Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Atomic-resolution image of gold surface

Atomic-resolution image of gold surface

Image of surface reconstruction on a clean Au(100) surface, as visualized using scanning tunneling microscopy. The individual atoms composing the material are visible. Surface reconstruction causes the surface atoms to deviate from the bulk crystal structure, and arrange in columns several atoms wide with regularly-spaced pits between them.

Edit 1

Reason

This is an outstanding image because it shows the individual atoms that make up a gold surface. It is also a good demonstration of surface reconstruction, as the atoms rearrange themselves on the surface to form regularly-spaced pits. I realize that this image does not quire meet the size requirement (it is 500px square) but I believe is still has outstanding encyclopediac value since this is the only type one of the only types of microscopy which allows individual atoms to be seen. It takes a lot of effort and patience to get such a clean image, and I am glad that someone has released this into the public domain.

Articles this image appears in

Atom, Nanotechnology, Scanning tunneling microscope, Surface reconstruction

Creator

Erwinrossen

Nominator

Antony-22

• Support — Antony-22 21:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose — Spikebrennan 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC). Pity about the signature in the lower left.
• Support Very interesting 8thstar 21:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not bad, but we could do way better. In our faculty we have a group which specializes in imaging donor and acceptor states in cross-sectional STM. You can literaly see the doping effect in a semiconductor locally. They have some great pictures hanging on the walls, I'll ask around if they'll share one with us.--Dschwen 21:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • By the way atomic resolution is also possible with certain types of AFMs and most modern TEMs of course. --Dschwen 21:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the correction. If there are other atomic-resolution images that people would be willing to donate I'd love to see those too. Antony-22 22:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Conveniently, NewScientist just published a gallery — Jack · talk · 00:15, Thursday, 29 March 2007
• Oppose Too small, but I would support a version that meets size requirements. Plus, if the image is in public domain, we should be able to crop/edit the signature out right?--Uberlemur 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Regretful Oppose Signature on bottom, size (not just being bureaucratic, it really does need to be bigger), can only faintly see individual atoms. Not against a better execution, though; very cool subject.--HereToHelp 01:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Atoms, by their nature, are fuzzy. This image will be right up against the technical and physical limitations. — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
    • Even given that, and the edit, I think it should be larger; get a wider scan area, even if it is nothing new.--HereToHelp 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose watermark, not sure what is technologically the best size one can get with scanning tunnel microscopy... gren グレン 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• If - and only if - the watermark can be legitimately removed, and the "1nm" scale made prettier, I support — Jack · talk · 13:49, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
• Oppose per Dschwen. BlackBear 17:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question since this is my first experience with Featured Pictures. By size, do you mean the actual number of pixels, or the resolution? If it is the former, a larger image could be made just by duplicating pixels. If the former, I don't think that you really can get any higher resolution with STM (taking more samples would not reveal any new features), and scanning a wider field would not reveal anything new either - so I'm not sure that having a larger size would really be advantageous in this specific case. Antony-22 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I'm sure that's a picture of a beehive. ;-) Actually I really like the picture, and the concept, but I'm afraid it's way smaller than the size recommendations. Also, 'duplicating pixels' wouldn't really be satisfactory. I suppose you mean a tiled effect. How do you eliminate the text at the bottom of the picture? - Mrug² 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Just a point that has nothing to do with the voting: the picture is not a picture of the atoms, because that cannot ever be achieved. The electrons and the nucleus are in constant motion and, in Quantum Theory, don't even have a known position. It's a picture of the position of the atoms not of the atoms, so the caption should be reworded - Adrian Pingstone
  • It actually is a picture of the local density of states above the sample surface... --Dschwen 22:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)