because experiment shows that almost all the mass of the atom is in a tiny positively charged volume at the centre of the atom, and that the large majority of the volume is actually just empty space. The borders of the atom keep negative change keeping the overall system neutrally charged (unless the atom is becomes an ion)

>>7988739
Because the electrons aren't stuck to a blob of positive charge.

It predicts a single emission frequency for hydrogen (and everything else I think).
This is contradicted by experiment.

>>7988739
Because there is no cloud of positive charge. The vast majority of the atom that isn't the nucleus is straight up empty space. The problem was that it didn't explain the neutrality of the atom (except for when it's an ion). Rutherford disproved this model by shooting protons at a sheet of gold foil (probably one of his better known experiments).

How where quarks first observed/ proven to exist?

>>7988907
Deep inelastic scattering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_inelastic_scattering

>>7988739
He fucked up the Thomson science and mathematics legacy so badly that William Thomson had to change his name to Lord Kelvin tbqh

>>7988884
How does it not explain atomic neutrality? When both protons and electrons are present in equal amounts, a neutral charge is formed.

Thomson's model had both electrons and protons. I know it didn't account for neutrons, but fuck neutrons. No one gives a fuck about them in Chemistry besides mass calculations.

most of the volume of an atom is empty space in the electron cloud.

if we could find a way to compress the electrons down, with out changing the properties of the atom. could this shrink objects?

Someone ate all the pudding

>>7989105
the electrons are already compressed down as much as they can be, they fill the possible atomic energy states from lowest to highest, which means placing them as close to the nucleus as possible.

>>7988792
Rubbish, atoms are polyhedrons. The positive charge is distributed on the surface of these polyhedrons. If an alpha particle passes through a face and out the other side, its virtually undeflected. But if it passes close to a face, travelling parallel to it, the positive charge is all on one side for a time and it is repelled.

Surprised at all the nuclear shill ITT. They had to invent the strong nuclear force to get their flawed model to work!

>>7989161
What would happen if you'd place them even closer?

File: rutherford.png (96KB, 1024x955px) Image search: [Google] [Yandex] [Bing]

96KB, 1024x955px

>>7989191
This would not explain the deflections of >90 degrees that came back at the source.

>>7989294
The shape is made up of cubic atomic units, like a lego 'sphere'. You can get angles greater than 90 as the surface changes direction.

Note hydrogen doesn't have enough particles to have the units for its surface to change direction in this way. Hence you don't see any backscatter if hydrogen is used in alpha scattering.

>>7989234
and how would you do that? (protip, you can't)

>>7989362
the reason why alpha particles dont backscatter from hydrogen atoms is because they have approximately four times greater mass and twice the charge of the H nucleus, therefore in a collision it is always going to be the hydrogen being scattered from the alpha particle, and not the other way around.

>>7989234
If electrons could get any closer to the nucleus then they'd be absorbed by protons and become neutrons. This would shrink the object but in doing so the object would no longer retain it's original properties.