The Student Room Group

Microscopy question

In practise, the theoretical resolving power of an electron microscope cannot always be acheived . Why not?

I would be so grateful if you could answer this...I'm thinking its because there is still air, even though there is a vaccum, as electrons are disturbed by air...I'm not sure!
Original post by Dumbledore'sArmy
In practise, the theoretical resolving power of an electron microscope cannot always be acheived . Why not? (...)


I have an assumption: after de Broglie relation, its iamba = h / m * v, where h (Planck's constant) and m (mass of the electron) are constants. Its the formula to calculate the wavelength of an electron (beam). The shorter the wavelength, the better the resolving power of a microscope. That is the reason why a light microscope has a lesser resolving power than an electron microscope: the wavelength of a light particel (photon) or a light beam is greater than the one of an electron.

As you can see, the formula above depends on the velocity only, as the quantities h and m are constants as written before. But in imagination of quantum physics, the velocity has a limit. Nothing can be faster than the light itself. And that is the reason why a wavelength cannot be shorter till a certain minimum. Thus the resolving power cannot always be acheived.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Kallisto
I have an assumption: after de Broglie relation, its iamba = h / m * v, where h (Planck's constant) and m (mass of the electron) are constants. Its the formula to calculate the wavelength of an electron (beam). The shorter the wavelength, the better the resolving power of a microscope. That is the reason why a light microscope has a lesser resolving power than an electron microscope: the wavelength of a light particel (photon) or a light beam is greater than the one of an electron.

As you can see, the formula above depends on the velocity only, as the quantities h and m are constants as written before. But in imagination of quantum physics, the velocity has a limit. Nothing can be faster than the light itself. And that is the reason why a wavelength cannot be shorter till a certain minimum. Thus the resolving power cannot always be acheived.


I love your response, really. But what you said to me looks like jibberish. My brain cannot handle that. Can you put it into really easy words and summarise it. Sorry haha.
Original post by Dumbledore'sArmy
I love your response, really. But what you said to me looks like jibberish. My brain cannot handle that. Can you put it into really easy words and summarise it. Sorry haha.


Sorry. I will put it in easier words for you. The resolving powers depends on the wavelength, even though its not the only dependence. The wavelength depends on the velocity only. The velocity has a limit, that is why the wavelength of an electron has a limit too. That is to say, there is a certain minimum of a short wavelength. Refer to the resolving power, it has a limit too. Hope that it was a clearer response for you.

By the way, I don't believe in disturbing electrons by the air, as the tube of the electron microscope is a vacuum.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Kallisto
Sorry. I will put it in easier words for you. The resolving powers depends on the wavelength, even though its not the only dependence. The wavelength depends on the velocity only. The velocity has a limit, that is why the wavelength of an electron has a limit too. That is to say, there is a certain minimum of a short wavelength. Refer to the resolving power, it has a limit too. Hope that it was a clearer response for you.

By the way, I don't believe in disturbing electrons by the air, as the tube of the electron microscope is a vacuum.


Thank you for explaining to my simpleton brain! Thanks so much for taking your time to answer :smile:
Original post by Dumbledore'sArmy
Thank you for explaining to my simpleton brain! Thanks so much for taking your time to answer :smile:


You are welcome, but I recommend you to refer to the de broglie relation above and to mention the quantities to formulate a simple answer. :wink:
Original post by Kallisto
You are welcome, but I recommend you to refer to the de broglie relation above and to mention the quantities to formulate a simple answer. :wink:



Sure will :smile:
Original post by Dumbledore'sArmy
Sure will :smile:


By the way I have heard some days ago that a German chemist who was awarded with the nobel prize has found a method to drop the minimum of the wavelength of the light to improve the resolving power in microscopy. :smile:
Original post by Kallisto
By the way I have heard some days ago that a German chemist who was awarded with the nobel prize has found a method to drop the minimum of the wavelength of the light to improve the resolving power in microscopy. :smile:



Oh really!? What's his name? Wish I could find something new and earn a Nobel prize..
Original post by Dumbledore'sArmy
Oh really!? What's his name? Wish I could find something new and earn a Nobel prize..


His name is Stefan Hell. Google it. That can be very interesting for you. Thanks to him, small things like proteins, molecules and bacteria are more visible than before.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending