New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe