 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
I have been thinking about how to limit the scope of this template about neutrino detectors. In particular I have been thinking whether some cosmic ray detectors (for example, the Pierre Auger observatory) should be considered neutrino detectors, since the results of these cosmic ray detectors have been used to draw conclusions about astrophysical neutrinos also. But the problem is that basically any cosmic ray detector can be seen as a neutrino detector this way. So one should add all cosmic ray detectors to this neutrino detector list, which is not reasonable. Furthermore, one maybe should also by similar reasoning add some space observatories also (especially ones observing the CMB) as their results have also been used to study neutrinos. And then this template is going to completely melt down; the point of these templates is that they are concise and to-the-point.
To avoid this template blowing up with only tangentially relevant content, I think that some rule to limit the scope of this template is in order. I would think that the following "definition" of neutrino detector would be good: "A neutrino detector is a scientific apparatus that detects neutrinos through their interactions with the detector's constituent atoms, that is, through neutrinos interacting with the matter inside the detectors boundaries". This would include all the usual water Cherenkov etc. detectors and even detectors like IceCube or seafloor neutrino telescopes, where the neutrinos interact with matter inside the detectors boundaries and the results (flashes of light resulting from the interaction) are measured and neutrino thus detected, and this definition rules out cosmic ray detectors where the interaction of the neutrino with matter happens outside of the detector boundaries. Of course, the above definition also rules out CMB-experiments as neutrino detectors. The downside of the above definition is that it rules out some neutrino-experiments, like let us say the ANITA telescope (which only detects effects of neutrino interactions taking place way outside the detector machine itself).
Let me know what you think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.79.42 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I created an article on ArgoNeuT however I'm a little inexperienced in both Wikipedia and Physics. In the context of this template, would ArgoNeuT fit into "Astronomical" or "Accelerator" section? My personal understanding makes me think it fits into "Astronimical" because it's a neutrino detector, however it also uses the NuMi neutrino beam like MINERvA which is next to "Acceleator." My apologies if this is obvious, I'm a beginner in these subjects. PrinceKael (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
