Talk:Kamioka Observatory

Proposed split
Why does it have to be split? It seems reasonable to me that there be one article detailing the history of the observatory and separate linked articles for the individual experiments. So Kamiokande-II could be spun off into its own main page, but Hyper-Kamiokande is just a proposal right now, not an actual experiment. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be an article that ties them all together and explains why they were built in the order they were.

I also think that having the information in one article avoids having every single article saying "detects the conical beam of light produced by charged particles moving faster than the speed of light in the media..." and each article also having a "see also" section with links to six other Kamioka experiments is just overkill.Flying fish 15:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I proposed the split because I view the different Kamioka experiments as seperate topics, rather than just a series of stages of one long experiment (similar to how the Large Hadron Collider is seperate from LEP is seperate from the Super_Proton_Synchrotron at CERN). There certainly seem to be enough content to justify the split. If I am wrong, then the current Super-Kamiokande article should be renamed to Kamioka Observatory, stating that the Super-Kamiokande is the currently-running experiment.
 * I also find it odd that an article which contains the history of the observatory also contains proposals for the future of the observatory. Unless the arrow of time flips sometime soon? (i.e. before Hyper-K) --Mike Peel 22:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just think that the articles are weakened considerably if you have to explain about the cosmic ray background, cerenkov radiation, they cylinder tank, the outer detector, neutrino oscillations, proton decay, solar neutrinos, and atmospheric neutrinos in EVERY article, which is what I expect would happen. It's all part of a connected story, why shouldn't it be presented that way?  I agree that the K-II section could be split off the way Super-K and KamLAND currently have their own pages, but I think that a lot is gained by describing the detectors themselves on those pages and explaining why they were built here.  Yeah, if you wanted to change it to Kamioka Observatory rather than history of... that would be fine with me.


 * Linas has suggested that this should be moved into history of neutrino physics, but I think first that Kamioka deserves its own page and second that the history of kamioka is a reasonable article in its own right. Of course I am a single editor, so I'll bow down to public opinion.  (plus I'm soon going to disappear for a few months, so anyone can do it while I'm not looking!) Flying fish 05:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed my mind, and decided that moving the page to Kamioka Observatory would be the better step for now. The different experiments can later be spun off into seperate pages as and when there is sufficient content to do so. Mike Peel 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 04:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Proton decay and the Standard Model
I have removed "The failure to detect proton decay in such a large detector would put serious strain on the Standard Model of particle physics", because, in my understanding, the standard model does not include proton decay. (The standard model conserves quark number.) --Strait 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The Standard Model allows proton decay, but at a level at which the lifetime would be of order 10^120yr. Extensions allow it at levels near what is probed by current experiments (like this), now in the 10^{30-few} years. Frankly, there are theories at the edge of whatever one wants to build so it ends up that next generation experiments can always find a theorist who agrees that it is "on the edge of discovery." It is probably reasonable to construe this difference (between 10^32 and 10^120) as effectively disallowed by the SM. I'm OK with the line being gone. I think probably the original author of that line meant more that one experiment's non-observation of a single phenomenon would not be enough evidence to bring down the whole structure of the model. Disclaimer: I am a Super-Kamiokande collaborator. JimHill (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is KamiokaNDE pronounced? I have no trouble with the Japanese, it's the last NDE that I'm not sure about. Would it be, as the Kamiokande-II that followed it suggests, be pronounced as a single word? i.e. kamiokande and super kamiokande? freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  04:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, turns out it's, as expected, kamiokande. I've just had the privelege of hearing Masatoshi Koshiba speak at my school, and surely there's no better source of the pronounciation of the name of the project that he himself founded! It may be trivial to the science involved, but it is significant that the name of the project(s), kamiokande means something in the order of "bite into god" when sounded out in Japanese, which is certainly intentional and explains why the katakana alphabet is used when spelling the name in Japanese. I will add a single line reference. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The logo for both the observatory and Kamiokande are available here and the license given states that it may be used on any website promoting the project, so if someone wants to upload those, go for it! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ  06:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [I am a collaborator on Super-Kamiokande, thus inappropriate to make any non-cosmetic changes to these pages myself.] The above comment about Koshiba-san's pronunciation is definitive, but I will echo that this is how it is and should be pronounced in general. The name with the "nde" is construed throughout the community to do double duty as "Nucleon Decay Experiment" and "Neutrino Detection Experiment." Also, the bit about "bite into God" is something I never heard around the lab. I've been a collaborator there since 1995 and was based (i.e.: lived near) there for a year straight in the 90's, and just spent another half year there on sabbatical. I think the nuances of the Japanese phoneme set and the resulting ability for puns/double entendres is something beyond knowing what the the experiments and the lab are about. JimHill (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jim, I want to thank you for taking the time to contribute as a first-hand observer. I first introduced that tidbit into this article, because I had read about it and it made sense from what I know of Japanese. But I think that your description warrants that I remove it for lack of credible sources. Thank you again for weighing in! Mtu (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Word Choice
The word "enhancement" is used when "difference" is implied in the sentance: "Once 450 days of data had been accumulated the experiment was able to see a clear enhancement in the number of events which pointed away from sun over random directions." To me "enhancement" means something was originally not as good as it turned out to be. Comparing solar neutrinos to cosmic background neutrinos does not suggest any "enhancement" has happened but that there is a "difference" between them. 68.50.233.253 12:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Enhancement is the correct word. The signal became more clear with increased statistics. 205.206.150.232 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

T2K Experiment
I'm biased on this topic, so I won't touch anything T2K related - but someone should move it to a section like current experiments. T2K just finished it's first run of beam, and is about to start it's second - early results(Mostly statuses, but whatever) are being presented at conferences already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon.p.hastings (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't edit the thing, it's very probable that no one will. So you might as well edit the thing since you're probably the person who knows the most about it on Wikipedia. The rest of us can review your contributions for neutrality after you've made them, and improve on your sources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am a Super-Kamiokande collaborator, but not a T2K collaborator, so I am not 100% disinterested, but in line with the above comment, I went ahead and moved the section. I note that (besides a couple verb tenses) another small change for the sake of consistency with current knowledge was to change the wording about theta-23. This is a substantive change even though it is just a couple words, so someone should verify neutrality. (There is also a lot that should be added to this section that I could do at some point when I get a chance.) JimHill (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Questionnement
Plus d'information visuel sur l'endroit. 173.176.30.209 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2022 (UTC)