MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Can transverse plasmonic fields be revealed by differential phase contrast?

2016· other· en· W4238772171 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Löffler, Edson P. Bellido, Isobel C. Bicket, Gianluigi A. Botton

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: Proceedings · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and Applications
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlasmonPhysicsSurface plasmonOpticsElectronElectric fieldTransverse planePerpendicularOptical axisCondensed matter physicsLens (geology)Quantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface plasmons give rise to a wide range of applications from molecular sensors [1] over novel circuit designs [2] to the design of meta‐materials with highly unusual optical properties [3]. Of particular importance are localized surface plasmons (LSPs) that are confined to the surface of nanoparticles as they can give rise to a significant enhancement of electromagnetic fields in the vicinity of the nanostructure. Because LSPs typically are confined to the nanometer regime, TEM is ideally suited for mapping those charge oscillations. So far, the predominant method of studying plasmon oscillations has been EELS, which allows mapping the strength of selected resonance modes by measuring the energy loss probability of the probe beam for different LSP energies. In a non‐relativistic approximation, this energy loss is brought about by the component of the electric field along the optical axis (and, in principle, the magnetic component perpendicular to the optical axis) of the excited plasmon resonance. Thus, it is impossible to gain any information about the electric field in the viewing plane (i.e., perpendicular to the optical axis). Precisely this component can, however, be studied using differential phase contrast (DPC) [4,5]. DPC exploits the fact that electrons subject to an electromagnetic field are deflected according to the Lorentz force. Any deflection along the optical axis gives rise to a change in kinetic energy and, hence, shows up in EELS. Any deflection perpendicular to the optical axis, however, changes the direction of the electron's momentum, but not its magnitude (in first order approximation). This gives rise to a shift in the electron's momentum distribution. The final momentum distribution, after passing the nanostructure, can then conveniently be measured in the TEM's diffraction plane. Compared to a reference measured without field, the displacement of the transmitted beam shows a shift that is proportional to the field integrated along the electron trajectory. Here, we used the MNPBEM toolbox [6,7] to simulate the plasmonic response of a 200x50x50 nm³ Ag nanorod to the electron beam (see fig. 1). From the data of the surface charges and currents, we then calculated the EELS maps (see fig. 1) and in‐plane deflections along a line parallel to the nanorod (see fig. 2) for different plasmonic modes. The EELS maps show the typical excitation probabilities for the first two modes with two and three maxima. The in‐plane electric field components show a similar behavior in general, although the local extrema are less pronounced. The DPC deflections are found to be in good agreement with the electric field with some small differences close to the center of the rod which can be attributed to the cumulative nature of the DPC deflections as well as retardation effects. The absolute magnitude of the DPC deflections in fig. 2 is of the order of 0.1 µrad at 300 keV which, albeit small, should be measurable with latest generation TEMs when using large camera lengths and/or the LACBED technique. In addition, the deflections can be increased, e.g., by using a lower acceleration voltage. This work shows that it should be feasible to determine all three components of the electromagnetic field caused by plasmons using a combination of DPC and EELS using state‐of‐the‐art TEMs. This will open up new possibilities for understanding and designing novel plasmonic devices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Microscopy Congress 2016: ProceedingsSame topicGold and Silver Nanoparticles Synthesis and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207