Talk:Atomic de Broglie microscope

Rename?

It seems to me that the term "atomic nanoscope" is a neologism. A Google Scholar search [1] basically returns hits from two papers. One by Steane in Nature from 2001 and one from Kouznetsov et al (Hello. I am beginner in Wiki. I see, at elast in Physics, the definiitons by Wiki are better than those from dictionaries.) in J Phys B in 2006. I'm not sure how "nanoscope" is different from "microscope." It just seems that "nano" is the buzzword de jour, and so this is an attempt to emphasisze that. It's not like this device will have any higher magnification than a TEM, so why is a TEM a microscope and this a "nanoscope"?

In PRL in 1999, Doak et all used the term "atomic de Broglie microscope." This term seems to have some traction in Google Scholar [2] (albeit not a lot), and it was used before Steane's and Kouznetsov's term. That seems like a more descriptive and more formal title.

I suggest moving this article to "atomic de Broglie microscope" and redirecting this article there. Any other suggestions? eaolson 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, "atomic nanoscope" is not the proper term for this novel type of microscope. It should either be "neutral beam microscope" or, in the particular case of using He as the probing atom, "scanning helium microscope". Latter is the official term within the INA-research (INA - imaging with neutral atoms) project by B. Holst and coworkers (FP6 by the European Commission). I added the alternative names to the title of this article with the justification of being a researcher in the framework of INA. Wolframs 16:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible typo

Should 'acanning electron microscope' be 'scanning electron microscope'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.227.39 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

Dear 165.228.227.39, thank you for indicating this misprint. dima 16:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

comparison to other techniques

The article currently says that: "scattering of atoms from this spot brings the image of the object, like in the scanning confocal microscope, scanning electron microscope, or scanning probe microscopy.". This does not really make sense, since NONE of these techniques have image formation casused by scattering of atoms. I would propose that it should be re-written, i would say that of these techniques, only SEM has image formation caused by scattering (in the case of the backscattered election image. Confocal is usually done with fluorescenece, and SPM, has a variety of techniques, not usually involving radiation hitting the sample at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeaton (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atomic de Broglie microscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628051541/http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3 to http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This page seems below the bar :-(

The page is speculation and redundant links AFAICT.

No citation or information in the describes a "de Broglie" microscope. The picture in the page is for an atomic force microscope, a version of a scanning tunneling microscope, unrelated to a matter wave based microscope.

On the other hand, the page has a lot of redundant content from Quantum reflection

There do exist microscopes fitting the category,

Koch, Markus, et al. "Imaging with neutral atoms—a new matter‐wave microscope." Journal of microscopy 229.1 (2008): 1-5.

I used this reference in Matter wave but I removed the link from Matter wave to this page.

IMO the current page would need to be almost completely replaced to be correct.

"Matter wave microscope" would be an appropriate title. De Broglie said nothing on this subject.

Advice? My specific proposal:

1. verify that all valuable content is in fact on other pages.
2. remove the last link to this page
3. delete
4. create a new page under an appropriate title if and when resources/ physics progress suggest it.

Johnjbarton (talk) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Procedural feedback: Hi John. I appreciate that this is a good faith effort at addressing perceived shortcomings in the article, but this is not really the manner in which RfC is typically utilized: RfC is usually employed to resolve existing editorial disputes, and unless I've missed it, there does not seem to be a dispute here at the moment. If you wish to copy relevant information to related articles, you should be WP:BOLD and do so--but don't press the issue and discuss the matter if those additions are reverted (see WP:BRD). Once you are satisfied that all of the useful content is preserved in appropriate articles, you can then propose the deletion of this article through WP:AfD, if you are still convinced the topic's WP:NOTABILITY is not supported by sufficient sourcing. Now, I appreciate that you are somewhat looking for consensus and agreement with your instincts here, before you act--which is a great impulse for an editor on this project. But in this instance, you might consider looking for that input with notices at relevant WikiProjects, rather than RfC.
  All that said, personally I am not inclined to remove the RfC tag (or pressure you to do so), because I take a somewhat broader view than some: i.e. that an editor seeking extra eyes through whatever method is typically a positive thing. But I do think that, realistically speaking, someone else is likely to do that sooner rather than later, since this is so much outside the usual application of RfC. Regardless, I wanted to make sure you know about AfD. By the same token, I don't have time at the moment to dig into the sources and give you feedback on whether this topic is WP:NOTABLE enough to justify the article, but I will try to swing back and give some input when I can. However, this is a case where getting the attention of editors better versed in this technical area (again, probably via WikiProject notices) is probably your best bet for useful feedback. And do remember that even once you are satisfied the article probably should go, you'll still need to repeat the process of consensus via AfD. Best of luck! SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks!

  You said "But in this instance, you might consider looking for that input with notices at relevant WikiProjects, rather than RfC."

  thanks, I guess this:

  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Physics

  I didn't find "notices" but I will try something there. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

• @Johnjbarton: I can find no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried (let alone exhausted); your statement is not exactly neutral, either. Please read WP:RFCST before you start another RfC. Just discuss the matter in the normal way, at this stage there really is no need to go all the way to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

  oh sorry I didn't see that page so I didn't realize this was a big deal. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  "Just discuss the matter in the normal way"

  May I ask you for guidance on what that normal way might be? I simply meant to request suggestions from someone with more experience. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

  Help:Talk pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)