Unit 2 - Nature of Light Lessons

Back to Physics 11


Lesson 1: The Nature of Light and Newton's Corpuscular Theory
Lesson 2: Deterining the !peed of Light
Lesson ": The #a$e Theory of Light
Lesson %: &oung's '(perient
Lesson ): The Photoelectric 'ffect and the #a$e*Particle Duality
Lesson 1: The Nature of Light and Newton's Corpuscular Theory
+ntroduction
In this first lesson we outline several historical models to explain the nature of light.
For centuries there has existed a debate about whether the properties of light could
best be explained using a particle model of light or a wave model. We will begin with
theories proposed by the early Greeks, then those proposed in the 1th century, and
finally the debate of the 1!th century. We will focus mainly on "ewton#s corpuscular
theory of light and at the end of the lesson reflect on the cautions we must take in
accepting the theories of eminent scientists.
The Nature of Light: 'arly ,reece to 2-th Century
$arly models of light were concerned with the source of light. %id light originate in
the eyes or did ob&ects emit light' (he earliest views on the nature of light came to
us from the Greeks. )lato thought that light consisted of *streamers+ or filaments,
emitted by the eye, and that when these streamers came in contact with an ob&ect, it
was possible to see the ob&ect. $uclid agreed with )lato with the argument *,ow else
can we explain that we do not see a needle on the floor until our eyes fall on it'+
)lato#s theory can be referred to as a tactile theory based on the ability of the eye
to *touch ob&ects.+
"ot all Greeks agreed with )lato. (he )ythagoreans believed that light travelled as a
stream of fast-moving particles. .ccording to this eission theory, ob&ects sent out
light beams or particles that would ricochet off ob&ects and enter the eye. /ne Greek,
$mpedocles believed that light travelled as a wave-like disturbance. 0o as early as
ancient Greece we see a debate between a particle theory of light and a wave
theory.
1y the 1
th
century, these apparently contradictory views of the nature of light
placed scientists in two camps. "ewton was the principal advocate of the particle, or
corpuscular theory. ,e was supported by the French mathematician, physicist, and
astronomer 2a )lace. "ewton#s theory stated that light consisted of particles that
travelled in straight lines. (he wave theory, which supports the idea that light has
wave-like properties, was supported principally by 3hristiaan ,uygens of ,olland,
also a mathematician, physicist, and astronomer. ,e, in turn, was supported by
4obert ,ooke of $ngland, president of the 4oyal 0ociety and a vigorous personal
opponent of "ewton. 1ecause of the plausibility of both theories, a scientific debate
developed between the followers of "ewton and the followers of ,uygens that
continued for more than a century. 1y the late 1!
th
century, however, there
appeared to be overwhelming evidence that the nature of light could be explained
much better using the wave model.
.t the end of the 1!
th
century, 5ames 3lerk 6axwell combined electricity, magnetism,
and light into one theory. ,e called his theory the electromagnetic theory of light.
.ccording to 6axwell, light was an electromagnetic wave with the same properties as
other electromagnetic waves. 6axwell#s theory, however, was not able to explain all
the properties of light including one called the photoelectric effect. In 1!77 6ax
)lanck, proposed the .uantu hypothesis suggesting that light was transmitted
and absorbed in small bundles of energy called *8uanta.+ .lbert $instein agreed with
)lanck#s theory and explained the photoelectric effect using the particle model of
light. (he theory of .uantu echanics, developed over several years in the early
1!77s, combines the two ma&or theories of light suggesting that light does not
always behave as a particle and light does not always behave as a wave.
4ecall in the previous module the discussion of scientific models and theories. (heir
function is to explain the known properties of a phenomenon, and to predict new
behaviour or new properties. .s we study the theories of light, keep in mind these
characteristics of theories and how they are illustrated in this history.
Newton's Corpuscular Theory and /ectilinear Propagation
"ewton built on an earlier theory proposed by %escartes that imagined light
consisting of streams of tiny particles called *corpuscles.+ (hese particles shot out
like bullets from the light source. (his theory is referred to as the corpuscular
theory of light. (here were various arguments that could be used to support the
particle theory.
/ne argument was the rectilinear propagation of light, that is, light travels in
straight lines. We can see this effect when sunlight passes through clouds forming
straight *rays.+ We can also see sharp shadows cast by sunlight when large ob&ects
such as buildings intercept the sunlight. "ewton also commented on the fact that the
speed of light must be very large. When a ball is thrown at some angle, we can
clearly see that it follows a curved path. If a cannon ball or bullet is fired at the same
angle, there is less of a curve over the same distance because it is moving faster.
0ince the path of light has no noticeable curve, "ewton argued that the speed of
light must be extremely high. ,e also argued that since light does not exert any
noticeable pressure, the mass of the particles must be extremely small.
(he diagram below represents a light bulb in the centre. "ewton imagined tiny
particles shooting out from the source. (he particles spread out evenly in all
directions, and all are moving at the same very fast speed.
It is because light moves in straight lines that "ewton re&ected the wave theory of
light. "ewton was of the opinion that a wave should spread out a great deal as it
passes through an opening, filling almost the whole region beyond the opening. ,e
felt that waves could not possibly produce a narrow beam. 9et we know that it is
possible to produce narrow beams made up of waves. In our earlier studies with
waves, we saw that when the opening is large compared to the wavelength, that the
diffraction is not great and the beam is relatively straight. :nfortunately, neither
"ewton nor anyone else knew very much about waves at that time.
Newton's Corpuscular Theory and /eflection
When light falls on the smooth surface of a mirror, it reflects in such a way that the
angle the incoming light beam makes with the surface ;the angle of incidence,
i< is
e8ual to the angle the reflected beam makes with the surface ;the angle of
reflection,
r<. "ewton demonstrated that very hard spheres collide with very hard
surfaces in a similar manner. ,e was also able to show that under ideal conditions,
the speed of the sphere when it reflects from the surface ;vf< is e8ual to the speed it
had when it approached the surface ;vi<. (his kind of a collision is called an elastic
collision and will be studied later in our course. (hus "ewton#s corpuscular theory
was able to explain reflection.
Newton's Corpuscular Theory and /efraction
When light passes from air into water, it bends, or refracts, towards the normal.
2ight beams will always refract towards the normal when they pass from a less dense
to a more dense material.
"ewton was able to explain this effect using the corpuscular theory. We can imagine
a ball rolling down a ramp from a raised hori=ontal surface to a lower hori=ontal
surface. When this happens, the ball also bends towards the normal.
"ewton believed that water attracts approaching particles of light in much the same
way that gravity attracts a rolling ball on an incline. (he rolling ball model implies
that light particles accelerate as they pass from air into a denser medium ;one with a
higher index of refraction< such as glass or water. "ewton predicted that the speed
of light in water would be greater than the speed of light in air. .t the time of
"ewton, the speed of light in water was not known. It was not until 1>? years later
after "ewton#s death, in 1@A7, that the French physicist, 5ean Foucault ;1@1!-1@B@<,
demonstrated experimentally that the speed of light in water is actually less than the
speed of light in air, the reverse of that predicted by the particle theory.

Newton's Corpuscular Theory and Dispersion
When white light passes through a prism, the light is refracted by different amounts,
and the colours of the spectrum result. (his is called dispersion. (his phenomenon
has been known since the time of the ancient $gyptians. It wasn#t until 1BBB that
"ewton investigated this phenomenon systematically.


(o explain dispersion using the corpuscular theory, "ewton hypothesi=ed that each
particle of the spectrum had a different mass. 0ince violet particles are refracted
more than blue, "ewton argued that the violet particles must have a smaller mass
than the blue. (his is so because smaller masses are diverted more easily. 0o for
example, the blue particles would be diverted more than the green because the
green are more massive than the blue, and so on, to red light. (he particles that
correspond to the red light have the largest mass in the visible spectrum.
"ewton#s corpuscular theory provided a satisfactory explanation for four properties of
lightC rectilinear ;straight line< propagation, reflection, refraction, and dispersion. It
was weak in its explanation of other effects such as diffraction, partial reflection, and
partial refraction. 3onsidering the evidence available to "ewton, his hypothesis was
valid. In its day, it was superior to the competing wave theory of light because it
used the laws of mechanics that had been proven to be valid in other areas of
physics. When new evidence became available that could not be explained using
"ewton#s corpuscular theory, this was bound to give stronger support to the wave
theory. ,owever, "ewton#s stature and authority was so great that the corpuscular
theory of light dominated for over a century. In fact, "ewton#s successors adhered to
the corpuscular theory of light more strongly than "ewton ever did himself.
"ewton recogni=ed that the experimental evidence was not strong enough for either
particles or waves. .lthough he preferred the particle theory, he was not dogmatic
about it. ,e considered both theories to be hypotheses, that is, they re8uired further
testing.
(he lesson to be learned from "ewton#s example is that theories, or any
pronouncements, of esteemed, famous people should be evaluated on the basis of
the supporting evidence. . theory should not be accepted simply because it is put
forward by an eminent person.
Difficulties with Newton's Corpuscular Theory
"ewton#s corpuscular theory had difficulty explaining some of the properties of light.
We learned in our earlier work that waves undergo diffraction, that is the bending of
waves as they pass around a barrier or through an opening. "ewton believed that
light travels in straight lines and does not travel *around a corner.+ In making this
statement, "ewton discounted the work of Francesco Grimaldi ;1B1@-1BB?< who
showed that a beam of light passing through two successive narrow slits produced on
a screen a band of light slightly larger than the width of the slits. Grimaldi believed
that the beam had been bent slightly outward at the edges of the second aperture. It
was "ewton#s position that this effect resulted from the interactions and collisions
between the light particles at the edges of the slit.
When light refracts ;bends as it passes into a different medium<, some of the light is
reflected. "ewton had difficulty explaining the phenomenon of partial reflection and
partial refraction using the corpuscular theory. "ewton#s explanation was the so-
called *theory of fits+C particles of light arrived at the surface sometimes in a *fit+ of
easy reflection and sometimes in a *fit+ of easy refraction. (his was obviously a weak
explanation, as "ewton himself recogni=ed.
We have already seen "ewton#s explanation of refraction using the corpuscular
theory. .s mentioned earlier, "ewton predicted that the speed of light would be
greater in water than in air. We know today that this in fact is not the case.
(hus, "ewton#s corpuscular theory did not accurately explain diffraction, partial
reflection and partial refraction, and the speed of light in a denser medium after it
refracts.
Lesson 2: Deterining the !peed of
Light
+ntroduction
6easuring the speed of light has always been a challenge. In this lesson, we will
review the methods used starting with that attempted by Galileo. (hen in the 1B77s
4oemer and ,uygens used similar approaches by looking at the eclipses and orbits of
5upiter and one of its moons, Io. (hen in the 1@77s Fi=eau and Foucault used
rotating wheels and mirrors to measure the speed of light. In the 1!77s, 6ichelson
improved on Foucault#s techni8ue and obtained a very accurate measurement of the
speed of light.
0easuring the !peed of Light: ,alileo1 /oeer1 and 2uygens
Galileo Galilei ;1ABD-1BD>< carried out experiments to try measure the speed of
light. ,e attempted to do this by measuring the time for light to travel a known
distance between two hilltops. ,e stationed an assistant on one hilltop and himself
on another and ordered the assistant to lift the cover from a lamp the instant he saw
a flash from Galileo#s lamp. 4epeated experiments failed to accurately measure any
time interval between when the first and second lanterns were uncovered. (hey
could only say that light travel at least ten times faster than sound.
(he %anish astronomer, /laus 4oemer ;1BDD E 117< made the first accurate
measurements of the speed of light using 5upiter#s moons. ,e published his results in
1BB. 4oemer made a detailed study of the fre8uent eclipses of Io by 5upiter. From
this work he was able to predict when the next eclipses would occur. /ver a period of
months, 4oemer#s predictions were steadily off by longer and longer intervals of
time. ,is predictions were eventually off by eight minutes. $ven stranger was the
fact that these predictions then became more accurate till they were correct again.
(his strange cycle repeated itself over and over again with great regularity.
4oemer reali=ed that this time difference was caused by the difference between the
distance between the earth and 5upiter. When 5upiter was closest to earth, the
eclipses happened on time. (he further 5upiter was away from the earth, the later
the eclipses became. (his was because light had a longer distance to travel to earth
and this took longer. (he si=e of the earthFs orbit and 5upiterFs orbit around the sun
were calculated at that time. 4oemer used these figures to determine the distance
between the earth and 5upiter for all his observations. 4oemer used these somewhat
inaccurate distances ;as it was known in 1BA< to calculate the speed of light to be
about >77 777 kmGs or >.7 x 17
@
mGs.
In 1B, ,uygens ;1B>!-1B!A< in ,olland read about 4oemer#s work on calculating
the speed of light. ,e immediately sent a letter to 4oemer asking for more
information. In 1B@, ,uygens presented his *(raite de lumiere+ for the .cademie
des 0ciences. ,e used the earth#s orbit and the time delay presented by 4oemer to
calculate the speed of light. ,e was the first to give the speed in terrestrial units as
1B >G? earth diameters per second. (his was about >G? the present value of the
speed of light.
0easuring the !peed of Light: 3i4eau and 3oucault
(he French physicist,.rmand Fi=eau ;1@1!-1@!B<, shone a light between the teeth of
a rapidly rotating toothed wheel. . mirror reflected the beam back through the same
gap between the teeth of the wheel. (here were over a hundred teeth in the wheel.
(he wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second - therefore a thousandth of a
second was easy to measure. 2ight was reflected from mirrors more than B
kilometres apart. 1y varying the speed of the wheel is was possible to determine at
what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap
between the teeth and back through the same gap. Fi=eau calculated the speed of
light to be ?.1?? 77 x 17
@
mGs. ,e was able to do this because knew how short a
time the light had to get through that gap and back, and he knew how far the light
travelled. 1y dividing the distance by the time he got the speed of light.
5ean Foucault ;1@1!-1@B@< bounced light from a rotating mirror back to a stationary
mirror. (he light from the rotating mirror bounced back at an angle slightly different
from the angle it hit the mirror with - because the mirror was rotating. 1y measuring
this angle it was possible to measure the speed of the light. Foucault continually
increased the accuracy of this method. ,is final measurement determined that light
traveled at >.!! !B x 17
@
mGs.

0easuring the !peed of Light: 0ichelson
(he .merican, .lbert .. 6ichelson ;1@A>-1!?1< was an instructor in physics at the
:nited 0tates "aval .cademy. ,e had to do a lecture demonstration of how Foucault
measured the speed of light. It was years since Foucault made his measurements.
When 6ichelson was setting up his demonstration, he saw how it could be improved
to give a much more accurate measurement.
6ichelson used a rotating mirror apparatus for a series of high precision experiments
carried out from 1@@7 to the 1!>7s. 2ight from a source was directed at one face of
a rotating eight-sided mirror. (he reflected light traveled to a stationary mirror and
back again as shown. (he :.0. 3oast and Geodetic 0urvey found the distance
between the mirrors to be ?A ?@A.A m accurate to about one part in seven million.
(his was a larger distance than the 17 m or so that Foucault used. (he rate at which
the mirror was rotating was measured accurately using a stroboscopic comparison
with an electric signal of standard fre8uency. If the rotating mirror was turning at
&ust the right rate, the returning beam of light would reflect from one face of the
mirror into a small telescope through which the observer looked. .t a different speed
of rotation, the beam would be deflected to one side and would not be seen by the
observer. From the re8uired speed of the rotating mirror and the known distance to
the stationary mirror the speed of light could be calculated. 6ichelson set up the
rotating mirror on the top of 6t. Wilson in southern 3alifornia and the stationary
mirror on 6t. 1aldy ;6t. 0an .ntonio< ?A km away. ,e determined the speed of light
to be >.!! >! x 17
@
mGs.
6ichelson conducted similar experiments using an evacuated tube one mile ;1.B km<
long to eliminate the problems of ha=e and variations in air density. In these
investigations, he determined the speed of light to be >.!! !B x 17
@
mGs which he
believed to be accurate within one kmGs.
(oday, the accepted value for the speed of light is >.!! !>D A@ x 17
@
mGs.

Lesson ": The #a$e Theory of Light
+ntroduction
In this lesson, we focus on the wave theory and how it explains the behaviour of
light. We will first review ,uygen#s )rinciple and how it explains the propagation of
waves. We will then use the wave theory to explain reflection, refraction, partial
reflection and partial refraction, and diffraction. (he wave theory provides a better
explanation of partial reflection - partial refraction, and diffraction than the
corpuscular theory does. It also makes a more accurate prediction of the speed of
light in an optically denser medium than the corpuscular theory does. We will see
why it was difficult to explain diffraction using the wave theory at the time of
"ewton. (hroughout this discussion diagrams will be used to illustrate the principles
involved.
2uygens' Principle and /ectlinear Propagation
(he wave theory of light was proposed by 4obert ,ooke in 1BBA. (wenty years later,
it was improved by the %utch scientist 3hristiaan ,uygens. ,e developed a techni8ue
for predicting the future position of a wavefront based on an earlier position of the
same wave. ,is explanation became known as 2uygens5 Principle. It states that
every point on a wavefront can be considered as a point source of tiny secondary
wavelets that spread out in front of the wave at the same speed as the wave itself.
(he surface envelope, tangent to all the wavelets, constitutes the new wavefront.
.s an example of the use of ,uygen#s )rinciple, consider the wavefront .1 that is
travelling away from the source S at some instant in time. (he points on the
wavefront represent the centres of the new wavelets, seen as a series of small
circles. (he common tangent to all these wavelets, the line .#1#, is the new position
of the wavefront a short time later.

(he wave theory treats light as a series of wavefronts perpendicular to the light rays.
,uygens thought of the rays as simply representing the direction of motion of a
wavefront. (his was how the wave theory explained the rectilinear ;straight line<
propagation of light. "ewton felt that the wave theory did not ade8uately explain the
rectilinear propagation of light since waves emitted from a point source spread out in
all directions.
The #a$e Theory and /eflection
2ight reflects from surfaces in such a way that the angle of incidence is e8ual to the
angle of reflection. In our studies of waves in two dimensions, we learned that water
waves also reflect from surfaces so that the angle of incidence is e8ual to the angle
of reflection. (he diagram below shows one incident wavefront approaching a barrier.
(he arrow is the incident wave ray showing the direction that the wavefront is
moving. . wavelet is shown at one edge of the wavefront.
When the wavefronts reflect, they do so in such a way that the angle of incidence ; i
< is e8ual to the angle of reflection ; r < for the wave rays. (he diagram below shows
only one of the incident wavefronts at the point when one edge is making contact
with the barrier.
(he diagram below shows how several reflected wavefronts would move. "ote that
the wavefronts are drawn perpendicular to the wave rays. /ne reflected wavelet is
shown.

The #a$e Theory and /efraction
:sing his wavelet concept, ,uygens predicted that light is bent towards the normal
as it passes into an optically denser medium such a glass, because its velocity is
slower in the second medium. In our work in the unit waves in two dimensions, we
studied a diagram similar to the one shown below.

(he diagram shows incident wavefronts in deep water. (his corresponds to light
moving in a low density material like air. (he direction of the wavefronts is indicated
by the incident wave ray. /ne of the wavelets is included on this ray. "ote that the
wavefront is tangent to the wavelet.
.fter the wavefronts move into the shallow water, they refract in such a way that the
angle of refraction is less than the angle of incidence. (he wave ray in the shallow
water corresponds of light moving in a higher density material like water. . wavelet
is drawn on the refracted wave ray.
(he distance between the wavefronts ;wavelength< in the shallow water ;denser
material<, is less than the wavelength in the deeper water. (his corresponds to a
decrease in speed of the wavefronts in the shallow water. (hus the wave theory
predicts a decrease in speed of light as it moves into a denser material. "ewton#s
corpuscular theory predicted the reverse, that is the speed of light in the denser
material was greater.
0nell#s 2aw applies to light waves as it does for water waves. (he direction of the
refracted wave can be determined using the ratio of the two velocities in the two
media.
The #a$e Theory and Partial /eflection and Partial /efraction
Waves partially reflect and partially refract whenever there is a change in velocity.
(he amount of partial reflection varies with the angle of incidence. .lso partial
reflection is much more apparent when there is an increase in velocity than when
there is a decrease. (his is &ust how light behaves.
(he diagram below shows incident wavefronts in a slow medium approaching a
boundary. (his slow medium could represent shallow water, or it could represent an
optically dense medium that light waves travel through.
)art of the incident wavefronts are reflected. (hese are shown by dashed lines. )art
of the incident wavefronts are also refracted. (he corresponding wave rays are
shown. /ne wavelet is also shown on each of the three types of avefronts.
(he lower diagram shows the angle of incidence ; i < e8ual to the angle of reflection
; r <, and the angle of incidence is less than the angle of refraction ; 4 < for this
kind of a wave moving from a slow medium to a fast medium. (he wave theory is an
excellent model for explaining the behaviour of light for partial reflection and partial
refraction.
The #a$e Theory and Diffraction
.t the time of "ewton, Grimaldi observed the diffraction of light when a ray was
directed through two successive narrow slits. "ewton critici=ed Grimaldi#s work by
saying that if light was a wave, then light waves should bend much more than was
observed by Grimaldi.
In our earlier work in diffraction of water waves, we observed that there is
considerable diffraction only when the si=e of the aperture is of approximately the
same si=e as the wavelength of the waves. For example, in the left diagram below,
the si=e of the opening is large compared to the wavelength and there is little
diffraction. In the right diagram, the opening si=e is small and therefore there is a
great deal of diffraction.

(he diagrams below also show that diffraction around a sharp barrier is less for
shorter wavelengths.

.t the time of ,uygens and "ewton, the wavelength of visible light was not known.
We know today that because the wavelength of visible light is so small, that
diffraction effects are also very small for the relatively large openings we regularly
experience. (he wave theory provided a much better explanation of diffraction than
did the corpuscular theory.
Lesson %: &oung's '(perient
+ntroduction
(he research by (homas 9oung ;1? E 1@>!< into the interference of light was
critical in demonstrating that light has wave like properties. ,is famous experiment
has become known as *9oung#s $xperiment.+ In this lesson, we will review what we
learned about the interference of two dimensional waves from our work in an earlier
module. We will then extend this knowledge to an understanding of the interference
of light waves. (his will lead us to a mathematical e8uation that will allow us to
determine the wavelength of light based on measurements taken from the
interference of light.

6ttepts to Produce and +nterference Pattern in Light
In our studies of waves in two dimensions, we learned that waves generated by two
point sources in a ripple tank interfere with each other to produce areas of
constructive and destructive interference as shown below.
In the diagram below, the nodal lines are grey in colour. (hey represent areas of
destructive interference where troughs and crests meet. (he areas with the shaded
in circles represent areas of constructive interference. (he line &oining the shaded in
dots would appear to have bright and dark areas on a ripple tank screen.
If light has wave properties, then two sources of light waves should produce a result
similar to that for waves in a ripple tank. In "ewton#s time, many scientists
attempted to observe the interference of light. In most cases, they placed two
sources of light side by side. (he light from the two sources, falling on a nearby
screen, was carefully examined, but no interference was observed. (he scientists
conducting these experiments did not know that the wavelength of light is extremely
small. We can see in a ripple tank that when the fre8uency of the vibrating sources is
high, so that the wavelength is small, that the distance between two ad&acent nodal
lines is small. In the early experiments with light, the distance between the nodal
lines was so small that no nodal lines could be observed.
(here was also a second more basic problem. In a ripple tank, the nodal line pattern
is most easily observed when the two vibrating sources are in phase, that is vibrating
at the same time. If the phase of the vibrating sources is altered, the interference
pattern will shift. When two incandescent light sources are used side by side, the
light is emitted randomly by the atoms in each source, in bursts, not necessarily in
phase. When light strikes the screen, a constantly varying interference pattern is
produced and no single pattern is observed.
&oung's '(perient
In the years 1@7> to 1@7D, (homas 9oung ;1?-1@>!< performed a number of
experiments. Instead of using two sources, he used only one source of light directing
it through two pinholes placed very close together. (he light was diffracted through
each pinhole so that each acted as a point source of light. 0ince the sources were
close together, the spacing between the nodal lines was great enough that the
pattern could be seen. 1ecause the light from the two pinholes came from the same
source, the two interfering beams of light were always in phase and a single, fixed
interference pattern could be created on the screen.
(he two ma&or problems in observing the interference of light were solved. In
9oung#s experiment, the two sources were in phase, and the distance between
sources was small enough that a series of bright and dark bands, called
interference fringes, were created on a screen placed in the path of the light. (his
experiment, now commonly called &oung5s '(perient, provided very strong
evidence for the wave theory of light.
&oung's '(perient: +nterference at Three 6ngles
We will look at interference in 9oung#s $xperiment at three different angles. In the
diagrams below, light waves in phase are passing through the slits S1 and S> which
are a distance d apart. (he waves spread out in all directions through the slits.
In the left diagram below, both waves that reach the centre of the screen are in
phase because they travel the same distance. 3onstructive interference occurs and
there is a bright spot on the screen.
In the right diagram below, the waves from S> travel an extra 1G> to reach the
screen. When they do so, they are exactly out of phase. (his means that the crest
from the wave of S1 meets the trough from the wave of S>. %estructive interference
occurs and the screen is dark at this point. (his corresponds to nodal point 1.


&oung's '(perient and Deri$ing a 7seful '.uation
From our work on wave interference in water, we learned that the difference in path
length from the point P on a nodal line ;destructive interference<to the two sources
S1 and S> is e8ual to From the diagram below showing
destructive interference, it can be shown that the difference in path length, , is
also e8ual to d . (herefore we can write (he diagram
below shows the two triangles from the diagrams above. In this diagram, x is the
distance of the nodal line from the centre line on the screen, and L is the distance
from the midpoint between the two slits S1 and S> to the screen. In the two triangles,
the angle is identical. For very long distances, the distance L is almost identical to
the length of the hypotenuse. (herefore, another way to write sin is . In
place of x we can write xn which is the distance to the n
th
nodal line measured from
the right bisector. /ur new e8uation becomes .
(he distance from the centre line to the first nodal line ;x1< can be given by
.
(he distance x> is given by . (he distance between x> and x1
is . In general, we can say that where x is the
distance between ad&acent nodal lines on a screen, d is the separation between the
slits, and L is the perpendicular distance from the slits to the screen.
Light as an 'lectroagnetic #a$e
We have seen that there is strong evidence for the wave nature of light. It was
5ames 6axwell ;1@?1-1@!< who described the nature of the vibrations transmitted
by the light. ,e called them electromagnetic waves. (o understand what is meant by
electromagnetic waves, we must have some basic knowledge of electricity and
magnetism. (his will come later in this course and in )hysics D70. ,owever, we can
describe the electromagnetic wave based on our knowledge of transverse waves.
(he diagram below shows two transverse waves. (he wave with the solid line could
represent the electric field lines and the wave with the dashed lines could represent
the magnetic field lines. (he electric and magnetic field lines are perpendicular to
each other and to the direction of motion of the waves.
In the diagram below, the electric field vibrates in an up and down way. (his is
e8uivalent to the wave vibrating along the y axis. (he magnetic field vibrates into
and out of the paper, along the = axis. (he wave itself moves to the right along the x
axis.

Lesson ): The Photoelectric 'ffect and the #a$e*Particle Duality
+ntroduction
In this last lesson we discuss the photoelectric effect. (he wave theory and the
particle theories of light make different predictions about the effects of the fre8uency
and the intensity of light on this effect. .lbert $instein proposed the idea that light is
made up of photons and we will see that his theory explained the photoelectric effect
very well. (he lesson concludes with a discussion of the wave-particle duality and the
)rinciple of 3omplementarity. (his discussion will show that to fully explain the
behaviour of light we need to use both the wave and the particle ;photon< theories.
1oth 6axwell#s electromagnetic theory and "ewton#s corpuscular theory provided
excellent models for our understanding of light, and the wave-particle model was
built on the contributions of these and other great scientists.
The Photoelectric 'ffect and the Photocell
In 1@@, the German physicist ,einrich ,ert= ;1@A-1@!D< was testing 6axwell#s
(heory of $lectromagnetic waves. ,ert= noticed that when he directed ultraviolet
waves at certain metallic surfaces, they lose their negative charges. For example, a
negatively charged =inc plate was discharged when ultraviolet radiation fell on it, but
it remained charged when ordinary light fell on it. 1ut a positively charged plate was
never discharged. (he incident light somehow caused the metal to liberate electrons.
1oth light and electricity are involved so the term photoelectric effect was given to
this phenomenon of emitting electrons when electromagnetic radiation falls on an
ob&ect.
(he photoelectric effect can be studied using a photocell such as the one shown
below. (he cell has two metal electrodes sealed in an evacuated tube. (he air has
been removed to keep the metal surface clean and to keep electrons from being
stopped by the air molecules. (he large electrode, the cathode, is usually coated with
cesium or some other alkali metal. (he second electrode, the anode, is made of a
thin wire so it does not block any radiation. (he tube if often made of 8uart= to
permit ultraviolet wavelengths to pass through. . power source is connected to the
anode and the cathode in such a way that the that the negative side of the source is
attached to the cathode and the positive side is connected to the anode. .n ammeter
can measure if there is a current flowing through the circuit.
When no radiation falls on the cathode, the current does not flow in the circuit. When
radiation does fall on the cathode, a current is produced in the circuit and this is
indicated by the ammeter. (he current is a result of electrons, called photoelectrons,
being e&ected from the cathode by the radiation. (he electrons then move to the
positive electrode, the anode.
The Photoelectric 'ffect and the #a$e Theory
"ot all radiation that falls on the cathode in a photoelectric cell results in current
flow. $lectrons are e&ected only if the fre8uency of the radiation is above a certain
minimum value called the threshold fre.uency, fo. (he threshold fre8uency varies
with the metal. For example, all wavelengths of light except red will e&ect electrons
from cesium, but ultraviolet light must be used with =inc. 4adiation of a fre8uency
below fo does not e&ect any electrons from the metal no matter how bright it is. $ven
if it is very dim, radiation at or above the threshold fre8uency causes electrons to
leave the metal immediately, and the greater the intensity of this radiation, the
larger the flow of photoelectrons.
(he electromagnetic wave theory cannot explain these effects. (he wave theory says
that a more intense radiation, regardless of fre8uency, has stronger electric and
magnetic fields. .ccording to the wave theory, the electric field accelerates and
e&ects the electrons from the metal. With very faint light shining on the metal,
electrons would re8uire a very long time before they gained enough energy to be
e&ected.
When the photoelectric effect occurs, the light energy is absorbed by an electron
instantaneously, and does not need to *accumulate+ energy to a point where the
electron can be liberated. (he classical wave theory predicts that electrons can be
e&ected even for very dim light but there must be a long time for this to occur.
.nother way of looking at the photoelectric effect using the classical wave theory is
to consider that the light wave shakes the atom until it loses an electron. .ccording
to the wave theory, the amplitude and time duration of the wave would determine
whether sufficient energy had been transferred to the atom that e&ects an electron.
(he amplitude is related to the brightness, or intensity, of the light. (hus, more
intense beams of light, even of lower fre8uency, should e&ect more electrons. 1ut
this is not the case. ,igher fre8uency beams are necessary in most cases.
The Photoelectric 'ffect and 'instein
In 1!7A, .lbert $instein published a revolutionary theory that explained the
photoelectric effect. $instein made the radical proposal that the energy of light and
other forms of electromagnetic radiation is not transmitted as a continuous wave.
4ather it is concentrated in discrete bundles of energy called photons. ,e proposed
that the amount of energy in each of these bundles was a discrete, fixed amount that
depended on the fre8uency of the light. (he higher the fre8uency, the greater the
energy contained in the photon.
$instein#s theory explained the existence of a threshold fre8uency. . photon must
have a minimum energy to e&ect an electron from a metal. (his minimum energy
depends on the threshold fre8uency, fo, of the light. If the photon has a fre8uency
below fo, then it does not have the energy needed to e&ect an electron. 2ight with a
fre8uency greater than fo has more energy than needed to e&ect the electron. (he
excess energy make the electron move, and is converted to kinetic energy of the
moving electron.
$instein thus predicted why there was a threshold fre8uency. (he electron must have
a minimum amount of energy to escape the attractive force holding it to the metal.
When the fre8uency of the incident light is too low, the photon does not give the
absorbing electron sufficient energy and it remains bound to the surface. (he
intensity ;brightness< of the light is only a measure of the rate at which the photons
strike the surface, not the energy of the photon. (his explains why the kinetic energy
of the emitted photoelectrons and the threshold fre8uency do not depend on the
intensity of the incident light.
"otice that an electron cannot simply accumulate photons until it has enough
energy. /nly one photon interacts with one electron. (he photon either has enough
energy to e&ect the electron or it does not. (hus, the photon behaves more like a
particle than a wave.
The Principle of Copleentarity and Light
It has become obvious that light is not &ust a wave and not &ust a particle. It has a
dual nature, a property referred to by physicists as a wa$e*particle duality. We
can come to this conclusion because both theories of light have been shown to be
valid based on very strong experimental evidence. It is clear that light is a much
more complex phenomenon than &ust a beam of particles or &ust a simple wave.
(he great %anish physicist, "eils 1ohr ;1@@A-1!B>< clarified the situation by
proposing the Principle of Copleentarity. ,e stated that *(o understand a
specific experiment, one must use either the wave or the photon theory but not
both.+ :nderstanding both the wave and the particle properties of light is essential if
one is to have a full understanding of light. In other words, the two aspects of light
complement one another.
If we return to 9oung#s experiment and the photoelectric effect, we can illustrate how
this principle is applied. (o understand how light interferes after it passes through
two parallel slits, we must use the wave theory, not the particle theory. (o
understand why the photoelectric effect occurs, we must use the photon, or particle
nature of light, not the wave theory.
.s a general rule, when light passes through space or through a medium, its
behaviour is best explained using its wave properties. 1ut when light interacts with
matter, its behaviour is more like that of a particle.
The #a$e*Particle Duality and 0odels
/ne of the reasons we have trouble understanding the dual nature of light is that it is
very difficult if not impossible for us to visuali=e this duality. We cannot draw pictures
or create images of a wave-particle combination. We are restricted to creating wave
images in some applications and particle images in other applications, but never both
at the same time.
.lso, most of the laws and principles of physics we are familiar with are based on
experiments that involve direct observations. In the study of light, particularly as it
transfers energy from place to place, we base our knowledge on indirect
experiments. We cannot see directly how light energy is transmitted as a wave or
particle. .ll we can observe are the results of the interaction of light and matter. /ur
knowledge is limited to indirect information, and therefore, to describe light#s dual
nature, we cannot use visual means. Huantum mechanics utili=es mathematical
models, not visual models, but this method constitutes a part of 8uantum mechanics
that is much beyond the scope of this course.
(he wave-particle model of light that we use today is much more subtle than
"ewton#s corpuscular theory or 6axwell#s electromagnetic theory. 1oth of these
theories were important in their time and contributed much to our understanding of
the behaviour of light. 1ut these models were inade8uate in themselves for
explaining all of the properties of light. 2ike all models or theories, they can be
replaced by better models when new information becomes available. (his is the case
with the two classical models of light. (hey have been superseded by the wave-
particle model of light, the only theory that we find acceptable today for a full
understanding of the nature of light.