was rutherford's hypothesis rejected or supported

Rutherford’s Atomic Model, Postulates, and Drawbacks

November 27, 2021
Atomic Structure

Table of Contents

In 1911, Ernest Rutherford , a British physicist disputed Thomson’s hypothesis of the atom by demonstrating that atoms as dense, tiny having largely empty space filled with electrons revolving in a fixed path around a positively charged nucleus, like planets revolving around the sun. Rutherford found this by bombarding a thin sheet of gold foil with alpha rays (helium nuclei).

Rutherford’s Nuclear Atomic Model

The nuclear model was named by the physicist name and is known worldwide as Rutherford’s Atomic Model. According to the Rutherford Atomic Model “Protons and neutrons, which constitute almost all of the mass of the nuclear atom, are found in the nucleus and lie in the center of the atom “. The electrons surround the nucleus moving in a circular path with high speed and take up the majority of the atom’s volume”. He proved his statement with an experiment by bombarding a thin sheet of gold foil with alpha rays.

Summarize Rutherford’s model of the atom

Rutherford's atomic model. Rutherford's setup, scattering experiment, alpha ray scattering experiment,

In this experiment, the α-particles radium source is placed inside the lead block, the beam of α -particles (rays) is narrowed by applying a lead slit in the route, and highly energized a-particles are permitted to strike on the thin gold foil equipped with a circular fluorescent zinc sulphide screen as shown in the figure. When a-particles collide with the sulphide screen, they emit light flashes.

scattering experiment, Rutherford's nuclear atomic model, Rutherford's atomic model, Rutherford's scattering experiment, Rutherford's postulates, Drawbacks of rutherford's atomic model

The following observations were made during the experiment

Most of the a-particles (99%) directly passed through gold foil without any deviation.
Few a-particles deviated from a small angle.
Only a few a-particles are deflected with angle greater than 90° or rebounded in the back direction.

α -particle is a helium nucleus (He) having four unit mass and two-unit positive charge, a-particle will deviate or deflect only when it goes near or strike with another heavier positively charge mass. Based on the above observation, the following conclusions are drawn:

Since the majority of the alpha-particles traveled straight through gold foil with no deviation. This demonstrates that the atom has a considerable amount of empty space.
Few a-particles deviate at a modest angle, implying that they must approach a hefty positively charged body within the atom. This demonstrates that the nucleus, which is a dense positively charged mass, is located in the core of the atom.
Since only a few a-particles deflected with an angle more than 90° or renounced, this indicates that alpha-particles have direct interaction with a hefty positively charged nucleus in a relatively restricted location.

Based on the above experiments, Rutherford postulated an atomic model called Rutherford’s atomic model. The postulates are:

The positively charged nucleus is located at the center of the atom and is extremally small in comparison to the size of an atom.
The negatively charged electrons revolve around the nucleus like planets revolve around the sun i.e. electrons are in motion, but not stationary as depicted by Thomson’s atomic model.
The majority of the space in an atom is empty.

Rutherford’s atomic model states that “ Atom consists of positively charged nucleus located in a very small region, where entire mass of an atom is concentrated, with electrons revolving around the nucleus in which centrifugal force of the revolving electron is balanced by the electrostatic force of attraction between the electron and the nucleus .”

State the drawbacks of rutherford’s nuclear atomic model

Some of the drawbacks of Rutherford’s atomic model are:

The electron orbits around the positively charged nucleus, according to the Rutherford atomic model. If this is the case, the electron’s path around the nucleus will spiral, and the electron will eventually fall into the nucleus, causing the atom’s size to collapse. Fortunately, atoms are unbreakable. As a result, it does not explain atom stability.
It also doesn’t explain about the emission of the atomic spectrum.

Compare Rutherford and Bohr’s model of the atom

Compare thomson’s atomic model with rutherford’s atomic model, rutherford’s atomic model video.

illustrate rutherford’s experiment to explain the model of an atom.

The Rutherford model of the atom states that the atom is made up of an atomic nucleus and electrons that surround it. Rutherford proposed this atomic model using the gold foil experiment which revealed that the center of the atom has a positively charged solid material, whereas the remainder of the atom contains more empty space and the solid positively charged material was assigned as the nucleus.

How did Bohr expand on Rutherford’s model of the atom?

Bohr explains Rutherford’s atomic model by little revision on Rutherford’s theory. He specified that electrons must revolve in orbits of definite size and energy. The energy of an electron is dependent on the size of the orbit; hence smaller orbits provide low energy. Only when an electron moves from one orbit to another can radiation occur.

Which statement best describes rutherford’s model of the atom?

According to the Rutherford Atomic Model “ Protons and neutrons, which constitute almost all of the mass of the nuclear atom, are found in the nucleus and lies in the center of the atom ”

How is Bohr’s atomic model different from rutherford’s model?

Bohr’s atomic model explains the presence of discrete energy levels, while Rutherford’s atomic model doesn’t explain the presence of discrete energy levels. Similarly, Bohr’s atomic model is based on quantum theory, while Rutherford’s atomic model is based on classical theory.

What did Ernest rutherford’s model of an atom look like?

Ernest rutherford’s model of an atom looks like a miniature solar system where planets revolve around the sun as electrons revolve around the nucleus.

Was rutherford’s model of the atom correct?

No, Rutherford’s atomic model failed to explain the stability of the atom, which was later explained by Bohr’s in his atomic model, Bohr’s atomic model.

Why is rutherford’s model called the nuclear atom?

As Rutherford concludes that the nucleus lies within an atom, Rutherford’s model is popularly called the nuclear model.

Share this to:

Tags: alpha particle scattering experiment , describe rutherford's model of the atom , Drawbacks of Rutherford's atomic model , ernest rutherford's atomic model , postulates of Rutherford's atomic model , Rutherford's Atomic model , Rutherford's Nuclear Atomic Model , summarize rutherford's model of the atom

Balancing Redox Equations by Oxidation Number method

Lead: Properties, 7 Important Uses, Health Effects and Symptoms

Zinc – Chemistry, Deficiency, Side Effects, and its 4 important Health Benefits

Group 13 Elements: Boron Family- Easy Explanation

What is Activated complex? Easy Explanation

Ortho hydrogen and Para Hydrogen: Difference, interconversion

Rutherford Atomic Model and Limitations

Define rutherford atomic model.

Rutherford Atomic Model – The plum pudding model given by J. J. Thomson failed to explain certain experimental results associated with the atomic structure of elements. Ernest Rutherford, a British scientist conducted an experiment and based on the observations of this experiment, he explained the atomic structure of elements and proposed Rutherford’s Atomic Model.

Rutherfords Alpha Scattering Experiment

Observations of Rutherford’s Alpha Scattering Experiment

Rutherford atomic model, limitations of rutherford atomic model, recommended videos, frequently asked questions – faqs, rutherford’s alpha scattering experiment.

Rutherford conducted an experiment by bombarding a thin sheet of gold with α-particles and then studied the trajectory of these particles after their interaction with the gold foil.

Rutherford, in his experiment, directed high energy streams of α-particles from a radioactive source at a thin sheet (100 nm thickness) of gold. In order to study the deflection caused to the α-particles, he placed a fluorescent zinc sulphide screen around the thin gold foil. Rutherford made certain observations that contradicted Thomson’s atomic model .

The observations made by Rutherford led him to conclude that:

A major fraction of the α-particles bombarded towards the gold sheet passed through the sheet without any deflection, and hence most of the space in an atom is empty .
Some of the α-particles were deflected by the gold sheet by very small angles, and hence the positive charge in an atom is not uniformly distributed . The positive charge in an atom is concentrated in a very small volume .
Very few of the α-particles were deflected back, that is only a few α-particles had nearly 180 o angle of deflection. So the volume occupied by the positively charged particles in an atom is very small as compared to the total volume of an atom .

Based on the above observations and conclusions, Rutherford proposed the atomic structure of elements. According to the Rutherford atomic model:

The positive charge and most of the mass of an atom is concentrated in an extremely small volume. He called this region of the atom as a nucleus.
Rutherford’s model proposed that the negatively charged electrons surround the nucleus of an atom. He also claimed that the electrons surrounding the nucleus revolve around it with very high speed in circular paths. He named these circular paths as orbits.
Electrons being negatively charged and nucleus being a densely concentrated mass of positively charged particles are held together by a strong electrostatic force of attraction.

Although the Rutherford atomic model was based on experimental observations, it failed to explain certain things.

Rutherford proposed that the electrons revolve around the nucleus in fixed paths called orbits. According to Maxwell, accelerated charged particles emit electromagnetic radiations and hence an electron revolving around the nucleus should emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation would carry energy from the motion of the electron which would come at the cost of shrinking of orbits. Ultimately the electrons would collapse in the nucleus. Calculations have shown that as per the Rutherford model, an electron would collapse into the nucleus in less than 10 -8 seconds. So the Rutherford model was not in accordance with Maxwell’s theory and could not explain the stability of an atom .
One of the drawbacks of the Rutherford model was also that he did not say anything about the arrangement of electrons in an atom which made his theory incomplete.
Although the early atomic models were inaccurate and failed to explain certain experimental results, they formed the base for future developments in the world of quantum mechanics .

The Gold Foil Experiment

was rutherford's hypothesis rejected or supported

Structure of Atom Class 11 Chemistry

Drawbacks of Rutherford Atomic Model

What was the speciality of Rutherford’s atomic model?

Rutherford was the first to determine the presence of a nucleus in an atom. He bombarded α-particles on a gold sheet, which made him encounter the presence of positively charged specie inside the atom.

What is Rutherford’s atomic model?

Rutherford proposed the atomic structure of elements. He explained that a positively charged particle is present inside the atom, and most of the mass of an atom is concentrated over there. He also stated that negatively charged particles rotate around the nucleus, and there is an electrostatic force of attraction between them.

What are the limitations of Rutherford’s atomic model?

Rutherford failed to explain the arrangement of electrons in an atom. Like Maxwell, he was unable to explain the stability of the atom.

What kind of experiment did Rutherford’s perform?

Rutherford performed an alpha scattering experiment. He bombarded α-particles on a gold sheet and then studied the trajectory of these α-particles.

What was the primary observation of Rutherford’s atomic model?

Rutherford observed that a microscopic positively charged particle is present inside the atom, and most of the mass of an atom is concentrated over there.

Put your understanding of this concept to test by answering a few MCQs. Click ‘Start Quiz’ to begin!

Select the correct answer and click on the “Finish” button Check your score and answers at the end of the quiz

Visit BYJU’S for all Chemistry related queries and study materials

Your result is as below

Request OTP on Voice Call

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Rutherford Atomic Model

Definition of the rutherford model.

The Rutherford atomic model has 2 main parts: the nucleus, and the atom’s remaining space, occupied by electrons.

According to the model, the nucleus is a very small portion of the atom’s volume. It occupies a small space in the very center of the atom. Protons and neutrons make up the nucleus and define the atom’s chemical properties.

Rutherford also claimed in his model that electrons revolved around the nucleus in set orbits, like planets revolving around the Sun. This part of the theory was inaccurate, as explained in the last section.

Rutherford’s Gold Foil Experiment

The Rutherford gold foil experiment , also known as the scattering experiment, led to the creation of the model and explained the parts of the atom. In 1909, graduate student Ernest Marsden (under Ernest Rutherford’s supervision) fired alpha particles at a gold foil piece. Most of the particles passed directly through the foil, meaning that a majority of the space in each atom was unoccupied. However, a few particles were deflected, and some even backward. This must have been caused by tiny pockets of positive charge in the foil repelling the alpha particles back. Their discovery led to the creation of Rutherford’s model, in which the dense, positively-charged nucleus occupies a very small area in the center of each atom.

Shortcomings of the Rutherford Model

While common models today are based on the Rutherford atomic theory, it does not paint the complete picture:

The model is missing parts and does not account for the location or distribution of electrons.
Rutherford proposed that electrons orbit around the nucleus in set paths, but according to Maxwell’s theory , this is not possible because the atom would not be stable. Electromagnetic radiation from the electrons in orbit would cause the atom to collapse into the nucleus in 10 -8 seconds.
Electrons increase and decrease energy levels randomly due to the acceleration and are not always in a standard circular orbit. They give off electromagnetic radiation due to the circular motion of orbiting; thus they must have some initial energy by the law of conservation of energy. The Rutherford atomic model does not account for the initial energy and subsequent energy level changes.

... and beyond

Socratic Meta
Featured Answers

Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment

Key Questions

Rutherford's experiment showed that the atom does not contain a uniform distribution of charge.

Explanation:

Thomson's plum pudding model viewed the atom as a massive blob of positive charge dotted with negative charges.

A plum pudding was a Christmas cake studded with raisins ("plums"). So think of the model as a spherical Christmas cake.

When Rutherford shot α particles through gold foil, he found that most of the particles went through. Some scattered in various directions, and a few were even deflected back towards the source.

He argued that the plum pudding model was incorrect. The symmetrical distribution of charge would allow all the α particles to pass through with no deflection.

Rutherford proposed that the atom is mostly empty space. The electrons revolve in circular orbits about a massive positive charge at the centre.

His model explained why most of the α particles passed straight through the foil. The small positive nucleus would deflect the few particles that came close.

The nuclear model replaced the plum pudding model. The atom now consisted of a positive nucleus with negative electrons in circular orbits around it .

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

Teaching Resources

Rutherford’s argument (1 of 2), image caption.

In the early 1900s, Ernest Rutherford and his colleagues performed this experiment to test the hypothesis that an atom's mass and positive charge are spread diffusely throughout the atom and found that their expectations and actual observations did not match at all.

See where this image appears on the Understanding Science website »

To save: 1) Click on image for the full-size version, 2) right-click (Windows) or control-click (Mac) on the image, and 3) select "Save image."

This image is part of a series:

Rutherford’s argument (2 of 2)

View details >>

Subscribe to our newsletter

Understanding Science 101
The science flowchart
Science stories
Grade-level teaching guides
Teaching resource database
Journaling tool
Misconceptions

Understanding Atomic Models in Chemistry: Why Do Models Change?

First Online: 24 December 2015

Cite this chapter

Mansoor Niaz 3

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

1066 Accesses

Understanding the role of early Greek philosophers (e.g., Democritus) and J. Dalton in developing the atomic theory is controversial among historians and philosophers of science. Chalmers ( The scientist’s atom and the philosopher’s stone: How science succeeded and philosophy failed to gain knowledge of atoms . Dordrecht: Springer; 2009) claims that Dalton’s theory had no testable content. On the contrary, Rocke (Email to author dated October 30, 2013, reproduced with permission; 2013) considers that Dalton’s atomism is a successful theory. A study designed to evaluate the presentation of Dalton’s atomic theory in general chemistry textbooks (published in the USA) revealed that most textbooks stated that the atomic vision of Democritus was based on hypothetical questions (thought experiments), whereas Dalton based his theory on reproducible experimental results. Another study designed to evaluate the presentation of the atomic models of J. J. Thomson, E. Rutherford, and N. Bohr in general chemistry textbooks (published in the USA) revealed that most textbooks lack a historical perspective (although historical models are being presented) and provide a simplistic view of scientific models and how these change with no reference to the difficulties and controversies involved. Exactly the same HPS-based criteria were also used to evaluate textbooks published in Turkey, Venezuela, and Korea (general physics). The similarities of the textbooks published in four countries with different cultures and languages suggest that these textbooks have an underlying common thread, namely, the dominant empiricist epistemology. Due to the difficulties faced by Bohr’s model, A. Sommerfeld postulated elliptical orbits that provided greater stability to the atoms, leading to the Bohr–Sommerfeld model. A study designed to evaluate the presentation of the Bohr–Sommerfeld model in general chemistry textbooks (published in Italy and the USA) revealed that very few presented this model satisfactorily. Once again, textbooks published in two different cultures and languages were found to be very similar. Despite its success, the Bohr–Sommerfeld model went no further than the alkali metals, which led scientists to look for other models. These difficulties were resolved by Pauli’s exclusion principle and the wave mechanical model of the atom. It is concluded that understanding of atomic structure is a never-ending quest that requires imagination, creativity, and innovative techniques in the laboratory.

Greek philosophers
Dalton’s atomic theory
Atomic models of Thomson
Rutherford and Bohr
General chemistry textbooks

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Compact, lightweight edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info
Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Achinstein, P. (1991). Particles and waves: Historical essays in the philosophy of science . New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Arabatzis, T. (2006). Representing electrons: A biographical approach to theoretical entities . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Atkins, P., & Jones, L. (2002). Chemical principles: The quest for insight (2nd ed.). New York: Freeman.

Atkins, P., & Jones, L. (2008). Chemical principles: The quest for insight (4th ed.). New York: Freeman.

Bohr, N. (1913). On the constitution of atoms and molecules. Part 1. Philosophical Magazine, 26 (Series 6), 1–25.

Article Google Scholar

Brock, W. H. (1993). The Norton history of chemistry . New York: W.W. Norton.

Burbules, N. C., & Linn, M. C. (1991). Science education and philosophy of science: Congruence or contradiction? International Journal of Science Education, 13 , 227–241.

Cha, D. (2007). College physics . Seoul: Books Hill.

Chalmers, A. (1998). Retracing the ancient steps to atomic theory. Science & Education, 7 , 69–84.

Chalmers, A. (2009). The scientist’s atom and the philosopher’s stone: How science succeeded and philosophy failed to gain knowledge of atoms . Dordrecht: Springer.

Book Google Scholar

Chalmers, A. (2010). Review symposium of the scientist’s atom. Metascience, 19 , 349–371.

Cohen, R. S. (1976). Physical science . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Cooper, L. N. (1968). An introduction to the meaning and structure of physics . New York: Harper & Row.

Cooper, L. N. (1970). An introduction to the meaning and structure of physics (short edition) . New York: Harper & Row.

Crowther, J. G. (1910). Proceedings of the Royal Society (Vol. lxxxiv). London: Royal Society.

Falconer, I. (1987). Corpuscles, electrons, and cathode rays: J. J. Thomson and the ‘discovery of the electron’. British Journal for the History of Science, 20 , 241–276.

Frické, M. (1976). The rejection of Avogadro’s hypothesis. In C. Howson (Ed.), Method and appraisal in the physical sciences: The critical background to modern science, 1800–1905 (pp. 277–307). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chapter Google Scholar

Giere, R. N. (2006a). Scientific perspectivism . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Giere, R. N. (2006b). Perspectival pluralism. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 26–41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Heilbron, J. L. (1964). A history of atomic models from the discovery of the electron to the beginnings of quantum mechanics. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Heilbron, J. L., & Kuhn, T. (1969). The genesis of the Bohr atom. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 1 , 211–290.

Herron, J. D. (1977). Rutherford and the nuclear atom. Journal of Chemical Education, 54 , 499.

Holton, G. (1969). Einstein and the ‘crucial’ experiment. American Journal of Physics, 37 , 968–982.

Holton, G. (1986). The advancement of science and its burdens . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Irwin, A. R. (2000). Historical case studies: Teaching the nature of science in context. Science Education, 84 , 5–26.

Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: Some challenges in the case of ‘the atom’. International Journal of Science Education, 22 , 993–1009.

Klein, U. (2003). Experiments, models, paper tools: Cultures of organic chemistry in the nineteenth century . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Krane, K. S. (1996). Modern physics (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lakatos, I. (1971). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In R. C. Buck & R. S. Cohen (Eds.), Boston studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. 8, pp. 91–136). Dordrecht: Reidel.

Lorenzelli, V. (1969). Chimica. Per student di ingegneria . Genova: Edizioni Culturali Italiane.

Margenau, H. (1950). The nature of physical reality . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The contribution of history and philosophy of science . New York: Routledge.

Millikan, R. A. (1947). Electrons (+ and -), protons, photons, neutrons, mesotrons, and cosmic rays (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. first published 1935.

Monk, M., & Osborne, J. (1997). Placing the history and philosophy of science on the curriculum: A model for the development of pedagogy. Science Education, 81 , 405–424.

Needham, P. (2004a). When did atoms begin to do any explanatory work in chemistry? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 18 , 199–219.

Needham, P. (2004b). Has Daltonian atomism provided chemistry with any explanations? Philosophy of Science, 71 , 1038–1047.

Needham, P. (2010). Review symposium of Alan Chalmers’s the scientist’s atom. Metascience, 19 , 349–371.

Niaz, M. (1994). Enhancing thinking skills: Domain specific/domain general strategies—A dilemma for science education. Instructional Science, 22 , 413–422.

Niaz, M. (1998b). From cathode rays to alpha particles to quantum of action: A rational reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for chemistry textbooks. Science Education, 82 , 527–552.

Niaz, M. (2001b). How important are the laws of definite and multiple proportions in chemistry and teaching chemistry? — A history and philosophy of science perspective. Science & Education, 10 , 243–266.

Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress . Dordrecht: Springer.

Niaz, M., & Cardellini, L. (2011a). What can the Bohr-Sommerfeld model show students of chemistry in the 21st century? Journal of Chemical Education, 88 , 240–243.

Niaz, M., & Cardellini, L. (2011b). Why has the Bohr-Sommerfeld model of the atom been ignored by general chemistry textbooks? Acta Chimica Slovenica, 58 , 876–883.

Niaz, M., & Coştu, B. (2009). Presentation of atomic structure in Turkish general chemistry textbooks. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 10 , 233–240.

Niaz, M., Aguilera, D., Maza, A., & Liendo, G. (2002). Arguments, contradictions, resistances and conceptual change in students’ understanding of atomic structure. Science Education, 86 , 505–525.

Niaz, M., Klassen, S., McMillan, B., & Metz, D. (2010b). Leon Cooper’s perspective on teaching science: An interview study. Science & Education, 19 , 39–54.

Niaz, M., Kwon, S., Kim, N., & Lee, G. (2013). Do general physics textbooks discuss scientists’ ideas about atomic structure? A case in Korea. Physics Education, 48 (1), 57–64.

Páez, Y., Rodríguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2004). Los modelos atómicos desde la perspectiva de la historia y filosofía de la ciencia: Un análisis de la imagen reflejada por los textos de química de bachillerato. Investigación y Postgrado, 19 (1), 51–77.

Pauling, L. (1964). General chemistry (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Freeman.

Rocke, A. J. (1978). Chemical atomism in the nineteenth century: From Dalton to Cannizaro . Columbus: Ohio State University Press.

Rocke, A. J. (2013a). Email to author dated October 30, 2013, reproduced with permission.

Rocke, A. J. (2013b). Email to author dated November 3, 2013, reproduced with permission.

Rocke, A. J. (2013c). What did ‘theory’ mean to nineteenth-century chemists? Foundations of Chemistry, 15 , 145–156.

Rocke, A. J., & Kopp, H. (2012). From the molecular world, a nineteenth-century fantasy . Heidelberg: Springer.

Rodríguez, M. A., & Niaz, M. (2004). A reconstruction of structure of the atom and its implications for general physics textbooks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13 , 409–424.

Rutherford, E. (1911). The scattering of alpha and beta particles by matter and the structure of the atom. Philosophical Magazine, 21 , 669–688.

Sakkopoulos, S. A., & Vitoratos, E. G. (1996). Empirical foundations of atomism in ancient Greek philosophy. Science & Education, 5 , 293–303.

Schwab, J. J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schwab, J. J. (1974). The concept of the structure of a discipline. In E. W. Eisner & E. Vallance (Eds.), Conflicting conceptions of curriculum (pp. 162–175). Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corp.

Sommerfeld, A. (1915). Munchener Berichte (pp. 425–458).

Sommerfeld, A. (1916). Annalen der Physik , 51 , 1–94, 125–167.

Thomson, T. (1825). An attempt to establish the first principles of chemistry by experiments (2 Vols). London: Colburn & Bentley.

Thomson, J. J. (1897). Cathode rays. Philosophical Magazine, 44 , 293–316.

Tro, N. (2008). Chemistry: A molecular approach . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall (Pearson).

Viana, H. E. B., & Porto, P. A. (2010). The development of Dalton’s atomic theory as a case study in the history of science: Reflections for educators in chemistry. Science & Education, 19 , 75–90.

Wilson, D. (1983). Rutherford: Simple genius . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Epistemology of Science Group Department of Chemistry, Universidad de Oriente, Cumaná, Estado Sucre, Venezuela

Mansoor Niaz

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Niaz, M. (2016). Understanding Atomic Models in Chemistry: Why Do Models Change?. In: Chemistry Education and Contributions from History and Philosophy of Science. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26248-2_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26248-2_4

Published : 24 December 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-26246-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-26248-2

eBook Packages : Education Education (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Rutherford's experiment

The Rutherford experiments were a series of landmark experiments through which scientists discovered that every atom has a nucleus where its positive charges and most of its mass are concentrated. They deduced this by measuring how a beam of alpha particles spreads out when it hits a thin metal sheet. The experiments were carried out between 1908 and 1924 by Hans Geiger and under the direction of Ernest Rutherford in the laboratories of the University of Manchester.

The popular theory of nuclear structure was that of JJ Thomson. Thomson was the scientist who discovered the electron that is part of every atom. Thomson believed that the atom was a sphere of positive charge in which the electrons were arranged. Protons and neutrons were unknown at that time.

Thomson's model was not universally accepted. Thomson himself was not able to develop a complete and stable model of his concept. Hantaro Nagaoka, a Japanese scientist, rejected this on the grounds that opposite electrical charges cannot penetrate each other. Instead, he proposed that the electrons orbited the positive charge like Saturn's rings.

The prediction

According to Thomson's model, if an alpha particle (positively charged sub-microscopic particle) collided with an atom, it would pass straight through. At the atomic scale, the concept of "solid matter" is meaningless, so the alpha particle would not bounce off the atom like marbles. It would only be affected by the electric fields of the atom, and in Thomson's model the electric fields were too weak to affect a passing alpha particle to any significant degree. Both negative and positive charges within the Thomson atom extend over the entire volume of the atom. According to Coulomb's Law, the less concentrated a sphere of electric charge is, the weaker its electric field will be at its surface.

As a worked example, consider an alpha particle passing tangentially to a Thomson's gold atom, where it will experience the electric field at its strongest and thus experience the maximum deflection θ . Since the electrons are very light compared to the alpha particle, their influence can be neglected and the atom can be seen as a positively charged sphere.

Using classical physics, the lateral change of the alpha particle at moment Δp can be approximated using the momentum force relationship and the Coulomb force expression.

${displaystyle Delta p=FDelta t=kcdot {frac {Q_{alpha }Q_{n}}{r^{2}}}cdot {frac {2r}{v_{alpha }}}}$

The above calculation is only an approximation, but it is clear that the deflection will at most be on the order of a small fraction of a degree. If the alpha particle were to pass through gold foil some 400 atoms thick and experience a maximum deflection in the same direction (unlikely), it would still be a small deflection.

At Rutherford's request, Geiger and Marsden conducted a series of experiments in which they directed a beam of alpha particles at a thin piece of gold foil and measured the scattering pattern using a fluorescent screen. They detected alpha particles bouncing off the gold foil in all directions, some back at the source. This should be impossible according to Thomson's model. Obviously, these particles had encountered an electrostatic force much greater than Thomson's model, which in turn implied that the atom's positive charge was concentrated in a much smaller volume than Thomson imagined.

When Geiger and Marsden shot alpha particles into their foils, they found that only a small fraction of the alpha particles were deflected by more than 90°. Most flew right through the foil. This suggested that these tiny spheres of intense positive charge were separated by vast gulfs of empty space. Most of the particles passed through empty space with minimal deflection, and a small fraction hit the nuclei and were strongly deflected.

Rutherford thus rejected Thomson's model, and instead proposed a model in which the atom consisted of mostly empty space, with all its positive charge concentrated in the center of a very small volume, surrounded by a cloud of electrons..

Summary: Most of the alpha rays passed through the sheet without splitting, most of the space of an atom is empty space. There is a tiny, dense region that he called the nucleus, which contains positive charge and almost all the mass of the atom; some rays were deflected because they pass very close to the center with an electrical charge of the same type as alpha rays (positive charge); very few bounced because they collided head-on with centers of positive charge.

Personal schedule

Ernest Rutherford was a professor of physics at the University of Manchester. He had already received numerous honors for his radiation studies. He had discovered the existence of alpha rays; beta rays and gamma rays, and he had shown that these were the consequence of the disintegration of atoms. In 1906, he was visited by a German physicist named Hans Geiger, and he was so impressed that he asked Geiger to stay and help with his research. Ernest Marsden was a physics undergrad studying under Geiger.

Alpha particles are small positively charged particles that are spontaneously emitted by certain substances such as uranium and radium. Rutherford himself had discovered them in 1899. In 1908 he was trying to accurately measure their charge-mass ratio. To do this, he first needed to know how many alpha particles his radio sample was emitting (after which he would measure their total charge and divide one by the other). Alpha particles are too small to be seen even with a microscope, but Rutherford knew that alpha particles ionize air molecules, and if the air is within an electric field, the ions will produce an electric current. On this principle, Rutherford and Geiger designed a simple counting device consisting of two electrodes in a glass tube. Each alpha particle that passed through the tube created a pulse of electricity that could be counted. It was an early version of the Geiger counter.

The experiments they designed involved bombarding a metal foil with alpha particles to observe how the foil scattered them relative to its thickness and material. They used a fluorescent screen to measure the trajectories of the particles. Each impact of an alpha particle on the screen produced a small flash of light. Geiger worked in a darkened laboratory for hours on end, counting these tiny sparkles under a microscope. Rutherford lacked the stamina for this work, so he left it to his younger colleagues. For the metal foil, they tried a variety of metals, but preferred gold because they could make the foil very thin, since gold Gold is very malleable. As a source of alpha particles, Rutherford's substance of choice was radium, a substance several million times more radioactive than uranium.

The 1908 Experiment

A 1908 paper by Geiger, "On the Scattering of α-Particles by Matter", describes the following experiment. Geiger built a long glass tube almost two meters long. At one end of the tube was a quantity of "radio emanation" (R) that served as a source of alpha particles. The opposite end of the tube was covered with a phosphorescent screen (Z). In the center of the tube was a slit 0.9 mm wide. Alpha particles from R passed through the slit and created a bright patch of light on the screen. A microscope (M) was used to count the scintillations on the screen and measure their propagation. Geiger pumped all the air out of the tube so that the alpha particles were unclogged and left a clean, tight image on the screen that corresponded to the shape of the slit. Geiger then let some air into the tube, and the bright patch became more diffuse. Geiger then pumped out the air and placed gold leaf over the slot at AA. This also caused the light patch on the screen to spread out more. This experiment demonstrated that both air and solid matter could remarkably scatter alpha particles. The apparatus, however, could only observe small angles of deflection. Rutherford wanted to know if the alpha particles were being scattered at even larger angles—perhaps more than 90°.

The 1909 Experiment

In a 1909 paper, "On a Diffuse Reflection of Alpha Particles", Geiger and Marsden described the experiment by which they showed that alpha particles can be scattered by more than 90°. In their experiment they prepared a small conical glass tube (AB) containing radium, and its opening was sealed with mica. This was your alpha particle emitter. They mounted a lead plate (P), behind which a fluorescent screen (S) was placed. They positioned the radio tube on the other side of the plate in such a way that the alpha particles it emitted could not directly hit the screen. They noticed a few flashes on the screen. It was because some alpha particles avoided the lead plate by bouncing off the air molecules. They then attached a sheet of metal (R) to the side of the lead plate. They noticed more flickering on the screen because the alpha particles were bouncing off the foil. Counting the scintillations, they noticed that metals with higher atomic masses, such as gold, reflected more alpha particles than lighter ones, such as aluminum.

Geiger and Marsden then wanted to estimate the total number of alpha particles that were being reflected. The previous setup was not suitable for this because the tube contained various radioactive substances (radium and its decay products) and therefore the emitted alpha particles had varying ranges and because it was difficult for them to determine at what speed the tube was emitting particles. alpha. This time, they placed a small amount of radium C (bismuth-214) on a lead plate, which bounced off a platinum (R) reflector and onto the screen. They found that only a small fraction of the alpha particles that hit the reflector bounced off the screen (1 in 8,000).

The 1910 Experiment

A 1910 paper by Geiger, "The Scattering of α-Particles by Matter," describes an experiment in which he attempted to measure how the most likely angle through which an alpha particle deviates varies with material by the passing, the thickness of the material, and the velocity of the alpha particles. Geiger constructed an airtight glass tube from which air was pumped. At one end was a bulb (B) containing "radium emanation" (radon-222). By means of mercury, the radon in B was pumped through the tube slit onto a fluorescent zinc sulfide (S) screen. The microscope he used to count the flashes on the screen was set to a vertical millimeter scale with a vernier, which allowed Geiger to precisely measure where the flashes of light appeared on the screen and thus calculate the angles of the light particles. deflection. Alpha particles emitted from A narrowed to a beam through a small circular hole at D. Geiger placed a sheet of metal in the path of the rays at D and E to observe how the flash zone changed. He could also vary the speed of the alpha particles by placing extra sheets of mic or aluminum in A.

From the measurements he took, Geiger came to the following conclusions:

the most likely deflection angle increases with the thickness of the material
the most likely deflection angle is proportional to the atomic mass of the substance
the most likely deflection angle decreases with alpha particle speed
the probability that a particle deviates by more than 90° is very small

Rutherford mathematically models the dispersion pattern

In 1911, Rutherford published a landmark paper in 1911 titled "The Scattering of Alpha and Beta Particles by Matter and the Structure of the Atom" in which he proposed that the atom contains at its center a volume of electrical charge that is very small and intense (Rutherford treated it as a point charge in his equations). For the purposes of his equations, he assumed that this central charge was positive, but admitted that he could not prove this yet.

Rutherford developed an equation that modeled how the foil should scatter alpha particles if all the positive charge and most of the atomic mass were concentrated at a single point in the center of an atom.

${displaystyle s={frac {Xntcsc ^{4}{tfrac {phi }{2}}}{16r^{2}}}cdot ({frac {2Q_{n}Q_{alpha }}{mv^{2}}})^{2}}$

The gold foil

In a 1913 paper, "The Laws of Deflection of α-Particles by Large Angles", Geiger and Marsden describe a series of experiments by which they attempted to experimentally verify the above equation that Rutherford developed. Rutherford's equation predicted that the number of flashes per minute ( s ) to be observed at a given angle ( Φ ) should be proportional to:

thickness of the sheet t
magnitude of the central load Q n
1/(mv 2 ) 2

His 1913 paper describes four experiments by which they each demonstrated these four relationships.

To test how the scattering varied with deflection angle (i.e., if s ∝ csc 4 Φ/2 ) Geiger and Marsden built an apparatus consisting of a hollow metal cylinder mounted on a turntable. Inside the cylinder were a metal foil (F) and a radon-containing radiation source (R), mounted on a separate column (T) that allowed the cylinder to rotate independently. The column was also a tube through which air was pumped out of the cylinder. A microscope (M) with its objective covered by a fluorescent screen of zinc sulphide (S) penetrated the wall of the cylinder and was aimed at the metal sheet. By rotating the table, the microscope can be moved in a circle around the slide, allowing Geiger to observe and count alpha particles deflected up to 150°. Correcting for experimental error, Geiger and Marsden found that the number of alpha particles that are deflected by an angle Φ is indeed proportional to csc 4 Φ/2 .

Geiger and Marsden then proved how the scattering varied with the thickness of the sheet (i.e. if s ∝ t ). They built a disc (S) with six holes drilled into it. The holes were covered with metal sheets of varying thickness, or none for the control. This disc was then sealed in a brass ring (A) between two glass plates (B and C). The disk could be rotated by means of a bar (P) to bring each window in front of the alpha particle source (R). A zinc sulfide (Z) screen was located in the rear glass panel. Geiger and Marsden observed that the number of twinkles that appeared on the screen was actually proportional to the thickness, as long as the thickness was small.

Geiger and Marsden reused the above apparatus to measure how the scattering pattern varied with the square of the nuclear charge (i.e. if s ∝ Q n 2 ). Geiger and Marsden assumed that the charge of the nucleus was proportional to the atomic weight of the element, so they tested whether the dispersion was proportional to the atomic weight squared. Geiger and Marsden covered the holes in the disk with sheets of gold, tin, silver, copper, and aluminum. They measured the stopping power of each sheet by equating it to an equivalent thickness of air. They counted the number of flashes per minute that each plate produced on the screen. They divided the number of flashes per minute by the air equivalent. They counted the number of flashes per minute that each plate produced on the screen. They divided the number of flashes per minute by the air equivalent of the respective sheet, then divided again by the square root of the atomic weight (they knew that for sheets of equal stopping power, the number of atoms per unit area is proportional to the square root of the atomic weight). Thus, for each metal, Geiger and Marsden obtained the number of scintillations produced by a fixed number of atoms. For each metal, they then divided this number by the square of the atomic weight, and found that the proportions were more or less equal. Thus they proved that s ∝ Q n 2 .

Finally, Geiger and Marsden tested how the scattering varied with the velocity of the alpha particles (i.e. if s α 1/v 4 ). Again using the same apparatus, they retarded the alpha particles by placing additional sheets of mica in front of the alpha particle source. They observed that, within the range of experimental error, the number of scintillations was actually proportional to 1/v 4 .

Rutherford determines that the nucleus is positively charged

In his 1911 paper, Rutherford assumed that the central charge of the atom was positively charged, but acknowledged that he could not say for sure, as a negative or positive charge would have suited his scattering model. other experiments confirmed his hypothesis. In a 1913 paper, Rutherford stated that the "nucleus" was positively charged, based on the result of experiments exploring the scattering of alpha particles in various gases.

In 1917, Rutherford and his assistant William Kay began to explore the passage of alpha particles through gases such as hydrogen and nitrogen. In an experiment where they shot a beam of alpha particles through hydrogen, the alpha particles knocked the hydrogen nuclei forward in the direction of the beam, not backwards. In an experiment shooting alpha particles through nitrogen, he discovered that alpha particles knocked hydrogen nuclei (i.e. protons) out of nitrogen nuclei.

leadership trait questionnaire essay

business plan
course work
research paper

IMAGES

Espm Sp O Atomo De Rutherford
Rutherford's Model of an Atom
PPT
Rutherford's atomic model: experiment, postulates, limitations & examples
Ernest Rutherford Atomic Model
PPT

VIDEO

Rutherford's Atomic Model
Why greatest Mathematicians are not trying to prove Riemann Hypothesis? || #short #terencetao #maths
Difficulties With Rutherford Model || Drawback of Rutherford model
Biological Method
Sherfane Rutherford's brilliance powers Quetta Gladiators to win over Karachi Kings
R-H Criteria (Solved Problem 4)

COMMENTS

Rutherford model
Rutherford model, description of the structure of atoms proposed (1911) by the New Zealand-born physicist Ernest Rutherford. The model described the atom as a tiny, dense, positively charged core called a nucleus, in which nearly all the mass is concentrated, around which the light, negative constituents, called electrons, circulate at some ...
3.4: Rutherford's Experiment- The Nuclear Model of the Atom
In 1911, Rutherford and coworkers Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden initiated a series of groundbreaking experiments that would completely change the accepted model of the atom. They bombarded very thin sheets of gold foil with fast moving alpha particles. Figure 3.4.2 3.4. 2 (a) The experimental setup for Rutherford's gold foil experiment: A ...
What did Ernest Rutherford's atomic model get right and wrong?
The Rutherford atomic model was correct in that the atom is mostly empty space. Most of the mass is in the nucleus, and the nucleus is positively charged. Far from the nucleus are the negatively charged electrons. But the Rutherford atomic model used classical physics and not quantum mechanics. This meant that an electron circling the nucleus ...
Atom
Rutherford overturned Thomson's model in 1911 with his famous gold-foil experiment, in which he demonstrated that the atom has a tiny, massive nucleus. Five years earlier Rutherford had noticed that alpha particles beamed through a hole onto a photographic plate would make a sharp-edged picture, while alpha particles beamed through a sheet of mica only 20 micrometres (or about 0.002 cm ...
Rutherford model
The Rutherford model was devised by Ernest Rutherford to describe an atom. Rutherford directed the Geiger-Marsden experiment in 1909, which suggested, upon Rutherford's 1911 analysis, that J. J. Thomson 's plum pudding model of the atom was incorrect. Rutherford's new model [1] for the atom, based on the experimental results, contained new ...
Rutherford's Atomic Model, Postulates, and Drawbacks
In 1911, Ernest Rutherford, a British physicist disputed Thomson's hypothesis of the atom by demonstrating that atoms as dense, tiny having largely empty space filled with electrons revolving in a fixed path around a positively charged nucleus, like planets revolving around the sun.Rutherford found this by bombarding a thin sheet of gold foil with alpha rays (helium nuclei).
Rutherford Atomic Model Observations and Limitations In Detail
According to the Rutherford atomic model: The positive charge and most of the mass of an atom is concentrated in an extremely small volume. He called this region of the atom as a nucleus. Rutherford's model proposed that the negatively charged electrons surround the nucleus of an atom. He also claimed that the electrons surrounding the ...
Rutherford Atomic Model
The Rutherford atomic model has 2 main parts: the nucleus, and the atom's remaining space, occupied by electrons. According to the model, the nucleus is a very small portion of the atom's volume. It occupies a small space in the very center of the atom. Protons and neutrons make up the nucleus and define the atom's chemical properties.
Rutherford and the atom (4 of 4)
Rutherford and the atom (3 of 4) Most of the alpha particles passed through the gold foil without changing direction much as expected, but some came bouncing back in the opposite direction. View details >>.
Discovery of the electron and nucleus (article)
In the late 19 th ‍ century, physicist J.J. Thomson began experimenting with cathode ray tubes.Cathode ray tubes are sealed glass tubes from which most of the air has been evacuated. A high voltage is applied across two electrodes at one end of the tube, which causes a beam of particles to flow from the cathode (the negatively-charged electrode) to the anode (the positively-charged electrode).
Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment
What did Rutherford do in his famous experiment? Rutherford's diffraction experiment tests diffraction via a thin foil made of gold metal. Opposite the gold foil is a screen that emits a flash of light when struck by a particle. The passing of many of the particles through suggested the condensed nucleus version of the atom model.
Rutherford's argument (1 of 2)
Image Caption. In the early 1900s, Ernest Rutherford and his colleagues performed this experiment to test the hypothesis that an atom's mass and positive charge are spread diffusely throughout the atom and found that their expectations and actual observations did not match at all. Image use policy: For non-commercial, educational purposes, this ...
What were the results of Rutherford's experiment?
The previous model of the atom, the Thomson atomic model, or the "plum pudding" model, in which negatively charged electrons were like the plums in the atom's positively charged pudding, was disproved.The Rutherford atomic model relied on classical physics. The Bohr atomic model, relying on quantum mechanics, built upon the Rutherford model to explain the orbits of electrons.
Drawback of the Rutherford model (video)
Video transcript. Learn for free about math, art, computer programming, economics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, finance, history, and more. Khan Academy is a nonprofit with the mission of providing a free, world-class education for anyone, anywhere.
Models of the atom
The discovery of the make-up of the nucleus (protons and neutrons) came much later, and was not made by Rutherford. The nucleus was calculated to be about 1/10,000th the size of the atom. Next page
Understanding Atomic Models in Chemistry: Why Do Models Change?
Dalton rejected Gay-Lussac's law and Avogadro's principle as he did not believe in the existence of diatomic molecules. (e) ... argue persuasively against Thomson's hypothesis of compound scattering and at the same time provide arguments to support Rutherford's hypothesis of single scattering . To facilitate understanding, Krane ...
4.14: Gold Foil Experiment
Figure 4.14.2 4.14. 2: (A) The experimental setup for Rutherford's gold foil experiment: A radioactive element that emitted alpha particles was directed toward a thin sheet of gold foil that was surrounded by a screen which would allow detection of the deflected particles. (B) According to the plum pudding model (top), all of the alpha ...
Rutherford's experiment
In his 1911 paper, Rutherford assumed that the central charge of the atom was positively charged, but acknowledged that he could not say for sure, as a negative or positive charge would have suited his scattering model. other experiments confirmed his hypothesis. In a 1913 paper, Rutherford stated that the "nucleus" was positively charged ...
Chemistry: Atoms and Moles Flashcards
Was Rutherford's hypothesis rejected or supported? Rejected because a fraction of the alpha particles experienced strong deflection. Results of Rutherford's experiment (what he proposed based on his observations. that a nucleus must exist that all positive matter of an atom is confined
Clark's Chemistry Ch. 3 Atoms & Moles Flashcards
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Who was the first person to conceptualize the idea of the atom?, Why wasn't Democritus' idea widely accepted?, All matter is composed of small particles called what? and more.
was rutherford's hypothesis rejected or supported
Skip to primary navigation; Skip to main content; Skip to footer; Understanding Science. How science REALLY works... Teaching Resources. Rutherford's argument (1 of 2), image ca
Chemistry Plus
Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like First person to conceptualize atom, Dalton's Atomic Theory, Two Dalton postulates proved incorrect and more.