ILOILO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY MODULE 1

GE 7 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY LESSON 1 THE NATURE OF SCIENCE

THE STORY OF THE ATOM
ANNEX 1 C

THE STORY OF THE ATOM

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_03

In the early 1900s, Ernest Rutherford studied

(among other things) the organization of the atom
— the fundamental particle of the natural world.
Though atoms cannot be seen with the naked
eye, they can be studied with the tools of science
since they are part of the natural world.

Ernest Rutherford's investigations were aimed at understanding a small, but

illuminating, corner of the natural world: the atom. He investigated this world using
alpha particles, which are helium atoms stripped of their electrons. Rutherford had
found that when a beam of these
tiny, positively-charged alpha
particles is fired through gold foil,
the particles don't stay on their
beeline course, but are deflected
(or "scattered") at different
angles. Rutherford wanted to
figure out what this might tell him
about the layout of an atom.

Before 1910, Ernest Rutherford and many other scientists had the idea that
the positive charge and the mass of an atom were evenly distributed throughout the
whole atom, with electrons scattered throughout. You can imagine this model of the
atom as a loosely packed snowball (the positive mass of the atom) with a few tiny
grains of sand (the electrons) scattered throughout. The idea that atoms are
arranged in this way can be tested by firing an alpha particle beam through a piece
of gold foil. If the idea were correct, then the positive mass in the gold foil would be
relatively diffuse (the loosely packed snow) and would allow the alpha particles to
pass through the foil with only minor scattering.

Ernest Rutherford's lab tested the idea that an atom's positive mass is spread
out diffusely by firing an alpha particle beam through a piece of gold foil, but the
evidence resulting from that experiment was a complete surprise: most of the alpha
particles passed through the gold foil without changing direction much as expected,

24 | P a g e
ILOILO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY MODULE 1
GE 7 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY LESSON 1 THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
THE STORY OF THE ATOM
ANNEX 1 C

but some of the alpha particles came bouncing back in the opposite direction, as
though they had struck something dense and solid in the gold foil. If the gold atoms
were really like loosely packed snowballs, all of the alpha particles should have
passed through the foil, but they did not!

From this evidence, Rutherford concluded that their snowball model of the
atom had been incorrect, even though it was popular with many other scientists.
Instead, the evidence suggested that an atom is mostly empty space and that its
positive charge is concentrated in a dense mass at its core, forming a nucleus. When
the positively charged alpha particles were fired at the gold foil, most of them passed
through the empty space of the gold atoms with little deflection, but a few of them ran
smack into the dense, positively charged nucleus of a gold atom and were repelled
straight back (like what would happen if you tried to make the north poles of two
strong magnets touch). The idea that atoms have positively charged nuclei was also
testable. Many independent experiments were performed by other researchers to
see if the idea fit with other experimental results.

Though Ernest Rutherford came up with the idea that atoms have positively
charged nuclei, the research that led to this idea was a collaborative effort:
Rutherford was assisted by Hans Geiger, and the critical alpha-scattering experiment
was actually carried out by Ernest Marsden, an undergraduate student working in
Rutherford's lab.

Furthermore, after his discovery of the layout of the atom, Rutherford

published a description of the idea and the relevant evidence, releasing it to the
scientific community for scrutiny and evaluation. And scrutinize they did. Niels Bohr
noticed a problem with Rutherford's idea: there was nothing keeping the orbiting
electrons from spiraling into the nucleus of the atom, causing the whole thing to
collapse! Bohr modified Rutherford's basic model by proposing that electrons had set
energy levels, which helped solve the problem and earned Bohr a Nobel Prize. Since
then, many other scientists have built on and modified Bohr's model.

Lithium atoms diagrammed in the

Rutherford and Bohr models.
Rutherford’s model does not
differentiate between any of the
electrons, while Bohr’s model
places electrons into orbits with
set energy levels.

25 | P a g e
ILOILO SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY UNIVERSITY MODULE 1
GE 7 SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY LESSON 1 THE NATURE OF SCIENCE
THE STORY OF THE ATOM
ANNEX 1 C

Niels Bohr built upon Ernest Rutherford's work to

develop the model of the atom most commonly portrayed
in textbooks: a nucleus orbited by electrons at different
levels. Despite the new questions it raised (e.g., how do
orbiting electrons avoid violating the rules of electricity and
magnetism when they don't spiral into the nucleus?), this
model was powerful and, with further modification, led to a
wide range of accurate predictions and new discoveries:
from predicting the outcome of chemical reactions, to
determining the composition of distant stars, to conceiving
of the atomic bomb.

Ernest Rutherford and his colleagues acted in ways that moved science forward:

 They understood the relevant knowledge in their field. Rutherford had studied
physics for more than 20 years when he proposed the idea of the nucleus.

 They exposed their ideas to testing. Even though his original view of the atom
suggested that no backscattering should occur, Rutherford decided to look for
backscattered alpha particles anyway, just to be thorough.

 They assimilated the evidence. When their experimental results did not
support the "snowball" model of the atom, instead of writing those results off
as an anomaly, they modified their original ideas in light of the new evidence.

 They openly communicated their ideas so that other physicists could test
them as well. Rutherford published the experimental results, a description of
his reasoning, and the idea of the nucleus in 1911 in a scientific journal.

 They acted with scientific integrity. In his paper on the topic, Rutherford
assigned credit fairly (citing the contributions of his colleagues, Geiger and
Marsden) and reported his results honestly — even when experimental results
and his theoretical calculations did not match up perfectly.

The scientists involved with this investigation lived up to the five points in the
scientist's code of conduct. In this way — and judging by the other items on the
Science Checklist — this investigation of atomic structure is well within the purview
of science.

26 | P a g e