Spectroscopic properties unique to nano-emitters

Nano Letters

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2008, Pages 4330-4334

  Walsh, Andrew G ^a,b,c   Bacsa, Wolfgang ^d   Vamivakas, A Nickolas ^b,e,f   Swan, Anna K ^a,b,e  

^a USA   (United States)

^b BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c MTPV Corporation   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^e Boston University   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FOCAL SPOTS; LINE WIDTHS; NANO-SCALE; NANOTUBE EMITTERS; ONE DIMENSIONS; OPTICAL DIFFRACTION LIMITS; OPTICAL EMITTERS; SLIT WIDTHS; SPECTRAL POSITIONS; SPECTROSCOPIC PROPERTIES;

LIGHT;

CARBON NANOTUBES;

EID: 61649120105     PISSN: 15306984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/nl802161w     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Empedocles, S.; Bawendi, M. Acc. Chem. Res. 1999, 32, 389-396.
2. Alen, B.; Bickel, F.; Karrai, K.; Warburton, R. J.; Petroff, P. M. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 83, 2235-2237.
3. Vamivakas, A. N.; Zhao, Y.; Lu, C.-Y.; Atature, M. arXiv:cond-mat/0806. 3707.
4. Bayer, M.; Ortner, G.; Stern, O.; Kuther, A.; Gorbunov, A. A.; Forchel, A.; Hawrylak, P.; Fafard, S.; Hizner, K.; Reinecke, T. L.; Walck, S. N.; Reithmaier, J. P.; Klopf, F.; Schafer, F. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 65, 121309.
5. Findeis, F.; Baier, M.; Zrenner, A.; Bichler, M.; Abstreiter, G.; Hohenester, U.; Molinari, E. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 121309.
6. Zrenner, A.; Markmann, M.; Paassen, A.; Efros, A. L.; Bichler, M.; Wegscheider, W.; Bohm, G.; Abstreiter, G. Physica B 1998, 256, 300-307.
7. Cronin, S. B.; Yin, Y.; Walsh, A. G.; Capaz, R. B.; Stolyarov, A.; Tangney, P.; Cohen, M. L.; Louie, S. G.; Swan, A. K.; Ünlü, M..S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Tinkham, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 127403.
8. Cronin, S. B.; Swan, A. K.; Ünlü, M. S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Dresselhaus, M. S.; Tinkham, M. Phys. Rev. B 2005, 72, 035425.
9. Cronin, S. B.; Swan, A. K.; Ünlü, M. S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Dresselhaus, M. S.; Tinkham, M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 167401.
10. Lucas, M.; Young, R. J. Phys. Rev. B 2004, 69, 085405.
11. Walsh, A. G.; Vamivakas, A. N.; Yin, Y.; Cronin, S. B.; Ünlü, M. S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Swan, A. K. Nano Lett. 2007, 7, 1485-1488.
12. Walsh, A. G.; Vamivakas, A. N.; Yin, Y.; Cronin, S. B.; Ünlü, M. S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Swan, A. K. Physica E 2008, 40, 2375-2379.
13. Advances are being made. See, e.g.: Arnold, M. S.; Green, A. A.; Hulvat, J. F.; Stupp, S. I.; Hersam, S. C. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2006, 1, 60-65.
14. Zheng, M.; Jagota, A.; Strano, M. S.; Santos, A. P.; Barone, P.; Chou, S. G.; Diner, B. A.; Dresselhaus, M. S.; McLean, R. S.; Onoa, G. B.; Samsonidze, G. G.; Semke, E. D.; Usrey, M.; Walls, D. J. Science 2003, 302, 1545-1548.
15. Reich, S.; Thomsen, C.; Maultzsch, J. Carbon Nanotubes: Basic Concepts and Physical Properties; Wiley-VCH: Berlin, 2004.
16. We have found the nano-emitter to be helpful in correcting alignment issues and in diagnosing chromatic aberration effects arising from the beam waist not falling precisely at the plane of the slit. That is, the slit can begin to act as the system aperture stop.
17. http://www.jobinyvon.com/SiteResources/Data/Templates/ldivisional.asp? DocID=566&vlID=&lang.
18. Wang, F.; Sfeir, M. Y.; Huang, L.; Huang, X. M. H.; Wu, Y.; Kim, J.; Hone, J.; O'Brien, S.; Brus, L. E.; Heinz, T. F. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 167401.
19. See Newport application note at http://www.newport.com/file-store/Optics- and-Mechanics/AppsNote28.pdf.
20. Wolf, E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 58, 2646-2648.
21. Gbur, G.; Visser, T. D.; Wolf, E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 88, 013901.
22. Jorio, A.; Souza Filho, A. G.; Brar, V. W.; Swan, A. K.; Ünlü, M. S.; Goldberg, B. B.; Righi, A.; Hafner, J. H.; Lieber, C. M.; Saito, R.; Dresselhaus, G.; Dresselhaus, M. S. Phys. Rev. B 2002, 65, 121402.
23. The beam profile was determined by recording the power as a razor was advanced through the beam by micrometer screw, fitting the resulting curve with the error function, and taking the derivative. The results indicate an incident beam with a nearly perfect Gaussian profile. FWHM = 1.46 mm and objective back focal openings are 3.6 mm and 4 mm for the 100 × and 50 × objectives, respectively.
24. Vamivakas, A. N.; Ippolito, S. B.; Swan, A. K.; Ünlü, M. S.; Dogan, M.; Behringer, E. R.; Goldberg, B. B. Opt. Lett. 2007, 32, 970-972.
25. Rao, A. M.; Eklund, P. C.; Bandow, S.; Thess, A.; Smalley, R. E. Nature 1997, 388, 257-259.
26. Tsang, J. C.; Freitag, M.; Perebeinos, V.; Liu, J.; Avouris, P. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2007, 2, 725-730.
27. Novotny, L.; Hecht, B. Principles of Nano-Optics; Cambridge University Press: New York, 2006.
28. This assumes scalar plane wave illumination of the back aperture in the paraxial limit for low NA and is actually a measure of the beam radius, not the FWHM. Hecht, E. Optics, 4th ed.; Addison Wesley: San Francisco, 2002.
29. g contributes <2% of the instrumental broadening.
30. Here we use the Gaussian form to simply illuminate the different contributions to the line width even though the slit and the pixel have a rectangular form. The result in Figure 4 is obtained from a proper convolution.
31. When the slit starts to clip the diffraction-limited spot size, the line-width contribution from the instrument response decreases. However, the system parameters are often chosen so that the pixel size is approximately commensurate with the diffraction-limited spot size at the slit making this effect moot.