Chapter 2

Particle Properties of Waves

Overview

This chapter points out the experimental phenomena which led to the concept that waves can
exhibit particle-like properties.

The photoelectric effect (Hertz, 1887-1888) and the Compton effect are the prime
historical evidence for the particle properties of waves. In the photoelectric effect, light
striking a solid causes the emission of electrons. In the next lecture, we will see what is
surprising about the photoelectric effect.

The Compton effect, explained by Compton in 1923 while he was at Washington

University in St. Louis, involves the change in wavelength of x-rays when they are
scattered. We will skip this section of the text.

In Chapter 3, we will learn that particles can exhibit wave-like properties.

The idea that particles can have wave properties came from electron diffraction (the
Davisson-Germer experiment, 1927) which is discussed in the next chapter.

2.1 Electromagnetic Waves

In this section, we focus on wave-like properties of electromagnetic waves. In later sections, we

will discover their particle-like properties.

Let's review waves, starting with the phase velocity of a wave.

Consider a wave described by

y(x,t) = A sin(kx - ω (k)t).
The phase of this wave is
θ (x,t) = (kx - ω (k)t).
Also
dθ dx
= k - ω (k).
dt dt
If θ is constant with time (i.e., dθ/dt=0), then we are moving with the wave, and
dx ω (k)
= .
dt k
The phase velocity vp is given by
ω (k)
vp = .
k

15
 Note that k=2π/λ, so if ω is a nonlinear function of k, then the phase velocity depends on
λ.

Next, review the direction of travel of a wave.

The spatial coordinate of any point of constant phase travels in the +x direction when w/k
is positive, and in the -x direction when w/k is negative. In other words, waves travel to
the right when w/k is positive, and to the left when w/k is negative. Thus, the sign of k
tells the direction of motion of the phase of a wave.

Energy transmitted by a wave.

In Physics 23, you may have derived a classical expression for the energy per unit time
carried by a wave. The result is
ρ 2 2
Power = ω A vp.
2
The power depends on frequency squared if the amplitude is constant, or on the amplitude
squared if the frequency is constant. As we will see in the next section, the experimental
results of the photoelectric effect are in disagreement with this equation.

Superposition -- a characteristic of all waves.

When waves of the same nature travel past some point at the same time, the amplitude at
that point is the sum of the amplitudes of all the waves.

For example, the amplitude of the electric field at a point is found by adding the
instantaneous amplitudes, including the phase, of all electric waves at that point.

If A = a + jb is an amplitude, then A* = a - jb and

A A* = (a + jb)(a - jb) = a2 + b2 .
Remember that power (or intensity) is proportional to amplitude squared.

Summary of superposition facts for electromagnetic waves:

Superposition is a result of the linear relations between electric field and polarization and
between magnetic field and magnetization.

The magnitude of a wave is found by multiplying the amplitude by its complex conjugate.

16
 The intensity of the superposed waves is proportional to the square of the amplitude of
the resulting sum of waves.

Interference is a result of the superposition of waves.

Constructive Interference: If the waves are in phase, they reinforce to produce a wave of
greater amplitude.

Destructive Interference: If the waves are out of phase, they reinforce to produce a wave
of reduced amplitude.

Figure 3.4, in chapter 3, shows an example of a wave where both constructive and
destructive interference are taking place. Constructive interference gives rise to peaks,
and destructive interference gives rise to valleys in the intensity pattern.

Mathcad is a very handy tool for seeing the effects of superposition of waves.

Interference--try the Mathcad document fig3-4.mcd to more or less reproduce figure 3.4 of
Beiser. (It's in the subdirectory w:\physics\107p\ on the Physics CLC network.)

Young's double slit experiment (1801).

This experiment demonstrates the wave nature of light.

Consider a single source, and two slits. Each slit acts as a secondary source of light (this
is a result of diffraction; the light waves bend around corners at the slits).

Light waves from secondary slits interfere to produce alternating maxima and minima in
the intensity.

17
 The interference is constructive when path lengths differ by λ, 2λ, etc. Interference is
destructive when path lengths differ by λ/2, 3λ/2, etc. For path lengths in between, the
interference is only partial.

In fact, the familiar nλ=dsinθ applies here, where 2θ is the angle between the two rays at
the screen.

Interference and diffraction are exclusively wave-like properties. So is refraction (see the
comment below). We conclude that light is clearly a wave.

Maxwell studied electromagnetic waves. Maxwell showed what kind of wave light is.

Maxwell, 1864, suggested that accelerated electric charges generate electromagnetic

waves.

Faraday then showed that a changing magnetic field can induce a current.

Maxwell proposed that a changing electric field has an associated magnetic field. This
was not confirmed until after his death.

Maxwell showed that electromagnetic waves propagated with the speed

1
c = = 2.998x 10 8 m / s.
ε 0 µ0
This is exactly the speed of light, and Maxwell concluded light consists of
electromagnetic waves. Note that light waves are only a small part of the electromagnetic
spectrum (see figure 2.2).

Electromagnetic waves propagate at the speed of light in a vacuum, but slower in

materials, which makes the index of refraction greater than unity (n = c/v).

Hertz provided experimental confirmation of electromagnetic waves in 1887-8. The

experimental confirmation was found in the photoelectric effect.

2.2 Blackbody radiation.

We will discuss this in more depth in chapter 9.

What would the result of this experiment be: big snowstorm, lots of slush on street. The
city puts down cinders. I drive home, sweep the white snow off the car windows onto a
pile on the ground beside the driveway. I kick off the black clumps of slush which collect
behind the tires and put them in another pile beside the driveway. Which melts first: the
snow beneath the white window snow, or the snow beneath the black slush clumps?
Why?

18
 The basic idea: poor absorbers of radiation are poor emitters. Good absorbers of
radiation are good emitters. The best absorbers of radiation are the best emitters. A
perfect absorber is also a perfect emitter.

A perfect absorber/emitter is called a "blackbody." You should be suspicious whenever

anybody claims “perfection,” but there are ways to make devices which really do function
as blackbodies.

Question: a blackbody is black. What does that mean about the light reflected from a
blackbody (none)? What does that mean about the light emitted from a blackbody
(none??)? Is anybody bothered by the answers to these questions?

The answer to the questions in the paragraph above lies in the fact that blackbodies emit
radiation at different frequencies than they absorbed it. The frequency depends on the
blackbody temperature.

500K or less -- essentially all of the radiation is at frequencies less than those of
visible light. (Infrared – “ROY G. BIV”) The blackbody is black.

2000K -- visible light of appreciable intensity, but mostly at the red (low
frequency) end of the spectrum.

3000K -- red predominates, but significantly more blue. This is about the
temperature of an incandescent lamp filament.

6500K -- distribution is more nearly uniform, therefore "white hot." Example --

the surface of the sun.

10000K and above -- blue light predominates. "Blue hot." Example -- some of
the hotter stars.

The Ultraviolet catastrophe

Rayleigh and Jeans in the late 19th century described blackbody radiation by examining
standing waves set up inside a cavity.

They came up with a mathematical expression for blackbody radiation using their model.
Beiser gives the result; we won't worry about it until chapter 9.

The main thing to note is that their classical calculations failed miserably; hence the
"ultraviolet catastrophe"

19
The Planck radiation formula

Planck, in 1900, fit the blackbody radiation distribution by assuming the blackbody to be
made up of an enormous number of oscillators, with each oscillator vibrating at a fixed
frequency, but with a wide range (from 0 to infinity) of possible frequencies.

This is not as odd an idea as it may sound at first. Light is electromagnetic radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation can accelerate electrons. Electrons in the atoms of the
blackbody wall will act like little balls on springs (harmonic oscillators) when you “pull”
on them with light.

However, the oscillators could not take on any arbitrary frequency. Instead,
they could oscillate only in integral multiples of a frequency f which
depended on the blackbody temperature.

These oscillators emit energy in units of hf (Beiser uses the symbol ν, but I will
use f, because n looks too much like ν), which Planck called "quanta" of energy.
A quantum of energy is E=hf. The constant h is called Planck's constant, and is
the same constant which will appear in the next section in the equation for the
photoelectric effect.

The fact that the oscillators in the cavity walls can interchange energy with standing
waves only in units of hf is a dramatic departure from classical physics. Planck’s theory
explained blackbody radiation, but even Planck mistakenly believed that later on
somebody would reconcile blackbody radiation with classical physics.

2.3 The Photoelectric Effect

Heinrich Hertz in 1887-8 used the photoelectric effect to verify Maxwell's theory of the
electromagnetic nature of light. Hertz generated electromagnetic waves.

We will concentrate here on some of the unusual observations in Hertz' experiments. I'll get to
them in a minute.

One observation that Hertz made was that a spark would jump more readily between two
metal spheres when their surfaces were illuminated by the light from another spark.

The actual experimental setup was much more complex than sparks and a couple of metal
spheres, and allowed for a number of different experiments which verified the
electromagnetic nature of light.

The kind of apparatus used to study the photoelectric effect (but not Hertz's apparatus) is
described in the text and shown schematically here.

20
 Light striking a metal
anode in an evacuated
tube causes electrons to be
emitted from the anode,
and some of them reach
the cathode (in spite of its
negative voltage).

You can use an ammeter

to measure the current
reaching the cathode.

You can increase the

retarding potential (make
the cathode voltage more negative) and see how that affects the current.

You can make the cathode voltage negative enough so that no photoelectrons reach the
cathode. (When the cathode reaches the "extinction voltage," no electrons are emitted.)

So, what's the big deal. Light carries energy. Energy is transferred to electrons in the
anode. They escape the metal anode. If they get enough energy, they can even reach the
cathode.

Classically, here's what we expect:

(1) For a fixed light frequency, the power transmitted by the light wave should be
proportional to the amplitude squared; i.e., the power should be directly proportional to
the intensity. The energy of the electrons coming out therefore ought to be directly
proportional to the intensity (brightness) of the light.

(2) Similarly, for a fixed light intensity, the energy of the electrons ought to be
proportional to the square of the frequency of the light.

(3) The extinction voltage ought to depend on the square of the frequency of the light, or
on the intensity of the light.

(4) As Beiser shows, it should take a "long" time for the electrons to accumulate enough
energy to escape.

(5) I can't see anything here that says there ought to be either a minimum light intensity
which causes emission of photoelectrons or a maximum photoelectron energy.

21
Here's what we actually observe:

(1) The number of electrons emitted, but not their energy, depends on the brightness of
the light.

(2) The electron energy is proportional to the first power of the frequency of the light (not
the square).

(3) The extinction voltage depends on the first power of the frequency of the light.

(4) Electrons are emitted almost right away (within about 10-9 s).

(5) For a given metal, there is a frequency of light below which no photoelectrons are
emitted. Also, for each frequency of light, there is a maximum energy which
photoelectrons can have.

We have a problem here, don't we.

Figure 2.9 is a plot of the maximum photoelectron energy versus frequency of incident light.

The plots obey the relationship

K max = hf - h f 0 ,
where h is a constant, f is the frequency of the incident light, and f0 is the threshold frequency
below which no photoelectrons are emitted.

The constant has the same value for all metals, but f0 depends on the metal.

This is an empirical equation; i.e., it fits the experiment, but we haven't explained
anything.

22
Einstein's hypothesis and explanation for the photoelectric effect.

Einstein postulated that a beam of light consists of small bundles of energy, called "light
quanta" or "photons." The energy of a photon is given by E=hf. An electron can absorb
all of a photon's energy or none of it, but nothing in between.

Some electrons may acquire enough energy to escape from the metal surface being
illuminated (this energy is called the work function of the surface). Electrons escaping
from the metal may or may not use up additional energy in escaping. The maximum
energy electrons can leave the metal with is equal to hf minus the work function. Light of
frequency f can't give an electron any more energy than hf.

Thus, according to Einstein, the empirical equation for the photoelectric effect really says
hf = K max + h f 0 ,
where Kmax is the maximum photoelectric energy and hf0 is the work function energy.

This brilliantly explains all of the features of the photoelectric effect, but the idea was so
revolutionary in 1905 that it wasn't really accepted until 1916 when Millikan (who we
will hear of later) provided additional experimental verification.

Sample calculation with photoelectric effect: see Mathcad document ex-p57.mcd, in 107
supplemental directory.

2.4 What is Light?

Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. Light has physical reality. Different
experiments see different aspects of that reality. Some experiments see wave-like aspects of
light. Others see particle-like aspects of light. That doesn't mean there is any-thing wrong or
unreal about light. Our senses just aren't equipped to fully appreciate all aspects of the physical
reality of light.

We have been talking about light, but light is just electromagnetic waves from a relatively narrow
band of the spectrum. All of our conclusions about light apply to electromagnetic radiation.

If you use an equation with Planck's constant in it, you are doing quantum mechanics. An
equation without Planck's constant can be derived using only classical physics.

Interference and diffraction are wave-like aspects of electromagnetic waves. The energy and
momentum of photons in their interactions with other objects (generally, electrons) are particle-
like aspects of electromagnetic waves.

23
The equations for photon momentum and energy (below) contain both wave and particle aspects
together.

Any experiment only measures wave aspects or particle aspects, but not both simultaneously.

Some useful facts about light:

Photon Energy E = hf.

Photon Momentum p = h / λ.

Photon Rest Mass m0 = 0.

hf h
Photon " Mass" m = E / c2 = 2 = .
c cλ
Of course, a photon doesn't really have any mass.

Photon Charge charge = 0.

Photon Velocity v = c.

Wave Intensity I = ε 0 E 2rms c.

Particle Intensity I = nhf.

ε 0 E 2rms c
Photons per Second N = .
hf

Photon energy, momentum, and speed are things you really need to know for this course. Also,
don't forget v=fλ, or, for photons, c=fλ.

24
2.9 Photons and Gravity and Black Holes

How do you measure an object's mass? How do you measure its mass on the moon? How do
you measure its mass in "outer space."

Special relativity, which we studied in Chapter 1, deals with the laws of physics in reference
frames moving at constant velocities with respect to each other.

The general theory of relativity (Einstein, 1915) deals with accelerated reference frames.

The Principle of Equivalence: an observer in a closed laboratory cannot distinguish

between the effects produced by a gravitational field and those produced by an
acceleration of the laboratory.

Example: you on a scale in an elevator.

Inertial mass and gravitational mass (what is the difference between the two masses?) of
an object are the same, as far as we can tell.

Light should be affected by gravity because:

hf
E = hf and E = m c2 so m = .
c2
In other words, a photon doesn't have a rest mass, but it has an "inertial mass" as suggested
above, so it ought to be affected by gravity.

Observational evidence for effect of gravity on photons:

Light from distant star deflected by sun's gravitational field; first observed during solar
eclipse, not long after Einstein proposed the theory.

The deflection observed was exactly that predicted by Einstein.

Later measurements, as discussed by Beiser, showed gain of photon energy as photons

fall.

A photon of initial energy hf ought to gain an energy equal to mgH when it falls through a
height H.

Since the photon's "mass" is hf/c2, the energy gain is (hf/c2)gH. This gives
 gH 
hf ′ = hf  1 + 2  .
 c 
Page 84 gives a sample calculation for a photon falling 22.5 meters.

25
Gravitational red shift and black holes

Consider a photon with gravitational mass equal to its inertial mass. Suppose it was
emitted at a distance R from an object of mass M, and it had an initial frequency n0.

When the photon is at a distant point infinitely removed from the object of mass M, its
kinetic energy is equal to its initial kinetic energy minus the gravitational potential energy
(GM1M2/R) at R:
 M  h f 
hf = h f 0 - G    2 0  .
 R  c 

  GM  
hf = h f 0 1 -  2  .
  c R
Note that the photon has been shifted to a lower frequency. Lower frequency means more
red, so this is a "gravitational red shift."
This is not to be confused with the "red shift" due to the Doppler effect, which you have
probably heard of before.

The gravitational red shift is a very weak effect, barely measurable.

Note that if GM/Rc2=1, the photon has its frequency shifted to zero. If GM/Rc2 is greater
than 1, a photon can never escape from the object, because it didn't have enough energy to
overcome the gravitational field. You can solve for R, which is the radius from which
light cannot escape from an object of mass M.

The above argument was a classical one. To get the right answer, you must use general
relativity. The result is
2GM
RS = 2
.
c
This is called the Schwarzshild radius. It is the radius inside which light can never escape
-- hence "black hole." The sphere of radius RS is called the "event horizon." Nothing, not
even light, can pass the event horizon (from inside to out, of course).

Note that light falling into a very deep gravitational potential has a blue shift, and light
escaping from a very deep gravitational potential has a red shift.

Keep in mind that photons have momentum but not mass. When we talk about photon
"mass" we are really referring to the mass of an "ordinary" particle having the same
momentum as the photon.

26