[lindsayavery]

If I was using an up to date light microscope to examine animal calls, I wouldn't be able to detect what?

[Capuchin]

Anything smaller than the wavelength of light you are using. (there's also a limit for resolving 2 objects a certain distance apart, if you haven't studied it in physics, I wouldn't worry about it)

[medgen]

Theoretically, Capuchin is correct (If you were able to produce perfect lenses). Practically, most modern standard light microscopes will give you about 1000X magnification. You can easily see a stained nucleus and plant vacuoles but most of the other organelles will not really be visible. You might just make out some mitochondria if you use a good stain.

On the other hand, using fluorescence microscopy (technically also 'light' microscopy) you can stain and see much more detail. Microtubules, ER, golgi, ribosome complexes and more can be discerned, many in good detail.

What you definitely WON'T see with any light technique is molecular detail (i.e. single molecules, proteins, lipids, etc) -- for this you need to go to specialized electron microscopy (e.g. STEM reconstruction), NMR or X-ray crystallization.

[Capuchin]

Thanks medgen, I only really know the physical limits, not the biological details :)

[Capuchin]

Responding to the bad rep I received here.

Are you supposing I keep giving you answers until one of them matches your list of multiple choice answers? Or, maybe, instead of rating me badly for NOT BEING PSYCHIC you could show me the choices and I can give you the answer and why I think that's the answer.

[jerrilynn]

If I was using an up to date light microscope to examine animal calls, I wouldn't be able to detect what?

A bacterial size cell bodies
B the cell nucleuc
C ribosomes
D cell membrances

[Capuchin]

Have you read the above answers? :o