Talk:Scharnhorst effect

Comments by Gregory9

Ati3414 added a link to his paper again, despite the fact that his musings on phase and group velocity are not related to this effect. The Scharnhorst efect is a quantum mechanical effect in which the vaccuum modes are less dense in one direction and therefore the light actually would travel faster in that direction. Trying to argue this away with classical mechanics arguements, not even taking the time to understand the physics here, and worst of all the self promotion ... must be stopped. Ati3414 I'd appreciate it if you stopped spamming your papers all over the physics topics. Thank you. Gregory9 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no phase and group velocity in quantum mechanics? Remind that we must find the classical physics at different scale, no?Klinfran (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed "Explanation" section

I removed this section because it's simply not correct. The speed of light in QED or the Standard Model is set by Lorentz invariance, and the Lorentz invariant speed c is the same as the speed of light c. Photons are not slowed by the vacuum. You could perhaps introduce a new physical theory in which they were, but Scharnhorst worked in the framework of QED, and QED doesn't work that way. Scharnhorst's 1998 paper (I don't have online access to the original one) certainly claims nothing of the sort. -- BenRG (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like removal driven by OR, without an alternative explanation being available. What's your explanation of the effect then? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Have restored section. It had links to New Scientist which said essentially the same thing. By all means let's improve the explanation, but deletion isn't the answer.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with rewriting the section. It is better to give the standard argument based on the effective coefficients of refraction for the photon moving parallel or perpendicular to the plates that one can derive from QED. The article by Visser et al. cited here gives these expressions. One can then discuss briefly how these expressions are derived from QED so that the assumptions that are made are clear.

As I understand it, the expressions for the effective indices of refractions are, strictly speaking, only valid in the limit of zero frequency. At finite frequency, diagrams of arbitrary high order in the loop expansion contribute to the leading 1/L power. Because one is interested in some given situation where the plates are at some fixed distance L, the frequency of the photon is necessarily finite. So you would need to do a non-perturbative computation to be 100% sure that the effect indeed exists. This was wrong. The issue is that you need the refractive index in the limit of infinite frequency to find out how the light front moves and that requires non-perturbative methods.Count Iblis (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember WP:ESCA about alternative models -- both explanations are probably correct and thus both should be presented. The two restored links both explain the FTL effect via virtual pair supression.--Michael C. Price ^talk 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me if the section is rewritten rather than deleted, but it's not correct in its current form. New Scientist and Science News aren't reliable sources for information about quantum field theory. -- BenRG (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

They are good for accessible guides to QFT. And the fact that both sources give the same explanation should make us suspect that they are probably correct. Marcus Chown knows his oats, so to speak. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It rather makes me suspect that one copied it from the other. The Science News item has no byline.

Look. You can't assign a constant refractive index (other than 1) to the vacuum without breaking Lorentz invariance. Do you agree with that statement? Disagree with it? Not understand it? I'll continue based on your answer. -- BenRG (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources?--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources for what? -- BenRG (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Can anybody put some dates into this article, please? Even approximate dates would be useful. I have no idea when any of the events discussed in the article happened. New Thought (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to adding the ESCA template?

Discussion. Result: template is now deleted.

WP:ESCA was invoked by Michael yesterday in favor of having the heuristic explanation too. Of course, if after debate we find this explanation to be problematic, we would need to remove or modify it. Also, if the standard explanation is edited in, it is wise to critically scrutinize that. So, it seems to me that the way we intend to edit and discuss edits in the near future is according to what ESCA recommends. Count Iblis (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I objected already; and the consensus at the project and AN/I level seems to be that as a talk template, it's not very appropriate. But if you have a consensus of editors here who want it, that's OK by me. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Object, the ESCA template is abusive spam attempting to dictate policy by fiat and strongarming tactics instead of following consensus and policy. It does not belong on any page. Given the disruption already created by Count Iblis recently with his repeated failures to gain consensus at multiple venues, blocks should be issued if similar attempts to shove his failed policy proposal down others' throats continue. Tim Shuba (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

  Comment. Unless you intend to edit this article or participate in discussing edits to the article, your vote does not count. The same is true for Dicklyon. So, can we expect some input from you about the explanation that BenRG removed and Michael put back? Will you participate in writing up or discussing the standard argument for the Scharnhorst effect? Because this is the whole reason for sticking to WP:ESCA in the first place.

  What we absolutely do not want here, are polemic statements about "abuse", "spam", "strongarming tactics", "disruption", "blocks", "shoving down throats", etc. etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 02:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There has still been no explanation offered as to why a special template (one which is very likely to be deleted in the near future, by the way) needs to appear at the top of this and other article talk pages, offering a particular set of special rules for this page's editors, as endorsed by a small group of individuals. That way lies madness, with competing groups adding their own piles of templates for their own essays and their own rules, and no one ever getting past shouting My essay says I'm right!.

It's been mentioned before in other venues, and largely ignored by Count Iblis — if you think that Wikipedia's core policies should be applied or interpreted in particular ways in particular sets of Wikipedia articles, that's fine. If you wish to write an essay detailing your opinions and your reasoning, that's great. If you'd like to announce your new essay, to encourage interested editors to read it, go ahead — you can mention it in a new section on the bottom of relevant talk pages, or post a notice at the Village Pump. If you wish to refer to that essay on article talk pages and in policy discussions, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, that avoids needless re-presentation of the same chains of reasoning. If lots of editors find the suggestions in your essay helpful, and regularly adhere to and refer to its principles, then you can start thinking about upgrading it to a {{guideline}}. (That will take more discussion, and more work. Talk before tagging, not after.)

What you shouldn't do, and what you can't expect other editors to permit you to do, is announce that you've created new rules for a subset of articles and talk pages, and that those rules are required reading at the top of the talk page from now on. Declaring your own final interpretation of Wikipedia's core policies just isn't done. Feel free to announce and refer to your essay as necessary, but you can't impose it on all future users of this talk page and editors of the article. You don't get a banner ad at the top of the talk page endorsing your viewpoint.

Wikipedia policy development is generally descriptive rather than prescriptive. We don't write a set of rules and try to impose them from on high. Instead, we figure out through trial and error what works, and what makes good articles, then we eventually try to write it up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As Michael points out the essay has been invoked here earlier (by him), and not just here. The essay is well known on a few pages on which he and I are active. The essay is not meant to and cannot be used to get one's way by saying "My essay says I'm right!". Note also that Michael invoked the essay to argue against my position and I was the one who put up the template. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why a special hatnote template is required on this talkpage. Feel free to refer to the essay whenever you think its points are germane to a discussion; don't try to use it to reframe the policies governing these article talk pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It may not be required, but that's then precisely because it is already more or less an unwritten rule on some articles. I'm sure that I, Michael and BenRG, when we resuming discusssing and editing this article, have no choice but to stick to the guidelines if we really want to substantially expand this article. As a result of the debate on the NOR page where I argued in favor of local policies, I thought: "why not make a template for ESCA and add it to those pages where the ESCA guidelines is already pretty much de-facto policy". I probably should not have added it to the two special relativity pages, but on this page, I don't see the problem.

Also, compare this with the fact that on the Global Warming page we edit with a stricter version of RS. Only peer reviewed sources are allowed, and this was ruled to be in violation of RS by the regulars of the RS noticeboard. So, for clarity, a template on the Global Warming talk page saying that by consensus editors there adhere to a stricter version of RS, would not be a bad thing at all. Count Iblis (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No objection One of the WP:ESCA points has already been invoked. Let's see if the other points will be useful here as well and have a discussion from first principles.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Instead of re-adding the template repeatedly in the face of clear, detailed, policy- and experience-driven opposition, why not take one of the other suggestions for ways that you can promote and encourage your preferred editing practices? Just announce the guidelines right here, in a new section, right below this one. Go for it. It won't hurt anyone, and you can get on with editing, instead of arguing. I've even thought of another acceptable way to promote and draw attention to the principles: add them to your signature. Choose link text that's non-inflammatory, and keep the phrasing short and to the point, but go ahead and do something like this:

• Michael C. Price ^talk (My principles) 07:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Count Iblis (talk, editing principles) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Would that serve? It guarantees that the essay gets mentioned on talk pages where you participate, and it avoids giving the impression that the essay represents full-on Wikipedia policy or guidelines. It may also encourage other editors to pick up the essay in their own work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Easier to just add the template:

{{ESCA}}

--Michael C. Price ^talk 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to express your own opinion (in this case, your opinion that editors should follow the advice in a given essay), then you can just as easily say so. No (hideous) template required. Just write a short message, include a link to WP:ESCA, and sign. No fuss, no muss. A template is actually a bad way to make such a post, because the template can be modified, deleted, or vandalized — rendering your post nonsensical (at best) or changing the meaning of your comment or announcement to something that you didn't intend. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've placed a hidden box around this since this does not deal with anything in the article, but rather a continuation of the WP:ESCA debates. It's very distracting, especially to newcomers, and the discussion reached a stalemate anyway. Let's get back to discussing how to improving the article rather than discussing how to discuss improving the article. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest someone add a reference to my own early work

As noted towards the end of the article in its present form, various people have written papers demonstrating or arguing that the Scharnhorst et al results cannot be used to send superluminal signals. I note that my own paper is not mentioned, although it was among the earliest (SLAC-PUB-5300, July 1990, "Causality Between Conducting Plates" ; published in Physics Letters that October). A citation search will reveal that this paper has been referred to extensively. It is unethical for me to modify the article to refer to my own work, but I encourage anyone else to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhyzxShahar (talk • contribs) 21:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)