In the nineteenth century, scientists determined that atoms consist of electrons and protons. J. J. Thomson modeled the atom as a uniform arrangement of electrons inside a positive sphere of charge. In the early twentieth century, Earnest Rutherford concluded from experiments that most of the mass and all of the positive charge of atoms were concentrated in the center of the atom, with the negatively charged electrons orbiting the center.
Which statement describes one feature of the Rutherford-Bohr atom model that the Thomson model does not share?
- A. The Rutherford-Bohr model identifies different elements by the numbers of particles present.
- B. The Rutherford-Bohr model maintains the observed neutral charge of atoms.
- C. The Rutherford-Bohr model correctly describes the types of particles in the atom.
- D. The Rutherford-Bohr model restricts the positive charge of the atom to the nucleus.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
The Rutherford-Bohr model uniquely restricts the atom's positive charge to the nucleus, a significant advancement over the Thomson model, which depicts a diffuse positive charge throughout the atom. Option A is incorrect as both models can identify elements based on particle numbers, but the Rutherford-Bohr model adds more detail about electron arrangements. Option B is misleading; both models account for atomic neutrality, but the Rutherford-Bohr model provides a clearer structure. Option C is also inaccurate; while the Rutherford-Bohr model describes particles more accurately, it does not fundamentally change the types of particles present compared to Thomson's model.
The Rutherford-Bohr model uniquely restricts the atom's positive charge to the nucleus, a significant advancement over the Thomson model, which depicts a diffuse positive charge throughout the atom. Option A is incorrect as both models can identify elements based on particle numbers, but the Rutherford-Bohr model adds more detail about electron arrangements. Option B is misleading; both models account for atomic neutrality, but the Rutherford-Bohr model provides a clearer structure. Option C is also inaccurate; while the Rutherford-Bohr model describes particles more accurately, it does not fundamentally change the types of particles present compared to Thomson's model.
Other Related Questions
What natural process is required to connect the ice core data to the Tunguska Event?
- A. the cycling of carbon in forest fires
- B. the interaction of comets with the solar wind
- C. the movement of glaciers due to gravity
- D. the constant mixing of the atmosphere
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
Connecting ice core data to the Tunguska Event necessitates understanding atmospheric dynamics, which is achieved through the constant mixing of the atmosphere. This mixing disperses particles and gases, allowing researchers to correlate ice core samples with historical events, including the Tunguska explosion. Option A, the cycling of carbon in forest fires, is unrelated to the atmospheric conditions or the specific data derived from ice cores. Option B, the interaction of comets with the solar wind, pertains to space phenomena rather than terrestrial atmospheric processes. Option C, the movement of glaciers due to gravity, describes glacial dynamics but does not address the atmospheric mixing needed to link ice core data to the event.
Connecting ice core data to the Tunguska Event necessitates understanding atmospheric dynamics, which is achieved through the constant mixing of the atmosphere. This mixing disperses particles and gases, allowing researchers to correlate ice core samples with historical events, including the Tunguska explosion. Option A, the cycling of carbon in forest fires, is unrelated to the atmospheric conditions or the specific data derived from ice cores. Option B, the interaction of comets with the solar wind, pertains to space phenomena rather than terrestrial atmospheric processes. Option C, the movement of glaciers due to gravity, describes glacial dynamics but does not address the atmospheric mixing needed to link ice core data to the event.
What statement describes one or more needed changes to this experiment that would allow the experimenter to draw a valid conclusion?
- A. Salt water should have been used to make the ice cubes for the cup of salt water.
- B. The time for ice cubes to melt should have been measured in minutes.
- C. At the beginning, both cups should have contained the same mass of water at the same temperature.
- D. The energy released should have been measured, not calculated.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C highlights the necessity for both cups to start with the same mass of water at the same temperature to ensure a fair comparison. This control eliminates variables that could skew results, allowing for a valid conclusion about the melting rates of ice cubes in different solutions. Option A is incorrect because using salt water to make ice cubes would not provide relevant data on how the ice behaves in fresh versus salt water. Option B is not a change that affects the experimental validity; measuring time in minutes is appropriate, but the key is ensuring conditions are equal. Option D suggests a measurement method change, but calculating energy based on temperature changes is acceptable in this context.
Option C highlights the necessity for both cups to start with the same mass of water at the same temperature to ensure a fair comparison. This control eliminates variables that could skew results, allowing for a valid conclusion about the melting rates of ice cubes in different solutions. Option A is incorrect because using salt water to make ice cubes would not provide relevant data on how the ice behaves in fresh versus salt water. Option B is not a change that affects the experimental validity; measuring time in minutes is appropriate, but the key is ensuring conditions are equal. Option D suggests a measurement method change, but calculating energy based on temperature changes is acceptable in this context.
Which statement from the passage refutes Lavoisier's idea that heat is a fluid that leaves a hot substance and travels to a colder substance?
- A. He also found the brass filings produced from the drilling process contained enough heat to boil water while retaining their weight.
- B. James Joule discovered that heat could be produced by moving a wire through a magnetic field.
- C. Lavoisier demonstrated that oxygen was required for combustion.
- D. Count Rumford observed that the process of boring out cannons from brass cylinders continuously produced heat.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
Option A effectively refutes Lavoisier's notion of heat as a fluid by demonstrating that heat can be generated without the transfer of a fluid. The brass filings, despite retaining their weight, produced sufficient heat to boil water, indicating that heat can arise from mechanical processes rather than fluid movement. Option B, while highlighting Joule's discovery of heat production through motion, does not directly address Lavoisier's fluid concept. Option C focuses on combustion and oxygen's role, which is unrelated to the nature of heat itself. Option D describes an observation of heat generation during a mechanical process but does not emphasize the implications for Lavoisier's fluid theory as clearly as A does.
Option A effectively refutes Lavoisier's notion of heat as a fluid by demonstrating that heat can be generated without the transfer of a fluid. The brass filings, despite retaining their weight, produced sufficient heat to boil water, indicating that heat can arise from mechanical processes rather than fluid movement. Option B, while highlighting Joule's discovery of heat production through motion, does not directly address Lavoisier's fluid concept. Option C focuses on combustion and oxygen's role, which is unrelated to the nature of heat itself. Option D describes an observation of heat generation during a mechanical process but does not emphasize the implications for Lavoisier's fluid theory as clearly as A does.
What is the relationship between the kinetic energy of the feather and of the hammer just before they hit the surface of the Moon?
- A. The hammer has more kinetic energy than the feather because it has a greater mass.
- B. Both objects have the same kinetic energy because they fell with the same velocity.
- C. The hammer has more kinetic energy than the feather because it will accelerate faster than the feather.
- D. Both objects have the same kinetic energy because gravity pulls on both objects equally.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The hammer possesses more kinetic energy than the feather due to its greater mass, as kinetic energy is calculated using the formula KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity². While both objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, their velocities are equal, but the hammer’s larger mass results in higher kinetic energy. Option B is incorrect because, although they have the same velocity, kinetic energy also depends on mass. Option C misrepresents the situation; both objects accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. Option D is misleading; while gravity affects both equally, it does not determine kinetic energy, which also requires consideration of mass.
The hammer possesses more kinetic energy than the feather due to its greater mass, as kinetic energy is calculated using the formula KE = 0.5 * mass * velocity². While both objects fall at the same rate in a vacuum, their velocities are equal, but the hammer’s larger mass results in higher kinetic energy. Option B is incorrect because, although they have the same velocity, kinetic energy also depends on mass. Option C misrepresents the situation; both objects accelerate at the same rate in a vacuum. Option D is misleading; while gravity affects both equally, it does not determine kinetic energy, which also requires consideration of mass.