4.5 Article

Speckle Suppression by Decoherence in Fluctuation Electron Microscopy

Journal

MICROSCOPY AND MICROANALYSIS
Volume 21, Issue 6, Pages 1455-1474

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1431927615015135

Keywords

Fluctuation electron microscopy; decoherence; continuous random network; medium-range order; amorphous materials

Funding

  1. US Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences, Division of Materials Sciences and Engineering [DE-PS02-09ER09-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We compare experimental fluctuation electron microscopy (FEM) speckle data with electron diffraction simulations for thin amorphous carbon and silicon samples. We find that the experimental speckle intensity variance is generally more than an order of magnitude lower than kinematical scattering theory predicts for spatially coherent illumination. We hypothesize that decoherence, which randomizes the phase relationship between scattered waves, is responsible for the anomaly. Specifically, displacement decoherence can contribute strongly to speckle suppression, particularly at higher beam energies. Displacement decoherence arises when the local structure is rearranged significantly by interactions with the beam during the exposure. Such motions cause diffraction speckle to twinkle, some of it at observable time scales. We also find that the continuous random network model of amorphous silicon can explain the experimental variance data if displacement decoherence and multiple scattering is included in the modeling. This may resolve the longstanding discrepancy between X-ray and electron diffraction studies of radial distribution functions, and conclusions reached from previous FEM studies. Decoherence likely affects all quantitative electron imaging and diffraction studies. It likely contributes to the so-called Stobbs factor, where high-resolution atomic-column image intensities are anomalously lower than predicted by a similar factor to that observed here.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available