Talk:Casimir effect

message: 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  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)
replies: text: I reverted the addition. Obvious pseudoscience is obvious. Does anyone think that it is worthwhile taking  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)
thread_title:  Energy extraction? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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  https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4656 .  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)
replies: text: To quote the relevant policy,  "Speculative" substantially retains the meaning of a source that starts off with phrasing like  and . The point is to accurately convey facts, not to copy exact word choices. XOR'easter (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative applications? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Landau & Lifshitz citation