Rutherford Nuclear Model Wasn't Inspired by the Gold Foil Experiment
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 ก.ย. 2024
- Rutherford's nuclear model was created in 1911 and the gold foil experiment was done in 1913! The real story is far more interesting and simple then we are led to believe.
My Patreon Page (thanks!):
www.patreon.co...
To be added to my mailing list go here:
mailchi.mp/99c...
And, as usual, the amazing music is from the fabulous Kim Nalley.
Did Rutherford say, "All Science is Physics or Stamp Collecting?"
kathylovesphys... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
Simply awesome. Once again you are successful in making physics both interesting and comprehensible to 'non-scientific' minds. Thank you.
So glad it made sense, I do worry about what I may assume is common knowledge that most people don't know.
Don't worry about that Kathy - I think that the vast majority of people who enjoy your videos have the appropriate background knowledge. You are pitching it perfectly in my view.
@@stephenfoster6940 True dat, brother.
😊
😊
I've watched a number of your videos now ... and I couldn't be more impressed. Oh, how I wish this stuff had been available in my days as an undergraduate physics student. I really must have been a dullard. I never realised anything about the personalities and sheer genius of the physicists who went before.
Thank you for opening the eyes of so many people and making us appreciate physics so much more..
Typo alert at 2:08: corpsucles should be corpuscles (meaning little bodies from Latin "corpus")
Kathy, a super video! I have to say the pronunciation of "scintillate" threw me for a bit. I've never heard it pronounce the way you pronounced it. It's pronounced like the "sci" in science. The specifics of Rutherford's discovery gave me the best feel for the inner atomic distances.Thanks again.
Charles Carlson turns out I have never heard the word spoken before so I just guessed how to pronounce it. Oops. Thanks for becoming a patron by the way, I really appreciate it.
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics "corpsucle"? The word is "corpuscle".
tje bugbear of sudents of English: Pronunciatiom ia st least as bad as learning genders in Frech and German. Oten, we can pick it up from the first conversation, but kbowledgable peuple may also have omly deduced by reading - at school, , I heard about mole-ecules and moll-ecules in roughly equal anounts. It seemed, eo depend on whether they studied at Oxford or Canbrigge - I can't pinpoint whether a Prof. or an introductory course had tried to change history😀
btw corpuscle, above, is aother one I received as having a silent 'c' + corpisul
@@jmmahony Corpsucle is a common misspelling. That said, you're correct, especially in this case.
Geiger. Please.
Great presentation. Thanks! Thumbs up! Kathy's videos are becoming my favorite things to watch. Informative, entertaining and educational to boot! A real gift.
Kathy, you are one of my favorite story tellers, and your amazing stories are true life! Thank you!
Every one of your videos is informative and fascinating. The historical events make science that much more enjoyable. Thanks for your hard work!
This work was also a great gift to chemists, leading to new elememts and isotopes, cleared up atomic weight v aromic number as well. It is fairly recent, too, my first mentor as a chemistry teacher, in the early 1970s, mentioned that the neutron was not a concept when he was atudying.
I can only imagine what the Physics community was like around 1880-1920
So many famous figures!
James I would love to go back in time and hang with these people. Just amazing.
Dr Edward Dutton opines that such a concentration of genius has become beyond what modern westerners, who have become less intelligent since the Industrial Revolution can put together.
Geiger certainly counted as one of the famous figures. That's a pun.
@@feraudyh but Rutherford was the nucleus of the group.
The debates and conversations would be awesome to hear. So many great minds in the same place.
Always worth remembering that you don't fall through the floor... Because of the Pauli exclusion principle, not just charge.
That’s very interesting, thank you!
This is so much better than the usual over-simplified version - it makes no sense that Geiger and Marsden would have done that incredibly painstaking work if they did not know what they were looking for. The experiment demonstrated that the nucleus was massive and highly charged - _not_ that it was positively charged. Rutherford pointed out in his 1911 paper that the α-scattering results would be the same with a _negatively_ charged nucleus, but since he already knew about electrons it made sense that the nucleus was positively charged.
Very interesting. Although I basically knew this story, I did not know about Rutherford's experiment in Montreal. As an aside, when I was an undergrad 40+ years ago, I did read Rutherford's paper announcing his discovery of the nucleus. He wrote beautifully; and did the scattering calculation for both a positively & negatively charged nucleus.
Thanks for yet another amazing video. That was quite the cliffhanger. With all the phenomenal stories you have shared so far, we are on the brink of hearing your fave! Wow! And here I was thinking that the person you were setting us up for was Ludwig Boltzmann. I was not expecting to hear that it was the KVL/KCL dude along with the Bunsen Burner guy. Eagerly awaiting your next!
Da Hawk I hope I haven’t set expectations too high. I was personally blown away by the next story so I hope you will be too. 🤞
You got our expectations sky high with your very first video. And now with your superlative plug... ok, maybe I should try to relax.
And if you're looking to relax yourself, yesterday I happened across this phenomenal movie about Nikola Tesla. I'm only 40 years late, as it was filmed back in the 70s. Maybe you know about it, and maybe you've seen it already, but it's only got 14k views, which strikes me as crazy. About as crazy as you not having millions of views on your channel with at least 6figs worth of subs.
The Secret Of Nikola Tesla (1980)
th-cam.com/video/JpW6Th-OBwA/w-d-xo.html
There is so much about this movie that is amazing. Just the casting, as they found these Serbian actors, one who Orson Welles was living with. I got immersed to the point where I felt like I was watching Tesla himself. If you do watch it, I'd be especially interested to hear if you catch major errors they might have made. I know of one silly error, and one other error that's more substantial. But I'll keep those to myself for now so as not to distract anyone who is wanting to come to this fresh.
Da Hawk I’ll try to check it out. Thanks
I am enormously surprised by your broad knowledge of the history of science, and I am very pleased and gratefully by your beatiful videos, which help me a lot for a book that I am writing about the relationships between Physics and Philosophy.
Thank you for bringing us these awesome facts about the history of science & technology!
You are welcome
Fun fact: Johannes Wilhelm "Hans" Geiger was the co-developer of the Geiger counter used to register radioactivity.
I wish Kathy would write the German names like they are normally spelled, Geiger, as you say, has become "Gieger" in the video because Kathy apparently thinks "i" as in Life is how to spell the German pronunciation, "Geiger" could be anglicized as "Giger". But what can you do, the subject is super interesting and the video deserves applause anyway.
@@donaldaxel Of course. I love watching Kathy's videos!
Scintellation. rescind is the same base, so is scion. it means twinkle in french. it's a near perfect equivalent for twinkle.
ScienceRaven fascinating thanks for telling me (turns out i only read it in books and never heard it said).
4:30 scin·til·la·tion ( /ˌsin(t)lˈāSHən/ ) noun - a flash or sparkle of light.; a small flash of visible or ultraviolet light emitted by fluorescence in a phosphor when struck by a charged particle or high-energy photon.
This video seems to be one of the more important back stories of our understanding of quantum mechanics.
Thanks for sharing your passion with the TH-cam community!
Glad you enjoyed it.
Your videos are my raison d'être... I really can't wait until the next one.
Jack D. Ripper awe thanks Jack
I really really really really relly love your channel and your work!!!!!
I’m really really glad. Thank you 😊
It’s crazy what these first experimentalists discovered and uncovered with their intuition and intelligence, repetition, patience and the tools at hand. Even more remarkable is they’re creating the first physics text on these phenomena!
In our time, we just need the right attitude to run these same experiments and build corresponding projects, as we’ve all the physics we’ll need, a treasure trove of YT and Nebula presentations, and uncountable websites and access to papers, documents and images. Furthermore, the easy access to cheap electronics, kits, and instruments is just astounding! To think how unavailable this all was even as recently as the mid-90s.
And it’s so amazing and inspirational how many people take advantage of this and continue to move humanity further forward, and even more a blessing when they share their knowledge freely and openly. Sagan was so right to be optimistic about we as a species, and that we have much promise.
Thank you again, Kathy, you’re sooo one of these people I described. I learn so much from your research and perspective.
i recall having a chemistry set in the 50's where i could look into a tube with a magnifying lens and see alpha particles "spark".
Love Love Love your videos! This one has a small pronunciation error: it's "sintillation" not "skintillation" :)
I love all your stuff Kathy (that I've seen so far). I've always wondered what Rutherford and co. thought alpha particles were as it seems to me there must have been a day when another lightbulb went off in his head realising they are He nuclei.
"We have no money so we are forced to think" or words to that effect are attributed to Rutherford.
Earlier today I was glued to your presentations about Faraday for whom I can relate somewhat especially having been in London when I was 15 and being a frequent visitor of the Science Museum and the Royal Institution where many of his coils etc are displayed. You taught me a bunch of stuff I did not know like his disdain for awards/titles etc. preferring to be plain old Michael Faraday. Your enthusiasm is contagious, please keep it up. Sometimes when I click on the "next" video I don't get the one I'm expecting and have to go back and then make a choice between options. It's no big E but I imagine there ought to be a way to watch everything in order, more or less(?).
Perhaps some historical perspectives on mathematicians could be an idea for future work if you were seeking ideas.
I'm glad that I discovered this video, because I'm planning to become a science teacher. Now I won't tell it the wrong way that was told in my old gen chem book when I first learned it. Awesome work, this channel is amazing.
It's super cool to see the chain of genius go through time. It's way easier for me to understand how things work when I can recall who discovered what and why. The story behind science and the people who made it happen makes each subject more interesting than ever before.
I really loved the video! Congratulations! Little corrections: names are: Geiger (not Gieger) and Niels, not Niel Bohr.
OK, you got me! This video is so gripping that I can't wait to see the next one. Liked and Subscribed!
You are the most inspirational nerd I have ever met. Great job!
Thanks!
Have watched many and will be watching more. Your historical approach is invaluable in that is shows not a single genius egghead but all discoveries are part of an ongoing chain of questioning in many different places.
another great presentation, thanks
Alastair Chestnutt so glad you liked it
History of physics told in a very very nice way.
You are the best nerd I've never met :-D
Thank you for HOURS of high class entertainment. Just love it!
A side note: You pronounce it perfectly, but someone has made errors on the way: It's a bit annoying (as a European) when "Geiger" (the scientist) is constantly named "Gieger" (the artist). Likewise "Niels Bohr" is not named "Niel Bohr" ... Niel was a moonwalker, Niels weren't (although quite good at soccer) ;-)
Wow! Keep up the wonderful work!
Charles Trey Houston thanks
You’re amazing Miss Kathy.
Thank you, Jutu
This is how young Marsden earned his mustache.
It blows my mind how different history is then it actually was. Not even tiny mistakes but whole experiments, and the majority of peoples lives are put through a telephone game. Funny how people wanted to be remembered and even the famous ones hardly are remembered accurately. Makes you feel better about making mistakes really. I just wonder how much people took from others without acknowledging it and became known for something. It's almost like how bizarre reading TH-cam comments are. People copy what other people say, or a joke they told, slightly reword it and re-post it.
More wonderful stories of great scientists.
Your channel is such a blessing. I was just thinking and hoping to find a trustworthy physics resource for self-education and teaching. Thank you for your love for God’s world and for the historical sources in these papers!
You know, that version, that is apparently wrong, is taught in school. I vividly remember telling it to the teacher on exam. :-D
Ah so your saying we didn't learn this from aliens.
Amazing video. Thank you so much Kathy. Lots of love ♥️🌹
Late to the show, but your videos are super interesting and a great resource. I teach science and I have always wondered why the gold foil experiment always looked like they already knew what the outcome would be. Now I know more of the real story. So much better!
This is the largest bombshell I received in a few years. Not only I heard the wrong information, the sources I read also wrongly attributes the rebounding shell quote to gold foil experiment.
I was completely shocked too!
it's not too far though... almost identical experiments, measuring scattering angles of alpha particles off a metal foil. we often learn the more refined later experiments because they give a better or more complete picture of the underlying physics
Even cooler than the fact that 99.99% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, the 3 quarks particles that make up each of the the nucleons, protons/neutrons, only composes about 6% of the nice Lin’s mass, the rest of the mass of the nucleons comes from the energy content of the massless gluons holding the nucleons together.
Very nice video! Good job!
Iguatinã Costa thanks
great video!
Thanks
You misspell and mispronounce many words: Geiger not Gieger, corpuscle (KOR-puss-sel) not corpsucle, auger (oh-zhay) electrons not awe-grrr, scintillation is SIN-till-a-shun not SKIN-till-a-shun.
Presented in the most interesting way. Thank you from a lowly motorcycle mechanic.
o🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧪 Rutherford's gold foil experiment wasn't the inspiration for his discovery of the nucleus; it was done to verify his existing theory.
00:28 🕰️ The pivotal experiment in 1909 involved eight different metals and was simpler than the gold foil experiment, leading to the discovery of the nucleus.
02:23 🧲 Rutherford believed that alpha particles could be pushed by electrons due to their proximity despite differences in mass and charge.
08:36 💥 Rutherford's model unveiled that atoms consist mostly of empty space with a tiny, heavy nucleus.
11:33 🔬 Bohr introduced the first quantum mechanical view of the atom with the Bohr model to address issues in classical physics.
Made with HARPA AI s
Interesting, informative and well presented. Kudos!
Well I didnt know Bunsen and Kirchoff were the one's who came up with the blackbody radiation
I don't buy the idea that the idea that most of an atom is empty space. It's not empty, it's filled with electrical charge. Electrical charge is very much something. ;-)
Another amazing video where I learned a lot, thank you very very much!
One small comment.... around minute 10 you attribute the fact that we do not fall through solids to electrical forces. Perhaps you mean this is what Rutherford thought, but it's not actually true, the Pauli exclusion principle is what is responsible for keeping us from falling through the floor. But this is a few steps beyond Rutherford...
lovely video, sweet Kathy.
Wonderful presentation. BTW, the 'c' in scintillation is silent.
Geiger Geiger Geiger.... Misspelled every single time, 7 times. Seven!
You probably don't want to hear that atoms need an update and replacement conceptually, just because holography is fact and all that hard work describing Rutherford flies in Cathedrals is junk science, relative-timing in modulo-geometrical sync-duration speaking of 0-1-2-ness 3D-T Physics amplitude and frequency alignment.
It's Galileo's Pendulum time-timing planes of potential oscillation as they relate to prime-cofactor frequency density-intensity pumping in lasers, masers and now LEDs.
Students who have familiarised with GD&P line-of-sight superposition in i-reflection Superposition-point Singularity Positioning integration can probably figure it out as holography dimensionality.
Research into Superconduction as it relates to Sublimation-Tunnelling and quantization-resonance superposition jumps by Profs Hartnoll and Susskind should tell the holistic story (?).
I haven't seen anyone mention it, so I will. You have misspelled Geiger a couple of times in this video. The correct spelling can be seen at 5:03.
Kathy, your work is incredible and inspiring to anyone interested in science. You should pursue a PhD in science history.
Thanks! I am actually looking into it. I talked to a professor at UC Berkeley last year but he said a history of electricity was too broad a subject. However, I really want to write an extra book about Hertha Ayrton and she might be specific enough for a Ph.D. Still, it is a long process and I really don't want to start without finishing it. I appreciate the encouragement.
Kathy - I'm curious. What's your background and how did you get into science history?
Love the cannonball animation! This gave me a laugh. 😅
FYI The c is silent in scintillation
Great going Kathy! I have to wonder if any of these guys knew that working with radioactive stuff had negative consequences..
Kirchhoff did electronics theory too (see video "EEVblog #820 - Mesh & Nodal Circuit Analysis Tutorial").
Cliff Matthews well, they knew it could burn your fingers but they thought it was fine aside from that. They also thought small amounts was good for you! Rutherford thought it would be fine if you took lots of healthy walks. And, for him, it was!!
Oh and I will mention Kirchhoff’s loops in my next video. But only a little
Do you have a list of who is in that photo? I note at least of some who are not in there ... is that the "second most intelligent photo ever taken"?
Madam... good explanation...🙏🙏🙏🙏
/🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧲 Rutherford's gold foil experiment wasn't the inspiration for his discovery of the nucleus; it was done to verify his existing theory.
00:28 📜 In 1909, a significant experiment involving eight different metals, not just gold, influenced Rutherford's nuclear model.
02:23 💡 Rutherford believed that alpha particles were positive and thought they could be pushed by tiny electrons due to their close proximity.
08:36 ⚛️ Rutherford's model revealed that atoms are mostly empty space, with the nucleus being incredibly small and heavy.
11:33 🌌 Bohr introduced the first quantum mechanical view of the atom with his Bohr model in response to challenges posed by classical physics.
Made with HARPA AI
That was awesome!!
So glad you liked it. I was quite surprised to find the way I was taught was different than what really happened. Even a non-fiction book I read about Rutherford's life had that same misconception! (I guess they didn't notice the dates). Crazy eh?
The 'c' is silent in "scintillation."
Andrew Wheeler I was just told that on reddit. Darn it, wish I had known before the video. English spelling is so stupid (and I’m a native speaker).
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics No big deal, nice video :)
Someone might have also given you feedback on the pronunciation of this word:
www.dictionary.com/browse/corpuscle
Just click the speaker icon to hear the standard way the word is said.
Spoiler:
CORR-pussle. Another silent 'c'. But I must say that the way you say it makes me want to grab a popsicle from my freezer.
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics scintillating!
@3:38 Scintillation has a silent c, so it is pronounced sin-till-ation.
10:10 does this mean atoms do not touch? Nice presentation, love this story.
I've told highly educated, intelligent people " You've never touched anything" They always push back. Fun times ensue.
excellent
SovietRefusnik1 Golem glad you liked it
@2:02 Shouldn't that be corpuscles, as in Corpuscular theory of light?
In the word "scintillation" the "c" is silent, so that the word sounds like "sintillation".
The problem of saying words that I’ve never heard spoken
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics That is perfectly understandable.
I think going ahead and trying out your guessed pronunciation is the best policy.
Certainly none of us would want you to hold off for that reason or any reason!
Your videos are superb, original, unique.
They represent a significant step forward in science history, understanding and pedagogy.
I don't know if all the fields that fill the space between the nucleolus and is deemed to be outer most part of an atom are "almost nothing". ;-)
Can you do something on the history of the atomic bomb and hydrogen bomb?
11:29 “implode” - this claim seems to be easily refutable. there is no evidence that a single electron emits electromagnetic energy. also, it’s only traveling at 1/3 the speed of light. we know that electromagnetic affects are due to relativistic effects. So we should not expect the electron to lose any energy. [edit:] I guess the x-ray experiment conducted by roentgen, proves that accelerating electrons give off high energy waves.
Please make a video explaining the Christoffel symbols.
Proving again that not all PhD candidates are ineffective lab rats. Go Marsden! Thank you, Kathy, for this video which I have watched several times over the years as a form of encouragement.
I think it's "corpuscles" rather than "corpsucles". Nit picking, I know, but my colleague of 27 years was a *serious* nit picker and I guess it rubbed off on me. So much so that I decided not to tell him I was writing a book. He would have torn it to pieces with a red pen. :)
4:42 “ avalanche” I don’t understand this experiment at all. What was actually observed? Is there any radiation here?
I believe the correct spelling is "Geiger".
Great video - as always. But as a german native speaker, seeing geigers name constantly misspellt, kind of hurts :)
Scintillation has a silent ‘C’ !!!
Would you be interested in putting all these on a single DVD for those of us that want to binge watch this? Maybe as a Patreon perk.
Interesting, I could look into it
7:44 Ow !
You spelled "Geiger" wrong, but pronounced it right.
NiHaoMike 1 out of 2 ain’t bad?
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics Also Niels Bohr, rather then Niel Bohr. But your videos are really great! Thank you so much!
Fun fact: In German, a Geige is a violin. A Geiger is a violinist. You're welcome.
Can you expand on how he calculated the size of the nucleus? Was it just a statistical analysis were he hypothesized how small it should had been to cause that amount of refraction? Shouldn't he already know the size of the alpha particles to do it though, i.e. the size of the helium nucleus, so this argument seems circular.
He guessed that the alpha particle and the nucleus were about the same size. He had a general idea about the size of the atom and decided to make the helium nucleus *and* the platinum nucleus smaller than 10,000 the size of the atom, to cause that amount of reflection. It seemed, at first, as far as I can tell, to be a random guess to make it fit the one result. Later, after the 360 degree gold foil he made more detailed derivations of the size of the nucleus from the larger amount of data. Amusingly, this new result for the size of the nucleus ended up being further from our current number for the size of the nucleus! Ah well. Pretty crazy eh?
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics interesting, I didn't expect so much guesswork. Thanks for the reply!
4:14 “ alpha particles, had the charge of 2e” how do he know this?
3:33 It's Geiger not Gieger.
What is special about mica?
You make TH-cam wonderful
Do we say “Skience” or “Sience” for Science? If it sounds as the latter, then scintillation sounds without the K. Sorry, but this is the first time I hear it pronounced this way although when I was in college I learned in french where there too the K is silent.
I don't understand, how can you infer the size of the object being bombarded from the projectile being scattering backwards ? Someone please explain...
You need to assume that the force responsible for the scattering is the electrostatic repulsion from the nucleus onto the alpha particle (you just need to check that it fits the scattering data).
Knowing the mass, charge and speed of the alpha particle, that force must exceed a certain threshold.
The unknown variables are the charge of the atom core, and the distance separating the atom center from the alpha particle center, a distance that can't be smaller than the sum of the sizes of the alpha particle and atom nucleus.
Rutherford assumed that the charge of the core was somewhat proportional to the atom mass with a factor close to unity (he took 1/2), from here you can get an order of magnitude for the atom nucleus size.
missing piece of the story is story of naming of these particles as alpha and beta, and the phenomenon of radioactive , anyway who and when these terms were coined?
I made a video on that very subject!
I like "sin - till - ate" .
I think the c in scintillation is silent
George turns out that is one of many words I have never heard, only read. 🤷🏻♀️
I think it's pronounced "sintillation" not "skintillation". I know ... it's spelled scintillation but as you know, I'm a nit picker. And a guitar picker. Also, it's "Kirchoff", not "Kirkoff". The "ch" is pronounce as in "church". :)
I love your videos. Well researched, clever, and well presented.
I hesitate before I bring up my one single very slight reservation. In no way is this meant to take away from your videos or to criticize. So please take this as well intentioned..:
I would be so happy if you pronounced names and words properly. Almost every non-English name is mispronounced, or mis-spelled, or both. Even some English ones (Rutherford has a soft “th” as in “the”, not a hard “th” as in “thorium”).
Again, please don’t think I am in any way criticizing. But for me it is very distracting to hear all these names and words mispronounced. If I can help in any way with this for future vids, pm me, I’d be delighted! And keep up the good work.
Thank you for the kind words so nicely said. I am actually trying to pronounce things correctly but I have a weird tick where things come out strangely - a difficulty for a TH-camr. I will work on it more in the future.
@@Kathy_Loves_Physics if it’s a matter of not knowing the languages, please feel free to call upon me any time: Would be only to happy to help.
Regardless, carry on the great work. This electrical engineer loves it.
yea i wanted to mention all the german names with an "i" sound. Geiger for example. i and e always switch places here ;-) but the pronounciation is very accurate for an english speaker...