For elastic scattering by the Yukawa potential, take $\kappa >0$ and use the first Born approximation in the plane-wave normalizationChoose the polar axis along the momentum transfer $\hslash \mathbf{q}$. The angular integral isThe radial volume element cancels the remaining powers of $r$, leavingFor real $A$, the differential scattering cross-section is thereforeThis also has a finite forward limit when $\kappa >0$. The Born amplitude for a Yukawa potential provides a screened route to the Coulomb potential by taking $\kappa \to 0^{+}$ at fixed $q>0$.

For an alpha particle of charge $2e$ scattering from a heavy nucleus of charge $Ze$, set $A=2Z{e}^2/(4\pi {ϵ}_0)$. Neglect recoil, so that the reduced mass is approximately the projectile mass, $E={\hslash }^2{k}^2/(2m)$, and elastic geometry givesThe Coulomb-limit scattering amplitude becomeswhich gives the Rutherford differential cross-sectionThe unscreened Coulomb potential has long range, so taking this limit does not justify the Born approximation for its full scattering state, particularly for a strongly charged target. The exact Rutherford scattering amplitude differs by a phase and has the same modulus. Thus the resulting differential scattering cross-section remains applicable to the ideal nonrelativistic Coulomb problem beyond the weak-potential regime.

To relate the detector counts to the atomic number, first compute the number of target atoms per illuminated area. With molar mass $M=0.197\mathrm{kg}\mathrm{mo}{\mathrm{l}}^{-1}$, the number density integrated through the foil isThe detector's transverse area is already its area normal to the scattered ray. Its small solid angle isThere is no extra $\cos 45^{\circ }$ factor: the foil is traversed normally and the detector area is transverse to its line of sight.

For a thin foil with negligible multiple scattering and energy loss, the detected fraction is $f=\mathcal{N}(d\sigma /d\Omega )\Delta \Omega$. Thus the measurements implyUsing $E=7.68\times 10^{6}e\mathrm{J}=1.23047\times 10^{-12}\mathrm{J}$ in the Rutherford differential cross-section gives

The stated measurements do not reproduce gold's atomic number 79 in this model. The values and units above agree with the original PDF. Substituting $Z=79$ instead would predict $f\simeq 3.17\times 10^{-7}$ with the other inputs unchanged, rather than $3.7\times 10^{-7}$. No stated correction accounts for that discrepancy; forcing the answer to 79 would require changing the data or adding an experimental correction not specified in the problem.