Millikan photoelectric experiment

Robert Andrews Millikan's 1916 experiment used a magnetically turned wheel and rotary knife to expose sodium or lithium in vacuum. A surrounding copper-gauze/solid-copper collector caught Electrons; an electrometer recorded accumulated electric charge over thirty seconds at each applied voltage. He located endpoints graphically from photocurrent curves. Mercury spectral lines, selected by a monochromator and filters, controlled frequency; rejecting shorter-wavelength contamination protected the endpoint. An oxidized collector suppressed reverse emission for selected lines. A copper test plate measured the contact potential difference by a displacement-null method; a certified voltmeter set the electrical scale. He compared stable-surface sweeps with rapid alternating-frequency measurements to control drift. The slope tested $h/e$; the threshold required the contact correction. His gauge did not measure mercury vapor. Confirmation of the equation coexisted with his continued skepticism about localized light quanta.^[ref]

For a modern repetition of the logic, first establish electrical zero with the illumination blocked, characterize leakage, and verify the voltmeter scale independently of the presumed Planck constant. Scan several voltages near each endpoint rather than calling one noisy zero a cutoff. Hold the illuminated area and surface state fixed when varying light intensity; vary frequency independently when testing the slope. Repeating a reference frequency between other readings reveals time-dependent offsets. Agreement of a slope with $h/e$ tests an energy relation; it does not alone identify every microscopic step of photon absorption and escape.

A contact potential difference is an electrostatic electric potential difference associated with different conducting surfaces brought into electrical equilibrium. Surface condition and different work functions can create a vacuum gap field even when an external voltmeter reads zero. Connecting the metals establishes equilibrium of their electronic chemical potentials including electrostatic energy; it need not equalize the electrostatic electric potential in the gap.

Define $V_c$ as positive when the contact field adds to the retarding barrier, and let $V_{\mathrm{app}}$ be the signed externally imposed retarding voltage. In this chosen sign convention the barrier is $e(V_{\mathrm{app}}+V_c)$, henceThis convention specifies a model of the gap; an instrument's polarity labels must be translated into it. With a fixed $V_c$, subtraction at two frequencies removes both the work function and the offset:For an original example with the same $\Phi =2.30\mathrm{eV}$ and an additional $V_c=+0.200\mathrm{V}$, choose ${\nu }_1=6.00\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Hz}$ and ${\nu }_2=1.00\times 10^{15}\mathrm{Hz}$. The predicted terminal endpoints are $-0.018599$ and $1.635668\mathrm{V}$. The negative first endpoint calls for a small externally accelerating voltage because the contact field already over-retards the fastest Electrons. Their difference is $1.654267\mathrm{V}$, giving $h/e\simeq 4.135668\times 10^{-15}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{s}$. Ignoring $V_c$ in the intercept would falsely infer $2.50\mathrm{eV}$ for the work function. The terminal line's zero would then be mistaken for a material threshold. If $V_c$ drifts between the two readings, even the slope is biased. These are calculated examples, not Millikan's measurements.