Talk:Nanoscope

fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Exists?

Does such a device actually exist anywhere? From what I can find in Google, the only "nanoscopes" are brand names for SPMs. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and does not make forecasts about the future, and about devices that have not been invented yet. eaolson 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Eaolson: Such a device is not build yet. The only various atomic mirrors and atomic lenses. Would you like to include the references below to the main article?

B.Holst, W.Allison. An atomfocusing mirror. Nature, v.390, p.244 (1997). --"It follows that a helium microscope with nanometer resolution is possible. A helium atom microscope will be unique non-destructive tool for reflection of transmission microscopy."

F.Shimizu, J.Fujita. Giant Quantum Reflection of Neon Atoms from a Ridged Silicon Surface. J.Phys.Soc. of Japan, v.71, p.5-8 (2002) --"The specular reflectivity of slow, metastable neon atoms from a silicon surface was found to increase markedly when the surface was replaced by a grating structure with parallel narrow ridges. The reflectivity was found to increase more than two orders of magnitude at the incident (grazing) angle 10 mrad."

"Further improvement of the refectivity at a larger angle will be possible if the width of the ridge and the periodicity are reduced." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.119.123.53 (talk • contribs) 00:35, May 21, 2006.

From "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball:"

Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.

Since this microscope (a) does not exist, (b) is not being prototyped, and (c) it's not even clear if it's possible for this microscope to exist, this article seems to me to be original research and inappropriate for Wikipedia. eaolson 16:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Then we should delete this article. How about that? ['frαs.ti] 01:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We should not delete the article. The atomic imaging systems exist. I supply the references. Domitori. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domitori (talk • contribs) 11:21, May 29, 2006.

But the microscope doesn't exist. I looked at a few of your references, and they're just for mirrors and such, not a microscope. In fact, you said above that the "nanoscope" doesn't actually exist. Where did the term come from, anyway? eaolson 16:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page; it's original research

I strongly suggest urge that this article be deleted because there is no such thing as nanoscopes as far as I know. It might be invented in the future, but Wikipedia is *NOT* a crystal ball, and it is never supposed to be one! WP:NOR policy states that:

• "Articles may not contain any unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

And WP:NOT says that:

• "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." (which this article is not)
• "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." (which the article is)

(Even though "nanoscope" may sound cool,) This page only contains very novel and unpublished ideas, which an encyclopedia is not supposed to have. So I'm telling you now, DELETE THIS PAGE, PERIOD! ['frαs.ti] 01:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article is iffy for inclusion into WP. I looked up a couple of the articles listed in a recent edit, and they either don't mention a "nanoscope" or mention a microscope only in the most hand-waving of ways. It appears that any such matter-wave device is years, if not decades, away. I generally agree that the article is original research, but not entirely sure. The three criterial listed at WP:NOT are:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Not clear if this is an "event" or not. It's clearly not almost certain to take place.
2. ...individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names... Not applicable here.
3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. This appears to be the most relevant. Now, there is some speculation in the scientific research that this device might be possible, but it's far from certain. So the question becomes: is this article presenting original research in its own right, or just reporting on the speculation in the literature? And if the latter, is that enough to warrant inclusion into WP?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it's not enough, and am considering nominating the article as an AfD. If kept, I think the dozen or so references recently added need to be completely reformatted so they are understandable to someone not familiar with physics citation formats, but I'm not going to do that unless it is clear the article will remain. eaolson 15:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Eaolson, you convinced me. I swaped the content of articles nanoscope and the atomic nanoscope. nanoscope becomes the disambiguiety article. I suggest that you put some of your comments above as description of other kinds of nanoscopy. Domitori.

Article name

One more thing, it seems to me that the title of this article is a complete neologism. "Nanoscope" is already the name of a product marketed by Digital Instruments, and there is some confusion (it's also hard to do a Google search to find out if this is a neologism or not). It is unlikely that such a microscope as described here would have higher resolution that some exisiting microscopes, so it seems that titling the article as such is just a way to get everyone's favorite buzzword of the week, "nano," in the title. eaolson 15:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Eaolson.

Thank you for your crytics. I supply references what prove that the atomic optical imaging system with nano-scale resolution was discussed since past century, and not only in the journal papers but also in the monographies. Many authors use prefix "nano" talking about such systems.

As for the name of the article... it can remain as "atomic nanoscope", causing no confusion with the product of the Digital Instruments. The scanning imaging system at the limiting resolution is definitely digital instrument. Also, It may easy happen that soon the same Digital Instruments becomes the first company which commertially distributes not only nanoscopes, but also atomic nanoscopes.

Sincerely, DomiTori.

Why_Asserting_{Expert}_Template

See Also: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Is_this_original_research?; Which it's clearly NOT, but there is some brand naming involved. The second line in particular is in need of clarification, particularly with respect to what is meant by 'Flat'. the referenced link give some good photomicrographs that are clearly cellular structures, and so are 3D. At that resolution, nearly everything is 3D though! So some technical thought needs bent on that line and the 'SPM's referenced, and perhaps there are some articles that need generated. Good luck! // FrankB 16:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

After I posted that to the VP, the nanoscope article has been moved to atomic nanoscope. My question was NOT in reference to this page. eaolson 17:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Neologism

With the article having been moved to atomic nanoscope, this article seems unnecessary. The use of "nanoscope" to mean "microscope" appears to be a total neologism. I've never heard anyone use the word to mean a magnifying device. The only exception appears to be in reference to the atomic nanoscope, and then only in one or two publications by Domitori's research group. I'm nominating this as an AfD. eaolson 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)