Question

Which experimental evidence supports the idea that the Plum Pudding model of the atom is not correct?

A few positively charged particles shot into gold foil are deflected by the foil.

Some positively charged particles shot into gold foil are attracted to the foil.

Most particles shot into gold foil pass straight through the foil.

Radioactive particles shot into gold foil cause the gold to become radioactive.

Answer 1

Ok it's the first experiment, it was perfomed by Ernest Rutherford ( New Zealand Scientist/Physicist ). It proved that the Plum Pudding model did not explain the structure of the atom as the Plum Pudding model represented the atom being a postitive sphere with negatively randomly embedded electrons. As the positively charged particles passed through the gold foil they were 1) Deflected at there own path 2) Deflected at large angles and 3) Passed slightly deflected through it. This all made Rutherford conclude that the Plum Pudding couldn't not explain how the positively charged particles passed trough the gold foil as they would not pass slightly deflected trough a positive sphere. Therefore he said that the atom was mostly made of empty space with a large positive nucleus.
Hope this helps :D.

Answer 2

A few positively charged particles shot into gold foil are deflected by the foil.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Plum Pudding model proposed that the electrons were small particles charged with negative energy and were too small compared with the rest of the atom, and that the positive charged particles in the atom were a solid, if the particles deflected by the foil are deflected that means that the whole nucleus of the particles are smaller in comparission with the whole atom.