Sheffield Scientists Have Revolutionized the Electron Microscope 90
An anonymous reader writes "For over 70 years, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which 'looks through' an object to see atomic features within it, has been constrained by the relatively poor lenses which are used to form the image. The new method, called electron ptychography, dispenses with the lens and instead forms the image by reconstructing the scattered electron-waves after they have passed through the sample using computers. Scientists involved in the scheme consider their findings to be a first step in a completely new epoch of electron imaging. The process has no fundamental experimental boundaries and it is thought it will transform sub-atomic scale transmission imaging."
The Lytro of TEM (Score:2, Insightful)
Expect all sorts of imaging systems to evolve in this direction over the next few years.
It's more interesting for things like CAT and NMR, IMHO.
Re:holography? (Score:5, Insightful)
I call BS on the summary. It says "The process has no fundamental experimental boundaries and it is thought it will transform sub-atomic scale transmission imaging". But TFA actually states "A typical electron or X-ray microscope image is about one hundred times more blurred than the theoretical limit defined by the wavelength. In this project, the eventual aim is to get the best-ever pictures of individual atoms in any structure seen within a three-dimensional object."
If they're measuring the wave diffraction as it passes through the atomic structure, then the diffraction limit is most definitely a "fundamental...boundary". If the addition of the word "experimental" means that they found no boundaries in their experiments, that just means they haven't gotten to the diffraction limit of the atomic aperture for those wavelengths yet (i.e. we're not even close to the fundamental boundaries, so we'll say our results are not limited in any way in our experiments). Either way, not a great way to talk about the results - too much sensationalism, not enough science.
Nice but not that nice (Score:5, Insightful)
They even wrote this: "The technique is applicable to microscopes using any type of wave and has other key advantages over conventional methods. For example, when used with visible light, the new technology forms a type of image that means scientists can see living cells very clearly without the need to stain them, a process which usually kills the cells."
Em, yes but optical phase-contrast is damn well established. O and Frits Zernike who got the Nobel prize for doing exactly this in 1953 might be pissed off.
Re:Does anyone understand it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the only people who would understand it are folks with PhDs in particle-optical-physics with ten years of post doc experience working in the electron microscope field.
I really hate hearing people say stuff like this. Science isn't magic with scary, unknowable stuff going on behind the curtain. It's *very often* easily understood (car analogies, anyone? Hit me!!!111one :-). The devil's in the details and the details can be subtle, but it's not magic.
SEM bombards stuff with $something (energized particles, radiation, ...) which reflects back onto something that stores that reflected $something. It's the same process as an optical camera, but working at different wavelengths and energies (yes, please do feel free to correct me if I'm talking through my hat in your opinion; I won't be offended, honest).
I'm having a difficult time understanding TFS's "... after they have passed through the sample using computers."
Passed through? Since when!?! Passed through the sample using computers? What? SEM doesn't "pass any energy through" whatever it's sampling.
Are we talking about 3D representations of sample then using computers to $massage sample to death? That might make sense.
People should read more about science and how it's done. It wouldn't be as scary to them if they did.