Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,108

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Microscopy by reconstructed wave-fronts

Gabor, Dennis·1949·Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences

Abstract

The subject of this paper is a new two-step method of optical imagery. In a first step the object is illuminated with a coherent monochromatic wave, and the diffraction pattern resulting from the interference of the coherent secondary wave issuing from the object with the strong, coherent background is recorded on a photographic plate. If the photographic plate, suitably processed, is replaced in the original position and illuminated with the coherent background alone, an image of the object will appear behind it, in the original position. It is shown that this process reconstructs the coherent secondary wave, together with an equally strong ‘twin wave’ which has the same amplitude, but opposite phase shifts relative to the background. The illuminating wave itself can be used for producing the coherent background. The simplest case is illumination by a point source. In this case the two twin waves are shown to correspond to two ‘twin objects’, one of which is the original, while the other is its mirror image with respect to the illuminating centre. A physical aperture can be used as a point source, or the image of an aperture produced by a condenser system . If this system has aberrations, such as astigmatism or spherical aberration, the twin image will be no longer sharp but will appear blurred, as if viewed through a system with twice the aberrations of the condenser. In either case the correct image of the object can be effectively isolated from its twin, and separately observed. Three-dimensional objects can be reconstructed, as well as two-dimensional. The wave used in the reconstruction need not be the original, it can be, for example, a light-optical imitation of the electron wave with which the diffraction diagram was taken. Thus it becomes possible to extend the idea of Sir Lawrence Bragg’s ‘X -ray microscope’ to arbitrary objects, and use the new method for improvements in electron microscopy. The apparatus will consist of two parts, an electronic device in which a diffraction pattern is taken with electrons diverging from a fine focus, and an optical synthetizer, which imitates the essential data of the electronic device on a much enlarged scale. The theory of the analysis-synthesis cycle is developed, with a discussion of the impurities arising in the reconstruction, and their avoidance. The limitations of the new method are due chiefly to the small intensities which are available in coherent beams, but it appears perfectly feasible to achieve a resolution limit of 1 Å, ultimately perhaps even better.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rspa.1949.0075

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,108

Metadata

Authors
Gabor, D.
Venue
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences
Published
1949-07-07
Volume
197
Issue
1051
Pages
454-487
ISSN
  • 0080-4630 (ISSN-L)
  • 2053-9169
OpenAlex
W2067287942
Cited by
1,108
References
0
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Microscopy by reconstructed wave-fronts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rspa.1949.0075
The paper
Gabor, D. (1949). Microscopy by reconstructed wave-fronts. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1949.0075

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.