Observation of nanoscale magnetic fields using twisted electron beams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron waves give an unprecedented enhancement to the field of microscopy by providing higher resolving power compared to their optical counterpart. Further information about a specimen, such as electric and magnetic features, can be revealed in electron microscopy because electrons possess both a magnetic moment and charge. In-plane magnetic structures in materials can be studied experimentally using the effect of the Lorentz force. On the other hand, full mapping of the magnetic field has hitherto remained challenging. Here we measure a nanoscale out-of-plane magnetic field by interfering a highly twisted electron vortex beam with a reference wave. We implement a recently developed holographic technique to manipulate the electron wavefunction, which gives free electrons an additional unbounded quantized magnetic moment along their propagation direction. Our finding demonstrates that full reconstruction of all three components of nanoscale magnetic fields is possible without tilting the specimen.Beyond high resolving power, electron microscopy can be used to study both the electronic and magnetic properties of a sample. Here, Grillo et al. combine electron vortex beams with holographic detection to measure out-of-plane nanoscale magnetic fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".