Determination of Planck’s Constant

By AG
October 2, 2020

1 Aim:
Determination of Planck’s constant using Photoelectric Effect

2 Theory:
The photoelectric effect is the emission of electrons or other free carriers when electromag-
netic radiation, like light, hits a material. Electrons emitted in this manner can be called
photoelectrons.
It is observed that the emission process depends largely on frequency of radiation. Some of
the observed experimental facts include:

ˆ For each material, there exists a critical frequency, below which the electromagnetic
radiation is not capable of emiting electrons.

ˆ The emission of electrons is instantaneous and number of electrons emitted is propor-

tional to intensity of light used.

It is assumed that electrons are bound inside the metal by energy equal to eφ, where, φ is
known as the workfunction of the metal. Thus, the emission of electrons occours only when,
the energy of the photon hν > eφ. The excess energy above hν shows as the kinectic energy
of the electrons. Thus, we have,
1
hν = mv 2 + eφ (1)
2
A retarding potential is applied on these emitted electrons to bring the electrons to rest.
The voltage at which the photocurrent stops completely is known as stopping potential(Vs ).
Thus, eVs = 12 mv 2 and we have

hν = eVs + eφ (2)
h
Vs = ν−φ (3)
e
In this experiment, we plot the Vs vs ν graph and from the slope we calculate the value of
the Planck’s Constant.

1
 Determination of Planck’s constant

3 Observation:
Material for metal plate used is Copper
Area of the metal plate(A) = 0.5 cm2
Intensity of light used(I) = 30 W/m2
Least Count of Voltmeter = 0.1V
Least Count of Light Wavelength = 1nm

Sl. No. Light Wavelength λ (nm) Light Frequency ν (1014 Hz) Stopping Potential Vs (V)
1 132 22.71155 -6.2
2 170 17.63485 -3.4
3 200 14.98962 -2.1
4 224 13.3836 -1.1
5 250 11.9917 -0.4

Figure 1: Plot of Retarding Potential vs Frequency of light used

4 Calculation:
The data for Retarding Potential vs Frequency of light used is plotted in Fig(1). On fitting
the graph, we obtain slope is 0.5407326403217938 and intercept is -6.088649033491442.

Page 2
 Determination of Planck’s constant

From Eqn.(3), we have

h
Vs = ν−φ
e
h
−Vs = − (ν × 10−14 ) + φ
e × 10−14
Therefore, we have
y = mx + φ
where,
h
y = −Vs , x = ν × 10−14 and m = −
e × 10−14

Thus, from the fitting data we have, m = 0.5407326403217938V · s, i.e.

h
− = 0.5407326403217938V · s
e × 10−14
h = −0.5407326403217938 × (−1.6 × 10−19 × 10−14 )C · V · s
h = 0.86517222451487008 × 10−33 C · (N/C) · s
h ≈ 8.652 × 10−34 m2 · kg/s

and workfunction φ = −6.088649033491442 V.

5 Error Analysis:
The accepted value of the Planck’s constant is 6.62607004×10−34 kg ·m2 /s. Thus, percentage
error in our result is
(8.6517222451487008 − 6.62607004) × 10−34
× 100% ≈ 30.57%
6.62607004 × 10−34
We have y = mx + φ, i.e.
y−φ
m =
x
log(m) = log(y − φ) − log(x)

Differentiating this equation, we get,

dm dy − dφ dx
= −
m y−φ x

Considering the error in determination of φ to be zero(dφ = 0), we get,

dm dy dx
= −
m y−φ x
Since we are estimating error, we take the maximum possible deviation, i.e.
dy dx
dm = m( + ) (4)
y−φ x

Page 3
 Determination of Planck’s constant

Now,
h
y = −Vs , x = ν × 10−14 and m = −
e × 10−14
dh
i.e. dy = −dVs , dx = dν × 10−14 and dm = −
e × 10−14
Putting these in Eqn.(4), we have

dν × 10−14
 
dh h −dVs
− −14
= − +
e × 10 e × 10−14 −Vs − φ ν × 10−14

 
dVs dν
dh = h + (5)
Vs + φ ν
c
We know, ν = λ
thus,

log(ν) = log(c) − log(λ)

dν dc dλ
= −
ν c λ
dλ
= −
λ
The last step follows since the speed of light is a constant. Using this in Eqn.(5), we obtain
 
dVs dλ
dh = h +
Vs + φ λ
1 × 10−9
 
0.1
= h +
| − 0.4 + φ| 132 × 10−9
 
0.1 1
= h +
| − 0.4 + φ| 132
 
0.1 1
= h +
6.488649033491442 132
≈ h (0.01541 + 0.00758)
≈ h × 0.023
≈ 0.152305 × 10−34

h ±dh = (8.652 ± 0.152305) × 10−34 kg · m2 /s (6)

6 Result:
Hence, we calculated the value of the Planck’s constant as (8.652±0.152305)×10−34 kg·m2 /s.

7 Sources of Error:
(i) The Least count of the Voltmeter may be too high. A Voltmeter with smaller least count
might have given us better result.
(ii) Some error or faults in the software can cause a large error in our result, though the
exact cause of error can’t be understood as a user of the virtual laboratory.

Page 4
 Determination of Planck’s constant

8 Discussion:
Since this experiment was done in a Virtual laboratory, to get a accurate result, the area of
the plate and intensity of light used was set to the maximum allowed value. This allows us
to get the maximum possible value of photocurrent and thus, detect a slight change in this
current. However, it was observed for most of the materials of the plate, in the higher wave-
length region the photocurrent is zero, even when no retarding potential is applied. This,
limited the range of wavelength values over which the reading could be taken. Since this
experiment was done at the virtual laboratory of Amrita Laboratory, much could not be done
to reduce the error and make the reading accurate.

While doing the experiment in the laboratory it may be challenging to to filter out a single-
wavelength light. We generally get a distribution of wavelengths λ ± ∆λ and thus, a distri-
bution of kinetic energy of electrons. In this case, the stopping potential may actually be the
potential to stop the fastest moving electron. But, this electron may not have been generated
if we didn’t have the λ − ∆λ wavelength and thus, small errors may be incorporated into our
calculations. Though the amount of error in determining the stop potential depends on ∆λ,
but, this can be made small, i.e, ∆λ → 0 where the error is reduced. Apart from these, there
may be more challenges faced during actually performing the experiment in the laboratory,
which couldn’t be encountered in the virtual laboratory.

Page 5