pith. sign in

arxiv: 1907.04900 · v1 · pith:YJAUQ6DQnew · submitted 2019-07-10 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.comp-ph

A hydrodynamic approach to electron beam imaging using a Bloch wave representation

Samantha Rudinsky , Raynald Gauvin This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 23:35 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.comp-ph
keywords electron beam imagingBloch wave methodhydrodynamic trajectoriesquantum trajectorieselectron diffractiontwo-beam conditionsystematic rowwave function propagation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Bloch wave propagation combined with hydrodynamic trajectories maps electron wave function in microscope imaging conditions.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a method to calculate propagating quantum trajectories from the electron wave function using the Bloch wave approach. These trajectories are used to visualize how the wave function evolves as electrons pass through material under conditions like those in scanning or transmission electron microscopes. The approach reveals the underlying mechanisms for diffraction in the two-beam condition and systematic row setups through a real-space perspective. If successful, this provides a new interpretive tool for understanding particle scattering and diffraction in quantum imaging processes.

Core claim

The Bloch wave method propagates the electron wave function, and associated trajectories are computed to map the wave function as it propagates through the material. This displays the mechanisms behind different commonly investigated diffraction conditions, with simulations performed for the two-beam condition and the systematic row, analyzing electron diffraction through a real space interpretation of the wave function.

What carries the argument

The Bloch wave method for propagating the electron wave function, extended by computing hydrodynamic trajectories to map its propagation.

If this is right

  • Simulations under two-beam conditions display specific diffraction mechanisms.
  • Systematic row conditions are analyzed via real-space wave function interpretation.
  • The method can be coupled with Monte Carlo modelling for more complete electron imaging simulations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such visualizations could help in designing experiments to probe specific diffraction effects more precisely.
  • Extending this to other quantum scattering scenarios might offer similar real-space insights beyond electron microscopy.

Load-bearing premise

The assumption that hydrodynamic trajectory calculations can be accurately combined with the Bloch wave method to represent wave function propagation under electron microscope imaging conditions.

What would settle it

Experimental observation of electron diffraction patterns in a transmission electron microscope that do not match the trajectories predicted by the Bloch wave hydrodynamic simulations under two-beam conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.04900 by Raynald Gauvin, Samantha Rudinsky.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Exit wave function of Cu(100) zone axis orientation at 200keV and a thickness of 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) 3D quantum trajectories at 200 keV of Cu(100) in zone axis orientation and (b) 2D projection on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Quantum force generated by interaction between electron wave function and material around a single atom column [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Simulations of a 30 keV electron beam incident on Cu(100) zone axis, (a) 3D representation of trajectories around a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Intensity of exit wave function and (b) associated velocity field with color scale for simulation done at 30 keV in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Quantum force at 30 keV across entire unit cell. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Quantum trajectories in the two beam condition for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Beam intensity as a function of thickness for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Quantum trajectories computed from two beams, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Trajectories propagated in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (a) Intensity distribution of exit wave function at 500 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Calculations of propagating quantum trajectories associated to a wave function provide new insight into quantum processes such as particle scattering and diffraction. Here, hydrodynamic calculations of electron beam imaging under conditions comparable to those of a scanning or transmission electron microscope display the mechanisms behind different commonly investigated diffraction conditions. The Bloch wave method is used to propagate the electron wave function and associated trajectories are computed to map the wave function as it propagates through the material. Simulations of the two-beam condition and the systematic row are performed and electron diffraction is analysed through a real space interpretation of the wave function. In future work, this method can be further coupled with Monte Carlo modelling in order to create all encompassing simulations of electron imaging.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes combining the Bloch-wave method for propagating an electron wave function through a crystal with hydrodynamic trajectory calculations derived from the probability current, in order to visualize real-space mechanisms of electron diffraction under TEM/STEM conditions. Simulations are presented for the two-beam condition and systematic row; the authors argue that the resulting trajectories display the underlying diffraction physics and suggest future coupling to Monte Carlo scattering.

Significance. If the hydrodynamic trajectories can be shown to be consistent with the continuity equation and to recover established dynamical-diffraction phenomena (pendellösung, channeling), the approach could supply an intuitive real-space complement to conventional intensity maps. The manuscript supplies no such consistency checks or quantitative benchmarks, so the claimed insight remains unverified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theory / Methods] The central claim (abstract and §1) that the Bloch-wave-plus-hydrodynamic construction 'displays the mechanisms' rests on the unshown assertion that trajectories computed from the multi-beam probability current remain consistent with the continuity equation inside the periodic potential. No derivation or numerical test of current conservation is supplied for either the two-beam or systematic-row case.
  2. [Results] §4 (two-beam simulations): the trajectories are presented as revealing channeling and diffraction contrast, yet no comparison is made to the known analytic pendellösung period or to the intensity oscillations obtained from the same Bloch-wave coefficients. Without this benchmark the real-space interpretation cannot be validated.
  3. [Results] Systematic-row results (Fig. 5–7): the paper asserts that the hydrodynamic map distinguishes different diffraction conditions, but the only output shown is the trajectory plot itself; no quantitative metric (e.g., transmitted intensity versus thickness, or comparison with multislice) is reported to confirm that the trajectories reproduce the expected Bragg intensities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Theory] Notation for the velocity field v = J/|ψ|² is introduced without an explicit statement that it satisfies the continuity equation for the time-independent Schrödinger equation inside the crystal potential.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions do not state the crystal thickness, acceleration voltage, or number of beams retained in the Bloch-wave expansion, making the simulations difficult to reproduce.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed report. The comments correctly identify areas where additional verification would strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the suggested checks in a revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Theory / Methods] The central claim (abstract and §1) that the Bloch-wave-plus-hydrodynamic construction 'displays the mechanisms' rests on the unshown assertion that trajectories computed from the multi-beam probability current remain consistent with the continuity equation inside the periodic potential. No derivation or numerical test of current conservation is supplied for either the two-beam or systematic-row case.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit demonstration of consistency with the continuity equation is desirable. Because the Bloch-wave expansion is obtained by direct solution of the Schrödinger equation inside the periodic potential, the associated probability current is divergence-free by construction (absent absorption). In the revised manuscript we will add a short analytic derivation in the Methods section showing that the hydrodynamic velocity field derived from the multi-beam wave function satisfies the continuity equation. We will also include a numerical test for the two-beam case confirming that the integrated current is conserved to machine precision. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] §4 (two-beam simulations): the trajectories are presented as revealing channeling and diffraction contrast, yet no comparison is made to the known analytic pendellösung period or to the intensity oscillations obtained from the same Bloch-wave coefficients. Without this benchmark the real-space interpretation cannot be validated.

    Authors: The trajectories are intended primarily as a visualization tool. Nevertheless, we accept that a direct benchmark against the known pendellösung behavior is necessary for validation. In the revision we will add a quantitative comparison in §4: the spatial period of intensity oscillation extracted from the trajectory density will be shown to agree with the analytic pendellösung length computed from the same Bloch-wave eigenvalues. This comparison will be presented together with the existing trajectory plots. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Results] Systematic-row results (Fig. 5–7): the paper asserts that the hydrodynamic map distinguishes different diffraction conditions, but the only output shown is the trajectory plot itself; no quantitative metric (e.g., transmitted intensity versus thickness, or comparison with multislice) is reported to confirm that the trajectories reproduce the expected Bragg intensities.

    Authors: We acknowledge that quantitative confirmation would better support the claim that the trajectories reproduce established diffraction behavior. In the revised manuscript we will add a supplementary panel or figure that computes the transmitted intensity versus thickness by integrating the probability density along the trajectories and directly compares it with the intensity obtained from the Bloch-wave coefficients for the systematic-row conditions. This will demonstrate consistency with the expected Bragg intensities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivation uses standard Bloch-wave propagation followed by independent trajectory computation

full rationale

The paper states that the Bloch wave method propagates the wave function and trajectories are then computed from it to map propagation under TEM/STEM conditions. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no self-citation is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The two-beam and systematic-row simulations are presented as direct applications of the combined method without re-labeling known results or self-defining quantities. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no information on free parameters, background axioms, or new postulated entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5636 in / 955 out tokens · 22103 ms · 2026-05-24T23:35:34.031413+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kirkland, Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy (Springer US, 2010)

    J. Kirkland, Advanced Computing in Electron Microscopy (Springer US, 2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Allen, A

    L. Allen, A. D’Alfonso, and S. Findlay, Ultramicroscopy 151, 11 (2015), special Issue: 80th Birthday of Harald Rose; {PICO} 2015 Third Conference on Frontiers of Aberration Corrected Electron Microscopy

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    W. V. den Broek, X. Jiang, and C. Koch, Ultramicroscopy 158, 89 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Dwyer, Ultramicroscopy 110, 195 (2010)

    C. Dwyer, Ultramicroscopy 110, 195 (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    S. J. Pennycook and D. E. Jesson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 938 (1990)

    work page 1990

  6. [6]

    Winkelmann, C

    A. Winkelmann, C. Trager-Cowan, F. Sweeney, A. P. Day, and P. Parbrook, Ultramicroscopy 107, 414 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    Findlay, L

    S. Findlay, L. Allen, M. Oxley, and C. Rossouw, Ultramicroscopy 96, 65 (2003)

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    Rossouw, L

    C. Rossouw, L. Allen, S. Findlay, and M. Oxley, Ultramicroscopy 96, 299 (2003), proceedings of the International Workshop on Strategies and Advances in Atomic Level Spectroscopy and Analysis

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    Gauvin, E

    R. Gauvin, E. Lifshin, H. Demers, P. Horny, and H. Campbell, Microscopy and Microanalysis 12, 49 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Salvat, Annals of Nuclear Energy 82, 98 (2015)

    F. Salvat, Annals of Nuclear Energy 82, 98 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Trahan and R

    C. Trahan and R. Wyatt,Quantum Dynamics with Trajectories: Introduction to Quantum Hydrodynamics, Interdisciplinary Applied Mathematics (Springer, 2006)

    work page 2006

  12. [12]

    Oriols, Phys

    X. Oriols, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 066803 (2007)

    work page 2007

  13. [13]

    Sanz and S

    ´A. Sanz and S. Miret-Art´ es,A Trajectory Description of Quantum Processes. I. Fundamentals: A Bohmian Perspective , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    A. Sanz, M. Davidovi´ c, M. Boˇ zi´ c, and S. Miret-Art´ es, Annals of Physics325, 763 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    A. S. Sanz, F. Borondo, and S. Miret-Art´ es, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 14, 6109 (2002)

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    Efthymiopoulos, N

    C. Efthymiopoulos, N. Delis, and G. Contopoulos, Annals of Physics 327, 438 (2012)

    work page 2012

  17. [17]

    Rudinsky, A

    S. Rudinsky, A. S. Sanz, and R. Gauvin, Journal of Chemical Physics 146, 104702 (2017)

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    Zhang, Y

    M. Zhang, Y. MING, R. ZENG, and Z. DING, Journal of Microscopy 260, 200 (2015)

    work page 2015

  19. [19]

    Zeng and Z

    R. Zeng and Z. Ding, Journal of Surface Analysis 17, 198 (2011)

    work page 2011

  20. [20]

    Picard, M

    Y. Picard, M. Liu, J. Lammatao, R. Kamaladasa, and M. D. Graef, Ultramicroscopy 146, 71 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Cheng, Y

    L. Cheng, Y. Ming, and Z. J. Ding, New Journal of Physics 20, 113004 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    De Graef, Introduction to Conventional Transmission Electron Microscopy (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    M. De Graef, Introduction to Conventional Transmission Electron Microscopy (Cambridge University Press, 2003)

    work page 2003

  23. [23]

    Zuo and A

    J. Zuo and A. Weickenmeier, Ultramicroscopy 57, 375 (1995)

    work page 1995

  24. [24]

    Wang and M

    A. Wang and M. D. Graef, Ultramicroscopy 160, 35 (2016)

    work page 2016

  25. [25]

    Sanz and S

    ´A. Sanz and S. Miret-Art´ es,A Trajectory Description of Quantum Processes. II. Applications: A Bohmian Perspective , Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013)

    work page 2013

  26. [26]

    Chattaraj, Quantum Trajectories, Atoms, Molecules, and Clusters (CRC Press, 2010)

    P. Chattaraj, Quantum Trajectories, Atoms, Molecules, and Clusters (CRC Press, 2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Egerton, Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy in the Electron Microscope (Springer US, 2013)

    R. Egerton, Electron Energy-Loss Spectroscopy in the Electron Microscope (Springer US, 2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Pladevall and J

    X. Pladevall and J. Mompart, Applied Bohmian Mechanics: From Nanoscale Systems to Cosmology (Pan Stanford, 2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Cowley, Diffraction Physics , North-Holland Personal Library (Elsevier Science, 1995)

    J. Cowley, Diffraction Physics , North-Holland Personal Library (Elsevier Science, 1995)

    work page 1995

  30. [30]

    Reimer and H

    L. Reimer and H. Kohl, Transmission Electron Microscopy: Physics of Image Formation, Springer Series in Optical Sciences (Springer, 2008)

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    Wang, Elastic and inelastic scattering in electron diffraction and imaging , Language of science (Plenum Press, 1995)

    Z. Wang, Elastic and inelastic scattering in electron diffraction and imaging , Language of science (Plenum Press, 1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [32]

    Hagemann and L

    P. Hagemann and L. Reimer, Philosophical Magazine A 40, 367 (1979), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01418617908234846

    work page doi:10.1080/01418617908234846 1979

  33. [33]

    Phillips, M

    P. Phillips, M. Mills, and M. D. Graef, Philosophical Magazine 91, 2081 (2011), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786435.2010.547526

    work page doi:10.1080/14786435.2010.547526 2081

  34. [34]

    P. Rez, C. J. Humphreys, and M. J. Whelan, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 35, 81 (1977), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786437708235974

    work page doi:10.1080/14786437708235974 1977