2016
DOI: 10.1557/adv.2016.170
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Scanning Tunneling Microscopy of Atomic Scale Phonon Standing Waves in Quasi-freestanding WSe2 Monolayers

Abstract: Using scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) we observed atomic scale interference patterns on quasi-freestanding WSe 2 islands grown on top of graphene. The bias-independent double atomic size periodicity of these patterns and the sharp Brillouin zone edge revealed by 2D STM Fourier analysis indicate formation of optical phonon standing waves due to scattering on intercalating defects supporting these islands. Standing wave patterns of both synchronized and non-synchronized optical phonons, corresponding to reso… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 25 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It seems very likely that the two types of interference patterns on STM images are associated with two different kinds of boundary conditions, decay laws, and scattering regimes 32 imposed by intercalation defects. The observed difference could be induced by two types of intercalating molecules with different masses, for example CO vs. H 2 O molecules, or it could be caused by two preferential attachment sites for intercalation defects 33 34 (see left inset of Fig. 3e ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It seems very likely that the two types of interference patterns on STM images are associated with two different kinds of boundary conditions, decay laws, and scattering regimes 32 imposed by intercalation defects. The observed difference could be induced by two types of intercalating molecules with different masses, for example CO vs. H 2 O molecules, or it could be caused by two preferential attachment sites for intercalation defects 33 34 (see left inset of Fig. 3e ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%