Atomic Spectra

Physics 67: Lab 3

[Type the author name]
 1

Atomic Spectra: Part 1

In this portion of the lab, we attempted to measure the wavelengths of light released in
the Balmer series of hydrogen. To do this, we used specific Balmer tubes, and observed them
through a spectroscope. The light from the tubes went through a telescope to focus it on a
diffraction grating, and, using a rotating platform with marked angles, we could look at the
grating from various angles, noting where we observed the lines of light. This angle of
diffraction could then be used to calculate the wavelength of the released light.

1a) As n-initial approaches infinity, the wavelength becomes approximately 364.6 nm (UV)

1b) = for d = 1/600000, and approaching 90 degrees and the shortest wavelength:

1c) 656.3 nm, 486.1 nm, 434.1 nm, 410.2 nm

= , d = 1/600000, angles in radians

- .405, .907
- .296, .623
- .263, .548
- .249, .515
1d)

1 1 1
= = ( 2 2)

2 2 2
21 = ( ) + ( ) 2

2
2
1 1 1 1
1 = ( ( 2 2 ) ) 2 + (( 2 2 ) ) 2

1 1 1
1 = ( 2 2 ) (()2 2 + ()2 2 )

1 1
1 = ( ) (()2 2 + ()2 2 )

 2

We intended to make multiple measurements of each wavelength, but we found that operating
the apparatus accurately was significantly more time-consuming than we had planned, and thus,
made the decision to take two measurements of each wavelength to get a measurement of every
wavelength we wanted to analyze.

Wavelength
Angle (rad) (nm) m (order) 1/d

0.2691 434.1 1 612385.5

0.5582 434.1 2 610081.3

0.3035 486.1 1 614898.2

0.6247 486.1 2 601563.2

0.4056 656.3 1 601265

0.9199 656.3 2 606096

MEAN: 607714.9

Using:

1 1
1 = ( ) (()2 2 + ()2 2 )

Where is an estimated uncertainty of the measurement of the angle on the spectroscope of

approximately .0015 radians (around 5 arcminutes), and is the known uncertainty of the
Rydberg constant. The errors for each value have been tabulated below.
 3

Prop.
m (order) 1/d Uncertainty St. Dev

1 612385.5 0.00033 2283.44

1 615614.8 0.00033 2283.44
2 610081.3 0.00015 1971.07
2 607293.7 0.00015 1971.07

1 614898.2 0.00029 1979.05

1 612099.4 0.00029 1979.05
2 601563.2 0.00013 806.19
2 602703.3 0.00013 806.19

1 601265 0.00021 1353.08

1 603178.5 0.00021 1353.08
2 606096 0.00007 446.63
2 605464.4 0.00007 446.63
MEAN: 607714.9 5166.75

Using the first two values:

612385.5 + 615614.8
= = 614000.15
2

2
(612385.8 614000.15)2 + (615614.8 614000.15)2
= 5.213 106
21

(612385.8 614000.15)2 + (615614.8 614000.15)2

= 2283.44
21

The estimated uncertainty used to calculate the propagated error was entirely based on the error
in reading the measurements on the spectroscope. However, we believe that the error of the angle
should be much, much higher, based on how the angles were recorded. Because the
measurements were made by eye using markings on the telescope, they are very prone to error.
And as can be seen from the calculations, a change in the angle of as little as .0015 radians
becomes a change in 1/d of a magnitude potentially greater than 1000. The measurements were
made based on a subjective fit of the telescope on the lines, as the width and angle prevented a
perfect alignment, and, in particular for the violet lines, possibly difficult to see accurately with
the apparatus. The error in measuring the angle may be as high as half a degree, which would
 4

lead to a change in 1/d of potentially greater than 10000. Thus, the apparatus introduces
significant random error that is difficult to quantify for the purposes of calculation.

The dominant error in the analysis is absolutely the error in measuring the angle. The other
source of calculable error is in the Rydberg constant, which is known to a very high accuracy.
However, because we did simply assume the wavelengths based on the Rydberg formula, it is
very possible that the produced wavelengths were not exactly those calculated. This would
introduce more error, but we assume that the wavelengths are close enough to the values we
expect due to their intended purpose of observing the effects seen in this experiment. Error in the
angle measurement leads to relatively large changes in the final value for a very small difference
in the angle. Furthermore, due to the subjective nature of taking the measurements, and flaws in
the measuring apparatus itself, we conclude that most of the error in the analysis derives from the
measurement of the angle. We see that the two methods of statistics and propagation disagree
enormously. We first attribute this to the very low sample size (only 2), which means the
statistical error is significantly biased, but that it is several orders of magnitude greater than the
propagation error is significant. The propagation error is much larger than the one we calculated,
if we assume a measurement error much larger than the one used in the calculation. Based on
how much the 1/d value can change from a small difference in the angle, we conclude that the
statistical error, though also extremely biased, is likely a much better representation of the errors
in our calculations.

Our data does not show any discernible systematic effect from measuring the wavelength. All the
data is spread over similar ranges for all values of the wavelength. However, if there were, it
could potentially be masked by the significant magnitude of the random error in the data, thus,
making it very difficult, if not impossible, to find any pattern of systematic effects from the
wavelengths. As such, purely from our data, we see that the grating density does not depend on
the wavelength from which it is calculated, which would be correct for as long as the diffraction
equation holds true.