How to Correct for 3D Scattering in Rutherford's Gold Foil Experiment?

AI Thread Summary
In analyzing Rutherford's gold foil experiment, the challenge lies in correcting the count rates for 3D scattering, as the detector only measures alpha particles along a line. The key issue is that the conic distribution of scattered particles is projected onto a plane, leading to an underestimation of counts at each angle. To correct for this, one must consider the geometry of the scattering and the relationship between the length of the detected plane and the corresponding circular segment. The solid angle formula may be useful, but understanding the geometry of the setup is crucial for accurate calculations. Ultimately, the correction involves determining how much less should be measured due to this projection effect.
thelibertine1
Messages
8
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hey. I've just conducted Rutherford's gold foil scattering experiment and am a little stuck on a part of the analysis. One of the objectives of the lab script is;

'To correct the counting rates measured in one plane for the fact that the foil scatters in a 3D cone'

So the detector only detects alpha particles in a line and doesn't account for others scattering above and below it. I've plotted the count rate as a function of the angle measured with the detector, how will this correction scale my results and how do I calculate this scaling factor?

Homework Equations



See attachment

The Attempt at a Solution



I attemped using a solid angle formula but got again stuck with not knowing the dimensions.

Thanks
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand what you are looking for, if you are looking for the stuff missed by the detector, that isn't a correction it's an extrapolation and in fact is the equation for the entire angle dependent distribution. I think you need to correct for the fact that your conic distribution was flattened onto a plane. So look at chords for circles
 
Yes the conic distribution was flattened onto a plane, does that mean the count rate at each angle is actually less than measured?
 
yes since that has the effect of bringing the points closer together
 
So how can I work out how much less counts should me measured? Thanks by the way I think I get the idea
 
well the ratio of the length of the plane and the corresponding segment of the circumference is pretty much the indicator. But I am not familiar with the geometry of your apparatus so I'm working on assumption here
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top