Inconsistency in Rutherford's atomic model

At the University of Manchester in 1909, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, both under the guidance of Professor E. Rutherford, conducted their famous "Gold foil experiment." By directing alpha-particles perpendicularly towards a thin gold foil, they found that a majority of the particles passed through the foil with little or no deflection. However, they also discovered that a very small percentage of those particles faced deflection through angles larger than 90 degrees with some even scattering back towards the source. Based on this observation, Rutherford concluded that an atom should contain positive charge squeezed into a relatively tiny volume of space at the center (which we now know as nucleus) that would repel alpha particles if they came in close proximity.

 
Last year, in one of our A-level physics lessons at Budhanilkantha School, we were learning about the gold-foil experiment. In course of the lesson, it dawned upon me that if a good percentage of alpha particles in alpha rays should penetrate the gold-leaf without being deflected, perhaps photons in a pencil of visible light too should behave in a similar way. In comparison to alpha-particles, photons are charge-less and much smaller in size. As a consequence, a bigger majority of the visible-light-photons in comparison to alpha particles should penetrate the gold foil with greater ease and much little deflection. As this implies, the gold-leaf should therefore be optically transparent. We know however that a gold-foil, no matter how thin, let alone transparent, is not even translucent.

 
In the case that my aforementioned argument makes sense, it is only fair to assume that one of the two theories involved, the particulate-theory of light (concerning photons) or the elementary atomic model, contains discrepancies of some sort. Although the two theories may well be correct in their own respects, putting them together in the gold-foil experiment does not predict an observation (that the gold-foil is opaque) correctly. While I am not able to precisely state what gives rise to this inconsistency among the two well-accepted scientific models, either way, one of the two theories, both of which hold prominent positions in the scientific knowledge-base today, faces vulnerability.

USP essay

At the University of Manchester in 1909, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, both under the guidance of Professor E. Rutherford, conducted their famous "Gold foil experiment." By directing alpha-particles normally towards a thin gold foil, they found that a majority of the particles passed through the foil with little or no deflections. However, they also discovered that a very small percentage of those particles faced deflection through angles larger than 90 degrees with some even scattering back towards the source. Following this observation, Rutherford concluded that an atom should contain positive charge squeezed into a relatively tiny volume of space at the centre that would repel alpha particles if they came in close proximity.

 

Last year, in one of our physics classes with Mr. Keshar Khulal at Budhanilkantha School, we were learning about the gold-foil experiment. In course of the lesson, it dawned upon me that if a good percentage of alpha particles in alpha rays should penetrate the gold-leaf without being deflected (approx. 98%), perhaps photons in a pencil of visible light too should behave in a similar way. More so, in comparison to alpha-particles, photons are charge-less and much smaller in size. As a consequence, a bigger majority of the visible-light-photons should penetrate the gold foil with much greater ease and far little deflections. As it follows, the gold-leaf should therefore be transparent by nature. It is obvious however that a gold-foil, no matter how thin, let alone transparent, is not even translucent.

 

Assuming that my shallow physics knowledge has produced a plausible argument as yet, it is evident that the particulate-theory of light (concerning photons) and the elementary theory of atoms don't fit too well. Although the two theories may well be correct in their own respects, putting them together in the gold-foil experiment does not predict the observations correctly.

 

This leads us to a point of great dismay and just two possibilities. The first possibility is that Rutherford's conclusion (and thus, the whole atomic theory) is invalid but the "particulate theory" of light is true. Alternatively, the second possibility is that Rutherford's conclusion is true but the particulate-theory of light (and the "wave-particle duality theory of light" even) is doubtable. Either way, one of the two theories, both of which hold prominent positions in the scientific knowledge-base today, faces vulnerability. For a science that has come such a long way from basic numerology to this modern era of super-computing, to be bothered by any subject of such trite existence is definitely not a worthy ordeal.

 

After discovering this possible loop-hole in elementary science, I have taken a personal initiative to formulate a hypothesis to resolve this confusion which is called the POP CORN THEORY. As of now the theory is still a work-in-progress.