*****
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]