Theory of Structured illumination microscopy

  • Thread starter Thread starter u0362565
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Microscopy Theory
AI Thread Summary
Super-resolution microscopy utilizes structured illumination to capture information beyond traditional frequency limits, leading to the formation of moire patterns. These patterns arise from the interference of light, where excitation occurs in light bands while dark bands remain inactive. The discussion highlights confusion regarding the source of interference, questioning why emission is not solely from illuminated areas. The relationship between moire patterns and beat frequencies in sound is noted, but the complexities of spatial frequency in light complicate the analogy. A clearer explanation of the interaction between incident and emitted light is sought to better understand the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon.
u0362565
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

My question concerns the theory of how super resolution microscopy causes a frequency shift to allow information normally outside of the observable region of frequency space to be captured by the objective lens.

I have read various papers on this including those by Mats Gustafsson which describe the theory but I'm still having a hard time trying to visualise what's actually going on.

I'd like to be able to describe to people who know nothing about optics how this method works and the angle i'd like to take is that its based on the interference of light. But for my own understanding i'd like to know why moire patterns form when the excitation light is "structured" i.e. contains a high spatial frequency illumination pattern.

When trying to visualise this, a striped pattern would be seen on the sample as regular repeating lines. In the light bands excitation light is exciting the sample but where there is a dark band there is no excitation?

But what i don't really understand is where is the interference coming from? Why is it not simply that there is emission from the light areas of the grid but none from the dark areas.

Its easy to explain beat frequencies in terms of sound and as i understand it beat frequencies in sound and moire patterns are the same thing? When 2 sounds of similar frequency interfere the result is the difference between the 2 frequencies. When thinking of light and structured illumination though its not such a simple case. As the frequencies we're referring to are not the frequencies of light as we traditionally think of it i.e. wavelengths per second, but the spatial frequency of the illumination pattern?

Everything i read talks about the interaction of a high spatial frequency introduced by the incident excitation light and the high spatial frequencies inherent in the distribution density of fluorescence, but to me this isn't a good enough explanation for what's going on. Can anyone explain this in a straightforward way by describing what's actually happening between the incident light and the emitted light to cause moire patterns and thus a frequency shift? Perhaps by replicating the idea of how this occurs with sound.

Thanks for your help!

Matt
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't know that such a thing exists. Thanks for posting this. I'm interested in seeing the results.
 
I like gustafsson's explanation and this paper has the clearest description I've seen. I still feel though that it doesn't explicitly explain why the moire patterns form. Simply saying frequencies mix to produce the difference frequency doesn't seem like enough or should i just accept this as is.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Thread 'Recovering Hamilton's Equations from Poisson brackets'
The issue : Let me start by copying and pasting the relevant passage from the text, thanks to modern day methods of computing. The trouble is, in equation (4.79), it completely ignores the partial derivative of ##q_i## with respect to time, i.e. it puts ##\partial q_i/\partial t=0##. But ##q_i## is a dynamical variable of ##t##, or ##q_i(t)##. In the derivation of Hamilton's equations from the Hamiltonian, viz. ##H = p_i \dot q_i-L##, nowhere did we assume that ##\partial q_i/\partial...
Back
Top