3 ms·

Isn’t an X-Ray better than a photo in this context because it delivers way more information?

• gus_massa 3y ago
  The problem is that when people read "x-ray" or "photo", they expect a 2D image/array of values, where each pixel represent a part of the space (or a projection of it). As a sibling comment says, this is an spectroscopy. You regulate some level of frequency/energy with the input (x-ray) and you get only one value (current in the tunnel tip). So you get a 1D array of values that is easy to see like a function. But each point does not correspond to a part of the space, it's some abstract value connected to the whole atom. Oversimplifying, look at the image at the bottom. When people read "x-ray" they expect something like the left panel, but their result was the right panel. Note that spectroscopy is very useful. There are like 5 or 10 methods and each one is related to a different property of the atom/molecule. So a new one is always welcome, but it may take a while to understand all the advantages and disadvantages of his one. The problem is the whole story about x-rays. They are using x-rays, but the method and result is very different from the x-ray images people know.