Origin of spacetime

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Origin of spacetime

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

When in a gas speed of tachyons increases (the v increases) then due to the direct collisions of the tachyons there should be the grinding of them i.e. volumes V of the tachyons should decrease when their speed increases. This means that energy E and volume V (so the inertial mass also) of a tachyon decreases when its speed increases. Such phenomena do not violate the law of conservation of energy because due to the grinding there are more and more the smaller tachyons.

We can see that when speed of tachyons is higher and higher then there are more and more the smaller and smaller tachyons. When speed of tachyons is infinite then there is infinite number of tachyons which volume and energy is equal to zero. We can see that for the asymptotic limit there is the infinite number of mathematical points which are moving with infinite speed. Just there are the infinite speeds ONLY.

But such conclusion is incorrect. Why?
The volumes V (so inertial masses m also) of the tachyons, i.e. the moving PIECES of space cannot be reduced to zero. The total volume of the all tachyons STILL must be the same! We must say that volumes of the tachyons V can be smaller and smaller but they never will be equal to zero i.e. never their speed v will be infinite.

Conclusion
We cannot create space from nothing. It is eternal. In the truly empty nothingness cannot appear space (the physical volumes) and time (the motions of the physical volumes). The truly empty nothingness and space and time are eternal.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Origin of spacetime

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

When in a gas speed of tachyons increases (the v increases) then due to the direct collisions of the tachyons there should be the grinding of them i.e. volumes V of the tachyons should decrease when their speed increases. This means that energy E and volume V (so the inertial mass also) of a tachyon decreases when its speed increases. Such phenomena do not violate the law of conservation of energy because due to the grinding there are more and more the smaller tachyons.

We can see that when speed of tachyons is higher and higher then there are more and more the smaller and smaller tachyons. When speed of tachyons is infinite then there is infinite number of tachyons which volume and energy is equal to zero. We can see that for the asymptotic limit there is the infinite number of mathematical points which are moving with infinite speed. Just there are the infinite speeds ONLY.

But such conclusion is incorrect. Why?
The volumes V (so inertial masses m also) of the tachyons, i.e. the moving PIECES of space cannot be reduced to zero. The total volume of the all tachyons STILL must be the same! We must say that volumes of the tachyons V can be smaller and smaller but they never will be equal to zero i.e. never their speed v will be infinite.

Conclusion
We cannot create space from nothing. It is eternal. In the truly empty nothingness cannot appear space (the physical volumes) and time (the motions of the physical volumes). The truly empty nothingness and space and time are eternal.

I have solved everything. Time for you to relax. You will get to put your maths to good use. I think you might enjoy it.

 

[origin]

We can write the Einstein formula for the tachyons as follows.

E = m/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

I was not aware that Einstein had a formula for tachyons. Could you cite his tachyon paper - sounds like an interesting read.

Assume that inertial mass of tachyon m is in proportion to its volume V. Then the above formula looks as follows.

E ~ V/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)

I think prior to this assumption there needs to be acknowledgment that there imust be an ASSUMPTION that a tachyon even exists!

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have solved everything. Time for you to relax. You will get to put your maths to good use. I think you might enjoy it.

Pincho Paxton, you formulated the idea based on +1-1=0 in the truly empty nothingness. But there are not some descriptions to show physical meaning of such idea. Next, you should formulate the initial conditions and next show how the initial conditions lead to the experimental data. Can you see that you have the idea +1-1=0 only? It is not a theory, just idea and I tried to show you that the formula +1-1=0 cannot be realised in the truly empty nothingness. Your idea needs a physical spacetime.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho Paxton, you formulated the idea based on +1-1=0 in the truly empty nothingness. But there are not some descriptions to show physical meaning of such idea. Next, you should formulate the initial conditions and next show how the initial conditions lead to the experimental data. Can you see that you have the idea +1-1=0 only? It is not a theory, just idea and I tried to show you that the formula +1-1=0 cannot be realised in the truly empty nothingness. Your idea needs a physical spacetime.

It is a particle with a hole in it. The membrane is +1, and the hole is -1.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I was not aware that Einstein had a formula for tachyons. Could you cite his tachyon paper - sounds like an interesting read.

Just google and next Wikipedia.

I think prior to this assumption there needs to be acknowledgment that there imust be an ASSUMPTION that a tachyon even exists!

There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos. This suggests that neutrinos consist of superluminal particles.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

There are following questions.
1.
What is the physical meaning of the +1 and -1? Mass, volume, surface,...? Why -1? Did you read about the imaginary time postulated by S. Hawking?
2.
What is the external radius of the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
3.
What is the radius of the hole in the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
4.
What is the medium the particle is built of and what are the properties of this medium?
5.
Is the medium eternal?
6.
Can you formulate the definitions of space and time for your particle of a field composed of your particles?
7.
Have your particle inertial or gravitational mass or both? Why?
8.
What is speed of your particle? What phenomena lead to the superluminal neutrinos and the speed c characteristic for the photons and gluons?

And so on.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

There are following questions.
1.
What is the physical meaning of the +1 and -1? Mass, volume, surface,...? Why -1? Did you read about the imaginary time postulated by S. Hawking?
2.
What is the external radius of the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
3.
What is the radius of the hole in the particle and what interactions are responsible for it?
4.
What is the medium the particle is built of and what are the properties of this medium?
5.
Is the medium eternal?
6.
Can you formulate the definitions of space and time for your particle of a field composed of your particles?
7.
Have your particle inertial or gravitational mass or both? Why?
8.
What is speed of your particle? What phenomena lead to the superluminal neutrinos and the speed c characteristic for the photons and gluons?

And so on.

Stephen Hawking's program was about my theory which is about 5 years old.

The particle has scale of 1, the radius cannot be calculated as this is the smallest scale in our universe.

The hole is -1 the radius cannot be calculated.

The particle medium is the particle, it is made from zero.

The medium is eternal.

Space, and time are infinite.

My particles create all physical forces, and particles, they create everything. They have a mass of +1 + -1

My particles have a speed of x +1 x -1 y +1 y -1 z +1 z -1 all at once.

 

[origin]

Just google and next Wikipedia.

Well I'll be, no information about Einsteins work on tachyons. Weird huh?

There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos.

No, there is one experiment that indicate this may be the case - it is looking doubtful though.

This suggests that neutrinos consist of superluminal particles.

What aspect of that experiment leads you to believe the neutrinos consist of superluminal particles?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The particle has scale of 1, the radius cannot be calculated as this is the smallest scale in our universe.
The hole is -1 the radius cannot be calculated.

If you cannot calculate this radius then your model does not lead to experimental data. Your model should lead from the experimental data to the initial conditions so to the smallest scale also. If not then your model is useless.

The particle medium is the particle, it is made from zero.

The medium is eternal.

Pincho Paxton,
Do you claim that there is medium defined by zero i.e. defined by truly empty nothingness? I completely do not understand it. For physicist medium has positive volume so it is not the zero.

Space, and time are infinite.

In my opinion, it is untrue. From the Einstein formula for tachyons, it follows that speed of tachyons is finite. This means that sufficiently distant regions of the infinite spacetime can be separated. This leads to conclusion that in the separated regions initial conditions can be different. There can be the timeless regions too (i.e. there are not the collisions of the pieces of space) or spacetimeless regions (i.e. the truly empty nothingness).

My particles create all physical forces, and particles, they create everything. They have a mass of +1 + -1

But you cannot prove it.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

If you cannot calculate this radius then your model does not lead to experimental data. Your model should lead from the experimental data to the initial conditions so to the smallest scale also. If not then your model is useless.



Pincho Paxton,
Do you claim that there is medium defined by zero i.e. defined by truly empty nothingness? I completely do not understand it. For physicist medium has positive volume so it is not the zero.



In my opinion, it is untrue. From the Einstein formula for tachyons, it follows that speed of tachyons is finite. This means that sufficiently distant regions of the infinite spacetime can be separated. This leads to conclusion that in the separated regions initial conditions can be different. There can be the timeless regions too (i.e. there are not the collisions of the pieces of space) or spacetimeless regions (i.e. the truly empty nothingness).



But you cannot prove it.

Well Stephen Hawking agrees so proof is in the maths 1 + -1 = 0. The nothingness is two things, and maths agrees, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Well I'll be, no information about Einsteins work on tachyons. Weird huh?

There are cited many papers concerning tachyons based on the Theory of Relativity. I never wrote that the formula E = m/sqrt(vv/cc - 1) for the tachyons is in some Einstein’s work. Just for M = im in the Einstein formula E = Mcc/sqrt(1 –vv/cc), where i = sqrt(-1), we obtain the above formula.

No, there is one experiment that indicate this may be the case - it is looking doubtful though.

To be or not to be. The OPERA experiment 'says' that there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos. Today there is no evidence that it is untrue.

What aspect of that experiment leads you to believe the neutrinos consist of superluminal particles?

Applying the mainstream theories, we can obtain the theoretical results consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the SN 1987A data. We can do it at the assumption that the superluminal neutrinos are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles i.e. their mass does not depend on speed. If the neutrinos are the superluminal particles then the components of the neutrinos are moving with the superluminal speeds too. You know if a car could be superluminal then the driver also.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Well Stephen Hawking agrees so proof is in the maths 1 + -1 = 0. The nothingness is two things, and maths agrees, and Stephen Hawking agrees.

There is difference between the abstract math and physical physics. If you claim that there can appear two things (for example, the virtual PAIRS) in the truly empty nothingness then you MUST describe physically and mathematically the mechanism and forces responsible for such phenomena.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

There is difference between the abstract math and physical physics. If you claim that there can appear two things (for example, the virtual PAIRS) in the truly empty nothingness then you MUST describe physically and mathematically the mechanism and forces responsible for such phenomena.

No you don't have to explain zero. You can have zero for free. It is nothing, you don't need to explain it.

This is how it works....

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I understand what you try to say. But you cut out the positive mass from nothingness. In my opinion, physically it is impossible.

 

[Robittybob1]

Just to remember what Tachyons are - Faster than light particles

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!

—Reginald Buller

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Just to remember what Tachyons are - Faster than light particles

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And returned the previous night!

—Reginald Buller

Unfortunately, the time loops are not in existence. There are only the wrong interpretations. They suggest that the journeys to the past are possible. My theory shows that such journeys are impossible just due to the tachyons. Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons. The tachyons very quickly modify the wave function describing our Universe. There is in existence the present always. Due to the tachyons, the past ends very quickly.

 

[Robittybob1]

Unfortunately, the time loops are not in existence. There are only the wrong interpretations. They suggest that the journeys to the past are possible. My theory shows that such journeys are impossible just due to the tachyons. Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons. The tachyons very quickly modify the wave function describing our Universe. There is in existence the present always. Due to the tachyons, the past ends very quickly.

Can you write in words the speed of a tachyon please. I'm a bit amused by the number I see so just write it in words, then I'll know if we are seeing the same thing.

Their speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the photons and gluons.

Seems extreme!
Where was the proof of this speed. TIMES Higher than what?

 

[wlminex]

. . .tachyons are as 'real' as gravitons!!

 

[Robittybob1]

. . .tachyons are as 'real' as gravitons!!

Well that is good to know. They will be found sooner or later then.