Clases TM

MFlores dfi-FCFM-UChile
Microscopia de efecto tnel
Marcos Flores
DFI-FCFM-UChile
Outline
Short description
Theory of 1-D tunneling
Actual 3D barriers
o tip modeling
o atomic resolution
Hardware
Examples
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM)
Fundamental process:
Electron tunneling
Electron tunneling
Typical quantum phenomenon
Tunneling definition
Wave-particle impinging on barrier
Probability of finding the particle beyond the barrier
The particle have tunneled through it
Role of tunneling in physics and knowledge development:

Field emission from metals in high E field ( Fowler-Nordheim 1928)
Interband tunneling in solids (Zener 1934)
Field emission microscope (Mller 1937)
Tunneling in degenerate p-n junctions (Esaki 1958)
Perturbation theory of tunneling (Bardeen 1961)
Inelastic tunneling spectroscopy (Jaklevic, Lambe 1966)
Vacuum tunneling (Young 1971)
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (Binnig and Rohrer 1982)
Electron tunneling
Elastic Inelastic
Energy conservation during the Energy loss during the process
process. Initial and final states Interaction with elementary
have same energy excitations (phonons, plasmons)
1D 3D
Planar Metal-Oxide-Metal Scanning Tunneling Microscopy
junctions
Rectangular barriers
Planar Metal-Oxide-Metal
junctions
Time independent Time-dependent

Matching solutions of TI TD perturbation approach:
Schroedinger eq. (t) + first order pert. theory
Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier
Time independent
!2 d 2
+V0 = E
2m dz 2
Region 1 1 = eikz + R eikz
Region 2 2 = Ae xz + Be xz
Region 3 3 =Te ikz

Continuity conditions on and d/dz give
Reflection probability:
2 2
R =
2 (k 2
+x
) sinh (xs ) 2
2 2
4k x 2 2
+ (k + x ) sinh (xs )
2 2
Transmission probability:
2 4k 2x 2
T = 2
4k 2x 2 + (k 2 + x 2 ) sinh 2 (xs )
2 2
R +T =1
A square integrable (normalized) wave

function has to remain normalized in time
d + 2
(z ,t ) dz = 0
dt
In a finite space region this conditions

becomes
b
d b 2 i! * *
dt a dz = 2m z z = 0
a
i! # * * & Probability current

j ( z, t ) = % (
2m $ z z '
For the potential barrier
!k
Region 1 j1 ( z, t ) =
2m
( 2
) (
1 R = v 1 R
2
)
ji (z ,t ) = v
!k 2 2
Region 3 jT (z ,t ) = T = vT
2m
ji 2 1
Transmission coefficient T= = T = 2 2 2
jT 2 (k + x )
1+ sinh (xs)
(4k 2 x 2 )
For strongly attenuating barriers xs >> 1

Large barrier height (i.e. small )
Exponential is leading contribution
16k 2x 2
T 2 e 2xs
(k + x 2 )2
Barrier width s = 0.5 nm, V0 = 4 eV T ~ 10-5

Barrier width s = 0.4 nm, V0 = 4 eV T ~ 10-4
The transmission coefficient

->Extreme sensitivity to z
depends exponentially on barrier width
Exponential dependence of tunneling current

Ideal situation: Incident state from left has

some probability to appear on right, we can
calculate it.
Real situation: At the surface the
wavefunction is very complicated to calculate
Different approach
If barrier transmission is small, use
perturbation theory
We must to write a perturbed Hamiltonian
Different approach
If barrier transmission is small, use
perturbation theory
We must to write a perturbed Hamiltonian
Approximate solutions of exact Hamiltonian

within the barrier region
l (z ) = ae kz for z 0
r (z ) = be kz for z s
l has to be matched with the

correct solution of H for z 0 r has to be matched with the
correct solution of H for z 0
With the exact Hamiltonian on left and right,

we add a term HT representing the transition
rate from l to r.
d (t)
H (t) = i!
dt
Where the Hamiltonian is
H =(H l + H r ) + H T = H 0 + H T
The left and right solutions
H 0l = Ell
H 0r = Err
We choose the wavefunction

iEl t iErt
= c l e ! + d r e !
Put into Hamiltonian
d (t )
H (t ) = i!
dt
iEl t iErt

HT c l e ! + d r e ! =0

The total probability over the space is

*
H T dz = 1

* *
l T r r H Tl dz = 1
H dz +
M lr + M rl = 1
2 2 dN
jt = Mrl
! dEr
In general, the tunneling current contains
information on the density of states of one of
the electrodes, weighted by M
But, each case has to calculated separately
Introduce a more real potential V(z), which is slowly varying

potential, how to represent it?
!2 d 2
+V (z ) = E
2m dz 2
d 2 (z ) 2m (E V (z ))
= x 2 (z ) with x2 =
dz 2 !2
z
ix (z ')dz '
Try a solution (z ) = 0e
0
particle moving to the right with
continuously varying wave-number (x)
d 2 (z ) dx (z )
= i (z ) x 2 (z ) (z )
dz 2 dz
This is true only if the first term is negligible, i.e.
dx (z )
<< x 2
dz
WKB approximation: Wenzel- Kramer Brillouin

variation length-scale of x(z) (approximately the same as the
variation length-scale of V(z)) must be much greater than the
particle's de Broglie wavelength
2 2
For E > V(z), x is real and the probability density is constant (z ) = 0
Suppose the particle encounters a barrier between 0 < z1 < z2,

so E < V(z) and x is imaginary. Inside the barrier
z1 z z
ix (z ')dz ' z x (z ') dz ' z1 x (z ')dz '
(z ) = 0e 0
e 1
= 1e
The probability density inside the barrier is

z
2 2 z1 2 x (z ') dz '
(z ) = 1 e
2
The probability density at z1 is 1 z2
2 2 z1 2 x (z ') dz '
The probability density at z2 is 2 = 1 e
So the transmission coefficient becomes
2 z2
2 z1 2 x(z') dz'
T= 2
=e
1
2 z2

!
z1 2m(EV ( z') ) dz'
=e
The tunneling probability is very small.
The wavenumber is continuosly varying due to the potential: more real.
Reasonable approximation for the tunneling probability if the incident
<< z (width of the potential barrier)
Square barrier 16k 2 x 2 2 xs Exponential dependence

plane wave T 2 2 2 e of the transmission coefficient
(k + x )
Current depends on transfer

Square barrier 2 2 dN matrix elements (containing exp.
electron states jt = Mrl Dependence) and on DOS
! dEr
True barrier representation if
Real barrier 2 z2 <<z. Varying exponential
z1 2m (E V (z '))dz '
T=e
dependence of the transmission
Plane waves !
coefficient
Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode
Planar tunnel junctions.

insulator = vacuum.
The insulator defines the barrier.
Similar free electron like electrodes.
At equilibrium there is no net
tunneling current and the Fermi level
is aligned.
V (z ) = EF + (z )
1
U=Bias voltage
What is the net current if we apply a bias voltage?
We must consider the Fermi distribution of electrons
Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2
Emax
1
N1 =
m
n(vz )T(Ez )dEz
0
Where
vz = electron speed along z. v r2 = v x2 + v y2
m
Er =
2v r2
Emax
1
N1 =
m
n(vz )T(Ez )dEz
0
Where
vz = electron speed along z.
n(vz)dvz = number of electrons/volume with vz
m4 m3
n (v )dv x dv y dvz = f (E )dv x dv y dvz n ( vz ) =

4 !
3 3
2 2 !3
0
f (E)dEr
Emax
1
N1 =
m
n(vz )T(Ez )dEz
0
Where
T(Ez) = transmission coefficient of e- tunneling through V(z) with
energy Ez
2 2m s2
s1 E F1 + ( z ) E z dz
T(E z ) = e !
Emax
1
N1 =
m
n(vz )T(Ez )dEz
0
Where
T(Ez) = transmission coefficient of e- tunneling through V(z) with
energy Ez.
f(E) is the fermi distribution 1
f (E ) = E EF
1+e KT

E max
m2
N1 = 2 3 T(E z )dEz f (E )dE r
2 ! 0
0
Flux from electrode 2 at positive potential

U to electrode 1
E max
m 2

N2 = 2 3 T(E z )dEz f (E + eU )dE r
2 ! 0
0
Total number of electrons tunneling across junction

Emax
+ m2 % (.
N = N1 N 2 = T(Ez )dEz ,
- 2 !
3'
& 0
f (E)dEr 0
f (E + eU)dEr */
)0
0
Electron tunneling across 1-D metal electrodes
since V (z ) = EF + (z )
1
2 2m s2
s1 E F1 + ( z ) E z dz
T(E z ) = e !
E max
J = T(E z )( 1 2 )dE z
0
T is small when EF-Ez is large
e- close to the Fermi level of the negatively biased electrode

contribute more effectively to the tunneling current
For positive U 2 is negligible so the net current flows from 1 to 2

Applications of tunnel equation
To perform the integration over the barrier

1 s1
define =
s s (z )dz
1
2s 2m
A=
!
By integration it can be shown that
A EF + E z
T(E z ) e 1
em em
At 0 K 1 =
2 2!3
(EF E z
1
) 2 =
2 !
2 3
(
EF Ez eU 1
)
eV 0 < E z < E F1 eU
em
= 2 3 E F1 E z E F eU < E z < E F
2 ! 1 1
0 Ez > EF 1
hence
em E F eU A E F1 + E z E F1 A E F1 + E z
J 2 3
2 !
eU 0
1
e dE z +
E F1 eU
(E F1 )
Ez e dE z

integrating
e
J
4 2!s 2
{ e A
( + eU )e A +eU
} =
1
s
s1
s (z )dz
1
2s 2m
A=
!
Current density flowing from electrode 1 to electrode 2 and vice versa
If V = 0 dynamic equilibrium: current density flowing in either direction

e
J1 e A
e
4 !s
2 2
J2 ( + eU )e A +eU
4 !s
2 2
For positive U 2 is negligible so

the net current flows from 1 to 2
Low biases
e
eU << J
4 !s
2 2
{ e A
( + eU )e A +eU
}
k
k b b
(a + b ) = a 1 + a k 1 + k
k
a a
eU eU eU
A 1+ A 1+

A
e A +eU
=e
e 2
= e A e 2
eU
e A
J 2 ( + eU e
) 2
e A
4 !s 2

Low biases eV <<
Neglect second order contributions in U
e
)1 A eU
A
J ( + eU e
=
4 !s
2 2
2

e eU A
+ A eU e
=
4 !s
2 2
2
e A
eU 1e A
4 !s
2 2 2
e A
A J eU e A
since >> 1 4 2!s 2
2
2
At low biases the current
2s 2m e 2 2m varies linearly with
A= J U e A
applied voltage, i.e.
!
4 2! 2 s Ohmic behavior
High biases eU >
0 s0 U
=
2 s = F =
eU s
Electric field strength
Put into general eq.
e
J
4 !s
2 2
{ e A
( + eU )e A +eU
}
evaluating a numerical factor (not included in eq)
3
3
4 2eU
2.2e F 3 24
2m 0
2 2eU
2.96 !eF
2m 0
2 1+

J e e

2.96 !eF
1 + 0

16 2 !0 0

For this condition eU > Second term of eq is negligible

High biases
3
2.2e F 3 2 4
2m0
2
J e

2.96!eF
16 !0
2
const
J U 2e

U
EF2 lies below the bottom of CB1

Hence e- cannot tunnel from 2 to 1
there are no levels available
The situation is reversed for e- tunneling from 1 to 2: all available levels are empty
analogous to field emission from a metal electrode: Fowler-Nordheim regime
Electron tunneling across 1-D potential barrier

16k 2x 2
Square barrier, T 2 e 2xs
Exponential dependence
plane wave (k + x 2 )2 of the transmission coefficient
Square barrier 2 2 dN current depends on transfer matrix

electron states jt = Mrl elements (containing exp. dependence)
! dEr and on DOS
Real barrier 2 z2 Varying exponential dependence

z1 2m (E V (z '))dz '
T=e
Plane waves ! of the transmission coefficient
E max
m2
Real barrier N = N1 N2 = T(E z )dE z
0 2!
3
[ f (E )dE

0
z

0
]
f (E + eU )dE r

Metal electrodes
Tunneling is most effective for e- close to Fermi level
Current flows from to + electrode Low biases: Ohmic behavior

High biases: Fowler-Nordheim
3-D potential barrier
Square barrier 2 2 dN
jt = Mrl
electron states ! dEr
E max
m2
Real barrier
Metal electrodes
N = N1 N2 = T(E z )dE z
0 2!
3
[ f (E )dE

0
z

0
]

f (E + eU )dE r

Join and extend the expression to have the equation for the tunneling current
between a tip and a metal surface
2
1) Matrix element
Mrl = l*HT r dz
Consider two many particle states of the sytem 0,
0
= state with e- from state in left to state in right side of barrier
0, are eigenstates given by the WKB approximation

z
ix (z ')dz '
(z ) = 0e 0

Trick: both are good on one side only and inside
the barrier but not on the other side of the barrier
is linear combination of one intial state 0 and numerous final states
= a 0e iE t + b e iEt
0
Put into Schroedinger equation and get a matrix with elements like
!2
M = *
H(
H 0 dzdS
*
)
2m
0
Applyng a step function along z that is 1 only over barrier region
!2
M = dS *
( *
)
2m

the tunneling matrix element can be evaluated by integrating

a current-like operator over a plane lying in the insulator slab
The tunneling current depends on the electronic states of tip and surface
Problem: calculation of the surface AND tip wavefunctions

Square barrier 2 2 dN
jt = Mrl
electron states ! dEr
E max
m2
Real barrier
Metal electrodes
N = N1 N2 = T(E z )dE z
0 2!
3
[ f (E )dE

0
z

0
]
f (E + eU )dE r

Join the expression to have the equation for the tunneling current
between a tip and a metal surface
2) Current density
2e 2
I = {f (E ) f (E
+ eU )}M (E E )
!
f(E) = Fermi function

U = bias voltage applied to the sample
M = tunneling matrix element
= unperturbed electronic states of the surface Not the many particle states
= unperturbed electronic states of the tip
E (E) = energy of the state () in the absence of tunneling
, are not eigenfunctions of the same H
2e 2
I = {f (E ) f (E + eU )} M (E E )
!
f (E )f (E + eU )
2e 2
I = {f (E )[1 f (E + eU )] f (E + eU )[1 f (E )]} M (E E )
!
At low T one can consider only one directional tunneling
2e 2
I = {f (E )[1 f (E + eU )]} M (E E )
!
2e 2
I = {f (E )[1 f (E + eU )]} M (E E ) 1
!

f (E ) = E EF
1+e KT
Low T + small (10 meV) applied bias voltage (U)
f (E )
f (E + eU ) f (E ) + eU =
E E f (E )
For the Fermi function = (E )
E
= f (E ) + eU (E EF )
2
{f (E )[1 f (E + eU )]} M (E E ) =

2
{f (E )[1 f (E ) + eU (E E )]} M (E E ) =
F
{f (E )[1 f (E )]M (E E ) + f (E )eU M (E

2

2
}
E F ) (E E F )
Low T + small (10 meV) applied bias voltage (U), E <EF f (E ) 1
2e 2 2
I = U M (E E F ) (E E F )
!
Tip modeling
Low T + small applied bias voltage (U)
2e 2 2
I = U M (E E F ) (E E F )
!
Point like tip (unphysical)
2
I (r0 ) (E E F )

The matrix element is proportional to the

probability density of surface states measured at r0
i.e. the local density of states at the Fermi level
The image represents a contour map of

the surface DOS at the Fermi level
Tip modeling
Low T + small applied bias voltage (U)
2e 2 2
I = U M (E E F ) (E E F )
!
tip with radius R

s-type only (quantum numbers l 0 neglected) wave functions
with spherical symmetry to calculate the matrix element
2
I U nt (E F ) e 2xR (r0 ) (E EF ) EF = Fermi energy
r0 = center of curvature of the tip

x = (2m)1/2/ = decay rate
= effective potential barrier height
nt(EF) = density of states
at the Fermi level for the tip
2
(r0 , E F ) = (r0 ) (E E F )

Surface local density of states (LDOS) at EF

measured at r0
Tip modeling
2
I U nt (E F ) e 2xR (r0 ) (E EF )

The matrix element is integrated in a point of the barrier region s
So the value of at r0 is no physically relevant, but it represents the lateral
averaging due to finite tip size
I e 2xR (r0 , E F )
The exponential dependence comes from the matrix element
2
(r0 ) e 2x (s +R )
I e 2xs (r0 , E F )
STM is imaging the LDOS at the tip position

Multiplied by the tip DOS
Tip modeling
Sample wavefunctions have
exponential decay in the z direction
so little corrugation at s from surface
Tip center
position
Surface local density

of states (LDOS) at EF
measured at r0
2
Au lattice
parameter (r0 ) e 2x (s +R )
Calculated LDOS for Au(111)
STM is imaging the LDOS at the tip position

Multiplied by the tip DOS Low T + small applied bias voltage (U)
STM: atomic resolution
1.0
We observe features with a spatial resolution better than 0.1 nm

much lower of the tip curvature radius
Smaller than spherical approximation of the tip wavefunctions (0.8 nm)
Model failing to explain the most important feature

of the STM: atomic resolution
Why?
Accuracy of perturbation theory:
depends critically on the choice of the unperturbed wave
functions, or the unperturbed Hamiltonians. 1.0
For 3D tunneling the choice of unperturbed Hamiltonians is

not unique. This is especially true for higher biases, in
which the potential in the tunneling gap is not flat.
Solution
the unperturbed wave functions
of sample and tip has
to be different in the gap region
!2 2
+ US E = 0
2me
!2 2
+ UT E = 0
2me
This unperturbed Hamiltonian minimizes the error introduced by

neglecting the higher terms in the perturbation series.
The tip states are invariant as the bias changes, simplify calculations.
Easier estimation of bias distortion because the bias only affects
the sample wave function, thus can be treated perturbatively
To calculate I, the of the acting atom is expanded in
terms of a complete set of eigenfunctions.
Two choices:
spherical coordinates
parabolic coordinates
Spherical coordinates are appropriate

for describing atom loosely bonded on the tip
Parabolic coordinates are appropriate

for describing atom tightly bonded to the tip body.
, ,
x = cos
y = sin
( )
z =
2
!2 * h h
M = =0 h dd
*
2m
Calculated on the paraboloid
!2 * h h
M = =0 h dd
*
2m
Differences to Bardeen expression
the wave functions are the eigenfunctions

of tip and sample unperturbed Hamiltonians
which are different in the gap region.
It is valid only on the paraboloid that is the boundary

of the tip body, not in the entire barrier region
what is needed for calculating the tunneling matrix elements

is the wave functions on the boundary of the tip
On and outside boundary the tip satisfies the free electron
Schroedinger equation decaying exponentially
2mE
( 2
) = 0
2
2 =
!2
expand in term of the parabolic eigenfunctions
with boundary conditions to be regular at r unperturbed wave functions
of sample and tip different
= lmil (r )lm ( , ) in the gap region
l ,m
The contribution of the tip wave function is determined only by its asymptotic values.

The details of the tip wave functions near the center of the acting atom are not important
On and inside boundary the sample satisfies the free electron ( 2

2 ) = 0
Schroedinger equation decaying exponentially
2mE
expand in term of the parabolic eigenfunctions 2 =
with boundary conditions to be regular at center of the acting atom !2
= lmkl (r )lm ( , )
l ,m
The contribution of the sample wave function is determined only by the values of the sample
wave function in the vicinity of the center of the acting atom.

The details of the sample wave functions outside the tip body are not important
!2 * h h
M = =0 h dd
*
2m
So M has to be integrated using orthonormal wavefunctions

lm ( , ) Spherical harmonics
il (r ), kl (r ) Bessel functions
!2
M = lm lm
2m l m
,
That leads to determine only the coefficients of the tip and

sample expansion on orthonormal wavefunctions.
The coefficients are determined by calculating the derivatives

of the at the center of the acting atom
= lmil (r )lm ( , )
l ,m
M gives the correspondence between tip and sample wavefunctions

!2
M = lm lm = lmil (r )lm ( , )
2m l m
, l ,m
For a choosen tip state, M changes and defines
the relation to the coeffiecients of the surface
Tip states = e r M =
e r + (r0 )
s
2r
xe r x x + x r0
x
4r 2
p
ye r
y y y + y
4r 2 r0
( x 2 y 2 )e r 2 2
2
) (x y 2 )+
(x y ) 2
2 2
8r 3 (x 2
y 2 x 2
y r0
d
xye r
xy 2
4r 3 2 xy xy xy r0
The tunneling matrix elements are related to the sample wavefunction derivatives
The approximation on s state only is wrong

the surface state of a real W tip
extends into vacuum more than s and d states
So the atomic resolution is given by the l 0 wave functions
It is the most protruding electronic states that provides the J

Not only the electron states at the Fermi level
Reciprocity principle
Is a basic microscopic symmetry ofSTM
If the "acting" electronic state of the tip and the sample

state are interchanged, the image should be the same.
An image of microscopic scale may be interpreted either as by

probing the sample state with a tip state or by probing the tip
state with a sample state
Band structure effects
eU
I t ( eU E ) s (E T) (E , eU )dE
0
2m t +s eU
2( s +R ) + E z
T (E , eU ) = e !2 2 2
The electron energy in a solid depends on the band structure
E = E (k) k is such that k+G=k
The surface and tip define the direction z
E = E (k ) = E (kz ) + E k ( )
This may results in tunneling from surface or bulk states depending on their spatial extension
Also T is changing as a function of E
2m t + s eU
x =
!2 2
+
2
E (kz ) E k

( )
Electrons in states with large parallel wavevector tunnel less effectively
Constant current imaging
Unchanged
Tunneling Unchanged
Current (nA) z Tunneling
Current (nA)
Typical working mode
Constant height imaging
Higher Lower
Tunneling Tunneling
Current (nA) Current (nA)
Applied only on very flat regions

Imaging: spatial configuration and energy dependence of electron states (LDOS)

need not to correspond in any simple way to the atomic positions
Example: linear lattice Si and Ge (111) cleaved surfaces
i
x
i
x
x
=e
+ a +e a = 2 cos
a
i
x
i
x
x
=e
a e a = 2i sin
a
At the Bragg reflection the potential

gives rise to a forbidden energy region
The band gap
Imaging: spatial configuration and energy dependence of electron states (LDOS)
need not to correspond in any simple way to the atomic positions
2 x
+ = + cos 2 Charge density ON atomic positions
a
2 x Charge density BETWEEN atomic positions

= sin2
a
In the image always topographic AND electronic features

Finite bias
2
eU = 0.01 eV I U nt (E F ) e 2xR (r0 ) (E EF )

But for eU about 1 eV?
The sum has to be done on many different states

Larger distortion of tip and sample wavefunctions
Approximation
Use undistorted tip and sample wavefunctions also at finite bias

2
I U nt (E F ) e 2xR (r0 ) (E EF )

eU
I t ( eU E ) s (E , r )dE 0 Integral over all e- states
0 up to eU from Fermi level
at the tip position
DOStip DOSsample
eU
Finite bias
I t ( eU E ) s (E , r0 )dE
0
But DOS sample decays into vacuum depending on barrier
defined by the tip-sample distance so use WKB approximation
2m t +s eU
2( s +R ) 2
+ E
s (E , r0 ) s (E )e ! 2 2
= s (E T
) (E , eU )
The M now appears as DOS but

the effects of finite biases are
included as modified x
eU
0
Integral over all electronic states

up to eU from Fermi level
Imaging occupied or unoccupied states
Finite bias
eU
0
What does it means imaging occupied or unoccupied electronic states?
Occupied Unoccupied
At constant current means tunneling At constant current means tunneling

from all sample occupied states into all from all tip occupied states into all
tip unoccupied states sample unoccupied states
All is defined by bias voltage All is defined by bias voltage
Finite bias
eU
0
Integral over all electronic states from Fermi level up to eU
The information is geometric and electronic and is convoluted
To separate the two one can collect images at different biases
The two states give different TOTAL intensity in the image

Tunneling Spectroscopy
eU
Integral over all electronic states
I t ( eU E ) s (E T) (E , eU )dE up to eU from Fermi level
0
The current is proportional to the occupied or unoccupied integral DOS
For metals the dI/dU is proportional to DOS at a given energy (low eU)
eU
dI dT (E , eU )
t (0 ) s (eU T
) (eU , eU ) + t ( eU E ) s (E ) dE
dU 0
dU
background
However this cannot be measured at constant current with feedback loop on
Large voltage dependent background due to T
Solution: dI/dU at constant separation (feedback loop off)

eU
dI
) (eU , eU ) + t ( eU E ) s (E )dT (E , eU )dE
t (0 ) s (eU T
dU 0
dU
For e- injection into semiconductor unoccupied state

The e- come mainly from EF so the I is mainly due to sample DOS
For e- injection into tip unoccupied state

The e- come mainly from lowest lying levels of semiconductor so:
problem: the I is mainly due to tip DOS?
For now, consider the tip DOS as constant so
eU
dI
) (eU , eU ) + s (E )dT (E , eU )dE
s (eU T
dU 0
dU
DOS background
eU
dI s (E ) dT (E , eU )
s (eU ) + dE
dU 0
T (eU , eU ) dU
I 1
eU
T (E , eU )
(E ) dE
U eU s
T (eU , eU ) Normalization term
0
For semiconductors no low voltage approximation: I needs to be normalized

2m t +t eU
2( s +R ) + E
T (E , eU ) = e !2 2 2
For U > 0 T(E,eU) < T(eU,eU) and maximum transmission occurs at E = eU

The terms have same order of magnitude
For U < 0 T(E,eU) > T(eU,eU) and maximum transmission occurs at E = 0
The background and denominator terms have same order of magnitude

Larger than sample DOS
Acquiring STS spectra
Si(111)-(2x1)
Sample and hold technique
Stop the tip on a location

Disable feedback
Scan V and monitor I
Taken at different initial

measuring conditions, i.e.
different tip-sample distances
Acquiring STS spectra
Measuring at the same time the dI/dV one obtains

the normalized conductance, independent of
Tip-sample distance
Data show that

the normalized conductance
does not depend on tip-sample distance
-bonded chain
Bulk DOS
occupied empty
Band structure effects
2m 2meU 2
x = + k
!2 !2
2m 1
Measured voltage dependence of x x = 2
= 2.2 A Minimum value
!
The data allow to get
(about 4.2 eV)
and gives x = 22 nm-1
2m 2meU 2 2
x = + kz k
But what about the increase below 1 eV? !2 !2
1
Using this with the data one gets k = 1.1 A
Close to the maximum wavevector at the edge of SBZ
At low bias the current is dominated by states at the edge of SBZ
Obtaining STS images
Current-imaging Voltage-dependent imaging

dI/dV with lock in tunneling spectroscopy
Apply modulation (CITS)
Collect dI/dV while scanning Feedback on only 30% of the time Integrate over an energy
simultaneously at each point Collect dI/dV at fixed separation interval at state onset
-0.35 V +0.7 V
-0.7 V
-0.8 V
DOS at the set point

of imaging condition
Emphasize one state
Possible only in stable -1.7 V
tunneling conditions
(not in band gap) Need to be done at V following Spatial relationship between
topography of nuclei occupied and unoccupied states
Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM)
Design and instrumentation
Approach mechanism
Enables the STM tip to be positioned

within tunneling distance of the sample
High precision scanning mechanism
Enables the tip to be rastered above the surface
Control electronics
Control tip-surface separation

Drive the scanning elements
Facilitate data acquisition.
Vibration isolation
The microscope must be designed to be insensitive

or isolated from ambient noise and vibrations.
Review of Scientific Instruments 60 (1989) 165

Surface Science Reports 26 (1996) 61

Clases TM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clases TM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MFlores dfi-FCFM-UChile

Microscopia de efecto tnel

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM)

Typical quantum phenomenon

Role of tunneling in physics and knowledge development:

Time independent Time-dependent

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Region 1 1 = eikz + R eikz

Region 3 3 =Te ikz

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Continuity conditions on and d/dz give

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

A square integrable (normalized) wave

In a finite space region this conditions

i! # * * & Probability current

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

For the potential barrier

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

For strongly attenuating barriers xs >> 1

Barrier width s = 0.5 nm, V0 = 4 eV T ~ 10-5

The transmission coefficient

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Exponential dependence of tunneling current

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Ideal situation: Incident state from left has

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Approximate solutions of exact Hamiltonian

l has to be matched with the

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

With the exact Hamiltonian on left and right,

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

We choose the wavefunction

Put into Hamiltonian

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

The total probability over the space is

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Introduce a more real potential V(z), which is slowly varying

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

This is true only if the first term is negligible, i.e.

WKB approximation: Wenzel- Kramer Brillouin

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Suppose the particle encounters a barrier between 0 < z1 < z2,

The probability density inside the barrier is

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

So the transmission coefficient becomes

Electron tunneling across 1D potential barrier

Square barrier 16k 2 x 2 2 xs Exponential dependence

Current depends on transfer

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Planar tunnel junctions.

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2

Electron tunneling across 1D metal electrode

Flux from electrode 1 to electrode 2

Flux from electrode 2 at positive potential

Total number of electrons tunneling across junction

T is small when EF-Ez is large