Comparison of Different Methods for Calculation of the Normalized Mott

Cross Section1
P.B. Kats*2, K.V. Halenka*, O.O. Voskresenskaya**3

*Brest State A.S. Pushkin University, Brest, 224016, Belarus

**Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Moscow Region, 141980 Russia

An intercomparison of some earlier methods for calculating the normalized Mott cross section and also
a method proposed by the authors of the present work is carried out. It is demonstrated that applying
the given method, along with the method of Lijian et al., is preferable for relevant calculations.

1. Introduction
Knowledge of the energy loss of ions in matter, commonly described as stopping power
(the ion mean energy loss per unit travelled path length), is fundamental to many applications
dependent on the transport of ions in matter, particularly ion implantation, ion-beam modification
of materials, ion beam-analysis, and ion-beam therapy [1−3].

The electronic stopping power of a material is described by the Bethe formula (the so-called
Bethe's stopping power formula) [4, 5]. Its relativistic version was obtained by him in [5]. Taking into
account the density effect, the average ionization energy loss by moderately relativistic charged heavy
particles can be described in the first Born approximation as follows:

dE  Em  
   L, L  L0  ln    ,
2

dx  I  2
2
Z Z  Z 
2
2mc 
2 2

  4 r mc  N e     4 r mc  N A     , Em 
2 2 2 2
. (1)
  A   1 
2

The function 𝐿0 of this form is derived originally from quantum perturbation theory. The first two of
its terms are typically called the Bethe result and the third term is the familiar density effect
correction of Fermi [6, 7]. In these equations, x denotes the distance traveled by a particle; 𝐸𝑚 is the
maximum transferrable energy to an electron of mass m and classical radius r in a collision with the
particle of velocity 𝛽𝑐; I is the effective ionization potential of the absorber atoms, Z is the charge
number of incident nucleus, and 𝑁𝑒 is the electron density of a material. The electron density is
̃𝑒 = 𝑁𝐴 𝑍 ′ /𝐴) or in electrons/cm3 (𝑁𝑒 = 𝑁𝐴 𝜌𝑍 ′ /𝐴), where 𝜌 is
either measured in electrons/g (𝑁
density of a material in g cm−3 , 𝑁𝐴 denotes the Avogadro number, 𝑍 ′ and A refer to the atomic
number and weight of the absorber. In the latter case, we can rewrite Eq. (1) as

1
arXiv:2007.03622v3
2
Email: aid@[Link]
3
Email: voskr@[Link]
1
 Z  Z 
2 2
dE Z
   L,   4 r mc  N e     0.307075   .
2 2

 dx   A
This is the ‘mass stopping power’ in units MeV g −1 cm2 [8].
The above expressions are applicable if Z /   1 , where  is the fine-structure constant.

If this condition is not satisfied, the Bloch corrections LB [9] and the Mott corrections LM
[10, 11] are also introduced:
LB  (1)  Re (1  iZ /  )

with the digamma function 𝜓 and

 d    d   
Em
Ne
LM 
  E 

     dE.
 dE M  dE  B 
(2)

Here, 𝜀 is some energy above which the atomic electron binding energy may be neglected, and
(𝑑𝜎/𝑑𝐸)𝑀(𝐵) are, respectively, the Mott and Born expressions for the scattering cross section of
electrons on nuclei. Switching in the expression (2) from integration over the energy E transferred to
an electron to integration over the center-of-mass scattering angle θ, we can rewrite (2) in the form


N e m  d ( )   d ( )   2   
LM  2
  
  d   M
    sin   sin  d ,
 d   B  2
(3)
0

where 𝜃0 denotes the scattering angle corresponding to 𝜀 and Ω is the usual scattering cross section
solid angle.
The Mott correction was first calculated by Eby and Morgan [12, 13] by numerical
integration of (2) for several values of Z and 𝛽. These calculation demonstrated the importance of
taking account of Mott’s corrections to the Bethe−Bloch formula for incident nuclei with Z ≥ 20.
Since the expressions (2), (3) for ∆𝐿𝑀 are extremely inconvenient for practical application, the
analytical expressions for ∆𝐿𝑀 in the second and third order Born approximations were also proposed
in [13]. Significant simplification of computing the Mott corrections is provided by a method of [14]
that reduces the problem to the numerical summation of an infinite series.
This paper presents an adaptation of the method [14] for calculating the Mott differential
cross section (MDCS) normalized with respect to the Rutherford differential cross section (RDCS), as
well as a comparison of this adopted method with some other rigorous and approximate methods for
relevant calculations. The communication is organized as follows. Section 2 considers some
preliminaries that used later in Section 3, i.e. a standard description of the (normalized) MDCS
(Section 2.1) and the different approximations to the normalized Mott cross section (Section 2.2).
Section 3 presents an another exact representation for the normalized MDCS (Section 3.1) and an
2
intercomparison of applying all the mentioned methods (Section 3.2). Section 4 contains a summary
of our results and conclusions.

2. Preliminaries
2.1 Mott’s differential cross section

In 1911 Rutherford calculated the differential cross section for scattering of electrons by the
Coulomb potential in the framework of classical mechanics [15], obtaining the well-known Rutherford
formula:

2
 d   Ze2  1
R     2 
. (4)
 d  R  2mv  sin  / 2 
4

Within the framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, a solution to this problem was
found independently by Gordon [16] and Mott [17] in 1928. Six months later, a simpler solution was
proposed by Temple [18].

An expression for the scattering cross section of relativistic electrons through the Coulomb
potential (Eq. 5) was provided by Mott in 1929–1932 [10, 11]. This expression cannot be given in
analytical form and contains slowly converging infinite series of Legendre polynomials (𝑃𝑘 ):

 d   
2
  2 | FM |2 | GM |2 
M      (1   2
)  
 sin 2  / 2  cos 2  / 2  
, (5)
 d  M  mv   

where

1  
FM ( )  i  (1) [kCM  (k  1)CM ]Pk (cos  )   FM( k ) Pk (cos  ) ,
k (k ) ( k 1)

2 k 0 k 0

1  
GM ( )  i  (1) k [k 2CM( k )  (k  1) 2 CM( k 1) ]Pk (cos  )   GM( k ) Pk (cos  ),
2 k 0 k 0

with

 (  k  i )   Z  , e2
CM( k )  e  ik ,    1   2 , k  k 2  (Z )2 ,   .
 (  k  1  i )  c

Here, 𝐹𝑀 (𝜃) and 𝐺𝑀 (𝜃) are two complex functions,

FM ( )  F0 ( )  F1 ( ) , GM ( )  G0 ( )  G1 ( ), (6)

3
with

1 
F0 ( )  i  (1) k [kCZ( k )  (k  1)CZ( k 1) ]Pk (cos  ),
2 k 0

1 
G0 ( )  i  (1) k [k 2CZ( k )  (k  1) 2 CZ( k 1) ]Pk (cos  ),
2 k 0

1 
F1 ( )  i  (1) k [kD ( k )  (k  1) D ( k 1) ]Pk (cos  ),
2 k 0

1 
G1 ( )  i  (1) k [k 2 D ( k )  (k  1) 2 D ( k 1) ]Pk (cos  ),
2 k 0
(𝑘)
where the functions 𝐶𝑍 and 𝐷 (𝑘) are as follows:

Г (k  i )
CZ( k )  e i k , D( k )  CM( k )  CZ( k ) .
Г (k  1  i )

Hence, the functions 𝐹0 (𝜃) and 𝐺0 (𝜃) may be written as

i Г (1  i ) 
      F0 ( )
F0 ( )  exp i ln sin 2     , G0 ( )  i . (7)
2 Г (1  i ) 
   2   
 tan 2
 / 2 
The formula (5) is also referred to as an exact formula for the differential cross section, because
no Born approximation of any order is used in its derivation.

The first numerical summation of above series was performed by Mott himself [11] for
scattering of electrons with relative velocity β from 0.1 to 1.0 by gold nuclei (Z = 79) at 90 degrees.
Starting from this work, in such calculations began to introduce a quantity equal to the ratio of the
MDCS (𝜎𝑀 ) to the modified RDCS (𝜎̃𝑅 ),

R     M /  R ,  R   R (1   2 ), (8)

i.e., the normalized Mott cross section (NMCS). In ref. [20], the indicated quantity has the form:

4sin 2  / 2   2   2
RM     | FM | + tan   | GM |  .
2 2
(9)
 2
 2 

Since the ‘exact’ MDCS (5) and NMCS (9) are expressed in terms of slowly converging
Legendre polynomial series, their application to calculate integrals (2), (3) is a difficult problem. In
this regard, the use of analytical approximations to them and getting other their representations
becomes important.

4
2.2 Some approximations to the normalized Mott differential cross section

One way to obtain such approximations is to expand the exact NMCS in terms of power series
in 𝛼𝑍. We will present below such results for the above function 𝑅(𝜃).

The first such expansion was obtained by the author of the exact solution to the scattering
problem [11]:

 
RB ( )  1   2 sin 2   . (10)
2

Further approximations were obtained by McKinley and Feshbach,

    
RMF ( )  RB   Z  sin   1  sin    , (11)
 2   2 

as well as Johnson, Weber, and Mullin [19, 20],

               
RJWM  RMF  ( Z ) 2 sin    L2 1  sin 2     4 L2 1  sin     2sin   ln 2 1  sin   
 2    2    2  2   2 
2           2    sin 2 ( 2) ln 2 [sin( 2)]
2
         2
  2     
2 
1 sin sin sin L 1 sin (12)
 2  6 2  2    2  1  sin 2 ( 2)
 2 1  sin( 2)  2  
   ,
4 1  sin( 2) 6  

where 𝐿2 denotes Euler’s dilogarithm defined by

ln(1  y )
x

L2 ( x)   dy.
0
y

Another approach was proposed by Lijian, Qing, and Zhengming [21], where the exact NMCS
is approximated by the following expression:

4 6
RLQZ ( ; Z , E )   a j ( Z , E )(1  cos  ) j /2 , a j ( Z , E )   d Z ( j , k )(    ) ,   0.7181287.
k 1
(13)
j 0 k 1

The authors calculated 30 coefficients d Z ( j , k ) for 90 elements of the Periodic System with target
atomic number Z from 1 to 90 in a wide range of energy. Investigations in this direction were
continued by Boschini, Consolandi, Gervasi et al. in the work [22], where the coefficients d Z ( j , k )
were obtained for 118 elements of the Periodic Table of Elements both for electrons and positrons.

5
3. Results and discussions
3.1 Another representation for the normalized Mott cross section

In [14] we got the following representation for the exact Mott differential cross section:

 d   
2
  2 | FM |2  | FM |2   
2

 VSST     (1   ) 
2
    (1   )VSST ,
2

 d  VSTT  mv   sin  / 2 
2
  mv 
 
VSTT ( )  Z ( )     / sin 2   ,
2  

 ( ) / 4   2[2Re(FFZ* )  F ]  2Re(F ' F ')  F '

2 * 2
Z
,

     
Z     2   2 co s 2    / sin 2    B   , F  FM  FZ ,
  
2 2  

i  i Г (1  i ) 2i   
FZ ( )  
2 l 0
(1) k FZ( k ) Pk (cos  ) 
2 Г (1  i )
sin   , FZ( k )  kCZ( k )  (k  1)CZ( k 1) ,
2

FM'  dFM ( ) / d   tan 2 (  )GM . (14)

This representation reduces computing the integrals (2), (3) to a summing the fast converging infinite
series whose terms are bilinear in the Mott partial amplitudes and can be simply implemented using
the numerical summation methods of converging series for a given level of precision.

It leads to the following exact expression for the normalized Mott cross section (see
Appendix):

 
RKHV ( )  RB ( )     sin 2   ,
2

 ( ) / 4   2{ 2[2 Re(FFZ* )  F ]  2 Re(F ' F ')  F ' }.

2 * 2
Z
(15)

Taking into account (6), (7), we can rewrite 𝜆̃(𝜃) in terms of functions 𝐹0 (𝜃) and 𝐹1 (𝜃),

 ( ) / 4   2{ 2[2 Re( F1 F0* )  F1 ]  2 Re( F ' F ')  },

2 * 2
1 0
F1 '

and then calculate the ratio 𝑅𝐾𝐻𝑉 (𝜃), for instance, by Sherman’s method [23].

3.2 Comparison of methods

Table 1 lists the results of calculating the normalized Mott cross section R(θ) by the above
methods. It shows an excellent agreement between the results obtained from Eqs. (15) and (9) as

6
well as an increasing deviation from these results in the transition from (13) to (10). This allows us to
carry out further comparison with respect to the results obtained on the basis of (15).

Table 1: Comparison of the R(θ) values obtained by different methods for the scattering of electrons
with an energy of 10 МeV on nuclei of charge number 𝑍 = 47.

𝑅/𝜃 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165 180

𝑅𝑀 1.116 1.215 1.256 1.226 1.122 0.958 0.753 0.533 0.324 0.154 0.042 0.0032
𝑅𝐾𝐻𝑉 1.116 1.215 1.256 1.226 1.122 0.958 0.753 0.533 0.324 0.154 0.042 0.0032
𝑅𝐿𝑄𝑍 1.118 1.214 1.255 1.225 1.123 0.959 0.753 0.532 0.323 0.153 0.043 0.0041
𝑅𝐽𝑊𝑀 1.143 1.228 1.240 1.171 1.042 0.867 0.667 0.463 0.278 0.131 0.036 0.0032
𝑅𝑀𝐹 1.105 1.140 1.108 1.020 0.886 0.724 0.549 0.377 0.224 0.105 0.029 0.0026
𝑅𝐵 0.983 0.933 0.854 0.751 0.630 0.501 0.372 0.252 0.149 0.069 0.019 0.0026

Figure 1 compares the results obtained on the basis of Eqs. (10)−(13), (15) for scattering of
electrons with energies of 0.005 MeV, 1 MeV, and 10 МeV on nuclei of charge number 𝑍 = 13,
47, and 92.

1,50 2,00 2,5

A A A

Z=13, 0.005 MeV

B
C
1,75
Z=47, 0.005 MeV
B
C
Z=92, 0.005 MeV B
C
1,25 D D 2,0 D
E 1,50 E E
R
R

1,00 1,25 1,5

1,00
0,75 1,0
0,75

0,50 0,50 0,5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

2,5
Z=92, 1 MeV A
1,00 Z=13, 1 MeV A
1,25
Z=47, 1 MeV A
B
B
C
B
C C D
1,00 D 2,0 E
0,75 D
E E

0,75 1,5
R

R
R

0,50
0,50 1,0

0,25
0,25 0,5

0,00 0,00 0,0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

1,4
Z=47, 10 MeV 2,5 Z=92, 10 MeV
Z=13, 10 MeV A
A
1,0 B
A
1,2 B 2,0 C
B C
D
0,8 C 1,0 D
E
D E
E
1,5
0,8
R

0,6
R

0,6 1,0
0,4
0,4
0,5
0,2 0,2

0,0 0,0 0,0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)

Figure 1: Cross section ratio, R(θ), as function of scattering angle obtained from Eqs. 15 (A), 13 (B),
12 (C), 11 (D), 10 (E) for scattering of electrons with energies of 0.005 MeV, 1 MeV, and 10
МeV on nuclei of charge number 𝑍 equal to 13, 47, and 92.

7
 From this Figure it can be seen that the results of Lijian et al. and Boschini et al. [21, 22]
obtained from Eq. (13) significantly differ from the exact ones only in the area of low energies
and high charge numbers (e.q. for 𝑍 = 92, 0.005 MeV). In other cases, they are close to rigorous
results. For light elements, all approximations give fairly accurate results. For elements with
moderately high values of 𝑍 at medium and high energies, the approximation (12) gives higher
accuracy than (11) and (10). For heavy elements, the approximate methods based on Eqs. (10)−(12)
are not applicable.
Additionally we evaluated relative difference between the ratios 𝑅𝐿𝑄𝑍 and 𝑅𝐾𝑁𝑉 obtained by the
methods of works [21, 22] and [14] as a function of the scattering angle for electrons with
energies from 0.005 MeV to 10 МeV on nuclei with charge number from 13 to 92 (Figure 2):
RLQZ ( ; Z , E )  RKHV ( ; Z , E )
 R( ; Z , E )  .
RKHV ( ; Z , E )

1,0
0,04 15 Z=92, 0.005 MeV
Z=13, 0.005 MeV Z=47, 0.005 MeV 10
0,02 0,5
5
R,%

R,%
R,%

0,00 0
0,0
-5
-0,02
-0,5 -10

-0,04 -15

-1,0 -20
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

0,04 0,4
1

0,02 Z=13, 1 MeV 0,2 Z=47, 1 MeV

0
0,0
0,00
R,%

R,%

R,%

-0,2
-1
-0,02
-0,4 Z=92, 1 MeV
-0,04 -2
-0,6
-0,06 -0,8
-3
-0,08 -1,0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

3,0 30 0

2,5 25 -10
Z=13, 10 MeV
2,0 20 Z=47, 10 MeV -20 Z=92, 10 MeV
R,%
R,%

R,%

-30
1,5 15
-40
1,0 10
-50
0,5 5 -60

0,0 0 -70
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
 (deg)  (deg)  (deg)

Figure 2: Relative difference between the ratios 𝑅𝐿𝑄𝑍 and 𝑅𝐾𝐻𝑉 obtained from Eqs. (13) and (15) as
function of scattering angle (in degrees) for electrons with energies of 0.005 MeV, 1 MeV, and 10
МeV scattered on nuclei of charge number 𝑍 = 13, 47, and 92.

8
 Figure 2 shows that at low energies (e.g. 0.005 MeV), the maximum value of the relative
difference modulus |𝛿𝑅(𝜃; 𝑍, 𝐸)| increases from 0.003 to 16 percent in the transition from nucleus
charge number Z = 13 to Z = 92. From Figure 2 also follows that at medium energies (1 MeV), this
value varies between 0.07−3.5 percent for nucleus with a Z value of 13 to 92. At high energies4 (e. q.
10 MeV), the approximation (13) differs significantly (up to 70 percent) from the exact expression
(15) only in the range of scattering angles from 160 to 180 degrees, where the values of the ratios RLQZ

and RKHV are very small, while over the θ range from 0 to 150 degrees, the relative difference

between RLQZ and RKHV is almost zero.

4. Summary and conclusions

 In the present work, an new exact representation for the normalized MDCS is proposed that
reduces the calculation of the NMCS in terms of the Mott series 𝐹𝑀 (𝜃) and 𝐺𝑀 (𝜃) to its
calculation in terms of 𝐹𝑀 (𝜃) alone, exсluding the most slowly converging series in the
NMCS computation.
 Numerical results are obtained on the basis of the obtained formula and the following exact
and approximate expressions for the normalized Mott cross section: i) the conventional
Mott-exact ‘phase-shift’ formula (point-charge nucleus, no screening) [11], ii) the
approximate Lijian−Qing−Zhengming expression [21], iii) the Johnson−Weber−Mullin
formula [20], iv) the McKinley−Feshbach expression [19], and v) the Mott−Born result
[11].
 An intercomparison of the obtained numerical results is presented in the range of nucleus
charge number from Z = 13 to Z = 92 for electron energies from 0.005 MeV to 10 МeV
and scattering angles over the range of 0−180 degrees.
 It is shown that while all the methods discussed give sufficiently accurate results for
low-Z nuclei in the entire range of energies, the approximate Mott−Born,
McKinley−Feshbach, and Johnson−Weber− Mullin methods are not applicable for
high-Z nuclei at the same energies.
 The approximate Lijian−Qing−Zhengming method gives fairly accurate results in
the entire range of charge numbers and electron energies, except for the area of low
energies and high charge numbers.
 The results of the rigorous methods considered are remarkably consistent.

4
At energies higher than 10 MeV, the results are very close to those of 10 MeV, according to [21], since β in this case is
close to 1.

9
 The accuracy was estimated, and the range of applicability was established for the
Lijian−Qing−Zhengming method, which gives the best approximation to rigorous results.
 We managed to show that for Z < 90, this method can be applied with an error
of less than 1%, in accordance with [21], but only over the θ range from 0 to 150
degrees at high energies.
 In the case of Z ≥ 90, the specified method can also be applied with the same error,
however also only in the θ range of 0−150 degrees for high and medium
energies.
 Outside of the specified ranges, the error can increase up to 16 percent (for Z = 92,
0.005 MeV) and even up to 70% (for Z = 92, 10 MeV, and θ = 180 degrees).
 Thus, we can conclude that both the rigorous method suggested in this work and
the approximate Lijian−Qing−Zhengming method can be recommended for practical
calculations of the normalized Mott cross section R(θ).
 Although the second method has somewhat limited accuracy, its advantage
compared to first method is the ability to perform integration with a given lower
integration limit.
 The advantage of the first method over the second one is its greater accuracy,
as well as the possibility of its use beyond the applicability of the approximate
method by Lijian, Qing, and Zhengming.
 Therefore, each of these methods is preferred in its application area for
relevant calculations of the NMCS.

Appendix: Derivation of the formula for the normalized Mott cross section

The derivation of the formula (15) in terms of 𝐹0 (𝜃) and 𝐹1 (𝜃) can be represented as follows.

Substituting the expression for 𝐺𝑀 from (14) into (9) and taking into account (6), we have

4sin 2  / 2   4sin 2  / 2  
RM     2  2 | F0  F1 |2 + | F0  F1 |2  . (16)
 | FM | + | FM |  
2 2
 2
   2
 

After carrying out a number of transformations in (16), we can write it as

4sin 2  / 2 
RM     2  F0  F1   F0*  F1*  +  F0  F1   F0*  F1*   
 2  
4sin  / 2 
 | F0 |2 + | F0 |2  2 2 Re  F1 F0*   F1   2 Re  F1 ' F0* '   F1 ' , 
2

 2 2 2

 2  

10
 1  2

| F0 |  , | F0 ' | 
2
2 .
4 4 tan 2 ( / 2)

Thus, we get as a result the following expression for the normalized Mott cross section:

 
RKHV ( )  RB ( )     sin 2   ,
2

4
 ( )  { 2[2 Re( F1F0* )  F1 2 ]  2 Re( F1 ' F0* ')  F1 ' 2},
 2

4sin 2  / 2    2 2 
RZ ( )   +   1   sin ( / 2)  RB ( ).
2 2
(17)
2  4 4 tan ( / 2) 
2

This normalized Mott cross section (17) can be calculated for example by Sherman’s method.
However, our calculations show that already elimination from (5) of the slowest converging function
𝐺1 (𝜃) provides a convergence of these series comparable to that obtained by a ‘method of reduced
series’ used in his work [23].

References
1. Sigmund, P., Schinner, A., 2016. Progress in understanding heavy-ion stopping. Nucl. Instr.
Meth. B 382, 15−25.
2. Sigmund, P., 2006. Particle Penetration and Radiation Effects: General Aspects and Stopping
of Swift Point Particles. Springer Series in Solid State Sciences, 151, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–
Heidelberg.
3. Forcellini, N., Artacho, E. 2019. Floquet theory for the electronic stopping of projectiles in
solids. arXiv:1908.09783v1 [[Link]-sci] 26 Aug 2019.
4. Bethe, H.A., Ashkin, J., 1953. Experimental Nuclear Physics, Segre, E. (Ed.). Wiley, New
York.
5. Bethe, H., 1932. Bremsformel für Elektronen relativistischer Geschwindigkeit.. Z. Physik. 76,
293–299. [Link]
6. Weaver, B.A., Westphal, A.J., 2002. Energy loss of relativistic heavy ions in matter. Nucl.
Instr. Meth. B 187, 285–301.
7. Fermi, E. 1940. The Ionization Loss of Energy in Gases and in Condensed Materials. Phys.
Rev. 571, 485–493.

8. Bichsel, H., Groom, D. E., Klein, S. R., 2002. Passage of Particles Through Matter. Phys.
Rev. D 66, 010001–195.
9. Bloch, F., 1933. Zur Bremsung rasch bewegter Teilchen beim Durchgang durch Materie. Ann.
Physik. 16, 285–320. [Link]

11
10. Mott, N.F., 1929. The Scattering of Fast Electrons by Atomic Nuclei. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 124,
425–442. [Link]
11. Mott, N.F., 1932. The polarization of electrons by double scattering. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 135,
429–458. [Link]
12. Eby, P. B., Morgan, S. H., Jr., 1972. Charge Dependence of Ionization Energy Loss for
Relativistic Heavy Nuclei. Phys. Rev. A 6, 2536–2541.
13. Morgan, S. H., Jr., Eby, P. B., 1973. Corrections to the Bethe−Bloch Formula for Average
Ionization Energy Loss of Relativistic Heavy Nucley. Nucl. Instr. Meth. 106, 429–435.
14. Voskresenskaya, O.O., Sissakyan, A.N., Tarasov, A.V., Torosyan, G.T., 1996. Expression for
the Mott corrections to the Bethe−Bloch formula in terms of the Mott partial amplitudes. JETP
Lett. 64, 604−607.
15. Rutherford, E., F.R.S., 1911. The Scattering of α and β Particles by Matter and the Structure of
the Atom. Phil. Mag. 21, 669−688.
[Link]
16. Gordon, W., 1928. Über den Stoß zweier Punktladungen nach der Wellenmechanik. Z. Physik.
48, 180–191. [Link]
17. Mott, N.F., 1928. The solution of the wave equation for the scattering of particles by a
coulombian centre of force. Proc. Roy. Soc. A 118, 542−549.
[Link]
18. Temple, G., 1928. The scattering power of a bare nucleus according to wave mechanics. Proc.
Roy. Soc. A 121, 673−675. [Link]
19. McKinley, W.A., Feshbach, H., 1948. The Coulomb Scattering of Relativistic Electrons by
Nuclei. Phys. Rev. 74, 1759–1763.
20. Johnson, W.R., Weber, T.A., Mullin, C.J., 1961. Coulomb Scattering of Polarized Electrons.
Phys. Rev. 121, 933–939.
21. Lijian, T., Qing, H., Zhengming, L., 1995. Analytic Fitting to the Mott Cross Section of Electrons.
Radiat. Phys. Chem. 45, 235–245.
22. Boschini, M.J., Consolandi, C., Gervasi, M., Giani, S., Grandi, D., Ivanchenko, V.,
Nieminem, P., Pensotti, S., Rancoita, P.G., Tacconi, M., 2013. An Expression for the Mott
Cross Section of Electrons and Positrons on Nuclei with Z up to 118. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 90,
39–66.
23. Sherman, N., 1956. Coulomb Scattering of Relativistic Electrons by Point Nuclei. Phys. Rev.
103, 1601–1607.

12