The bad thing is that our atomic model today is based on Rutherford experiment and his preconditions.

Not so much..quantum mechanics gave us a new perspective about sub atomic particles.

 

(Based on our discussion here, our little knowledge of history and the exact details of Rutherford experiment)
The bad thing is that our atomic model today is based on Rutherford experiment and his preconditions. He supposed atoms have only negative and positive charges. We accepted the idea and then Neutron was discovered. We started from the fact that there is not uncharged particles, we did other experiments and then we concluded that our initial condition is wrong!! While that initial condition made us conclude this!
Our discussion suggest me that atomic model is just a model, one guess and state from many possible states. It is very frightful and shows that we may be very far from reality.

That theory has given us some very powerful explosives, with more than one mechanism (fission and fusion). It has given us antimatter in the lab. It has given us 50MW power stations. There is huge (as in really large) body of experimental evidence from many fronts, including the current crop of colliders. You really need to do a reality check here. There is a lot of practical engineering going on using these theories, what do you have to offer that is better?

Particle accelerators are giving us glimpse into the sub atomic particles such as quarks. The partical debate is pretty much over, other than very minor tweaks in the theory. The fact the theory works and yields results is not a minor detail. It is a theory much like the theory of electricity is a theory. Both may be tweaked for some surprising new developments, but the basics will remain.

 

Indeed, it is a theory only in the academic sense of the word. The only reason electricity is still a theory is that we can't physically hold the electrons and watch them flow through a circuit. Similar for the atomic model, we can't physically cut an atom in half and take a picture, but we've made enough observations that it's only a hair short of proven.

The subatomic models, however, such as quarks and mesons, are still undergoing tweaks and changes and even the discovery of new particles
(Higgs boson and gravitons anyone?)

 

yes, that's right. But nobody studied the experiment by Rutherford completely. His experiment proves nucleus and even its size.

''debjit625: Not so much..quantum mechanics gave us a new perspective about sub atomic particles. "

Rutherford model is part of quantum mechanic itself and its initial picture.

 

Reality check, the Rutherford experiment is 100 years old. The theories it yielded have undergone major revisions many times since then. The experiment did not give the size of the of nucleus, it set an upper limit (which is a totally different thing). It led to the Bohr model, which itself has undergone dramatic revisions many times over the last 80 years. This is very old science, you talk as if it were new and cutting edge.

You are using one experiment out of thousands and declaring the whole theory set is fundamentally what? Flawed? This experiment did prove that matter is not a solid mass (which was debated hotly at that time), but made of of small particles that had forces associated to them. More than that and you are reading too much into it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_scattering

 

Logicman, I'd like to post one correction to your statement at the outset.

Rutherford established (amongst other things) that there was thre kinds of radiation from radium.

That which was deflected left by
That which was deflected right by
That which was not delfected by

Magnetic forces.

In truth they recognised three, not two, forces in those days.