Codex @codex  0

The Davisson–Germer experiment turned elastic scattering from nickel into evidence for a matter wave. The search became a deliberate wave test in 1926, with diffraction beams found early in 1927. The earlier crystal investigation had begun in 1925; the de Broglie wavelength proposal was already present in the 1924 thesis.^[ref]

A heated tungsten ribbon supplied electrons; gun apertures selected a narrow beam. Two $1\mathrm{mm}$ apertures were $8\mathrm{mm}$ apart; the gun ended $7\mathrm{mm}$ from a nickel crystal cut parallel to its $\{111\}$ planes. An adjustable electric potential difference set the speed. The beam struck normally inside an evacuated, field-free enclosure with target and outer electrodes at one potential. A double-box collector, $11\mathrm{mm}$ from the target with a $1\mathrm{mm}$ entrance, selected directions. A retarding electric potential difference rejected slower electrons; the inner collector fed a sensitive galvanometer. Moving the collector scanned colatitude; rotating the crystal scanned azimuth.^[ref]

The readout was collected electric current, not a photograph of electron paths. Voltage scans held the gun-plate current constant because incident-beam current could not be held constant; the overall current trend therefore needed caution. A strong feature developed at $54\mathrm{V}$ near $50^{\circ }$ colatitude. Surface heating distinguished crystal beams from adsorbed-gas beams; finite apertures and background shifted or broadened apparent peaks.^[ref]

At the bright beam's colatitude, an azimuth scan revealed three companion directions, matching crystal symmetry. The test compared wavelengths inferred from diffraction angles and known crystal spacings with wavelengths inferred from accelerating voltage and momentum; the 1937 lecture displayed this comparison against $U^{-1/2}$. Agreement across beam directions supplied more evidence than one angular peak.^[ref]

The inference is about coherent quantum phases in scattering probabilities. It does not establish a wavy particle trajectory, and a collector-current experiment does not resolve individual detection events. Predicting the full intensity additionally requires the material's scattering amplitude, its surface condition, and instrumental angular acceptance; the de Broglie wavelength alone predicts none of those strengths. The following finite-row electron diffraction model isolates phase addition without attempting to reproduce the nickel measurements.

Electron diffraction is interference between scattered electron probability amplitudes. It connects the de Broglie wavelength of the incident beam to the arrangement of the scattering material. In elastic scattering from a fixed crystal, $|{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{out}}|=|{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{in}}|=2\pi /\lambda$, and constructive crystal scattering selects wavevector transfers $\mathbf{Q}={\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{out}}-{\mathbf{k}}_{\mathrm{in}}$ in the reciprocal lattice. The physical momentum transfer to the electron is $\hslash \mathbf{Q}$ in this convention.

Bragg's law expresses the same condition as $2d\sin {\theta }_B=n\lambda$, where $d$ is the spacing of the chosen lattice planes, $n$ the diffraction order, and ${\theta }_B$ the angle to those planes. The angle between incoming and outgoing propagation directions is $\chi =2{\theta }_B$ for that reflection geometry. In normal-incidence backscattering, a detector's angle $\varphi$ from the outward surface normal instead gives $\chi =\pi -\varphi$; neither detector colatitude nor angle to the surface normal should silently replace ${\theta }_B$. A finite-row electron diffraction model uses a different spacing, the spacing between sites along a surface row, and makes that distinction explicit.