this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
631 points (95.7% liked)

Science Memes

16421 readers
2652 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 22 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

Most SEMs use a vacuum chamber to get their photos. Also, it's not uncommon to sputter a conductive coating onto the surface you're scanning.

How the hell did they get this photo?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

Put a needle in someone, freeze them solid with liquid nitrogen, then take a picture. Throw body out with rest of specimens.

Easy peasy.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Environmental SEMs do not require vacuum and can be used for nonconductive samples. The beam ionizes the air which prevents the sample from charging. Magnification is limited but it is more than enough for this.

You can tell it is SEM and not optical by the depth of field. An optical image at this magnification would have much less DoF so the peaks/valleys would be blurry.

[–] JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's very cool. I had not heard of ESEMs till you commented. I'll have to look into them more.

[–] Duckingold@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

It likely wasn't done on an electron microscope, or at least there is no reason to. There is no scale bar, but quick look online tells me a very fine needle is about 0.016in. 500x magnification optical lens would give you more than enough resolution for a photo like that.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 2 weeks ago

I'm more intrigued by the fact there's no blood, they must've taken this milliseconds after the needle was removed? Or it's a dead body.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 2 weeks ago

Probably just a chunk of skin, not a whole person

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They could have remained a portion of the skin. ~~But as another commenter notes, this is too large to need an electron microscope.~~

Edit: then another comment says otherwise, and cites the collection it is from.