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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present. | |
 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010) |
Hawking radiation "analogy"
editWhat 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)
- What about Einstein Fields and Lamb effect? Quantum gravity should more suitable to be contributed to those mentioned topics.
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23502900_Resolving_Vacuum_Fluctuations_in_an_Electrical_Circuit_by_Measuring_the_Lamb_Shift
- Although it has relation to the way Casimir effect has to be conducting with oscillation, Quantum gravity seems to be a different set of equations. Sparrow32 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Speculative applications?
editThe 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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 likethe interesting possibility
anda 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)
- To quote the relevant policy,
- 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)
Landau & Lifshitz citation
editThe 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)
Current State of Physics
editHi,
Both my research,
https://www.scienceopen.com/document/read?id=e0a5075e-c0de-48ba-abfe-d1d49d334e0a
And this Nature Portfolio research, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02521-0
Have been having some metrics over the Casimir Effect applied with EMF over electrical circuits.
However, this needs review, and I have been no-reason face-slapped, over 3 years of research.
Would it be possible to open a wide talk over the results that the scientific community have been developing within; where applicable, electrical generation? Sparrow32 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, please see Wikipedia is not a forum. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)