ERNEST RUTHERFORD



                          NOBEL LECTURE
                        December 11, 1908.




             THE CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE ALPHA PARTICLES
                     FROM RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES


The study of the properties of the α-rays has played a notable part in
the development of radioactivity and has been instrumental in bringing
to light a number of facts and relationships of the first importance.
With increase of experimental knowledge there has been a growing
recognition that a large part of radioactive phenomena is intimately
connected with the expulsion of the α-particles. In this lecture an
attempt will be made to give a brief historical account of the
development of our knowledge of the α-rays and to trace the long and
arduous path trodden by the experimenter in the attempts to solve the
difficult question of the chemical nature of the α-particles. α-rays
were first observed in 1899 as a special type of radiation and during
the last six years there has been a persistent attack on this great
problem, which has finally yielded to the assault when the resources of
the attack seemed almost exhausted.

Shortly after his discovery of the radiating power of uranium by the
photographic method, Becquerel showed that the radiation from uranium
like the Röntgen-rays possessed the property of discharging an
electrified body. In a detailed investigation of this property, I
examined the effect on the rate of discharge by placing successive
layers of thin aluminium foil over the surface of a layer of uranium
oxide and was led to the conclusion that two types of radiation of very
different penetrating power were present. The conclusions at that period
were summed up as follows:

"These experiments show that the uranium, radiation is complex and
that there are present at least two distinct types of radiation--one
that is very readily absorbed, which will be termed for convenience the
α-radiation, and the other of a more penetrative character, which will
be termed the β-radiation."[1] When other radioactive substances were
discovered, it was seen that the types of radiation present were
analogous to the β– and α-rays of uranium and when a still more
penetrating type of radiation from radium was discovered by Villard, the
term γ-rays was applied to them. The names thus given soon came into
general use as a convenient nomenclature for the three distinct types of
radiation emitted from uranium, radium, thorium, and actinium. On
account of their insignificant penetrating power, the α-rays were at
first considered of little importance and attention was mainly directed
to the more penetrating β-rays. With the advent of active preparations
of radium, Giesel in 1899 showed that the β-rays from this substance
were easily deflected by a magnetic field in the same direction as a
stream of cathode rays and consequently appeared to be a stream of
projected particles carrying a negative charge. The proof of the
identity of the β-particles with the electrons constituting the cathode
rays was completed in 1900 by Becquerel, who showed that the β-particles
from radium had about the same small mass as the electrons and were
projected at a speed comparable with the velocity of light. Time does
not allow me to enter into the later work of Kaufmann and others on this
subject, which has greatly extended our knowledge of the constitution
and mass of electrons.

In the meantime, further investigation had disclosed that the
α-particles produced most of the ionization observed in the
neighbourhood of an unscreened radioactive substance, and that most of
the energy radiated was in the form of α-rays. It was calculated by
Rutherford and McClung in 1901 that one gram of radium radiated a large
amount of energy in the form of α-rays.

The increasing recognition of the importance of the α-rays in
radioactive phenomena led to attempts to determine the nature of this
easily absorbed type of radiation. Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) in 1901 and
Sir William Crookes in 1902 suggested that they might possibly prove to
be projected particles carrying a positive charge. I independently
arrived at the same conclusion from consideration of a variety of
evidence. If this were the case, the α-rays should be deflected by a
magnetic field. Preliminary work showed that the deflection was very
slight if it occurred at all. Experiments were continued at intervals
over a period of two years and it was not until 1902, when a preparation
of radium of activity 19,000 was available, that I was able to show
conclusively that the particles were deflected by a magnetic field,
though in a very minute degree compared with the β-rays. This showed
that the α-rays consisted of projected charged particles while the
direction of deflection indicated that each particle carried a positive
charge. The α-particles were shown to be deflected also by an electric
field and from the magnitude of the deflection, it was deduced that the
velocity of the swiftest particles was about 2.5 x 10^9 cm per second, or
one-twelfth the velocity of light, while the value of _e/m_--the ratio
of the charge carried by the particle to its mass--was found to be
5,000 electromagnetic units. Now it is known from the data of the
electrolysis of water that the value of _e/m_ for the hydrogen atom is
9,650. If the α-particle carried the same positive charge as the unit
fundamental charge of the hydrogen atom, it was seen that the mass of
the α-particle was about twice that of the hydrogen atom. On account of
the complexity of the rays it was recognized that the results were only
approximate, but the experiments indicated clearly that the α-particle
was atomic in mass and might prove ultimately to be either a hydrogen or
a helium atom or the atom of some unknown element of light atomic
weight. These experiments were repeated by Des Coudres in 1903 with
similar results, while Becquerel showed the deflection of the α-rays in
a magnetic field by the photographic method.

This proof that the α-particles consisted of actual charged atoms of
matter projected with an enormous velocity at once threw a flood of
light on radioactive processes, in particular upon another important
series of investigations which were being contemporaneously carried on
in the Laboratory at Montreal in conjunction with Mr. F. Soddy. Had time
permitted, it would have been of interest to consider in some detail the
nature of these researches which placed on a firm foundation the now
generally accepted "transformation theory" of radioactivity. From a
close examination of the substances thorium, radium, and uranium,
Rutherford and Soddy had reached the conclusion that radioactive bodies
were in a state of transformation, as a result of which a number of new
substances were produced entirely distinct in chemical and physical
character from the parent element. From the independence of the rate of
transformation of chemical and physical agencies, it was recognized that
the transformation was atomic and not molecular in character. Each of
these new bodies was shown to lose its radioactive properties according
to a definite law. Even before the discovery of the material nature of
the α-rays, it had been considered probable that the radiation from any
particular substance accompanied the breaking up of its atoms. The proof
that the α-particle was an ejected atom of matter at once strengthened
this conclusion and at the same time gave a more concrete and definite
representation of the processes occurring in radioactive matter. The
point of view reached by us at that time is clearly seen from the
following quotation, which with little alteration holds good today.
"The results obtained so far point to the conclusion that the
beginning of the succession of chemical changes taking place in
radioactive bodies is due to the emission of the α-rays, i.e. the
projection of a heavy charged mass from the atom. The portion left
behind is unstable, undergoing further chemical changes which are again
accompanied by the emission of α-rays, and in some cases also of β-rays.

"The power possessed by the radioactive bodies of apparently
spontaneously projecting large masses with enormous velocities supports
the view that the atoms of these substances are made up, in part at
least, of rapidly rotating or oscillating systems of heavy charged
bodies, large compared with the electron. The sudden escape of these
masses from their orbit may be due either to the action of internal
forces or external forces of which we have at present no knowledge."[2]

Consider for a moment the explanation of the changes in radium. A minute
fraction of the radium atoms is supposed each second to become unstable,
breaking up with explosive violence. A fragment of the atom--and
α-particle--is ejected at a high speed, and the residue of the atom,
which has a lighter weight than before, becomes an atom of a new
substance, the radium emanation. The atoms of this substance are far
more unstable than those of radium and explode again with the expulsion
of an α-particle. As a result the atom of radium A makes its appearance
and the process of disintegration thus started continues through a long
series of stages.

I can only refer in passing here to the large amount of work done by
various experimenters in analysing the long series of transformations of
radium and thorium and actinium; the linking up of radium with uranium
and the discovery by Boltwood of the long looked-for and elusive parent
of radium, viz. ionium. This phase of the subject is of unusual interest
and importance but has only an indirect bearing on the subject of my
lecture. It has been shown that the great majority of the transition
elements produced by the transformation of uranium and thorium break up
with the expulsion of α-particles. A few, however, throw off only
β-particles, while some are "rayless", i.e. undergo transformation
without the expulsion of high-speed α– and β-particles. It is
necessary to suppose that in these latter cases the atoms break up with
the expulsion of α-particles at a speed too low to be detected, or, as
is more probable, undergo a process of atomic rearrangement without the
expulsion of material particles of atomic dimensions.

Another striking property of radium was soon seen to be connected with
the expulsion of α-particles. In 1903 P. Curie and Laborde showed that
radium was a self-heating substance and was always above the temperature
of the surrounding air. It seemed probable from the beginning that the
effect must be the result of the heating effect due to the impact of the
α-particles on the radium. Consider for a moment a pellet of radium
enclosed in a tube. The α-particles are shot out in great numbers
equally from all parts of the radium and in consequence of their slight
penetrating power are all stopped in the radium itself or by the walls
of the tube. The energy of motion of the α-particles is converted into
heat. On this view the radium is subject to a fierce and unceasing
bombardment by its own particles and is heated by its own radiation.
This was confirmed by the work of Rutherford and Barnes in 1903, who
showed that three quarters of the heating effect of radium was not
directly due to the radium but to its product, the emanation, and that
each of the different substances produced in radium gave out heat in
proportion to the energy of the α-particles expelled from it. These
experiments brought clearly to light the enormous energy, compared with
the weight of matter involved, which was emitted during the
transformation of the emanation. It can readily be calculated that one
kilogram of the radium-emanation and its products would initially emit
energy at the rate of 14,000 horse-power, and during its life would give
off energy corresponding to about 80,000 horse-power for one day.
It was thus clear that the heating effect of radium was mainly a
secondary phenomenon resulting from the bombardment by its own
α-particles. It was evident also that all the radioactive substances
must emit heat in proportion to the number and energy of the α-particles
expelled per second.

We must now consider another discovery of the first importance. In
discussing the consequences of the disintegration theory, Rutherford and
Soddy drew attention to the fact that any stable substances produced
during the transformation of the radio-elements should be present in
quantity in the radioactive minerals, where the processes of
transformation have been taking place for ages. This suggestion was
first put forward in 1902.[3] "In the light of these results and the
view that has already been put forward of the nature of radioactivity,
the speculation naturally arises whether the presence of helium in
minerals and its invariable association with uranium and thorium, may
not be connected with their radioactivity, and again[4]." "It is
therefore to be expected that if any of the unknown ultimate products of
the changes of a radioactive element are gaseous, they would be found
occluded, possibly in considerable quantities, in the natural minerals
containing that element. This lends support to the suggestion already
put forwards, that possibly helium is an ultimate product of the
disintegration of one of the radioactive elements, since it is only
found in radioactive minerals."

It was at the same time recognized that it was quite possible that the
α-particle itself might prove to be a helium atom. As only weak
preparations were then available, it did not seem feasible at that time
to test whether helium was produced from radium. About a year later,
thanks to Dr. Giesel of Braunschweig, preparations of pure radium
bromide were made available to experimenters. Using 30 milligrams of
Giesel's preparation, Sir William Ramsay and Soddy in 1903 were able
to show conclusively that helium was present in radium some months old
and that the emanation produced helium. This discovery was of the
greatest interest and importance, for it brought to light that in
addition to a series of transition elements, radium also gave rise in
its transformation to a stable form of matter.

A fundamental question immediately arose as to the position of helium in
the scheme of transformations of radium. Was the helium the end or final
product of transformation of radium or did it arise at some other stage
or stages? In a letter to _Nature_[5] I pointed out that probably helium
was derived from the α-particles fired out by the α-ray products of
radium and made an approximate estimate of the rate of production of
helium by radium. It was calculated that the amount of helium produced
per gram of radium should lie between 20 and 200 cubic millimetres per
year and probably nearer the latter estimate. The data available for
calculation at that time were imperfect, but it is of interest to note
that the rate of production of helium recently found by Sir James Dewar,
in 1908, viz. 134 cubic millimetres per year, is not far from the value
calculated as most probable at that time.

These estimates of the rate of production of helium were later modified
as new and more accurate data became available. In 1905, I measured the
charge carried by the α-particles from a thin film of radium. Assuming
that each α-particle carried the ionic charge measured by J.J. Thomson,
I showed that 6.2 x 10^10 α-particles were expelled per second per gram
of radium itself and four times this number when radium was in
equilibrium with its three α-ray products. The rate of production of
helium calculated on these data was 240 cubic millimetres per gram per
year.

In the meantime, by the admirable researches of Bragg and Kleeman in
1904, our knowledge of the character of the absorption of the
α-particles by matter had been much extended. It had long been known
that the absorption of α-particles by matter was different in many
respects from that of the β-rays. Bragg showed that these differences
arose from the fact that the α-particle, on account of its great energy
of motion, was not deflected from its path like the β-particle, but
travelled in nearly a straight line, ionizing the molecules in its path.
From a thin film of matter of one kind, the α-particles were all
projected at the same speed and lost their power of producing ionization
suddenly, after traversing a certain definite distance of air. The
velocity of the α-particles in this view were reduced by their passage
through matter by equal amounts. These conclusions of Bragg were
confirmed by experiments I made by the photographic method. As a source
of rays, a thin film of radium C, deposited from the radium-emanation on
a thin wire, was used. By examining the deflection of the rays in a
magnetic field, it was found that the rays were homogeneous and were
expelled from the surface of the wire at an identical speed. By passing
the rays through a screen of mica or aluminium, it was found that the
velocity of all the α-particles were reduced by the same amount and the
issuing beam was still homogeneous.

A remarkable result was noted. All α-particles apparently lost their
characteristic properties of ionization, phosphorescence and
photographic action, at exactly the same point while they were still
moving at a speed of about 9,000 kilometres per second. At this critical
speed, the α-particle suddenly vanishes from our ken and can no longer
be followed by the methods of observation at our command.

The use of a homogeneous source of α-rays like radium C at once
suggested itself as affording a basis for a more accurate determination
of the value of _e/m_ for the α-particle and for seeing whether the value
was consistent with the view that the α-particle was a charged atom of
helium. In the course of a long series of experiments, I proved that the
α-particles, whether expelled from radium, thorium or actinium, were
identical in mass and must consist of the same kind of matter.

The velocity of expulsion of the α-particles from different kinds of
active matter varied over comparatively narrow limits but the value of
_e/m_ was constant and equal to 5,070. This value was not very different
from the one originally found. A difficulty at once arose in
interpreting this result. We have seen that the value of _e/m_ for the
hydrogen atom is 9,650. If the α-particle carried the same positive
charge as the hydrogen atom, the value of _e/m_ for the α-particle would
indicate that its mass was twice that of the hydrogen atom, i.e. equal
to the mass of a hydrogen molecule. It seemed very improbable that
hydrogen should be ejected in a molecular and not an atomic state as a
result of the atomic explosion. If, however, the α-particle carried a
charge equal to twice that of the hydrogen atom, the mass of the
α-particle would work out at nearly four, i.e. a mass nearly equal to
that of the atom of helium.

I suggested that, in all probability, the α-particle was a helium atom
which carried two unit charges. On this view, every radioactive
substance which emitted α-particles must give rise to helium. This at
once offered an explanation of the fact observed by Debierne that
actinium as well as radium produced helium. It was pointed out that the
presence of a double charge of helium-atom was not altogether improbable
for reasons to be given later.

While the evidence as a whole strongly supported the view that the
α-particle was a helium atom, it was found exceedingly difficult to
obtain a decisive experimental proof of the relation. If it could be
shown experimentally that the α-particle did in reality carry two unit
charges, the proof of the relation would be greatly strengthened. For
this purpose an electrical method was devised by Rutherford and Geiger
for counting directly the α-particles expelled from a radioactive
substance. The ionization produced in a gas by a single α-particle is
exceedingly small and would be difficult to detect electrically except
by a very refined method. Recourse was had to an automatic method of
magnifying the ionization produced by an α-particle. For this purpose it
was arranged that the α-particles should be fired through a small
opening into a vessel containing air or other gas at a low pressure,
exposed to an electric field near the sparking value. Under these
conditions the ions produced by the passage of the α-particle through
the gas generate a large number of fresh ions by collision. In this way
it was found possible to magnify the electrical effect due to an
α-particle several thousand times. The entrance of an α-particle into
the testing vessel was then indicated by a sudden deflection of the
electrometer needle. This method was developed into an accurate method
of counting the number of α-particles fired in a known time through the
small aperture of the testing vessel. From this was deduced the total
number of α-particles expelled per second from any thin film of
radioactive matter. In this way it was shown that 3.4 x 10^10 α-particles
are expelled per second from one gram of radium itself and from each of
its α-ray products in equilibrium with it.

The correctness of this method was indicated by another, quite distinct
method of counting. Sir William Crookes and Elster and Geitel had shown
that the α-particles falling on a screen of phosphorescent zinc sulphide
produced a number of scintillations. Using specially prepared screens,
Rutherford and Geiger counted the number of these scintillations per
second with the aid of a microscope. It was found that, within the limit
of experimental error, the number of scintillations per second on a
screen agreed with the number of α-particles impinging on it, counted by
the electrical method. It was thus clear that each α-particle produced a
visible scintillation on the screen, and that either the electrical or
the optical method could be used for counting the α-particles. Apart
from the purpose for which these experiments were made, the results are
of great interest and importance, for it is the first time that it has
been found possible to detect a single atom of matter by its electrical
and optical effect. This is of course only possible because of the great
velocity of the α-particle.

Knowing the number of α-particles expelled from radium from the counting
experiment, the charge carried by each α-particle was determined by
measuring the total positive charge carried by all the α-particles
expelled. It was found that each α-particle carried a positive charge of
9.3 x 10^-10 electrostatic units. From a consideration of the
experimental evidence of the charge carried by the ions in gases, it was
concluded that the α-particle did carry two unit charges, and that the
unit charge carried by the hydrogen atom was equal to 4.65 x 10^-10
units. From a comparison of the known value of _e/m_ for the α-particle
with that of the hydrogen atom, it follows that an α-particle is a
projected atom of helium carrying two charges, or, to express it in
another way, the α-particle, after its charge is neutralized, is a
helium atom.

The data obtained from the counting experiments allow us to calculate
simply the magnitude of a number of important radioactive quantities. It
was found that the calculated values of the life of radium, of the
volume of the emanation, and of the heating effect of radium were in
excellent agreement with the values found experimentally. A test of the
correctness of these methods of calculation was forthcoming shortly
after the publication of these results. Rutherford and Geiger
calculated, on the assumption that the α-particle was a helium atom,
that one gram of radium in equilibrium should produce a volume of 158
cubic millimetres of helium per year. Sir James Dewar in 1908 carried
out a long experimental investigation on the rate of production of
helium by radium, and showed that one gram of radium in equilibrium
produced about 134 cubic millimetres per year. Considering the
difficulty of the investigation, the agreement between the experimental
and calculated values is very good and is strong evidence in support of
the identity of the α-particle with a helium atom.

While the whole train of evidence we have considered indicates with
little room for doubt that the α-particle is a projected helium atom,
there was still wanting a decisive and incontrovertible proof of the
relationship. It might be argued, for example, that the helium atom
appeared as a result of the disintegration of the radium atom in the
same way as the atom of the emanation and had no direct connection with
the α-particle. If one helium atom were liberated at the same time that
an α-particle was expelled, experiment and calculation might still
agree and yet the α-particle might be an atom of hydrogen or of some
unknown substance. In order to remove this possible objection, it is
necessary to show that the α-particles, collected quite independently
of the active matter from which they are expelled, give rise to helium.
With this purpose in view some experiments were recently (1908) made by
Rutherford and Royds. A large quantity of emanation was forced into a
glass tube which had walls so thin that the α-particles were fired
right through them, though the walls were impervious to the emanation
itself. The α-particles were projected into the glass walls of an outer
sealed vessel and were gradually released into the exhausted space
between the emanation tube and the outer vessel. After some days a
bright spectrum of helium was observed in the outer vessel. There is,
however, one objection to this experiment. It might be possible that the
helium observed had diffused through the thin glass walls from the
emanation. This objection was removed by showing that no trace of helium
appeared, when the emanation was replaced by a larger volume of helium
itself. We may thus confidently conclude that the α-particles
themselves give rise to helium, and are atoms of helium. Further
experiments showed that when the α-particles were fired through the
glass walls into a thin sheet of lead or tin, helium could always be
obtained from the metals after a few hours' bombardment.

Considering the evidence together, we conclude that the α-particle is a
projected atom of helium, which has, or in some way during its flight
acquires, two unit charges of positive electricity. It is somewhat
unexpected that the atom of a monatomic gas like helium should carry a
double charge. It must not however be forgotten that the α-particle is
released at a high speed as a result of an intense atomic explosion, and
plunges through the molecules of matter in its path. Such conditions are
exceptionably favourable to the release of loosely attached electrons
from the atomic system. If the α-particle can lose two electrons in this
way, the double positive charge is explained.

We have seen that there is every reason to believe that the α-particles,
so freely expelled from the great majority of radioactive substances,
are identical in mass and constitution and must consist of atoms of
helium. We are consequently driven to the conclusion that the atoms of
the primary radioactive elements like uranium and thorium must be built
up in part at least of atoms of helium. These atoms are released at
definite stages of the transformations at a rate independent of control
by laboratory forces. There is good reason to believe that in the
majority of cases, a single helium atom is expelled during the atomic
explosion. This is certainly the case for radium itself and its series
of products. On the other hand, Bronson has drawn attention to certain
cases, viz. the emanations of actinium and of thorium, where apparently
two and three atoms of helium respectively are expelled at one time. No
doubt these exceptions will receive careful investigation in the future.
It is of interest to note that uranium itself appears to expel two
α-particles for one from each of its products. Knowing the number of
atoms of helium expelled from the atom of each product, we can at once
calculate the atomic weights of the products. For example, in the
uranium-ionium-radium series, uranium expels two α-particles and each of
the six following α-ray products one, i.e. eight in all. Taking the
atomic weight of uranium as 238.5, the atomic weight of ionium should be
230.5, of radium 226.5, of the emanation 222.5, and so on. It is of
interest to note that the atomic weight of radium deduced in this way is
in close agreement with the latest experimental values. The atomic
weight of the end-product of radium, resulting from the transformation
of radium F (polonium) should be 238.5 – 8 x 4 = 206.5, or a value
close to that for lead. Long ago, Boltwood suggested from examination of
analyses of old uranium minerals, that lead was in all probability a
transformation product of the uranium-radium series. The coincidence of
numbers is certainly striking, but a direct proof of the production of
lead from radium will be required before this conclusion can be
considered as definitely established.

It is very remarkable that a chemically inert element like helium should
play such a prominent part in the constitution of the atomic systems of
uranium and thorium and radium. It may well be that this property of
helium of forming complex atoms is in some way connected with its
inability to enter into ordinary chemical combinations. It must not be
forgotten that uranium and thorium and each of their transformation
products must be regarded as distinct chemical elements in the ordinary
sense. They differ from ordinary elements in the comparative instability
of their atomic systems. The atoms break up spontaneously with great
violence, expelling in many cases an atom of helium at a high speed. All
the evidence is against the view that uranium or thorium or radium can
be regarded as an ordinary molecular compound of helium with some known
or unknown element, which breaks up into helium. The character of the
radioactive transformations and their independence of temperature and
other agencies have no analogy in ordinary chemical changes.

Apart from their radioactivity and high atomic weight, uranium, thorium,
and radium show no specially distinctive chemical behaviour. Radium for
example is closely allied in general chemical properties to barium. It
is consequently not unreasonable to suppose that other elements may be
built up in part of helium, although the absence of radioactivity may
prevent us from obtaining any definite proof. On this view, it may prove
significant that the atomic weights of many elements differ by four--the
atomic weight of helium--or a multiple of four. Time is too limited
to discuss in greater detail these and other interesting questions which
have been raised by the proof of the chemical nature of the
α-particle.


[Footnote 1: E. Rutherford, Uranium radiation and the electrical
conduction produced by it, _Phil. Mag._, 47 (1899) 116.]

[Footnote 2: E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, _Phil. Mag._, 5 (1903), 106.]

[Footnote 3: E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, _Phil. Mag._, 4 (1902), 582.]

[Footnote 4: E. Rutherford and F. Soddy, _Phil. Mag._, 5 (1903), 453.]

[Footnote 5: E. Rutherford, letter in _Nature_, _69_ (Aug. 20, 1903).]