Talk:Casimir effect

Casimir effect was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 13, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 12, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Hawking radiation "analogy"[edit]

What does Hawking radiation have to do with an analogy of the Casimir effect? This should be explained or removed from the article. -D. Estenson II 12:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hawking radiation is another quantum effect that is caused by an object acting on virtual particles. --Carnildo 18:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then the paragraph should be in an article about virtual particles or quantum theory. As is, it doesn't fit in this article, especially where it is placed. I think it should be removed altogether. -D. Estenson II 10:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

A thesis by Darragh Rooney suggests there's a deeper connection that may tie to quantum gravity ^[1] -Rudxain (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Energy extraction?[edit]

I do not think this belongs. First, MDPI is ... not a publisher of high repute. Even for speculative claims, we should not compromise our sourcing standards. Indeed, in some ways we have to ratchet our standards higher, in that we must take care not to promote speculations that aren't taken at least a little seriously already.

Moreover, as WP:PATENTS observes, patent offices do not pass judgment on whether the ideas offered in the patent are scientifically accurate. For an article on a scientific topic, that rules them out as reliable sources. We're talking quantum field theory here, not the year of the invention of the new-and-improved slicer, dicer and peeler.

And the quantum vacuum thruster is outright WP:FRINGE. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the addition. Obvious pseudoscience is obvious. Does anyone think that it is worthwhile taking Tedweverka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:ANI? Some of their edits regarding Induced demand and Historicity of Jesus seem rather dodgy. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative applications?[edit]

The disagreement revolves around what is proper to include in a section titled "Speculative applications". It is appropriate to discuss of what makes these applications speculative.

Have a look at the first two references in the section supporting the first paragraph. Nothing in these references say that the author is speculating. It appears that the label "Speculative" is being added by the wikipedia editor, not the source. Perhaps we should remove "Speculative" from the heading.Tedweverka (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculative" is accurate. There may be other, equally good summary adjectives for applications that have only been proposed hypothetically or suggested as possible-in-principle, but "speculative" is fine. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect your judgement as to what is and is not speculative is very good, and I agree in with you in this case, however the rule for Wikipedia is that the editors don't get to insert their own judgement. We need a citation that says it is speculative. For the applications in the second paragraph, I have found such a citation that specifically calls them speculative ^[2] . For the applications in the first paragraph we have only our own judgement, and that is not appropriate. --Tedweverka (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the relevant policy, Rewriting source material in your own words, while substantially retaining the meaning of the references, is not considered to be original research. "Speculative" substantially retains the meaning of a source that starts off with phrasing like the interesting possibility and a phenomenon that could be exploited in innovative applications. The point is to accurately convey facts, not to copy exact word choices. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Landau & Lifshitz citation[edit]

The citation needed under the Landau & Lifshitz discussion “(These are discussed in greater detail in Landau and Lifshitz, "Theory of Continuous Media".^{[citation needed]})” is

Electrodynamics of Continuous Media, L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960, Ch. XIII, Section 90, “Forces of molecular attraction between solid bodies” pp. 368-376.

I leave it up to those who know how to edit to include in text. Stephen (talk) 16:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3917&context=etd

[2] ttps://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4656

[1]

[2]