Talk:Rutherford scattering

There are no diagrams..

Add diagram for better experience 2409:4073:9F:5C27:0:0:614:68A4 (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers for Rutherford 1911 paper.

It appears that Rutherford's paper was reprinted so we need to check the page numbers. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Example hyperbolic trajectory figure

I added a figure showing some of Rutherford's example trajectories. Suggestions welcome. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I have also added a diagram of the potential energy formula used in Rutherford's paper. The values are not important, the key is to give the important message that the nuclear potential is very strong just in the middle and the electron potential does not matter. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I propose to merge Rutherford scattering experiments into Rutherford scattering. These articles are largely redundant: we don't need two articles on this topic.

The new article, to be called "Rutherford scattering," would contain the first two large sections of "Rutherford scattering experiments" and all of Rutherford scattering after "Key experiments". New TOC with links to sections in existing articles:

• Summary
  • all subsections.
• Scattering experiments
  • all subsections
• Rutherford's Structure of the Atom paper of 1911
  • Atomic model
  • Maximum nuclear size estimate
  • Single scattering from heavy nuclei
  • Intensity vs angle
  • Comparison to JJ Thomson's results
  • Target recoil
• Reception
• Newtonian mechanics for scattering

As a consequence of this merge "Rutherfords scattering experiments" would redirect to "Rutherford_scattering#Scattering_experiments" and most two sections of Rutherford scattering experiments would be deleted:

1. A simplistic mathematical look at the Thomson model. Much of this material is in the article on Thomsom model, the Plum_pudding_model.
2. Rutherford_scattering_experiments#Scattering_from_a_Rutherford_atom This is an odd non-physics approach to a classic problem. This material derives in part from from one textbook by A. Beiser (1969) ("Perspectives of Modern Physics". Japan: McGraw-Hill). Beiser uses integrals of force rather than potentials used in the historic approach by Rutherford and in standard textbooks like Goldstein or Hand and Finch. The Beiser-based subsection is copied into a section on alternative derivations called "Newtonian mechanics for scattering".

These two sections are the overlapping material between the two articles. The content in Rutherford scattering walks through Rutherford's classic paper which is also the approach used in standard mechanics texts. A reader familiar only with Newton's equations may not immediately understand why potentials are used, but that is the standard approach and the one we should present.

I think the combination of these two articles would create one strong comprehensive article. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I would be willing to replace the Beiser/Hyperphysics stuff in Rutherford scattering experiments with what Johnjbarton wrote in Rutherford scattering. His work is more historically accurate. Kurzon (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Very gracious, thank you. What do you think about the name, Rutherford scattering vs Rutherford scattering experiments? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I prefer Rutherford scattering experiments. We copy your stuff to that article. I don't care anymore if I don't understand it. Kurzon (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

If there is anything in the content that can be clearer please let me know. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)