Talk:Ernest Rutherford/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Peerage in page title

Most of the links to this page are to Ernest Rutherford and he only held the title for the last six years of his life. Is he ever really called "Lord Rutherford" or would the page be better placed at Ernest Rutherford (look, for instance, at his contemporary John Maynard Keynes). Timrollpickering 17:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would concur that the non-peerage title would be best. john k 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

P.C.?

Gentlemen, was Lord Rutherford appointed a member of the New Zealand Executive Council? His name was not upon any of the Historical lists of Privy Counsellors.--Anglius 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rutherford would never have been a member of the NZ Executive Council. Membership of the Council does not entitle on to be a member of the Privy Council (and hence use the honorific the "Right Honourable") but is an honour granted by the Queen on the recommendation of the NZ Government. As the current Government has abolished appeals to the Privy Council from New Zealand in favour of its own Supreme Court, no new members have been added to the Privy Council from NZ since 1999. Dr John Campbell, author of Rutherford Scientist Supreme is regarded as the authority on Rutherford and I see no reference to Ernest being known as "Rt Hon" to this on his website www.rutherford.org.nz I would recommend it be deleted.

Cultural depictions of Ernest Rutherford

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Expansion?

This page really needs some expansion .... someone put a tage in for it or a note somewhere ... I'll try to add to it ... rutherford deserves more than this page ... J. D. Redding

I agree. Maybe more on the impact of his model? WStellar 19:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomson

Some information more about his time as student under J.J. Thomson, his academic advisor? Thomson's name doesn't even appear outside of the chart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.58.223.187 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Splitting the atom

It states here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project#Discovery_of_nuclear_fission that Rutherford first split the atom, but this page doesn't reference it, and there seems to be a bit of argument on the web as to who did what first? Thedarxide (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations

A paper[1] published 8th September 2007 appears to rebuke Rutherford's 1922 dismissal of low energy nuclear transmutations occurring during the explosion of tungsten wire filaments by a large current pulse claimed by Wendt & Iiron. This currently has implications involving the expanding and increasingly popular topic of Cold Fusion and Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. A cover letter for the related arXiv paper can be found here (New Energy Times). If peer review affirms the conjecture then perhaps consider a 'Controversy' heading- as it also has implications in scientific dogma? Rabidtommy 15:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. No! There is no controversy (on this particular issue, among the scientific mainstream). Any such information certainly belongs on a separate page from Rutherford. By the way, cold fusion is not "increasingly popular", because nobody has been able to find any repeatable evidence of it occurring, ever. Until the scientific mainstream is shifted, it's just crack-pottery, and if we let that in then we'll need to add it to every page there is (since there aren't any subjects on which no crackpots ever spring forth). 124.168.203.180 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hermes Trismegistus

Does anyone know why Rutherford had Hermes Trismegistus on his coat of arms? He also had a Maori warrior on it, which suggests he was a New Zealander... ThePeg (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

http://www.numericana.com/arms/rutherford.htm

ThePeg (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Rutherford a kiwi?

Could it be said in the article that he was a Kiwi? I know many consider Ernest to be British, but I consider him to be a native New Zelander. I know I cannot find a source for this, but I heard that he did the Haka dance at a rugby game once. Can anyone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AtomicKiwi (talk • contribs) 09:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This user is a sock puppet of permanently blocked account IrishChemistPride.—RJH (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bombardment of N yields O?

I am not an expert in nuclear physics, but looks to me like an arrow is needed to help make the N to O transmutation clearer (in the Middle Years section). The notation in the current vs. may not be the best one for an encyclopedia. Re: "In 1919 he became the first person to transmute one element into another when he converted nitrogen into oxygen through the nuclear reaction ¹⁴N(α,p)¹⁷O. This may be a better notation: ¹⁴N + α → ¹⁷O + p. Comments? Jack B108 (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Notable students

I wanted the notable students list to contain at least one student whose notability was outside Physics, to avoid implying that Rutherford's influence was restricted to Physics. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.195.171.77, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Rutherford is listed as British-New Zealand. He is first generation New Zealander and therefore should be listed as a New Zealander.

94.195.171.77 (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The article is not saying he is of British heritage. However, was he not a chemist in Britain? It is properly sourced. SpigotMap 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationality is always hard to assign so as to satisfy everyone. In the introduction, I would suggest saying that he was a New Zealand born scientist who worked in Canada and in England. A brief summary of all the relevant facts. Dirac66 (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arms

The Ernest Rutherford Arms.svg image showing as his arms on the article page seems to have no relationship to the description nor does it look anything like Numerica's rutherford1.gif referenced earlier in the talk.

I feel that if there's no free use copy of his actual arms available we should remove it from this page. Kiore (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

"Rutherford's research, along with that of his protégé Sir Mark Oliphant, was instrumental in the convening of the Manhattan Project to develop the first nuclear weapons."

Kind of a stretch for a guy who died in 1937. Yes, he made major contributions to nuclear physics, practically launched the thing. But there is quite a big jump from "there is a small nucleus" to "let's build an atomic bomb," no? He's no more directly connected to the Manhattan Project than Marie Curie. It seems to me that his legacy is quite a bit broader than the first nuclear weapons, and certainly had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project per se, unless we are conferring on him responsibility for everything his students did. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this should be deleted. Interest in nuclear weapons only started in 1939, after the discovery of nuclear fission at the end of 1938. Dirac66 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. He is the undoubtedly the father of nuclear physics who discovered transmutation and split the atom, but he died without forseeing controllable nuclear chain reactions. Although people had been talking about "radium engines" (See Edgar Rice Burroughs), Rutherford pooh-poohed the idea in 1934. But Szilard knew a lot about how it could be done as soon as he heard about the neutron, the year before. So I think it would be wrong to directly credit Rutherford. Einstein didn't think it could be done, either, and when Szilard explained it to him in 1939 (see Einstein-Szilard letter), he was just as shocked as Rutherford no doubt would have been, had he lived. SBHarris 03:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Your latest edit is more accurate. However the statement that "[ER] was recorded, in 1934, as being skeptical ..." cries out for a source. Perhaps we can copy the 1933 Rutherford quote from the London Times which is in the Leo Szilard article "We might in these processes obtain ..."? Dirac66 (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good suggestion. I had remembered the speech (misremembering the date) and read Rhodes' book (one of the great books of this century, IMHO, one that all high school students should be assigned). But I hadn't quite realized till now, that Szilard read the Rutherford speech in THAT morning's paper, on the day he first thought of a nuclear chain reaction (though of course without the fission mechanism) on Sept 12, 1933, as he walked to work that morning (doubtless after reading the paper in his hotel lobby, a lifelong habit for Szilard). The date of the article printing in The Times is how Rhodes so precisely dates Szilard's moment of truth, and of course weather reports of the same and previous day allow Rhodes to give us that data. Szilard himself remembered where he was in London (across from the British Museum where Marx wrote Das Kapital-- that place not only contains history, but has generated some of it itself). So I've added the thing wholesale to the Rutherford article and clarified it in the Szilard article. It adds nicely to both. SBHarris 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Dirac66 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Question..Ernest Rutherford

ErBold text

What obstacle did Ernest Rutherford have to overcome before his discovery of the proton was accepted?

He didn't seem to discover proton, but he anticipated neutron. He considered a neutral duo consisting in a proton and a electron orbiting around the proton.--84.232.141.38 (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Umbilical hernia

The delay in treatment for his umbilical hernia was actually self-imposed. He would have been allowed to have a normal doctor treat him, but he insisted on waiting for a titled doctor (as it was the protocol for a peer at that time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.132.82 (talk) 09:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I have moved this new section to the end of the talk page.
2. Do you have a source for the claim that the delay was self-imposed? Dirac66 (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

--No I don't have a source for it- probably a source would be difficult to find. I think I heard it from somebody interviewed on a TV documentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.171.212 (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Then unfortunately we cannot include this claim in the article, since Wikipedia policy is that all controversial claims must be supported by verifiable sources. (See WP:Verify) Dirac66 (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

--The reference is the book "Oliphant: The Life and Times of Sir Mark Oliphant", by Stuart Cockburn, page 63. The author says that Rutherford obstinately delayed the hernia operation (and that he had in previous years avoided proper medical treatment for his hernia- preferring instead to trust a chiropractor recommended by his wife). The book doesn't however mention the problem about it having to be done by a titled doctor- perhaps this is not true. It seems unlikely that a peer would have actually been refused treatment, because a titled doctor couldn't be found to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.49.171.212 (talk) 10:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We can include the information from the book on Mark Oliphant (a student of Rutherford), in addition to the information we now have from the book review by D.A. Ramsay. The two are not necessarily contradictory, but perhaps the story is more complicated than the article says now. Dirac66 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Edit war" over nationality

There has recently been some back-and-forth changing of ER's nationality in this article, from New Zealand to UK and back again, with the infobox and text in disagreement. It would be helpful if someone explained the basis on which nationality is being assigned in this case. The facts are that ER was born in 1871 in NZ which was still a British colony (until 1907 - see New Zealand#History), studied in the UK from 1895-98, then worked in Canada in 1898 and in the UK from 1907 until his death. For those who assign his nationality as UK, is this because (1) all New Zealanders were UK nationals when ER was born, or because (2) his parents retained some type of British status when they emigrated, or because (3) he did most of his work in the UK (but not the Nobel winning work which was in Canada)? Dirac66 (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Rutherford would have been a British Subject so the whole subject of nationality is a bit awkward. Basically, anyone from New Zealand, Australia, (and, at the time, Canada even) would have then been regarded by most people outside the British Empire as 'British'. For one thing, all would have had British Passports. As regards Rutherford's nationality, I suspect that he would probably have said that he was both, i.e, a New Zealander and British. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.223.37 (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with this. If this is the case it has to be applied uniformly across Wikipedia. Any references to NZ criminals from that era for example would also need to be called 'British'. You can not pick and choose favourites.

I agree that he would have been a British subject, and the point about passports is a valid one: In 1948 the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act created a separate New Zealand citizenship (though the words ‘British subject’ remained on New Zealand passports until 1977, along with ‘New Zealand citizen’). After the 1948 act had been passed, New Zealand passports were issued by the Department of Internal Affairs (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/citizenship/2/3). My argument for him being recognised as a New Zealander would be that he wasn't just 'born' in New Zealand, his formative years - primary, secondary, and tertiary education, as well as early research - was all done in here in New Zealand. (See: Nobel Prize website, http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1908/rutherford-bio.html, and National Library of New Zealand, http://www.natlib.govt.nz/collections/online-exhibitions/20th-century-scientists/ernest-rutherford, and the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3r37/1). Thanks. - CoxENZ (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(Added some white space here as the comment by 86.167.228.7 was merged into the end of the previous comment) Ttwaring (talk) 14:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Rutherford declared that he had always been very proud of being a New Zealander. http://www.rutherford.org.nz/biography.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.228.7 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer to this question is very clear. Rutherford was born and died as a British subject. There was no such thing as New Zealand or British citizenship at that time. He was a New Zealander, and no doubt proud of that. But he was not a New Zealand citizen!203.184.41.226 (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Describing Rutherford as "British" merely because he was a British subject is well out of step with how nationality is described elsewhere in Wikipedia. As a previous editor noted, all inhabitants of British colonies were British subjects at the time, as the modern citizenships of New Zealand, Canada and so on did not yet exist. If we describe Rutherford as British, then surely we must also describe Gandhi as British, no? Like Rutherford, he was born and raised as a British subject in a British colony, and later moved to Britain for educational purposes. And the same would have to be the case for every other Indian, Australian or Canadian person who lived before separate passports/nationality was developed for these countries in the early to mid-20th century. That just can't be right. The only sensible approach is to describe them, as well as Rutherford, as Indian/New Zealand/Canadian/etc.

Notable Students

Notable Students in the box is light with only two names. How about Geiger, Cockroft & Watson? Bohr transferred to study under him at Manchester, because he didn't get on with whoever he was under before? I recall somewhere that nine of his students got Nobel prizes. And the irony of him getting the Nobel in CHEMISTRY! Hugo999 00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Back before 1930 or so, the difference between physics and chemistry was not clearly understood, and that was obvious. For example, Marie Curie won one Nobel Prize in chemistry and one in physics, though nowadays her work, and Pierre Curie's, clearly had to do with physics. Also, the work of the Joliet-Curies in transmuting one element into another was clearly in physics, but they received the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

Please do not assume that in the old days that scientists and other people had he same understanding of things that we do, and especially not in the way to divide things up into categories. They were really mixed up about physics and chemistry.

Even academic programs in areas such as electrical engineering had more of mechanical engineering in them than anything else, and the reason was clear: back in the early part of the 20th Century, these were unknown or barely born: electronics, computers, radio communications, and electrical & electronic control systems. Back in those days, the E.E. program at M.I.T. has three options: electric power (with big, heavy generators and motors), lighting, and communications - mostly telephones and the telegraph.
98.67.96.230 (talk) 02:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nz100.jpg

Image:Nz100.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just let sleeping dogs lie instead of being an aggravating weenie?
98.67.96.230 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

A questionable statement by Rutherford

A very questionable statement by Rutherford: "If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment."
Rutherford doubtless said this, but this statement was a deeply and sadly mistaken on. It should not be featured in this article, and especially w/o any mention about how wrong it is.
Statistics have been and are widely being used in nuclear physics laboratories such as the Fermilab, the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Those experiments would get nowhere without the gross use of statistics, and disparaging that is insulting to everyone involved there, including the physicists, the statisticians, and the engineers.
Furthermore, statisics is used in analyzing esperiments in other forms of physics, in physical chemistry, in chemistry, in biochemistry, in biology, in experimental psychology (See Daniel Kahnemann and Amos Tversky), in civil engineering, in industrial engineering, and in agriculture.
Rutherford was a great genius, but he really stuck his foot in his mouth with this one. I think that we need to give his memory a break by just erasing this statement by Sir Ernest.
98.67.96.230 (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We're all convinced of the need for statistics in physics. Yes, Rutherford flubbed that one. In Rutherford's day they (every scientist) really did present data without error bars. It was a different world. He was a human being, not a god, and he really wasn't all that good at math. So let us present him as he was, warts and all. I do not think it detracts that much, and you can't really expect the man to have forseen every last development in the scientific method. Surely he discovered enough as it was. SBHarris 03:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Chemistry

I heard that he said that "Chemistry is the largest and most boring part of physics" and that "Science has two parts - physics and collecting of post cards". Strangely he was awarded a Nobel prize in Chemistry. Bulphys (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting contrast, but we can't do anything with it unless we have a reliable source that makes the connection - in fact we can't even use the quote unless there's a reliable source that mentions it, rather than just something someone heard somewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Humanity

I recently came across a biography of Rutherford called "Rutherford Of Nelson" by Ivor B. N. Evans. My copy was published in 1943 by Penguin Books (as Pelican Books) but the book was first published in 1939, just two years after Rutherford died. One key theme is the humanity of the man and though the book may read a little like a hagiography at times there are many quotes given in support and I wonder if it might be worth mentioning one or two in the article to give a fuller picture of the man? The praise from Fermi (given his later work on nuclear reactors) might be a good balance to the "moonshine" quote of Rutherford's. In addition, the book references his contribution to the AAC (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_for_Assisting_Refugee_Academics), his collaboration with Henry Moseley at Manchester (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Moseley) and references his wartime work (see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Beaumont_Wood). Perhaps some of these are worth out-referencing from the article?

Some quotes (all from the Penguin book)

[p216]: 'Professor Fermi of the University of Rome: "The unexpected news...reached me at Bologna, when I was taking part in a meeting for the bicentennial celebrations of Galvani's birth. A large group of physicists from all nations were assembled there, and it was quite apparent how deeply everybody felt the loss that science had suffered, by the passing away of a man whose efforts had opened up to physics one of the widest and yet unfathomable fields of investigation...Lord Rutherford will be remembered in the history of science not only on account of his personal contributions, but also as a teacher, in the highest meaning of this word..."'

[p216]: 'Dr Peter Kapitza, of the Institute of Physical Problems, Moscow: "The death of Lord Rutherford is unanimously deplored by all men of science, but especially felt by his numerous pupils...In the history of science, it is difficult to find another case when an individual scientist has had such great influence on the science...I cannot think of any country from which young research people did not come at some time to work in his laboratory [...] I am certain that in all these countries there will be men of science who will sincerely mourn Rutherford's death not only as the greatest research physicist since Faraday, but even more deeply as their teacher and friend."'

[p217]: 'Professor Niels Bohr of the University of Copenhagen: "...the life of one of the greatest men who ever worked in science has come to an end...but we may say of him as has been said of Galileo, that he left science in quite a different state from that in which he found it. His achievements are indeed so great that, at a gathering of physicists like the one here assembled in honour of Galvani, where recent progress in our science is discussed, the provide the background of almost every word that is spoken...Rutherford passed away at the height of his activity, which is the fate his best friends would have wished for him, but just on account of this he will be missed more, perhaps, than any scientific worker has been missed before...together with the feeling of irreparable loss, the thought of him will always be to us an invaluable source of encouragement and fortitude."'

[p218]: 'In the Parliament House, the Prime Minister of New Zealand said: "I feel sure that all the people of New Zealand will join me in expressing regret at the death of Lord Rutherford of Nelson [...] It would be foolish of me [...] to pretend any claim to knowledge of science in which the distinguished New Zealander won fame for himself and his country. We knew him first as Ernest Rutherford and watched his wonderful career with interest and proud appreciation. [...]"'

I hope some of this might be useful - please feel to delete it if not.JAWalk (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Fields

Doesn't anyone think it at all strange that under "Fields" it only says physics, when he did win the Nobel Prize for Chemistry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Faber (talk • contribs) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a little odd that the committee gave him the prize in chemistry, but there it is. In fact, in his acceptance speech in Stockholm, he opened by saying that he had seen many transformations in laboratories, but the quickest one was the Nobel committee's "instantaneous transmutation" of Rutherford from physicist to chemist! Fumblebruschi (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.180.69.237 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is: there are no Rutherford's words about these "transmutations" from physicist to chemist in his Nobel Lecture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.165.40.223 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

His contribution has been fundamental to chemistry. This distinction between physics and chemistry is a bit simplistic, after all there is physical chemistry. There are Nobel laureates in both fields like Marie Curie.--84.232.141.38 (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Only science Nobelist whose most famous work after prize ??

I am going to delete the claim that ER was the only science Nobel Prize winner to have performed his most famous work after receiving the prize. Not only is it unsourced, but it seems impossible to have a reliable source since the question of whether anyone else duplicated this feat is highly subjective - who decides whether other Nobelist's post-prize work is or is not most famous? To take just two examples, what about double winners John Bardeen and Frederick Sanger? In each case the scientist's work after his first prize was sufficiently famous to warrant a second prize. Dirac66 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Thomson's role in ER obtaining McGill position?

The article now reads In 1898 Thomson offered Rutherford the chance of a post at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. This wording seems rather strange, as Thomson was across the Atlantic in Cambridge and presumably did not have authority to hire professors for McGill. Perhaps it should read In 1898 Thomson recommended to McGill University in Montreal, Canada that they hire Rutherford, or In 1898 Thomson suggested to Rutherford that he apply to McGill University in Montreal, Canada, or something similar. Could someone with access to a biography of Rutherford check the facts?

The wording of the Nobel prize site biography is An opportunity came when the Macdonald Chair of Physics at McGill University, Montreal, became vacant, and in 1898 he left for Canada to take up the post. It does NOT say that it was Thomson who made the offer. Dirac66 (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the statement is too compressed. As I remember it, the position was offered to Thomson and he recommended his top student instead and McGill accepted. Not unusual in academia. The reference is online and I'll check it shortly. The reason for his generosity is the seniority system in Oxbridge. It would have taken years for Rutherford to climb the greasy pole in England. Chris55 (talk) 07:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That does sound more like the way things sometimes work. I await the addition of the on-line source.Dirac66 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It should probably say something like "In 1898 Thomson recommended Rutherford for a position at McGill University." According to Otto Hahn “The decision [to hire Rutherford] came about mainly through the recommendation of J. J. Thomson and after an interview with the principal of McGill, Dr Peterson, and the Macdonald Professor of Physics, John Cox.” (The Collected Papers of Lord Rutherford of Nelson Volume 1, Volume 1, p. 164). Rutherford himself said in a letter of Letter of 14 July, 1898 “I don’t think J. J. has much to do with the appointment at all, but it will mostly depend on Peterson’s report” but he probably underestimated the weight of Thomson's recommendation (Rutherford, by A. S. Eve, p. 52). --Kkmurray (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it to the wording suggested by Kkmurray: "In 1898 Thomson recommended Rutherford for a position at McGill University." Dirac66 (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Portrait on New Zealand banknote

Rutherford's portrait appears on some New Zealand banknotes. See Banknotes of the New Zealand dollar. What is the best way to mention t5his in the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the section "Items named in honour of Rutherford's life and work", third item under "Other".-gadfium 01:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2015

Please change Nationality to British and "New Zealander" as "New Zealandish" is not a correct term. Cadifan (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done-gadfium 08:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ernest Rutherford/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Far too short on all accounts: personal life, scientific merit. The only explanation of the gold foil experiment is its mention and the sentence "he discover the nuclear nature of atoms". This article requires a lot of work, and has been rated start, but is bordering on stub. Errabee 10:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Part of the reason why the so-called Rutherford experiment is not mentioned as prominently as it could be is that, from Geiger-Marsden experiment, it was "an experiment done by Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden in 1909, under the direction of Ernest Rutherford". Carcharoth 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC) The Rutherford model of the atom is only mentioned as a "See also". This, along with the experiment, should also be expanded. I suggest adding sections that summarise what already exists at these articles, but focussing on what Rutherford did. Carcharoth 17:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) it states one of his school houses as a girlds school: at Corran School for Girls, Auckland, New Zealand

Last edited at 23:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Odds of 1012 to 1.

Now that we have dealt with the statistics quote, let's move on to the next quote, which is purportedly: You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1. The number 1012 seems oddly precise, although the cited collection of quotes supports it, and yesterday editor 134.225.100.110 changed it to 10-12, which was reverted a few hours later by Gadfium. I suggest that what he really said was not 1012 (one thousand and twelve), and not 10-12 (ten to twelve), but rather 10¹² (ten to the twelfth), which seems a much more likely thing for a physicist to say. A brief Google search turned up evidence for all 3 hypotheses (!), all in what appear to be not very reliable quote collections. Can anyone find a more reliable source, such as a book about Rutherford, to check what he actually did say? Dirac66 (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted because the source given didn't support the change. Now that you've raised the matter, I see that all three variants do appear in Google, and I agree finding an authoritative version is desirable.-gadfium 20:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems no progress has been made on finding an authoritative source, so I have removed the quote from the article.-gadfium 23:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I took a look. Since there's uncertainty about the exact quote, I reduced my queries down to '"never bet against anything" Rutherford' (I've found that when quotes mutate, it tends to be the beginnings and ends, and there's a invariant core like 'bet against').

Google Scholar gives just 3 hits, earliest is 1997, all unsourced.

No hits in the [ https://www.google.com/search?num=100&q=rutherford%20%22never%20bet%20against%20anything%20in%20science%20at%20odds%20of%20more%22%20site%3Aarchive.org Internet Archive], which is a good source for OCRed public domain texts like any Rutherford biographies or memoirs which the quote might be in.

Google Books yields 29 hits, except it seems that all of them except for the first Lipton hit (same as the Scholar Lipton hit) are non-hits and the phrase doesn't actually appear inside the book! So I have no idea why they were included...

Finally, I tried 1995-2005 in Google (and then 1995-2000) to try to get around the explosion in popularity in the early '00s. Futile, as it's all quote dumps without any references or even hints where it might have come from.

Rutherford died in 1937, so there should be some book or paper which records the quote if it's real, but the quote seems to have a virgin birth in 1997, at least 60 years after it would have been said. Given how common bogus quotes are about famous physicists, it seems pretty likely this one is purely apocryphal. --Gwern (contribs) 03:16 4 January 2015 (GMT)

I, Dick Lipton's blog partner, find this page, http://people.ucalgary.ca/~kmuldrew/sciquote.html, which says it was last updated on 11/24/94. It has the "10-12" version of the quote, which IMHO is the only sensible one. KWRegan (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, rather looks as if all the other hits probably derive from that one in one way or another. It's the only hit up to 1999 after which there was an explosion of hits google search. But how accurate is it? Just a collection of favorite quotes in science by an assistant professor in biology - not a historian of science, and without any citations to back it up. It looks like an example of how things can gain authority on the internet just by being repeated many times. Why do many of these lists of quotes never give the citations - they must have got them from somewhere? Only thing I can think of to take it further is to ask him if he knows where it came from, but so many years later would be no surprise if he has forgotten... And - wouldn't some Rutherford expert, at some point, have found a citation for it and mentioned it online in the last 15 years since it became so popular?? If not by Rutherford it could be by someone else - is easy to misrember the source for a quote. Robert Walker (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2015

i think michael faraday should be made one of lord rutherford's influences. i'd definitely think there were others as well (humphry davy probably) but i haven't read any of his memoirs/correspondence 96.52.168.137 (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox scientist has guidelines including the following:

influences - List names of any notable people who influenced the scientist significantly. Influences should be restricted to a small number, i.e. two or three, where the scientist was clearly and directly building on the work of a predecessor (for example, the scientist may have identified a predecessor as providing the foundation for one of their major achievements). Unless the scientist was clearly building on an earlier work, avoid adding influences that were only via study, as such influences are generally too many and hard to separate.

So I think we need to consider who were the two or three greatest influences on Rutherford. Ideally we should look for a biography which provides an authoritative answer for us. Dirac66 (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Wife date of death

The article gives his wife as "Mary Georgina Newton (1876-1945)". Can you please check the date of her death? The New Zealand government biography indicates that she returned to New Zealand and died there in 1954. (http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3r37/rutherford-ernest) Indeed a quick check of the New Zealand Birth/Marriage/Death online site indicates Mary Georgina Rutherford died in Christchurch in 1954. https://www.bdmhistoricalrecords.dia.govt.nz Registration number 1954/19483. Gierszep (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you have done the checking. Since no sources were given for 1945, and since you have found two official New Zealand sources for 1954, I have corrected the article to 1954 and inserted your sources. Thank you for finding these sources. Dirac66 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

Change "who became known as the father of nuclear physics." to "who became to be known as the father of nuclear physics." for a better grammatical sense. Razzd31 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed to "came to be known", if that's OK - Ttwaring (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2016

you should remove the lord from Ernest rutherfords name.

Dragold (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why it should be removed. In 1931 he became a baron which is one rank of "lord" in the British peerage system, so he was entitled to the title Lord. Dirac66 (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

219.89.206.180 (talk) 04:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You will need to explain what sentence or phrase in the article this reference pertains to. This issue of New Zealand Science Review is not yet available online so it is not immediately obvious what the relevance is.-gadfium 05:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Middle years section: Nitrogen conversion....

He didnt only convert nitrogen into oxygen but also to hydrogen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaan Sahoo (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

add categories

Category:Members of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Category:Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Category:Members of the Prussian Academy of Sciences Category:Members of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences Category:Members of the French Academy of Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.3.59 (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctoral Students

hi,

i notice some people listed under doctoral students without much evidence.

on student nazir ahmad page, i notice source was weak because link was dead and journal does not seem reliable.

archive of journal used as citation exists from 2016 but nothing before.

is there better evidence link people can provide on student page to support claim he was student of ernest rutherford?

can we get better source than one used now on student page?

tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.20.41.179 (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

First Man-made Nuclear Transmutation Attribution

For more than 50 years, most scholars have incorrectly attributed the first man-made nuclear transmutation to Rutherford. In fact, the credit belongs to Patrick Blackett, a research fellow working under Rutherford.

In 2016, I published a forensic historical examination of the research in my book Lost History. In 2017, I communicated my findings to the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Resources; the American Institute of Physics, Center for History of Physics; the Imperial College London, Physics Department (Home to Blackett's laboratory); and the Cambridge University, Physics Department (Home to Rutherford's laboratory). Each organization has now completed its own independent analysis, concurred, and corrected their respective Web sites. Here are the respective urls:

https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1890s-1939/exploring.htm

http://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/rutherford/sections/atop-physics-wave.html

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics/about/department-history/ (Click on Nobel Prize Winners)

http://www.cambridgephysics.org/cockcroftwalton/cockcroftwalton2_1.htm

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"Theory of Atomic Disintegration" Myth

Two problems with this paragraph:

"In 1902, they produced a "Theory of Atomic Disintegration" to account for all their experiments. Up till then atoms were assumed to be the indestructable basis of all matter and although Curie had suggested that radioactivity was an atomic phenomenon, the idea of the atoms of radioactive substances breaking up was a radically new idea. Rutherford and Soddy demonstrated that radioactivity involved the spontaneous disintegration of atoms into other types of atoms (one element spontaneously being changed to another)"

First, Rutherford and Soddy did not produce a "Theory of Atomic Disintegration" in 1902, or ever. By May 1903, Rutherford and Soddy had published nine papers together and examined the nature of the radioactivity from three elements: thorium, uranium, and radium. They noticed a factor common to all three: As each element decayed — when the strength of the radioactivity of an element decreased over time — they simultaneously detected the presence of something new, unidentified but measurable by its increasing radioactive strength. They also noticed that the rates of the disintegration, or decay, were universal. They therefore established the Law of Radioactive Change, as stated in their last joint paper "Radioactive Change."

Second point: While working together, Rutherford and Soddy did not get so far as to obtain evidence, or claim, that one element was changing into another. That evidence, and claim, falls to Soddy and Ramsay, when they proved that helium was produced in their experiments. Rutherford and Soddy only had sufficient evidence to claim that some kind of new matter was being produced; that some kind of chemical change was occurring:

"Radioactivity is at once an atomic phenomenon and the accompaniment of a chemical change in which new kinds of matter are produced. The two considerations force us to the conclusion that radioactivity is a manifestation of subatomic chemical change." (Rutherford and Soddy, 1902, Compounds II, 859)

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (1902) "Note on the Condensation Points of the Thorium and Radium Emanations," Proceedings of the Chemical Society, p. 219-20

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (April, 1902) "The Radioactivity of Thorium Compounds: I. An Investigation of the Radioactive Emanation," Journal of the Chemical Society Transactions, 81, p. 321-50

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (July, 1902) "The Radioactivity of Thorium Compounds: II. The Cause and Nature of Radioactivity," Journal of the Chemical Society Transactions, 81, p. 837-60

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (Sept., 1902) "The Cause and Nature of Radioactivity, Part I," Philosophical Magazine, Series 4, 21, p. 370-96

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (Nov., 1902) "The Cause and Nature of Radioactivity, Part II," Philosophical Magazine, Series 4, 23, p. 569-85

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (April, 1903) "A Comparative Study of the Radioactivity of Radium and Thorium," Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 5, No. 28, p. 445-57

Rutherford, Ernest, and Soddy, Frederick (April, 1903) "The Radioactivity of Uranium," Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 5, No. 28, p. 441-5

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (May, 1903) "Condensation of the Radioactive Emanations," Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 5(29), p. 561-76

Rutherford, Ernest and Soddy, Frederick (May, 1903) "Radioactive Change," Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, 5, No. 29, p. 576-91

StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Reason of semiprotection?

Why is this page semiprotected?--5.15.18.18 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It was being vandalized on a regular basis - see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Ernest+Rutherford - Ttwaring (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the wrong coat of arms

The description doesn't match the picture - no kiwi, no Maori warrior, etc. The picture at the following link seems to be correct: http://www.numericana.com/arms/rutherford.htm Tenscraze (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

If I understand this talk page comment correctly, the coat of arms added by User:A1_Aardvark is just the shield, without the supporters, etc. In the case of the Edmund Hillary article, A1_Aardvark's shield was replaced by a non-free image here - Ttwaring (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the image of just the shield omits the most interesting and idiosyncratic parts of the coat of arms, e.g. the kiwi Proper. I couldn't see any obvious indication of the provenance of the image I linked to, so don't know if it free to use, but I suggest that a note might be added to point any curious readers to that image, which is on a site dedicated to Escutcheons of Science. Tenscraze (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

1917, 1919, “splitting”

Article (currently) says;

He conducted research that led to the first "splitting" of the atom in 1917 in a nuclear reaction between nitrogen and alpha particles, in which he also discovered (and named) the proton.

If you follow the Nuclear reaction link it says;

In 1919, Ernest Rutherford was able to accomplish transmutation of nitrogen into oxygen…

Can you clarify what he did in 1917?

He bombarded a nitrogen nucleus with an alpha particle and observed the emission of what he called at the time a "hydrogen atom." Within a year, he understood that it was not an atom, but a subatomic constituent particle which he named the "proton."

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

And is there a better phrase than “split the atom” for causing alpha particles to shear off Nitrogen (or Lithium). I equate that phrase (“split the atom”) with fission.

"splitting the atom" is entirely associated with fission and is a poor, if not inaccurate descriptor for the work reported by Rutherford in his four June 1919 papers.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

MBG02 (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Re date: The New Zealand History reference says he did the research in 1917 and published in 1919. Normal scientific practice is to cite the publication date, but biographies or biographical articles sometimes prefer the actual date on which the work was done.

Re "split the atom": A better description would be "observed the first artificially induced nuclear reaction" ¹⁴N + α → ¹⁷O + p. According to the nuclear transmutation article, in 1919 (1917) Rutherford observed the proton, and in 1925 Blackett completed the equation by observing the ¹⁷O. At the time this was referred to as "splitting the atom" (I think by Rutherford himself), but later this phrase was used to describe nuclear fission, discovered in 1938. Dirac66 (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"first artificially induced nuclear reaction" is correct. But take care to distinguish between what Rutherford did and reported from what Blackett did and reported.

http://news.newenergytimes.net/2019/05/14/the-worlds-first-successful-alchemist-it-wasnt-rutherford/

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

My reading (of Wiki) tells me “split” was used in 1932 for the Lithium (disintegration). Rutherford’s work (that I can see) was a combining – not a splitting.

Yes, the primary reaction - revealed only in 1925 by Blackett - was that of an integration process.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

NB: My (Timetables of Science) says 1917 discovery, 1919 published.

MBG02 (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. I was hoping for more info on what other elements Rutherford might have split (or combined). Also wondering how he generated and controlled his alpha particles – in 1917 and in 1908. MBG02 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

He used radon gas, then known as radium emanation and collected as radium decays. See Geiger–Marsden experiment for the details of the experimental setups. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I have incorporated the ideas here into an edit into the article. Please review or argue.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)