Does Distance exist without time?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
wiki
A tachyon (from the Greek ταχυόνιον, takhyónion, from ταχύς, takhýs, i.e. swift, fast) is any hypothetical particle that travels at superluminal speed. The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld; however, it was George Sudarshan, Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk [1][2], Vijay Deshpande [2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term in the 1960s) that advanced a theoretical framework for their study. Tachyonic fields have appeared theoretically in a variety of contexts, such as the Bosonic string theory. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds. Even if tachyons were conventional, localisable particles, they would still preserve the basic tenets of causality in special relativity and not allow transmission of information faster than light[3].
Today, in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are best understood as signifying an instability of the system and treated using tachyon condensation, rather than as real faster-than-light particles, and such instabilities are described by tachyonic fields. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existing[4]. By that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible on both grounds: they are non-existent in the first place (by tachyon condensation)[4] and even if they existed (by Feinberg's analysis[3]) they wouldn't be able to transmit information (also by Feinberg's analysis[3]). Despite the theoretical arguments against the existence of tachyon particles, experimental searches have been conducted to test the assumption against their existence; however, no experimental evidence for or against the existence of tachyon particles has been found. [5]
well,..... now we both know that we both know what a trachyon is [ sounds like a dinasaur to be honest ]
Quantum Heraclitus:
The past would be the moment before. The future would be the moment after.
There is both a start and an end, like ticking seconds on a clock face. Save that we're talking about infinitesimal moments, not seconds.
When it is a moment.
It has no middle. It is of infinitesminal duration.
The past would be the moment before. The future would be the moment after.
There is both a start and an end, like ticking seconds on a clock face. Save that we're talking about infinitesimal moments, not seconds.
When it is a moment.
It has no middle. It is of infinitesminal duration.
Vkothill:
Thanks for restating. I appreciate it.
I think I grasp what you mean: Durations do make sense in quantas of that duration set alone, correct?
Thanks for restating. I appreciate it.
I think I grasp what you mean: Durations do make sense in quantas of that duration set alone, correct?
I think you all should know, that QH is in terrible health and can't really respond to something that he has already mentionend.
For example.
In his post to you, Reiku, he has clearly explained that he has no interest in your sorts of physics. None. He does not prescribe that. He is not going to continue putting up with the continued ranting him down.
That's how it goes. If the mood is changing I wonder why? Why won't he ever get validation for his ideas? Can anyone see this as a time to take the tables below their knees, and try to turn it over? Seriously, there is a need for this to be soon.
The problem however, seems to me that he is not clarifying what needs to be said properly. It looks like a really difficult issue and don't think that I don't have the knowledge (hwoever I lack the physicial strength--) to understand or comprehend what is taking place here.
More than likly, all of these posts deserve his upandcomming response, a response which will suit us fine.
We are aware the distance exists without time when considering a car riding by. How long does it take that car to move, in a certain situation from a certain point?
Of course this is true.
It makes sense to want to refute his ideas.
But not when the ideas themselves deserve backing up from within, from an unheard of source, and more over since he thinks he is entirely correct.
I could go on but I feel I am ranting.
Though.
For example.
In his post to you, Reiku, he has clearly explained that he has no interest in your sorts of physics. None. He does not prescribe that. He is not going to continue putting up with the continued ranting him down.
That's how it goes. If the mood is changing I wonder why? Why won't he ever get validation for his ideas? Can anyone see this as a time to take the tables below their knees, and try to turn it over? Seriously, there is a need for this to be soon.
The problem however, seems to me that he is not clarifying what needs to be said properly. It looks like a really difficult issue and don't think that I don't have the knowledge (hwoever I lack the physicial strength--) to understand or comprehend what is taking place here.
More than likly, all of these posts deserve his upandcomming response, a response which will suit us fine.
We are aware the distance exists without time when considering a car riding by. How long does it take that car to move, in a certain situation from a certain point?
Of course this is true.
It makes sense to want to refute his ideas.
But not when the ideas themselves deserve backing up from within, from an unheard of source, and more over since he thinks he is entirely correct.
I could go on but I feel I am ranting.
Though.
Well, one, DH and myself, hardly ever talk. I recall something like several conversations with him since i have been here.
And you hae quite an amazing cheek. Who supported you for nearly a month in long e-mail and personal messages when you where experiencing problems? Have you forgetten this?
I know that the standards here are falling drastically. People like you, hope that by siding the more agreed group of individuals on someone, will somehow enhance your identity here.
You have already shown you think illogical, in multiple threads, and despite the continued flaming towards me, you are nothing but a hypocrite, not only for that reason, but for the fact you even opened a new thread on QQ calling him a devil.
Tell me, after all that advice i gave you, and all the time i spent trying to help you, who is the devil now, prickface?
And you hae quite an amazing cheek. Who supported you for nearly a month in long e-mail and personal messages when you where experiencing problems? Have you forgetten this?
I know that the standards here are falling drastically. People like you, hope that by siding the more agreed group of individuals on someone, will somehow enhance your identity here.
You have already shown you think illogical, in multiple threads, and despite the continued flaming towards me, you are nothing but a hypocrite, not only for that reason, but for the fact you even opened a new thread on QQ calling him a devil.
Tell me, after all that advice i gave you, and all the time i spent trying to help you, who is the devil now, prickface?
This is not the place for this. Personal conversations in the physics sectioin can only lead to corruption. Calling me a prickface won't solve anything. I flame you because, I am scared of you. I call QQ the devil, because QQ is very mysterious. But, I don't feel anymore that he is the devil. If anything you are the devil. Or you are acting like a little minature devil running around with it's head chopped off. In every case, it would appear that I am the devil. That suits me fine, it isn't news to me. I take any and whatever flaming is necessary to help me realize the truth.
As far as prickface is concerned, you can simply shove a toothpick up your ass and laugh as you get so excited that you think it's a dick. Guys and lesbians have that in common, ya know.
And about being illogicial. I would love for you to show me where and how exactly I am. Sort of like QQ here. You won't.
Reiku,
Sisyphus is just trying to provoke me into revealing certain details that would be far from advisable to reveal. He is provoking me to respond as he dislikes the fact that I respond only when and where and how I choose to. He is not happy that I have autonomy where as he seems not to.
This is a cyclic event and happens every 1-2 weeks or so.
I tend to feel he is slowly working it out....but alas there is pain in the recovery/growth yet to be experienced.
So Sisyphus, give it your best shot mate!
btw ..notice how clear the posts are when he is "attacking"...
So you have failed to notice that theory in itself does not prove anything?
Just because something is logical does not make it true. Also I can think of many things that are illogocial, where their truth is not questioned.
Ney! Proof is in the doing and not just in the saying.
And I know that I am correct and so do others that are starting to experience the proof of Zero Point Theory's correctness.
Sisyphus you have experienced the truth of Zero Point Theory many times, according to your emails, so I think you know what I mean.
btw where is this QQ is a devil thread?
If the unverse as imagined by current thinking existed the notion of aTrachyon is merely a compensation for data that doesn't fit the pre-existing scientific understanding just as "gravity wakes", "photon splitting" and other interesting notions.
I have already clearly stated by default that as I believe that vacant space between any object of mass is zero dimensional therefore transit times are zero and not infinitely fast that my zero or instantaneousness is competitive with your infinitely fast, in fact I can almost say with tongue in cheek that instanteousness is faster by an infinitely small nose so to speak.
The paradox exists simply because currently accepted scientific theory therefor pre-conceptions are in error.
SOMEWHAT of a response, how about that!
I was only trying to help you out in your thread QQ. Stating that you are in terrible health and cannot quite respond is one necessary thing that needs working out. Either way perhaps that is not the case as you say it is.
Yes, I have experienced zero point. I have also questionend it's validy. How in the hell is it even possible for distance to equate with zero in my example above with the car? It is going to move; it would however require according I believe to your example on the mind and not in the actual distance. But when recording distance what do you record?
Is my main question.
As far as your other stuff is concerned, I have no need to bother. I always feel that theory and ability to prove via words is possibility. What is occuring in this thread is difficulties in communication.
by who? The mods or you?
Now thats a great comment Sisyphus!
Yes it is difficulties in communication that is being experienced and yes it is frustrating. Most flaming is due to this issue.
Frustration and the venting of frustration.
Theory can never be proved by theory...I think this is a standard scientific thingo.
Because energy is being applied to the car or has been applied to the car it moves in 4 dimensional space and is recorded as usual and common. [ it will also incurr time dialtion effects relatively speaking,]
You do not move through zero point nor transit as soon as you grant time you are expanding the dimension to 4. Which is why a worm hole as described in popular movies and series TV is still a 4 dimensional object as it takes time to travel through a wormhole, where as no time is involved in zero point.
The popular TV series of some time back "Sliders" shows this countless times. Yet a couple of other movies show zero point quite clearly as well.
like walking through a door into a room. [ what is inside and what is outside the room? or do you some how get caught in the middle as Prince james is suggesting.]
The famous TV series "Dr Who" shows this easily with his telephone box and Tardis dimensionalism. He opens his door and can quite eailly see the paradox of sizes. [ instantaneousness - no wormhole involved]
This is an assertion in desperate need of proof; I propose the alternative. If a proposition is logical it is, ipso facto, true, Show me I am wrong....