Talk:Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy

message: I'm not going to edit this as I don't have time to hunt down better sources, but a few factual errors worth noting - It isn't E^4, it's |E(w_incident)|^2 |E(w_stokes)|^2 - this is mentioned in the same citation actually. If someone changes it, they should probably hunt done something to point out the E^4 claim is an approximation that's often used. I will also add that the line "Particles that are too large allow the excitation of multipoles, which are nonradiative. As only the dipole transition leads to Raman scattering, the higher-order transitions will cause a decrease in the overall efficiency of the enhancement." is provably false. First, none of the proofs showing the SERS effect from a quantum-mechanical effect care to any great extent where the field is from (the electromagnetic ones do mind you). Additionally, not only are there a wide class of SERS substrates which employ non-radiative modes for enhancement purposes (particularly the colloidal gold and silver particles, whose gap mode is non-radiative), but there are many bright multipolar modes which have been used in mesoscopic particles. The larger class of silver-flowers and the gold meatball particles by Halas et al. both couple to bright quadrupolar modes for SERS. The original source for this claim is an off hand remark in one review paper, and although that certainly is a source, it is hardly convincing evidence without data. Anyway, as you can see, I'm much too close to this to respond without some bias, so I'll leave it alone for now.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.75.16 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Somewhat off citations 

message: Submitted the Edit MycoGeiger (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Applications, Move Oligonucleotide targeting

message: Can someone explain this in more simple terms?
I would appreciate more visual aids to elaborate on both the electromagnetic explanation (physical explanation) and charge-transfer complex (chemical explanation). I barely understand what charge-transfer complex means, but I have no idea how that links to SERS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.187.239 (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficult to understand 

message: As noted above the article is fairly solid. I think it would benefit from a few improvements, if there is anyone out there up to the challenge:
# Practical applications: the little bit on DNA and gold nanoparticles was worth waiting for - I'm just glad I made it that far! Whew!
# Clean up for style: things like "This initial publication has been cited over 2400 times" don't impress me.  I understand the importance of a good impact factor, but that just sounds like "mine is bigger than yours"!
--Graham Proud (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Feedback 

message: This article states that the SERS effect was first observed by Martin Fleischmann and his colleagues at the University of Southampton in 1973. The webpage of Richard P. Van Duyne at Northwestern University states that Professor Van Duyne is known for the discovery of SERS, while according to Wikipedia he only proposed a mechanism for the observed enhancement in 1977. It would be useful to clarify who is considered the discoverer of SERS. GP 165.124.145.50 (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has a critical assessment of who discovered SERS (with refs for the counterpoint): 10.1098/rsnr.2008.0032 --Kkmurray (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who discovered SERS? 

message: Contact me at derikapplebee03 gmail.com 
What could be done about being manipulated or tortured threw ridicule and torment by someone who has access to this type of tech. Because I definitely have been and could use some help. 75.105.225.35 (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanites