I am a little confused about lenses and mirrors. From my knowledge, lenses refract the light and cause diffraction (how can this produce an image, and does it produce a better image than mirror reflection?), and mirrors cause the light to be reflected (how does this produce an image, is there...
The question was saying that electron microscopes are better than light microscopes because of shorter wavelength used. optical microscopes use light in the visible range. But, why can't we use gamma rays and not view it directly with the eye. So I would say my homework influenced my curiosity
Homework Statement
Why? We can use shorter wavelengths than that of electrons to view electrons and more? What is stopping us? Can the image not be imprinted on a plate of some sort instead of being viewed by the eye directly?
Homework Equations
none
The Attempt at a Solution
I'm guessing no...
If you can imprint photons on a plate in the double slit experiment, why can't you do it in a microscope? Isn't it the same concept as an electron microscope? (to imprint an image on a plate?)
That is what I don't know, I figured if you could imprint an image on a plate of some sort with an electron microscope, you could do the same with a light microscope, without viewing it with the eye directly, but instead on a plate of some sort like an electron microscope.
ok, but an electron microscope isn't optical. So, what if the light microscope wasn't optical as well, would it work then? And i think the wavelength of an electron in an electron microscope is comparable to mostly xray photons not gamma rays, i think?