DOCSLIB.ORG

Rutherford Scattering of Α-Particles from Gold Foils

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rutherford Scattering of Α-Particles from Gold Foils Rutherford scattering of α-particles from gold foils Tony Hyun Kim∗ MIT Department of Physics (Dated: October 16, 2008) We perform α-particle scattering off of gold nuclei. The angular dependence of the scattering rate is measured and is shown to be in good agreement (χ2=dof = 0:93) with the Rutherford differential cross section, thus validating the concept of the atomic nucleus. The dependence of the rate (at fixed angle) on the incident energy is also considered, providing further verification of the Rutherford formula. (χ2=dof = 1:45) 1. INTRODUCTION in the Coulombic repulsion of the incident α-particle from a fixed, positive nucleus. (The electrons are too light to By the beginning of the 20th century, the physics com- deflect α-particles, while the nucleus is too heavy to be munity had undertaken an investigation of atomic struc- deflected by them.) We have then reduced the scatter- ture. In particular, the discovery of the electron by J.J. ing problem to the well-understood Kepler problem of Thomson, the recognition of its subatomic mass, and its motion in a 1=r potential. detection from various substances all led to the general Under the assumption that the target is uniformly illu- understanding that this negatively-charged particle was minated with projectiles, it is possible to derive from the a component of atoms. These advances initiated spec- Keplerian orbits the scattering cross-section. The cross- ulations on the distribution of the compensating posi- section is proportional to the expected scattering rate at tive charge in the overall neutral atom. Of these, the an angle θ from the incident direction. As shown in [1], most prominent was the diffuse charge model promoted the Rutherford cross-section is: by Thomson, in which the positive charge is uniformly 2 distributed over the entire volume of the atom. dσ k 1 = · 4 (1) In this report, we investigate the angular distribution dΩ 4E sin (θ=2) of α-particle scattering off of gold atoms, originally per- 0 2 formed in 1909 by Geiger and Marsden under the direc- where k = ZZ e is the appropriate Coulomb factor be- 4π0 tion of Rutherford. It is shown that the angular scatter- tween the α-particle and the target nucleus; and E is the ing rates are consistent with an atomic model in which initial kinetic energy of the incident α-particles. the heavy positive charge is assumed to be concentrated In contrast to other atomic models that assume a dis- at a point, called the nucleus, relative to the volume tributed positive charge within the atom, the Ruther- of the atom. Our result strictly contradicts the diffuse ford model is remarkable in that it predicts measurably charge model, and serves as one of the experimental foun- finite scattering rates even at large deflection angles. dations for the subsequent quantum atomic theory. For instance, the \cross-section" corresponding to the As further verification of the Rutherford scattering Thomson model is a rapidly decaying Gaussian, which model, we have also probed the dependence of the scat- predicts essentially no scattering beyond a few degrees tering rate on the incident α-particle energy (at a fixed from gold targets.[2] Hence, the existence of large-angle angle). Here, we again observe plausible agreement with \back-scattering" is crucial in validating the point charge the Rutherford formula. model. 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.2. Energy loss of α-particles in matter 2.1. Scattering of α-particles from the nucleus Under the assumption of a heavy, fixed nucleus, the α- particle does no work on the target atom. On the other Earlier studies of the electron have shown its mass to hand, electrons are easily deflected by the α-particles and be negligible relative to the mass of any atom. It was also therefore absorbs energy from the incident beam.[3] For known that α-particles were helium ions, which are also instance, α-particles can penetrate only about 4cm of air much less massive than the typical target atoms used in at STP due to this effect.[2] this experiment. Under the nuclear hypothesis, the essen- With the aid of material property tables such as the tial physics of the scattering experiment is then contained NIST database[4], it is then possible to perform metrol- ogy (calculation of foil thicknesses, etc.) using this phe- nomenon. In our investigation, we have used this effect primarily to generate beams of lesser energy, in order ∗Electronic address: [email protected]; URL: http://web.mit.edu/ to probe the energy dependence of the Rutherford cross kimt/www/ section (Eq.1). 2 3. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP dition to the channel of the dominant 5:486MeV parti- cles. This linear interpretation was assessed by energy The main apparatus, consisting of the 241Am α- loss measurements through foils of known composition particle source, the target gold foils, and the detector and thickness. The result of this calibration is shown in were arranged inside a vacuum chamber as shown in Fig. TableI. 1. Most of our measurements were taken with the vac- uum pressure less than 80 microns, where the energy loss TABLE I: Thicknesses of various foils calculated by assuming suffered by the α-particles through air is neglegible. a linear energy/MCA-channel relationship. Target foil Calculated (µm) Listed (µm) a Au 11:58 ± 0:47 13 ± 1 Ti 5:44 ± 1:01 7:6 Ti (Reducer #1) 7:65 ± 1:02 7:6 Ti (Reducer #2) 13:49 ± 0:85 15:8 Fe 8:03 ± 0:74 6:35 Al #1 20:16 ± 1:86 12:7 Al #2 20:06 ± 1:53 12:7 aWe have less confidence in the correctness of the listed thickness for foils other than gold. While the gold thickness was provided by the Junior lab staff, the others were listed on the targets, which looked old and possibly damaged. In addition, there were no un- certainties given on the thicknesses of these other foils. FIG. 1: The α-particle source, the target and the detector 4. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS inside the vacuum chamber. The detector was fixed in the chamber, while the target holder and the howitzer could be rotated independently. Diagram taken from [2] 4.1. Identification of valid scattering events The 241Am source provided a 5:486MeV (86%), During the experiment, it was clear that the detector 5:443MeV (12:7%) α-particle beam. On the side of the was susceptible to environmental factors such as the room barrel, there were slots in which we could place thin foils lighting. Hence, it was important to have a means of in order to further reduce the energy of the output beam. distinguishing the counts actually generated by the scat- The entire howitzer apparatus could be rotated with re- tered α-particles. Fortunately, at low scattering angles spect to the detector. (θ < 20◦), the count rates were high, and it was possi- While the vacuum chamber was necessary in order to ble to clearly distinguish the peak due to the 5:486MeV conduct the experiment, one severe drawback of the setup beam as shown in Fig.2. We were able to characterize was that the angular position of the howitzer φ was very the peak with a Gaussian fit. The final count was then difficult to assess from outside of the chamber. We esti- obtained by summing all counts within two standard de- mate our accuracy in setting φ to no more than ±1◦. viations from the calculated mean. In addition, the experimental sketch in Fig.1 high- However, for larger angles, the expected rate of scat- lights complications not accounted for by Eq.1. Due tering is significantly lower, and it becomes very difficult to the angular spread of the α-particle beam, and the fi- to identify the valid scatterers from the baseline level. nite sizes of the target and detector, the actual scattering We resolved this issue by selecting a fixed range of valid angle θ does not necessarily equal the howitzer angle φ. channels to be applied to every run. We arrived at a Instead, we expect a howitzer configuration φ0 to yield consensus of MCA channels 971 : 1275 after consider- detection counts corresponding to some spread of angles ing many Gaussian fits of data sets displaying obvious θ about φ0. In the following section, we will partially peaks. At every angle, we then systematically collected correct for this finite geometry effect by convolving the the counts over this fixed interval of MCA channels. Rutherford cross-section with a \smearing function" that describes the spread of the α-particles from the source. Finally, the detector output was converted into pulses 4.2. Angular profile of the α-beam whose heights corresponded to the energy of the detected particle. These pulses were then recorded by a PC-based The sketch of the experimental setup (Fig.1) shows MCA. We have assumed that the MCA channels repre- that the scattering angle θ may not match the howitzer sent a linear scale for the energy. The scale was con- position φ exactly. In order to account for this effect, we structed using the zero channel for zero energy, in ad- investigated the angular spread of the α-particle beam by 3 generated from the angular spread measurement (Fig. 3) as the appropriate \smearing function." Then, the expected count rate as a function of the howitzer position is given as a convolution: Z π −4 C(φ) = C0 g(φ − θ) · sin (θ=2) · dθ (2) 0 where C0 is a constant of proportionality, and the sin−4(θ=2) factor originates from the underlying Ruther- ford cross-section.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rutherford's Atomic Model
    CHAPTER 4 Structure of the Atom 4.1 The Atomic Models of Thomson and Rutherford 4.2 Rutherford Scattering 4.3 The Classic Atomic Model 4.4 The Bohr Model of the Hydrogen Atom 4.5 Successes and Failures of the Bohr Model 4.6 Characteristic X-Ray Spectra and Atomic Number 4.7 Atomic Excitation by Electrons 4.1 The Atomic Models of Thomson and Rutherford Pieces of evidence that scientists had in 1900 to indicate that the atom was not a fundamental unit: 1) There seemed to be too many kinds of atoms, each belonging to a distinct chemical element. 2) Atoms and electromagnetic phenomena were intimately related. 3) The problem of valence (원자가). Certain elements combine with some elements but not with others, a characteristic that hinted at an internal atomic structure. 4) The discoveries of radioactivity, of x rays, and of the electron Thomson’s Atomic Model Thomson’s “plum-pudding” model of the atom had the positive charges spread uniformly throughout a sphere the size of the atom with, the newly discovered “negative” electrons embedded in the uniform background. In Thomson’s view, when the atom was heated, the electrons could vibrate about their equilibrium positions, thus producing electromagnetic radiation. Experiments of Geiger and Marsden Under the supervision of Rutherford, Geiger and Marsden conceived a new technique for investigating the structure of matter by scattering particles (He nuclei, q = +2e) from atoms. Plum-pudding model would predict only small deflections. (Ex. 4-1) Geiger showed that many particles were scattered from thin gold-leaf targets at backward angles greater than 90°.
    [Show full text]
  • Application of Ion Scattering Techniques to Characterize Polymer Surfaces and Interfaces
    Materials Science and Engineering R 38 (2002) 107±180 Application of ion scattering techniques to characterize polymer surfaces and interfaces Russell J. Compostoa,*, Russel M. Waltersb, Jan Genzerc aLaboratory for Research on the Structure of Matter, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6272, USA bDepartment of Chemical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6272, USA cDepartment of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7905, USA Abstract Ion beam analysis techniques, particularly elastic recoil detection (ERD) also known as forward recoil spectrometry (Frcs) has proven to be a value tool to investigate polymer surfaces and interfaces. A review of ERD, related techniques and their impact on the field of polymer science is presented. The physics of the technique is described as well as the underlying principles of the interaction of ions with matter. Methods for optimization of ERD for polymer systems are also introduced, specifically techniques to improve the depth resolution and sensitivity. Details of the experimental setup and requirements are also laid out. After a discussion of ERD, strategies for the subsequent data analysis are described. The review ends with the breakthroughs in polymer science that ERD enabled in polymer diffusion, surfaces, interfaces, critical phenomena, and polymer modification. # 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ion scattering; Polymer surface; Polymer interface; Elastic recoil detection; Forward recoil spectrometry; Depth profiling 1. Introduction Breakthroughs in polymer science typically correlate with the discovery and application of new experimental tools. One of the first examples was the prediction by P.J. Flory that the single chain conformation in a dense system (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Chapter 5 Lecture 4 Rutherford Scattering Akhlaq Hussain 1 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula Rutherford’s experiment of 훼-particles scattering by the atoms in a thin foil of gold revealed the existence of positively charged nucleus in the atom. ➢ The 훼-particles were scattered in all directions. ➢ Some passes undeflected by the foil. ➢ Some were scattered through larger angles even back scattered. ➢ The only valid explanation of large angle deflection was if the total positive charge were concentrated at some small region. ➢ Rutherford called it nucleus. 2 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula ′ 풖ퟏ 3 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula Consider an incident charge particle with charge z1e is scattered through a target with charge z2e. The trajectory of scattered particles is a hyperbola as shown. The trajectory of the particles in repulsive field with origin at o' is shown. In the case of attractive force, center will be at “o”. when particles are apart at large distance, the total energy it posses is in form of Kinetic energy ′ 1 ′ 2 푘 = ൗ2 µ푢1 = 퐸 ′ 2퐸 푢1 = µ 4 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula 푆 푑푠 We have to find 휎 휃′ = 푠푖푛 휃′ 푑휃′ ′ 푙 = µ푢1푆 = 푆 2µ퐸 Where S is the impact parameter. The trajectory is hyperbola, from equation of conic 훼 = 푒 cos 훼 − 1 and for 푟 → ∞ 푟 1 1 ⇒ cos 훼 = = 푒 2퐸푙2 1+ µ푘2 From the figure 2훼 + 휃′ = 휋 휋−휃′ 훼 = 2 휋−휃′ 휃′ Now cot 훼 = cot = tan 5 2 2 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula 휃′ cot 훼 = tan 2 휃′ cos 훼 cos 훼 tan = = 2 sin 훼 1−푐표푠2훼 휃′ cos 훼 tan = 2 1 cos 훼 −1 푐표푠2훼 휃′ 1 tan = 2 1 −1 푐표푠2훼 휃′ 1 1 tan = = 2 푒2−1 2퐸푙2 1+ −1 휇푘2 6 5.5 Rutherford Scattering Formula −1Τ 휃′ 2퐸푙2 2 tan = 2 휇푘2 휃′ 푘 휇 푘 tan = = ′ 2퐸 2 푙 2퐸 푙푢′ Because 푢 = 1 1 µ ′ Since 푙 = µ푢1S 휃′ 푘 ⇒ tan = ′2 2 푆µ푢1 Differentiating with θ' above equation can be written as.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Rutherford Scattering MIT Department of Physics (Dated: September 24, 2014) This is an experiment which studies scattering alpha particles on atomic nuclei. You will shoot alpha particles, emitted by 241Am, at thin metal foils and measure the scattering cross section of the target atoms as a function of the scattering angle, the alpha particle energy, and the nuclear charge. You will then measure the intensity of alpha particles scattered by thin metal foils as a function of the scattering angle for several elements of very different atomic number. PREPARATORY QUESTIONS within which the electrons occupy certain positions of equilibrium, like raisins in a pudding. Set in motion, Please visit the Rutherford Scattering chapter on the the electrons should vibrate harmonically, radiating elec- 8.13x website at mitx.mit.edu to review the background tromagnetic energy with characteristic sharp frequencies material for this experiment. Answer all questions found that would be in the optical range if the radii of the −8 in the chapter. Work out the solutions in your laboratory atomic spheres were of the order of 10 cm. However, notebook; submit your answers on the web site. the \raisin pudding" model yielded no explanation of the numerical regularities of optical spectra, e.g. the Balmer formula for the hydrogen spectrum and the Ritz combi- SUGGESTED PROGRESS CHECK FOR END OF nation principle [3] for spectra in general. 2nd SESSION At this point, Ernest Rutherford got the idea that the structure of atoms could be probed by observing Plot the rate of alpha particle observations for 10◦ and the scattering of alpha particles.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 11 Ion Beam Analysis
    1 AP 5301/8301 Instrumental Methods of Analysis and Laboratory Lecture 11 Ion Beam Analysis Prof YU Kin Man E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 3442-7813 Office: P6422 2 Lecture 8: outline . Introduction o Ion Beam Analysis: an overview . Rutherford backscattering spectrometry (RBS) o Introduction-history o Basic concepts of RBS – Kinematic factor (K) – Scattering cross-section – Depth scale o Quantitative thin film analysis o RBS data analysis . Other IBA techniques o Hydrogen Forward Scattering o Particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE) . Ion channeling o Minimum yield and critical angle o Dechanneling by defects o Impurity location 3 Analytical Techniques 100at% 10at% AES XRD IBA 1at% 0.1at% RBS XRF 100ppm TOF- 10ppm SIMS 1ppm TXRF 100ppb Detection Range Detection 10ppb Chemical bonding DynamicS 1ppb Elemental information IMS Imaging information 100ppt Thickness and density information 10ppt Analytical Spot size But IBA is typically quantitative and depth sensitive http://www.eaglabs.com 4 Ion Beam Analysis: an overview Inelastic Elastic Incident Ions Rutherford backscattering (RBS), resonant scattering, Nuclear Reaction Analysis channeling (NRA) p, a, n, g Particle induced x-ray emission (PIXE) Defects generation Elastic recoil detection Ion Beam Absorber foil Modification 5 Ion Beam Analysis 1977 2009 2014 1978 6 Why IBA? . Simple in principle . Fast and direct . Quantitative (without standard for RBS) . Depth profiling without chemical or physical sectioning . Non-destructive . Wide range of elemental coverage . No special specimen
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Acknowlegements: The E158, HAPPEX, PREX and MOLLER Collaborations www.particleadventure.org Electrons are Not Ambidextrous: New Insights from a Subatomic Matter of Fact Krishna Kumar Stony Brook University, SUNY Physics Colloquium BNL, November 4, 2014 Electroweak Nuclear Physics Outline ✦ Electron Scattering & Subatomic Structure ✦ Electron Scattering and the Weak Force ★ Electrons in the scattering process are NOT ambidextrous ✦ Parity-Violating Electron Scattering ✦ Two Modern Applications ★ The Neutron Skin of a Heavy Nucleus • PREX: First direct electroweak measurement (Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 112502)! • PREX-II: Followup precision measurement scheduled for 2016! ★ Search for New Superweak Forces • MOLLER: Proposed ultra-precise weak mixing angle measurement! ✦ Outlook Electrons are Not Ambidextrous 2 Krishna Kumar, November 4 2014 Electroweak Nuclear Physics Outline Fundamental Symmetries, Nuclear Structure, Hadron Physics ✦ Electron Scattering & Subatomic Structure ✦ Electron Scattering and the Weak Force ★ Electrons in the scattering process are NOT ambidextrous ✦ Parity-Violating Electron Scattering ✦ Two Modern Applications ★ The Neutron Skin of a Heavy Nucleus • PREX: First direct electroweak measurement (Phys.Rev.Lett. 108 (2012) 112502)! • PREX-II: Followup precision measurement scheduled for 2016! ★ Search for New Superweak Forces • MOLLER: Proposed ultra-precise weak mixing angle measurement! ✦ Outlook Electrons are Not Ambidextrous 2 Krishna Kumar, November 4 2014 Electron Scattering and the Subatomic Structure ~ 1910
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Basic Properties of Atoms
    6. Basic properties of atoms ... We will only discuss several interesting topics in this chapter: Basic properties of atoms—basically, they are really small, really, really, really small • The Thomson Model—a really bad way to model the atom (with some nice E & M) • The Rutherford nuclear atom— he got the nucleus (mostly) right, at least • The Rutherford scattering distribution—Newton gets it right, most of the time • The Rutherford cross section—still in use today • Classical cross sections—yes, you can do this for a bowling ball • Spherical mirror cross section—the disco era revisited, but with science • Cross section for two unlike spheres—bowling meets baseball • Center of mass transformation in classical mechanics, a revised mass, effectively • Center of mass transformation in quantum mechanics—why is QM so strange? • The Bohr model—one wrong answer, one Nobel prize • Transitions in the Bohr model—it does work, I’m not Lyman to you • Deficiencies of the Bohr Model—how did this ever work in the first place? • After this we get back to 3D QM, and it gets real again. Elements of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences I NERS 311: Slide #1 ... Basic properties of atoms Atoms are small! e.g. 3 Iron (Fe): mass density, ρFe =7.874 g/cm molar mass, MFe = 55.845 g/mol N =6.0221413 1023, Avogadro’s number, the number of atoms/mole A × ∴ the volume occupied by an Fe atom is: MFe 1 45 [g/mol] 1 23 3 = 23 3 =1.178 10− cm NA ρ 6.0221413 10 [1/mol]7.874 [g/cm ] × Fe × The radius is (3V/4π)1/3 =0.1411 nm = 1.411 A˚ in Angstrøm units.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    IIA4 Modul Atomic/Nuclear Physics Rutherford Scattering This experiment aims at understanding the scattering experiments car- ried out by Ernest Rutherford and his colleagues. The observation of large-angle scattering of α-particles demonstrated how the electric charge is distributed inside the atoms. This experiment has significantly con- tributed to the understanding of the structure of matter. Experiment IIA4 - Rutherford Scattering This experiment aims at understanding the scattering experiments carried out by Ernest Ruther- ford and his colleagues. The observation of large-angle scattering of α-particles demonstrated how the electric charge is distributed inside the atoms. This experiment has significantly con- tributed to the understanding of the structure of matter. c AP, Department of Physics, University of Basel, June 2020 1.1 Preliminary Questions Describe the scattering experiment of Rutherford in your own words. • In this experiment, a so-called discriminator is used. What is it and why is it necessary? • Why is the experiment done in a vacuum chamber and not in air? • How does an oscilloscope function? What are its general settings? • 1.2 Theory 1.2.1 Development of the Atomic Model The first model of the atom was from the Greek philosophers Leucippus (around 440 BC) and his student Democritus (460-370 BC). They believed that all matter is made of small, indivisible particles. These particles were called atoms after the Greek word for indivisible. Between these atoms, in their view, only empty space would be found. Therefore, all macroscopic bodies and their similar or different properties would, by their arrangement, be determined. However, throughout the Middle Ages and up to the beginning of the modern era, this idea was again discarded because it was too materialistic and also disagreed with the doctrine of creation by the church.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rutherford Scattering Experiment
    The Rutherford Scattering Experiment Tony Tyson April 22, 2013 1 Introduction The foundations of modern ideas about atomic structure are considered to have been laid by Sir Ernest Rutherford in 1911, with his postulates concerning the scattering of alpha particles by atoms. Two of his students, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden (an undergraduate), set out to measure the number of alpha particles scattered out of a collimated beam upon hitting a thin metal foil. They determined the angular distribution of the scattered particles for several different materials, thicknesses and alpha energies. To their initial surprise, Geiger and Marsden found that some alpha particles were scattered through large angles in atomic collisions. This large angle scattering of alpha particles could not be explained by existing theories. This data lead Rutherford to speculate on the structure of the atom and devise a new ”nuclear atom” model. His predictions concerning the characteristics of this nuclear atom were confirmed by the subsequent experiments of Geiger and Marsden with the scattering of alpha particles by thin gold and silver foils (Phil. Mag. 25. 605 (1913), Figure 1). Performance of similar experiments in an undergraduate laboratory is not only of historical interest, but serves to demonstrate how scattering experiments provide the physicist with a powerful investigative technique. The essential idea of Rutherford’s theory is to consider the α-particle as a charged mass traveling according to the classical equations of motion in the Coulomb field of a nucleus. The dimensions of both the α-particle and nucleus are assumed to be small compared to atomic dimensions (10−5 of the atomic diameter).
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Rutherford scattering Introduction to Nuclear Science Simon Fraser University Spring 2011 NUCS 342 | March 16, 2011 NUCS 342 (Lecture 22) March 16, 2011 1 / 29 2 The Geiger-Marsden experiment 3 The impact parameter/scattering angle relationship 4 The cross section Outline 1 Scattering via the Coulomb force NUCS 342 (Lecture 22) March 16, 2011 2 / 29 3 The impact parameter/scattering angle relationship 4 The cross section Outline 1 Scattering via the Coulomb force 2 The Geiger-Marsden experiment NUCS 342 (Lecture 22) March 16, 2011 2 / 29 4 The cross section Outline 1 Scattering via the Coulomb force 2 The Geiger-Marsden experiment 3 The impact parameter/scattering angle relationship NUCS 342 (Lecture 22) March 16, 2011 2 / 29 Outline 1 Scattering via the Coulomb force 2 The Geiger-Marsden experiment 3 The impact parameter/scattering angle relationship 4 The cross section NUCS 342 (Lecture 22) March 16, 2011 2 / 29 Scattering via the Coulomb force Charged-particle induced reactions Nuclei contain protons and are charged with the charge of +Ze. There is a long-range repulsive force between reacting nuclei: 2 ~ 1 Z1Z2e ~r F = 2 (1) 4π"0 r r Since the force is repulsive the trajectories are hyperbolic. If projectile energy is not sufficient to bring two nuclei to a distance smaller than the range of nuclear interactions, the only result of the collision is either elastic (Rutherford) or inelastic (Coulomb) scattering. For Rutherford scattering both projectile and target emerge from the collision in their respective ground states. In Coulomb scattering either the target or the projectile emerge in an excited state.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering
    Rutherford Scattering Gavin Cheung F 09328173 November 15, 2010 Abstract A thin piece of gold foil is bombarded with alpha particles using an americium-241 source at several angles. The resulting scattering of the alpha particles is examined by finding the count rate at the angles. It was found that most of the particles were unscattered while a minority were scattered. It is predicted by Rutherford's model that the count rate is proportional to cosec4 of the angle and this relationship was verified. This disproves the plum-pudding model and supports Rutherford's theory. ? Introduction The idea of the atom has been around for millenia yet little could be said about it. By the end of the 19th Century, it became apparent that atoms were a useful tool that could be used to model phenomena in physics and chemistry. J. J. Thomson proposed the plum pudding model in 1904 where the atom is a mass of positive charge with small negatively charged electrons embedded in it like plums in a plum pudding. In 1909, Ernest Rutherford directed the famous experiment where a thin sheet of gold foil was bom- barded with alpha particles. The plum pudding model predicted that the alpha particles would be scattered by the gold atoms by small angles. However, it was found that most of the alpha particles passed straight through the gold foil with little scattering and a very small amount of the alpha particles were scattered by some large angle and some were even backscattered. The only explanation Rutherford had was that the plum pudding model could not be right.
    [Show full text]
  • Rutherford Scattering Simulation
    Name ______________________________ Date______________________ Rutherford Scattering Simulation Ernest Rutherford, (30 August 1871 – 19 October 1937) was a New Zealand-born British physicist and chemist who became known as the father of nuclear physics. He was awarded the noble prize in chemistry in 1908 for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements, and radioactive substances. Rutherford performed his most famous work after he became a Nobel laureate. In 1911, although he could not prove that it was positive or negative, he theorized that atoms have their charge in a very small nucleus and pioneered the Rutherford model of the atom. Through his discovery and interpretation of Rutherford scattering in his gold foil experiment he is widely credited with discovery of the the proton. Rutherford remains the only science Nobel Prize winner to have performed his most famous work after receiving the prize. The popular theory of atomic structure at the time of Rutherford's experiment was the "plum pudding model". This model was developed in 1904 by J. J. Thomson, the scientist who discovered the electron. This theory held that the negatively charged electrons in an atom were floating (sometimes moving) in a sea of positive charge. The gold foil experiment fires a series of positively charged alpha particles (helium nuclei) at a very thin sheet of gold foil. If Thomson's Plum Pudding model was to be accurate, the big alpha particles should have passed through the gold foil with only a few minor deflections. This is because the alpha particles are larger and heavier than electrons GOLD FOIL EXPERIMENT Expected results: alpha particles passing through the plum pudding model of the atom undisturbed.
    [Show full text]