For 6-mark questions under the new specification, you will usually have maximum 4 marks for
‘indicative content’ (i.e. the knowledge you demonstrate) and maximum 2 marks for ‘linkage and
reasoning’ (i.e. that your points are in a logical sequence, easy to follow, reasoning clear, that you
are clearly using your physics knowledge to explain the cause and effect that the question is looking
for).
This is not that different to old markschemes (which described different ‘levels’ of answers), though
the marks seem to be slightly more rigid now. It seems that it is now easier to get a mid-range score,
but harder to get 6/6 marks. Below is the table given in (most of) the markschemes:
So, for example, if you only have 4 ‘valid’ marking points in your answer, the maximum I can give you
for ‘linkage’ is 1 mark, meaning your answer will either score 3 marks or 4 marks. If you have 5 ‘valid’
marking points, you can receive 0-2 marks for your ‘linkage’, meaning your answer can score
anywhere between 3-5 marks. The list of indicative content given in the markscheme is not
exhaustive, i.e. you can still gain credit for correct physics that isn’t on the markscheme, as long as it
is fully relevant to the question.
Bullet-points make it easier to award linkage marks, as long as you don’t use it as an excuse to
reduce the detail of your answer (this is partly because the indicative content in the markscheme will
always be given in bullet points). The easiest way to secure the linkage marks would be to answer
the question in sections. For example, if there are 2 questions within the 6-marker (as there are for
all these questions apart from number 2), answer them separately with a mini-conclusion for each
one. You must make sure that each point leads onto the next, rather than a messy assortment of
your physics knowledge with no relation from one point to the next.
It is worth noting that if you haven’t answered every part of the question, you will not be able to
achieve full marks, even if you have managed to achieve 6 indicative points from the other part of
the question.
Below, I will give you the list of indicative content from the markscheme and provide general
feedback. I will give you your individual marks via the feedback box on Teams – let me know if you
have trouble finding this. I will break this down into your IC mark and linkages mark.
Q1)
Particle theory:
E = hf implied packets/photons
One photon releases one electron giving it KE
Increase f ⇒ greater photon energy thus greater KE of electrons
Increase intensity ⇒ more photons per second, so more electrons released per second. No
effect on KE
Wave theory:
Energy depends on intensity / (amplitude)2
More intense light should give greater k.e – NOT SEEN
More intense light gives more electrons but no change in maximum kinetic energy
Waves continuous ⇒ when enough energy absorbed electrons should eventually be released
for any intensity or frequency –NOT SEEN
The results predicted by the particle theory are observed, results predicted by wave theory
are not observed, hence results support particle-like nature of light
General feedback:
Markscheme seems to leave out the idea of a threshold frequency within the particle theory, even
though this was explicitly part of the question. I have, of course, awarded marks accordingly as if it
was there.
Some of you had good explanations as to why the photoelectric effect demonstrated the particle-like
nature of light, but made no reference to what the wave theory would have predicted.
Many of you went over-board explaining what the photoelectric effect is, but didn’t devote enough
time to answering the specific question, i.e. why this was a demonstration of particle-like nature
rather than wave-like nature
Q2)
Electrons in helium atom exist in energy levels
These energy levels are at very specific energies
For an electron to be excited to a higher energy level, must absorb a photon of exactly the
correct energy
E=hf OR E=hc/λ
So the specific photon energy corresponds to a specific frequency/wavelength.
A continuous spectrum of light passed through helium will therefore be missing certain
frequencies – showing as dark lines
Each element has different energy levels, so will show as a unique pattern of dark lines
General feedback:
Some of you had not explained the simpler points, e.g. that energy levels exist at specific energies
(hence the reason that an electron only absorbs a photon is it has the exact right amount of energy)
or that the dark lines are caused by missing wavelengths, or that these wavelengths are linked to
photon energy by E=hf etc. You must 'state the obvious' sometimes. These points are important to
make your further explanations clear.
Q3)
Ground state
Electrons in an atom exist in energy levels
These energy levels are at very specific energy values
The ‘ground state’ is the lowest possible energy level of an electron, i.e. can only be excited
from this level, cannot de-excite from the ground state
Why photons are emitted:
Electrons traveling through the fluorescence lighting tube collide with the mercury vapour’s
orbital electrons
These collisions can impart part of, or all of their KE to the orbital electrons
If the ‘correct’ amount of energy is passed to an orbital electron, it can be excited to a higher
energy level
After a short time, these electrons will de-excite back to the ground state
When they de-excite, they release a photon of energy equal to the difference between the
energy levels (conservation of energy)
If de-exciting through multiple energy levels, it may drop directly back to the ground state
(releasing one photon) or in multiple steps (releasing multiple photons)
General feedback:
You must make sure you’re using the correct terminology, i.e. excites and de-excites.
Some of you talked about the electrons absorbing photons – this question has nothing to do with
absorbing photons.
When electrons are excited by collisions from other particles, it is possible to only partially transfer
the energy (as opposed to photons, where the photon is either fully absorbed or not absorbed at all)
Q4)
“Use the ideas developed by de Broglie to explain how this experiment demonstrates the wave-
like nature of electrons”
de Broglie suggested that moving particles have a wavelength equal to:
λ = h/mv OR λ = h/p
All symbols correctly defined (λ, h, p OR m and v)
de Broglie suggested that electrons travel/move/propagate (through space) as a wave
Electrons are diffracted
by the atoms/spaces between the atoms
Diffraction pattern visible when their wavelength is less than/comparable to/same as the
size of the atoms/spaces between the atoms
This is the same behaviour exhibited by waves
“Suggest what happens to the appearance of the rings when the speed of the electrons is
increased”
When the electron speed is increased, the wavelength gets shorter
As the wavelength of the electron approaches the size of the gap, rings become
visible/appear/’get larger’
OR
When the electron speed is increased, the wavelength gets shorter
As the wavelength becomes shorter (than size of gap), there is less diffraction, so rings ‘get
smaller’
General feedback:
This was a challenging question that required good knowledge of diffraction from the waves topic.
Worth remembering that for diffraction of any wave/particle, the diffraction pattern is widest when
the wavelength is approximately equal in size to the gap the wave is passing through.
A lot of you missed the same marks, which were outlining exactly what de Broglie’s ideas were (i.e.
the equation for wavelength of a particle, the assumption that they are diffracted by the gaps
between atoms) and the statement that this is the same behaviour shown by waves
