Sender: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 15:41:58 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed |
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
On 4/14/2011 3:31 PM, Mark Cannell wrote:
> I'm afraid the idea is MUCH older than 2008. I recall reading a paper
> from the (?) 1960's that discussed the idea that the diffraction limit
> was not a real limit at all. I believe they were using bacteria as an
> example of where knowledge of the object imparts more information to
> overcome the 'limit'
I think no one would deny that if you know what you're looking at, you
can break the "resolution barrier"--STORM and PALM being prime examples.
However, I'd still be interested in hearing whether--without having
any additional information about the sample--there is any theoretical
limit to resolution in fluorescence microscopy, other than that imposed
by signal-to-noise ratio.
Martin
--
Martin Wessendorf, Ph.D. office: (612) 626-0145
Assoc Prof, Dept Neuroscience lab: (612) 624-2991
University of Minnesota Preferred FAX: (612) 624-8118
6-145 Jackson Hall, 321 Church St. SE Dept Fax: (612) 626-5009
Minneapolis, MN 55455 e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|
|
|