Reproduced from Physica B, Vol 127, Binnig
et al, "Scanning tunneling microscopy", pp. 37-45, Copyright
1984, with permission from Elsevier Science.
| Having submitted the previous paper in April of 1983, a pause followed
of some 8 months. The next paper, published in Physica in early
1984, marks a change in the confidence with which Binnig and Rohrer
presented their material. They claimed that scanning tunneling microscopy
had matured from an art to a technique, and the theory from the experimentalist's
wishful thinking to fundamental understanding. The tip does trace
contours of constant wave-function overlap (the wavefunctions of tip
and sample atoms), but the work function variations across the unit
cell are small and so the corrugation that the STM reveals is an intrinsic
property of the surface. In addition to this confident statement about
the direct relation between STM graphs and surfaces, they had pinpointed
the main problem of replication. The tip could change inadvertently.
Having pinpointed the main problem they could work much more efficiently
towards replicability. Why Physica? How trustworthy were the
results indicating that work function variations are small across
the unit cell? Worth discussing?