Scanning Tunneling Microscopes Make Surfaces Seem Rougher Than They Are

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Objects viewed with scanning tunneling microscopes (STMs) may appear rougher than they really are according to a new computer simulation described in this week's Physical Review Letters. Although scientists have used STMs for more than two decades to create images of just about everything from cells to silicon, they have not understood in full how the instruments work. The new model fills in some missing information¿and shows that better image processing algorithms may improve the accuracy of STMs in general.

Werner Hofer of the University College in London worked with British and Canadian colleagues to study the interactions between an atomic surface and an STM tip. To create images, scientists apply voltage to this tip¿in essence a fine probe topped with a single atom¿such that a small tunneling current arises between the tip and surface. As the tip moves over the surface like a finger reading braille, the current fluctuates, revealing the topography.

That much the scientists knew. What Hofer and his crew didn't realize until they completed their new simulation¿which modeled the outer electrons of the atoms involved in great detail¿was that the tip and surface experience a strong attraction. This attraction is so strong, in fact, that the tip actually pulls some of the atoms up from the surface by as much as one atomic radius. The shift in distance changes the tunneling current and hence, the STM image. Says Hofer, the revelation may, among other things, explain why gold sheets appear coarser than theory would predict.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe