View source for Talk:Casimir effect

{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=23:36, 13 January 2006
|action1result=listed
|action1oldid=35080437
|action2=GAR
|action2date=22:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=188294303
|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Natsci
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Physics| importance=Low}}
}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=Talk:Casimir effect/Archive
| maxarchsize=100000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=4
| minarchthreads=1
| numberstart=1
| format= %%i
}}
{{Archives|banner=yes|age=90}}
{{Technical|date=September 2010}}

== Hawking radiation "analogy" ==

What does Hawking radiation have to do with an analogy of the Casimir effect?  This should be explained or removed from the article. -[[User:Dennis Estenson II|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. --[[User:Carnildo|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. -[[User:Dennis Estenson II|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 <ref>https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3917&context=etd</ref> -[[User:Rudxain|Rudxain]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sparrow32|Sparrow32]] ([[User talk:Sparrow32|talk]]) 14:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

== Speculative applications? ==

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.[[User:Tedweverka|Tedweverka]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;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  <ref>https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4656</ref> .  For the applications in the first paragraph we have only our own judgement, and that is not appropriate. --[[User:Tedweverka|Tedweverka]] ([[User talk:Tedweverka|talk]]) 00:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
:::To quote [[WP:NOR|the relevant policy]], {{tq|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 {{tq|the interesting possibility}} and {{tq|a phenomenon that could be exploited in innovative applications}}. The point is to accurately convey facts, not to copy exact word choices. [[User:XOR&#39;easter|XOR&#39;easter]] ([[User talk:XOR&#39;easter|talk]]) 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== Landau & Lifshitz citation ==

The citation needed under the Landau & Lifshitz discussion “(These are discussed in greater detail in ''Landau and Lifshitz'', "Theory of Continuous Media".<sup>[''[[Wikipedia:Citation needed|citation needed]]'']</sup>)” 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. [[User:Sbialkow|Stephen]] ([[User talk:Sbialkow|talk]]) 16:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

== Current State of Physics ==

Hi, 

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? [[User:Sparrow32|Sparrow32]] ([[User talk:Sparrow32|talk]]) 13:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

:No, please see [[WP:NOTFORUM |Wikipedia is not a forum]]. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 17:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)