Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

15/11/2011

Physics Coursework
Polarising Light with Sugar Solution
Data Collection and Processing
RAW DATA
Depth of Sugar
solution (mm)

Angle Repeat 1 ()

Angle Repeat
2 ()

Angle Repeat 3
()

0
18
43
67
92
117
136
154

0
15
27
45
56
74
87
97

0
11
28
41
61
71
84
102

4
10
24
40
62
79
89
91

PROCESSED DATA
Depth of Sugar
solution (mm)

Uncertainty Depth
(mm)

Average
Angle ()

Uncertainty
Angle ()

0
18
43
67
92
117
136
154

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

1
12
26
42
60
75
87
97

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

Page 1 of 6

Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

15/11/2011

Polarizing light with sugar solution

120

100

f(x) = 0.71x - 6
f(x) = 0.63x + 0.63
f(x) = 0.55x + 6.5

80

60

Angle of Rotation ()
40

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

-20

Depth of sugar solution (mm)

Page 2 of 6

Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

15/11/2011

Calculation
Theory predicts that = c l where c is the concentration of
sugar solution and l is the depth of the sugar solution. is a
constant known as the specific rotation. Using our experiment we can
work out a value for . If we look at our graph we can see angle of
rotation plotted against depth of sugar solution. The points have a straight
line of best fit of the form:
y=mx +c

Relating this to the equation for specific rotation we can see that1:
m= c
=

m
c

=0.6289 800

=0.000786

Since = c l we know the units for this value is

3

deg m mm kg

3
1 1
However, the standard units usually used for are deg cm dm g

Therefore we must adjust our value of accordingly.

3

1 1

=78.6 deg cm dm g

This value was calculated using the line of best fit; we can calculate the
uncertainty in this value by looking at the maximum and minimum lines. If
we use the gradients from these lines we get different values for .

1 This calculation does not take into account the fact that the line of best
fit does not pass exactly through the origin.
Page 3 of 6

Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

3

15/11/2011

=86.4 deg cm dm g

=71.7 deg cm dm g

With this in mind we can say that our value for is:
3

=79 8 deg cm dm g

Conclusion and Evaluation

Conclusion
This experiment shows that there is a linear relationship between the
depth of sugar solution and the angle of rotation. This can be seen from
the glass as there is a straight line of best fit which passes close to the
origin. There seem to be no anomalies within the data as there is a line
which passes through all the points (allowing for errors). There seem to be
a number of random errors in this experiment, in both the angle of
uncertainty and the depth of the sugar solution. In this experiment we use
the gradient of our line of best fit to calculate a value for , the
specific rotation value for the sugar solution. Our result is:
=79 8 deg cm3 dm1 g1
In our experiment we used a green light filter, according to Kaye and
Laby2 the specific rotation value should be:
78.39 deg cm3 dm1 g1
Comparing our result with the literature value confirms that our result is
accurate, not only is the literature value within the range of uncertainty,
the literature value is in fact extremely close to the result obtained from
the line of best fit. There is only a 0.77% error between our value and the
2 Kaye and Laby, Tables of Physical and Chemical Constants, Optical
Rotation http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_10.html
Page 4 of 6

Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

15/11/2011

literature value. This error is much smaller our estimated error which was
10%.
The uncertainty in the angle of rotation was estimated by looking at the
difference between the data spread and the average. At a depth of 154
mm the average angle of rotation was 97 yet in repeat 3 it was
measured to be 91. This 6 difference between the data and the average
shows us the uncertainty in our reading. It is the largest difference across
all our results and so is used as the angle uncertainty for all points. The
uncertainty in the depth of sugar solution is simply an estimate of the
potential error in reading the depth off a ruler by eye. Both these
uncertainties are random rather than systematic, this is supported by the
fact that the data passes (roughly) through the origin. If there was a
systematic error then we would expect the line of best fit to be slightly
further away from the origin; for example, if for some reason the depth
was always measured to be 10mm deeper than it actually was, we would
expect the line of best fit to intercept the x-axis at (10,0). As it is, the
random uncertainties simply mean there is an uncertainty in the final
result (also illustrated by the min and max lines of best fit.) The
uncertainties in depth and angle are both significant in determining the
uncertainty in the final result. However, the fact that our estimated
uncertainty is 10% and the actual uncertainty is 0.77% implies that
perhaps the estimated uncertainties in the data were slightly too large.
Evaluation
The main weaknesses in this experiment are the ways which we measure
the angle of polarisation and the depth of the sugar solution. When
measuring the depth of the sugar solution it is difficult to know where to
measure from as the measuring cylinder does not have a completely flat
bottom. Therefore, it is difficult to know where to measure from on the
ruler. The ruler was not taped to the measuring cylinder throughout the
experiment and so each depth was probably measured slightly differently.
For this reason I would argue it is a random error rather than a systematic
error. This uncertainty is accounted for in the horizontal error bars. One
way to remedy this problem may be to use a measuring cylinder which
has a flat bottom. Or alternatively, one could use a measuring cylinder
with a known radius, then add known volumes of solution using a
volumetric pipette and therefore calculate the depth of the liquid.
The other major uncertainty is in the angle of polarisation. The apparatus
is not fixed in place and so between measurements there is a chance that
the cylinder full of sugar can move between readings. This is most likely a
Page 5 of 6

Ed Moss

Kings College School Wimbledon

15/11/2011

random error; this flaw in the experiment could potentially lead to a

systematic error (ie. If the whole apparatus was accidentally rotated 20)
but since the line of best fit passes close to the origin we would have to
say that there is no major systematic error.. This problem could be solved
by clamping all the apparatus to the desk.
Another issue is that it is difficult to tell when the light is fully polarised.
During the experiment, what we are actually measuring is the angle when
all light is cut out. However, there is a three or four degree region where it
seems there is no light, so within this region it is difficult to know when the
light is fully polarised. To reduce the error in this area we should perhaps
use a brighter bulb as this would help us distinguish between when the
light is partially polarised and when it is fully polarised. This should mean
the uncertainty in the angle of polarisation is reduced.
Within the data we collected there do not seem to be any anomalous
points as all the points lie on the line of best fit (allowing for errors).
However, some of the individual readings may have been incorrect for
some reason; it is simply difficult to mark one reading out as anomalous
when you only take three readings at each depth. To improve the
experiment I would suggest repeating the angle measurement at least 5
times so any incorrect individual readings are clearly shown.

Page 6 of 6