Light quanta · Section 8

Brighter light, more electrons. Higher frequency, faster ones.

Why does increasing light intensity release more electrons without increasing their individual energy, while increasing frequency increases electron energy without requiring higher intensity?

The photoelectric apparatus

Photoelectric apparatus laboratory

Static worked example

CurrentThese numbers match the current settings.

Model note
  • Primary outputs incidentPower, frequency, workFunction, quantumEfficiency, collectorPotential: Host calculation (lq08.acceptedInputs). Owner lq08.acceptedInputs.
  • Primary output quantumEnergy: Host calculation (photoelectric.quantumEnergy). Owner photoelectric.quantumEnergy.
  • Primary output thresholdFrequency: Host calculation (photoelectric.thresholdFrequency). Owner photoelectric.thresholdFrequency.
  • Primary output maxKineticEnergy: Host calculation (photoelectric.kMax). Owner photoelectric.kMax.
  • Primary output stoppingPotentialMagnitude: Host calculation (photoelectric.stoppingPotentialMagnitude). Owner photoelectric.stoppingPotentialMagnitude.
  • Primary output quantumRate: Host calculation (photoelectric.quantumRate). Owner photoelectric.quantumRate.
  • Primary output emissionRate: Host calculation (photoelectric.emissionRate). Owner photoelectric.emissionRate.
  • Primary output photocurrent: Host calculation (photoelectric.photocurrent). Owner photoelectric.photocurrent.
  • Accepted input revision 1.
  • Snapshot version 1.
  • Not modeled: Real-material electron energy distributions and yields; Contact potentials and surface states; Space charge; Reflection losses; Emission angles; Multi-photon or thermionic emission; The timing of individual emissions; Energy transfer models beyond the declared complete or partial cases; Any claim that the moving marks depict photons.

Predict before the numbers

Make the lamp twice as bright without changing its frequency. What happens to the energy of the fastest electrons?

Three relations the model could have

Predict before the numbers

Raise the frequency while keeping the lamp's power the same. What happens to the number of quanta arriving each second?

Three relations the model could have

Predict before the numbers

Two different metals are lit by the same lamp. Plotted against frequency, are their stopping-potential lines parallel, crossing, or identical?

Three relations the model could have

The result appears when you choose, say you have one in mind, or skip.

600.0 THz: one quantum carries hν = 2.48 eV

1.00 mW

2.515 × 1015 quanta arrive each second.

Try
Experiment settings work function, quantum efficiency, collector potential

2.20 eV, a hypothetical metal unless a preset names one

Worked example: a quantum of 600 THz light carries 2.48 eV, more than the 2.2 eV work function, so the fastest electrons leave with 0.28 eV and a stopping potential of 0.28 V holds them back.

Where one quantum’s energy goes

hν = 2.481 eV, Φ = 2.20 eV , threshold ν0 = 532.0 THz

0 eVoutside the metal−2.20 eV−Φ, an electron in the metal+hν = 2.48 eVKmax = 0.281 eV

Stopping potential against frequency

In the model the slope is h/e = 4.136 × 10−15 V·s for every metal.

40060080010001200Frequency ν (THz)0.01.02.03.0Stopping potential (V)ν₀ = 532.0 THz

Millikan’s 1916 sodium measurements are not shown yet.

The six rows this laboratory used to plot could not be traced to Millikan's printed table. No image of the page was recorded, and the row for 312.6 nm gives a frequency 2.7 percent away from the speed of light divided by that wavelength while its voltage still sits on the fitted line, which is what a voltage computed from the frequency does and a reading from the page would not. They are withdrawn until his table is read from a scan of the journal.

R. A. Millikan, A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's "h", Physical Review (2), 7 (3), 355–388 (1916).

Current against collector potential

Saturation current Isat = 40.30 μA

-3-2-10+1+2+3Collector potential (V)Current I (μA)−Vs​ = −0.28 V

Values at these settings

QuantityValue
Energy of one quantum, hν2.481 eV
Threshold frequency, Φ/h532 THz
Largest electron energy, hν − Φ0.2814 eV
Stopping potential0.2814 V
Quanta arriving each second2.515 × 1015 per second
Electrons freed each second2.515 × 1014 per second
Current at this collector potential40.3 μA

Light shining on a metal knocks electrons out of it. In this model, brighter light releases more of them each second but none faster, while light of a higher frequency makes the fastest ones faster, as Einstein expected if light gives up its energy in separate quanta.

Section 8 applies the light quantum to cathode rays produced by light. In the simplest picture, which Einstein says he will assume, one quantum gives its whole energy hν to one electron; the electron spends a work Φ, characteristic of the body, in leaving it, so the fastest electrons come out with kinetic energy hν − Φ. A body charged positive just enough to keep them all in, to the potential Vs, satisfies eVs = hν − Φ. Two consequences follow. Plotted against ν, Vs is a straight line whose slope, h/e, does not depend on the substance. And if each quantum acts independently of the rest, the intensity of the light changes how many electrons leave each second, not how fast they go. The defaults, 600 THz light at 1 mW on a hypothetical surface with Φ = 2.2 eV, give quanta of 2.48 eV, a threshold at 532 THz and a stopping potential of 0.281 V; with one quantum in ten releasing an electron, 2.52 × 1014 electrons leave each second, a current of 40.3 μA. Doubling the power doubles the current and leaves 0.281 V unchanged.

Einstein’s 1905 §8 check, by order of magnitude

What was neglected: Einstein sets P' = 0 as a deliberate neglect of escape work for order-of-magnitude comparison against Lenard's spark-potential observations, not as a physical prediction for a named metal.

What it is not: This is not a prediction for any named metal; any real substance has P' > 0, so its stopping potential at this frequency is lower by exactly the amount the work function contributes.

As printed: Π = Rβν / E = 4.34 V, “ca. 4,3 Volt”. Slope 4.212 × 10−15 V·s, against a modern h/e of 4.136 × 10−15 V·s.

At these settings: ν = 600.0 THz gives hν = 2.481 eV; with the hypothetical Φ = 2.20 eV the stopping potential is 0.281 V.

What this model leaves out

It follows Einstein’s 1905 rule that one absorbed quantum gives its energy to one electron, which spends Φ escaping. It does not model:

  • Real-material electron energy distributions and yields
  • Contact potentials and surface states
  • Space charge
  • Reflection losses
  • Emission angles
  • Multi-photon or thermionic emission
  • The timing of individual emissions
  • Energy transfer models beyond the declared complete or partial cases
  • Any claim that the moving marks depict photons

Compare two setups side by side in your reading. Each laboratory has its own settings, stepwise state and accepted results.

The physical argument

The single-quantum energy conservation law

In §8 of his 1905 paper, Einstein applies the light-quantum hypothesis to the generation of cathode rays by light (the photoelectric effect). If monochromatic light consists of energy quanta of magnitude RNβν=hν\frac{R}{N}\beta\nu = h\nu, the simplest picture, which Einstein says he will assume, is that an absorbed quantum gives its entire energy to a single electron in the body. For one electron, of charge ε\varepsilon, the body's stopping potential Π\Pi satisfies:

Πε=RNβν−P\Pi\varepsilon = \frac{R}{N}\beta\nu - P

Einstein also writes the same law for a gram-equivalent of charge, ΠE=Rβν−P′\Pi E = R\beta\nu - P', which is the one-electron law multiplied by NN. In modern notation, writing Π\Pi as the stopping potential VsV_s, ε\varepsilon as the elementary charge ee, and PP as the surface escape work Φ\Phi:

eVs=hν−Φ  ⟹  Vs=heν−Φee V_s = h\nu - \Phi \implies V_s = \frac{h}{e}\nu - \frac{\Phi}{e}

Two consequences Einstein drew

  1. The electrons' speed does not depend on the intensity. If each quantum gives up its energy independently of the others, more intense light brings more quanta each second (N˙=Plight/(hν)\dot{N} = P_{\text{light}}/(h\nu)), so the number of electrons leaving is proportional to the intensity, while the spread of their speeds stays the same. Lenard had reported in 1902 that the speed did not depend on the intensity.
  2. The potential is a straight line in the frequency. Plotted against ν\nu, the potential must be a straight line whose slope does not depend on the substance. Below ν0=Φ/h\nu_0 = \Phi/h no single quantum carries enough energy to release an electron. Einstein expected these rules to have limits, as he expected for Stokes's rule in §7: where the light is so intense that energy from several quanta can combine, or where it is far from the range of Wien's law.

Einstein's 1905 historical check

In 1905 there were few measurements to compare with. Philipp Lenard had measured, in 1902, the potentials that bodies illuminated by arc and spark light reach. Einstein took the ultraviolet end of the solar spectrum, ν=1.03×1015 s−1\nu = 1.03\times 10^{15}\ \text{s}^{-1} (a wavelength near 290 nm), neglected the escape work, and found:

Vs≈hνe≈4.3 VV_s \approx \frac{h\nu}{e} \approx 4.3\ \text{V}

He wrote that this agrees in order of magnitude with Lenard's results. It is a check of scale, not a measurement of the law.

The slope, measured in 1916

Robert Millikan tested the straight line on alkali metals cut clean in a vacuum (sodium, potassium, lithium). His 1916 lines had the slope dVsdν=he\frac{dV_s}{d\nu} = \frac{h}{e} within his errors, giving Planck's hh to about half a percent, and differed from metal to metal only in where they crossed zero, at ν0\nu_0. Millikan still called the theory by which Einstein had reached the equation untenable.

Epistemic boundary: deductive consequences vs. empirical proof

A simulator programmed with an energy threshold does not prove that nature has a threshold; it demonstrates the deductive consequences of single-quantum energy exchange and surface escape work (Eq=hνE_q = h\nu, W=ΦW = \Phi). Independent experiments (such as Millikan’s 1916 measurements and later single-photon anti-bunching measurements) test whether those assumptions describe the physical world.

Below ν0\nu_0 there is no stopping potential to report: no electron leaves, so there is nothing to stop, and the instrument says so rather than showing zero. Millikan's 1916 result is later evidence, not a premise of the 1905 argument.

Embed this laboratory on another page. It starts from its worked defaults, not your current settings.