Particles smaller than the wavelength of light

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the limitations of using ordinary light to detect particles smaller than the wavelength of light. Participants explore the physical explanations behind these limitations, the implications of using different wavelengths, and alternative detection methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that ordinary light cannot provide detailed information about small particles due to the scattering characteristics of waves when interacting with objects smaller than their wavelength.
  • One participant argues that while light can detect small particles, it does not yield information about their size or structure, as the scattering results in a spherical wave with little intensity variation.
  • Another analogy compares the detection of small objects to trying to feel them while wearing boxing gloves, suggesting that visible light only reveals objects larger than its wavelength.
  • Some participants mention that using electromagnetic waves with shorter wavelengths could theoretically provide more detail, but this comes with the caveat of increased energy, which may disturb the particles being observed.
  • A participant introduces Near-field Scanning Optical Microscopy (NSOM) as a technique that can detect objects smaller than the wavelength of light, suggesting that resolution is limited by probe-sample separation rather than wavelength.
  • There is a discussion about the potential use of higher frequency waves, such as gamma rays, to detect smaller shapes, but concerns are raised about the energy imparted to the particles.
  • One participant poses a question about the energy and wavelength limitations of light and the effects of relative motion on detectability, indicating further exploration of the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the capabilities of light to detect small particles, with some asserting limitations while others highlight techniques that can overcome these limitations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best methods and implications of using different wavelengths.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various techniques and analogies to illustrate their points, but the discussion includes unresolved assumptions about the effects of energy on particle detection and the implications of using different wavelengths.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying optics, particle physics, or microscopy techniques, as well as individuals exploring the theoretical limits of light and wave interactions with matter.

Repetit
Messages
128
Reaction score
2
Why exactly is it that ordinary light cannot be used to detect particles which are smaller than the wavelength of light? It seems logical somehow, that you cannot use a large "tool" to detect small particles, but what is the physical explanation to this??

Thanks in advance!
 
Science news on Phys.org
Repetit said:
Why exactly is it that ordinary light cannot be used to detect particles which are smaller than the wavelength of light? It seems logical somehow, that you cannot use a large "tool" to detect small particles, but what is the physical explanation to this??

First of all, you CAN detect small particles using big wavelength. Only, you will not learn anything about their small-ness and their structure, or their precise position. The essential explanation for it is the scattering of a plane wave by a potential well. It turns out that, if the size of the potential is much smaller than the wavelength of the incoming plane wave, that you get out essentially a spherical scattered wave, with not much structure to it (not much variation of intensity wrt spherical angle). So that's the same result as scattering from a Dirac pulse (= from a point). Also, because of the smoothness of the spherical outgoing wave, it will not differ much when you shift a bit the position of the scatter center. So you will not learn much about the exact position either.
 
Imagine trying to decide exactly what a small object is like, blindfolded, while wearing BOXING gloves. It would not be hard, even with the boxing gloves, to get an idea of the shape of a large object. But you couldn't even feel, say, an indentation smaller than your gloves.

Visible light will tell us about objects in units that are multiples of the wave length. For objects that are themselves smaller than that wavelength we just don't see anything but a blur.

Of course, if we extend from "visible light" to any electro-magnetic wave, we can get arbitrarily small wave lengths. Unfortunately, the energy in the wave increases in inverse proportion to the wavelength. If we use a wave with small enough wave length to get good information about the size and shape of a small object, we are giving it one heck of a kick!
 
Consider an analogy with water waves. Suppose that you have waves traveling across the surface of a pool of water, with a wavelength of one foot (30 cm). Now suppose that these waves encounter a pencil with a diameter of about 0.5 cm, oriented vertically. How much does this single pencil affect the propagation of the waves?
 
Last edited:
Repetit said:
Why exactly is it that ordinary light cannot be used to detect particles which are smaller than the wavelength of light? It seems logical somehow, that you cannot use a large "tool" to detect small particles, but what is the physical explanation to this??

Thanks in advance!

You CAN use light to detect objects much smaller than its wavelength, with great detail too I might add. For example Ruiter et al, (Applied Physics Letters, 71, 28-30) detected a 1.5 nm long strand of DNA using optical wavelengths using a technique called Near-field Scanning Optical Microscopy (NSOM).

NSOM is a technique whereby the limits one normally encountered in the far-field (as mentioned below) are circumvented to a degree. In the near-field resolution is limited only by probe-sample separation and not wavelength as is the case in the far-field. The technique is not all that dissimilar to STM and other AFM imaging techniques.

Claude.
 
Could u not shoot waves with higher frequencies than visible light at it as a kind of radar (gamma rays?) to detect a shape in a bit more detail.
 
Yes, but as I said above, since the energy of an electromagnetic wave is inversely proportional to to its wavelength, You are hitting that small object with higher energy waves and so knocking it away- hence the Shroedinger uncertainty relation.
 
Here's a related question:

What are the energy and wavelength limitations of light? If say you were to project the lowest energy light beam possible from a fixed location and then accelerate away from that location traveling along the beam, what would happen? Would the beam always be hypothetically detectable?

Is it possible for the energy level to drop so low that spin might be affected?

What are the upper limits? If you were to project the highest energy beam possible and then accelerate toward it, what would happen?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
568
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K