Joe McMullen 16/03/11

S0821187
The Compton Effect
Abstract
The aim of this experiment was to investigate the phenomena of Compton
Scattering. This was done by using a radioisotope of known energy emission
and a detector array. This equipment was used to measure the energy
change when a photon is scattered from an electron. Specifically explored
was the relationship between scattering angle and energy of the scattered
photon. It was found that the greater the angle the smaller the energy of the
scattered photon. This agrees with the theory that the greater the angle the
more energy is required. From this experiment the Compton Wavelength was
found to be 2.59(9)x10
-12
m (3sf) this compares with a literature value of
2.426x10
-12
. Lastly the relative variation of the probability of scattering as a
function of scattering angle was explored. It was found that the greater the
angle the less chance there is of scattering.
Introduction
The Compton Effect was discovered by A. H. Compton in 1923
1
and resulted
in him being awarded the Nobel Prize for physics in 1927. It is one of the
three interactions of gamma ray photons with electrons, the others being the
Photoelectric Effect and Pair Production. The deciding factor in which
interaction occurs most prominently is the energy of the gamma radiation. At
the energy of radioisotopes commonly used in the lab the Compton Effect is
most prominent. At lower energies the Photoelectric effect dominates and at
higher energies Pair production is.
The Compton Effect is the procedure in which an electron absorbs energy
from an incident gamma ray photon. This differs from the Photoelectric Effect
in that not all of the energy of the photon is absorbed. Instead only a part of
the energy is absorbed by the electron with the scattered photon having
reduced energy. As can be seen in fig.1 the gamma ray photon gives energy
to the electron which recoils, the photon is also scattered at an angle known
as the scattering angle. The greater the angle of scattering the more energy is
required to scatter; this is because there is a greater change in momentum.
This means the scattered photon will have lower energy the greater the angle.
The aims of this experiment were, firstly to calibrate the equipment to convert
channel number to energy. Then proceed to find the relationship between
scattering angle and energy of the scattered photon. Next to use this data to
find the Compton Wavelength. Finally the relative variation of the probability of
scattering as a function of scattering angle was sought.
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Fig. 1 A diagram illustrating the Compton shown is the interaction of a gamma ray photon with an electron
2
This experiment is concerned with the change in energy of the photon during
this interaction. The energy of the scattered photon can be found by the
equation

(1)
2
Where E

is the energy of the scattered photon, E

is the energy of the

incident photon, m
0
is the rest mass of the electron, c is the speed of light and
is the scattering angle. The aim of this experiment is to find the energy of
the scattered photon as a function of the scattering angle.
The probability of scattering as a function of angle is modelled theoretically by
the Klein-Nishina formula
( )
( )[ ]

,
_

+ +

,
_

,
_

) cos 1 ( 1 cos 1
cos 1
1
2
cos 1
) cos 1 ( 1
1
2
2 2 2
3
2
0

r
d
d
(2)
3
Where d/d is the differential scattering cross section,
2
0
r
is the classical
electron radius and is h/m
0
c
2
(h being planks constant and being the
frequency of the gamma rays).
Method
The equipment used in this experiment is shown in fig.2.
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Fig.2 A diagram of the equipment used in this experiment with the apparatus labelled
Shown is a
137
Cs source this source was highly active (~37 MBq) and as such,
for safety reasons was enclosed in a lead shield. The shield had a small
circular aperture allowing photons to escape in a beam. The source and
shield were mounted at the end of a movable pivot, at the centre of the pivot
was housed a scatterer. In this case a cylindrical copper scatterer was used.
The pivot allowed movement of the source around a graduated worktop from
0 to 140. It was prevented from moving further because of the bulk of the
shield.
Past the scatterer was the detector set up, this consisted of a Na(TI)
scintillation detector and a Photomultiplier Tube (PMT). These work in
conjunction to convert the gamma ray photons into an electric current. The
scintillator works by converting the kinetic energy of charged particles into
detectable light in a linear fashion. This light is then detected by the PMT
which has a photocathode which by way of the Photoelectric Effect produces
electrons creating a current.
The output from the PMT is analysed using a multi-channel analyser (MCA) in
this case a program called MAESRTO is used. MAESTRO gives a plot of
number of counts against channel number, with channel number
corresponding to photon energy. MAESTRO can also give a wide range of
data from the detector set up; the values that were of interest in this
experiment were the peak channel number, the net count of the peak, the full
width half maximum and the live counting time. These values were used to
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
convert the channel number to an energy value and to find the error in peak
position found by

' 35 . 2
'
FWHM
E
(3)
2
Where E is the error in peak position, FWHM is the full width half maximum
and is the net peak count.
To discover which channel corresponded to which energy a calibration was
needed. This was done using three radioisotopes with four known energy
peaks. The isotopes used were
127
Cs,
60
Co and
22
Na. The
127
Cs source was
the source in the shielding; the other sources were placed close to the
scintillator with the
127
Cs source being blocked with lead blocks. During this
process there was no scattering preformed the counts were recorded with the
source having an unobstructed path to the detector set up. The spectra were
then taken for a long enough time for the count rate to rise to a statistically
significant point. This varied for the sources as some were more active then
others. By finding the spectrum of energies for these isotopes it was possible
to set the peak channel number equal to the known energy peak. By doing
this for the four peaks a calibration was achieved.
After the equipment was calibrated the next step was to take readings for the
energy at different angles. This was done with the scatter in place and with
the
127
Cs source. The readings were taken for long enough to get statistically
significant results this varied with angle; the larger the angle the longer time
was required. The source was rotated round a range from 50 to 120. To
prevent any photons from travelling from source to detector without scattering,
lead blocks were used to block this path. Then using the MAESTRO package
the values of interest were found these were the same as for the calibration.
This data was fitted to the theoretical model from (1) to do this the equation
was rearranged into a linear form
) cos 1 )(
1
(
1
'
1
2
0

+
c m E E
(4)
4
This allowed the experimental data to be input giving a linear relationship of
the form y = c + mx.
To find the relative variation of the probability of scattering as a function of
scattering angle a different form of the Klein-Nishina formula was used

L e measured
t I n d
d

1
]
1

'
(5)
2
Where n
e
is the number of electrons in the scatter that are exposed to the
gamma rays, I is the number of gamma rays incident per cm
2
per second,
is the solid angle subtended by the scintillator, t
L
is the live time of the detector
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
and is the intrinsic photopeak efficiency. This form is used as all of the
quantities can be physically measured.
The results from the first part of the experiment were used here with additional
measurements of some of the physical parameter of the equipment taken.
These included; the distances between source, scatterer and detector and the
volume of the scatterer with incident gamma ray photons.
Results
The results for the calibration were recorded on a graph of energy against
channel number.
Graph of energy against channel number
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
Channel number
E
n
e
r
g
y

This graph shows that the relationship between energy and channel number
is linear, this was used for the calibration. The trend line shown was plotted
using the LINEST function, it can easily be seen that this fit is very good with
all of the points intersecting the line. The error bars show the uncertainty in
the peak position given by (3).
The results for the investigation of energy of the scattered gamma ray
photons as a function of scattering angle were plotted in the linearised form
shown in (4).
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Graph of 1/Measured Energy against (1-cos(theta))
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
1-cos(theta)
1
/
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

E
n
e
r
g
y
This graph shows the expected linear relationship; showing that as scattering
angle increases the energy of the photons decreases. The linear fit was again
made using the LINEST function, resulting in a good fit. The error bars show
the combined uncertainty in peak position and the error resulting from
calibration.
Using the equation given in (4) it is straightforward to see that the gradient of
the trend line is equal to 1/m
0
c
2
. Also known is that the Compton Wavelength
is found from h/m
0
c. It is possible therefore to use the gradient of the line to
find the Compton Wavelength by hc. It was thus found to be 2.59(9)x10
-12
m
(3sf) this compares with a literature value of 2.426x10
-12
.
Using the Klein-Nishina formula (2) a theoretical model for the differential
cross-section as a function of scattering angle was found. The alternate form
(5) was also used to find the experimental cross-section. The model can be
compared to the experimental results by plotting them together
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Graph of diff erential cross-section against scattering angle
0
5E-27
1E-26
1.5E-26
2E-26
2.5E-26
0.75 0.95 1.15 1.35 1.55 1.75 1.95 2.15 2.35
Scattering Angle / radians
D
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l

c
r
o
s
s

s
e
c
t
i
o
n

/

c
m
^
2
/
s
t
e
r
a
d
i
a
n
Measured Values
Model Values
It can be seen that the same basic trend is followed by both data sets;
however some difference in the values does exist. However due to the large
errors the experimental values fall within the range of the theoretical model.
The error bars are not shown as many errors are undefined and are very large
such that they dwarf the results themselves.
Discussion
The results for the investigation of energy of scattered photon as a function of
scattering angle fit the expected result. The expected linear relationship
between 1/Energy and (1-cos(theta)) was seen. From this it is clear that the
energy of the scattered photons decreases as the scattering angle increases.
This is consistent with theory and was the expected result. A plot of the
residuals was made to show the results are consistent with a linear fit
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Graph of Residuals against (1-cos(theta))
-0.00015
-0.0001
-0.00005
0
0.00005
0.0001
0.00015
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
1-cos(theta)
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
The random distribution of the points signifies a linear fit is appropriate. A sign
of accurate results with well estimated errors is that two thirds of the error
bars will intersect the x axis. This is clearly not the case here as only three out
of seven points have intersecting error bars. This suggests there has been
underestimation of errors; the errors in question are caused by inaccuracy in
the energy reading.
The error in the reading for energy has two main causes the error in
calibration and the error in the peak position. The error in the peak position
dominates the calibration error by two orders of magnitude and as such is of
less consequence. The error in the calibration is a result of the error in the
gradient of the line of the calibration graph. This is because at any point the
energy could have a slightly different value caused by the wrong conversion
from channel number. The dominant peak position error is caused in the
same way as the error calculated in (3) it is a result of the uncertainty of the
exact position of the peak. These errors combine to give the errors shown in
the graphs.
Also needing consideration are the possible errors in the x axis of the graph
cause by inaccuracy in setting and measuring the angle. It is estimated due to
limitations in the equipment that accuracy of roughly plus or minus one degree
is obtained. It can be checked that this is accurate by again using a residual
plot
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
Graph of Residuals Against (1-cos(theta))
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0.0035
0.004
0.0045
0.005
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
(1-cos(theta))
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
It is shown here that there is a random distribution around the axis validating
the linear plot. Additionally a greater proportion of the error bars intersect the
axis suggesting the errors are more accurately determined in this case.
Despite this the number still falls short of two thirds suggesting a slight
underestimation.
From these two plots it is clear that the right trend has been used and that the
relationship is linear. Despite this the plots also suggest that there are
inaccuracies in the experiment that are underestimated or unestablished.
Despite this, the even spread of data points around the axis is a strong
indicator the fit is correct. Therefore the relationship found for scattering
angle and energy can be stated with confidence.
The value found for the Compton Wavelength was 2.59(9)x10
-12
m (3sf)
compared to the literature value of 2.426x10
-12
. Despite the experimental
values error range not coinciding with the literature value the value is still
relatively close. It is of the right order of magnitude and the first digit agrees,
this is acceptable for a laboratory experiment such as this. Additionally as it
has been shown above there has been a series of underestimations in the
errors, and such an underestimation could be the cause of the disagreement.
The errors mentioned above could be minimised by using some limitation
methods. The error in the calibration could be minimised by repeating the
calibration multiple times and using the average to calibrate. This would
remove any random error and hopefully average out any misreading. The
error in peak position could be minimised by measuring for longer, this would
increase the net peak count reducing the error. Lastly the error in the angle
measurement could be reduced by improving the worktop. By increasing the
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
number of graduation finer calibration is possible, also the runner could be
improved to allow freer movement.
Some of the possible causes of error are not included in the residual plots
due to difficulty in quantifying them. One possible source or error is a
systematic misalignment of the whole apparatus. This would cause the wrong
measurement of angle every time; depending on its nature it could affect
certain angles more markedly. Additionally because of the width of the
detector what is being measured isnt one discrete angle but a small range of
angles. This is due to the different possible paths the photons can take from
the source to detector. This problem is also present in that the source
aperture is of finite size along with the detector. All of there problems are
inherent properties of the experiment and it cannot easily be seen how to
remove them.
For finding the differential cross-section using the Klein-Nishina formula (4)
the results proved to agree strongly with the model. However this is not to
say that the method was lacking in errors. These were mainly measurement
errors caused by the awkward geometry of the apparatus and the inaccurate
rulers used. The distance from source to scatterer was hard to measure this
was because the source was encased and not visible so a guess had to be
made as to its position. Also the distance from the scatterer to the scintillator
was difficult to determine as the layout of the equipment prevented the ruler
from being able to sit against it and had to be held and read in mid air.
Despite these errors the general trend of the cross-section with scattering
angle appears correct. This is because the errors mentioned above would be
systematic and would as a result not affect the shape of the trend.
Consequently the relationship can be stated as correct with confidence
however the exact values cannot be stated with great confidence.
Conclusion
The aim of this experiment was to investigate the phenomena of Compton
Scattering. This was done by using a radioisotope of known energy emission
and a detector array. This equipment was used to measure the energy
change when a photon is scattered from an electron. Specifically explore was
the relationship between scattering angle and energy of the scattered photon.
It was found that the greater the angle the smaller the energy of the scattered
photon. This agrees with the theory that the greater the angle the more
energy is required. From this experiment the Compton Wavelength was found
to be 2.59(9)x10
-12
m (3sf) this compares with a literature value of 2.426x10
-12
.
Lastly the relative variation of the probability of scattering as a function of
scattering angle was explored. It was found that the greater the angle the less
chance there is of scattering. The results agree with the theoretical predictions
and are shown to be valid.
References
1 - A.H. Compton. 1923. A quantum theory of the scattering of x-rays by light
elements. The Physical Review. Vol 21. 583-502
Joe McMullen 16/03/11
S0821187
2 T. Davidson. Compton Scattering: Gamma ray spectroscopy.
Experimental Physics notes
3 - Radiation Detection and Measurement, Glenn F.Knoll, John Wiley
& Sons, New York.
4 Ortec. Experiment 10 Compton Scattering