Rutherford Nuclear Model Wasn't Inspired by the Gold Foil Experiment
video description
Date: 2022-12-27
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
Michael
I love your videos. Well researched, clever, and well presented.
I hesitate before I bring up my one single very slight reservation. In no way is this meant to take away from your videos or to criticize. So please take this as well intentioned. :
I would be so happy if you pronounced names and words properly. Almost every non-English name is mispronounced, or mis-spelled, or both. Even some English ones (Rutherford has a soft th as in the, not a hard th as in thorium.
Again, please dont think I am in any way criticizing. But for me it is very distracting to hear all these names and words mispronounced. If I can help in any way with this for future vids, pm me, Id be delighted! And keep up the good work.
reply
I love your videos. Well researched, clever, and well presented.
I hesitate before I bring up my one single very slight reservation. In no way is this meant to take away from your videos or to criticize. So please take this as well intentioned. :
I would be so happy if you pronounced names and words properly. Almost every non-English name is mispronounced, or mis-spelled, or both. Even some English ones (Rutherford has a soft th as in the, not a hard th as in thorium.
Again, please dont think I am in any way criticizing. But for me it is very distracting to hear all these names and words mispronounced. If I can help in any way with this for future vids, pm me, Id be delighted! And keep up the good work.
reply
Amitava
So many comments about your pronunciation and spelling! I refuse to join that crowd. I find them rather endearing.
However, I will offer one technical correction. We dont fall through the floor because of the Pauli exclusion principle, not because of electrostatic repulsion between electrons. In a sense the electrons are effectively repelling each other because no two electrons may occupy the same quantum state. This is also what causes electrons to be arranged in shells around the nucleus of an atom.
reply
So many comments about your pronunciation and spelling! I refuse to join that crowd. I find them rather endearing.
However, I will offer one technical correction. We dont fall through the floor because of the Pauli exclusion principle, not because of electrostatic repulsion between electrons. In a sense the electrons are effectively repelling each other because no two electrons may occupy the same quantum state. This is also what causes electrons to be arranged in shells around the nucleus of an atom.
reply
David
Might be worth calling E-M format Fields, half-wave 0-1-2-ness e-Pi-i Quantisation-> field cause-effect of time-timing in temporal superposition Singularity-point positioning system, ie pastfuture +/- loop holographic resonance potential=> relative-timing positioning. So Zero Kelvin sync-duration Entanglement => Superconduction synchronisation. (That's important to indicate proof-disproof of Conception circum-stances)
reply
Might be worth calling E-M format Fields, half-wave 0-1-2-ness e-Pi-i Quantisation-> field cause-effect of time-timing in temporal superposition Singularity-point positioning system, ie pastfuture +/- loop holographic resonance potential=> relative-timing positioning. So Zero Kelvin sync-duration Entanglement => Superconduction synchronisation. (That's important to indicate proof-disproof of Conception circum-stances)
reply
Giorgio
Another amazing video where I learned a lot, thank you very very much!
One small comment. around minute 10 you attribute the fact that we do not fall through solids to electrical forces. Perhaps you mean this is what Rutherford thought, but it's not actually true, the Pauli exclusion principle is what is responsible for keeping us from falling through the floor. But this is a few steps beyond Rutherford.
reply
Another amazing video where I learned a lot, thank you very very much!
One small comment. around minute 10 you attribute the fact that we do not fall through solids to electrical forces. Perhaps you mean this is what Rutherford thought, but it's not actually true, the Pauli exclusion principle is what is responsible for keeping us from falling through the floor. But this is a few steps beyond Rutherford.
reply
Jrgen
You are the best nerd I've never met: -D
Thank you for HOURS of high class entertainment. Just love it!
A side note: You pronounce it perfectly, but someone has made errors on the way: It's a bit annoying (as a European) when Geiger (the scientist) is constantly named Gieger (the artist. Likewise Niels Bohr is not named Niel Bohr. Niel was a moonwalker, Niels weren't (although quite good at soccer); -)
reply
You are the best nerd I've never met: -D
Thank you for HOURS of high class entertainment. Just love it!
A side note: You pronounce it perfectly, but someone has made errors on the way: It's a bit annoying (as a European) when Geiger (the scientist) is constantly named Gieger (the artist. Likewise Niels Bohr is not named Niel Bohr. Niel was a moonwalker, Niels weren't (although quite good at soccer); -)
reply
Seymour
I've watched a number of your videos now. and I couldn't be more impressed. Oh, how I wish this stuff had been available in my days as an undergraduate physics student. I really must have been a dullard. I never realised anything about the personalities and sheer genius of the physicists who went before.
Thank you for opening the eyes of so many people and making us appreciate physics so much more.
reply
I've watched a number of your videos now. and I couldn't be more impressed. Oh, how I wish this stuff had been available in my days as an undergraduate physics student. I really must have been a dullard. I never realised anything about the personalities and sheer genius of the physicists who went before.
Thank you for opening the eyes of so many people and making us appreciate physics so much more.
reply
Da
Thanks for yet another amazing video. That was quite the cliffhanger. With all the phenomenal stories you have shared so far, we are on the brink of hearing your fave! Wow! And here I was thinking that the person you were setting us up for was Ludwig Boltzmann. I was not expecting to hear that it was the KVL/KCL dude along with the Bunsen Burner guy. Eagerly awaiting your next!
reply
Thanks for yet another amazing video. That was quite the cliffhanger. With all the phenomenal stories you have shared so far, we are on the brink of hearing your fave! Wow! And here I was thinking that the person you were setting us up for was Ludwig Boltzmann. I was not expecting to hear that it was the KVL/KCL dude along with the Bunsen Burner guy. Eagerly awaiting your next!
reply
Charlie
Even cooler than the fact that 99. 99% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, the 3 quarks particles that make up each of the the nucleons, protons/neutrons, only composes about 6% of the nice Lins mass, the rest of the mass of the nucleons comes from the energy content of the massless gluons holding the nucleons together.
reply
Even cooler than the fact that 99. 99% of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, the 3 quarks particles that make up each of the the nucleons, protons/neutrons, only composes about 6% of the nice Lins mass, the rest of the mass of the nucleons comes from the energy content of the massless gluons holding the nucleons together.
reply
TNaizel
Can you expand on how he calculated the size of the nucleus? Was it just a statistical analysis were he hypothesized how small it should had been to cause that amount of refraction? Shouldn't he already know the size of the alpha particles to do it though, i. e. the size of the helium nucleus, so this argument seems circular.
reply
Can you expand on how he calculated the size of the nucleus? Was it just a statistical analysis were he hypothesized how small it should had been to cause that amount of refraction? Shouldn't he already know the size of the alpha particles to do it though, i. e. the size of the helium nucleus, so this argument seems circular.
reply
Mark
Sorry Kathy. I love your work and I love your content, but I couldnt get past half way through this video with your bastardisation of the English language. The C in scintillation is silent, as is the first C is in science. Skintillation just grates way to much to endure. Look forward to the next video though x.
reply
Sorry Kathy. I love your work and I love your content, but I couldnt get past half way through this video with your bastardisation of the English language. The C in scintillation is silent, as is the first C is in science. Skintillation just grates way to much to endure. Look forward to the next video though x.
reply
Charles
Kathy, a super video! I have to say the pronunciation of scintillate threw me for a bit. I've never heard it pronounce the way you pronounced it. It's pronounced like the sci in science. The specifics of Rutherford's discovery gave me the best feel for the inner atomic distances. Thanks again.
reply
Kathy, a super video! I have to say the pronunciation of scintillate threw me for a bit. I've never heard it pronounce the way you pronounced it. It's pronounced like the sci in science. The specifics of Rutherford's discovery gave me the best feel for the inner atomic distances. Thanks again.
reply
simpl51
This work was also a great gift to chemists, leading to new elememts and isotopes, cleared up atomic weight v aromic number as well. It is fairly recent, too, my first mentor as a chemistry teacher, in the early 1970s, mentioned that the neutron was not a concept when he was atudying.
reply
This work was also a great gift to chemists, leading to new elememts and isotopes, cleared up atomic weight v aromic number as well. It is fairly recent, too, my first mentor as a chemistry teacher, in the early 1970s, mentioned that the neutron was not a concept when he was atudying.
reply
Fernando
I really like your stories, and they are telling the history. It make me remember my classes a out modern physics. Now I got a PhD in Physics, but your stories, turn those man in real heroes. Now I use quantum mechanics as a familiar tool, but in those times, it was incomprehensible.
reply
I really like your stories, and they are telling the history. It make me remember my classes a out modern physics. Now I got a PhD in Physics, but your stories, turn those man in real heroes. Now I use quantum mechanics as a familiar tool, but in those times, it was incomprehensible.
reply
Jojo
It's super cool to see the chain of genius go through time. It's way easier for me to understand how things work when I can recall who discovered what and why. The story behind science and the people who made it happen makes each subject more interesting than ever before.
reply
It's super cool to see the chain of genius go through time. It's way easier for me to understand how things work when I can recall who discovered what and why. The story behind science and the people who made it happen makes each subject more interesting than ever before.
reply
Keith
I think it's corpuscles rather than corpsucles. Nit picking, I know, but my colleague of 27 years was a serious nit picker and I guess it rubbed off on me. So much so that I decided not to tell him I was writing a book. He would have torn it to pieces with a red pen. :)
reply
I think it's corpuscles rather than corpsucles. Nit picking, I know, but my colleague of 27 years was a serious nit picker and I guess it rubbed off on me. So much so that I decided not to tell him I was writing a book. He would have torn it to pieces with a red pen. :)
reply
Barin
Late to the show, but your videos are super interesting and a great resource. I teach science and I have always wondered why the gold foil experiment always looked like they already knew what the outcome would be. Now I know more of the real story. So much better!
reply
Late to the show, but your videos are super interesting and a great resource. I teach science and I have always wondered why the gold foil experiment always looked like they already knew what the outcome would be. Now I know more of the real story. So much better!
reply
Nacer
Do we say Skience or Sience for Science? If it sounds as the latter, then scintillation sounds without the K. Sorry, but this is the first time I hear it pronounced this way although when I was in college I learned in french where there too the K is silent.
reply
Do we say Skience or Sience for Science? If it sounds as the latter, then scintillation sounds without the K. Sorry, but this is the first time I hear it pronounced this way although when I was in college I learned in french where there too the K is silent.
reply
CosmosNut
Have watched many and will be watching more. Your historical approach is invaluable in that is shows not a single genius egghead but all discoveries are part of an ongoing chain of questioning in many different places.
reply
Have watched many and will be watching more. Your historical approach is invaluable in that is shows not a single genius egghead but all discoveries are part of an ongoing chain of questioning in many different places.
reply
Alien
How many times in her life did she say skintilation and nobody corrected her? Granted, aside from talking about Rutherford, it would probabavly never come up, unless she found something scintillating.
reply
How many times in her life did she say skintilation and nobody corrected her? Granted, aside from talking about Rutherford, it would probabavly never come up, unless she found something scintillating.
reply
Mark
I did a doubletake when you pronounced the word corpsucles. And then I saw the word even spelled that way on the screen.
The word is corpuscles. You really need to edit your work more carefully.
reply
I did a doubletake when you pronounced the word corpsucles. And then I saw the word even spelled that way on the screen.
The word is corpuscles. You really need to edit your work more carefully.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
