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) |
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)
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)
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)
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 possibilityand
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)
References
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)
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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 possibilityand
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)
References
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)