THE NUCLEAR ATOM
Introduction.
We are now brought face to face with the fundamental question, hardly
touched upon at all in the previous part of this work, namely, that of
the construction and mode of operation of the atomic mechanism itself.
In the first place we must ask: What is the “architecture” of the atom,
that is, what positions do the positive and negative particles take up
with respect to each other, and how many are there of each kind? In
the second place, of what sort are the processes which take place in
an atom, and how can we make them interpret the physical and chemical
properties of the elements? In this chapter we shall keep essentially
to the first question, and consider especially the great contribution
which Rutherford made in 1911 to its answer in his discovery of the
positive atomic nucleus and in the development of what is known as the
Rutherford atomic model or nuclear atom.
Rutherford’s Atom Model.
Rutherford’s discovery was the result of an investigation which, in
its main outlines, was carried out as follows: a dense stream of
α-particles from a powerful radium preparation was sent into a highly
exhausted chamber through a little opening. On a zinc sulphide screen,
placed a little distance behind the opening, there was then produced by
this bombardment of atomic projectiles, a small, sharply defined spot
of light. The opening was next covered by a thin metal plate, which can
be considered as a piece of chain mail formed of densely-packed atoms.
The α-particles, working their way through the atoms, easily traversed
this “piece of mail” because of their great velocity. But now it was
seen that the spot of light broadened out a little and was no longer
sharply limited. From this fact one could conclude that the α-particles
in passing among the many atoms in the metal plate suffered countless,
very small deflections, thus producing a slight spreading of the rays.
It could also be seen that some, though comparatively few, of the
α-particles broke utterly away from the stream, and travelled farther
in new directions, some, indeed, glancing back from the metal plate in
the direction in which they had come (cf. Fig. 21). The situation was
approximately as if one had discharged a quantity of small shot through
a wall of butter, and nearly all the pellets had gone through the
wall in an almost unchanged direction, but that one or two individual
ones had in some apparently uncalled for fashion come travelling back
from the interior of the butter. One might naturally conclude from
this circumstance that here and there in the butter were located some
small, hard, heavy objects, for example, some small pellets with which
some of the projectiles by chance had collided. Accordingly, it seemed
as if there were located in the metal sheet some small hard objects.
These could hardly be the electrons of the metal atoms, because
α-particles, as has been stated before, are helium atoms with a mass
over seven thousand times that of a single electron; and if such an
atom collided with an electron, it would easily push the electron
aside without itself being deviated materially in its path. Hardly any
other possibility remained than to assume that what the α-particles
had collided with was the positive part of the atom, whose mass is of
the same order of magnitude as the mass of the helium atom (cf. Fig.
21). A mathematical investigation showed that the large deflections
were produced because the α-particles in question had passed, on their
way, through a tremendously strong electric field of the kind which
will exist about an electric charge concentrated into a very small
space and acting on other charges according to Coulomb’s Law. When, in
the foregoing, the word “collision” is used, it must not be taken to
mean simply a collision of elastic spheres; rather the two particles
(the α-particle and the positive particle of the metal atom) come so
near to each other in the flight of the former that the very great
electrical forces brought into play cause a significant deflection of
the α-particles from their original course.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.—Tracks of α-particles in the interior
of matter. While 1 and 3 undergo small deflections by collisions with
electrons, 2 is sharply deflected by a positive nucleus.]
Rutherford was thus led to the hypothesis that nearly all of the mass
of the atom is concentrated into a positively charged nucleus, which,
like the electrons, is very small in comparison with the size of the
whole atom; while the rest of the mass is apportioned among a number of
negative electrons which must be assumed to rotate about the nucleus
under the attraction of the latter, just as the planets rotate about
the sun. Under this hypothesis the outer limits of the atom must be
regarded as given by the outermost electron orbits. The assumption
of an atom of this structure makes it at once intelligible why, in
general, the α-particles can travel through the atom without being
deflected materially by the nuclear repulsion, and why the very great
deflections occur as seldom as is indicated by experiment. This latter
circumstance has, on the other hand, no explanation in the atomic model
previously suggested by Lord Kelvin and amplified by J. J. Thomson, in
which the positive electricity was assumed to be distributed over the
whole volume of the atom, while the electrons were supposed to move in
rings at varying distances from the centre of the atom.
[Illustration: FIG. 22.—Photograph of the paths of two α-particles
(positive helium ions). One collides with an atomic nucleus.]
The same characteristic phenomenon made evident in the passage of
α-particles through substances by the investigations of Rutherford
appears in a more direct way in Wilson’s researches discussed on
p. 81. His photographs of the paths of α-particles through air
supersaturated with water vapour (see Fig. 22) show pronounced kinks
in the paths of individual particles. Thus in the figure referred
to, there are shown the paths of two α-particles. One of these is
almost a straight line (with a very slight curvature), while the
other shows a very perceptible deflection as it approaches the
immediate neighbourhood of the nucleus of an atom, and finally a very
abrupt kink; at the latter place it is clear that the α-particle has
penetrated very close to the nucleus. If one examines the picture
more closely, there will be seen a very small fork at the place where
the kink is located. Here the path seems to have divided into two
branches, a shorter and a longer. This leads one at once to suspect
that a collision between two bodies has taken place, and that after the
collision each body has travelled its own path, just as if, to return
to the analogy of the bombardment of the butter wall, one had been
able to drive two pellets out of the butter by shooting in only one.
Or, to take perhaps a more familiar example, when a moving billiard
ball collides at random with a stationary one, after the collision
they both move off in different directions. So, when the α-particle
hits at random the atomic nucleus, both particle and nucleus move off
in different directions; though in this case, since the nucleus has
the much greater mass of the two, it moves more slowly, after the
collision, than the α-particle, and has, therefore, a much shorter
range in the air than the lighter, swifter α-particle. Had the gas in
which the collisions took place been hydrogen, for example, the recoil
paths of the hydrogen nuclei would have been longer than those of
the α-particles, because the mass of the hydrogen nucleus is but one
quarter the mass of the α-particle (helium atom).
The collision experiments on which Rutherford’s theory is founded are
of so direct and decisive a character that one can hardly call it a
theory, but rather a fact, founded on observation, showing conclusively
that the atom is built after the fashion indicated. Continued
researches have amassed a quantity of important facts about atoms.
Thus, Rutherford was able to show that the radius of the nucleus is
of the order of magnitude 10⁻¹² to 10⁻¹³cm. This means really that it
is only when an α-particle approaches so near the centre of an atom
that forces come into play which no longer follow Coulomb’s Law for
the repulsion between two point charges of the same sign (in contrast
to the case in the ordinary deflections of α-particles). It should be
remarked, however, that in the case of the hydrogen nucleus theoretical
considerations give foundation for the assumption that its radius is
really many times smaller than the radius of the electron, which is
some 2000 times lighter; experiments by which this assumption can be
tested are not at hand at present.
The Nuclear Charge; Atomic Number; Atomic Weight.
It is not necessary to have recourse to a new research to determine the
masses of the nuclei of various atoms, because the mass of the nucleus
is for all practical purposes the mass of the atom. Accordingly, if
the mass of the hydrogen nucleus is taken as unity, the atomic mass
is equal to the atomic weight as previously defined. The individual
electrons which accompany the nucleus are so light that their mass
has relatively little influence (within the limits of experimental
accuracy) on the total mass of the atom.
On the other hand, a problem of the greatest importance which
immediately suggests itself is to determine the magnitude of the
positive charge of the nucleus. This naturally must be an integral
multiple of the fundamental quantum of negative electricity, namely,
4·77 × 10⁻¹⁰ electrostatic units, or if we prefer to call this simply
the “unit” charge, then the nuclear charge must be an integer.
Otherwise a neutral atom could not be formed of a nucleus and
electrons, for in a neutral atom the number of negative electrons which
move about the nucleus must be equal to the number of positive charges
in the nucleus. The determination of this number is, accordingly,
equivalent to the settling of the important question, how many
electrons surround the nucleus in the normal neutral state of the atom
of the element in question.
The answer to the question is easiest in the case of the helium atom.
For when this is expelled as an α-particle, it carries, as Rutherford
was able to show, a positive charge of two units—in other words, two
electrons are necessary to change the positive ion into a neutral
atom. At the same time there is every reason to suppose that the
α-particle is simply a helium nucleus deprived of its electrons; it
follows, therefore, that the electron system of the neutral helium atom
consists of two electrons. Since the atomic weight of helium is four,
the number of electrons is consequently one-half the atomic weight.
Rutherford’s investigation of the deflections of α-particles in passing
through various media had already led him to believe that for many
other elements, to a considerable approximation, the nuclear charge
and hence the number of electrons was equal to half the atomic weight.
Hydrogen, of course, must form an exception, since its atomic weight is
unity. _The positive charge on the hydrogen nucleus is one elementary
quantum, and in the neutral state of the atom, only one electron
rotates about it._ Fig. 23 gives a representation of the structure
of the hydrogen atom, and the structures of the two types of hydrogen
ions formed respectively by the loss and gain of an electron. In the
picture, the position of the electron is, of course, arbitrary, and for
the sake of simplicity its path is supposed to be circular.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.—Schematic representation of the nuclear atom.
A, a neutral hydrogen atom; B, a positive, and C, a negative hydrogen
ion; _K_, atomic nuclei; _E_, electrons.]
As has just been indicated, Rutherford’s rule for the number of
electrons is only an approximation. A Dutch physicist, van den Broek,
conceived in the meantime the idea that the number of electrons in
the atom of an element is equal to its order number in the periodic
table (its “atomic number,” as it is now called). Especially through
a systematic investigation of the X-ray spectra characteristic of the
different elements this has proved to be the correct rule. In fact,
using Bragg’s reflection method of X-rays from crystal surfaces (cf. p.
54), the Englishman, Moseley, made in 1914 the far-reaching discovery
that these spectra possess an exceptionally simple structure, which
made it possible in a simple way to attach an order number to each
element (given on p. 23). On the basis of Bohr’s theory, established a
year before, it could be directly proved that this order number must be
identical with the number of positive elementary charges on the nucleus.
The number which formerly indicated simply the position of an
element in the periodic system has thus obtained a profound physical
significance, and in comparison the atomic weight has come to have
but a secondary meaning. The inversion of argon and potassium in the
periodic system (mentioned on p. 21), which seemed to be an exception
to the regularity displayed by the system as a whole, obtains an easy
explanation on the van den Broek rule; for to explain the inversion
we need only assume that potassium has one electron more than argon,
though its atomic weight is less than that of argon. We see at once
that the atomic weight and number of electrons (or what is the same
thing—the nuclear charge) are not directly correlated to each other.
And since the periodic system based on the atomic number represents
the correct arrangement of the elements according to their respective
properties (especially their chemical properties), we are led naturally
to the conclusion that it is the atomic number and not the atomic
weight that determines chemical characteristics.
The conception of the relatively great importance of the atomic number
as compared with the atomic weight has in recent years received
overwhelming support from the researches of Soddy, Fajans, Russell,
Hevesy and others who have discovered the existence of so-called
_isotope elements_ (from the Greek _isos_ = same, and
_topos_ = place), substances with different nuclear masses (atomic
weights) and different radioactive properties (if there are any),
but with the same nuclear charge, the same number of electrons and,
consequently, occupying the same place in the periodic system. Two such
isotopes are practically equivalent in all their chemical properties as
well as in most of their physical characteristics. One of the oldest
examples of isotopes is provided by ordinary lead with the atomic
weight 207·2 and the substance found in pitchblende with the atomic
weight 206, but identical, chemically, with ordinary lead. This latter
form of lead has already been referred to on p. 79 as the end product
of radioactive disintegrations, and hence it is sometimes called radium
lead.
By his investigations of canal rays the English physicist Aston has
just recently shown that many substances which have always been assumed
to be simple elements, are in reality mixtures of isotopes. The atomic
weight of chlorine determined in the usual way is 35·5, but in the
discharge tube two kinds of chlorine atoms appear, having atomic
weights 35 and 37 respectively; and it must be assumed that these two
kinds of chlorine are present in all the compounds of chlorine known
on the earth in the ratio of, roughly, three to one. To separate such
mixtures into their constituent parts is extremely difficult, precisely
because the constituents have identical properties apart from a small
difference in density, which stands in direct connection with the
atomic weight. Such a separation was first carried out successfully
by the Danish chemist, Brønsted, in collaboration with the Hungarian
chemist, Hevesy (1921). These two scientists were able to separate
a large quantity of mercury of density 13·5955 into two portions of
slightly different densities. All the different isotopes of which
mercury is a mixture were, indeed, not wholly separated; they were
represented in the two portions in different proportions. Thus, in one
of the first attempts, the density of the one part was 13·5986 and of
the other 13·5920 (at 0° C).
It is a perfectly reasonable supposition that it is the electron system
which determines the external properties of the atom, that is, those
properties which depend on the interplay of two or more atoms. For
the electron, rotating about the nucleus at a considerable distance,
separates, so to speak, the nucleus from the surrounding space, and
must therefore be assumed to be the organ which connects the atom with
the rest of the universe. One might also expect the structure of the
electron system to depend wholly on the nuclear charge, _i.e._ on
the atomic number and not on the mass of the nucleus, since it is the
nuclear electrical attraction which holds the electrons in their orbits
and not the relatively insignificant gravitational attraction.
It thus becomes intelligible that the properties of the elements can
be divided into two sharply defined classes, namely: (1) _properties
of the nucleus_, and (2) _properties of the electron system_
in the atom. The credit for first recognizing the sharp distinction
between these two classes, a distinction fundamental for a detailed
study of the atom, is due to Niels Bohr.
The properties of the nucleus determine—(_a_) the radioactive
processes, or explosions of the nucleus, and related processes;
(_b_) collisions, where two nuclei approach extremely near to
each other; and (_c_) weight which, as mentioned above, stands
in direct connection with atomic weight. The properties of the
electron system are, on the other hand, the determining factors in
all other physical and chemical activities, and, as has been stated,
are functions, we may say, of the atomic number of the given element.
The Bohr theory may be said to concern itself with the chemical and
physical properties of the atom with the exception of those which have
to do with the nucleus. We shall consequently devote our attention in
the next chapters to the electron system. But before turning to this we
shall dwell a little further upon the atomic nucleus.
The Structure of the Nucleus.
That the nucleus is not an elementary indivisible particle but a system
of particles, is clearly shown by the radioactive processes in which
α-particles and β-particles (electrons) are shot out of the nuclei of
radioactive elements. Bohr was the first to see clearly that not only
the α-particles emitted in such cases come from the nucleus, but that
the β-particles also have their source there. There is now no doubt
that, in addition to the outer electrons of the atom, which are the
determining factor in the atomic number, there must also be, in the
radioactive substances at any rate, special nuclear electrons which
lead a more hidden existence in the interior of the nucleus. One can
easily understand that isotopes may result as products of radioactive
disintegration. For example, let us suppose that a nucleus emits first
an α-particle (_i.e._ a helium nucleus with two positive charges),
and thereafter sends out two electrons, each with its negative charge,
in two new disintegrations. The nuclear charge in the resultant atom
will then obviously be the same as before, because the loss of the two
electrons exactly neutralizes that of the α-particle. But the atomic
weight will be diminished by four units (i.e. the weight of the helium
nucleus, remembering also that the electrons have but very negligible
masses). Among the radioactive substances are recognized many examples
of isotope elements, with atomic weights differing precisely by four.
The radioactive element uranium is the element with the greatest
atomic weight (238), and atomic number (92), and consequently with the
greatest nuclear charge. Almost all the other radioactive substances
are those with high atomic numbers in the periodic system. The cause
of radioactivity must be sought in the hypothesis that the nuclei
of the radioactive elements are very complicated systems with small
stability, and therefore break down rather easily into less complicated
and more stable systems with the emission of some of their constituent
particles; the corpuscular rays thus produced possess a considerable
amount of kinetic energy.
Accordingly, by analogy, the nuclei of the non-radioactive elements
may be assumed to be composed of nuclear electrons and positive
particles; hydrogen alone excepted. The simplest assumption is that the
hydrogen nucleus is the real quantum or atom of positive electricity,
just as the electron is the atom of negative electricity. On this
theory all substances are built up of two kinds only of fundamental
particles, namely, hydrogen nuclei and electrons. That these particles
may themselves consist of constituent parts is, of course, an open
possibility, but such speculation is beyond our experience up to the
present. In every nucleus there are more positive hydrogen nuclei
than there are negative electrons, so that the nucleus has a residual
positive charge of a magnitude equal to the difference between the
number of hydrogen nuclei and nuclear electrons.
If we now pass from hydrogen which has the atomic weight, atomic number
and nuclear charge of unity, we next encounter helium with the atomic
weight 4, atomic number and nuclear charge 2. The helium nucleus should
therefore consist of 4 hydrogen nuclei, which would together account
for the atomic weight of 4. But since these represent 4 positive
charges, there must also be present in the nucleus 2 negative electrons
to make the resultant nuclear charge equal to 2. We could indeed hardly
conceive of a system composed of 4 positive hydrogen nuclei alone; for
the forces of repulsion would soon drive the separate parts asunder.
The two electrons can, so to speak, serve to hold the system together.
Fig. 24 gives a rough representation of the helium atom. It must be
carefully noted that the picture is purely schematic and the distances
arbitrary. The helium nucleus, composed of 4 hydrogen nuclei and 2
electrons, seems to possess extreme stability, and it is not improbable
that helium nuclei occur as higher units in the structure of the nuclei
of not only the radioactive substances but also the other elements.
We shall perhaps be very near the truth in saying that all nuclei
are built up of combinations of hydrogen nuclei, helium nuclei and
electrons.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.—Schematic representation of a helium atom. _K_,
nuclear system with four hydrogen nuclei and two nuclear electrons;
_E_, electrons in the outer electron system.]
In nitrogen, with the atomic weight 14 and atomic number 7, the nucleus
should consist of 14 hydrogen nuclei (with 12 of them compounded,
perhaps, into 3 helium nuclei) and 7 nuclear electrons, reducing the
resultant positive nuclear charge from 14 to 7. Uranium, with atomic
number 92 and atomic weight 238, should have a nucleus composed of 238
hydrogen nuclei and 146 electrons, and so on for the others. We see at
once that the conception of the nucleus here propounded leads us back
to the old hypothesis of Prout (see p. 15) that all atomic weights
should be integral multiples of that of hydrogen. This hypothesis
apparently disagreed with atomic weight measurements, but the
isotope researches have vanquished this difficulty; thus it has been
mentioned before that chlorine with an atomic weight of 35·5 appears
to be a mixture of isotopes with atomic weights 35 and 37, and other
cases have a similar explanation. Yet the rule cannot be wholly and
completely exact. For, in the first place, the mass of the electrons
must contribute something, though this contribution is far too small
to be measured. But there is also a second matter which plays a part
here. This is the law enunciated by Einstein in his relativity theory,
that every increase or decrease in the energy of a body is correlated
with an increase or decrease in the mass of the body, proportional to
the energy change. We must, therefore, expect that the masses of the
various atomic nuclei will depend not only on the number of hydrogen
nuclei (and electrons), but also on the energy represented in the
attractions and repulsions between the particles of the system, and
in their mutual motions, or the energy which comes into play in the
formation and disintegration of nuclear systems. This is presumably
closely connected, although in a way which is not clearly understood,
with the fact, that if the atomic weights of the elements are to come
out integers, that of hydrogen must not be taken as 1 but as 1·008;
that is, the atomic weight unit must be chosen a little smaller than
the atomic weight of hydrogen (cf. table, p. 23).
Transformation of Elements and Liberation of Atomic Energy.
We shall now treat very briefly two questions which have profoundly
interested many people, because they are concerned with possible
practical applications of our new knowledge of atoms.
The first question is this: Can one not, from this knowledge, bring
about the transformation of one element into another? In answering
this, it can, of course, be said immediately that among the radioactive
substances such transformations are constantly taking place without
human interference, and we certainly have no right to state offhand
that it will be impossible for man ever to bring about such a
transformation artificially. For example, if we could succeed in
getting one hydrogen nucleus loose from the nucleus of mercury, the
latter would thereby be changed into a gold nucleus. Such a thing
is not only conceivable, but in the last few years it has become a
reality, though, to be sure, not with the substances here mentioned.
In 1919 Rutherford, by bombarding nitrogen (N = 14) with α-particles,
was able to knock loose some hydrogen nuclei from the nitrogen nucleus;
perhaps he succeeded thereby in changing the nitrogen nuclei into
carbon nuclei (C = 12) by the breaking off of two hydrogen nuclei from
each nitrogen nucleus. But to disintegrate very few nitrogen nuclei,
Rutherford had to employ a formidable bombardment with hundreds of
thousands of projectiles (α-particles); and even if he had ended with
gold instead of carbon, this would have been, from the economic point
of view, a very foolish way of making gold; and at the present time we
know of no other artificial method for the transformation of elements.
That Rutherford’s investigation has, in any case, extraordinarily great
interest and scientific value is another matter.
The second question is whether one cannot liberate and utilize the
energy latent in the interior of the atom. This question, which was
suggested in the first instance by the discovery of radium, has
recently attracted considerable attention because of reports that,
according to Einstein’s relativity theory, one gram of any substance
by virtue of its mass alone must contain a quantity of energy equal
to that produced by the burning of 3000 tons of coal. The meaning of
this statement is this: it has already been mentioned that according
to the relativity theory a decrease in the energy of a body brings
about a decrease in its mass; it is immaterial in what form the energy
is given up, whether as heat, elastic oscillations, or the like; all
that is said is, that to a certain decrease in mass, will correspond
a perfectly definite emission of energy in some form. If we now could
imagine the whole mass of one gram of a substance to be “destroyed”
(_i.e._ caused to disappear utterly as a physical substance),
and to reappear as heat energy, for example, then we could compute
from the known relation between mass and energy, that the heat energy
thus brought about would be equivalent to that obtained by the burning
of 3000 tons of coal. But in order that all this energy should be
developed, even the hydrogen nuclei and the electrons would have to be
“destroyed,” and no phenomenon is known, supporting the supposition
that such a “destruction” of the fundamental particles of a substance
is possible, or that it is possible to transform these particles into
other types of energy. A thought like this must rather be stamped as
fantasy, the origin of which is to be found in a misunderstanding of a
purely scientific mode of expression.
The case is essentially different with those quantities of energy which
must be assumed to be freed or absorbed in the transformation of one
nuclear system into another, that is, in elemental transformations.
Though these are far smaller in amount, the radioactive processes
indicate that they are not wholly to be despised. For one gram of
radium will upon complete disintegration to non-radioactive material
give off as much energy as is equivalent to 460 kg. of coal. But even
here we must confess that it will take about 1700 years for only half
of the radium to be transformed. It is not at all impossible that
other elemental transformations might lead to just as great energy
developments as appear in the disintegration of radioactive substances.
Let us imagine that four hydrogen nuclei, which together have a mass
of 4 × 1·008 = 4·032, and two electrons could join together to form
a helium nucleus with atomic weight very close to 4. This process
would thus result in a loss of mass which must be assumed to appear in
another form of energy. The amount of energy obtainable in this way
from one gram of hydrogen would be considerably more than that given
off by the disintegration of one gram of radium.
There can hardly exist any doubt that in nature there occur not only
disintegrations, but also (perhaps in the interior of the stars)
building-up processes in which compound nuclei result from simple
ones. It is therefore natural to suppose that by exerting on hydrogen
exceptional conditions of temperature, pressure, electrical changes,
etc., we could succeed by experiments here on earth in forming helium
from it with the development of considerable energy. But at the same
time it is very likely that even under favourable circumstances
such a process would take place with very great slowness, because
the formation of a helium nucleus might well be a very infrequent
occurrence; it would probably be the result of a certain succession
of collisions between hydrogen nuclei and electrons, a combination
whose probability of occurrence in a certain number of collisions is
infinitely less than the probability of winning the largest prize in a
lottery with the same number of chances. Nature has time enough to wait
for “wins,” while mankind unfortunately has not. We know concerning
the disintegration of the radioactive substances that it is of the
character here indicated; of the great number of atoms to be found
in a very small mass of a radioactive substance, now one explodes
and now another. But why fortune should pick out one particular atom
is as difficult to understand as why in a lottery one particular
number should prove to be the lucky one rather than any other. Our
only understanding of the whole matter rests on the law of averages,
or probability as we may call it. We know that of a billion radium
atoms (10¹²) on the average thirteen explode every second; and even
if in any single collection of a billion a few more or a few less may
explode, the average of thirteen per second per billion will always
be maintained in dealing with larger and larger numbers of atoms, as,
for example, with a thousand billion or a million billion. For other
radioactive substances we get wholly different averages for the number
of atoms disintegrating per second; but in no case are we able to
penetrate into the inner character of the process of disintegration
itself. And what holds true of the radioactive substances will also
hold true probably for elemental changes of all kinds; Rutherford with
his hundreds of thousands of α-particle projectiles was able to make
sure of but a few lucky “shots.” The whole matter must at this stage be
looked upon as governed wholly by chance.
One interested in speculating on what would happen if it were possible
to bring about artificially a transformation of elements propagating
itself from atom to atom with the liberation of energy, would find
food for serious thought in the fact that the quantities of energy
which would be liberated in this way would be many, many times greater
than those which we now know of in connection with chemical processes.
There is then offered the possibility of explosions more extensive and
more violent than any which the mind can now conceive. The idea has
been suggested that the world catastrophes represented in the heavens
by the sudden appearance of very bright stars may be the result of
such a release of sub-atomic energy, brought about perhaps by the
“super-wisdom” of the unlucky inhabitants themselves. But this is, of
course, mere fanciful conjecture.
It seems clear, however, that we need have no fear that in
investigating the problem of atomic energy we are releasing forces
which we cannot control, because we can at present see no way to
liberate the energy of atomic nuclei beyond that which Nature herself
provides, to say nothing of a practical solution of the energy problem.
The time has certainly not yet come for the technician to follow in the
theoretical investigator’s footsteps in this branch of science. One
hesitates, however, to predict what the future may bring forth.
Interesting and significant as is the insight which Rutherford and
others have opened up into the inner workings of the nucleus, the
study of the electron system of the atom bears more intimately upon
the various branches of physical and chemical science, and hence
presents greater possibilities of attaining, in a less remote future,
to discoveries of practical significance.