What errors did Rutherford encounter in his experiment

AI Thread Summary
Rutherford's experiment encountered both random and systematic errors, which can affect the accuracy of results. Random errors may stem from observation inaccuracies or environmental fluctuations, while systematic errors could arise from instrument calibration issues or poor experimental design. Despite these potential errors, subsequent replications of the experiment have consistently yielded accurate results. Rutherford emphasized the importance of minimizing errors, famously stating that experiments requiring statistics indicate a need for better design. Overall, understanding and accounting for these errors is crucial for experimental integrity.
zakthrowaiz

Homework Statement


What errors did Rutherford encounter in his experiment and how did he account for them.

Homework Equations


I believe there is an equation to find (b) but I don't know what it is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zakthrowaiz said:

Homework Statement


What errors did Rutherford encounter in his experiment and how did he account for them.

Homework Equations


I believe there is an equation to find (b) but I don't know what it is.

Do you mean errors according to what was believed back then? Have you read about the experiment?
 
I have read about the experiment and I know its results; majority of the particles passed through, some deflected back, 1/12000 deflected back <90 degrees etc. I was told to speak about errors that occurred that could effect the result.
 
zakthrowaiz said:
I was told to speak about errors that occurred that could effect the result.

Talking in general, experimental errors fall into two types: random errors and systematic errors.
Random errors may arise due to several causes e.g. observation or reading errors (for instance the flickering needle on an analog meter) or environmental causes like some fluctuation in the temperature of a room.
Systematic errors may also arise due to several causes, like an instrument error (e.g. poor calibration), reading error or if the whole experiment has a poor design, just to name a few.

Now, for the specific Rutherford's experiment, it has been done a lot of times as a part of an undergraduate lab and as far as I know, the results has been consistent and accurate enough with the original one. Rutherford himself has a famous quotation about accuracy "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment". Of course in every and each experiment errors occur and in order to identify them you have to search for factors in the above mentioned two categories.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top