Discover the nuclear model of the atom through alpha particle scattering
In 1909, Geiger and Marsden fired alpha particles at gold foil. Most passed through, but a few scattered at large angles — even backward. This contradicted the Thomson 'plum pudding' model and led Rutherford to propose the nuclear model: nearly all atomic mass is concentrated in a tiny, positively-charged nucleus. The scattering angle depends on how close the alpha particle passes to the nucleus, governed by Coulomb repulsion.
Plus 148+ other Pro labs covering AP Physics, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science, and Math — with unlimited simulation time, advanced parameters, and detailed analytics.
Already have an account?
Sign in →In 1909, Rutherford's students Geiger and Marsden did one of the most surprising experiments in physics. They fired alpha particles — fast, heavy, positively charged helium nuclei — at a thin sheet of gold foil, expecting them to plow straight through like bullets through paper. Most did. But every now and then one bounced almost straight back. Rutherford said it was 'as if you fired a 15-inch shell at tissue paper and it came back and hit you.' That backscattering killed the 'plum pudding' model and gave birth to the nuclear atom: nearly all the mass and all the positive charge crammed into a tiny core, with electrons spread far around it. This simulation lets you reproduce that experiment, aim alpha particles at any nucleus from hydrogen to fermium, and watch Coulomb repulsion sling them off at angles set by how close they pass to the nucleus.
MisconceptionAtoms are mostly empty space, so light and matter should pass right through them all the time.
CorrectAtoms are mostly empty space *for very high-energy particles like alphas* — the nucleus occupies about 1/100,000 the diameter of the atom. But for light and ordinary matter, the electron cloud fills the entire atomic volume and absolutely interacts with anything passing through. 'Mostly empty' refers to a specific scale and probe; it doesn't mean atoms are hollow.
MisconceptionRutherford's experiment proved electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed paths.
CorrectIt did no such thing. Scattering only revealed the *positive charge distribution* — that the positive charge is concentrated, not spread out. Where the electrons live and how they move was completely outside the experiment's reach. Bohr's quantized orbits came four years later (1913) by combining Rutherford's nuclear atom with quantum theory of light. Today we know electrons aren't on fixed paths at all.
MisconceptionMost alphas got deflected by the nucleus, which is how Rutherford detected it.
CorrectThe opposite is true. Most alphas passed straight through with almost no deflection because they sailed far from any nucleus. Only about 1 in 8,000 deflected by more than 90°. The fact that *any* of them backscattered — combined with how often it happened — is what set the upper bound on nuclear size. Rutherford's stroke of genius was realizing that rare large-angle scattering is just as informative as the common small angles.
MisconceptionThe alpha particle bounces off the nucleus the way a ball bounces off a wall.
CorrectThere's no contact. The alpha is repelled by the long-range Coulomb force from the protons in the nucleus — same physics as two like-charged balloons pushing each other apart, just with much more force at much smaller distance. The closer the alpha gets, the harder the push. For 5 MeV alphas on gold, the alpha never actually touches the nucleus; it stops about 50 femtometers away and reverses.
Because it predicted no large-angle scattering. If positive charge were spread evenly through the atom (as Thomson proposed) the electric field anywhere inside would be small — not enough to deflect a heavy 5 MeV alpha by more than a few degrees. The fact that some alphas bounced almost straight back required positive charge to be concentrated in a tiny region where the field is enormous. That's the nuclear atom in one observation.
It's how close a head-on alpha gets to the nucleus before Coulomb repulsion turns it around. Setting kinetic energy equal to electrostatic potential energy: d = kq_α q_Au / KE. For 5 MeV alphas on gold, d is about 45 femtometers. This number sets an upper bound on the size of the gold nucleus — Rutherford couldn't say the nucleus was *exactly* that small, only that it was no bigger than that.
Because Coulomb force falls off as 1/r². Aim a little closer and the force during the encounter is way stronger. Quantitatively cot(θ/2) is proportional to the impact parameter b, so cutting b in half roughly doubles cot(θ/2) — small misses translate to big angle changes. This sensitivity is what made the experiment a reliable probe of nuclear size.
Not at the energies he used. 5 MeV alphas on gold can't get close enough to feel the strong force — Coulomb repulsion stops them well outside the nucleus. Modern accelerators using GeV-scale protons or electrons can punch into the nucleus and see strong-force structure. The deviation from Rutherford's pure Coulomb formula at very high energies is exactly the signal that something other than electromagnetism is acting.
MOD-2.A asks students to use the nuclear model of the atom — Rutherford scattering is literally the experiment that established that model. MOD-2.B covers Coulomb's law applied at the atomic scale, which is the entire physics of the scattering: electrostatic repulsion between two positive charges decides everything about the trajectory.