Moller Scattering. A Neglected Application of Early Quantum Electrodynamics (1992) - Roqué

Archive for History of Exact Sciences,
44 pp. 197-264 (1992)
Moiler Scattering., a Neglected Application of

Early Quantum Electrodynamics
XAVIER ROQUI~
Communicated by K. VON MEs
Table of Contents
Introduction .......................................... 197

1. M~ller's method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
1.1. The foundations of the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
1.2. An outline of the method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
1.3. Previous treatments of electron-electron interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
1.4. First results - and errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
2. The Moller formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
2.t. Towards a relativistic scattering formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
2.2. The deduction of the formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 223
2.3. The Moller formula and quantum electrodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
3. The experimental testing of the Moller formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
3.1. Experimental knowledge of electron scattering around 1930 . . . . . . . . . 233
3.2. Champion's experiments .............................. 240
3.3. Subsequent experiments prior to 1947 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
3.4. Postwar interest and conclusive test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252
Concluding remarks ..................................... 255
Acknowledgments ....................................... 258
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Introduction*
T h e first a t t e m p t s to b u i l d a q u a n t u m a n d r e l a t i v i s t i c t h e o r y o f e l e c t r o -
m a g n e t i c i n t e r a c t i o n s d a t e b a c k to t h e m i d - t w e n t i e s , t h o u g h n o t u n t i l t h e full
* In an article recently published in this Archive, HELGE KRAGH has analyzed the
background and development of CHRISTIAN MOLLER's work on electron scattering in the
early thirties. The fact that most of my paper was written while I was unaware of
KRAGH's work, accounts for the similitudes. This article complements that of KRAGH in
that Mt~LLER's actual deduction of his scattering formula, as well as its experimental test,
are analyzed in greater detail.
198 X. ROQut~
introduction of the renormalization idea in 1947, would quantum electro-

dynamics come of age. During this period, the theory faced grave difficulties,
which included divergences in fundamental quantities, like the proper energy of
the electron or the displacement of spectral lines, as well as the failure - at least
until 1937 - in the application of the theory to the analysis and interpretation
of cosmic rays. For some of its creators, and most of its critics, these troubles
foreboded the imminence and the necessity of a conceptual revolutionJ
Most of the elementary processes that quantum electrodyrramics describes
were calculated in first approximation during the early stage of the theory.
Besides the phenomena of bremsstrahlung and pair creation and annihilation,
this is the case of the relativistic collisions photon-electron (KLEIN-NISHINA
formula, 1928), electron-electron (MOLLERformula, 1932), and positron-electron
(BHABHAformula, 1936). The formal improvements introduced after the war
enable these processes to be easily deduced, and today they represent paradig-
matic applications of the theory. Yet_~was it the same in its early period, as has
been implicitly assumed? 2
Towards the end of 1930, a young Danish physicist, CHRISTIAN MOLTER,
devised a method to treat the collision between two relativistic electrons. Two
years later, he presented his doctoral dissertation, where the penetration of
rapidly moving electron.s through matter was theoretically analyzed on the basis
of the method. As a particular case, he considered the interaction between two
free electrons, now known as Moiler scattering, giving the formula that de-
scribes it correctly in first approximation. This paper analyzes the relationship
between the MOLLER formula and quantum electrodynamics.
In the first place, the provisory and disappointing state of the theory in the
beginning of the thirties led us to the questions: how did MOLLER actually work
out the scattering formula? Did he intend to probe the then-existing quantum
electrodynamics? With which aims did he address the problem of electron
scattering in his doctoral dissertation? Were they fulfilled, or did they change as
the work progressed? And secondly: did someone try to test the formula? In
which context were the experiments carried out? Were they intended to provide
early quantum electrodynamics with an experimental basis? In any case, what
was their significance for the theory?
1 Quantum electrodynamics did not exist as a single, well-defined theoretical body in

the early thirties. Different versions of the theory agreed on the necessity of quantizing
the electromagnetic field, but diverged on matter waves' quantization. By "early quantum
electrodynamics" I shall refer to quantum electrodynamics before renormalization, or
more specifically, to the set of formulations of the theory that included in this period
quantization of the electromagnetic field (see also note 1 in KRAGH'S paper). On early
quantum electrodynamics see specially DARRIGOL (1984), R~GER (1989), and KRAGH
(1990), chapters 6 and 8.
2 Cf for example GIORGI (1990), p. 449: "Perhaps the most impressive successes of
early quantum field theory were the calculations of scattering probabilities for a variety
of processes [those just mentioned]... They were in reasonable agreement with experi-
ment".
Moiler Scattering 199
The method conceived by MOLLER was the subject of the only article he
published in 1931. In the first section, I analyze its theoretical foundations and
the preliminary results that MOLLER drew from it. An account of previous
attempts to deal with electron interaction on the basis of DIRAC'S equation is
also included, especially that of BREIT, as it was closely related to the wave-field
theory of HEISENBERG and PAULI, the most general formulation of quantum
electrodynamics around 1930.
In the second section, MOLLER'S actual deduction of the scattering formula,
as well as its relation with early quantum electrodynamics, are considered. The
formula appeared in the Annalen der Physik in the summer of 1932, in an article
which later that year became MOLLER'S dissertation. A chronological account of
MOLLER'S work during this period is also presented, giving particular attention
to his changing motivations.
The third section addresses the experimental test of the formula. It focusses
on the experiments by the British physicist F. C. CHAMPXON, who tested the
MOLLER formula before it appeared in print. The experimental knowledge of
electron-electron scattering around 1930 is also briefly reviewed, as it accounts
for MOLLER'S surprise in the face of CHAMPION'S attempts. Finally, the surge of
experiments around 1950, as well as the conclusive test of the formula in the
early fifties, are considered.
1. Moller's method
At the end of September 1930, a 22-year old Russian student, LEV LANDAU,
arrived in Copenhagen from Cambridge to spend two months at BOHR'S Insti-
tute. 3 MOLLER was then finishing the last of the "not very exciting" papers with
which he had started his career in physics. 4 LANDAU had met MOLLER earlier in
the year, when he had visited the Institute for the first time; his presence in
Copenhagen in October would be, according to MOLLER, "absolutely crucial . . .
because h e . . . brought me into the scattering problem". 5
_J
3 See the Registers Book of the Institute (Archives for the History of Quantum
Physics, microfilm no. 35. Henceforward as AHQP-35).
4 Interview with MOLLER by CHARLES E. WEINER,25 and 26 August 1971, p. 11
(Center for History of Physics, American Institute of Physics. Henceforward as MOLLER
interview 1971, AIP). The article referred to contained a general method of evaluating
higher-order approximations in BORN'S theory (MOLLER 1930c). In his first paper,
MOLLER included relativistic considerations in GAMOW's explanation of radioactive
disintegration (MOLLER 1929); his next two articles dealt with the application of BORN's
perturbation theory to the anomalous scattering of a particles by light atoms (MOLLER
1930a, b). Except for MOLLER (1930a), these articles appeared in such a prestigious
journal as Zeitschrift ffir Physik, not least because of MOLLER's command of German.
5 MOLLER interview 1971 (AIP), p. 13. See KRAGH's paper for the early career and
background of MOLLER, and AASERUD (1990) on the working atmosphere at BOHR's
Institute.
200 X. ROQUI~
The problem of the collision between two relativistic electrons became the
subject of the only article MoI.I~EI~ published in 1931: "The Collision Between
Two Particles, Taking Account of the Retardation of the Forces". 6 It described
a method of treating the interaction between two relativistic particles in first
order of perturbation theory. MoI~LE~ was indebted to LANDAUfor some "abso-
lutely essential remarks" that he did not detail in his article, though they were
probably two. The first referred to the possibility of relativistically generalizing
a method developed by HANS BEa'rt~ in a recent article, "Towards a Theory of
the Passage of Fast Corpuscular Radiation Through Matter", which had ap-
peared in the middle of 1930 and was to influence later developments greatly. 7
LANDAU'S second remark referred to the symmetry of the final result, in spite of
the asymmetrical appearance of the method. 8
The relativistic analysis of the passage of charged particles through matter
was a question of more than purely theoretical interest. The debate over the
constitution of cosmic radiation that extended between 1928 (first hints that the
radiation might be corpuscular in nature) and 1937 (discovery of the "meson",
today's muon), reached a high point during the early 1930s. The possibility that
high-energy electrons formed the incident primary radiation, rendered a theoret-
ical analysis of the interactions they experienced in their passage through matter
more necessary. Nevertheless, the application of his calculations to cosmic rays
interested MOLLBR only after having developed his method. Initially, his interest
in scattering was of a more fundamental character, and it was limited to the
possibility of generalizing its theoretical treatment through the inclusion of
relativity, in much the same way as he had analyzed radioactive decay in his
first paper.
MoLI.Ert entitled his dissertation, which depended essentially on his article of
1931, the same as BETHE'S article, changing only "corpuscular radiation" for
"electrons". What did he have to add to BEa'nE's thorough treatment?
Bethe had treated the collisions and stopping phenomena in the non-
relativistic case. He had written the matrix element for the transition in such
a way that it looked as if one particle in its transition creates a charge
distribution which then acts on the other through a Coulomb potential. And
then the rather obvious idea came to do it relativistically; instead of using
the Coulomb static potential, to introduce a retarded potential correspond-
ing to the charge and current which corresponds to such a transition. 9
MOLLER, in few words, had relativistically generalized BETrtE'S analysis. He
himself would later describe his treatment as a generalization of BORN'S method,
thus denoting one of its bases. Yet this is too simple a characterization, and we
now consider it more carefully.
6 MOLLER (1931).
7 BETHE (1930).
8 MOLLER interview 1971 (AIP), p. 13.
9 Interview of MOLLER by THOMAS S. KUHN, 29 July 1963 (AHQP/Oral History
Interviews-4), p. 15. Henceforward as MOLLER interview 1963, AHQP/OHI-4.
Moller Scattering 201
1.1. The foundations of the method
MOLLER'S method was essentially based on three distinct theoretical develop-

ments: BORN'S perturbation method, DIRAC'S theory of the electron, and the
correspondence principle. Around 1930, they were more firmly grounded than
any of the existing versions of quantum electrodynamics, and they gave
MOLLER'S analysis theoretical soundness and certainty. I
BORN'S perturbation method is an approximation method that makes it
possible to consider aperiodic processes, like collisions, on the basis of quantum
mechanics. MAX BORN introduced it in 1926, along with the probabilistic inter-
pretation of the wave function, x~ It will suffice here to say that BORN'S collisions
theory was rapidly embodied in quantum mechanics, and it soon proved indis-
pensable in the applications of the theory. In 1930 MaLLER could safely use
it - even to the support of his argument.
The necessity of including relativity in the frame of the new quantum
mechanics had clearly shown itself to its creators from the outset. It is well
known that SCHRODINGER tried initially to fincl a relativistic equation, Similar
attempts to bring relativity, even general relativity, into quantum mechanics,
were numerous during 1926 and 192Z The so-called KLEIN-GORDON equation,
the most successful of these, failed however to account for the hydrogen atom.
DIRAC proposed in January 1928 a new equation that, in spite of its uncertain
physical interpretation, was impressive for its formal simplicity and the natural
inclusion of spin. ax DIRAC'S was a first order equation - something essential for
transformation theory, and one of the determining factors in DIRAC'S proced-
u r e - and described the electron by four-component wave functions. The main
difficulty of the equation, its negative energy solutions, was immediately recog-
nized though it seems not to have initially represented a grave problem.
While a student in BOHR'S Institute, MOLLERsoon assimilated DIRAC'S theory
and made thorough use of it in his first article} 2 Although by the end of 1930
the difficulties of interpretation of the negative energy states were clearly per-
ceived, the successful application of the theory to scattering processes and its
formal and aesthetic appeal had secured it a place in physics.
It was only natural for MOLLER, who had h a d BOUR and KLEIN as his
mentors, to adopt the correspondence principle as a basis for his work. As has
been argued by KRAOH, the correspondence approach was highly esteemed in
Copenhagen, probably more so than anywhere else. 13 This is the most charac-
teristic element, yet also the most subtle, of MOLLER'S treatment of electron-
electron interaction.
io BORN (1926).
li DIRAC (1928a, b). On the genesis of DIRAC's theory see KRAGH (1981), MOVER
(1981a); on its reception see MOVER (t981b, c). The most complete account to date of
DIRAC's life and work is to be found in his scientific biography by KRAGH (KRAGH
1990).
12 MOLLER(1929). Soon after DIRAC'S theory appeared, MOLLERreported it in one
of the frequent seminars at the Institute (MOLLERinterview 1971, AIP, p. 2).
13 See section 2.3 in KRAGH's paper.
202 X. ROQUI~
MOLLER'S understanding of correspondence stemmed from KLEIN'S adapta-

tion of the principle to its use within quantum theory. While the correspond-
ence principle had played a principal role in the development of quantum
theory and in the creation of the new quantum mechanics, the introduction of
HEISENBERG'S quantization rules in 1925 significantly diminished its signifi-
cance. 14
At the end of 1926, KLEIN showed anew the significance of the principle in
an article that would prove essential to MOLLER'S method: "Electrodynamics
and Wave Mechanics from the Standpoint of the Correspondence Principle". In
KLEIN'S formulation, the principle becomes a method to transpose the electro-
magnetic field equations into quantum mechanics; the key elements of this
reinterpretation are the charge and current densities: is
As we try here to connect wave mechanics directly with the electromagnetic
field equations, we will assume, that the electromagnetic phenomena corres-
ponding to the magnitudes Pn and ], give, in the sense of Bohr's correspond-
ence principle, a quantitative expression of the observable actions related to
the presence of an atom in a certain stationary state [-represented by hi.
KLEIN showed in his article some examples of this procedure: the case of an
electron in a central field, the perturbation of an atom by an external field, and
the Compton effect, among others.
The wave-mechanical expressions for the charge and current densities be-
come the privileged junction between classical expressions and its quantum
equivalents. This transposition to a different conceptual frame is characterized
in KLEIN'S article by the term "korrespondenzmfigig", which might be translated
as "according to a principle of correspondence". What is denoted as "korres-
pondenzmfiBig" is the way of considering Maxwell equations in wave mechan-
ics, as well as the way of evaluating in the new theory well-known expressions
of classical electromagnetism, like the continuity equation or the relation be-
tween fields and potentials.
MOLLERfollowed KLEINin his use of the term "korrespondenzmfigig" and in
the generalization of quantum nonrelativistic expressions through the charge
and current densities. But the critical dependence of the method on the prin-
ciple is never very explicit in MOLLER'Spapers. In his article of 1931, MOLLER
talks only of "analogical generalization of Born's theory" ("sinngem/ige Verall-
gemeinerung der Bornschen StoBtheorie"), or of "making plausible" the relativ-
istic generalization. 16 MOLLER cites KLEIN'S article only to observe that his
calculation of the transition probability has "a certain resemblance" ("gewisse
~,hnlichkeit") with KLEIN'S method of evaluating the radiation emited by an
atom.17 In the article that contains the most detailed exposition of the method
and its application to the stopping of relativistic electrons, MOLLERcharacterizes
1,* Cf. JAMMER(1966), pp. 109-118; MEYER-ABICH(1965).

is KLEIN (1927), p. 419 (translations by the author).
16 MOLLER(1931), p. 787.
17 Ibid., p. 788.
it more explicitly as "korrespondenzm/igig", but only on one occasion. 18 In the

remainder of the article he continues referring to plausible or analogical gener-
alizations. The application of the principle is masterfully exemplified, but the
significance of this procedure is not evaluated in depth.
Those who wrote about MOLLER'S method, however, did notice its critical
dependence on a correspondence argument and pointed to the correspondence
principle as one of the most characteristic, elements of MOLLER'S work. Soon
after the appearance of the article of 1931, LEON ROSENFELD clearly stated this
conceptual filiation. By September 1931 ROSENFELO, since February in Copen-
hagen, had completed a treatment of the relativistic many-body problem on the
basis of "Heisenberg's refinement of the correspondence principle". 19 He had
obtained "a generalization of the method used by Moiler in the relativistic
treatment of the scattering problem, in agreement with the results deduced in
another way by Breit". 2~ On September 30, MOLLER wrote to BETHE that
"Mr. Rosenfeld has carried out a rather interesting generalization of the method
used in my paper, by means of which he deduces quite general relativistic
expressions for the exchange between any number of particles, naturally only in
the region where the interaction can be considered small, thus, where the
relativistic many-body problem according to the correspondence principle makes
sense".21
When, in the beginnings of 1932, DxRac presented his alternative quantum
electrodynamics, the method was also more explicitly related than in MOLLER'S
article with the correspondence principle. 2z DIRAC stressed the role played by
the correspondence principle in the development of quantum theory, and he
compared MOLLER'S method with the methods based on the correspondence
principle in use before the advent of the new quantum mechanics. 23 Though
disliking its lack of generality, DIRAC praised MOLLER'S method as "a definite
advance in the relativistic theory of the interaction of two electrons". 24
OPPENHEIMER also reacted to the appearance of MOLLER'S article, and to-
gether with J. F. CARLSON, he applied the method to the calculation of the
18 MOLLER (1932), p. 533: "Das hier benutzte korrespondenzm/iBige Verfahren zur

Behandlung der Relativit/itseffekte ist prinzipiell ein N/iherungsverfahren, wo die Wech-
selwirkung zwischen dem Atom und dem einfallenden Elektron als St6rung behandelt
wird".
19 ROSENFELD (1931), p. 253, referring to HEISENBERG(1931).
20 Ibid., p. 253. See 1.3. on BREIT'S treatment.
21 MOLLER to BETHE, September 30, 1931 (AHQP-59; my emphasis).
22 DIRAC (1932). See KRAGH (1990), pp. 132 ft.
23 Ibid., p. 455: "The method by which Moiler obtained his result may be compared
with the methods of the Correspondence Principle in use before the introduction of
Heisenberg's matrix theory, for calculating Einstein's A and B coefficients from classical
models. In certain cases the result obtained was unambiguous (usually those cases for
which the result was zero) and was then presumed to be correct. In general, however,
there was ambiguity, so that one could get no reliable accurate result".
24 Ibid., p. 455.
204 X. RoQut~
collision between a high-energy electron and the "hypothetical elementary neu-

tral particle whose existence was tentatively suggested by Pauli', referring to
PAULI'S "neutron". 25 OPPENI-IEIMER & CARLSON had realized the potentiality of
the method and, along with a brief but precise description, they valued it
favorably in the introductory remarks of their article? 6
Quite recently Moller h a s given a beautiful method of treating the relativ-
istic impact of two electrons. This method is based upon a refinement of the
correspondence principle; it neglects higher powers of the interaction energy
between the electrons, and the effect of radiative forces; but within these
limits it is strict and unambiguous, and enables one to take account, not
only of the relativistic variation of mass with the velocity o f the electrons,
but of the retardation of the forces between them, of the spin forces, of
interchange and the exclusion principle.
Apart from the sympathetic reaction that these comments denote, they are
atso clearly related to the difficulties that the attempts to quantize the electro-
magnetic field had encountered. These had led some physicists to resort to
the old idea of correspondence, that had so significantly guided the quantum
theory in its beginnings. 27 It is difficult to assess to what extent this revival of
the principle represented a real alternative to the attempts of field quantization,
like those of HEISENBERG and PgtJLI, or merely a provisional solution. Ques-
tioned on this by KtJHN, MOLLER answered: "I think one looked upon [the
correspondence principle approach] as a preliminary thing. I mean something
like the Heisenberg-Pauli theory would always appear as something more
fundamental". His evaluation seems influenced by later developments. 2s
In any case, these were the fundamentals of MOLLER'S analysis, the basis of
the method he developed between October 1930 and May i931, when he
submitted his article. Little can be said of its elaboration. MOLLER was still
relatively unknown outside Copenhagen, and no correspondence remains from
this period - indeed, this article would increase his contacts with other physi-
cists. Our analysis is therefore limited to the published article.
25 OPPENHEIMER ~r CARLSON (1932b). See also the previous communications

OPPENHEIMER & CARLSON (1931), (1932a). Today's neutron and neutrino had not yet
been "discovered", and PAULI'S hypothetical particle accounted for the failure of statis-
tics of the nuclei as well as the continuous fl spectrum. OPPENHEIMER & CARLSON did
not specify either the mass or the spin of the "neutron", and considered "the most
general particle which satisfies the wave equation proposed by Pauli". OPPENHEIMER
& CARLSON(1931) contained the first mention of PAULI'S neutron, about which they had
heard PAULI lecture in Pasadena (cf. BROWN 1978, V. ME~ENN 1987).
26 Ibid., p. 765. The characterization of the method as "based upon a refinement of
the correspondence principle", stemmed probably from ROSENFELD'S paper mentioned
above.
27 On the reappraisal of the correspondence principle circa 1931 see DARRIGOL
(1986), ME~ENN (1989), ROGER (1989).
28 MOLLER interview 1963 (AHQP), p. 12. See the full quotation in KRAGH's paper,
section 2.3.
1.2. An outline of the method
In his article of 1931, MOLLER first describes the quantum procedure that he
was later to generalize, not only to make its introduction easier, but also to
"make plausible" the generalization. In Bogy's theory, a collision is described as
the transition between two stationary states of the total system. In the collision
between two particles they are considered, as MOLLER notices, to occupy ini-
tially certain stationary states I~1) and t~b2), represented by plane waves,
11~1 ) = alei(ki"rl-~lt)= e-i~'~l~ol(rl) ) ,
11//2) = e-iC~ ) ,
where k = p/h and co = E/h. The interaction between particles 1 and 2 moves
them to certain final stationary states, I~q,) and [~b2,). According to BORN'S
theory, the probability that this transition takes place is given in first approx-
imation by the square modulus of the matrix element
= (~0~,, ~02,1 v(r)l~ol, ~ 0 2 ) ,
where V(r) is the potential that describes the interaction.

BEXHE had evaluated this matrix element through what apparently was no
more than a clever mathematical observation. It led however to an interesting
physical interpretation. 29 The matrix element
(~01'1Vlq)l ) ,
which in the plane wave representation and for Coulombian interaction is
f e ei(k 1_kl,).rl
d3rl Ir2 - rll
can be interpreted as the scalar potential V'(r2) created by the charge distribu-
tion
p = e.ei(kl-kr)'rl .
The potential V' can now be directly calculated by means of the potential
equation, A V ' = -4rip, of a well-known general solution in terms of p, and it
is possible to write
= (~o2,1V'l~02) ,
which might quite evidently be interpreted as the action on particle 2 of
a perturbation V'.
The interaction is therefore considered to take place in two successive steps
in which only one particle is implied. As MOLLER explains, "to a certain transition
of particle 1 corresponds a certain charge density p, which induces through the
potential equation a certain scalar potential. This potential acts as a perturba-
tion on particle 2, and causes the transition of this particle to another state". 3~
29 BETHE (1930).
30 MOLLER (1931), p. 787.
206 X. ROQUI~
MOLLER'S method consists in the relativistic generalization of this argument,

on the basis of the correspondence principle. The stationary states that the
particles occupy before and after the collision are again described by plane
waves, which, however, are now solutions of the D~RAC equation,
~1 = U(S1) ei(kl"rl --c~ = e-ic~ ,
~12 = e-i~2t ~o2(r2) .
The amplitudes u(s) are "four-component magnitudes ('Gr6Ben') which deter-

mine the direction of spin". 31 MOLLER remarks that for each value of the
m o m e n t u m p of one of the particles there are two proper solutions, correspond-
ing to the possible values of the Spin variable s, thus neglecting, as he simply
acknowledges in a footnote, the negative energy solutions. 32 This position on
the negative energy states, interpretation of which was still uncertain, was not
unusual even by 1930, despite the growing evidence that these states were an
essential part of the theory. MOLLER'S attitude, in any case, was justified because
he limited his treatment to the interaction between electrons, which are de-
scribed by the positive energy solutions.
KLEIN'S understanding of correspondence must now be applied to obtain an
expression for the transition probability. MOLLER starts from the charge and
current associated to the transition of particle 1 according to DIRAC'S theory, 33
P = -el01'01 ,
j = eiOI,~(i)0i .
The potentials associated to these densities can be obtained directly from the
general expression for the potentials created by a charge and current distribu-
tion (LI~NARD-WIECnERT potentials). MOLLER simply says that the potential
equations
1 024 1 t~2A 4n.
Aqb c2 Or2 ----4rip , AA C 2 ~t 2 -- CJ '
"can be solved directly" to obtain

h2ei ~b~,l~l
4=
n (Pl-Pl') 2'
h2ei 01,~(1)Ol
A = m
7Z (Pl -- Pl') 2 '
where p = (E/c,p) represents the four-momentum. 34
31 MOLLER (1931), p. 788. Following a usual convention, the amplitudes of the

positive energy solutions of the DIRAC equation are here represented by u(s). MOLLER
represents them by a(s).
32 MOLLER (1931), p. 788n.
33 The superscript in DIRAC matrices ~ indicates that they only act on the wave
functions associated with the corresponding particle.
34 MOLLER does not use four-vectors, but rather explicitly states their scalar and
This potential is treated like a perturbation which acts on particle 2.

According to DIRAC'S theory this particle satisfies the equation
(ih ~ - ich~(2) " ~7+ flm2 c2 ) ~t2 = -e2(q~+~(2)'A)O2 .
The probability of a transition ( 1 , 2 ) ~ ( 1 ' , 2 ' ) taking place in the unit time is
then, "according to well-known formulas of perturbation theory", as given by
4re2
P(1,2 --* 1',2') = - ~ - 1 ~ [ 2 6 ( E , + E2 - E r - E2,) , (1)
where
r = (~02,1U(r2)l~02) = S q~*2,U(r2)q)2d3r2 ,
and U(r2) is the spatial part of the perturbation function, --e2(~ + ~(2).~).
Taking account of the plane wave representation, the matrix element writes
- ele2h2 fq~l' u[,ua -(pl~:(2),(UI,~(I)Ul)

~l,) 2 ei(k~-kr)'r2tpzd3r2 .
If the delta function in expression (1) secures energy conservation, on integrat-

ing the last expression momentum conservation is obtained. One should only
observe that by definition of the delta function
I el(k1 + k2 - k r - k2,)"r2d3r2 = h3(~(Pl + P2 - P l" - P2') , (2)
and therefore we have finally for the matrix element a6
_ ele2 h2 u*2,u2u~,ux - (u*2,~(2)u2)"(u~,fi(1)Ul) ha6(pt +P2 - P r -P2')

(Pl -- Pl') 2
(3)
This equation essentially describes t h e interaction. MOLTER is pleased to
recognize directly its relativistic invariance and its symmetry, particularly sat-
isfying given the asymmetry of the method. He then discusses the meaning of
the different terms and the relation with previous treatments. There had been
other attempts, before MOLLER'S,to deal with electron-electron interaction on
vectorial components. Yet he often refers to them in the text and I have used them to
transcribe some of his expressions.
35 MOLLER (1931), p. 789.
36 Introducing the notation 7u, with 7~ fl and ~= 7~ and noticing that
u~, ua = ~r 7~ and u~, ~a)u 1 = ul' ~ul, we write the second fraction as
g 2 , ~'u U2/gl , ~/~Ul ~
(Pl' -- Pl) 2 '
the same as we should write directly for the interaction between two distinguishable
DIRAC particles.
208 X. ROQUI~
the basis of the Dirac equation, which we now examine. We shall thus not only
appreciate the peculiarities of MOLLER'S treatment, but also show how the
problem was approached from quantum electrodynamics and how little hope
the theory gave that it could be solved.
1.3. Previous treatments o f electron-electron interaction
Given the success of DIRAC'S electron theory in its immediate application to

the hydrogen atom, and its enthusiastic reception, it is understandable that it
would shortly be applied to the helium atom. In June 1926 HEISENBER~ had
solved the helium atom according to quantum mechanics through the applica-
tion of the Schr6dinger equation to the many-body problem. 37 The British
physicist J. A. GAUNT, then professor of physics at Trinity College, Cambridge,
applied the DIRAC equation to the helium atom in the middle of 1928. The
fundamental character of the new equation justified the reconsideration of the
problem, as "Schr6dinger's equation is likely to be supplanted as the foundation
of wave-mechanics by the equation recently put forward by Dirac". 3s
GAUNT obtained the magnetic interaction energy between two electrons,
from the energy associated in DIRAC'S theory to the movement of an electron in
a magnetic field of potential vector A, -e~:" A. This potential vector was
created by the other electron, and GAUNT resorted to the expressions for the
charge and current densities associated in DIRAC'S theory to a wave function 0,
--e0tO and ecOt~b. The similitude with MOLLER'S method goes no further,
because GAUNT grossly simplified the resolution of the problem, merely stating
that "if we are right in attributing a scalar potential - e / r to the charge on the
electron, we should also expect a vector potential due to the moving charge
A = e?/r." He thus obtained for the interaction Hamiltonian 39
e2
Hint = - - (1 - ~1. ~2) . (4)
r
MOLLER'S treatment contains GAUNT'S. Having explicitly written the denom-
inator of expression (3) for the matrix element, MOLLER has only to suppress the
term (El. - El) 2 to show it. In this way, the formulas he has obtained, among
them the expression for the matrix element, "reduce to those obtained when the
37 HEISENBERG(1926a), (1926b).
38 GAUNT (1929a), p. 513. See also GAUNT (1929b), submitted like the previous
article on November 6, 1928, which contained more detailed calculations.
39 GAUNT'S equation could be directly derived from the magnetic interaction energy
between two electrons,
Ein t : 1 - - C----T - j ,
associating DIRAC's ~ matrices with v/c - as indeed HEISENBERGdid at about the same
time; see footnote 41.
collision is treated according to the equation of the two-body problem put

forward by Gaunt". Thus, however, not only relativistic invariance is lost, but
also "the retardation is obviously disregarded", the influence of which "is in
most cases of the same order of magnitude as spin interaction". 4~ This omission
he judges as an important flaw of GAUNT'S expression.
In the context of their work on the quantization of the electromagnetic field,
HEISENBERG and PAULI had independently arrived at GAtmT'S interaction poten-
tial. On November 30, 1928, GREGORY BREIT, then working with PAULI in
Zurich, wrote to EHRENFESTff1 "Pauli and Heisenberg have set up an equation
for two electrons similar to DigAc'S equation:
{po+~Al+-A1o'+Eo~[
: ( p[+~A~) +E~Zk
"( P~'+ceAt"~
kJ
+~14mc+~t4tmc--~(1--2.a~t')}qb=O (5)
where the last term represents the magnetic interaction. It can be deduced by
the method of amplitude quantization, or by interpreting the e's as velocities".
In the same letter, however, BREIT did more than simply convey HEISENBERG
and PAULfS results: he himself had significantly contributed to the two-electron
problem, having just deduced an equation which considered retardation. The
Breitequation is the major attempt to describe electron-electron interaction on
the basis of the DIRAC equation, earlier than that of MOLLER.
GRZGORY BREIT, a Russian-born physicist educated in the United States, had
been interested in DIRAC'S equation since its appearance. 4z In 1928, having
spent two years in high voltage experiments, BREIT thought the moment had
arrived to come back to theory, with which he had only "spasmodically" been
concerned during this time. In May 1928, BRErT left the experiments in the
hands of his collaborator, MERLE TUVE, to seek "a good foundation in the
principles of the new quantum mechanics" in Europe. 43
BREIT wanted to begin his stay in Europe at Leiden, but EnRENFEST recom-
mended that he work in Zurich with PAULL Following his advice, BREIT arrived
in Zurich at the beginning of September, and he remained there for the rest of
40 MOLLER (1931), p. 791. To suppress this term implies disregard of retardation,

because it comes directly from the solutions of the potential equations in terms of the
charge and current densities (LII~NARD-WIECHERTpotentials). Only by taking the re-
tarded value of these densities can the energy term, which is embodied in an exponential
function of time, appear when the integration over space that the general solution
prescribes is effected.
41 BREIT to EHRENFEST, November 30, 1928 (AHQP/EHRENFEST Archive-18). BREIT
later explained that the interaction energy had been "suggested independently by Pauli
and Heisenberg. Heisenberg arrived at the result by interpreting Dirac's ct's as expres-
(v/c)
sions for the velocity - while Pauli got it by considerations forming an extension to
those of Jordan and Klein with quantizing wave-amplitudes" (BREIT 1929, p. 553n).
42 See BREIT (1928).
43 BREIT to EHRENFEST, May 21, 1928 (AHQP/EHR-18).
210 X. ROQUI~
the year. 44 In his correspondence before his travel with EHRENFEST, BREIT
expressed his interest in quantum mechanics, but he did not mention any
theoretical question that particularly interested him. PAULI introduced him to
the problem of electron-electron interaction, a problem he and HEISENBERG had
lately considered while attempting to quantize the electromagnetic field.
In the first place, BREIT obtained from equation (5) an expression for the
energy of the helium atom which closely resembled that of HEISENBERG. He tried
then to consider retardation, in which he succeeded, except for a term of
dubious interpretation: 45 "I have also tried then to consider retardation, always
in the same approximation, (v/c)2. With the interpretation of ~ , ~ i as the
components of the velocity, this works with the help of Darwin's old (1920)
article. The result contains only one incomprehensible term, which could per-
haps be checked on the ortho-helium structure".
Pushed by PAULI, BREIT attempted then to consider retardation exactly. 46
Although this attempt failed, he favourably impressed PAULI, who on December
24 wrote to EHRENFEST: 47 "I was very glad that you sent Mr. Breit to me in
Zurich, as I have been extraordinarily well-satisfied with him. However, I would
be even more glad if you could soon send me an equally able man, who will not
run off to America after a cout)le of weeks in pursuit of 5 million (not dollars,
but) volts!".
Back in the United States, BREIT completed his analysis and published the
results. As he had explained to EHRENFEST, BREIT set up "an approximate
wave-equation which takes into account terms of the order (v/c)2 in the interac-
tion of two electrons". 4s The equation was deduced from DARWIN'S classical
Hamiltonian for two electrons, which included terms that described the free
electrons, their interaction with an external field, and also the interaction
between them
Hint_ele2 ele2 Ip~p2+pl"rp2"r 1
r 2c2ml m2 r3 , (6)
where the indexes 1 and 2 distinguish the electrons, and r = r E -- r 1.49 The first
term obviously corresponds to electrostatic interaction, the second is the term
associated with retardation.
44 EHRENFESTto BREIT, June 1, 1928, and BREIT to EHRENFEST, November 30, 1928
(AHQP/EHR-18). In this last letter BREIT said that he had already spent some three
months in Zurich.
45 BRErr to EHRENFEST, November 30, i928 (AHQP/EHR-18).
4.6 Same letter: "Pauli has pushed me then to the exact consideration of retardation.
A couple of days ago we still had hopes, but now we have left it. He and Heisenberg had
already tried it in the spring". In the same letter BREIT said he intended to leave Zurich
in the middle of January.
47 PAULI to EHRENFEST, December 24, 1928 (HERMANN, V. ME~/'ENN and
WEISSKOPF (1979), letter [212]. Henceforth as PAULI Briefe I, [212]). It seems that
BREIT had once again become interested in high voltage.
4s BREIT (1929), p. 553 (submitted on May 31, 1929).
49 DARWIN (1920). See formula (15) on page 546.
DARWIN'S Hamiltonian suggested to BREIT the idea of trying for electron-

electron interaction in DIRAC'S theory
Hint = ~ [ 1 ~(i).
~(2)2 ~(1)"/"
rl2-F2-
~(2)" A ' (7)
on the basis of the relation

dr
c dt
which had been "communicated to the writer by letter by Dr. P. A. M. Dirac in

the summer of 1928". s~ BREIT noticed that if the effect of retardation was not
taken into account, and only the coulombian and magnetic interactions were
considered, instead of (7)
e2
H i n t = - - [1 -- ~(1). ~(2)] (8)
r
was obtained, "the equation used by Gaunt and Eddington, and claimed by
them to be correct", sx
BRE1T'S analysis, based like those of HEISENBERG and GAUNT on classical
models of electron-electron interaction, had the advantage of including retarda-
tion. BREIT was, however, perfectly aware of a rather significant aspect of his
interaction formula: it could also be deduced from "the new Heisenberg-Pauli
theory of wave-fields", to within terms of the first order in the Coulomb
interaction. HEISENBERGand PAULI'S was indeed a new theory. The attempts of
both physicists to build a quantum theory of the electromagnetic field had faced
the difficulty of applying to the field the canonical quantization procedure. In
January 1929 HEISENBERGfound a way to overcome the problem by means of
a formal trick. That finally enabled him and PAULI to write their "quantum
dynamics of wave-fields". As HEISENBERGwas leaving for the United States on
March 1, the article was rapidly written, PAULI doing most of the work. It was
completed by mid-March. 52
HEISENBERG'S travel gave BREIT the opportunity to meet the other creator of
the theory, this time without having to cross the Atlantic. BREIT met HEISEN-
BERG in Boston and Chicago, and he discussed with him the new theory and its
50 BREIT (1929), p. 555. DIRAC's letter is not preserved among the BREIT Papers
(Yale University, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library; microfilm copy at the
Center for History of Physics, AIP New York). Two letters from BREIT to DIRAC (June
20, July 26, 1928), relating to BREIT'Sstay in Europe, are to be found among the DIRAC
Papers (The Florida State University, Tallahassee; copy in Churchill College Archives
Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge).
51 Ibid., p. 557. ARTHUR EDDINGTON followed GAUNT'S treatment in the article
BREIT cited, EDDINGTON (1929).
52 HEISENBERG& PAULI (1929). See PAULI Briefe I, pp. 482 ft., DARRIGOL (1984),
pp. 479-487.
212 X. ROQUI~
application to the electron-electron problem. 53 He could thus include in his

article a section in which he deduced the interaction Hamiltonian (7) from the
Heisenberg-Pauli theory. Once finished the paper, BREIT wrote to EHRENFEST:54
Heisenberg-Pauli's quantized waves give in a certain sense the same result
that is obtained according to the correspondence principle ("nach dem
Korrespondenzprinzip") in the configuration space, in the approximation
(v/c) 2. Heisenberg, Pauli and Oppenheimer believe that this equation suffices
for the helium-problem, but leads nowhere ("gibt es doch nichts Gutes") in the
exact solution of the two electron-problem. The approximation (v/c) a yields
quite unreasonable results, which might be connected with Dirac's + m
difficulty.
The equation was still worth applying to the helium atom. Yet by the time
BREIX submitted the article in which he applied his equation to helium, his
initial confidence in the equation, which "appeared at the time as a likely one",
had much diminished. 55 OPPENHEIMER had recently subjected to close examina-
tion the question of the proper energy of the electron, which ranked among the
less satisfactory aspects of HEISENBERa & PAULfS article. He showed clearly that
"it is impossible on the present theory to eliminate the interaction of a charge
with its own field, and that the theory leads to false predictions when it is
applied to compute the energy levels and the frequency of the absorption and
emission lines of an atom", s6 According to the theory, the energy levels were
not only infinitely displaced from their positions according to BOHR'S theory,
but the energy differences between adjacent levels were also infinite.
OPPENHEIMER concluded that "the present theory will not be applicable to any
problem where relativistic effects are important, where, that is, we cannot be
guided throughout by the limiting case c ~ oo". 57
When BREIT published the article where he applied his equation to the
calculation of the fine structure of helium, the effects of OPPENHEIMER'S clear
statements were evident. OPPENHEIMER had clearly shown that BREIT'S equation
could be derived only "if certain infinite terms of the interaction energy are
systematically neglected". 5s BREIT related the failure of quantum mechanics to
account for the electromagnetic interaction between two electrons with two
53 BREIT to EHRENFEST,July 16, 1929 (AHQP/EHR-18): "Heisenberg habe ich in

Boston und auch in Chicago aufgesucht und bei ihm gearbeitet". In his article, BREIT
expressed his thanks to HEISENBERG"for discussions about the new Heisenberg-Pauli
theory of wave-fields and his encouraging interest in this work" (BREIT 1929, p. 553n).
54 Same letter, my emphasis.
55 BREIT (1930), p. 383.
56 OPPENHEIMER (1930), p. 461. OPPENHEIMER worked on this problem in Zurich
with PAULI in the first half of 1929. They did not manage to publish an article together,
and finally a second article by HEISENBERG& PAULI appeared (HEISENBERG& PnULI
1930). See KIMBALL SMITH & WEINER (1980), pp. 121 ft.; PnULI Briefe I, [231] and
[2321 .
57 Ibid., p. 477 (my emphasis).
58 BREIT (1930), p. 384.
"difficult questions: (1) the size of the electron i.e. whether the electron can be
located at a point and (2) the Dirac jumps to states of negative energy". BREIT'S
conclusion clearly conveyed his pessimism: 59 "Neither of these questions can be
answered at present and it seems that no satisfactory purely theoretical solution
of the two electron problem can be obtained before this is done." The Heisen-
berg-Pauli theory, the most general formulation of quantum electrodynamics,
gave little hope therefore that the problem MOLLER was to solve some months
later could even be tackled.
Two years later, BREn" was to make more definite statements in a review
article on "Quantum Theory of Dispersion" for the Review of Modern Physics. 6~
While preferring to justify KLE~N'S correspondence method by means of "the
theory of the light quanta", BREn observed that this theory "has not gone so far
much beyond the justification of the correspondence method a n d . . , it cannot
claim to be logically consistent on account of the well-known divergence diffi-
culties". BRZlT praised KLEIN'S correspondence method "as a particularly clear
way of stating our knowledge about the probabilities of spontaneous emission
and of scattering", and "highly recommended" it "by its simplicity". "In practi-
cal applications", he added, "it has the additional advantages of avoiding too
complicated calculations and of enabling one to visualize the phenomena in
terms of charge and current distributions". 61 When BRHT commented on his
previous work on scattering, OPPZNHEIMER'S negative appraisal was still
apparent: 62 "The interaction between two particles can also be treated accord-
ing to [Heisenberg-Pauli's] quantum electrodynamics, and it is possible to
explain by this means the interactions of the electron spins of two particles as
well as the orbital and orbit spin interactions. It should be remembered,
however, that the divergence difficulties of the theory make it impossible,
according to Oppenheimer, to arrive at a unique interpretation of the results".
After being deeply involved for more than two years with the two-electron
problem and with the application to it of Heisenberg-Pauli's theory, BREn"
finally concluded: 63 "It will be seen from the above review of the work on the
two electron problem that the theory of light quanta is not a very satisfactory
tool for its discussion. Results can be obtained, but without additional physical
considerations they are not unique".
In 1931, MOLLER only mentioned BREn"s treatment in a footnote, comment-
ing on its application by HUGH C. WOLFE to the scattering of high velocity
electrons in hydrogen. WOLFE, a National Research Fellow who worked at
Caltech with OPPENHEIMER between 1929 and 1931, had considered this prob-
lem towards the end of 1930 as a test of the interaction energy between two
electrons. He compared the simple electrostatic interaction, and GHENT'S and
BRHT'S formulas. WOLFE said of BREIT'S formula that it had "the most theo-
retical justification", stressing the fact that it could be obtained from the
59 Ibid., p. 384.
6o BREIT (1932b), (1933). See also BREIT (1932a).
61 BREIT (1933), p. 129.
62 Ibid., p. 131.
63 Ibid., p. 136.
214 X. ROQUE
Heisenberg-Pauli theory. Yet he added that BRHT'S results were "no better than
those of Gaunt" when the formula was applied to helium, hence the interest "to
find another place to use these formulas, where it may be possible to determine
which gives results in better agreement with experiment". 64
WOLFE computed the cross section according to the different interaction
potentials, but he could not test them for lack of experimental data. In the last
section we shall see why so few experiments had been done by 1930 on the
scattering between free electrons.
1.4. First results - and errors
After the brief reference to GAUNT'S and BREIT'S treatments, M~LLER derives
the differential cross section from expression (3) for the transition probability.
He considers P2 = 0, takes the Z axis along the momentum of the incident
particle, and introduces polar coordinates in the pr-space. Then
d3pl ' = [Pr[ dp~, sin OdO&p = [PI'I E r dE1, sin OdO&o .
c
MOLLER calculates the cross section from the transition probability dividing by
the number of scatterer particles, ut2u2 V (V, volume of the r2-space) and by the
flux of incident particles, - c u ~ ( ' ) u l . He finally obtains, after integrating over
P2' and Et,, and adding over the final spins 65
da(O) 4[prlEz, h 6 ~1
^ 2 ^~2
2
= c2 ~ (SlszpllAlsl,sz,pl,)sinOdOd~o, (9)
SI'S2,
where
(S1 SZpl [A lSl,S2,pl,)
1 U2,U2Ul,U 1 (10)
= -
This expression containedan~error "which nobody discovered, which I cor-

rected in the second paper": 66 MOLLER had separately integrated over Pz' and
E r not taking into account that those magnitudes were related. A factor 2 was
missing, as H. J. BHABHA discovered some years later while applying MOLLER'S
method to electron-positron collision. 67
6,* WOLFE (1931), p. 592.

65 The integration over P2' is readily done taking into account expression (2) for the
delta function:
2~i
I a3p2,1I + ,1-- ,2+,2 3r212 = h3 S a 3 r 2 = V .
66 MOLLER interview 1971 (AIP), p. 13. See MOLLER (1932), p. 565n.
67 BHABHA to MOLLER, October 13 and 29, 1935 (MOLLER Papers, Niels Bohr
Archive, Copenhagen).
MOLLER observes that the calculations can be carried out exactly, though
"they yield in general rather complicated expressions". 6s He therefore restricts
his attention to the nonrelativistic and ultrarelativistic limits.
In the nonrelativistic limit, the velocity of the incident electrons allows
a development in fl = v/c. MOLLER indicates that up to the order f12 the cross
section is then given by
da(O) e*sin202dOdq~ { 1 1 1
= m2v 4 ~ + COS4 0 sin 2 0 COS 2 0
4 ~ + cos4~ sinE0cos20 cosa0 ' (11)
and that the same expression is obtained in this approximation from BREIT'S
equation, according to WOLFE'S calculations. To show the equivalence with
WOLFE'S result 69
e4 sin 20 2dO dq~ f 1 1 1
dtr(O)
m2v4 ~ + Cos 4 0 sin 2 0 c o s 2 0
4 ~ +cos4~ sin 20cos 20 '

since WOLFE integrates over W' = El, + E2, and p' =Pl" +P2', this expression
is to be multiplied by the transformation factor 1 - fie sin 20/4 (in order f12), as
MOLLER notices.
As a matter of fact, MOLLER'S result is obtained in this way except for the
5 3
term cos2---
~ , which is replaced by co-~0" As MOLLER stresses the equivalence of
both results, this was prol~ably a misprint - a suspicion we will later confirm.
MOLLER characterizes his formula (11) as "the generalization of a formula by
Mott, which considers the exchange but not the relativity". 7~ MoTa-'s formula
results in this limit from suppressing the f12 term
da(O) = e4sin202dOdq~ { 1 1 1 } (13)

m2/) 4 ~ + COS4 0 sin 2 0 c o s 2 0 '
Suppressing still the last term in this expression, we obtain the classical
scattering formula: 71
dtr(o)=e4sin202dOdq~ { 1 + 1 }
m294 ~ ~ . (14)
68 MOLLER(1931), p. 793: "[Die Rechnungen] verlaufen ganz wie bei Wolfe [(1931)],
der Unterschied liegt nur in dem Ausdruck ffir die Matrixelemente der Weehselwirkung'.
69 WOLFE (1931), equation (18) III. A trivial error in this expression has been
corrected.
7o MOLLER (1931), p. 794. MOLLER cites MOTT (1930); see p. 47.
71 DARWIN (1914). DARWIN generalized in this paper RUTHERFORD'Sclassical ana-
lysis of the collision of an ~ particle with a nucleus, introducing the reduced mass of the
system. In this way he could consider the passage of ct particles through helium.
216 X. ROQUE
MOLI~ER then calculates the quotient F between his expression for the cross
section and the classical one, obtaining 72
F = A(O) + B(O) ,
sin2 0_cos2 0 ,] 3/~2 sinE 0 cos2 0

A(O) = (1 - / / z ) 1 - sing 0 + c o s g 0 j 2 sing0 + cos40 '
//2 sin z 0(1 + 3 sin 2 0 cos 2 0)

B(O) = ~ - sing 0 + cos4 0
It can easily be seen that boldface 3 in B(O) corresponds to the numerator of

the last term in (11). This means that MOLLER had rightly computed the
nonrelativistic limit. It is therefore surprising that MOLLER did not mention this
error in his correspondence until December 1931, in letters to HEISENBZRG
(December 4) and CHAMPION (December 7). 73 MOLLER had previously had the
opportunity to point out the error. On September 30 he had sent an offprint of
his article to BEXHE, asking in turn for an offprint of BETHE'S important article
on stopping. There is no mention of it, nor is there in the first letter that
MOLLER sent to CHAMPION, on N o v e m b e r 4. Most probably, MOLLER did not
notice the error until he had the general formula available - a first, mistaken
version - and he compared it with the limits he had obtained earlier, as sugges-
ted by the fact that he first commented on the error in the letters that contained
this formula.
In the ultrarelativistic limit (~ >> 1), for dispersion angles 0 such as
sin20 >> 1/~, MOLLER obtains
do(O) = e g sin 20 dO do (tan 4 0 + tan z 0) (15)

4m2v4
an expression he compares with the corresponding one according to BREIT'S

equation 74
da(O) e 4 sin 20 dO dcp (tang 0 + tan 2 0 Sillg 0)

4mZv 4
MOLLER only adds that, according to this expression, the angular dependence of
the cross section essentially differs from that for slow electrons.
Formula (15) for the ultrarelativistic cross section was not correct. Again,
MOLLER realized this only when he had at his disposal the right general
72 An error in this expression has been corrected: the factor of the last term in A(O)
reads in MOLLER'S paper 3/32/4 (p. 794).
73 AHQP-59. The carbon paper copies of these typewritten letters which were
microfilmed and incorporated in the archive do not contain the formulas. The draft of
CHAMPION'S letter, which also is extant, does contain the correction.
74 WOLFE did not compute the ultrarelativistic limit. MOLLER might have calculated
it from the complicated general formula that WOLFE obtained from BREIT's Hamiltonian
(WOLFE 1931, equation (21) III).
formula. He referred to this error only in his correspondence with HEISENBERG,

w h 0 a t the end of 1931 was preparing an article in which the most significant
experiments on cosmic radiation would be confronted with the theoretical
predictions. HEISENBERG dealt with it in the stopping of high-energy electrons
and 7 rays, and he thus became interested in MOLLER'S results for the ultra-
relativistic limit. The resulting correspondence contains valuable information on
the evolution of MOLLER'S work, which we shall use in the next section.
Only the last of these letters need concern us here. At the beginning of
February 1932, MOLLER reported to HEISENBERG the correct version of his
scattering formula, which he had obtained a few days before. This letter is no
longer extant, though HHSENBERG had just received it upon answering MOLTER
on February 15:75 "Thank you very much for your letter! Your present result is
very satisfying to me. Your formula
da(O) - e4dO dq) (tan3 0 + tan 0) (16)

m2c 4
is exactly the classical formula". After showing in a very simple way how this
result stemmed from a classical argument, HHSENBERG added: "I like very much
the fact that your formula is the same as the classical one, as the classical
formula accounts well for the transition effects, but your former one not at all.
Unfortunately I have already sent my paper - I will still try to modify it".
HEISENBERG referred to his article on cosmic radiation, which had been submit-
ted to the Annalen der Physik on February 13. He could finally indicate there
that MOLLER'S result was equivalent to the classical one. 76
Before achieving this satisfying outcome, the disagreement of the calcu-
lations had led HEISENBERGto question the applicability of MOLLER'S method to
high-energy electrons. HEISENBERG'S objections, as we shall see, would prove
decisive in making MtOLLERdesist from applying his results to cosmic radiation,
as he intended initially to do. MOLLER clearly expressed this intention at the end
of his article of 1931, the last paragraph of which considered the possibility of
experimentally testing the ultrarelativistic cross section. MULLER observed that
this extreme case could not be attained by means of artificially accelerated
electrons, but "it could be realized in the electrons produced by the Aurora
borealis, and also in the corpuscular rays that accompany the height,radiation.
Formula [(15)] would thus be of use in the calculation of the stopping and
scattering [of cosmic radiation], to which I hope to return later". 77 I simply
"75 HEISENBERG to MOLTER,February 15, 1932 (AHQP-59). HEISENBERG showed

that to MOLTER with a simple calculation, the one he had included in his article.
76 HEISENBERG(1932), p. 433: "MOLTER I-(1931)] hat den StoB zweier freier Elek-
tronen nach der Bornschen Methode unter Ber/icksichtigung der Retardierung behandelt
und (nach Verbesserung eines Rechenfehlers in der zitierten Arbeit, f/Jr dessen briefliche
Mitteilung ich Hrn. MOLTER zU groBem Dank verpflichtet bin) genau das klassische
Resultat [(16)] erhalten".
77 MOLTER (1931), p. 795. MOLTER talks in rather general terms of a "corpuscular
radiation", reflecting the uncertainty about its nature and about the constitution of
218 X. ROQUr
note here that MOLLER did not mention at this juncture the fi radiation, which
was also known to consist of relativistic electrons.
In mid-1931, therefore, MOLLER had at his disposal a method which, at least
in his limiting cases, led to promising results. If applied to the calculation of the
stopping of relativistic electrons, it could even prove significant in the analysis
of the cosmic rays, one of the most active research areas at the time. Equipped
with these perspectives, MIOLLER was to undertake the work that led him to
complete in a year his hitherto most extensive and important article.
2. The Moiler formula
Having developed the method, MOLLER could work out his doctoral disser-
tation. He may have asked BOHR:78 "Wouldn't it be interesting to try to
continue this and calculate the stopping phenomenon of relativistic particles?".
The calculation of stopping was to be the most important aim of MOLLER'S
work during the following months, as the numerous references to this problem
in his correspondence show. Interest in stopping needed no justification. From
the beginning of the century, a proper understanding of stopping processes had
shown itself to be essential to the analysis of radioactive radiations and the
constitution of atoms. This question figured prominently in the Copenhagen
agenda, as BOHR kept a constant interest in the analysis of the passage of
rapidly moving particles through matter, to which he devoted two of his first
and one of his last papers. 79 The measure of stopping was a common means of
identifying particles, and around 1930 the necessity for a relativistic treatment,
which could help to determine the nature of cosmic rays, was clearly felt.
When MOLLER began working on histhesis, the application on his results to
cosmic radiation was a major stimulus. By 1931, research on this phenomenon
had achieved great importance, which would only increase in the next decade.
Its relevance to MOLLER'S work, however, gradually diminished as his calcu-
lations proceeded, and in the end MOLLER exclusively considered fi radiation.
Before we examine in detail the deduction of his scattering formula, we will first
analyze its elaboration process and the simultaneous change in MOLLER'S aims,
which are uniquely shown in his correspondence.
2.1. Towards a relativistic scattering formula
Late in the summer of 1931, MOLLER began working on the application of

his method to the calculation of the stopping of relativistic electrons. He had
cosmic radiation in general. The term he uses, "height-radiation" ("H6henstrahlung")

had been the most common denomination in German since the first investigations of the
phenomenon in the beginning of the century, and remained so until the late thirties. It
was finally displaced by MILLIKAN and CAMERON's more suggestive "cosmic radiation".
78 MOLLER interview 1971 (AIP), p. 18.
79 BOHR (1913), (1915), and (1948). See p. 235, and section 5 of KRAGH'S paper.
expressed this intention at the end of his article of 1931, submitted in May, and
it had not changed by the end of September, when MOLLER sent to BETHE an
offprint of his article, asking for an offprint of BETHE'S paper on the stopping of
rapidly moving particles, "as I would now like to try to calculate the stopping
of extreme fast particles (fl rays, height-radiation) according to the same
method", so
Two weeks later, on October 14, MOLLER received an unsigned letter from
Cambridge. The correspondent was F. CLIVE CHAMPION, a research graduate
student then working on /3 radiation, who had read MOLLER'S article and was
interested in the general scattering formula. MOLLER had by then advanced
"a good piece" ("ein gutes Sttick") in his calculations, as he explained to MAX
DELBRt?CK while inquiring about the unknown correspondent. The remarks that
followed referred exclusively to stopping, which most worried MOLLER. What he
had done suggested that, owing to retardation, fast electrons would be more
stopped than was expected according to SCHR(SDINGER or classical theories.
MOLLER had not yet at his disposal an expression for stopping, but he discussed
in his letter to DELBROCK an expression for the number of ions formed in
hydrogen per cm path - a formula he added to the typewritten letter, which is
missing from the extant carbon copy. As may be deduced from DELBROCK'S
answer, the primary ionization was proportional to 72 in the high-energy limit,
which led DELBR/3CK to express the first doubts about the correction of the
calculation, since this proportionality "would signify an enormous ionization for
the height-radiation electrons, while SKOBELZYN, MILLIKAN and BLACKETT only
find about twice the ionization". 81
On November 2, on failing to receive an answer, CHAMPION wrote again to
MOLLER. This time he signed the letter and MOLLER replied immediately upon
receiving it on November 4. MOLLER, who took a great interest in CHAMPION'S
work, was optimistic with regard to his calculations, and hoped to be able to
send him the general formula "in a short time" - a month as it turned out. s2
CHAMPION, however, would not be the only one to take interest in MOLLER'S
work. At the end of November, MOLLER received a letter from HEISENBERG,
whom he had frequently met in Copenhagen. HEISENBERG'Sinsightful criticisms
and comments would prove decisive in MOLLER'S final success.
HEISENBERG was at this time preparing the review article on cosmic radiation
we have referred to above. His letter was motivated by OPPENHEIMER &
CARLSON'S application of MOLLER'S method to the calculation of the stopping
of fast electrons: 83
s0 MOLLER to BETHE, September 30, 1931 (AHQP-59). He refers to BETHE (1930).

8t MOLLER to DELBRfSCK, October 14, 1931 (AHQP-59). DELBRI]CK's suggestion,
"Sollte das 7 2 - 1 nicht noch mit unter den Log not kommen?", agrees with the
expression MOLLER finally obtained. See MOLLER (1932), formula (93).
82 CHAMPION to MOLLER, November 2, 1931; MOLLER to CHAMPION, November 4,
1931 (AHQP-59).
83 HEISENBERGto MOLLER, November 28, 1931 (AHQP-59). HEISENBERGrefers to
220 X. ROQUI~
A couple of days ago an article appeared by Oppenheimer . . . who main-

47regN
tains that according to your calculation "m----~log E would result for the
stopping power of extremely hard incident electrons. This seems to me very
implausible, but I do not think like looking through all the calculations.
Have you ever calculated this problem? If so, what did you find out?
HEISENBERG was also interested in the ultrarelativistic limit for small scattering
angles, a case MOLLER had not considered in his article.
Significantly enough, MOLLE~'S answer first addressed HEISENBERG'S second
question, to which he replied with a first, mistaken version of the general
scattering formula. Though the extant copy does not contain it, it could only
have been the same expression as MOLLER sent to CHAMPION three days later,
on December 7. An extant draft of this letter does contain MOLLER'S earliest
formula for the differential scattering cross section:
e4sin202dOdcp4[7 + 3 + (7 -- 1)cos 0cml(7 + 1)

dtz(O) - m 2 7 4 v 4 [7 + 1 - - (7 - - 1)cos 0cm] [(7 + 3) 2 - - (7 - - 1) 2 c o s 2 0cm] f f ' (17)
= 272(7 + 1)
(4sinTOr m
3)
sin~O~m
(7 -- 1)2 (411 + (7 + 1)2] + 3 -- 272) + (7 -- 1)4 sin2 0~m (18)

+ ~ - sin 2 0era 1~
(0cm the scattering angle in a center of mass system, 0 the scattering angle in
a lab system; 7 and v refer to the incident electron). This expression, consider-
ably more complicated than the correct one, still led to the limits MHLLER had
previously calculated. This he pointed out to HEISENBERG and CHAMPION, as
well as the error in the ultrarelativistic limit mentioned above. 84
With regard to stopping, MOLLE~ was at that moment doing the calcu-
lations for hydrogen, and he explained to HEmENBERG that the result might
easily be generalized to light atoms. MHLLER had obtained an expression for the
number of ions formed per cm path which reduced exactly to BETHE'S one in
the nonrelativistic limit. But he did not fail to express his doubts about the
significance of some of its terms. One of them in particular puzzled him, as even
when it did not contradict "the existing experiments on the ionization by
fast Jill-rays . . . it would signify an incredible increase of height-radiation
ionization". 85
OPPENHEIMER & CARLSON (1931); see their formula (1). The formula gives the energy
loss per cm path through a gas in which there are N electrons per cc.
8,* MHLLER to HEISENBERG, December 4, 1931; MHLLER to CHAMPION, December 7,
1931 (AHQP-59).
85 MOLLER to HEISENBERG, December 4, 1931 (AHQP-59).
Mailer Scattering 221
The letters to HEISENBERG and CHAMPION also contained the relations

between the scattering angles in the center of mass and lab systems, 0em and 0,
which MOLLER had used: a6
2 - (7 + 3) sin2 0 (7 + 1)sin 20
cos 0cm = 2 + (7 -- 1)sin2 0' sin 0cm -- 2 + (Y -- 1) sin2 0
These relations, as HEISENBERGnoticed at once, were not correct. If the one for
cos 0or, were right, HEISENBERG obtained for the sine
sin 0r = x/2(~ + 1)sin 20

2 + ( 7 - 1)sin20 '
which agreed with the expression he himself usually applied,
tan~ = ~ 1 tan0 .
This was the first remark he made to MOLLER on December 10. The second
one concerned the stopping formula deduced by MOLLER on the basis of the
scattering formula, and its significance for cosmic radiation: s7
Your final [stopping] formula . . . is indeed extremely interesting, but
I would like to point out that it would no doubt signify a sharp contradic-
tion between theory and experiment, and show that the whole method of
calculation with retarding fields is no longer admissible. It must be con-
sidered that 7 could be at least 1000 for height-radiation electrons. However,
I do not understand at all how such divergences with classical theory would
be possible.
HEISENBERG'S negative estimates, together with those expressed by
DELBR~CK and MOLLER himself before, finally led MOLLER to leave aside cosmic
radiation. At the same time, news from the Cavendish laboratory of a possible
test of his formula by means of fl rays made him reconsider the importance of
this radiation. Both aspects are clearly displayed in MOLLER'S answer to HEISEN-
BERG, which allows us to locate in mid-December 1931 the final redirection of
his calculations: as
I also think that the expression for q~ is no longer valid for such great values
of 7 as height-radiation requires, as the approximation procedure used
probably becomes senseless in this region. For fast fl rays, on the contrary,
86 MOLLER does not use the term "center of mass system" but rather refers to "the
Lorentz system in which the momenta of both electrons before the collision are opposite,
i.e. . . . a system which moves with velocity with reference to the rest system"
(MOLLER to HEISENBERG, December 4, 1931; AHQP-59). He distinguishes the magni-
tudes in the center of mass system by an asterisk.
s7 HEI-SENBERGto MOLLER, December 10, 1931 (AHQP-59).
s8 MOLLER to HEISENBERG,December 15, 1931 (AHQP-59).
222 X. ROQU~
the method used might be reasonable. There are experiments in progress at

Cambridge which should provide a test of the scattering formula for free
electrons with the help of Wilson's photographs.
In the same letter MOLLER stated that the error in the 0cm -- 0 relations did
not affect the scattering formula. However, HEISENBER~found yet another error,
which induced MOLLER to look through all the calculations and finally led him
to the correct formula. HEISENBERG had found the error through conditions of
symmetry, and he communicated it to MOLLER on December 17: "You wrote
me the formula
e4 sin 20 2dO &o 4(7 + 1)[~ + 3 + (7 - 1)cos 0~m]
dtT(O) = m2v4 741_7 ~,, 1 _ (7 - 1)cos 0era ] [-(7 + 3) 2 - (7 - 1) 2cOs2 0crn'] ~ '
/
but I am sure that at the indicated point it should read '3' not '1', as otherwise
there is no invariance under 0~m ~ 0~m + ~ in the moving system". 89
Little more is known until January 25, when MOLLER sent to Moa-r and
CHAMPION the correct scattering formula. MOLLER and MOTT were well ac-
quainted with each other since M o ~ ' s stay in Copenhagen in 1928, and they
had probably met again at the Cavendish in May 1929, when MOLLER visited
the laboratory with Bong. MOTT had sent to MOLLER an offprint at the end of
November 1931; upon answering him MOLLER explained, among other things,
that he had already finished the calculation of the scattering formula, simply
adding: "If it has any interest for you, I shall report upon this another time".
MOTT'S reaction denotes the significance of the problem: "I should be M O S T
interested to see your results on the collision between two particles, as soon as
you can conveniently send them". 9~
The sending of the results was delayed by more than a month, not only
because MOLLER had to correct the error pointed out by HEISENBER6, but also
because Christmas long interrupted his work, as his letter to MoTr of January
25 implies: 91 "I have just now come back from Holiday and have not thought
about physics since before Christmas". When did MOLLER correct what he
qualified in the letter he wrote to CHAMPION on the same day as a "little
fault"? 92 No doubt, after HEISENBER~'S observation, but HEISENBERG'S letter
could not have reached Copenhagen before December 19, too short a time
before Christmas, even more when it is considered that MOLLER most probably
spent his holiday at his home town, Hundslev, as he usually did. It is also
hardly plausible that, if MOLLZR had obtained the correct formula before Christ-
mas, he would have delayed its communication so long.
MOLLER, therefore, would have checked up on his calculations when return-
ing from the Christmas holidays, in mid-January, and obtained the right scat-
89 HEISENBERG to MOLLER, December 17, 1931 (AHQP-59).

9o MOLLER tO MOTT, December 9, 1931; MOTT to MOLLER, December 15, 1931
(AHQP-59).
91 MOLLER tO MOTT, January 25, 1932 (AHQP-59).
92 M~LLER to CHAMPION, January 25, 1932 (AHQP-59).
tering formula shortly before January 25. The new formula

e4 sin 0cm doomdcp 8(]; + 1)
dff(0) = m274/)4[.(7 -t- 3) 2 (7
- - 1) 2 cOs2 0cm'] f f
- - (19)
- the factor ~- did not change, see (18) - was simple only if expressed in terms
of 0~m, as MOLLER remarked to MOTT. In the letters to CHAMPION and MOTT,
MOLLER emphasized the necessity of the symmetry in 0~m = 7C/2, and also
expressed his confidence in having finally removed all the errors. Naturally,
MOLLER also sent his new result to HEISENBERa, though not immediately. As we
have seen above, MOLLER'S result very much satisfied HEISENBERG, who never-
theless kept questioning the expression for stopping. 93
We know nothing of the subsequent development of MOLLER'S work. The
writing of the extensive article which contained his results must have occupied
him intensively till the end of April. It was submitted to the Annalen der Physik
on M a y 3. By mid-July, MOLLER had already revised the second proofs, which
could not prevent the article from having a number of misprints, including one
in the scattering formula.
MOLLER had done the paper with the idea that it could become his doctoral
dissertation. BOHR managed to get the article recognized as such, and MOLLER
had only to add a Danish introduction. After a vacation in N o r t h Zealand and
a stay of two or three weeks at Hundslev, MOLLER returned to Copenhagen in
mid-August in order to prepare the introduction, which he did not finish until
October. 94 It is highly significant that he entitled this twenty-five page r6sum6
"An overview over theory and comparison with experiments", when references
to experiments were so scarce in the article. No doubt this MOLLER owed to
CHAMPION, who had completed his experiments in June. 9s
MOLLER defended his dissertation on November 28. It was highly praised by
his opponents, BOHR and KLEIN. 96 The doctoral degree did not immediately
affect MOLLER'S professional status, who for some time remained a lecturer in
BOHR'S Institute.
2.2. The deduction of the formula
The article that was the core of MOLLER'S dissertation contained, according
to its title, "a theory of the passage of fast electrons through matter". In its first
93 HEISENBERGto MOLLER, February 15, 1932 (AHQP-59): "Ihre 72-Glieder ffir die
Bremsung dagegen glaube ich Ihnen wohl nicht. Sic sind mit den Experimenten auch bei
Sekund/irelektronen der Energie e ~ 30me2 in krassestem Widerspruch".
94 See MOLLER to BOHR, July 25, 1932 (AHQP/BSC-23).
95 "Oversight over Teorien og Sammenligning med Eksperimenterne", preface to
MOLLER's dissertation. MOLLER commented on CHAMPION's work in the last two pages
of his introduction. He reproduced CHAMPION's results, along with his own theoretical
predictions, and those of MOTT and RUTHERFORD, but omitted the predictions of the
classical corrected theory, which also agreed well with the observed values. He concluded
that the experiments "definitely support" ("afgjort til Gunst") his scattering formula.
96 See the first section of KRAGH's paper.
224 X. ROQUE
paragraph, MOLLER confessed his true subject and clearly characterized his
treatment. It deserves to be quoted in full: 97
The object of the present work is to treat the passage of hard fl rays
through matter in agreement with quantum theory and relativity. All the
physical phenomena tied with the passage of rapidly moving electrons
through matter, like stopping, scattering, ionization and excitation of the
atoms, can be reduced to the interaction of the electrons with the atoms;
radiative forces, on the contrary, do not practically play any role. A theory
of these phenomena therefore requires a quantum-theoretical treatment of
the relativistic many-body problem. At present there is still no consequent
general theory of this problem, and one has provisionally to content himself
with obtaining an approximate treatment suitable to the present problem,
by means of the convenient generalizations of the nonrelativistic theory.
The ambiguity of the title is readily solved in the first sentence, where "fast
electrons" are identified with fl electrons. The continual reference to cosmic
radiation during MOLLER'S work has vanished from its final outcome. This
allows MOLLER to neglect radiative forces and concentrate his analysis on the
two-body interactions, electron-electron and electron-nucleus. For him, the lack
of a "consequent general theory of the relativistic many-body problem" - i.e.,
a quantum electrodynamics free from divergences - makes it necessary to treat
provisionally the problem in an approximate form. While MOLLER does not
present his method as an alternative to the attempts to quantize the electro-
magnetic field, he does not mention them either.
MOLLER'S presentation of his method in the first section of his article, "w 1.
Theoretical foundations", is more complete and extensive than the original,
schematic one, but it still does not include any reflexion on the conceptual basis
of the method. MOLLER deduces from nonrelativistic quantum mechanics the
probability for the transition ( m l m 2 ) ~ ( n l n 2 )
47z2
P = - ~ - 6(Em, + E,,2 - E,1 - E , 2 ) l ( n l n z [ U t m l m 2 ) [ 2 , (20)
an expression he "adopts" in the relativistic case, where "naturally, the 'matrix

elements' in the right hand side look different from those in the Coulombian
case". 9s He then notices, in much the same terms as in his previous article, that
in order to obtain a "plausible relativistic hypothesis" ("plausiblen relativisti-
schen Ansatz") for the matrix element, it is necessary to start from the charge
and current densities associated with the transition of one of the particles.
Nowhere in the article was he to describe the transition to a relativistic
treatment with greater precision.
The use of retarded potentials is now more explicit. M~LLER builds the
charge and current densities corresponding to the transition of particle 1 from
9'7 MOLLER (1932), p. 531.

98 Ibid., p. 537.
its initial to its final state, 1 ~ 1'

p(1) = _ e O l , 01 = - e o I , 91 ei~~ , (21)
j(1)= ecO*l:~(1)O1= ec01,~(1)01ei,O,,., (22)
2=
(CO11' = - i f ( E l - El,)
) , and remarks that the corresponding scalar and vec-
torial potentials are given in Maxwell's theory by
r , (23)
A(1)(r2) = f[j(1)]r d3rl (24)
(r = It1 - 1 " 2 1 ) , where "the square bracket is to indicate that for p(1) and jo) the
retarded values, i.e. the values at time t - r/c, are to be introduced". 99 Taking
these expressions into account, he writes for the potentials
9 '*'(r2) = "
f< O1 e~~
r , (25)
A(l'(r2) = eei~,,~f ~o*~,~l,01

- r
e'~,,'cdSrl . (26)
The operator related to these potentials is, according to DIRAC's theory,

_ e [ # O ) ( r z ) + ~(2). A ( 1 ) ( r 2 ) ] , (27)
and the corresponding matrix element for the transition of particle 2
- e ~I 0'2' [~m(r2) + ~(z). AO)(r2)] 02 , (28)
that is to say, according to (25) and (26),
ei(O3u,+ to=,)t f f Otl,fflYz, eZ( 1 -- ~m.r - ~r ffjlffJ2ei~O~,~d3rld3r2 . (29)
This expression is not in general symmetric in the two particles, but it is for the
physically-allowed transitions, in which Co22' = - m ~ l ' according to the delta
function in expression (20).
This formulation of the method displays more clearly than the previous one
the origin of the different terms. The exponential factor inside the integral stems
from retardation, and cancels out when c ~ ~ . GAUNT'S interaction term,
~(1~. fi(2~
- - e 2, , is also immediately recognized. As MOLLER says, "it is satisfying
r
that this term appears here of its own, as soon as relativistic invariance is
demanded". 1~176
99 Ibid., p. 536.
lOO Ibid., p. 538.
226 X. ROQUE
Having considered in the second and third sections of his article the excita-
tion of the lower atomic levels, MOLLER treats in the fourth one the upper levels
and the limiting case in which the energy imparted by the incident electron to
the atomic one is much higher than the ionization energy. This case may well
be considered as an interaction between free electrons. The stationary states
that both electrons occupy before and after the collision are represented by
solutions to the DIRAC equation
01 = U(Sx)e ilk''r' -o,,t) , (30)
where k = p / h , co = E / h .
The differential scattering cross section for those transitions in which the
m o m e n t u m of the incident electron after the collision lies between P r and
P l ' + d p r , and that of the atomic electron between P2, and P2, q- dp2,, is 1~
4g 2
dtT(pl,,p2, ) = h~f~zl) ~ ( E I ' -1- E 2, - - g 1 - - E2)
1
x~ ~" ~, I ( P l , S l , , p z , S z , l V l P l S l , p 2 s 2 ) l Z d 3 p l , d a p 2 , . (31)
81S2 51,S2,
MOLLER obtains this expression from (20) in the usual way: dividing by the
incident electron flux, a" ~z ) ; summing over final spins, because the electrons'
polarization is not measured; and averaging over initial spins, as the incident
beam and the atomic electrons are not polarized.
The matrix element follows directly from the general expression (29), intro-
ducing the solutions to the Dirac equation:
<1', 2'1Vr 1, 2) = e2{utz,UzU~,Ul - ( u ~ , f : t Z ) u 2 ) ' ( u ~ , $ r (32)
- COS r d3rld3r2 . (33)

r c
The total system has been till now implicitly represented by means of the
asymmetric proper functions
11'+,2'+>, 1 1 ' + , 2 ' - >, Ii' - , 2' + > , 1 1 ' - , 2' - > , (34)
where I I' + , 2' - > denotes the state in which electron 1 has a m o m e n t u m P r
and up polarization, an electron 2 a m o m e n t u m P2, and down polarization. In
order to consider exchange, MOLLER needs to introduce functions of the
total system antisymmetrical under exchange of both electrons. Following
lOl MOLLER considers that the atomic electron is initially at rest (P2 = 0), and he
describes it by means of the solutions to the DIRAC equation for the hydrogen atom. He
verifies at the end that this is equivalent to considering this electron as free (p. 562). In
order to facilitate the comparison with the present treatment, we consider more generally
a free electron of any initial momentum.
OPPENrIEIME~, he adopts as representation of the final states of the total system

the functions 1~
]a') = ~ 1 [11' + , 2' + ) - - 1 2 ' + ,1' + ) ] ,
[b') = ~ [11'-,2'- ) -12'-, 1'- )]
Ic') = 89 - ) - 12'-, 1' +)+11'- ,2' +)-12:+, 1' -)3 ,
Id') = 89 , 2' - ) 12' - , 1 ' + ) - I 1 ' - , 2' + ) + 1 2 ' + , 1' - ) 3 .

Initial states are analogously represented by the functions Ia), Ib ), Ic ) and Id).
Exchange may be taken into account only replacing in (31) the sum over sl, s2,
s,, and s2, by the quadratic sum S over the matrix elements corresponding to
the 16 possible transitions between the initial states, la), Ib), It), Id) and the
final ones, la'), [b'), Ic') and Id'). The matrix S has the form
S = ~ I(b'l g l a ) l 2, (35)
and the matrix elements that it contains are all similar. MOLLER calculates one
of them as an example:
(b'l Via} = 89[ ( 1 ' - , 2' - IV[1 + , 2 + ) + ( 2 ' - , 1 ' - IVI2 +, 1 + )
- ( i ' - , 2 ' - I g]2 +, 1 + ) - (2' - , 1' - I Nil +, 2 + )-] .
The two former and last terms are equal, due to the symmetry of the matrix
element under exchange of both electrons. Therefore,
(b'lgla) = (1'-,2'-Ig[1 +,2 + ) - (2'-, 1'-Igll +,2 + ) ,
where both terms are distinguishable only by the exchange of indexes 1' and 2'.
Noticing expression (32) for the matrix element, we may more explicitly write
(b'[ Via) = eZ[ {u~,u~ u*2,u2 -(U*l,~mu~)"(ut2,~(2)u2)}f
- {u~2,ul ul,u2 - (u*2,~t)ul)'(u~,~2)u2)}O] , (36)

where f is given by (33) and
g= ffei(kz-kv)'rxei(kl-k2)'r~COS(O)l;fD2'r)d3rld3r2 . (37,
As MOLLE~ indicates, all the matrix elements in S are of the same form. We
may notice that the terms in the matrix element are distinguished by the
permutation of final momenta: they thus correspond to the FEYNMAN diagrams
102 OPPENHEIMER (1928); see p. 363. The first three states are symmetrical on spin
(triplet); the last one is antisymmetrical (singlet).
228 X. ROQUE
by means of which we now calculate this process. 1~ This analogy shows itself
more clearly when integrals f and g are evaluated, 1~
h5
f - / z ( p 1 _ pl,) 2 c~Q~I q-P2 - - P l ' - - P 2 ' ) ,
hs
g -- /r(p I _ p2,) 2 ~(Pl q- P2 - - P l ' --P2') ,
as they only differ in the exchange of 1' and 2', and we easily recognize in them
the transferred f o u r - m o m e n t u m corresponding to each diagram.
Gathering these results together, MOLLER obtains for the scattering cross
section (31) l~
4h9e 4
da(pl,,p2,) = ~ 6 ~ ( p a + Pz - P r - P2')1S'daprd3p2' , (38)
where S' denotes the sum over the different matrix elements of the form (36).
The scattering cross section is n o w more precisely interpreted as the n u m b e r of
collisions in which, after colliding, o n e of the electrons has a m o m e n t u m P t ' and
t h e o t h e r a m o m e n t u m P2,. MOLLER notices that "owing to exchange we can no
103 With the notation 7u, with 7 ~ fl and ~ = 7~ the matrix element becomes
(disregarding factors)
/,11,~/~/1 ~2,~#U2 U2'])gUl lil,7#/,/2
<b'[ V i a ) = (Pl - P r ) z (Pl - Pa') a (50)
This is the matrix element we now directly write from the FEYNMAN diagrams corres-
ponding to this process.
1o4 MOLLER bases this calculation on a result of MOLLER (1930C), according to
which for any r might be written
COS 0) 1 -- 091, = --
0 k 2 - - ( c ~ 1 7 6' c 22kdk
where in the integral in the right member the Cauchy principal value is to be taken.
MOLLER shows that this integral is equivalent to
1 e ik'r
so that
1 ~ f f e i(k2 k~,-k).r2 e,(k~-kl, k).,l @
This integral may easily be evaluated as a delta function.

los The difference in a factor t / h 3 with formula (62') of MOLLER (1932) stems from
the normalization factor of ~2, which we consider included in u2.
longer say which of the two expelled electrons is the one originally bound to
the atom, and which the incident one". 1~
MOLLER gives next the scattering cross section as a function of the scattering
angle 0 of one of the electrons, leaving till later the calculation of the sum S'.
The delta function in (38) expresses conservation o f energy and momentum.
MOLLER uses this principle to write the magnitudes implied in the cross section
in terms of the scattering angle 0 and the velocity v of the incident electron.
Momentum and energy are conserved in any Lorentz system, and MOLLER
calculates the kinematics of the collision in the simpler one, the centre of mass
system. In this way he obtains for the scattering cross section
do-(0) = -~e4m2 sin 0cm dOem[-(g -t- 3)2 - (7 - 1)2 cos2 0era] 88 . (39)
It only remains to calculate S'. MOLLER remarks what our notation immedi-
ately displays, that the matrix elements (36) are relativistic invariants, and he
calculates them one by one in the centre of mass system. This last, formidable
calculation leads him to the scattering cross section 1~
27ze4 sin OcmdOem2(7 + 1)
&r(O) = m2])zv 4
9 sing-0~m sin / 0 ~ -~ 47-2- 1 + sin g 0~m , (40)

now known as the Moiler scattering formula. As MOLLER indicates, the relations
0 - 0~m may be used to express the result as a function of 0, but the resulting
expression would be much more complicated.
The scattering formula does not occupy a prominent position in MOLLER'S
article. Once deduced, MOLLER applies it, together with the results of preceding
sections, to calculation of stopping. He limits any appraisal of the method used,
as well as of the scattering formula obtained, to the brief introduction. Value
judgements are scarce there and do not include any mention to quantum
electrodynamics. Did this mean that the MOLLER formula was not related to
this theory?
2.3. The Moiler formula and quantum electrodynamics
MOLLER did not refer to quantum electrodynamics in any of his articles on

scattering. His treatment of electron-electron interaction was grounded on firm
theoretical developments, avoiding the grave problems that affected the quan-
tum theory of the electromagnetic field. Yet the MOLLER formula and quantum
electrodynamics were much more directly related than MOLLER'S silence might
suggest - indeed, their relation was soon to be clearly displayed. MOLLER'S
106 MOLLER (1932), p. 560.
lo7 In MOLLER'S article the denominator of the first factor is written as m274v4
(MOLLER 1932, formula 74). This is clearly a misprint.
230 X. ROQUI~
second article on electron scattering had been submitted to the Annalen der
Physik on May 3, 1932. A month later, on June 9, an article by BETHE & FERMI
was submitted to the Zeitschrift fiir Physik, where "the relations between the
interaction formulas of Breit and Moller and quantum electrodynamics" were
discussed. 1os
BEa'HE had been interested in the stopping of fast particles from the begin-
ning of his career. In 1932, having spent the previous year at Cambridge,
a Rockefeller Fellowship enabled him to work at Rome with FERMI'S group.
There he addressed the problem of generalizing the calculation of stopping
including relativity. 1~ MOLLER'S first article not surprisingly aroused his
interest; on March 25, BETHE wrote to MOLLER: 110 "These days I have been
intensely occupied with your important work on the scattering of relativistic
electrons. I find it wonderful that you can treat the problem in such a simple
way!". BEa'I~E had taken MOLLER'S article as a starting point to calculate
stopping, having known through HEISENBER~about MOLLER'Sinitial troubles. In
fact, the reason for BETHE'S letter was simply to know if MOLLER had corrected
his errors and intended to publish his results.
MOLLER'.S answer is lost. He apparently suggested BETHE publish a brief note
in Die Naturwissenschaften, and he also advanced the contents of his next
article. On April 30, BEa'HE informed MOLLER that the note, "though I said only
that which was most necessary", had exceeded the size required by Die Natur-
wissenschaften, and that he had therefore sent the article to Zeitschrift far
Physik, hoping not to have forestalled MOLLER'S paper. 111
MOLLER'S second scattering article and BETRE'S extended note were submit-
ted within a day of each other. Soon after, BETHE considered together with
FERMI a more fundamental question: how were MOLLER'S treatment, BREIT'S
formula and quantum electrodynamics related? Their work seems to have
progressed very rapidly, to judge by BETHE'S recollections. 112 Quantum elec-
trodynamics meant naturally FERMI'S who had given the theory a more
lo8 BETHE d(z FERMI (1932), p. 296.

lO9 Cfi BERNSTEIN (1979), GALISON (1987). MOLLER's work, however, is not men-
tioned in either account.
11o BETHE to MOLLER, March 25, 1932 (AHQP-59).
111 BETHE to MOLLER, April 30, 1932 (AHQP-59). See BETHE (1932).
122 Cf BERNSTEIN (1979), p. 31 (private communication): "FERMI and I wrote a
paper comparing three methods of treating the relativistic elecron-electron interaction
- unifying electro-magnetic quantum theory with relativity. The research took two days.
Then he said, 'Well, now we have solved it, now we will write a paper.' So on the third
day he himself sat down at the typewriter - there was no secretary in the institute. His
procedure was to state a sentence in German - he spoke excellent German, while
I spoke hardly any Italian - and I would either approve it or modify it. When he came
to an equation, we would agree on it, and I would write it down in longhand. That was
the paper. It was a nice paper, and even though Fermi did by far the larger part of it, it
had my name on it along with his. I felt very happy about that, and I learned a lot from
it. It taught me how to write a scientific paper simply and clearly. My stay in Rome
came to an end much too soon."
accessible formulation than DIRAC, o r HEISENBERG d~ PAULI, and had recently

presented it in Review of Modern Physics. 113 BETHE & FERMI explored the
relationship between both "hypotheses" for the interaction between two elec-
trons - "that apparently set out from completely different points" - and stated
explicitly the approximations needed in deducing them from quantum elec-
trodynamics. 114 Let us simply note that BETHE & FERMI used the Coulomb
gauge and obtained MOLLER'S equation (3) adding to the matrix element for
static Coulombian interaction, the contribution arising from the exchange of
a transverse photon between the two electrons. What I wish to stress here is
that they clearly and concisely showed that MOLLER'S interaction formula fol-
lowed on from quantum electrodynamics. 115
Despite this, the M~LLER formula was paid little attention in the scarce texts
devoted to the new theory during the 1930s and the 1940s. Thus, in PAULfS
famous Handbueh article (1933), MOLLER'S work was cited only on the last page,
together with BREIT'S, in a footnote to the statement that "the fact that the
proper energy [of the electron] comes out infinite according to the theory,
prevents also a consistent relativistic treatment of the many-body problem". 116
To PAULI the troubles with proper energy clearly diminished the value of any
approximation to the electron-electron problem. Being devoted to the radiation
field, HEITLER'S The Quantum Theory of Radiation omitted the MOLLER formula
from its first and second editions (1936, 1944); significantly, it was included in
the third (1954). 117 MtOLLER'S work was also absent from WENTZEL'S Einfiihrun 9
in die Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder (1943). 118 Another influential, albeit less-
known text, KRAMER'S Quantentheorie des Elektrons und der Strahlung (1938),
cited MOLLER'S 1931 article in a footnote as an example of "how in the case of
feeble interaction between fast electrons can one calculate in a rigorous relativ-
istic way". 119
Accounts of the formula after renormalization are rather different. In the
first postwar systematic treatise about the theory, JAUCH & ROHRLICH'S The
Theory of Photons and Electrons (1955), a chapter is devoted to the electron-
electron system, in which "MflLLER scattering" prominently figures. 12~ Here, the
collision between two electrons is considered as a fundamental process interest-
ing in itself, the problem being introduced in a general, logical manner a long
113 FERMI (1932). See also FERMI (1930).

114 BETHE & FERMI (1932), p. 296.
115 Ibid., w "Ableitung der Mollerschen Formel aus der Quantenelektrodynamik".
For an illuminating discussion, see HEITLER (1936), 3rd ed., pp. 231-236.
116 PAULI (1933), p. 272. In 1941, however, PAULI used "the well-known method of
Moller" to calculate the cross-sections for the scattering of mesotrons by a Coulomb
field, and by electrons (PAULI 1941, p. 229).
117 HEITLER (1936). See in the third edition "w The scattering of two electrons",
p. 231.
118 WENTZEL (1943).
119 KRAMERS (1938), p. 301.
12o JAUCH & ROHRLICH (1955), chapter 12. The authors used the general term
"electron" for both electrons and positrons.
232 X. ROQUE
way from preceding phenomenological introductions. The presentation set

a standard for most future accounts of "MMler scattering", from texts not far
from JAUCH & ROHRLICH'S, such as KXLL~N'S "Quantenelektrodynamik" (1958),
up to present ones) 21 They invariably include a deduction of the formula and
references to its successful comparison with experiment.
This sample, however incomplete, may suffice to assess that renormalized
quantum electrodynamics reappraised the MOLLErt formula. In the concluding
remarks, I shall suggest some causes for this change of status. Next, however,
we shall turn to the experimental probing of the formula and find that this
change affected not only the theoretical judgement on the formula, but also the
significance attached to a thorough test of it.
3. The experimental testing of the Moiler formula
The experiments of ASHKIN, PAGE & WOODWARD in 1954 are often cited as
the most decisive among postwar attempt s to test the MOLLZR formula. 122 By
then the status of quantum electrodynamics had very much improved with
respect to that of its early formulations, and FEYNMAN'S approach to the theory
had given new relevance to MOLLZR'S interaction: This may help explain the
renewed interest o f experimental physicists in the formula around 1950, when
a number of research teams were applying the newly-built accelerators to
distinguish it from MOTT'S or RUTHZRFORD'S formulas.
This interest is a striking contrast to the indifference the formula encoun-
tered in the early stage of the theory: Together with those of ASHKIN, PAGe,
& WOODWARD, the experiments of 1932 by the British physicist F. C. CHAMPION
are usually mentioned: A typical account might read: "After the theory of
Moiler indicated that deviations from the Mort formula might be expected for
relativistic collisions, efforts were made to measure the scattering of fast beta-
particles. Champion found good agreement with the Moller theory for 250
collisions of radium E beta-particles in nitrogen found in cloud chamber pic-
tures". 123 Nevertheless, this causal account is untenable, because CHAMPION'S
experiments were conceived before the MOLLER formula existed. Furthermore,
these experiments remained almost unique during the thirties - indeed not until
1941 was another article reporting a test of the formula to appear.
121 To quote but one example, ITZYKSON & ZUBER (1985).

i22 ASHKIN, PAGE & WOODWARD (1954). For example: JAUCH • ROHRLICH (t955)
state that MOLLER'S results "are found to be in excellent agreement with observations",
referring to the "beautiful experiments by Ashkin, Page and Woodward" (p. 261); MOTT
& MASSEY (1933) say that "confirmation of [the MOLLER formula] for incident electrons
in the energy range 0.6 to 1.2 MeV has been provided b y the coincidence counter
experiments of Ashkin, Page and Woodward" (3~d ed., 1965, p. 818). These experiments
remain the classical test of Mf~LLER & BHABHA formulas at low energies
(Cf ITZYKSON d~ ZUBER 1985, p. 281).
123 SCOTT, HANSON, & LYMAN (1951), p: 638.
While working on his thesis, MOLLER did not show much concern for
a possible test of his results. Perhaps, as he would later recall, MOLLER doubted
the significance of his calculations: 124
Of course, my confidence was not so big, that I was really very surprised
when Champion experimentally could show that my formula was obviously
in better agreement with the experiments he had done than the non-relativ-
istic [ o r m u l a . . . I was rather surprised that one could b y such a formal
generalization get to something which was really there in nature.
Yet his attitude may have had another justification: around 1930, experiments
on the scattering of relativistic electrons were scarce and not decisive. We begin
by considering the experimental situation right at the beginning of the thirties,
when both CHAMPION and MOLLER were about to begin their work.
3.1. Experimental knowledge of electron scattering around 1930
Since its discovery and later identification with the: electron, at the beginning
of the century, the fi radiation constituted a unique source of high-energy
electrons. With energies of the order of 1 MeV, fi rays amply surpassed t h e
energy of photo electrons or incandescence electrons (102 eV), while the
presence of electrons in the natural source of most energetic particles, cosmic
radiation, was hotly discussed at the beginning of the thirties: The scattering of
relativistic electrons was therefore first investigated by means of fl particles,
which moving with a velocity near that of light (0.9c), displayed relativistic
effects sufficiently.
The fl radiation was much less easily handled than another, better known
product of disintegration, the e radiation. The fl radiation was not only in-
homogeneous, but it was also in most cases emitted together with an intense
7 radiation, which further complicated its detection, since for the fl radiation no
such simple and reliable detection device as the scintillation method for e par-
ticles existed. In addition, it was difficult to distinguish between single and
multiple scattering - i.e., whether the final deviation was caused by a single
collision or by a number of them 125 - as well as between electronic and nuclear
scattering; These problems made it difficult to obtain definite results on elec-
tronic single scatterin9 of fl particles, to which the MOLLER formula applies.
There existed, however, an instrument that avoided most of these troubles:
WILSON'S cloud chamber. Its first prototypes had been made by CHARLES T. R.
WILSON at the Cavendish around the turn of the century, though only in the
twenties did the chamber become an effective and commonly used detecting
124- MOLLER interview, 1971 (ALP), p. 13.

125 This distinction proved decisive in RUTHERFORD's approach to the nuclear
atom, and it was an essential element of the conception he opposed to THOMSON
(cfi HEILBRON 1967).
234 X. ROQUI~
device. 126 Its basic features are readily conveyed: it consists in a vapor-
saturated container, whose volume may be suddenly increased by means of
a mobile piston or an elastic membrane, the expansion causing the vapor to
condense on the ions produced by the particles crossing the chamber. When
appropriately illuminated, the resulting tracks can be photographed.
In 1922, WALTHER BOTHE observed the single scattering of fl rays by elec-
trons by means of a cloud chamber "built, even in its most unessential details,
according to Wilson's prescriptions". 12v In the fl ray tracks photographed the
rare "particularly violent" collisions between a fl particle and an atomic electron
were easily recognized as a branched track, the incident particle having im-
parted so high a fraction of its energy to the impacted one that the tracks of
both particles after the collision were comparable. BOTI~E analyzed twenty
photographs, which totaled 10 m of track, in which he clearly observed eight
such collisions and three doubtful ones. Information about the dynamics of the
collision was to be gained through "statistical investigation of the frequency of
branching of different degrees". 12s The number of photographs clearly did not
suffice for statistical analysis, but BOa'HE nevertheless considered that it allowed
for a preliminary estimate.
The comparison with theory was based on a simplified model of the colli-
sion, according to which the electrons interact electrostatically and the incident
particle is assumed to undergo no important change in direction in the colli-
sion. The impacted electron moves in this case after the collision nearly at right
angles with the incident particle, its velocity
2e z
v = --- (41)
mvod '
where Vo is the velocity of the fl particle, m its rest mass, and d the impact
parameter. This calculation was based on the premisses J. J. THOMSON had used
in 1912 to calculate the ionization produced by a moving electric charge.
THOMSON'S classical analysis, however simple, was highly effective, and BOIqR
126 See GALISON & ASSMUS (1989). In this article, the technical development of the
chamber is traced through WILSON'S experiments of 1911. The chamber seems to have
remained a problematic and somewhat awkward apparatus well into the thirties, judging
from the numerous questions that experienced users were faced with. L. MEITNER acted
frequently as consultant on the chamber, exchanging correspondence about it with
O. KLEMPERER (in 1925), P. KUNZE (in 1932), G. DE HEVESV (between 1932 and 1934),
G. HERZOG (in 1936), and G. J. SIzOO (in 1937), among others. On September 21, 1932,
for example, DE HEVESY wrote to MEITNER: "Sie sind ein Engel, dass Sie mir eine so
sch6ne Skizze eines Wilsonsapparates zugesandt haben und ich bin Ihnen dafiir aus-
serordentlich dankbar" (MEITNER Papers, Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College,
Cambridge). Even in 1938, A. RUARK had to explain to G. B. COLLINS that "[building
a cloud chamber] is not a large job, if one simply copies the design of others who are
getting good results" (RUARK to COLLINS, January 28, 1938; RUARK Papers, Hoover
Institution Archives, Stanford University).
127 BOTHE (1922), p. 117.
128 Ibid., p. 121.
would later develop it into a theory of the passage of charged particles through
matter. 129 The theory allows calculation of the frequency of the collisions in
which the incident particle loses kinetic energy Q. When the ionization potential
is neglected, the cross section for these collisions reads
da - 2roe4 d Q
m y 2 Q2 9 (42)
Having roughly estimated the velocity of the electrons from its range, BOa'HE
failed to mention TnoMsoN'S theory, obtaining instead from (41) an expression
suitable for his measurements. If n be the number of electrons in air per cm 3,
the probability that a /3 particle of velocity Vo produce a secondary electron of
velocity > v in 1 cm of its path is 13~
nTz(2e2) 2
ndETz = \~VoV. / "
BOTHE obtained from this formula an expected value of 12 for the number of
branches in 10 m track, in "satisfactory" agreement with the experimental result,
8 to 11, "considering the little number of cases observed". T M
In 1923 WILSON himself published a detailed study of the X and fl rays by
means of his chamber that went little further in its conclusions. Among other
phenomena, WILSON studied the "branching tracks" of fl radiation. Having
deduced the velocity of the electrons from 'its range, like BOTHE, WILSON
nonetheless compared his results with THOMSON'S theory, noticing that though
correct in order of magnitude, they were lower than predicted by the theory, la2
In his conclusions he talked only of a "general agreement" with theory. The
minimal significance of BOTHE'S and WILSON'S results was not so much due to
the method used, which would later afford more precise and conclusive com-
parisons with theory, as to the low number of photographs analyzed and the
poor reliability of the velocity measurements.
Not until 1929 is there another experimental reference to electronic scattering
of fl rays. That year, MALCOLM C. HENDERSON published an article based on
his doctoral dissertation, where he had studied the scattering of fl particles
1.29 THOMSON (1912), BOHR (1913), (1915).

13o Dividing this expression by n and introducing Q=89 2, shows that the kinetic
energy of the secondary electron, the cross section for the production of a secondary electron
of energy higher than Q, is
2roe4 1
o--
my 2 Q '
which follows directly from (42).

13J. BOTHE (1922), p. 121.
132 WILSON (1923), p. 201: "The chance of occurrence of a branch track exceeding
a given length may, on Thomson's theory, be calculated if we know the energy of
a fl-particle of given range". WILSONdid not detail the calculations he had done in order
to compare THOMSON'S theory with the experimental data.
236 X. ROQU~
in light gases by means of an ionization chamber. 133 HENDERSON intended to

investigate the effect that the electron spin would have in electron-electron
interaction, and compared the scattering in hydrogen and helium with that in
heavier elements, like nitrogen and argon. Electronic scattering was more prom-
inent in light elements, and HENDERSON thus hoped to be able to disclose any
additional scattering which might be ascribed to the electron's new "field of
f o r c e " . 13 4
The ionization chamber, unlike WILSON'S chamber, does not register indi-
vidual encounters, but only the total ionization current produced inside it.
Nuclear and electronic scattering could not be distinguished, and the chamber
was therefore not suited to the separate investigation of the effects of one of
them. 135 HENDERSON nevertheless applied it to the study of the electronic
scattering of RaE (Bi 21~ fl rays, a convenient high-energy fl emitter supposedly
free from annoying ~ radiation. HENDERSON measured the ionization current in
different gases, for those values of the pressure such as the quotient between
both magnitudes remained constant - which he considered to be a hint of the
preponderance of single scattering. This quotient then measured the relative
"scattering power" of the different gases.
The experimental results were compared with the theoretical predictions on
the basis of DARWIN'S classical theory of scattering, allowing for a relativistic
correcting factor for nuclear scattering. ~36 HENDERSON'S data indicated that
electronic scattering was three times its expected theoretical value. This addi-
tional scattering was not considered high enough to demonstrate the existence
of a magnetic moment; as HENDERSON firgued on the basis of the relative
magnitude of electrostatic and magnetostatic forces, which he alone had taken
into account. 137 HENDERSON concluded that it seemed "unlikely that the elec-
tron can have a magnetic moment as large as one Bohr m a g n e t o n " ? 3s
133 HENDERSON, The Scattering of fl Particles and the Heating Effects of Radium
and Thorium, unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University Library (June
1928).
134 HENDERSON (1929).
135 Nuclear scattering in heavy elements could be analized by means of the ioniz-
ation chamber, a correcting factor accounting for the lesser contribution of electronic
scattering. J. CHADWICK, P. H. MERCIER, and B. SCHONLAND specially applied this
method in the twenties (cf RUTHERFORD, CHADWICK 8~; ELLIS 1930, pp. 227-234).
136 See above, p. 215.
137 If the magnetic moment of the electron was a BOHR magneton, magnetic forces
would strongly determine the final deviation of the particle, since the minimal approach
distance between the fl particle and the electron was estimated sixty times lower than the
distance at which the electric and magnetic forces became equal. An elemental calcu-
lation showed that the scattering would then greatly differ from that actually observed.
See HENDERSON (1929), p. 855.
138 Ibid., p. 856. While HENDERSON did not offer an alternative explanation of these
anomalies, he objected to the "relative complexity" of the magnetic electron compared to
the point charge, and characterized in this context DIRAC'S electron as an alternative,
rather than as an explanation, to the spinning electron: "Dirac has shown how to avoid
HENDERSON'S method, which stemmed directly from similar experiments

done at the Cavendish, was not applied again owing to the low significance of
its results. The efficiency of the cloud chamber, on the other hand, noticeably
increased with the accidental introduction in 1927 of a reliable method of
determining the velocity of the particles photographed: the application of
a magnetic field to the operating chamber. 139 The field curved the path of the
particles and enabled a direct measure of their velocity. If the plane of the track
was at right angles to the direction of the field, the velocity could be simply
expressed as a function of the field intensity /-/ and the radius of curvature of
the track p,
Hp(e/mc)
fl = (43)
x/1 + (Hp)2(e/mc) 2
(fi = v/c, e, m charge and mass of the electron). Only a small correction was
needed if the plane of the track was not at right angles.
Almost at the same time as HENDERSON was performing his experiments,
two graduate students at the same laboratory, E. J. WILLIAMS • F. R. TERROUX,
were applying SKOBELZYN'Sinnovation to the investigation of the scattering of
fast fl particles in oxygen and hydrogen. Their results appeared in January 1930.
The observations of both BOTHE and WILSON being confined to fl rays travers-
ing air, the authors considered the extension of the observations to hydrogen
"of considerable importance for comparison with theory", given the magnitude
of electronic scattering in this case. WILLIAMS & TERROUX emphasized the
superiority of the cloud chamber over other methods by the possibility it
offered of directly distinguishing between electronic and nuclear scattering, thus
avoiding "any theoretical assumptions"? 4~
WILLIAMS & TERROUX,like HENDERSON,analyzed the fl rays emitted by the
RaE. One of their aims was to obtain data on the frequency of the collisions
with a high energy transfer, that is, on the frequency of production of
branches. T M They examined some 500 tracks of fi particles, which totaled
the necessity for a magnetic electron by a more complete solution of the fundamental
equations" (ibid., p. 856). He expressed his confidence that the calculation of the effect on
the basis of DIRAC's theory would explain his own results.
139 In 1927, the Russian physicist DIMIT~I SNOaELZYNintroduced the magnetic field
as an auxiliary means to keep tracks of secondary fl rays produced by the cosmic rays in
the wall of the chamber from masking the electrons produced by Compton effect, the
only ones which interested him (cf SKOBELZYN 1927, 1983).
140 WILLIAMS & TERROUX (1930), pp. 289 and 291. EVANS JAMES WILLIAMS took
his doctoral degree at Cambridge in 1929 with a thesis on the passage of fl particles
through matter, a recurrent subject in his articles for the years to follow (WILLIAMS,
Passage of fl Particles Through Matter, unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge Uni-
versity Library, September 1929). FERDINAND RICHARD TERROUX completed his disser-
tation in 1931 (Applications of the Expansion Chamber to the Study of Fast fl Rays,
unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University Library, November 1931).
141 WILLIAMS ~r TERROUXalso considered primary ionization and conservation of
momentum in the collisions.
238 X. ROQU~
18 m, in which they detected 100 branches. The velocity of the incident particles
was determined by the curvature of their tracks, the energy of the branches
from their range. They found that the velocity of the incident particles lay
between 0.6 and 0.97c (kinetic energy 0.13 and 1.6 MeV respectively), and
gathered their results in two tables according to (1) the energy of the branches
and (2) the velocity of the incident particles.
The comparison with the theory was based on the ratio between the
observed and the theoretical number, which was calculated according to
THOMSON'S theory, still the only one available. WILLIAMS & TERROVX start from
THOMSON'S expression for the probability of the production of a branch of
kinetic energy between Q and Q + dQ (see expression (42)),
2zone4 1
~b(Q)- mY2 Q 2 . (44)
Owing to the impossibility of distinguishing the fl particle and the secondary

electron after the collision, WILLIAMS • TERROUX denote as "branch" that of
lower energy. 142 The maximum kinetic energy Q of a branch is then T/2, where
T represents the kinetic energy of the incident particle. The theoretical number
P(Q) of branches of energy Q is obtained by adding to the previous expression
the number of collisions in which the energy lost by the fl particle is T - - Q ,
P(Q) = qS(Q)+(a(T-Q)=--2rme~(~2 + _ _ 1 ) (45)

ml)2 ( T - Q)2 "
WILLIAMS d~ TERROUX'S results showed that the number of branches ob-

served was "at least twice the number expected on classical theory", a difference
too great to be ascribed to experimental and statistical errors. The same
conclusion followed from the analysis they had simultaneously done on primary
ionization, and ~ it. also agreed with HENDERSON'S results. Like him, they looked
for some evidence of the existence of the electron magnetic moment, and made
a quantitative estimate, taking an average value for the attracting force between
two magnets and calculating the corresponding number of branches. The results
they obtained differed in order of magnitude from the observed ones, and
WILLIAMS & TERROUX interestingly concluded that "the differences are so great
that although the calculated values are only approximate, we may conclude that
the electron regarded as a particle does not behave as if it had a magnetic
moment equal ~ a Bohr magneton". 143
142 WILLIAMS& TERROUX seem not to have considered both particles indistinguish-
able in principle upon noticing that "when a fl-particle produces a branch, there is no
criterion available to determine which is the branch and which is the continuation of the
primary track" (WILLIAMS& TERROUX 1930, p. 304). WILLIAMS'S next article, as we
shall see, confirms this impression.
la3 WILLIAMS 8Z TERROUX (1930), p. 307. WILLIAMS& TERROUX cited HENDER-
SON'S thesis.
While WILLIAMS• TERROUX were preparing their article, MOTT was studying
in Manchester the interaction between two electrons taking account of
their indistinguishability, a problem he had intended to address at the
Cavendish earlier in 1929. Introducing properly symmetrized wave functions,
MOTT was able to calculate the effect of non-distinguishability in the collision
between two electrons, and between two ~ particles. The corresponding article
was submitted to the Proceedings of the Royal Society on November 7, 1929,
only a day after that of WILLIAMS & TERROUX. 144
WILLIAMS, who had coincided with M o T at the Cavendish, might have
known of MOTT'S work before it was published. Thus, MOTT most probably
owed to WILLIAMS the suggestion that the anomalous scattering could be
detected, among other methods, "by observing collisions between fast electrons
and atoms in which an electron is ejected from the atom, e.g., the forked fl-ray
tracks in a Wilson chamber". 145 The only experimental data with which MOTT
compared his theoretical prediction belonged in fact to a "soon to be pub-
lished" article by WILLIAMS,which appeared in a few months) 46 WILLIAMS
devoted it exclusively to the observation of branching, stressing the significance
of applying PAULI'S exclusion principle to free electrons. He re-examined some
photographs of slow fl particles (20 KeV\photoelectrons) he had used in his
dissertation according to MoxT's new theory. Slightly simplyfying MOTT'S result,
WILLIAMS obtained for the frequency of production of branches
P(Q) = 49(Q) + ( 9 ( T - Q) - ~/c~(Q)(a(T- Q) , (46)

a n d he then formed the quotient with the corresponding classical expression,
equation (45), to get
Pq(Q) - 1 - ~/49(Q)49(T- Q) (47)

Pcl(Q) ~/qS(Q) + ~b(T- Q)
In 4 m track, WILLIAMS detected 150 branches, which he classified in two
groups according to the branch energy. The corresponding number of branches,
89 and 47, was divided by the clasically expected value, 100 and 78, and the
result compared with the value given by expression (47). Both coincided within
the experimental errors, which WILLIAMSinterpreted as "evidence in support of
the new quantum theory and in particular of the extension of the exclusion
principle to aperiodic, or open, systems") 47
The existing evidence on single scattering of fl particles by electrons around
1930 ends here. We can conclude that experimental data was scarce and of little
144 MOTT (1930). See also MOTT (1929).

145 Ibid., p. 264.
1,6 It is surprising that WILLIAMSdid not comment on MOTT's work in his article
with TERROUX, since both tried to explain the discrepancies with classical theory. This
article did not contain the slightest reference to the possibility that a more complete
treatment, based on quantum mechanics or DIRAC's theory, might account for these
differences.
147 WILLIAMS(1930), p. 465.
240 X. ROQUI~
significance. Thus, an authoritative voice could not but acknowledge that "the
experiments on the scattering of fl rays leave much to be desired", especially
when compared with those on a rays) 4s At the Cavendish, however, there were
experiments in progress which were to afford an early test of the MOLLER
formula.
3.2. Champion's experiments
The experimental scene just depicted had not substantially changed by

October 14, 1931, when MOLLER received an unsigned letter from the Caven-
dish. The correspondent had read MOLLER'S scattering article with the greatest
interest, but noted that it contained only the limiting cases of the scattering
formula. He had recently taken "a large number of photographs of fast fl-ray
tracks in an automatic expansion chamber", and had "already commenced the
analysis of the collisions with stationary electrons", which he hoped to complete
by the following March. An enclosed diagram showed the distribution of the
points already determined, corresponding to fl particles with velocities between
0.8 and 0.9 e. The writer asked MOLLER for the suitable scattering formula, as he
was "very anxious to know how the distribution will differ from that predicted
by the classical expression". 149
Of course, the letter excited MOLLER'S interest, who on the same day asked
MAX DEL~R~3CK if he knew who was photographing fl ray tracks in an auto-
matic expansion chamber at the Cavendish) 5~ DELBRT3CK had attended the
congress devoted to nuclear physics that had taken place in Rome between
October 11 and 18. Soon after the conference, he answered MOLLER that
BLACKETT,whom MOLLER had suspected, had been at Rome. Instead, he sugges-
ted a young Italian student of BLACKETT'S,referring most probably to GIUSEPPE
OCHIAL~NI)5~ Yet the correspondent was not OCCH~AUNI, but a young research
student at the Cavendish, F. C. CHAMPION.
An able student, double First in the Natural Science Tripos, FRANK CLWE
CHAMPION152 had joined the Cavendish in July, 1929.15a By that time, the cloud
148 RUTHERFORD, CHADWICK & ELLIS (1930), p. 215.
149 CHAMPION to MOLLER, October 10, 1931 (AHQP-59).
15o MOLLER to DELBROCK, October 14, 1931 (AHQP-59).
151 DELBRCrCKto MOLLER (AHQP-59). OCCHIALIN~had just arrived at the Caven-
dish in order to spend some weeks learning to build cloud chambers. He became
BLACKETT'S collaborator and remained there for three years (cf HENDRY 1984, p. 24;
ROSSl 1981, p. 41).
152 F. C. CHAMPION was born in Esher, Surrey, on November 2, 1907. He was
educated at The Royal Grammar School, Guilford, and St. John's College, Cambridge.
This data comes from a biographical sheet held at St. John's, which includes his obituary
in The Times (March 5, 1976). In addition, the College holds a Tutorial File on
Champion (henceforward as CTF). I am greatly indebted to M. G. UNDERWOOD, the
College's archivist, for this information.
153 As recorded at the Department of Physics of Cambridge University. I am
grateful to J. DEAKIN, secretary, for this information.
Meller Scattering 241
chamber had become a favourite device at the Cavendish, which had a number
of experts in its construction - among them PATRICK BLACKETT,"the leading
exponent of cloud chambers in the world". ~s4 During the summer of 1929,
CHAMPION became acquainted with a chamber recently designed by BLACKErr,
and in his first term at the laboratory he began to adapt it for the investigation
of fl rays. ~ss This work was unexpectedly interrupted at the very beginning of
1930.
The Proceedings of the Royal Society for January 1, 1930, included the
article by MOTT where indistinguishability was taken into account in deducing
the scattering law for the collision between two identical particles. 156 On
January 2, according to his 1929-1930 research report, CHAMPION temporarily
shelved his work on fl radiation to test Morr's new formula for the scattering
of ~ rays. By the end of March he had taken between 3,000 and 4,000
photographs, and prospective analysis "had shown itself to be definitely in
favour of MOTT'S theory". 157 The final analysis, that CHAMPrON completed
together with BLACKETa"by October, showed excellent agreement between the
experimental data and MowT's formula, ts8
CHAMPION spent most of the academic year 1930-1931 adapting the chamber
to its use with electrons. In May 1931, he had at his disposal 3,000 tracks
(about 400 photographs), one-tenth of the number needed according to his
estimations. CI~AMPION was aware of the need to take a large number of
photographs in order to secure his statistical method of analysis. Yet at the
outset of his experiments he had no precise idea of the theoretical results he
aimed to test - hence his immediate reaction to the appearance of Moan"s
article. In May 1930, he still vaguely wrote of his work that it consisted "in the
investigation of atomic processes" by means of the cloud chamber) 59
By May 1931, having worked for two years at the Cavendish, CHAMPION'S
aims were clearer. In his second research report, after comenting on his work
on the scattering of a particles, CHAM~'rON wrote: 16~
These particles, however, are not the fundamental particles of matter which
are the proton and the electron. Dirac has calculated, using relativity theory,
the expected properties of a single electron and deduced theoretically the
experimentally known property of electron spin. Breit, Gaunt and others
have tried to apply Dirac's methods to the theoretical determination of the
laws governing the interaction of two electrons i.e. the 'simplest' of the
two-body problems. All these attempts have been unsuccessful predicting
physically inconceivable events and agreeing badly with doubtful experi-
mental data obtained from the hyperfine structure of spectral lines. A direct
154 HENDRY (1984), p. 22.

155 "Research Report 1929-1930" (CTF).
156 MOTT (1930).
ls7 "Research Report 1929-1930" (CTF).
158 CHANIPION & BLACKETT (1931).
159 "Research Report 1929-1930" (CTF).
160 "Research Report 1930-1931", May 8, 1931 (CTF).
242 X. ROQUE
experimental determination of the behaviour of two electrons on interaction

would therefore be invaluable.
The shortcomings of the theories of GAUNT and BRZlT were here exaggerated in
order to justify a genuine interest in electron scattering, apart from any theoret-
ical consideration. Theoretical expectations, on the other hand, figured explicitly
in CHAMPION'S statement on the other "fundamental problems" he aimed to
solve: 161
(1) The only purely terrestrial proof of the theory of relativity as applied to
individual electrons. Theoretical work on the problem, based on simple
conservation principles, has been carried out by the writer; this will be
published later when more copious data is available. On the data already
available approximate measurements shew beautiful agreement with the
theoretical predictions.
(2) The intensity-velocity distribution in the fi ray spectrum of Radium E,
for which there is at present conflicting evidence. (Radium E is the source of
the fast electrons in the other problems).
(3) The experimental investigation of nuclear scattering; this will afford tests
of some applications of wave mechanical theory.
The inclusion of the second point, the first one that CHAMPION worked on,
was probably circumstantial. The spectra of RaE had been thought to be
continuous and to have a well-defined upper limit around 5,500 Hp (an energy
of 1 MeV) since the first investigations of it, about 1910.162 In April 1931 F. R.
TERROUX published the results of his own recent investigations that contradicted
previous evidence. 163 Using the same chamber as that of his previous experi-
ments with WILLIAMS,TERROUX took some 80 pairs of photographs of RaE
fl rays. The analysis of the 500 tracks he found in them led him to conclude
that there existed no upper limit, the spectra instead decreasing gradually up to
very high energies, following approximately a Maxwellian distribution. TERROUX
estimated that the energy of 4% of the particles exceeded 5,000 Hp.
TERROUX did these experiments at the Cavendish, and CHAMPIONwould have
had a first hand knowledge of TERROUX'S results: From the analysis of 1,000
tracks he confirmed the existence of an upper limit about 5,000 Hp, and
observed that, in agreement with previous observations, only the 0.05% of the
spectrum had an energy higher than 5,500 Hp.
CHAMPION submitted these results to the Proceedings of the Royal Society on
October 15, 1931. ~6. The coincidence of dates - his first letter had reached
Copenhagen on October 14 - suggests that he waited until a first analysis of his
161 Ibidem.
162 The energy of a fl particle crossing a magnetic field is given by the product of the
field intensity (H) and the radius of curvature (p) of its path (in Gauss and cm,
respectively, for the figures given). See above eq. (43).
163 TERROUX (1931).
164 CHAMPION (1932a).
photographs had been completed before writing to M~OLLER. CHAMPION ex-

pressed .himself in the anonymous letter to MOLLER ("I have recently taken
a large number of photographs of fast r - r a y tracks in an automatic expansion
chamber") almost in the same terms as in the article he had just finished ("The
writer has recently obtained a large number of photographs of r - r a y tracks in
an automatic expansion chamber"). By this time he had at his disposal most of
his photographs, and devoted the following months to their analysis.
In his research report of 1929-1930, CHAMPION said of his work that it
consisted in the application of the cloud chamber, "especially in the modified
form due to P. M. S. Blackett", to the investigation of atomic processes, and
also that "a new chamber was devised for taking fl ray photographs". 165 In the
article on the spectrum of RaE, he noticed in like manner that the chamber he
had used was "a modification of that previously employed by Blackett and the
writer". 166 H a d CHAMPION built a new chamber, or simply altered BLACKETT'S?
A 1934 report by BLACKETT on CHAMPION'S dissertation shows that CHAMPION
had indeed used the chamber built by BLACKETT: "Since Mr Champion left
Cambridge he has built a new automatic cloud chamber following in the main
the design of the one he used during his time in the Cavendish, and which was
built by me six years ago. He does not appear to have made any material or
very original changes in this design". 167
BLACKETT'S chamber (figure 1) was based on a standard model supplied by
the Cambridge Scientific Instruments Company. 168 More than a new chamber,
it was a new arrangement of the cloud chamber and the photographic cameras,
which optimized the number of tracks photographed. The chamber was en-
closed inside a wooden box, with tubular light screens, so that it was not
required to use the apparatus in a completely darkened room. As BLACKETT
described it, "an aluminium casting has two faces at its ends making angles
of 45 ~ with the top. To these two faces are attached standard Ensign cinr-
c a m e r a s . . . Each lens is carried on a brass bush, the two faces of which are
inclined at an angle of 81~ 169 The inclination of the lenses was one of
BLACKETT'S innovations with regard to previous designs. It was calculated to
increase the photographed area.
On November 2, CHAMPION wrote to MOLLER for the second time. He
qualified now more precisely his work as "an experimental test of your formula
t65 "Research Report 1929-1930" (CTF).

166 CHAMPION(1932a), p. 672. CHAMPIONrefers to CHAMPION 8Z BLACKETT(1931).
167 "Report by Professor P. M. S. Blackett on the dissertation of F. C. Champion"
(CTF, my emphasis). A simultaneous report by J. COCKCROFT stated much the same:
"The apparatus used [by Champion] was taken over with slight modifications from
previous experiments of Mr. Blackett so that no technical contributions of importance
were made by Mr. Champion" ("Report by Dr Cockcroft on the Dissertation of F. C.
Champion", CTF).
168 The Company supplied cloud chambers as early as 1913, and from time to time
made special apparatus for various scientists (cf CATTERMOLE & WOLFE 1987, p. 78).
169 BLACKETT (1929), p. 622.
244 X. ROQUI~
Figure 1. The arrangement of cloud chamber and cameras designed by BLACKETT in

1929. With this same apparatus, adapted to its use with electrons, CHAMPIONcarried out
his experiments on scattering of fl particles, in the context of which he tested the
MOLLER formula. (From BLACKETT 1929; this figure features in the volume as no. 20.
Reproduced with permission of the Royal Society.)
for the scattering", t7~ As mentioned above, MI~LLER answered him immediately,
showing himself much interested in CHAMPION'S work, and optimistic with
regard to the general scattering formula. 171 On N o v e m b e r 8, CHAMPION gave
MOLLER some details of his work. The chamber was filled with nitrogen, and he
had observed the collisions between the fl particles and the electrons "in the
extra-nuclear structure of the nitrogen a t o m " - nuclear models were still playing
with the existence of electrons in the nucleus. According to the first point in his
project, CHAMPION was then searching in his photographs for a direct proof of
t h e conservation of m o m e n t u m and energy in collisions: 172 "I am preparing
a paper for publication at the m o m e n t on some accurate measurements of the
angles between the directions of motion of the two electrons after collision
taking into account the relativity change of mass". The resulting article, " O n
t7o CHAMPION to M~ILLER, November 2, 1931 (AHQP-59).

171 See above, p. 219.
172 CHAMPION to MOLLER, November 8, 1931 (AHQP-59).
Some Close Collisions of Fast fl-Particles with Electrons, Photographed by the

Expansion Method", was ready by mid-February 1932.173
According to classical mechanics, when a particle collides elastically with
another particle of the same mass initially at rest, both particles always move
after the collision at right angles. In relativistic mechanics, the angle between
the direction of motion of the two particles depends on the scattering angle and
the velocity of the incident particle, and it diminishes as this velocity ap-
proaches that of light. CHAMPION mentioned in his article previous qualitative
evidence of this phenomenon, but he stated that "up to the present no quantit-
ative study has been made of the general relation between the whole angle after
the collision, the angle of scattering, and the velocity of the incident par-
title. ''174 He had measured the scattering angle from the two simultaneous
exposures taken of each event, and the velocity of the particles from the
curvature of the tracks. In his letter to MOLLER of November 8, CHAMPION
included two photographs of the same collision taken with two cameras at right
angles. The collision had practically taken place in the plane of one of the
photographs, so that "the apparent angle on this photograph is almost the true
angle. You will observe that it is not nearly 90~ in fact the measured angle is
73 ~ agreeing exactly with the relativity expression for this velocity of the
incident electron and the particular angle of incidence". 175
As he had foreseen, CHAMPIONhad to analyze a lot of photographs, because
the probability of the collisions he was interested in was very low. In his first
letter to MI21LLERhe spoke only of "a large number" of photographs; through
a later article we know that they were about 4,000.176 The criteria that a track
should satisfy to allow a proper measurement of the scattering angle and the
velocity reduced drastically the number of collisions observed. In 30,000 tracks
CHAMPION could only find 50 "close" or appropriate collisions, 14 of them best
satisfying the experimental criteria. CHAMPIONbased his analysis on these colli-
sions, and he found an "excellent" agreement between the theoretical and the
observed values.
At the same time, CHAMPION had been analyzing his photographs with the
intention of testing the MOLLER formula. In his first letter to MOLLER he had
already included some data, 50 points in a diagram 0 (scattering angle)-fl (v/c).
The same diagram, extended to 250 points, became the first figure of CHAM-
PION'S next article, "The Scattering of Fast r-Particles by Electrons", finished in
June 1932, when MOLLER'Sarticle containing the scattering formula had not yet
appeared. 177 CHAMPION had previously completed his doctoral dissertation,
173 CHAMPION (1932b).

174 Ibid., p. 630. Among previous observations CHAMPION mentioned those of
BOTHE and WILSON.
175 CHAMPION to MOLLER,November 8, 1931 (AHQP-59).
176 CHAMPION(1932C), p. 691: "The present results are from the analysis of 4,000
photographs, giving about 30,000 tracks of fast r-particles in nitrogen". In the article we
are considering, about 30,000 tracks were also investigated.
177 CHAMPION(1932C), submitted on June 25, 1932. Both diagrams are reproduced
in KRAGH'S paper. CHAMPION could only quote MOLLER (1931), but he expressed of
course his gratitude to MOLLERfor communicating his results.
246 X. ROQUg
where he reached the same conclusions as in the article, on the basis of 131
collisions. 178
In the tracks suitable for measurement, which totalled some 650m,
CHAMPION observed 250 collisions with scattering angles exceeding 10~, with
fl = v/c between 0.8 and 0.9 for the incident particle. Collisions with a lower
scattering angle had not been considered, for they might have introduced
a comparatively large percentage of error, and also greatly increased the num-
ber of measurements.
In order to compare his results with the theoretical predictions, CHA~aPION
followed MOLLER'S advice. Upon giving CHAMPION the incorrect version of the
general scattering formula, MOLLER had suggested that he introduce x = cos 0cm
and 7 as independent variables, instead of 0 and v: "If you then plot your data
in a (x, 7) diagram, this formula should directly give the density of the dots". 179
In his article, CHAMPION gave the MOLLER formula in the form (see (40))
// e 2 "~2
do.(0) = 4rc~vSv2) 7 + 1 dx
\ /
9 (1 - x2) 2 1 -- X 2 q- 4y 2 \ + ~ ' (48)
where
2 - - (y + 3) sin 20
x = COS 0 e m = 2 + (7 -- 1)sin 2 0 (49)
This expression was graphically integrated over the range of incident energies
and the angular intervals that CI~AMPION had considered. A single table in
CHAMPION'S article represented his results and the comparison with theoretical
predictions (table 1). CI~AMPtON judged the results t o be "in good agreement"
with the MOLLER formula, both in the discussion of the results and in the
summary of his paper. He also concluded that "MOLLER'S formula gives the best
account of the scattering of electrons by electrons". ~8~ Nevertheless, he acknow-
ledged that for scattering angles greater than 20 ~ the corrected non-relativistic
formulae also agreed well with his results.
CHAMPION'S experiments were conceived when the MOLLER formula did not
yet exist. As we have seen, CHAMPION did intend to analyze experimentally the
interaction between two electrons, but in a broad context of study of the
fl radiation, and explicitly disregarding theoretical predictions. In the article we
have just examined, the MOLLER formula was praised as "the most satisfactory
theoretically" among the formulae proposed for the interaction between two
178 CHAMPION, On Some Applications of an Automatic Expansion Chamber to the

Investigation of the Collisions of ct Particles with Helium, and of Fast fl Particles with
Electrons, unpublished doctoral dissertation (Cambridge University Library, May 1932).
In his thesis, CHAMPION applied the formula that MOLLERhad communicated to him on
January 25, 1932 (see above, p. 222).
179 MOLLER tO CHAMPION, 7 December 1931 (AHQP-59).
180 CHAMPION (1932C), pp. 694 and 695.
Table 1. The comparison of CHAMPION'Sresults with the theoretical predictions, accord-

ing to CHAMPION (1932C), p. 693. The columns contain: 1, the three angular intervals
considered:, 2, the number of points observed in each of them; 3, 4 and 5, the values
expected according to the theories of MOLLER,classical, and MOTT, respectively; 6, the
values obtained by substituting m / ( 1 - fl2)112 for m in MOTT's formula; 7, the values
obtained treating the classical formula in the same way; and 8, the prediction of the
classical formula with T 2 instead of (~mv2)2 in the denominator, where T is the kinetic
energy of the incident particle.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0~ Observed MOLLER C M (MOTT) M (1 -- f12) C (1 - f12) C/T 2
30-max. 10 13 57 28 7 15 9
20-30 26 30 148 105 26 37 21
10-20 214 230 761 650 162 190 108
Total . . . . 250 273 966 783 195 242 138
electrons, but it was simply characterized as a formula "based on quantum

mechanics". T M When in 1934 J. COCKCROFT and BLACKETT reported on
CHAMPION'S dissertation, who was applying for a lectureship at King's
College, London, both failed to mention the testing of the MOLLER formula
among CHAMPION'S merits. COCKCROFT said of the questions tackled by CHAM-
PION: "The problem attacked is one of considerable importance, being a study
of the close collisions of atomic particles; a study which allows a direct test of
some of the fundamental results of the theory of relativity and of the wave
theory of m a t t e r " J 82 BLACKZTTsimply said of CHAMPION'S results that they were
"of considerable interest and importance", yet he understandably criticized his
lack of originalityJ 83 Therefore, both when conceived and interpreted, CHAM-
PION'S experiments were not related to early quantum electrodynamics.
CHAMPION left the Cavendish in September, 1932, to join the University
College at Nottingham as an assistant lecturer in physics. There, besides contin-
uing the analysis Of his photographs, which were not to be completed until
1935, ls4 he worked on a m o n o g r a p h on the cloud chamber, and collaborated
with the Zoology Department in the application of spectroscopy to problems
connected with sexual differentiation in fish. In 1934, he was appointed lecturer
at King's College, London, where the rest of his career was to develop. ~85
181 Ibid., pp. 688 and 695.

182 "Report by Dr Cockcroft on the dissertation of F. C. Champion" (CTF).
183 "Report by Professor P. M. S. Blackett on the dissertation of F. C. Champion"
(CTF).
184 CHAMPION (1936), submitted in July, 1935.
185 In 1948 CHAMPION became reader in physics, and in 1959 he was appointed to
the Chair. CHAMPION'Searlier interest in nuclear physics turned later towards the solid
state. He Jived in Spain from his retirement, in 1970, until his death in M/daga in 1976
(cf. "Obituary. Professor Champion. Noted physicist" The Times, 5 March 1976, p. 17).
248 X. ROQUI~
3.3. Subsequent experiments prior to 1947
CHAMPION'S experiments remained unique during the thirties, as not until

1941 did another article concerned with a test of the MOLLER formula appear.
Further experiments seem to have been motivated by the discrepancies between
CHAMPION'S and WILLIAMS' results. WILLIAMShimself tried to clear up the matter
in 1933, but his experiments were not completed. This is the brief account of
them he gave to ARTHUR E. RUARK in 1940:186
In view of ~the discrepancy with theory of the number of secondaries pro-
duced by fa~t electrons observed by Terroux and myself at Cambridge, I made
further observations later at Manchester (1933) with the help of an assistant
Mr. Car0eron. We did not find the earlier large discrepancies but a rate
-
of about 1.2 to 1 of observed to theoretical [values]. This second work was

/ .
also done/using RaE electrons and at the time I decided to extend the
observatiops to faster electrons but that was never done and the results with
RaE were[not published. The details are in a PhD thesis presented by
Cameron.
RUARK wa~ the head of the Physics Department at North Carolina Univer-
sity from 193~. Early in October 1940, he had asked WILLIAMS for reprints of
some of his articles,~ as he had "been doing work on nuclear radiative scattering
and on energ~ distribution of side branches produced in electron-electron colli-
sions", t87 At/least since the beginning of that year, RUARK had spent much of
his time " o ~ c l o u d chamber work with electrons", and two of his students were
"working on the production of secondaries". ~ss This research was supported by
a grant from the American Philosophical Society that enabled him to direct
two consecutive analyses of the collision between two relativistic electrons with
the explicit aim of testing the MOLLER formula.
The work of RUARK and his students, as it stood in September 1940, is
precisely characterized in a long letter he sent to BREIa'. He started by describ-
ing their experiments: ~89
As to the electron-electron collision experiments, I will not try to give you

any lengthy account, because the experiments are really complicated. Com-
parison with theory is accomplished by the use of formula 76 in Moller's
article [MOLLER 1 9 3 2 ] . . . This formula, of course, must be averaged over
186 WILLIAMS to RUARK,November 13, 1940 (RUARKPapers). These observations

and WILLIAMS'letter were mentioned in the paper by HORNBECK& HOWELL shortly to
be considered (HORNBECK & HOWELL 1941, p. 51).
187 R U A R K t o W I L L I A M S , October 3, 1940 ( R U A R K Papers).
288 RUARK to BREIT, March 5, 1940 (BREIT Papers).
189 RUARK to BREIT, September 2, 1940 (BREIT Papers). The same results and
a similar description is to be found in RUARK'S letter to WILLIAMS quoted above. He
also observed that his students had not found "the large discrepancies with theory which
were observed in the paper of yourself and Terroux".
our actual energy spectrum of primary electrons . . . . Let us consider the

cross-section for production of side branches with energy superior to some
lower limit To; and let us consider the ratio of the observed number to the
number calculated from Moller's formula. Calling this ratio R, the revised
results are as follows:
To, lower limit Observed Expected R
of energy of secondaries No. of No. of
considered, in KeV collisions collisions
20 107 88.3 1.21 _ 0.12

30 63 56.4 1.12 _ 0.14
40 35 40.9 0.86 • 0.15
These data refer to secondary electrons produced in 190 meters of primary
electron track within the limits 0.67 to 1.6 MeV. After the work had pro-
gressed for a while, we decided to limit our attention to primaries of higher
energy than 1.3 MeV. The work was done by Irl Howell and George
Hornbeck.
RUARK added: "The important point at the present stage is not the deviation
from the prediction of Moller's formula, but rather the closeness of the
numbers to his formula". How is this statement to be interpreted? It might
suggest a lack of confidence in the formula at the beginning of the work, cleared
up by the success of the experiments - as reinforced by RUARICS final comments:
"To summarize: Ours are the only data on this important subject, covering the
range above about 1.3 MeV. They agree with Moller's formula much better than
we hoped for when the work began". Of course, no statement of this kind
appears, as we shall see, in the articles published by RUARK'S students. Yet it
might also be related to the experimental difficulties encountered, that RUARK
briefly discussed immediately thereafter:
The limits of error given in the above table are merely those due to
statistical fluctuations in the occurrence of secondaries. I must explain that
even with good viewing and measuring facilities, it is difficult to measure
absolute cross-sections with the cloud chamber. There are several systematic
or semi-systematic sources of error, of which we are cognizant, but which we
cannot easily eliminate from the present body of data. These sources of error
can be eliminated to a very large extent in future experimental work, but
their importance was not suspected, or realized, when we took the photo-
graphs on which the above data are based. I shall not go into details, but
the whole thing boils down to eliminating little errors and troubles, each of
which acting separately can cause an error from 1 to 5 per cent.
In the next paragraph, RUARK depicted "the present situation":
The present situation is this. Champion had tested formula 74 of Moiler

which gives the angular distribution which should correspond to the energy
250 X. RoQu~
distribution we are studying. He got agreement to about 10 per cent for

electrons with energy below 1.3 MeV. Williams and Terroux made cross-
section measurements by the same method we are using, up to 1.6 MeV.
Their results deviated from theory by a factor which was sometimes larger
than 2, comparison being made with a formula which is gotten by dropping
out the entire second line of Moller's formula 76. This corresponds in fact to
the use of the old formula employed by J. J. Thomson and by Bohr prior to
1920. If comparison were made with Moller's formula, the values of
R would be even higher, for the experiments with Williams and Terroux,
than the values given in their paper.
The final paragraph of RUARK'S letter contained, besides the summarizing

statement quoted above, interesting remarks about the prospects for the work:
The experimental work is being continued here by P. E. Shearin and Eugene

Pardue, using a method of measurement which is much faster than that
employed in most of the work of Hornbeck and Howell. We have found out
how to do the job by methods which will permit piling up a much larger
total number of events. Within two to three months it should be possible to
push the fluctuation errors down to only a few per cent. At the present time
the data available do not distinguish sharply between the requirements of
Moller's formula and the requirements of the older formulas like that of
Thomson and Bohr. The difference between the two is small for secondaries
having energies which we can deal with. Obviously, we ought to push out
into the region of higher secondary energies; that is, we should study
"closer" collisions. However, the infrequency of close collisions limits our
efforts in this direction, so we are going to try to do a thorough job on
secondaries of relatively low energy. Photographs in a larger chamber are
needed before we can attack the problem of the closer collisions effectively.
I think that even at the present stage, the observations are interesting,
because so far they do not indicate the necessity of including in the theory
any terms higher than v2/c z. You will note that for a two million volt
electron 1)4/C 4 is about 0.92.
The results advanced by RUARKdid not differ much from those published, in
April 1941, by HORNBECK& HOWELL.They stressed the importance of measur-
ing the cross section for the scattering of high-energy electrons by electrons,
much scarcer than those concerning stopping or ionization, and presented their
experiments as motivated by the discrepancies in the existing experimental data.
From the data provided by WILLIAMS & TERROUX, HORNBECK & HOWELL
deduced a cross section 2.1 + 0.25 times that predicted by MOLLER, "in sharp
contradiction with the results of Champion, and with our own", concluding that
"more extensive cloud chamber observations are needed, both to clear up the
discrepancy and to extend the results to higher primary energy". 19~
19o HORNBECK& HOWELL(1941), pp. 38 and 39.

Molter Scattering 251
HORNBECK & HOWELL'S analyses were based on a large body of photographs

made available by CREIGHTON C. JONES, a professor at the same university. The
study was done by means of a stereoscopic viewing and measuring instrument
developed by JONES & RUARK. 191 The primary electrons were recoil electrons
produced at the walls of a nitrogen-filled chamber, by ? rays from a me-
sothorium source. Their energy was given by the curvature of their tracks; that
of the secondary electrons b y their range. As stated in RUARK'S letter, HORNBECK
& HOWELL calculated the cross section for the production of a secondary
electron of kinetic energy T, higher than To, but lower than Tp/2, where Tp is
the kinetic energy of the primary. They integrated the MOLLER formula between
To and Tp, and averaged it over the primary energy. 192 Their results, summed
up in table 2, complemented those of CHAMPION over the range of kinetic
energy of the primaries from 0.4 to 0.9 MeV. "Both investigations", they con-
cluded, "support each other in demonstrating the essential correctness of
Moller's theory of secondary energy distribution in the domain of primary
energy from 0.4 to 2.6 MeV". 193
Table 2. Results of HORNBECK & HOWELL for the ratio R of the ob-
served and calculated value for the cross section, according to the
MOLLER formula. To, lower limit for the energy of secondary electrons
(HORNBECK & HOWELL 1941, p. 33).
To(KeV): 20 30 40
R: 1.18 _ 0.14 1.09 • 0.16 0.84 • 0.15
SHEARIN t% PARDUE'S work did not appear until February 1942, in the
Proceedings of the supporting institution, the American Philosophical Society. It
was intended as a complement to that of HORNBECK • HOWELL "with the
objectives of decreasing the statistical errors and increasing the accuracy of all
the measurements involved". 194 SHEARIN & PARDUE improved the agreement
between the experimental data and the MOLLER formula modifying the criteria
for selection of tracks and measuring the ranges more accurately. As their
results (table 3), expressed like those of HORNBECK & HOWELL, showed, "the
Moller formula is essentially correct for the primary and secondary energy
ranges considered here". 195
These experiments differ from CHAMPION'S in their inception. They are the
result of teamwork oriented towards the test of the formula and its comparison
191 JONES & RUARK (1940).

192 Formula (76) of MOLLER'S article gave the scattering differential cross-section in
terms of the kinetic energy Q lost by the incident particle. This is the formula that
HORNBECK and HOWELL integrate. It follows from formula (74) in MOLLER'Sarticle (see
(40)) by means of the relation Q = mc2/2(~- 1)(1- cos0cm).
193 HORNBECK & HOWELL (1941), p. 51.
194 SHEARIN & PARDUE (1942), p. 243.
195 Ibid., p. 243.
252 X. ROQUI~
Table 3. Results of SHEARIN & PARDUE for the ratio R of the observed
and calculated value for the cross section. The table is to be interpreted
as for table 2 (SHEARIN & PARDUE 1942, p. 243).
To(KeV): 20 30 40
R: 1.07 + 0.09 0.99 + 0.11 1.04 _+ 0.12
with the other formulas proposed. In the late forties, their real significance and
decisiveness would be questioned. Setting these questions momentarily aside, let
us consider how the MOLLER formula was appraised in both works. HORNBECI~
and HOWELL characterized the contributions of BETHE, BREIT and WOLFE, with-
out much precision to add simply that "[Moiler's] final formulas giving the
cross-section for production of a branch with energy in the range T to T + dT,
are presumably the most accurate ones available". 196 SHEARIN and PARDUE
referred to a "relativistic theory for the electron-electron cross section" due to
MOLLER that "includes the effects of exchange and retardation of potentials, to
terms in (v/c) 2 inclusive, vp being the velocity of the incident electron". 197 At
the end of their article they were more explicit though, interestingly enough,
they related MOLLER'S treatment to BREIT'S: "We wish to emphasize the import-
ance of thorough tests of this formula, the only one in which the interaction of
two similar fundamental particles has been calculated with perfect symmetry, in
accordance with the spirit of Breit's considerations [BREIT (1929)]". 198 More
fundamental elements of MOLLER'S work, such as DIRAC'S equation of the
electron, not to mention the relating of the formula with quantum electro-
dynamics, were not explicitly mentioned.
3.4. Postwar interest and conclusive test
As far as I know, no other article appeared concerning an experimental test

of the MOLLER formula until 1950. That year, a team from the Institute for
Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago published an analysis of 98
collisions between electrons, obtained "as a by-product of several cloud-
chamber investigations carried out in this laboratory". 199 The authors justified
the study on the limited experimental evidence of this kind of collisions.
They compared MOLLER'S theory with relativistic versions of MOTT'S and
RUTHERFORD'S theories, and with the classical theory of RUTHERFORD. The re-
sults were once more not conclusive: "Our data discriminate definitely only
against the latter theory. When combined with 122 electron-electron collisions
observed by Champion, they are consistent only with the first two theories, but
196 HORNBECK & HOWELL (1941), p. 40.

197 SHEARIN & PARDUE (1942), p. 243.
198 Ibid., p. 249.
t99 GROETZINGER, LEDER, RIBE. & BERGER (1950), p. 454.
are insufficient to discriminate decisively between them". MOLLER theory was

characterized as "the theory of electron-electron scattering now generally accep-
ted": z~176
Had by then the theoretical basis of MOLLER'S formula been so well
established, that the authors did not need to mention quantum electrodynamics
explicitly? Or was the formula simply accepted the same way it had been
deduced, without regard to the general encompassing theory of the electromag-
netic interactions?
From this moment on an increasing in interest in electron-electron scatter-
ing, especially in the United States, is easily observed. In 1951 a team from
Illinois University analyzed this process by means of a beam of 15.7 MeV
monokinetic electrons, from a 22 MeV bevatron. T M At the e n d of the same
year, another team from the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley studied this
interaction at higher energies, by means of 200 MeV electrons from the sin-
croton of Berkeley. 2~ At the Microwave Laboratory of Stanford, yet another
team of experimental physicists analyzed the scattering of 6.1 MeV electrons
from a linear accelerator. 2~ This series of experiments reached its peak in 1954
with the publication of the article considered to be the most decisive, where the
validity of the MOLLER formula was proved for the range of energies between
0.6 and 1.2 MeV. T M This list, which does not aim to be complete, suffices to
make the point. In none of these articles is the MOLLER formula specifically
related to quantum electrodynamics. They agree in assuming that the formula is
the most satisfactory from a theoretical point of view, but they also do not give
any reason why this is so. In the more precise characterization of the formula, it
is said to be based on DIRAC'S theory.
Let us finally consider more closely the decisive experiments, as, in fact, they
are not the last step but one of the very first instances of the postwar interest in
MOLLER scattering. They were developed at one of the new laboratories built
after the war, the Laboratory of Nuclear Studies of Cornell University. In
September 1950, LORNE ALBERT PAGE defended his doctoral dissertation:
A Measurement of Electron-Electron Scattering. 2~ His results did not essentially
differ from those that would be published together with ASHKIN and WOODWARD
four years later. As PAGE had initiated his graduate studies in the fall of 1945,
his experiments date back to the period immediately following the end of the
war. 206
200 Ibid., pp. 454 i 455.

201 SCOTT, HANSON ~r LYMAN (1951).
202 BARKAS, DEUTSCH, GILBERT & VIOLET (1952).
203 BARBER, DECKER & CHU (1953).
2o4 ASHKIN, PAGE & WOODWARD (1954).
205 PAGE, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Comell University Libraries, Ithaca. See
also PAGE (1951).
206 L. A. PAGE was born in 1921. In September 1940, he entered Queen's University,
Kingston, Ontario, where he was granted the Bachelor of Science degree in Physics in
May 1944. In November 1945, following a term in the Canadian Army, he began
graduate studies at CorneU, where he stayed until June 1950 (cf PAGE'S dissertation,
"Biographical sketch").
254 X. ROQU~
180~
i \\ i Ip2
PlX + P2x = PO
T1 + T2 = TO
T-JL = poPlX EOKIN = V

To ]
0i i i i i I
6i
Inches
Figure 2. The 270 ~ scattering chamber devised by L. A. PAGE to measure electron-

electron scattering, according to figure 1 of his dissertation. His description: "Upper
right: horizontal section through mid-plane of scattering chamber; lower right: elevation
view of the chamber. The magnetic field is vertical. - A typical path for a fl particle from
source to scattering foil, F, is sketched. Two electrons, el and e2, might emerge from the
foil as shown and be recorded in the Geiger counters, A and B. Pertinent horizontal
throws are denoted by To, T1, and T 2 and momenta by Po,Pl, and P2. - - The vector
diagram at upper left represents momentum in the plane of collision, for incident kinetic
energy ~Fk~,=
0 1 mev, and fractional energy transfer v = 0.35".
PAGE'S experiments centered on collisions with large energy transfers, those

in which spin effects were more pronounced and the MOLLER formula thus more
clearly distinguished from the other scattering formulas. Unlike the other ex-
periments going on, he used radioactive electrons - fl electrons from a source of
Sr9~ 9~ - whose energy ranged from 0.6 to 1.7 MeV. The scattered electrons
were detected by means of two Geiger counters connected in coincidence,
a decisive innovation with respect to previous experiments and those taking
place simultaneously, based on the observation of forked tracks in a cloud
chamber. The experimental disposition devised by PAGE is shown in figure 2.
This same figure would be reproduced four years later, without the momentum
diagram, in the joint article with ASHKIN & WOODWARD. 207
PAGE briefly characterized the MOLLER formula in his dissertation as based
on "the Dirac theory of the electron". He added: 2~ "Careful measurements of
the differential cross-section in the relativistic energy region as a function of
incident energy should provide verification or denial of the MOLLER formula,
and by implication the present theory of the electron". A direct re~ference to
quantum electrodynamics is nowhere to be found, though, as in the case of
ScoTT, HANSON & LYMAN mentioned above, we may ask whether it was by ,that
time necessary. PAGE was fully aware of late theoretical developments, which ~he
mentioned "for completeness", in which emission of radiation was taken into
account. 2~
PAGE'S experiments not only proved the MOLLER formula. PAGE was satisfied
in his conclusions that "the formula is rather 'necessary', in that all the essential
features of the formula must be included for a reasonable agreement with
experiment - thus it is not merely some degenerate form which applies for the
range of E [incident energy] and v [fractional energy transfer] investigated
here". 21~ At the same time, he discarded the possibilty that a theory more
advanced than MOLLER'S could modify MOLLER'S predictions with regard to the
present experiments.
Let us finally note that PAGE had an exceptional interlocutor: RICHARD P.
FEVNMA~, to whom he was indebted for "helpful discussions of the process
being studied". 211 This acknowledgement shows again that the renewed interest
in MOLLER scattering grew soon after the end of Second World War, and also
that it concerned both its theoretical and experimental aspects.
Concluding remarks
MOLLER deduced his scattering formula without regard to early quantum

electrodynamics, on the basis of more secure theoretical developments, notably
207 See ASHKIN, PAGE & WOODWARD (1954), p. 358.
208 PAGE's dissertation, p. 1 (my emphasis).
209 PAGE cited SCHWINGER(1949) and KATZENSTEIN(1950), and a doctoral disserta-
tion written in his department by LOMANITZ, Second Order Effects in the Electron-
Electron Interaction, 1950 (PAGE's dissertation, p. 25).
21o Ibid., p. 20.
211 Ibid., p. 58.
256 X. ROQUI~
a notion of correspondence. In fact, MOLLER shows little concern with this

theory in his articles, where he barely mentions it. Though the MOLLERformula
might also follow from quantum electrodynamics, as indeed BETIJE and FERMI
promptly showed, MOLLERscattering remained an essentially neglected applica-
tion of the theory during the thirties, to judge by the scarce texts devoted to it
before renormalization. This indifference extends to the experimental testing of
the formula: the often-cited experiments of CHAMPION were conceived without
knowledge of the formula, and they remained unique during the thirties. In
addition, only two more significant attempts were made to test the formula
before renormalization.
By contrast, around 1950 MOLLER scattering was being reconsidered from
the theoretical, as well as from the experimental, point of view. At that moment,
a number of experiments were taking place to test the formula, mainly in the
United States, among them the one still considered as the classical test of the
MOLLER formula at low energies. Furthermore, FEYNMAN shortly before had
given to MOLLER scattering a prominent role in his approach to quantum
electrodynamics, and radiative corrections were being calculated. Henceforward,
as a result of this renewed interest. MOLLERscattering was to find its way into
texts devoted to the theory. As a main conclusion, therefore, I shall stress that
MOLLER scattering only became an application of quantum electrodynamics
after renormalization.
This change of status may largely be explained by the changing status of
theory itself. Sound theoretical difficulties, which were acutely perceived, marked
early quantum electrodynamics. The lack of confidence in the fundamentals of
the theory, no doubt obscured the relevance of its applications. We have seen
that to PAUL1, the divergence in the proper energy of the electron prevented
"a consistent relativistic treatment of the many-body problem" and much dim-
inished the significance of a mere approximate treatment. 212 OPPENHEIMER
and BREIT expressed themselves in similar terms, the case of BREIT being
especially significant, as his treatment of electron-electron interaction, which
directly related to HEISENBERG • PAULI'S quantum electrodynamics, could not
account for the interaction between free electrons, as he repeatedly acknow-
ledged. The degree of confidence in the theory accounts at the same time for the
reappraisal of the formula after the war, as great achievements and expectations
marked the beginning of renormalized quantum electrodynamics. In this con-
text, approximate treatments and processes once thought to be of secondary
interest were looked at anew. Electron-electron interaction, in addition, figured
prominently in FEYNMAN'S quantum electrodynamics. In the second of the
articles where FEYNMAN opposed his "over-all space-time" approach to the
usual Hamiltonian one, the interaction between free electrons exemplified
his considerations.213 The "fundamental equation for electrodynamics" which
212 See above p. 231.

213 FEYNMAN(1949), p. 769: "We begin by discussing the solution in space and time
of the Schr6dinger equation for particles interacting instantaneously. The results are
immediately generalizable to delayed interactions of relativistic electrons and we repres-
ent in that way the laws of quantum electrodynamics". See SCHWEBER(1986).
FEYNMAN proposed "describes the effect of exchange of one quantum (therefore

first order in e 2) between two electrons. It will serve as a prototype enabling us
to write down the corresponding quantities involving the exchange of two or
more quanta between two electrons or the interaction of an electron with
itself". 214 The relation of MOLLER'S formula with the new version of the theory
was clearly stated a few lines later: "The calculation, from [our fundamental
equation for electrodynamics], of the transition element between positive energy
free electron states give the Moller scattering, when account is taken of the
Pauli principle". 215
On the other hand, t h e increasing importance that the study of cosmic
radiation acquired during the thirties, should also be taken into account. This
was a major research field at the time, which demanded the efforts of theorists,
and attracted a number of able experimental physicists. The application of his
calculations to the elucidation of the nature of the elusive cosmic rays was, as
we have seen, one of MOLLER'S major aims when he began working on his
thesis. Though in the end he exclusively considered r-radiation, this aspect of
his work most interested other physicists. 216 Significant experimental resources
were drawn into cosmic rays studies. In 1931, H. V. NEHER, a young research
student in Caltech who had completed a doctoral dissertation on the nuclear
scattering of high-energy electrons, intended to carry on his experiments. 217
While this denotes an interest in experimentally probing the different scattering
formulas, t h e final outcome of NEHER'S experiments shows equally clearly the
priority attached to research on cosmic radiation, as the experiments were
"dropped within a year because of the press of cosmic-ray work". 21s CARL
ANOERSON also felt this pressure upon him. In 1930, he was "greatly interested"
in the experiments by CHt~NG-YAo CHAO on the scattering of y rays, and
intended to extend them by means of a cloud chamber, when MILLIKAN com-
pelled him to build an instrument to measure the energies of the electrons
present in the cosmic radiation.219 At the Cavendish, during the early thirties,
214 Ibid., p. 772.

215 Ibid., p. 773.
216 In December 1931, upon answering MOLLER that his results on the collision
between two particles most interested him, MOTT added: "I am especially' interested in
the cosmic ray case of energy >>me 2, for small angles" (MOTT to MOLLER,December 15,
1931, AHQP-59; see above p. 222). In his article on the stopping of relativistic electrons,
BETHE also stressed the importance of the stopping formula "in interpreiing the experi-
ments on the corpuscular height-radiation" (BETHE 1932, p. 293),
2~7 NEHER'S reports to the December 1930 and June 1931 meetings of the American
Physical Society (NEHER 1931a, 1931b), were most probably based on his dissertation.
See also WOLFE (1931), p. 601.
218 NEHER (1983).
219 ANDERSON (1983), p. 135. CHAO, a Chinese research student at Caltech, had
recently detected, simultaneously with L. MEITNER and H. HUPFELDin Berlin, and G. T.
P. TARRANT in Cambridge, the so-called "Meitner-Hupfeld effect", ~he anomalous scat-
tering of 7 rays (cf BROWN & MOYER 1984).
258 X. ROQUt~
BLACKETT increasingly turned his interest to cosmic rays, and he also adapted
his cloud chambers to cope with them.
The exiguous secondary literature has echoed this and stressed cosmic rays
as the most significant proving ground for early quantum electrodynamics. 22~
There is no doubt that some of the fundamental processes of quantum elec-
trodynamics, notably bremsstrahlung and pair creation and annihilation, were
of great importance in determining the nature of cosmic radiation, and that
physicists deeply involved with the theory, such as OPPENHEIMER or HEISENBERC,
contributed great efforts towards the comprehension of this phenomenon. Yet
cosmic rays were not the only medium for testing the scattering formulas
- indeed, they were all tested in the relativistic domain by means of the
radioactive radiations. 221 In the case of the MOLLER formula, that was the only
posgibility, because the formula reduces in the ultrarelativistic limit to a simple
classical formula. While the BHABHA formula, which appeared in 1936, received
even less attention by experimental physicists than the MOLLER formula, the
KLEIN-NISHINA formula was much investigated during the early thirties. This
was so, however, by means of radioactive 7 rays, and when applied to cosmic
rays the formula was taken for granted, and used to deduce the wave-length of
the supposedly incoming high-energy 7 radiation.
Early quantum electrodynamics did not lack experimental bases. While
cosmic ray particles were puzzling physicists, and causing them to disregard the
theory at high energies, the analysis of relativistic collisions might have given it
some support. If they turned out to be relatively ignored during the thirties, it
was due mainly to the problematic character of the theory, and to the signifi-
cance attached at that m o m e n t to a most exciting and promising research
field. 222
Acknowledgements. An earlier version of this paper was written in the spring of 1991,
and presented in May 1991 at the Seminari d'Histdria de les Ci6ncies at the Universitat
Aut6noma de Barcelona. I am very grateful to MANUEL G. DONCEL for suggesting to
me the analysis of MOLLER scattering as a case-study on the experimental basis of
quantum electrodynamics, and for helping and encouraging me to write this paper.
I benefitted from comments and criticism from ANTONI MALET, KARL V. MEgENN and
JORDI CAT. I am also indebted to HELGE KRAGI4for making available his paper, though
220 CASSIDY (1981), GALISON (1983), (1987).

221 A fact that is easily overlooked. DARRIGOL (1982) states for example: "Les
formules dormant les probabilit6s de difussion dans la th6orie de Dirac . . . furent
soumises au verdict de l'exp6rience dans le domaine des 6nergies relativistes, grace ~t la
source naturelle de particules tr~s 6nergetiques que constituaient les rayons cosmiques"
(p. 14).
121 Though I have not considered them, other factors of a more general nature
might be borne in mind, such as "the sudden reentry into physics of graduate students
and other researchers who after approximately four years away were anxious to make up
for lost time, and the closer relationship between theory and experiment resulting from
the experience of the large wartime projects such as building the bomb and developing
radar for defense" (BRowN & HODDESON 1983b, p. 28). See also SCHWEBER (1984).
by then I had already finished a preliminary version of my own. I am very grateful to

ROSA MARIA ROQUt~ and KEVIN HACKETT for helping with my written English. For
permission to quote and use archival material I am greatly indebted to the Niels Bohr
Library, Center for History of Physics, at the American Institute of Physics, New York;
to the Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen; to the Master, Fellows and Scholars of St.
John's College, Cambridge; to the Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cam-
bridge; and to the Hoover Institution Archives, Stanford University, Stanford.
This work was partly supported by the Spanish DGICYT under Research Program
no. PS88-0020, and by a grant-in-aid from the Friends of the Center for History of
Physics, American Institute of Physics.
References
AASERUD, FINN (1990)Redirecting Science. Niels Bohr, Philanthropy, and the Rise of
Nuclear Physics, Cambridge University Press 1991.
ANDERSON, C. D. (1983) "Unraveling the Particle Content of the Cosmic Rays", in
BROWN & HODDESON (1983a), pp. 131-154.
ASHKIN, ARTHUR, LORNE ALBERT PAGE, & W . M . WOODWARD (1954) "Electron-Elec-
tron and Positron-Electron Scattering Measurements", Phys. Rev. 94 (April 1954),
357-362.
BARBER, W. C., C. E. BECKER, & E. L. Caw (1953) "Electron-Electron Scattering at
6.1 MEW', Phys. Rev. 89 (1953), 950-957.
BARKAS, WALTER H., ROBERT W. DEUTSCH, F. C. GILBERT, & CHARLES E. VIOLET
(1952) "High Energy Electron-Electron Scattering", Phys. Rev. 86 (1952), 59-63.
BERNSTEIN, JEREMY (1979) Hans Bethe, Prophet of Energy, New York: Basic Books 1980.
BETHE, HANS (1930) "Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Korpuskularstrahlen durch
Materie", Ann. Physik (5) 5 (1930), 325-400.
- - (1932) "Bremsformel ffir Elektronen relativistischer Geschwindigkeit", Zs. Phys. 76
(1932), 293-299.
BETHE, HANS, & ENRICO FERMI (1932) "Uber die Wechselwirkung von zwei Elek-
tronen", Zs. Phys. 77 (1932), 296-306.
BLACKETT, PATRICK M. S. (1929) "On the Design and Use of a Double Camera for
photographing Artificial Disintegrations", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 123 (April 1929),
613-629. "
BOHR, NIELS (1913) "On the Theory of the Decrease of Velocity of Moving Electrified
Particles on Passing Through Matter", Phil. Mag. 25 (1913), 10-31.
- - (1915) "On the Decrease of Velocity of Swiftly Moving Electrified Particles in
Passing Through Matter", Phil. Mag. 30 (1915), 581-612.
- - (1948) "The Penetration of Atomic Particles Through Matter", Kgl. danske Vid.
Selsk., mat.-fys. Medd. 18 (1948), 114 pages.
BORN, MAX (1926) "Zur Quantenmechanik der StoBvorg/inge", Zs. Phys. 37 (1926),
863-877.
BOTHE, WALTER (1922) "Untersuchungen an fl-Strahlenbahnen", Zs. Phys. 12 (1922),
117-127.
BREIT, GREGORY (1928) "An Interpretation of Dirac's Theory of the Electron", Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 14 (1928), 553.
- - (1929) "The Effect of Retardation on the Interaction of Two Electrons", Phys. Rev.
34 (15 August 1929), 553-573.
260 X. ROQUI~
(1930) "The Fine Structure of He as a Test of the Spin Interactions of Two

Electrons", Phys. Rev. 36 (1 August 1930), 383-397.
- (1932a) "Dirac's Equation and the Spin-Spin Interactions of Two Electrons", Phys.
-
Rev. 39 (15 February 1932), 616-624.

(1932b) "Quantum Theory of Dispersion. Parts I-V", Rev. Mod. Phys. 4 (July
1932), 504--576.
- (1933) "Quantum Theory of Dispersion. Parts VI and VII", Rev. Mod. Phys. 5
-
(April 1933), 91-140.

BROWN, LAURIE M. (1978) "The Idea of the Neutrino", Phys. Today 31 (September
1978), 23-28.
BROWN, LAURIE M., & LILLIAN HODDESON (1983a) The Birth of Particle Physics (eds.),
III International Symposium on the History of Particle Physics (Fermilab 1980).
Cambridge University Press 1983.
- - - (1983b) "The Birth of Elementary Particle Physics: 1930-1950", in BROWN & HOD-
DESON (19833), pp. 3-36.
BROWN, LAURIE M., & DONALD F. MOYER (1984) "Lady or Tiger? The Meitner-Hupfeld
Effect and Heisenberg's Neutron Theory", Am. J. Phys. 52 (February 1984), 130-136.
CASSIDY, DAVID C. (1981) "Cosmic-ray Showers, High Energy Physics, and Quantum
Field Theories:9 Programmatic Interactions in the 1930s', Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 12
(1981), 1-39.
CATTERMOLE, M. J. G. & A. F. WOLFE (1987) Horace Darwin's Shop. A History of the
Cambridge Scientific Instruments Company, 1878-1968, Bristol and Boston: Adam
Hilger 1987.
CHAMPION,FRANK CLIVE (1932a) "The Distribution of Energy in the fl-Ray Spectrum of
Radium E", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 134 (January 1932), 672-681.
- (1932b) "On Some Close Collisions of Fast fl-Particles with Electrons, Photo-
-
graphed by the Expansion Method", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 136 (1932), 630-637.
-- (1932c) "The Scattering of Fast fl-Particles by Electrons", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 137
(1932), 688-695.
- (1936) "The Scattering of Fast fl-Particles by Nitrogen Nucleus", Proc. Roy. Soc.
-
A 153 (January 1936), 353-358.

CHAMPION, FRANK CLIVE, & PATRICK M. S. BLACKETT(1931) "The Scattering of Slow
or,Particles by Helium", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 130 (January 1931), 380-388.
DARRIGOL, OLIVIER (1982) Les D~buts de la Th~orie Quantique des Champs, 1925-1948,
doctoral dissertation, Universit6 de Paris 1982.
- - - (1984) "La Genrse du Concept de Champ Quantique', Ann. Physique 9 (1984),
433-501.
- (1986) "The Origin of Quantized Matter Waves", Hist. Stud. Phys. Sci. 16 (1986),
-
197-253.
DARWIN, CHARLES GALTON (1914) "Collisions of a Particles with Light Atoms", Phil.
Mag. 27 (1914), 499-506.
- (1920) "The Dynamical Motions of Charged Particles", Phil. Ma#. 39 (1920),
-
537-551.
DIRAC, PAUL ADRIEN MAURICE (1928a) "The Quantum Theory of the Electron", Proc.
Roy. Soc. A 117 (1928), 610-624.
- (1928b) "The Quantum Theory of the Electron, Part II", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 118
-
(1928), 351-361.
-- (1932) "Relativistic Quantum Mechanics", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 136 (1932), 453-464.
EDDINGTON,ARTHUR (1929) "The Charge of an Electron", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 122 (1929),
358-369.
FERMI, ENRICO (1930) "Sopra l'ellettrodinamica quantistica", Atti della Reale Accademia
Nazionale die Lincei 12 (1930), 431-435; reprinted in SCHWINGER(1958), pp. 24-28.
(1932) "Quantum Theory of Radiation", Rev. Mod. Phys. 4 (1932), 87-132.
- -
EEYNMAN, RICHARD P. (1949) "Space-Time Approach to Quantum Electrodynamics",

Phys. Rew 76 (1949), 769-788; reprinted in SCHWINGER(1958), pp. 236-256.
GALISON, PETER (1983) "The Discovery of the Muon and the Failed Revolution Against
Quantum Electrodynamics", Centaurus 26 (1983), 262-316.
- (1987) How Experiments End, The University of Chicago Press 1987.
-
GALISON, PETER & ALEXI ASSMUS (1989) "Artificial Clouds, Real Particles", in DAVID
GOODING, TREVOR PINCH, & SIMON SCHAFFER (eds.) The Uses of Experiment,
Cambridge University Press 1989, pp, 225-274.
GAUNT, J. A. (1929a) "The Triplets of Helium", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 122 (1929), 513-532.
- (1929b) "The Triplets of Helium", Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. 228 (1929), 151-196.
-
GIORGI, H. M. (1990) "Effective Quantum Field Theories", in PAUL DAVIES (ed.) The
New Physics, Cambridge University Press 1990.
GROETZINGER,G., L. B. LEDER, F, L. RIBE, & M. J. BERGER(1950) "Study of Electron-
Electron Scattering", Phys. Rev. 79 (1950); 454-458.
HEILBRON, JOHN L. (1967) "The Scattering of c~and/~ Particles and Rutherford's Atom",
Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 4 (1967/1968), 247-307.
HEISENBERG, WERNER (1926a) "Mehrkrrperproblem und Resonanz in der Quanten-
mechanik", Zs. Phys. 38 (1926), 411-426.
- (1926b) "Uber die Spektra von Atomsystemen mit zwei Elektronen", Zs. Phys. 39
-
(1926), 499-518.
- (1931) "Bemerkungen zur Strahlungstheorie", Ann. Physik 9 (1931), 338-346.
-
- (1932) "Theoretische Uberlegungen zur Hrhenstrahlung", Ann. Physik 13 (1932),

-
430--452.
HEISENBERG, WERNER & WOLFGANG PAULI (1929) "Zur Quantendynamik der Wellen-
felder", Zs. Phys. 56 (1929), 1-61.
- (1930) "Zur Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder II", Zs. Phys. 59 (1930), 168-190.
-
HEITLER, WALTHER(1936) The Quantum Theory of Radiation, Oxford University Press

1936, 21944, 31954.
HENDERSON, MALCOLM.C. (1929) "The Scattering of Beta-Particles by Light Gases and
the Magnetic Moment of the Electron", Phil. Ma#. 8 (1929), 847-857.
HENDRY, JOHN (1984) Cambridge Physics in the Thirties (ed.), Bristol: Adam Hilger 1984.
HERMANN, ARMIN, KARLV, MEYENN, (~ VICTOR F. WEISSKOPF(1979) Wolf(lang Pauli.
Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel. Vol. I (eds.), Springer 1979.
HORNBECK, GEORGE & IRE HOWELL (1941) "Production of Secondary Electrons by
Electrons of Energy Between 0.7 and 2.6.MeV", Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 84 (April
1941), 33-51.
9 ITZYKSON,CLAUDE & JEAN-BERNARD ZUBER (1985) Quantum Field Theory, McGraw-
Hill 1985.
JAMMER, MAX (1966) The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill
1966.
JAUCH, J. M. & FRITZ ROHRLICH(1955) The Theory of Photons and Electrons, Addison-
Wesley 1955.
JONES, CREIGHTONC. & ARTHUR RUARK (1940) "Apparatus for Viewing and Measuring
Stereoscopic Cloud Chamber Photographs", Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 82 (1940),
253-274.
KXLL~N, A. O. GUNNAR (1958) "Quantenelektrodynamik", in S. FLOGGE (ed.) Encyclo-
pedia of Physics/Handbuch der Physik vol. V, part 1. Springer 1958.
262 X. ROQU~
KATZENSTEIN, J. (1950) "The Radiative Collisions of Positrons and Electrons", Phys.

Rev. 78 (15 April 1950), 161-169.
KIMBALL SMITH, ALICE • CHARLES WEINER (1980) Robert Oppenheimer. Letters and
Recollections (eds.), Harvard University Press 1980.
KLEIN, OSKAR (1927) "Elektrodynamik und Wellenmechanik vom Standpunkt des
Korrespondenzprinzips", Zs. Phys. 41 (1927), 407-442.
KRAGH, HELGE (t981) "The Genesis of Dirads Relativistic Theory of Electrons", Arch.
Hist. Exact Sci. 24 (1981), 31-67.
- (1990) Dirac: A Scientific Biography, Cambridge University Press 1990.
-
KRAMERS, HEINRIK ANTON (1938) "Quantentheorie des Elektrons und der Strahlung", in
Hand- und Jahrbuch der chemischen Physik, Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft
1938. "
v. ME~ENN, KARL (1987) "Pauli's Belief in Exact Symmetries", in M. G. DONCEL, A.
HERMANN, L. MICHEL & A. PAtS (eds.) Symmetries in Physics (1600--1980), Bella-
terra: Servei de Publicacions Universitat Aut6noma de Barcelona, 1987.
- (1989) "Physics in the Making in Pauli's Zfirich", in A. SARLEMIJN & M. J.
-
SPARNAAY (eds.) Physics in the making, North-HoUand 1989.

MEYER-ABICH, K. M. (1965) Korrespondenz, lndividualit?tt und Komplementaritht, Wies-
baden: Franz Steiner 1965.
MOLLER, CHRISTIAN(1929) "Der Vorgang des radioaktiven Zerfalls unter Berficksieh-
tigung der Relativit/its-theorie", Zs. Phys. 55 (1929), 451-466.
- (1930a) "Scattering of g-Particles by Light Atoms", Nature
- 1 2 5 (22 March 1930),
suppl., p. 459.
- (1930b) 'Zur Theorie der anomalen Zerstreuung von ~-Teilchen beim Durchgang
-
durch leichtere Elemente", Zs. Phys. 62 (1930), 54-70.

- (1930c) "Uber die h6heren N/iherungen tier Bornschen Stossmethode", Zs. Phys.
-
66 (1930), 513-532.
- (1931) "Crber den Stol3 zweier Teilchen unter Berficksichtigung der Retardation der
-
Kr/ifte", Zs. Phys. 70 (1931), 786-795.

- (1932) "Zur Theorie des Durchgangs schneller Elektronen dutch Materie '~, Ann.
-
Physik 14 (1932), 531-585.

MOTT, NEVILLE F. (1930) "The Exclusion Principle and Aperiodic Systems", Proc. Roy.
Soc. A (1929), 222-230.
1 2 5
-- (1930) "The Collision Between Two Electrons", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 126 (1930),
259-267.
MOTT, NEVILLE F. & H. S. W. MASSEY (1933) The Theory of Atomic Collisions, Oxford
University Press 1933; 21949; 31965.
MOYER, DONALD FRANKLIN (1981a) "Origins of Dirac's Electron, 1925-1928", Am. d.
Phys. 49 (October 1981), 944-949.
(1981b) "Evaluations of Dirac's Electron, 1928-1932", Am. J. Phys. 49 (November
- -
1981), 1055-1062.
-- (1981c) "Vindications of Dirac's Electron, 1932-1934", Am. J. Phys. 49 (December
1981), 1120-1125.
NEHER, H. VICTOR (1931a) "Nuclear Scattering of High Velocity Electrons", Phys. Rev.
37 (15 January 1931), 229.
(1931b) "Nuclear Scattering of High Velocity Electrons by Thin Foils", Phys. Rev.
- -
38 (1 August 1931), 585.

(1983) "Some Reminiscences of the Early Days of Cosmic Rays", in BROWN &
- -
HODDESON (1983a), pp. 120-130.

OPPENHEIMER, J. ROBERT (1928) "On the Quantum Theory of Electronic Impacts",
Phys. Rev. 32 (1928), 361-376.
- (1930) "Note on the Theory of the Interaction of Field and Matter", Phys. Rev. 35
-
(1 March 1930), 461-477.

OPPENHEIMER, J. ROBERT & J. FRANKLIN CARLSON (1931) "On the Range of Fast
Electrons and Neutrons", Phys. Rev. 38 (1 November 1931), 1787-1788.
- (19323) "On the Range of Fast Electrons and Neutrons", Phys. Rev. 39 (1 March
-
1932), 864-865.
- (1932b) "The Impacts of Fast Electrons and Magnetic Neutrons", Phys. Rev. 41
-
(September 1932), 763-792.

PAGE, LORNE ALBERT (1951) "Electron-Electron Scattering from 0.6 to 1.7 MeV", Phys.
Rev. 81 (March 1951), 1062-1063.
PAULI, WOLFGANG (1933) "Die allgemeinen Prinzipien der Wellenmechanik', in Hand-
buch der Physik vol. 24/1 (2nd. ed.), pp. 83-272. Berlin: Springer 1933.
- (1941) "Relativistic Field Theories of Elementary Particles", Rev. Mod. Phys. 13
-
(1941), 203-232.
ROSENFELD, LI~ON(1931) "Bemerkung zur korrespondenzm/issigen Behandlung des rela-
tivistischen Mehrkrrperproblems", Zs. Phys. 71 (1931), 253-259.
RossI, BRUNO (1981) "Early Days in Cosmic Rays", Phys. Today 34 (October 1981),
34-41.
RDGER, ALEXANDER(1989) Historical and Methodological Studies in the Development of
Quantum Field Theory, doctoral dissertation, Universit/it Konstanz 1989.
RUTHERFORD, ERNST, JAMES CHADWICK,& CHARLES D. ELLIS (1930) Radiations from
Radioactive Substances, Cambridge University Press 1930.
SCHWEBER, SYLVAN S. (1984) "Some Chapters for a History of Quantum Field Theory
1938-1952", in B. S. DE-WlTT & R. STORA(eds.)., Relativity, Groups and Topology II,
New York: North Holland 1984, pp. 37-220.
- (1986) "Feynman and the Visualization of Space-Time Processes", Rev. Mod. Phys.
-
58 (1986), 449-508.
SCHWlNGER, JULIAN (1949) "On Radiative Corrections to Electron Scattering", Phys.
Rev. 75 (21 January 1949), 898-899.
- (1958) Selected Papers on Quantum Electrodynamics (ed.), New York: Dover 1958.
-
SCOTT, M. B., A. O. HANSON, & E. M. LYMAN (1951) "Electron-Electron Scattering at

15.7 MeV", Phys. Rev. 84 (November 1951), 638-643.
SHEARIN, PAUL E., &; T. EUGENE PARDUE (1942) "Electron-Electron Collisions in the
Primary Energy Range from 1.3 to 2.6 Million Electron Volts", Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc.
85 (February 1942), 243-249.
SKOBELZYN, DMITRY (1927) "Die Intensit/itsverteilung in dem Spektrum der 7-Strahlen
von RaC", Zs. Phys. 43 (1927), 354-378.
- (1983) "The Early Stage of Cosmic-Ray Particle Research", in BROWN & HOD-
-
DESON (1983a), pp. 111-119.

TERROUX, F. R. (1931) "The Upper Limit of Energy in the Spectrum of Radium E",
Proc. Roy. Soc. A 131 (April 1931), 90-99.
THOMSON, J. J. (1912) "Ionization by Moving Electrified Particles", Phil. Mag. 23 (1912),
449-457.
WENTZEL, GREGOR (1943) Einffihrung in die Quantentheorie der Wellenfelder, Viena:
Frank Deuticke 1943; English translation: Quantum Theory of Fields, New York:
Interscience Publishers 1949.
WILLIAMS, EVAN JAMES (1930) "Passage of Slow r-Particles Through Matter. Produc-
tion of Branches", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 128 (1 July 1930), 459-468.
WILLIAMS, EVANS JAMES, & F. R. TERROUX (1930) "Investigation of the Passage of
'Fast' r-Particles Through Gases", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 126 (1 January 1930), 289-310.
WILSON, CHARLES T. R. (1923) "Investigations on X-rays and r-Rays by the Cloud
264 X. RoQul~
Method", Proc. Roy. Soc. A 104 (1923), "Part I. X-rays" 1-24; "Part II. fi-rays"
192-212.
WOLFE, HUGH C. (1931) "Scattering of High Velocity Electrons in Hydrogen as a Test
of the Interaction Energy of Two Electrons", Phys. Rev. 37 (1 March 1931), 591-601.
Seminari d'Hist6ria de les Ciencies

Universitat Aut6noma de Barcelona
E-08193 Betlaterra (Spain)
(Received December 29, 1991)

Moller Scattering. A Neglected Application of Early Quantum Electrodynamics (1992) - Roqué

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moller Scattering. A Neglected Application of Early Quantum Electrodynamics (1992) - Roqué

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archive for History of Exact Sciences,

44 pp. 197-264 (1992)

Moiler Scattering., a Neglected Application of

Communicated by K. VON MEs

Introduction .......................................... 197

introduction of the renormalization idea in 1947, would quantum electro-

1 Quantum electrodynamics did not exist as a single, well-defined theoretical body in

1.1. The foundations of the method

MOLLER'S method was essentially based on three distinct theoretical develop-

MOLLER'S understanding of correspondence stemmed from KLEIN'S adapta-

1,* Cf. JAMMER(1966), pp. 109-118; MEYER-ABICH(1965).

it more explicitly as "korrespondenzm/igig", but only on one occasion. 18 In the

18 MOLLER (1932), p. 533: "Das hier benutzte korrespondenzm/iBige Verfahren zur

collision between a high-energy electron and the "hypothetical elementary neu-

25 OPPENHEIMER ~r CARLSON (1932b). See also the previous communications

1.2. An outline of the method

where V(r) is the potential that describes the interaction.

which in the plane wave representation and for Coulombian interaction is

MOLLER'S method consists in the relativistic generalization of this argument,

~12 = e-i~2t ~o2(r2) .

The amplitudes u(s) are "four-component magnitudes ('Gr6Ben') which deter-

"can be solved directly" to obtain

where p = (E/c,p) represents the four-momentum. 34

31 MOLLER (1931), p. 788. Following a usual convention, the amplitudes of the

This potential is treated like a perturbation which acts on particle 2.

(ih ~ - ich~(2) " ~7+ flm2 c2 ) ~t2 = -e2(q~+~(2)'A)O2 .

- ele2h2 fq~l' u[,ua -(pl~:(2),(UI,~(I)Ul)

If the delta function in expression (1) secures energy conservation, on integrat-

_ ele2 h2 u*2,u2u~,ux - (u*2,~(2)u2)"(u~,fi(1)Ul) ha6(pt +P2 - P r -P2')

(Pl' -- Pl) 2 '

1.3. Previous treatments o f electron-electron interaction

Given the success of DIRAC'S electron theory in its immediate application to

collision is treated according to the equation of the two-body problem put

40 MOLLER (1931), p. 791. To suppress this term implies disregard of retardation,

DARWIN'S Hamiltonian suggested to BREIT the idea of trying for electron-

on the basis of the relation

which had been "communicated to the writer by letter by Dr. P. A. M. Dirac in

application to the electron-electron problem. 53 He could thus include in his

53 BREIT to EHRENFEST,July 16, 1929 (AHQP/EHR-18): "Heisenberg habe ich in

1.4. First results - and errors

This expression containedan~error "which nobody discovered, which I cor-

6,* WOLFE (1931), p. 592.

4 ~ + cos4~ sinE0cos20 cosa0 ' (11)

4 ~ +cos4~ sin 20cos 20 '

da(O) = e4sin202dOdq~ { 1 1 1 } (13)

sin2 0_cos2 0 ,] 3/~2 sinE 0 cos2 0

//2 sin z 0(1 + 3 sin 2 0 cos 2 0)

It can easily be seen that boldface 3 in B(O) corresponds to the numerator of

do(O) = e g sin 20 dO do (tan 4 0 + tan z 0) (15)

an expression he compares with the corresponding one according to BREIT'S

da(O) e 4 sin 20 dO dcp (tang 0 + tan 2 0 Sillg 0)

formula. He referred to this error only in his correspondence with HEISENBERG,

da(O) - e4dO dq) (tan3 0 + tan 0) (16)

"75 HEISENBERG to MOLTER,February 15, 1932 (AHQP-59). HEISENBERG showed

2. The Moiler formula

2.1. Towards a relativistic scattering formula

Late in the summer of 1931, MOLLER began working on the application of

cosmic radiation in general. The term he uses, "height-radiation" ("H6henstrahlung")

s0 MOLLER to BETHE, September 30, 1931 (AHQP-59). He refers to BETHE (1930).

A couple of days ago an article appeared by Oppenheimer . . . who main-

e4sin202dOdcp4[7 + 3 + (7 -- 1)cos 0cml(7 + 1)

(7 -- 1)2 (411 + (7 + 1)2] + 3 -- 272) + (7 -- 1)4 sin2 0~m (18)

The letters to HEISENBERG and CHAMPION also contained the relations

sin 0r = x/2(~ + 1)sin 20

_ ele2 h2 u2,u2u~,ux - (u2,~(2)u2)"(u~,fi(1)Ul) ha6(pt +P2 - P r -P2')