Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 524, No. 5, A83–A85 (2012) / DOI 10.1002/andp.

201200724

Physics Forum
THEN & NOW

Max von Laue and the discovery of X-ray diffraction in 1912

Michael Eckert

From today’s perspective, only a few

discoveries are regarded to be as
exciting and as ground-breaking as
the discovery of X-ray diffraction by
crystals. “The undersigned are en-
gaged since 21 April 1912 with ex-
periments about the interference of
X-rays passing through crystals,” a
one-page report announced the dis-
covery to the Bavarian Academy of
Science. It was signed by Walter
Friedrich, Paul Knipping and Max
Laue (then still without the “von”)
and deposited by Arnold Sommer-
feld on 4 May 1912 in order to as-
certain the discovery before it was
officially communicated in the form
of an elaborate paper. “The guid-
ing idea was that interferences arise
in consequence of the space lat-
tice structure of the crystals, be-
cause the lattice constants are ca. 10
times greater than the conjectured
wavelengths of the X-rays.” A sim-
ple drawing sketched the experimen-
tal arrangement. As evidence for the
discovery some exposures were at-
tached.1

The discovery was immediately

recognized as a sensation. In Eng-
land, William Henry Bragg and
William Lawrence Bragg, father Figure: The discovery of X-ray diffraction photograph shows the experimental ap-
and son, developed an alternative by crystals was made in April 1912 in the paratus used for the discovery. It is on
method by which they confirmed Institute of Theoretical Physics at the Uni- exhibit at Deutsches Museum in Munich.
the discovery. Within about a year versity of Munich. The experiment was pro- (Source: Deutsches Museum, Archiv, Bild-
it became clear that the discov- posed by Max von Laue and performed nummer 103; reproduced with permission
ery gave birth to two new sciences, by Walter Friedrich and Paul Knipping. The of Deutsches Museum).

1 Deutsches Museum Munich, Archive (henceforth abbreviated as DM), document 1951-5. Reprinted in [1].

© 2012 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim A83

 M. Eckert: Max von Laue and the discovery of X-ray diffraction in 1912
Physics Forum

X-ray crystallography and X-ray plan. But it is clear that the discov- the primary beam would not disturb
spectroscopy. Few discoveries were ery happened against all odds and the expected effect.
so swiftly awarded Nobel prizes. Max remained disputed for some time If this was the plan presented to
von Laue, who had suggested the [2]. Peter Debye, for example, re- the “acknowledged masters” in or-
Munich experiment, received the marked that “one should generally der to divert Sommerfeld’s assistant
1914 Nobel Prize “for his discovery not trade merit against luck with Friedrich from his other tasks, Som-
of the diffraction of X-rays by crys- such things”.4 Another pioneer of merfeld had good reasons to object.
tals”, the Braggs received the 1915 X-ray research, Henry Moseley, be- There is no phase relation between
prize “for their services in the anal- lieved that the Munich discoverers the characteristic radiations emitted
ysis of crystal structure by means of “entirely failed to understand what at different points in the crystal, and
X-rays”.2 it meant, and give an explanation so the condition for interference is
In retrospect, Laue’s idea that which was obviously wrong”.5 not met. “No wonder Sommerfeld re-
prompted the discovery appears The first publication by Friedrich fused machine time,” Paul Forman
straightforward: Send a beam of X- and Knipping reveals indeed that concluded in 1969 in a critical anal-
rays through a crystal, and the regu- the early experiments were based on ysis about the “myth of the discovery
lar three-dimensional arrangement a misapprehension. It is disclosed of X-ray diffraction” [1, p. 63–64].
of crystal atoms will sort out those by the argument as to which crys- Faced with Sommerfeld’s objec-
that are seen in the Laue spots from tal should be used in the diffrac- tion, Laue must have had some pains
the mixture of wavelengths in the tion experiment. “Because we be- to persuade Friedrich to perform
primary beam by interference. Thus, lieved at first that we had to deal the experiment. Apparently Laue
the experiment is evidence for the with fluorescence radiation, a crys- addressed Knipping, a doctoral stu-
wave nature of X-rays and the space tal had to be chosen that contained dent of Röntgen, in order to over-
lattice of crystals at the same time. a metal with a considerable atomic come Friedrich’s hesitance. And then
This is how the discovery entered weight,” Friedrich and Knipping pre- Friedrich reacted like in Schiller’s
the textbooks. sented as the argument why they Wallenstein, Laue revealed later:
Yet, the historical events were not chose copper sulphate as a crystal [3, “Wenn es denn doch geschehen
as straightforward as it seems in ret- p. 314]. In other words: The crystal soll und muss, so mag ich’s diesem
rospect. Laue revealed in his Nobel was not imagined to act as a three- Pestaluz nicht gönnen”.7, 8 When the
speech that the “acknowledged mas- dimensional diffraction grating for first experiments produced no re-
ters of our science” – he meant in the primary beam of X-rays, but as sult, “Friedrich and Knipping came
particular Sommerfeld, in whose in- an emitter of the so-called charac- to the conclusion that better suc-
stitute he was Privatdozent – “en- teristic X-rays. Laue apparently ex- cess might be achieved by placing
tertained certain doubts” about his pected that if this characteristic ra- the plate behind the crystal, as for
idea. “A certain amount of diplo- diation originates from the regu- a transmission grating,” Paul Ewald
macy was necessary before Friedrich larly arranged points of the crystal’s reconstructed the course of events
and Knipping were finally permit- space lattice, then they should be many years later [4, p. 44]. Abram
ted to carry out the experiment ac- subject to interference.6 Accordingly, F. Ioffe, a Russian physicist who used
cording to my plan”.3 Indeed, it is the photographic plates on which to collaborate with Röntgen at that
not clear what Laue had originally the diffraction pattern was recorded time, described the discovery as the
suggested and why the “acknowl- were placed left and right and in the result of Knipping’s frustration: “In
edged masters” were opposed to his back of the crystal [3, Fig. 1], so that order to record at least something

2 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/.
3 http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1914/laue-lecture.pdf.
4 P. Debye to A. Sommerfeld, 13 May 1912. DM, HS 1977-28/A,61.
5 Quoted in J. L. Heilbron, H. G. J. Moseley: The life and letters of an English physicist, 1887–1915. University of California Press, Berkeley 1974,
194–195 (the letter is dated 4 November 1912).
6 See also the discussion of this argument in [1, p. 63–64].
7 M. von Laue to P. P. Ewald, 1 May 1924. Quoted in [1, p. 64].
8 engl: Yet, if it has to be and should be done, I don’t want Pestalutz to be the one.

A84 www.ann-phys.org © 2012 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 524, No. 5 (2012)

Physics Forum
on the photographic plate, he placed ticathodes produced by Moseley Michael Eckert
it so that it became exposed by the and Darwin in 1913. These spec- Forschungsinstitut, Deutsches Museum,
X-rays – and there was the great dis- tra showed the continuous “white” Museumsinsel 1, 80538 München, Germany
covery” [5, p. 40]. Bremsstrahlen spectrum and the E-mail: [email protected]
The diffraction spots that sur- sharp peaks of the characteristic
rounded the central spot of the radiation. But Laue was still hesi-
primary beam could be explained tant to accept Bragg’s explanation. References
by Laue as an interference pat- If all wavelengths were present in
tern due to the crystal’s space lat- the “white” Bremsstrahlen, then the [1] P. Forman, Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. 6,
tice: each spot was caused by X- Laue or Bragg equations for inter- 38–71 (1969).
rays that corresponded to a cer- ference would be satisfied for any [2] M. Eckert, Acta Crystallogr. A 68,
tain lattice constant and wavelength. angle – with the result that the pho- 30–39 (2012).
But it remained mysterious how the tographic plate should be totally [3] W. Friedrich and P. Knipping,
Sitz.ber. Bayer. Akad. Wiss., 311–
monochromaticity observed in the blackened. It was left to Sommer-
322 (1912).
“Laue-spots” came about. It was feld and Ewald to show that the [4] P. P. Ewald (ed.), Fifty Years of X-
clear that it was not due to the crys- Bremsstrahlen spectrum was limited ray Diffraction. (NVA Oosthoek’s
tal’s characteristic X-rays but had so that it did not contain arbitrarily Uitgeversmaatschappij, Utrecht,
to come from the primary beam short wavelengths. Only with this 1962), see http://www.iucr.org/-
because crystals like diamond had restriction did the modern interpre- publ/50yearsofxraydiffraction.
no characteristic radiation but nev- tation of “Laue’s discovery” become [5] A. F. Joffe, Begegnungen mit
Physikern (Teubner, Leipzig,
ertheless produced “Laue spots”. It clear [6, 7].
1967).
was known that the X-rays that are What at first sight appears in [6] A. Sommerfeld, Sur les pho-
produced in the anticathode of an retrospect as a splendid discovery togrammes quaternaires et ter-
X-ray tube come in two varieties: based on Laue’s “flash of inspiration”, naires de la blende et le spectre
one was polarized and could be de- therefore, displays with closer his- du rayonnement de Röntgen. In:
scribed as electromagnetic pulses torical scrutiny a complex maze of La Structure de la Matière. Rap-
due to the braking of electrons misapprehensions and uncertainty. ports et Discussions de Conseil
de Physique tenu a Bruxelles de
(“Bremsstrahlen”); the other was the Laue’s “diplomacy” was followed by
27 au 31 Octobre 1913, edited by
unpolarized fluorescence X-rays that a grave discord with Sommerfeld. E. Solvay (Institut International de
seemed to be characteristic for the “Why did you exclude me when you Physique/Gauthiers-Villars, Paris,
anticathode material. It was left to celebrated the discovery of X-ray 1921), pp. 125–134.
William Lawrence Bragg to demon- diffraction with Friedrich and Knip- [7] P. P. Ewald, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 44,
strate that the diffraction pattern ping and the younger colleagues?” 257–282 (1914).
was due to the reflection of the Laue confided his bitterness to Som- [8] A. Sommerfeld, Das Institut
“white” Bremsstrahlen of the pri- merfeld in 1920. He apologized that für theoretische Physik. In:
Die wissenschaftlichen Anstal-
mary beam on the crystal planes he had not always behaved correctly
ten der Ludwig-Maximilians-
that selected certain wavelengths for towards Sommerfeld but also com- Universität zu München. Chronik
the diffraction pattern by what be- plained that Sommerfeld had had zur Jahrhundertfeier im Auftrag
came known as the “Bragg condi- little patience with his problems [2, des akademischen Senats, edited
tion”. However, it took a few more p. 37]. The discord, however, did not by K. A. von Müller (Oldenbourg,
months until the equivalence of prevent Sommerfeld from praising Munich, 1912), pp. 290–292.
Laue’s and Bragg’s approaches be- “Laue’s discovery” a few years later
came clear. as “the most important scientific ac-
Further evidence came from complishment in the history of the
the first X-ray spectra from an- institute” [8, p. 291].

© 2012 by WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim A85