Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a problem that asks for the minimum energy of a wave that we will use to see a particle of size $.1\text{ nm}$. I understand that I can not see a $.1\text{ nm}$ particle with any wave length larger than $.1\text{ nm}$. I thought this would be easy, and I would use De Broglie's relation of electron waves,

$$f=\frac{E}{h}\quad\text{or}\quad E=fh=\frac{hc}{λ}$$

Using this I get $12400\text{ eV}$... this is the wrong answer.

What the book says to do is use an equation "wavelength associated with a particle of mass $M$." It is:


OR for my specific case:

$$λ=\frac{1.226}{\sqrt{K}}\text{ nm}$$

This second equation, if I'm correct, is getting the kinetic energy of the wavelength, not the total energy.

I do not understand what I should be looking for in problems asking for energy of wavelengths to distinguish the use of the first equation I presented vs. the second one. Any enlightenment on this area would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Good question, actually. The way you thought to do the problem at first is fine conceptually, but you used the wrong equation: $E=\frac{hc}{\lambda}$ applies only to photons or other massless particles. The actual equation for computing De Broglie wavelength is

$$\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$$

where $p$ is momentum. You can then put that in terms of energy using $E = pc$ for a photon (which will give you $\lambda = \frac{hc}{E}$), or $E = mc^2 + \frac{p^2}{2m}$ for a nonrelativistic particle (like a slow-moving electron), or $E = \sqrt{m^2c^4 + p^2c^2}$ for anything in general.

If you're curious, you can derive the equation the book uses from $\lambda = \frac{h}{p}$ by using the expression for a nonrelativistic particle. Just remember that $K$ is kinetic energy, so $E = mc^2 + K$. Also, you'll have to drop a relatively small term.

share|cite|improve this answer

You can definitely image an object that is much smaller than the wavelength you use to image it!

Using a regular microscope, one can't indeed do much better, as the Abbe limit states. I think that's the limit you were implicitly referring to when you said the wavelength had to be larger than $0.1 nm$. See

However, there are many other ways to circumvent this limit, which is more technical than truly fundamental. See the long article on sub-diffraction microscopy on Wikipedia:

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.