Talk:Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy

I'm trying to improve and expand this article about ARPES technique. Any help will be welcome!--Neburzaragoza 20:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
I hope very soon somebody could upload some and give a visual exemple of a ARPES mesurement --Neburzaragoza 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm deleting the picutres from this article, Electron_analyser.JPG, Arpes_beamline.JPG, Arpes_spectra1.JPG and Arpes_spectra.JPG, because I don't have anymore the permission of the author to publish the in wikipedia.org.
 * I put them again in the article. I had the definitive permission to publish the pictures of all the authors : A. Damascelli, Zhi-Xun Shen and D. Bonn. I have also change two, in order to have a better approch of the apres mesurements --Neburzaragoza 18:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement
First off, thank you for taking the time to initiate this article. It is an important contribution to Wikipedia, and it's about time someone undertook this task! I have many suggestions for this article. I hope you will find them helpful.

With regard to content, I have some suggestions (in no particular order):

1. The introduction should mention the photoelectric effect, and it should link to the photoelectric effect article. The PE effect is simple physics that will be accessible to a broad audience.

2. "The technique" section also does not even mention the PE effect. In fact, it mentions nothing about how the experiments are actually carried out. There are two main classes of ARPES analyzers: hemispherical and time-of-flight. Explain physically how each of these work. How are the energies resolved? How are the momenta resolved? (See the next suggestion). Also, it might be worth mentioning how spin detectors work.

3. The section on kinematics fails to show how ARPES determines the k vector of the electron wavefunction. k parallel to the sample face is determined via the emission angle and kinetic energy. k perpendicular to the sample face can be extracted by varying the photon energy.

4. There are multiple ways to model the photoemission process. The simplest is the "3-step" model, which is essentially a sudden approximation model. The three steps are excitation, transport to the surface, and escape to vacuum. This is an intuitive and simple model that does not involve propagators. It is easy for people to visualize, and I think it merits being mentioned. Perhaps we can explain that the sudden approximation means that the wavefunction does not change as the electron is photoemitted. As long as experiments operate in a regime where the sudden approximation is valid, then it is possible to interpret the data simplisticly to arrive at the actual wavefunction that the electron had when it was still in the sample. Then again, maybe this is a minor point for most readers.

5. ARPES is a sub-experiment of PES (photoemission or photoelectron spectroscopy). Similar and related techniques include XPS (x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy) and XPD (x-ray photoelectron diffractometry). These should be mentioned, and links should be provided to other articles, where available.

6. Most ARPES is carried out at synchrotron beamline facilities using very far-UV and soft x-ray photon energies. New experiments are beginning to use low photon energies (particularly from lasers) in the 6 - 8 eV range. This increases bulk sensitivity and reduces background scattering. It also increases momentum and energy resolution and reduces broadening due to final state effects. It may now be the case that ARPES is finally observing data that is very close to the unadulterated bulk spectral function, allowing, for instance, for extraction of the many-body electron self-energy (see Norman et al, PRB, 60, 7585 (1999)). These new low-photon energy experiments may merit some mention. See, for example, Koralek et al, PRL, 96, 017005 (2006).

7. The section on resolution could probably be incorporated into another section. Also, the values are understated by today's standards. The Scienta R4000 has sub-meV resolution, I believe. I think this is also true for the latest Specs spectrometers. Of course, resolution is always improving, so any value stated today will be too high again in just a couple years!

Stylistically, this article should avoid the "royal 'we'". Additionally, there is some awkward language and a spattering of grammatical errors.

Again, thank you. I hopefully will be able to help with this article as time allows.

Firstorderapproximation (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
This article was listed for investigation at the copyright problems board on January 5, 2009. One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose merging Band mapping into this article
...and making it a redirect. a13ean (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

✅ WP:WPMERGE ~Kvng (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 September 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy → Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) – The sources that discuss Angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy invariably refer to the technique using the abbreviation, once the term has been introduced. As an example, see ("The last decade witnessed significant progress in angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) and its applications. Today, ARPES experiments with 2 meV energy resolution and 0.2• angular resolution are a reality even for photoemission on solid systems.") Amitchell125 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going to propose this move myself, but I realized that no other articles on surface science techniques use abbreviations in their titles. There are tens of them, and all are better known by their acronym: STM, AFM, XPS, PEEM, PES, LEED, LEEM, AES, RHEED, XANES and so on. Note that we already redirect from ARPES and that Google returns this article when ARPES is searched for. Indecisively yours, Ponor (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as proposed. As far as I know, Wikipedia never uses titles of the proposed form (i.e., following a spelled-out name with an equivalent abbreviation within the article title). See the recent WP:SNOW closure of the RM at Talk:Australian Pacific Touring. As an alternative suggestion, I do not object to moving the article to . —BarrelProof (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. "Refer[ring] to the technique using the abbreviation, once the term has been introduced" is the normal way of introducing any abbreviation in text, as in this article's lead. Adding it to the title is unnecessary. ARPES already redirects here for readers who know only the acronym. Station1 (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.