Rutherford overturned Thomson’s model in 1911 with his well-known gold foil experiment in which he demonstrated that the atom has a tiny, heavy nucleus. Rutherford designed an experiment to use the alpha particles emitted by a radioactive element as probes to the unseen world of atomic structure.
Rutherford presented his own physical model for subatomic structure, as an interpretation for the unexpected experimental results. In it, the atom is made up of a central charge (this is the modern atomic nucleus, though Rutherford did not use the term “nucleus” in his paper) surrounded by a cloud of (presumably) orbiting electrons. In this May 1911 paper, Rutherford only commits himself to a small central region of very high positive or negative charge in the atom.
For concreteness, consider the passage of a high speed α particle through an atom having a positive central charge N e, and surrounded by a compensating charge of N electrons.
From purely energetic considerations of how far particles of known speed would be able to penetrate toward a central charge of 100 e, Rutherford was able to calculate that the radius of his gold central charge would need to be less (how much less could not be told) than 3.4 x 10−14
metres. This was in a gold atom known to be 10−10 meters or so in radius—a very surprising
finding, as it implied a strong central charge less than 1/3000th of the diameter of the atom.
The Rutherford model served to concentrate a great deal of the atom’s charge and mass to a very small core, but didn’t attribute any structure to the remaining electrons and remaining atomic mass. It did mention the atomic model of Hantaro Nagaoka, in which the electrons are arranged in one or more rings, with the specific metaphorical structure of the stable rings of Saturn. The plum pudding model of J.J. Thomson also had rings of orbiting electrons. Jean Baptiste Perrin claimed in his Nobel Lecture that he was the first one to suggest the model in his paper dated
1901.
The Rutherford paper suggested that the central charge of an atom might be “proportional” to its atomic mass in hydrogen mass units u (roughly 1/2 of it, in Rutherford’s model). For gold, this mass number is 197 (not then known to great accuracy) and was therefore modeled by Rutherford to be possibly 196 u. However, Rutherford did not attempt to make the direct connection of central charge to atomic number, since gold’s “atomic number” (at that time merely its place number in the periodic table) was 79, and Rutherford had modeled the charge to be about + 100 units (he had actually suggested 98 units of positive charge, to make half of 196). Thus, Rutherford did not formally suggest the two numbers (periodic table place, 79, and nuclear charge, 98 or 100) might be exactly the same.
Comments are closed.