Talk:Atomic de Broglie microscope

message: It seems to me that the term "atomic nanoscope" is a neologism.  A Google Scholar search  basically returns hits from two papers.  One by Steane in Nature from 2001 and one from Kouznetsov et al (Hello. I am beginner in Wiki. I see, at elast in Physics, the definiitons by Wiki are better than those from dictionaries.) in J Phys B in 2006.  I'm not sure how "nanoscope" is different from "microscope."  It just seems that "nano" is the buzzword de jour, and so this is an attempt to emphasisze that.  It's not like this device will have any higher magnification than a TEM, so why is a TEM a microscope and this a "nanoscope"?  
In PRL in 1999, Doak et all used the term "atomic de Broglie microscope."  This term seems to have some traction in Google Scholar  (albeit not a lot), and it was used before Steane's and Kouznetsov's term.  That seems like a more descriptive and more formal title.
I suggest moving this article to "atomic de Broglie microscope" and redirecting this article there.  Any other suggestions? eaolson 02:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Should 'acanning electron microscope' be 'scanning electron microscope'? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.228.227.39 (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible typo 

message: The article currently says that: "scattering of atoms from this spot brings the image of the object, like in the scanning confocal microscope, scanning electron microscope, or scanning probe microscopy.". This does not really make sense, since NONE of these techniques have image formation casused by scattering of atoms. I would propose that it should be re-written, i would say that of these techniques, only SEM has image formation caused by scattering (in the case of the backscattered election image. Confocal is usually done with fluorescenece, and SPM, has a variety of techniques, not usually involving radiation hitting the sample at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeaton (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison to other techniques  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atomic de Broglie microscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070628051541/http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3 to http://www-sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/research/mirror.php3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The page is speculation and redundant links AFAICT.
No citation or information in the describes a "de Broglie" microscope. The picture in the page is for an atomic force microscope, a version of a scanning tunneling microscope, unrelated to a matter wave based microscope.
On the other hand, the page has a lot of redundant content from Quantum reflection
There do exist microscopes fitting the category, 
Koch, Markus, et al. "Imaging with neutral atoms—a new matter‐wave microscope." Journal of microscopy 229.1 (2008): 1-5.
I used this reference in Matter wave but I removed the link from Matter wave to this page.
IMO the current page would need to be almost completely replaced to be correct. 
"Matter wave microscope" would be an appropriate title. De Broglie said nothing on this subject.
Advice? My specific proposal:
# verify that all valuable content is in fact on other pages.
# remove the last link to this page
# delete
# create a new page under an appropriate title if and when resources/ physics progress suggest it.
Johnjbarton (talk) Johnjbarton (talk) 00:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page seems below the bar :-(