Talk:Bubble chamber

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bubble chamber article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Untitled

The 1974 photograph of Palmer and Samios was only tentatively identified by them as a charmed baryon. They were unable to rule out other possibilities, they did not fully trust the calibration of their new equipment, and they were unable to find a second example. They only released the photograph several months after Richter and Ting. In retrospect, the baryon has been identified as the Σ_c⁺⁺, but it cannot be said that this picture led to the discovery of charm.--192.35.35.34 20:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

beer, anyone?

I have been told (the always-reliable "classroom rumor" research source) that Glaser came up with the idea while studying (ahem) the bubble in a glass of beer... are there any authoritative sources for this story, or is it just silly? -FZ 13:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No way of measuring kinetic energy?

What about the Bethe-Bloch Equation, describing the energy loss in bubble chambers? I do not have enough experience in this field to edit the article, but i'm pretty sure that kinetic energy can be measured pretty accurately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikkelR (talk • contribs) 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Massive enough?

Bubble chambers are neither large nor massive enough to analyze high-energy collisions, where all products should be contained inside the detector.

It's not clear why the mass of the bubble chamber has an effect on being able to measure high energy collisions. When discussing scientific subjects of this nature, it should be understood that words like "massive" have a more precise meaning than colloquial English, ie specifically relating to mass. However, if the mass of the detector is significant, it should be explained in more detail.Silas Maxfield (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chamber expansion

Bubbles grow in size as the chamber expands

This makes no sense without some explanation of how the expansion of the chamber plays its part in the overall process. Showing a "piston" with an arrow doesn't do the trick for me. Does the chamber expand naturally over time? Is it expanded gradually over the course of the experiment, or is it only done after the experiment is complete, as a method of enlargement? I can sort of imagine a sort of 3D expansion, but without any common real-world analogs I think it's a stretch to expect the reader to deduce this. In the context of super-heated liquid hydrogen at 30,000 degrees (gleaned from other sources [does this seem absurdly extreme to anyone else??]), how is all this accomplished? I think these sorts of things should be addressed to some extent. AgentFriday (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bubble detector

should the more current bubble detector be presented as an evolution of these huge devices? Inside the detector, tiny droplets of superheated liquid are dispersed throughout a clear polymer. When a neutron strikes a droplet, the droplet immediately vaporizes, forming a visible gas bubble trapped in the gel. The number of droplets provides a direct measurement of the tissue-equivalent neutron dose. it is also left out in Dosimeter and Particle_detector in a cursory examination. [1] [2] Robin den hertog (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bubble chamber/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article and many others are simply a source of joy and challenge for

me, Donald Axel, (b.1946).

Comment: The article "Pairs" tells that a Nobel Prize was awarded in 1948 to Patrick Blackett:

Pair production is the chief method by which energy from gamma rays is observed in condensed matter. The photon need only have a total energy of twice the rest mass(me) of an electron (1.022 MeV) for this to occur as described above; if it is much more energetic, heavier particles may also be produced. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled bubble chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.

So how come that this article states that the "bubble chamber" was invented in 1952?

Not a big barrier for understanding but a source of "unrest":-)

Last edited at 00:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Snolab

Is not a bubble chamber! Chris2crawford (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison; trajectories of particles for different degrees of observation and positions of recording

That is totally biased. You do observe some differences when you personally use more energy or energy to bump on the particles. You might erroneously generalize the bias you caused.

That seems stupid but Sean Carroll mentioned the two slit experiment and then the bubble chamber. Well, more interactions occur in the bubble chamber; and if you interact less, you change the conditioning. That's the whole point. If you cause different biases, you measure your actions. Not some magic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:587:4106:ceab:9df7:1ff3:120f:ed4a (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]