UCSB Physics 128BL

Correlated Gamma Measurements of Compton Scattering

Weiyu Tong and Leonardo Jappelli

Physics Department, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9530
(Dated: March 28, 2018)

Abstract
We attempt to test the veracity of the Compton Formula using radioactive sources and metal
targets. Finding the data to fall within χ2 = 17 of the theoretical prediction, we provide a plausible
explanation of the systematic discrepancy, giving χ2 = 2.1.

INTRODUCTION

Photons passing through materials can behave in three principal ways: they can pass
through unimpeded, they can be absorbed and excite an electron, or they can scatter off
of a particle in the material and proceed with a lower energy (perhaps multiple times). It
is the third interaction in which we are interested in this report, specifically the process
of Compton Scattering. Discovered in 1923 by Arthur Holly Compton, the phenomenon
describes the deflection of a photon off of a charged particle, which in the majority of cases
is an electron. The photon imparts some of its energy to the electron and continues at
an angle θ (see Figure 1). The formula derived by Arthur Compton for the change in the
photon’s wavelength is:

h
∆λ = (1 − cos(θ))
me c

Of course, the photon has an associated initial energy E and final energyE 0 , the latter of
which is what was measured in our experiment. Converting the formula to units of energy
gives:

E
E0 = E
1+ me c2
(1 − cos(θ))
.
Observing the final energy and comparing it with a known initial energy provides a test
of Arthur Compton’s theory.

1
METHOD

22
The aforementioned ”known initial energy” was provided by a Na source, which, upon
decay, has been found to primarily release two gamma rays with energy 511 keV in opposite
directions [1]. Knowing this, the source was placed in between one SiPM (Silicon Photo-
multiplier) detector and a block of brass, while the second SiPM was placed at an angle to
the brass to register photons scattering off the brass (see Figure 2) The SiPM’s were each
connected to a potentiometer, and the output was read on an oscilloscope. Integration of the
oscilloscope waveform in turn gave the energy of the measured photon. By triggering on the
coincidence of the two detectors, it was possible to measure the energy of emitted gammas
only in the case that they arrived at the detectors almost simultaneously, producing a three
dimensional energy spectrum of the two detectors. The peak of the energy spectrum would
then give the final energy of the scattered gamma.
The heat maps generated by the software did have units volts-seconds for their x and y
axes, so these axes needed to be multiplied by a calibration factor to be converted to keV.
22
The detectors were calibrated using the known energy spectrum of Na. In other words,
the heat map of the detector energies with θ = 0◦ was defined to yield a peak at 511 keV
for each of the two detectors (see Figure 3). A crude naked eye measurement gave the the
calibration slope of detector 1 to be (5.68 ± 0.32) × 109 keV/Vs; that of detector 3 was
(8.52 ± 0.71) × 109 keV/Vs.

RESULTS

The success of the experiment is encapsulated in Figure 5, which gives the measured
energies of the scattered gamma rays.
High uncertainties produced by imprecise measuring techniques made it difficult to ascribe
much significance to the fit function in Figure 5. Additionally, data acquisition was a slow
process; the apparatus recorded an event approximately once every 10 seconds. Larger
quantities of data would make the photopeaks in Figure 3 appear more pronounced, and
more time to take runs would produce more data points for Figure 5. As one can see in
Figure 4, the difference between the peak energy recorded by detector 1 at twenty degrees
versus thirty degrees is low, but mechanical difficulties prevented the scattering angle from

2
being anything less than twenty degrees.
Aside from these technical problems, there is a systematic decrease in the measured values
from their theoretical expectations. Theoretical values for each value of θ are given in the
following table:

θ (◦ ) E 0 (keV)
20 480
30 450
60 340

In each case, the measured value of E 0 is 55 keV, 50 keV, and 40 keV (respectively) below
the theoretical prediction. One explanation is the simple underestimation of uncertainty on
measuring E 0 . Calculated by the combination of the 25 keV estimate for the uncertainty
on eyeballing the location of the peak with the uncertainty in the calibration slope for the
energy of detector 1 (32 keV), it came, in total, to 41 keV. Stochastic error, then, could
account for the difference at 60◦ , but not at 30◦ or 20◦ .
The uncertainty in θ is dominated by the solid angle subtended by the 4mm×4mm face
of Detector 3’s LYSO crystal, which is places 2 cm from the source. This yields a geometric
uncertainty δθ = 5.7◦
A more intricate possibility lies in the placement and size of the target and the source.
The Na-22 source is 1 cm in diameter and the target is 5 cm wide meaning that the entire
apparatus is liable to record an event in which the source emits two photons far from its
center, one registered by Detector 3 and the other scattering off the target at an angle that
deviates significantly from the expected θ. The scattering angle deviation could be as much
as 10◦ . Such a difference in angle would bring the theoretical values down to 450 keV, 415
keV, and 310 keV, which are within range of the stochastic error.
The near-uniform shift of our observed energies from the expected energies could also be
due to the fact that we applied a constant-factor calibration of the form C1 E 0 instead of a
linear calibration of the form C2 E 0 + C3 . If the LYSO crystals require a minimum threshold
photon energy to generate a signal, then that would decrease observed energies by a function
(C2 − C1 )E 0 + C3 . To see if the shift is due to a systematic error in θ rather than calibration,
we would need to perform the parity-inverted version of this experiment at opposite angles.
With such an analysis in hand, it is tempting to conclude that Arthur Compton was cor-

3
rect. However, a more precise method of finding photopeak energies, including background
elimination from the heat maps, is needed before such a conclusion is truly possible. But
barring such developments, a substitute would be to simply collect data for even longer
periods - the plots shown here are the fruits of approximately 20,000 events, which could
stand to increase to say, 100,000.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank Dr. David Stuart, who put us in touch with Aaron Stanek, the
undergraduate student who devised the majority of the experiment.

[1] http://www.nucleide.org/DDEP WG/Nuclides/Na-22 tables.pdf

FIGURES

FIG. 1: Cartoon showing an incoming photon with wavelength λ scattering off an electron
and proceeding with wavelength λ0 at an angle θ to the horizontal.

4
FIG. 2: Photograph of apparatus. The source is hidden from view behind the brass block.

FIG. 3: Heat map of 22

Na decay spectrum,with θ = 0◦ in both detectors, before and after
calibration. Again, the x-axis is multiplied by (5.68 ± 0.32) × 109 keV/Vs and the y-axis
by (8.52 ± 0.71) × 109 keV/Vs.

5
 22
FIG. 4: Heat maps of Na decay spectrum, with detector 1 now registering (in addition to
a large amount of noise) gammas scattered off a block of brass through various angles.
Note that the peak energy decreases with increasing angle. The peak is visible as a smaller
collection of events higher on the x-axis. Detector 3 has the same value at the peak for
each because it receives unimpeded gammas.

FIG. 5: Graph showing E 0 as a function of the scattering angle θ. The blue curve has the
form E 0 = 511
1+x
, where x = 1 − cos θ. χ2 = 17 for the red data points. However, accounting
for the hypothetical systematic error (which would move the theoretical predicted curve
down), would give χ2 = 2.1. An alternative picture is to move the points in the positive
direction along their error bars.