be made, and calculated as in Calculations Table 5. The calculations show values
that are remarkably close to the accepted values.
22
Part 3 Observing the normal Zeeman effect
There is not much to say about the Zeeman effect, as the nature of this effect has been adequately
discussed in Section 1.2E. The observations and results confirm the theorys prediction: an external
magnetic field will affect the spectral lines of cadmium. Under no external magnetic influence, the
interference pattern consists of single red lines (Figure 3.1A), but as the magnetic flux intensity, which
is caused by the current in the electromagnet, increases, the splitting of the interference pattern
becomes more clear.
Conclusion
In an overview, all the experimental objectives were satisfactorily accomplished. The preferred
calibration process of the spectroscope by using the known helium (He) spectral lines led to some
impressive results in determining the sodium wavelengths. The experimentally-determined spectrum
of sodium using the calibrated values of both and d
c
was found to be very accurate and deviate from
the accepted value on average by less than 1 percent. The sodium D-Lines were successfully observed,
measured, and compared to accepted values in the second order spectrum. Their values and
differences are similar to the accepted values as well. As for the Zeeman effect, it was also
successfully observed and confirmed with theory.
This experiment is considered a good example of a procedural setup that can be used to measure and
determine the spectrum of simple elements; simple by meaning it has a simple electron structure and
thus an orderly spectrum. Slight modifications are recommended, however. The entire procedure
should be done by one person, so that his or her personal judgment may consistently influence the
results, and thus the calibration will be more effective. It also important to make sure the room is as
dark as possible so that the spectral lines are as bright and sharp as possible; this makes identifying the
top left corner easier. Lastly, a more appropriate amount of time than the 2 hours taken in this
experiment should be allocated to performing the experiment. Since the fine tuning and crosshair
positioning is a delicate procedure, rushing will only weaken the precision.
23
Appendix A (Statistical Methods)
1. Standard Error
The standard error is defined by the equation:
Equation (1)
where is the standard deviation from the mean x
mean
, and N is the number of repeated
measurements of some quantity x whose ith value is x
i
and where i sequences from 1 to
N.
The standard deviation is the average distance from any sample x in the distribution to
the mean x
mean
of the sample, and is defined by the equation:
Equation (2)
Physically, the standard deviation is a measure of the precision of the measurement in
the following statistical sense. It gives the probability that the measurements fall within a
certain range of the measured mean x
mean
. The common range to be quoted is the range
of one standard deviation as calculated by Equation (2). In a normal distribution, well
over half of the samples in that distribution should fall within one standard deviation of the
mean, and over 99% by three standard deviations.
The mean x
mean
is given by the equation:
Equation (3)
Thus, in order to calculate the standard error, first calculate the mean x
mean
using
Equation (3), then the standard deviation using Equation (2) and lastly the standard
error using Equation (1).
2. Linear Least Squares Fit
In many cases of interest, a linear relationship between two variables may exist, which
can be expressed in the form:
y = mx + b Equation (4)
where m is slope and b is a constant also the y-intercept. To obtain the least squares fit,
one has to determine the values of m and b that produce the best straight-line fit for the
data. For any straight line there will be a deviation between each value of y as measured
experimentally and as determined from the straight line fit for each value of x measured.
The least squares fit is that set of values of m and b for which the sum of the squares of
24
these deviations is a minimum. Statistical theory states that the appropriate values of m
and b that will produce this minimum sum of squares of the deviations are given by the
following equations:
Equation (5)
Equation (6)
3. Percentage Error
In cases where the true value of the quantity being measured is known, the accuracy of
the experiment can be determined by comparing the experimental result E with the
known value K. Normally this will be done by calculating the percentage error of the
measurement compared to the given known value, as shown below:
Percent error = |E K| x 100%
25
Appendix B (Tables)
The tables below are used for reference and comparison purposes with the experimental
values the experiment yields. Notice that the helium (He) spectrum has more colors than
those tested in the experiment. Because certain colors have lines that are too faint or of
similar wavelength and hard to distinguish, they are not easily observed. Since, we are
only using helium (He) for calibration purposes, it is unnecessary to sample these colors,
and so only the colors in the darkened rows will be observed.
APPENDIX TABLE 1: Values of the accepted helium (He) wavelengths
Color in the He Spectrum Wavelength
(nm)
Red 706.5
Red 667.8
Yellow 587.6
Green 504.7
Green 501.6
Greenish blue 492.2
Bluish green 471.3
Blue 447.1
Violet 438.8
APPENDIX TABLE 2: Accepted wavelengths of light in Na spectrum
Color in the Na Spectrum Wavelength
(nm)
Red 617.2
Yellow 588.4
Yellowish green 567.7
Green 514.1
Green 498.7
D-Lines
Shorter Yellow 588.995
Longer Yellow 589.592
26
Appendix C (The Fabry-Perot Interferometer)
The Fabry-Perot interferometer acts as a scanning spectrometer. This system consists of two very
flat glass plates coated on the inner surface with a partially transmitting metallic layer. In essence,
they act like mirrors that are mounted accurately parallel to each other with a variable spacing. For
any fixed distance the interference condition is such that only light of certain corresponding
wavelengths will be transmitted. Therefore, this instrument acts as a band-pass frequency filter
whose peak transmission is close to unity over a narrow spectral interval.
During observation of the transverse Zeeman effect the iris diaphragm is illuminated by the Cd-
lamp and acts as such as the light source. The lens L1 and a lens of = 100 mm, incorporated in
the talon, create a nearly parallel light beam which the Fabry-Perot talon needs for a proper
interference pattern. The talon contains an interchangeable colour filter which filters out the red
cadmium line of 643.8 nm. The lens L2 produces and interference pattern of rings within the plane
of the screen with a scale mounted on a slide mount which can laterally be displaced with a
prescision of 1/100 of a millimeter. The ring system is observed through L3 and the ring diameters
can be measured, for instance, by systematic displacement of the slash representing the 0 of the
scale. The readings should be done in a completely darkened room using a flashlight.
27
References
(a) Serway, Raymond A. & Beichner, Robert J. Physics for Scientists and
Engineers with Modern Physics, 5
th
Edition, Saunders College Publishing
2000.
(b) PHYWE Publication: University Laboratory Experiments
LEP 5.1.10 Zeeman Effect
LEP 5.1.06 Fine Structure of One Electron Spectrum
(c) Physics Field Trip. The Science Man
<http://www.scienceman.com/pgs/archive20_physicsFT.html>
(d) Nave, R. Hydrogen-Like Atoms: Sodium. HyperPhysics
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/sodium.html>
(e) Weiss, Michael. Spin.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/spin/spin.html>