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

Science Memes

16260 readers
4219 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
 
(page 2) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] JayDee@lemmy.sdf.org 24 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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?

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 23 points 1 week 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 5 points 1 week ago

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

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week 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.

[–] Duckingold@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week 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.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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.

[–] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago

Probably just a chunk of skin, not a whole person

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 24 points 1 week ago

That old familiar sting.

[–] lena@gregtech.eu 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

[–] far_university1990@reddthat.com 10 points 1 week ago

Yes ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[–] socsa@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago

I should also call your mom.

[–] fox@hexbear.net 6 points 1 week ago

It's from a series Anne Weston at the Francis Crick Institute did. Scanning electron microscopy. The full series is pretty cool.

[–] FerretyFever0@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Skin kinda looks like dried up paint (I don't paint). Is this dryer than normal, or?

[–] DaGeek247@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago

Apparently electron microscopes work in a vacuum. So this is a needle hole in skin, in a vacuum.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lemminary@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Any hole's a goal

[–] latenightnoir@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 week ago

...hmmmmmm...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›