Well that is good to know. They will be found sooner or later then.
. . . . probably . . . . via math at least . . .
Origin of spacetime
- Thread starter Sylwester Kornowski
- Start date
. . . . probably . . . . via math at least . . .
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.
Seems extreme!
Where was the proof of this speed. TIMES Higher than what?
In my Everlasting Theory, there are the initial conditions. There is the gas composed of tachyons and 7 parameters. The phase transitions of such spacetime lead to four very stable structures i.e. to the superluminal closed strings, to the superluminal neutrinos (these particles are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles), to the cores of baryons and to the cosmic objects before the 'soft' big bangs after the period of inflation. Such theory leads via the physical constants (they are calculated within my theory from the initial conditions) to the experimental data. The mean speed of the tachyons is the initial parameter in my theory. This means that if we change its value then we will not obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data. We can say that my theory leads from the experimental data to the mean speed of the tachyons. The mean speed of tachyons is 2.4•10^97 m/s i.e. this speed is 8•10^88 times higher than the c i.e. than the speed of photons and gluons.
The direct and indirect evidences that there are in existence the superluminal particles are as follows.
1.
There are the superluminal neutrinos.
2.
Entangled photons show that they can communicate with speeds higher than the c.
3.
The wave functions fill the whole our Universe. The wave function describing our Universe can be the coherent mathematical object if the very distant points of the wave function can communicate with speeds much higher than the c. We can say that coherent quantum physics needs the tachyons.
4.
Also the Michelson-Morley experiment leads to conclusion that masses emit the tachyons (see the explanation in my book).
Conclusion
Many experiments show or lead to the conclusion that there are in existence the tachyons. The experimental data via my theory lead to conclusion that the mean speed of the tachyons is tremendous and is 8•10^88 times higher than the c.
SK: Your tachyons MAY be embedded in my SQR. I cannot re-state my hypothesis here . . . it is found in posts placed a few months ago, but due to accusations by mods of self-promotion and trolling, I'll refrain from reposting here. Send me a PM.
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Thanks and Merry Christmas!
Last edited:
Wlminex,
I read the EEMU Hypotheses. You know, there is tremendous number of new hypotheses. How can we verify them? Just authors of new ideas should start from some initial conditions (i.e. formulae and parameters) and show that their initial conditions via their ideas lead to the experimental data and observational facts. On base of the calculations, we can say whether the new ideas are useful. In your paper, there is lack of any calculations. You did not write also how we can verify your model i.e. there should appear new phenomena. The new phenomena should lead to some theoretical results. We should verify them in experiments.
Wlminex, we can discuss the new ideas concerning the origin of spacetime here.
I wish you a Merry Christmas too.
I'm going to look into the tachyons for they seem to be really important. What proof is there that there is such a thing?
Robittybob1, can you read the post #22 in this thread? Just a few posts earlier. I listed the direct and indirect evidences that nature needs the tachyons.
Thanks, I reading up about the speed of Gravity. Come and visit us someday.
In the post #22 I showed that nature needs tachyons. They are the moving pieces of space in the truly empty nothingness. The Newtonian spacetime consists of the free tachyons. It is the gas composed of the pieces of space. Such free pieces of space (tachyons) cannot emit anything because they are the internally structureless objects. The free tachyons interact due to the direct collision. Because they cannot emit anything, so they cannot be detected DIRECTLY but we know that nature needs tachyons. Because the free tachyons are separated from the wave function describing our Universe, so we can say that energy of the Newtonian spacetime is the IMAGINARY energy. All the physical quantities which define the properties of the Newtonian spacetime, we can call the imaginary physical quantities so there appears the imaginary time also. The imaginary time introduced S. Hawking.
The total energy T we can define as the sum of the energy which appears in the General Relativity E and the imaginary energy associated with the Newtonian spacetime N
T = E + iN where i = sqrt(-1)
We know that the E applied in the GR is defined as follows
E = M(gravitational=inertial)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)
The tachyons cannot emit some objects so they have the inertial mass only m(in). Substitute ic instead c, iv instead v and im(in) instead M(gr=in).
Then
N = -im(in)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)
N = m(in)cc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)
The m(in) is in proportion to volume of tachyon i.e. m(in) = aV.
Then
N = aVcc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)
In my first post in this thread, I discussed this formula.
We can see that we can reformulate the GR via following substitution in the Einstein equations E = T – iN. We can see also that the GR leads to the Newtonian spacetime i.e. to the fundamental spacetime. We can see also that the GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics. The Quantum Physics appears on higher level of nature and is associated with the excited states of the Einstein spacetime. From the formula T = E + iN follows that there are in existence two spacetimes i.e. the Einstein spacetime and the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. The phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime, which lead to the Einstein spacetime ALSO, I described in my Everlasting Theory.
The total energy T we can define as the sum of the energy which appears in the General Relativity E and the imaginary energy associated with the Newtonian spacetime N
T = E + iN where i = sqrt(-1)
We know that the E applied in the GR is defined as follows
E = M(gravitational=inertial)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)
The tachyons cannot emit some objects so they have the inertial mass only m(in). Substitute ic instead c, iv instead v and im(in) instead M(gr=in).
Then
N = -im(in)cc/sqrt(1 – vv/cc)
N = m(in)cc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)
The m(in) is in proportion to volume of tachyon i.e. m(in) = aV.
Then
N = aVcc/sqrt(vv/cc – 1)
In my first post in this thread, I discussed this formula.
We can see that we can reformulate the GR via following substitution in the Einstein equations E = T – iN. We can see also that the GR leads to the Newtonian spacetime i.e. to the fundamental spacetime. We can see also that the GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics. The Quantum Physics appears on higher level of nature and is associated with the excited states of the Einstein spacetime. From the formula T = E + iN follows that there are in existence two spacetimes i.e. the Einstein spacetime and the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. The phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime, which lead to the Einstein spacetime ALSO, I described in my Everlasting Theory.
The notion of imaginary time came before Hawking. In quantum field theory it is known as a Wick rotation. In group theory it is the Weyl trick. Euclideanisation was a common tool in many relativistic models well before Hawking. You need to learn the physics from books not tv programs Sylwester.
The imaginary time in my post is associated with cosmology. We can read about the S. Hawking imaginary time concept in cosmology, for example, in his book A Brief History of Time, A Bantam Book edition 1990, pages 138-140.
But it is true that we obtain the imaginary time due to the (pi)/2 Wick rotation in the complex plane. In my book I described physical meaning of the imaginary unit i = sqrt(-1). See the chapters Fractal Field and Mathematical Constants, pages 82-84.
But it is true that we obtain the imaginary time due to the (pi)/2 Wick rotation in the complex plane. In my book I described physical meaning of the imaginary unit i = sqrt(-1). See the chapters Fractal Field and Mathematical Constants, pages 82-84.
So your source is a pop science book written decades after the research it talks about. Thanks for proving my point about how you should be getting information from textbooks right. As for physical interpretations if its as laughable as your explanation of the Taylor series of exp Impressive certain it isbt worth my or anyone else's time to look at.
So, as usually, your source is the Wikipedia. In my post, I needed just the imaginary time applied in cosmology. Most important is the S. Hawking concept. In the post, the (pi)/2 Wick rotation was not needed.
Do you claim that the old papers, for example, the Einstein papers are useless? You know, each source is important, the S. Hawking books also. AlphaNumeric, just stop write the nonsense. You know, today is the traditional Christmas-Eve supper. Just try to write about your ideas. Is there at least one?
Do you claim that the old papers, for example, the Einstein papers are useless? You know, each source is important, the S. Hawking books also. AlphaNumeric, just stop write the nonsense. You know, today is the traditional Christmas-Eve supper. Just try to write about your ideas. Is there at least one?
How is my source wikipedia? I just pointed out how you getting your information from layperson sources like pop science books gives you an incorrect impression of the development of certain ideas. What your comment about Einstein has to do with anything i don't know. Once again it seems you don't even understand your own short comings.
As for my ideas they are in papers. My current research is covered by company privacy but I am certain its accomplishing more than yours. Real scientists don't present their work on forums, they have proper avenues.
As for my ideas they are in papers. My current research is covered by company privacy but I am certain its accomplishing more than yours. Real scientists don't present their work on forums, they have proper avenues.
What is your background Sylwester?
What is your background Sylwester?
You can read my CV on my website.
In your posts is the encyclopaedic information only. There is no one new idea. Do you are afraid to write about them or...? I can see in your posts also the tremendous frustration, just the inconceivable malice.
Do you read about the attacks of the great physicists on the OPERA EXPERIMENTAL DATA? Today is no place in the scientific papers for the second spacetime i.e. for the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. But the time for the good new ideas is going. Sometimes authors of good ideas waited tens years to meet with approbation. I claim that we never solve the hundreds unsolved problems without my phase transitions of the imaginary Newtonian spacetime. They lead to the superluminal closed strings the neutrinos consist of, to the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the cosmic objects after the period of inflation. There appears the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions too i.e. the atom-like structure of baryons.
AlphaNumeric, CAN YOU STOP WRITE THE NONSENSE? Your posts are very dull. SciForums are to discuss the new ideas. Why you cannot discuss in this thread the origin of spacetime? Why you write about the unimportant things only? They are not associated with the title of this thread. You know, it is trolling.
I tens times wrote that you should discuss the problems listed in the titles of the threads and in the leading posts. You, PhD, are unable to do this. See the all your posts in my threads. There are just the nonsense and nonsense and nonsense.
Once more: you compromise this forum.
What do you think about the T = E + iN? Is it too complicated for you? Where are your scientific arguments? Maybe you were a scientist but TODAY your behaviour suggests that you are out.
Sylwester . . . . . unfortunately Alphanumeric is a moderator on Sciforums . . . mods usually "rule-the-roost" here and try to dictate the flow and content of posting, such as yours re: "the Origin of Spacetime", to THEIR liking! I think your discussion of tachyons has merit . . . their existence is, however, difficult to discover/prove under the stipulated Standard Model conditions. I also like your discussion re: superluminal strings - for "things" propogating at (or near) c, I believe (hypothesize . . . not theorize!) it is entirely possible that their associated internal vibrational rates may exceed c.
Last edited:
The Theory of Relativity leads to the tachyons via folowing substitutions c -> ic, v -> iv, m -> im, where i = sqrt(-1). In the post #22, I wrote about the four direct and indirect evidences that nature needs the tachyons ABSOLUTELY. The theories which include the tachyons and lead to the experimental data should be TODAY the leading theories. And in my opinion it will be soon. Today there is the war which looks as the war at the beginning of the XX century between physicists for whom the waves were the religion and the believers that the quantum physics is the ultimate theory. Today, i.e. on the beginning of the XXI century, the war is more complicated but sun the ‘tachyonists’ will be the winners.
Sweater, my posts do not contain original work for a number of reasons. Firstly forums are not the place to present original work. Secondly you are incapable of honest discussion, as you have demonstrated by misusing terminology even after being corrected on it. Thirdly I do not believe you capable of understanding my work. Fourthly my present research is not done in a university but in the private sector so I cannot openly discuss it anyway. Your assertions I am 'out' are baseless and look to be nothing more than attempts to get a rise out of me, as are your comments about malice. I have no malice to your work, I think its laughable and obviously no one else takes you seriously either else you'd not squander your time whining on forum pseudo sections.
My work is intellectually interesting, challenging and has helped in plenty of real world problems. Any assertions you make about my job are based know nothing but your on bias. I think your imaginings about my current work say more about you than me. I have no problem you posting your claims here but when you flat out lie about the mainstream, misrepresent research or myself then I point it out.
You keep asking to discuss physics but you have shown yourself incapable. You have made claims about string theory but when asked to justify them you refuse, you cannot. Why should anyone think anything else you say will be honest when you are so dishonest in such straightforward things like that?
When you act a bit more honest then i might see a reason to discuss research with you but until you can demonstrate a decent honest grasp of basic physics you make productive discussion impossible.
My work is intellectually interesting, challenging and has helped in plenty of real world problems. Any assertions you make about my job are based know nothing but your on bias. I think your imaginings about my current work say more about you than me. I have no problem you posting your claims here but when you flat out lie about the mainstream, misrepresent research or myself then I point it out.
You keep asking to discuss physics but you have shown yourself incapable. You have made claims about string theory but when asked to justify them you refuse, you cannot. Why should anyone think anything else you say will be honest when you are so dishonest in such straightforward things like that?
When you act a bit more honest then i might see a reason to discuss research with you but until you can demonstrate a decent honest grasp of basic physics you make productive discussion impossible.