While observing particle behavior in a cloud chamber (the type developed by C.T.R. Wilson) Ernest Rutherford (the dude who discovered the proton) noted that matter was on the "grainy" side, i.e. lots of empty space between tiny accumulations of matter. However, once in a while he noticed that alpha particles (helium nuclei that have lost both of their electrons/helium nuclei that carry a double positive charge>?>) passing through a thin metallic foil would be deflected from its path by a force of some kind, or a collision with something very small & dense.
This Law - as much as I can grasp so far - expresses that: The force acting upon the apha particles is the electric repulsion between its own double positive charge in addition to the positive charge of any atomic nuclei nearby.
Now is the same as Coulomb's Law? And if so: doesn't that - by extension - correlate to Newtons Law of Gravitation i.e. the repulsive force being inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the the charges?
This Law - as much as I can grasp so far - expresses that: The force acting upon the apha particles is the electric repulsion between its own double positive charge in addition to the positive charge of any atomic nuclei nearby.
Now is the same as Coulomb's Law? And if so: doesn't that - by extension - correlate to Newtons Law of Gravitation i.e. the repulsive force being inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the the charges?
posted by:
|
Los Angeles
|
-
Re: Rutherford's Law
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 9:33 AMIn the non-relativistic classical world, the equations for Coulomb's Law and Newtonian gravity are the same except for the constants, but that is where the similarity ends - there is no known particle with negative mass.
The reason for Rutherford's Law was that prior to his experiments, it was believed that positive charge of the nucleus was uniformly spread throughout the volume which the atom occupied.
You are correct that the force acting upon the nuclei is electromagnetic repulsion (magnetic because the charges are moving and because nuclei can have a magnetic moment). However, things are not as simple as Coulomb's Law would suggest, these are quantum particles (wave-particles) that scatter in non-classical ways. -
-
Re: Rutherford's Law
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 10:42 AM(note to self: Keep the abacus-throwing towards Troy's general direction at a minimum from now on... i.e...on a "need to throw" basis)
"heh...heh-heh...'Thank you drive through!'...heh..heh-heh!" - Beavis -
-
Re: Rutherford's Law
Tue, October 10, 2006 - 10:47 AM<<there is no known particle with negative mass. >>
Wow..this reminds me that I haven't been keeping up on the neutrino in epochs. So there is a general concensus that even neutrinos have mass then, eh?
Rad.
(too bad it won't be nearly enough to stop the expansion though)
-
-
