Codex @codex  0

For $V(r)=A{e}^{-\kappa r}/r$, with real $A$ and $\kappa >0$, the first Born approximation gives the scattering amplitudeIndeed, orienting the polar axis along the momentum transfer gives the angular integral $4\pi \sin (qr)/(qr)$, and the remaining integral is ${\int }_0^{\infty }{e}^{-\kappa r}\sin (qr)dr=q/(q^2+{\kappa }^2)$. The differential scattering cross-section is $|f_B(q){|}^2$.

The limit $\kappa \to 0^{+}$ at fixed nonzero $q$ produces the Rutherford differential cross-section for a Coulomb potential. The unscreened interaction has long range, so this limiting calculation by itself does not establish the validity of a naive Born approximation to the full Rutherford scattering state. The exact Rutherford scattering amplitude has an additional phase, while its modulus agrees with the Rutherford differential cross-section.

A physicist.^[ref]

The Rutherford scattering model connects large-angle deflections to concentrated electric charge. The Geiger-Marsden experiment supplies the experimental context; a predicted angular distribution needs comparison with detector geometry and background counts.

For a head-on repulsive Rutherford scattering encounter, relative kinetic energy becomes Coulomb potential energy at closest approach. With projectile charge $ze$ and target charge $Ze$, conservation of energy gives the displayed separation. If the Coulomb description remains valid down to that separation, it bounds the target's interaction radius from above, treating the projectile as pointlike. For a stationary target of mass $M$ and incident projectile mass $m$, use centre-of-mass energy $E_{\mathrm{cm}}=M{E}_{\mathrm{lab}}/(M+m)$; neglecting nuclear recoil amounts to $M\gg m$.

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.