Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Great mistake of ray optics?

  1. Jun 26, 2011 #1
    But if this is so, then in these photographs:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber
    the "particle track - line of bubbles" shouldn't be able to be photographed so defined, but blureness should be photographed instead, since-if no lens was used! Correct?

    Was a lens used?From the most detailed discriptions of the experimental apparatuses, it seems that no lens was used, but actually in all such descriptions it is not clear if lens was used or not.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2011 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    What makes you say "no lens was used"? I cannot imagine a modern camera without a lens.
     
  4. Jun 26, 2011 #3

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  5. Jun 26, 2011 #4
    HallsofIvy, I edited my post, correcting it and clarifiying what you asked me.
     
  6. Jun 26, 2011 #5

    Borek

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No lens, no picture. If there is a lens, there is a DOF which you can control with aperture.

    That is, you can take a picture using a lensless pinhole camera, which - at least in theory - has infinite DOF. That would make whole discussion a moot. But pinhole cameras are probably way too dark for fast pictures.
     
  7. Jun 26, 2011 #6
    You are guessing of what exactly happened in the bubble champer, aren't you? I made the same guess myself, so what, I still have to ask someone who's 100% certain.
     
  8. Jun 26, 2011 #7

    SpectraCat

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No he is not guessing. You are looking at a photograph of a bubble-track .. it was taken with a camera. For a given f-stop, a camera will have a certain depth of field .. read the wiki on depth of field that Borek posted. It answers the question *I think* you were asking in your original post, although it wasn't exactly clear what you were asking ...

    [MODERATOR] It doesn't seem like this thread belongs in Quantum Physics? Wouldn't General Physics be more appropriate?
     
  9. Jun 26, 2011 #8

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, and because that photo dates from the 1960s, it was recorded on photographic film just as with a pre-digital-era still-photo or movie camera. When I was a grad student I spent some time "scanning" such film for possibly interesting events, using a projection viewer.

    It's also possible to use the film itself as the target for the incoming particle beam, in which case the particles produce tracks directly in the emulsion, with no camera involved. The photograph that we're talking about here isn't of that type.
     
  10. Jun 26, 2011 #9

    Born2bwire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'll never complain about debugging code again.
     
  11. Jun 26, 2011 #10
    Well my question is clear here: Was a lens used or not? And since I doubt you are sure, what can I do? First I can ask you if you have used the champer yourself (Jtbbell seems to say he has). Second, I can claim you are wrong so that you show me a detailed discription of such an apparatus that says that a lens was used.

    And if you are interested enough in my "not clear" question, think it like this: What would it mean if the photo was taken with no lens at all?
    For example Bohm claims "were we to view the cosmos without the lenses that outfit our telescopes, the universe would appear to us as a hologram". That doesn't say anything in particular, but perhaps is particular enough to disagree with what ray optics say, because ray optics say that we would just see blurness, doesn't it? That's the reason I classified the question into quantum physics, as the analysis of such questions involves the explanations of the double slit experiments.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
  12. Jun 26, 2011 #11

    jtbell

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The bubble chamber that my research group used when I was a grad student was the 15-footer at Fermilab. It had three cameras with fisheye lenses that could each capture a large part of the interior of the chamber. By digitizing tracks from three photographic views of the same event, we could reconstruct the tracks in three-dimensional space and extract their curvature, which is the most important variable because it and the magnetic field strength tell you the momentum.
     
  13. Jun 26, 2011 #12

    Vanadium 50

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You have been told several times that lenses are used, including by people who were there, which you were not. Yet you insist on believing otherwise. Not much purpose in continuing this thread, since it can only end up continuing in the "is not!" "is too!" "is not!" vein.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2011
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Great mistake of ray optics?
  1. Optical Ray tracing (Replies: 8)

  2. Optics - Paraxial rays (Replies: 1)

Loading...