Question regarding Rutherford's atomic model

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the derivation of the equation Ve = 2Vα in the context of Rutherford's atomic model. The original poster struggles with the assumption and arrives at Ve = 0, which contradicts known physics. A response clarifies that Ve = 2Vα is not merely an assumption but a conclusion derived from the equations of elastic collisions. It suggests setting up the equations for one-dimensional elastic collisions and deriving a general solution for the final velocities. The poster acknowledges their misunderstanding and realizes the importance of solving for Valpha' in relation to the other equations.
daselocution
Messages
23
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


ScreenShot2013-02-24at100839PM_zps1ff6fa80.png


I am basically wondering how they got to the assumption that the Ve = 2Vα. I've tried it a few times and I keep on getting that based off of their other assumptions, Ve should =0, even though I know that this cannot possibly be the case.

Homework Equations



Conservation of momentum: Mava = Mav'a + meve

Conservation of energy: .5Mava2 = .5Mav'a2 + .5Meve2

The Attempt at a Solution



I really don't know what to do. I've tried starting under the assumption as given that Va≈Va', which leads to getting Ve=0. I tried to do a binomial expansion using the fact that Me<<Ma, but again I got zero. I'm really not sure how to approach this. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
daselocution said:
I am basically wondering how they got to the assumption that the Ve = 2Vα.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion.

Set up the equations for an elastic collision in one dimension, then get a general solution for the final velocities of both particles. Don't put in any numbers or the like, just get a general solution. Then assume that m_1 &gt;&gt; m_2, and see what you get for v_{2f}.
 
Thank you very much. That makes much more sense, I'm not really sure why I didn't just do that the first time. My mistake was not solving for Valpha' in terms of the other equations. Once I realized that I had to do that, it was much clearer.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Back
Top