Electron wavelength vs. light(s) wavelengths I am doing some research into wave and waveform. I am looking at different types of microscopy for potential purchase.  However, I came across Max Knoll a minute ago and I am curious as to how electron wavelengths are shorter than light waves?  Aren't electrons [themselves] "light waves" as pertains to physics?  Anyway, my inquiry specific pertains to a Max Knoll quote:

Using electrons, which have a far shorter wavelength than light, it was possible to resolve individual objects at a far greater magnification. Four years later, Max Knoll discovered a means to sweep an electron beam over the surface of a sample, creating the first scanning electron microscope (SEM) images.

Additionally, I am trying to find differences in wavelength between light from the sun vs. light from thunderbolts.
Any help is much appreciated.
 A: Electrons are not "light waves as pertains to physics". You maybe thinking about the interaction between charged particles (like electrons) and photons in the context of quantum electrodynamics.
But since electrons are quantum mechanical objects, they will have wavelike properties. Their wavelengths can be computed from their momentum using the De Broglie relation $$\lambda=\frac{h}{p}$$ and the electron De Broglie wavelengths in SEMs are $\approx 1$ Angstrom or $10^{-10}$m typically.
Visible light however has wavelengths in the range $380-700$nm which are about $5000$ times larger than these electron wavelengths.
So by accelerating a beam of electrons so that they have high enough momentum/energy, their wavelengths will become  smaller (as can be seen from the equation above) than the wavelengths of visible light.
This will then allow the SEM to resolve objects smaller than what visible light would do.
A: Visible light ranges in wavelength from a bit less than 400 nanometers to somewhere around 700 nanometers or a bit more (it's not possible to be more precise, because the word "visible" is already a bit vague).  Ultraviolet light ranges in wavelength from 400 nanometers down to somewhere between 10 and 100 nanometers (depending on whose definitions you prefer).  The wavelength of an electron is about 1/10 of a nanometer.
A: We must remember that the electrons were first postulated as particles from experiments on cathode rays in the end of the $19^{th}$ century. They were the so called beta rays. The fact that those rays have mass and charge, and the first modelling of atoms lead us to the intuition of small particles.
But the beta rays had optical properties similar to x-rays, penetrating human tissues and allowing to photograph inner portions of matter. It is not so surprising that they have a wave length as x-rays have. The difference is that they are massive and charged radiation.
A: This is a long comment on aspects not touched by the other answers.

Aren't electrons [themselves] "light waves" as pertains to physics?

No, they are not. In this answer of mine I show the experiments that demonstrate clearly that elementary particles as the photon and electron , do not show individually a wave property. At the particle level, what is showing a sinusoidal distribution is the accumulation of ensembles of particles, the probability of appearing in an interaction, dependent on their quantum mechanical wavefunction.
Electrons are elementary particles obeying  quantum mechanical equations and their ensemble behavior shows wave properties with the frequencies discussed in the other answers. These wave properties are used for electron microscopy.
"Light waves" are huge ensembles of photons that build up the classical Maxwell electromagnetic wave.
So ensembles of electrons, electron beams, have wave properties, but electron beams are not "light waves".

Additionally, I am trying to find differences in wavelength between light from the sun vs. light from thunderbolts.

The wavelength/frequency of light identifies it uniquely. There is no difference due to the source of light.
