@Soothfast said"AI Overview
A particle accelerator's bubble chamber can capture the trail of an electron that springs out of the collision of two other particles. Here's an example of a bubble chamber image:
https://alumni.cern/news/2080449
I think bubble chambers are obsolete now. Not sure.
Learn more
Bubble chambers, once crucial in particle physics, have largely been superseded by electronic detectors like spark chambers, wire chambers, and silicon multistrip detectors.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Bubble Chambers:
These devices used a superheated liquid that boiled into tiny bubbles along the tracks of charged particles, allowing scientists to visualize particle interactions.
Spark Chambers:
These chambers used a grid of wires and high voltage to create sparks along the paths of charged particles, offering faster data acquisition than bubble chambers, according to CERN.
Wire Chambers:
These are electronic detectors that can measure the energy of particles, and are more suited for online analysis and triggering than bubble chambers.
Silicon Multistrip Detectors:
These are another type of electronic tracker that are based on silicon, and are used in particle physics experiments.
Why the Shift?
Bubble chambers, while providing detailed visualizations, were slow and difficult to analyze, making them less suitable for the high-energy, high-interaction-rate experiments that became common in later decades. Electronic detectors offered faster data acquisition, better resolution, and the ability to measure particle energies and other properties simultaneously."
1 edit
@Suzianne saidYes, so far just wishful thinking.
Well, right now it seems like faster than light travel.
Einstein said it was impossible and so does the physics.
Remember, QM would have to guide the existence of such a camera. It would be like, "Well, we did create it, but it is unknown right now whether it is here right now."
It will need a breakthrough in physics thought to get there, just like FTL travel.
I used to work on a chip manufacturing machine called an ion implanter and we had to deal with electrons being accelerated along with the ions used to dope semiconductors.
ATT transistors and such were relatively large and we needed to do a buried layer of dopant that turned pure silicon, a very good insulator, into a conductor, usually the ions were what I called the big three, Arsenic, Phosphorous, or Boron, they turned a layer of silicon into a semiconductor, either + or - version, but our ion implanters were industrial accelerators that used static electric acceleration, coming out of the 'source' was an accelerator electrode of some 25 to 50 kilovolts and then downwind the big bang (for us anyway) CERN folks would call it a toy🙂 when we used from 50 KV acceleration to some machines using several megavolt acel, mostly though, 200,000 to 500,000 volt acceleration.
Why that was needed was to make a buried layer conductive and one process for instance used arsenic ions that would hit the silicon wafer giving a buried layer of one or two micron deep layers.
But now with transistors measured in nanometers, I think they are pushing now for TWO nanometer sized transistors, from what the best we have now are something like 4 or 5 nanometer transistors.
That means the acceleration voltage coming out of an ion implanter is now WAY too high, 200,000 volts would make a buried layer thousands of nanometers deep, WAY overkill for today's technology so we don't even need ion accelerators for that step any more, but there are still some uses for them for other purposes like metal modifications using deep penetration into some metal or other for various purposes but the days of ion implanters used for chips is over for the most part, still there are high power devices that are using 'big' transistor sizes like high voltage switches and such where they are using several in series to control power transmission lines, some of those babies are running a million volts to transmit power thousands of miles so for those devices they want big ass transistors with high voltage capability, like tens of thousands of volts not like the 1 to 5 volts of regular computer chip sets.
@AThousandYoung saidShouldn't the '34' in this post be '32'?
2x1 = 2
2x1+ 2x3 = 8
2x1 + 2x3 + 2x5 = 18
2x1 + 2x3 +2x5 +2x7 = 34
They come in pairs because they have one of two possible "spins" which like electric charge has an "opposites attract" effect.
No matter how you explain something you can always say "why does the explanation work"? There is no ultimate answer to why the universe(s) function as they do.
Just wanted to see if I'm following you correctly.
1 edit
@sonhouse saidHey, I like nerd jokes, really.
I had to get in a little joke🙂
I have a t-shirt that reads "Distance Raptor / Time Raptor = Velociraptor"
And one that reads "And Maxwell said, "Let there be light" followed by Maxwell's four equations.
Most people don't get these, but they do serve to divide the moron dudes from the smart dudes.
@Suzianne saidI like 'em! You no doubt heard of the dyslexic dilemma?
Hey, I like nerd jokes, really.
I have a t-shirt that reads "Distance Raptor / Time Raptor = Velociraptor"
And one that reads "And Maxwell said, "Let there be light" followed by Maxwell's four equations.
Most people don't get these, but they do serve to divide the moron dudes from the smart dudes.
Is there a dog?
@Soothfast said" It won't "make up its mind" where it wants to be until it is observed"
Electrons around the nucleus of an atom literally "jump" from one energy level to another, hence the term "quantum leap." It's a workable model that allows us to manufacture neat technologies, but that's the limit.
Sometimes it's more convenient to model an electron as a particle, sometimes as a wave. The so-called "wave-particle duality" is a conceptual headache, but ...[text shortened]... ut a basic kind of instinctual, phenomenal consciousness.
Obviously I've strayed a bit off topic.
What you call an observation is an interaction. And I thought the observation is what causes the uncertainty and not make up it's mind where it wants to be. That is why it causes wave patterns. Right?
If the interaction is between two particles with wave particle duality shouldn't we expect a wave pattern to emerge?
@Metal-Brain saidHave you read a physics book in the last, say, 40 years?
" It won't "make up its mind" where it wants to be until it is observed"
What you call an observation is an interaction. And I thought the observation is what causes the uncertainty and not make up it's mind where it wants to be. That is why it causes wave patterns. Right?
If the interaction is between two particles with wave particle duality shouldn't we expect a wave pattern to emerge?
@Suzianne saidStop being a jerk. Is trolling insults all you do?
Have you read a physics book in the last, say, 40 years?
If you had a valid retort you would have done so by now.
I made a valid point. He stated it backwards. It is the observation (interaction) that causes the uncertainty, not the other way around.
@Metal-Brain saidNo.
Stop being a jerk. Is trolling insults all you do?
If you had a valid retort you would have done so by now.
I made a valid point. He stated it backwards. It is the observation (interaction) that causes the uncertainty, not the other way around.
Google it some time.
Instead of depending on a third-grade treatise on Heisenberg.