Talk:Bubble chamber

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 Σc++, 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)

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).

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)

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)

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.  Robin den hertog (talk) 11:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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.