OpenScience709

Welcome!

Hello, OpenScience709, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vacuum angle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abelian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi OpenScience709! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Creating a Dirac–Kähler equation article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nielsen–Ninomiya theorem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantization.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Partition function (quantum field theory), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functional.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi! Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but did you complete Part III of the maths tripos this year? I finished this year, and I was also doing HEP stuff. Zephyr the west wind (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Congrats on finishing Part III! I did it last year (at Fitz), although I spent this year working a bit with Matt Wingate in the CMS, so I essentially spent the whole year here in Cambridge. Still around actually for a bit longer; got an office in the CMS. Nice to see someone else working on HEP articles. Writing Wikipedia recently has shown me how little it changes over time actually (most articles have remained the same for essentially a decade). So its always great to see someone new on the scene. Nice articles you wrote. I was thinking that Wikipedia is missing an N=1 and N=2 super Yang-Mills and a SUSY template, so thanks for making them! OpenScience709 (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! That's so cool! Yeah, I noticed some of the coverage on quantum field theory could be improved. Thanks for the improvements you've made to the articles I've contributed to, they've been useful for me as a newbie editor. Your articles look really well written! Zephyr the west wind (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I was wondering if you thought it would be worth having an article for the theta term in gauge theory - and if so, if you'd like to collaborate on writing an article for it? I have the starting stages of a draft here: User:Zephyr the west wind/Theta term.

I think such an article might be nice as although there are related articles (e.g. theta vacuum), there are none focussing on the term itself as far as I know. And there's enough interesting stuff about the term itself to warrant an article. However I'm not myself totally comfortable with the maths/physics, and unsure where to find references. Zephyr the west wind (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah a summary article on the theta term is something that I was also thinking about before (I already dealt with the topic before when I rewrote the articles on the theta vacuum and strong CP problem), and it would be quite fun to do. Considering how much there is that is distinct from the theta vacuum, it is definitely worth having an article on it. Unfortunately I cannot really focus on it right now to help you write it since I'm quite busy trying to make my way through Polchinski's two string theory volumes as semi-PhD prep/summer reading. Plus on the Wikipedia front I really should be working on wrapping up the lattice field theory side of things before October, since I'm not planning on writing any more on that afterwards.

However, I can give some suggestions. David's gauge theory/susy notes are always a good start on these topics (I often use them). I would scrape through those to see all usages of the theta term and use the references therein to figure out the main aspects and applications. A short summary of the relevant aspects of the theta term in other articles (theta vacuum, strong CP problem) would be good. Additionally, when I was thinking about a possible article on the topic, a interesting thing to include would be the RG properties of the theta term. A google search should yield a good start on that. The Witten effect is also relevant (a summary of it, since this should be an article in itself later). It depends how comprehensive you want to be. Comes at the expense of having to do a lot more research which can be quite tedious.

Additional general suggestions: a good way to find more niche applications and references for a Wikipedia topic you are writing is to find a textbook PDF and just CTRL+F it for the topic. Cambridge Mathematical Monographs are always good (you have access to Cambridge CORE as an alum), as are Springer Lecture Notes in Physics (https://www.springer.com/series/5304/books?page=2) (they are all free to download; I downloaded all relevant QFT/GR/Particle/String ones for the last 15 years and I regularly go through the relevant ones to find useful references/interesting topics. It's essentially how I dug up the second half of the Wilson loop article). And of course references within the textbooks are also useful.

I may help improving/extending/rewording the article at a later date when I have time and get it to a C/B grade. But I also keep saying that for half the articles on Wikipedia, so I'll see if I make it to this one too.

Do let me know if you need help with the strong CP problem and theta vacuum side of things. Good luck!OpenScience709 (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice :), and I'll get back to you if I get stuck Zephyr the west wind (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Citation style

Thank you for your insertion of the "Further reading" section in the Supergravity article. Did you know that Wikipedia has templates that can be used for consistent citation style? If you open the Supergravity article for editing and look in the "References" section and compare them to the "Further reading" section, you can see how they are used. The Wikipedia:Citation templates article describes their usage, but also indicates that their usage is not mandatory. Here are some useful articles:

Wikipedia:Citation

Wikipedia:Citing sources

Help:Footnotes

Wikipedia:Manual of Style

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout

MOS:FNNR

Happy editing! — Anita5192 (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I know that there is a mild inconsistency there. I opted for the citation style I used in the supergravity article due to it being used in the string theory and supersymmetry article "Further reading" sections (which admittedly I expanded on as well, but I did not establish that citation format). But it would be nice to establish a more uniform citation format anyway. The supergravity article needs major reworking in general to be fair. OpenScience709 (talk) 20:42, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, OpenScience709. You have new messages at PopoDameron's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– Popo Dameron talk 14:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse and elsewhere

Wikipedia opposes guessing the identity of IP editors (see Wikipedia:Outing (essay). For this reason I removed your speculation of the identity of an IP editor, attempting in the process to leave your intent intact. I hope you are comfortable with this. You could bring to their attention Wikipedia:Expert editors, especially for Dr. You, as on his User page it is clear that he intends to edit several existing articles or create articles, based on his own publication. David notMD (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI - From looking at all edits by the IP 65 address, it is clear that the history represents several people (all probably at Harvard?), which is no surprise, as IP addresses indicate a place, not an individual. The doubling article now has another IP weighing in. It's messy. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. Apologies for breach of conduct concerning the IP address and thank you for quickly giving me notice of this. Best, OpenScience709 (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

FYI - From looking at all edits by the IP 65 address, it is clear that the history represents several people (all probably at Harvard?), which is no surprise, as IP addresses indicate a place, not an individual. The doubling article now has another IP weighing in. It's messy. Requesting on the Talk page of the article that it be low-level protected for a period of time would prevent IP edits. David notMD (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ginsparg–Wilson equation has been accepted

Ginsparg–Wilson equation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Carpimaps ^{talk to me!} 11:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Wilson fermion has been accepted

Wilson fermion, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

topics on symmetric mass generation removing fermion-doubling

Dear OpenScience709,

Thanks for writing and editing this page. I am not sure this is the correct place to reach you ---

there are some issues about the refs given here:

Symmetric mass generation: goes beyond the fermion-bilinear model and introduces non-perturbative interaction effects.[19][20][21][22][23] One realization is based on Eichten-Preskill model,[24] starting from a vector-symmetric fermion model, where chiral fermions and mirror fermions are realized on two domain walls (similar to domain wall fermions, but separated only by a finite width). The previous mirror fermion decoupling approach can be improved by symmetric mass generation. Gapping the mirror fermion by symmetric mass generation would result in the chiral fermion with chiral symmetry at low energy but without fermion doubling, which has been realized in explicit lattice models.[25] [26] [27]

(1) [19] and [20] use the name "symmetric mass generation": but these two references deal with 2+1d system, which has no fermion doubling in reality.

(2) On the other hand, Ref. [25] [26] [27] propose and then verify symmetric mass generation in 1+1d. Applying it to the 1+1d mirror fermion, Ref. [25] [26] [27] successfully give the 1+1d chiral fermion realized on the lattice. These are the rare explicit examples that really use Symmetric mass generation to remove fermion doubling on the lattice. 24.186.182.187 (talk) 04:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

So, I'm fine with you changing the reference for Symmetric Mass Generation on the article; it is important to get the correct references: basically it should mainly just reference the original papers that proposed the mechanism. If [19] and [20] are irrelevant (so they aren't the papers that first established the concept?), we can get rid of them. However, [19] seems to be the one that first proposed the concept from what I can tell, in which case I think its relevant. If its not, the which paper is the origin? Additionally we would want the paper that first applied it to fermion doubling. Which one is that? Also while [25] mentions SMG, that's only from v5 onwards, so [19] predate it.

However, as things stand, no additional elaboration should be given on the particular mechanism: in the same way that all the other fermion doubling resolutions only give a basic short one sentence explanation, SMG should be no different. SMG is a recent novel concept and so does not deserve to be elevated over the other resolutions. I am also partially concerned about conflict of interest since the people who seem to want to put SMG on Wikipedia may possibly also be the people who wrote the articles that they are citing. Additionally Wikipedia does not function as a comprehensive literature review, so not every paper relevant to a topic should be cited. OpenScience709 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

As a research familiar with this concept, I appreciate you guys trying to improve the Wikipedia page.

(1) But I don't quite understand your tenet "as things stand, no additional elaboration should be given on the particular mechanism" --- in fact I think it will be nice if every entry is expanded to give more contents, instead of just writing a name. I also don't think there is a strict curator to supervise this page only to his/her satisfaction. After, we are here to improve the accuracy of some statements. It will be nicer if someone also expands "Overlap fermion" and "Staggered fermion," etc. for major references on the development.

(2) Symmetry Mass Generation is a name given by some of the papers. But the concept date back long ago to Fidkowski-Kitaev in 0+1 spacetime dimension, and pseudogap phase in superconductor. So Fidkowski-Kitaev is not really Symmetry Mass Generation due to no precise inertial "mass" in 0d when there is no real space. So it is hard to say who is the first. The review paper may say more on this.

(3) The addition inclusion there: Eichten, Estia; Preskill, John (1986) seems very crucial for historical reason. Wang; Wen (2013). Wang; Wen (2019). Zeng; Zhu; Wang; You (2022) indeed demonstrate the lattice regularization of chiral fermion with some internal symmetry in a series of systematic analytic and numerical work, at least in 1+1 dimensions (and generalizable in principle to higher even spacetime dimensions).

It is very crucial to include the old Eichten-Preskill and these current progress so the readers know what exactly is the current status and the major steps in this direction.

Thank you and let us improve the Wikipedia page by contributing our knowledges and understandings on the development on the field. 129.41.87.17 (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear OpenScience709,

I propose to loop back to the previous edits to include all these references. Meanwhile, some of us and others can expand the discussions on the other approaches: "Ginsparg–Wilson fermion," "Overlap fermion" and "Staggered fermion" and more. 129.41.87.17 (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm replying in the articles talk page, since its probably better to move the discussion there for future reference. Please respond there :) OpenScience709 (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Could I get your input on QED vacuum-related topics?

A pre-existing image showing the Casimir effect

Shown here is the very small QCD vacuum, not the QED vacuum. The volume of the box is 2.4 by 2.4 by 3.6 femtometres. In an online interview, the Ph.D. who created this said he omitted the positive fluctuations for clarity.

A 3D image of the Casimir effect I recently made showing individual oscillations in the non-zero QED field (virtual photon pairs).

Introduction

Hi, OpenScience709.

I see on your user page that you are a Ph.D. student at the University of Oxford in the Particle Theory group. I found you because of small but accurate additions to various articles on Wikipedia like this one (with a ref'd citation) to Muon g-2. Following up on that, I noticed your particle-physics bent at your user contributions.

I have labored recently on Wikipedia’s Fuzzball (string theory) article and got hung up on Hawking radiation (which Hawking himself attributed to virtual photons possessing negative mass-energy, which is quite distinct from regular vacuum energy effects (non-zero energy of quantum electrodynamic vacuum) and which produce pronounced Casimir effects (pressures) with plate separations of 10–1000 nanometres.

Ultimately, I hope you will take a look at § Could the Underlying Mechanism be This?, below and tell me what you think.

Details of what has me perplexed

Very specifically, I’m wrestling with (wondering about) two issues:

1. What is the precise property that is oscillating in the QED vacuum? I note that the QED vacuum springs from oscillations (or “vibrations”) in the background electromagnetic field permeating every crevice of the Universe and these oscillations are responsible for the non-zero energy of the QED vacuum. Since the field is an “electromagnetic” one, the only imaginable property that can be oscillating (and therefore attributable to virtual photons, which are the carriers of electromagnetism) are 1) electricity, 2) magnetism, or 3) the X/Y-plane of both the electric and magnetic fields.
2. What is the precise mechanism responsible for the Casimir effect? I cannot imagine “energy” (in the absolute $E=mc^{2}$ sense) being so profoundly intense that it can generate one bar of pressure at 10 nm. My intuition is that once a quantum oscillation in the electromagnetic field occurs; which is to say, once a “virtual particle pair” springs up, then—as our Virtual photon article says—there are many ways longitudinal and spin-angular momentum of virtual photons can interact with the electromagnetic fields of electrons in the matter comprising Casimir plates.

I read in Scientific American (“Special Collector’s Edition”, Summer 2023) of an Italian team lead by Enrico Calloni of the Italian National Institute of Nuclear Physics, who is working on an experiment to “weigh vacuum energy” in an exquisitely sensitive (and well isolated deep in an abandoned mine) balance beam device. He plans to slightly heat superconducting Casimir plates to just above and below their transition temperature to turn on and off the Casimir effect. This suggests an alternative explanation: If the Casimir effect is not due to radiation pressure in a traditional sense, perhaps the exclusion of virtual photons' modes between the the plates leads to the attractive force. This would seem to explain the requirement that for the Casimir effect, the plates must be conductive. If this is the proper way to interpret Carloni’s experiment, then what is the precise interaction responsible for the fact that an absence of large-wavelength virtual photons between the plates causes an attractive force?

Keeping Things Simple

What I am trying to do is give the Fuzzball (string theory article a reading difficulty level akin to Scientific American. I suppose you can likely understand what’s in the below quote box. However, few Ph.D.s come to Wikipedia to get the lowdown on scientific papers (unless, I suppose, it’s a Saturday morning, the Ph.D. is still in their pajamas, and they’re too lazy to log into their work computer). Still, I see little useful purpose for prose in a general interest encyclopedia directed to a general-interest readership that reads like this quote box, which is from our Killing vector article:

In mathematics, a Killing vector field (often called a Killing field), named after Wilhelm Killing, is a vector field on a Riemannian manifold (or pseudo-Riemannian manifold) that preserves the metric. Killing fields are the infinitesimal generators of isometries; that is, flows generated by Killing fields are continuous isometries of the manifold. More simply, the flow generates a symmetry, in the sense that moving each point of an object the same distance in the direction of the Killing vector will not distort distances on the object.

I hope to one-day expand [Note 8] at Fuzzball (string theory) so it better explains what vacuum energy is not with regard to Hawking radiation; which is to say, I’d like to better explain what ordinary vacuum energy is as it is normally observed in the laboratory. You’ll note there that I used the canonical explanation of the Casimir force where it is due to “less energy” between the plates.

Could the Underlying Mechanism be This?

I slept on how Dr. Calloni will be exploiting superconductivity for his Casimir plates. I am mindful that experts I’ve recently contacted harbor wildly different views of vacuum energy, virtual photons, and the Casimir force. Two of those experts have diametrically opposing views. One advised that part of the reason for ambiguous explanations of the Casimir force is no one knows precisely what is going on. I don’t know if that is really the case, or if that particular expert simply didn’t himself know. Last night I received an email from a Ph.D. who wrote a book cited here on Wikipedia regarding virtual photons. He wrote “Now let's get to the Casimir effect. This has nothing to do with … with the QED vacuum polarization.” This is in diametric opposition to what our article here on QED vacuum says.

Perhaps the precise mechanism that draws together two Casimir plates with an astonishing pressure of one bar at a plate spacing of 10 nm is not due to the canonical explanation that “there is less energy between the plates.” After all, one bar of pressure is a heck of a lot of missing $E=mc^{2}$ energy. But if that missing energy is in the form of a force carrier, one requires far less energy to be missing from between Casimir plates. The question then becomes, “What are the force carriers and what is the force?” We know the force carriers must be virtual photons, which are the only force carriers that act through distances just shy of one micrometre and also correlate with the requirement that Casimir plates must be electrically conductive for the Casimir effect to arise. So now the question boils down to, “Which of the electromagnetic properties?”

Perhaps Casimir pressure is an emergent property arising from virtual photon spin-angular momentum interacting with mobile conduction electrons, which in turn creates an attractive magnetic force between the plates (as opposed to a “a relative lack of propulsive force” or “less energy” between the plates). As follows:

1. Below gaps of 1000 nm (λ ≤2000 nm if there is a electromagnetic cavity-effect in play, or λ ≤1000 nm if not), virtual photons begin to be excluded from between the plates.
2. The larger virtual photons that are able to spring from vacuum energy (those with wavelengths close to the gap size) can only form if they are oriented transverse to the plates’ faces or are forced to oriented so.
3. The virtual photons’ electric fields (which can possess spin-angular momentum; which is to say, may have polarization) couple their spin-angular momentum into the electromagnetic fields of mobile conduction electrons (in conductive metals) or into Cooper pairs in super-conductors). I am assuming here that unbound electrons in either conductors or super-conductors would have spin-angular momentums that are easier to flip.
4. The spin-angular momentum that is induced into the plates’ mobile conduction electrons, when viewed from the “top,” (down the spin axis of any given virtual photon) is clockwise in one plate, counter-clockwise in the other plate, and the net result are small zones of opposing magnetic polarity in opposing plates.
5. Opposites attract. There is magnetic attraction between the plates at each location where a virtual photon possessing spin-angular momentum exists.
6. The 2-D pitch of available virtual micro-electromagnets is on the order of the spacing between the plates. This would be about 10¹⁰ available sites per square centimetre at a Casimir plate gap of 100 nm.
7. Under this mechanism, the closer the plates are, the smaller and more energetic are the virtual photons that arise between them.
8. Additionally, more closely spaced plates would make the magnetic attraction stronger.
9. Points #7 and #8 result in rapidly increasing Casimir force with closer spacings. This would satisfy the intuitive notion (and nearly circular logic) that the Casimir effect grows with decreasing spacing and must vanish when the plates touch… just like permanent magnets do when they approach each other and then come into contact.

Is this what is actually going on and it isn’t being translated well from the scientific papers into simplified explanations in RSs that are directed to the general public?

Only someone with your academic background could find such papers and understand them. If this is the precise (actual) force mechanism underlying the Casimir force, it would account for why the Casimir force increases with closer plate gaps, requires the plates be conductive, and requires the plates be made of the same material. It might even explain why spheres repel each other, which seems rather bizarre.

Please either ping me here, or respond on my talk page. We can then find a more suitable venue to discuss things further.

Greg L (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

1. It is the quantum field that oscillates in the QED vacuum in a way that is well understood in quantum field theory. Specifically, the quantum electromagnetic field can be mathematically decomposed into a set of different modes (Fourier transform sense). By node you can just think of “component” if you want, all of which add up to give you the full field. Each of these modes oscillates as a simple harmonic oscillator. And as we know, a quantum simple harmonic oscillator has a zero mode energy, which is roughly where the QED vacuum energy comes from (it is the sum of the zero-point energy of all these modes; it is formally infinite, hence how all issues of renormalization cutoffs come in, but that’s a story for another time).

2. The Casimir effect can be viewed as coming from zero-point oscillations in your quantum field. In particular, the vacuum energy between the plates is different than outside the plates, hence you end up with a pressure on the plates. This is because between the plates the field is quantized into standing waves ending on the plates, while outside there is no such restriction.

An important point to make: It is a false claim to say that “few PhDs come to Wikipedia”. Sure, they don’t come for recent scientific papers, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be providing that information anyway; it is an encyclopaedia on established knowledge, not speculative super recent research. Either way, they do use Wikipedia for work and to understand wider background concepts, or to simply recall what they once learned.

---

Thank you for your candid response.

Quoting you: “The Casimir effect can be viewed as coming from zero-point oscillations in your quantum field. In particular, the vacuum energy between the plates is different than outside the plates, hence you end up with a pressure on the plates. This is because between the plates the field is quantized into standing waves ending on the plates, while outside there is no such restriction.”

Yes, that is the answer one obtains at pretty much any RS. I am trying to drill down one more step. Let me draw your attention to a particular part of the above-quoted sentence: “[B]etween the plates the field is quantized into standing waves ending on the plates, while outside there is no such restriction.”

This speaks to the nucleus of my question. What is the precise nature of pressure-generating mechanism that arrises due to the standing waves? There are only two possibilities:

1. The exclusion of wavelengths between the plates and the conversion of the remaining wavelengths into standing waves that end on the plates lessens the repulsive force in comparison to that generated by the zero-point oscillations outside. If this is the case, what is the precise repulsion-generating mechanism of those outside oscillations? Virtual photon momentum? Other?
2. The exclusion of wavelengths between the plates and the conversion of the remaining wavelengths into standing waves that end on the plates generates a relative attractive force between the plates in comparison to the non-standing-wave oscillations in zero-point energy outside of the plates. If this is the case, what is the precise attraction-generating mechanism between the plates?

Greg L (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi!

So in the basic setup there is an attractive force between the plates. Basically one can simply understanding this rather from an energy perspective rather than a force perspective; one can calculate what the (vacuum) energy between the plates is for a particular separation of the plates, and one can see that it is smaller for lower separations. Since systems generally want to minimize their energy, you will necessarily get attraction as the system wants to minimuize its energy. I suppose one can possibly interpret this as "fewer" virtual photons between the plates than outside, but I would be careful with this interpretation, maybe just cause it may be a matter of taste of how you want to view things. Sometimes different interpretations also lead to the same answer, at which point one interpretation need not actually be better than another.

It may be useful to note here that virtual particles are themselves more a tool, rather than a physical thing per se. They basically arise in perturbation theory as a byproduct of the mathematics of Feynman diagrams, but one can in principle do quantum field theory without them (it's just much harder and less convenient). Non-perturbative quantum field theory is fact does not deal with them. This is similar to ghost (physics), although not necessarily quite to the same extent. So they are a helpful tool, but they may not ontologically exist. But at this point this may be more philosophy than physics.

To reiterate: what is the "pressure generating mechanism"? In the standard interpretation of the Casimir effect in terms of the vacuum energy, it's simply the fact that the vacuum energy between the plates is in principle lower than outside the plates. One definition of force is exactly a difference in energy (well, the gradient in the energy F = dE/dx); this is exactly how the Casimir force is derived. But you don't need to think in terms of force carriers for this. Forces are not at all the "fundamental" way to view physics in the first place anyway. I much prefer looking at things from a path integral perspective as the fundamental definition of theories and their consequences, but again, thats a story for another day.

OpenScience709 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that explanation. My intention for the lower-most image, above (the colorful one) is to illustrate how fewer oscillations in the vacuum energy field exist between the plates vs. outside. Good? Bad?

And, by the way, if the Casimir effect is about fewer “virtual photons” (or fewer oscillations) existing between the plates, why must the plates be conductive? I should think that the mere presence of a wall of electrons would preclude vacuum energy oscillations from occurring for any given gap.

Greg L (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi. You need conductive plates so that the electromagnetic field interacts with the plates. Otherwie it will just pass through and will not be forced to form standing waves (basically you need boundary conditions forcing the field to vanish on the plates so that you get standing waves, in the same way that if you have a guitar strting between two points, it will form standing waves because the endpoints are forced to be fixed. Conversly, you can have a guitar string on two endpoints that can move about, but then you don't have standing waves). This is what happens for other fields that do not interact with the plates, thus they do not contribute to the Casimir effect. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

---

Having a technically accurate Wikipedia is important (for example the Killing vector article). Article such as these are not even particularly meant for the general public, they are intended for people who need them. If we were to try to write an article on Killing vectors that is understandable to the general public then, 1. It would be extremely inaccurate and deceptive, 2. It would be very short since you would be unable to use the language in which they function (ie mathematics), and hence somewhat pointless. Yes, it is important to explain things simply, but only to the extent that things are explained accurately. Mathematics and theoretical physics (and many other subjects) are not easy. The more advanced concepts may unfortunately require years of education to understand. Wikipedia is merely a reflection of that. My own writings on Wikipedia reflect this, focusing on these niche topics and getting them as simple as possible while still being technically accurate and informative to exactly people who would need them (usually graduate-level physicists and above).

Also, whoever it is you contact is correct about the Casimir effect being different from vacuum polarization; both have to do with the quantum nature of the vacuum, but they are completely different mechanisms. Wikipedia (or at least the article subsection you sent) does not contradict this. As for your proposed mechanism for the Casimir effect, all I’ll say is that it is not correct as it seems to be based on too many misunderstandings of quantum field theory than I wish to go into (and I’m unfortunately a bit busy right now). I would suggest picking up a textbook on quantum field theory (such as Schwartz) and going from there, although this is a tall ask since it usually takes a couple of years of undergrad to even get to having the background knowledge for this topic. But if you have a couple of years to spend, its not an impossible task. I'm really trying not to be dismissive here, but this stuff is hard. In fact, academia is hard, not just physics/mathematics. It would similarly take me years to even start grasping the basics of what my neuroscience/econ/others PhD friends are doing. But it is always commendable to try to learn something new. So I wish you the best on that front!

OpenScience709 (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

4D N = 1 global supersymmetry moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 4D N = 1 global supersymmetry, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Dan arndt, I'm currently in the process of publishing it. I have the whole thing written and am in the process of copy and pasting it into Wikipedia and converting it into the Wiki format. OpenScience709 (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello! I've just noticed that you've created three new articles about supergravity. Thanks for that, I will definitely give them a careful read! Coincidentally, just three days prior, I've translated the other five articles about it into German (although still incomplete). I've also noticed that you've written the article for the Dirac–Kähler equation I've already translated and Theta vacuum I'm currently translating.

Would you be available in case I have questions about anything from equations to literature for similar articles? Samuel Adrian Antz (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Nice to meet you! Thank you :). Yeah I've focused on supergravity recently (probably about to switch a bit back to string theory for a bit as I can't be bothered to research and write the N=2 articles I had planned as those will take a looooong time to research comprehensively), creating the most important articles on the topic. Thank you for translating my (and other) articles into other languages!! Feel free to ask me any questions you may have about anything and I will try to answer! Best regards, OpenScience709 (talk) 10:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ian Shipsey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages British and Dean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)