> Now, what kind of a picture you could make with a "light" having a 2 Km 
> wavelength, I have no idea. I vaguely gather that there's some sort of 
> relationship between the wavelength of something and the size of object 
> you can see with it. (Hence electron microscopes have better resolution 
> than light microscopes, for example.)

The issue is diffraction.  Once the objects get to the same scale as the 
wavelength then things get blurry.  For example normal light goes through 
your doorway in straight lines, if something is geometrically obscured by 
the wall, the light from it won't reach you (directly at least).  However if 
your "light" has a wavelength of 1 metre (or your "doorway" has a width of 
100 nm) then you'll be able to see things that are geometrically "blocked" 
by absorbing materials.  This is because the wave will diffract as it goes 
through the gap.

IOW I suspect if light had 2 km wavelength then everything would be a big 
blur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction

Post a reply to this message