Large copy/pasting is against forum rules and also a violation of Fair Use.
Tachyon Drive
- Thread starter Reiku
- Start date
Large copy/pasting is against forum rules and also a violation of Fair Use.
Pros & Cons
The chronology protection conjecture was termed by Professor Stephen Hawking which basically states that time travel is imposable on all but sub-microscopic scales.
The time travel paradox. S. Krasnikov. covers the fact the exotic matters can be used to create a stable bubble or wormhole that would facilitate time travel.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0109/0109029v2.pdf
The definition of a exotic particle is one that violates one or more classical conditions, in the case of a Tachyon it violates this condition because it always travels faster then light. According to Wikipedia.com there is no tconfirmed existence of tachyons.
The existence of tachyons is allowed by the equations of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
NASA says that even if Tachyons were proven it would be hard to utilize there potential with our given understanding of Physics.
The chronology protection conjecture was termed by Professor Stephen Hawking which basically states that time travel is imposable on all but sub-microscopic scales.
The time travel paradox. S. Krasnikov. covers the fact the exotic matters can be used to create a stable bubble or wormhole that would facilitate time travel.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0109/0109029v2.pdf
The definition of a exotic particle is one that violates one or more classical conditions, in the case of a Tachyon it violates this condition because it always travels faster then light. According to Wikipedia.com there is no tconfirmed existence of tachyons.
The existence of tachyons is allowed by the equations of Einstein's special theory of relativity.
NASA says that even if Tachyons were proven it would be hard to utilize there potential with our given understanding of Physics.
YEah---
I think the data showing the electron neutrino with a small imaginary mass is largely doubted by people who work in the field today.
Also, the electron neutrino couples so weakly to matter that it is not clear to me how one could encode a message, much less receive a message made of neutrinos. PLUS there's the fact that we have observed neutrino mass oscillation, which means that if you send a message encoded in electron neutrinos, by the time it got to where it was going, the electron neutrinos would have turned into other neutrinos!
I think the data showing the electron neutrino with a small imaginary mass is largely doubted by people who work in the field today.
Also, the electron neutrino couples so weakly to matter that it is not clear to me how one could encode a message, much less receive a message made of neutrinos. PLUS there's the fact that we have observed neutrino mass oscillation, which means that if you send a message encoded in electron neutrinos, by the time it got to where it was going, the electron neutrinos would have turned into other neutrinos!
This is what i mean about todays dogma. If scientists and physicists alike were to just keep an open mind, even when concerning what is classed under psuedoscience, there would be a lot less controversy, and i dare say, even better progress.
Myself... My area is psychophysics, and i have already realized that so many around here are shit-scared to even talk about a subject... and i ask why?
Is it because nothing testable can arise of it? If this is true, why is there more scientists who tolerate string theory? Is there really any difference in the long run?
If there is a chance the electron-Neutrino indeed does have a value of imaginary mass, then the option should never be disregarded, until there is empiracle and incontravertible proof to suggest it is wrong.
No?
Myself... My area is psychophysics, and i have already realized that so many around here are shit-scared to even talk about a subject... and i ask why?
Is it because nothing testable can arise of it? If this is true, why is there more scientists who tolerate string theory? Is there really any difference in the long run?
If there is a chance the electron-Neutrino indeed does have a value of imaginary mass, then the option should never be disregarded, until there is empiracle and incontravertible proof to suggest it is wrong.
No?
Well, typically in physics we hate it when things stick out. If the electron neutrino is the only particle with a negative mass squared...that sticks out. When things stick out, we do our best to get rid of them.
But, the data do seem to indicate that a tachyonic neutrino is at least possible. See this page for updated numbers. The measurement is dominated by systematic errors, it looks like.
I do have to say, though, that neutrino mixing (which has been observed) pretty much rules out the electron neutrino as a tachyon.
Shadowfax915
Registered Member
Somewhere past c
I've been contemplating tachyons for quite some time now. I've read article upon article of how the physics works (or is supposed to work). I'm beginning to think that physics changes when v>c. Time is no longer a constant, or even an invariable. In fact time may not exist at all. So traveling back in time in my humble opinion is a pipe dream. But institanious travel anywhere in the universe is a real possibility. We are also trying to quantify objects with mass (imaginary or not) where according to Einstein, at the speed of light mass becomes infinite. Therefore at c+1 mass cannot exist. I know... I know... that's why it's called IMAGINARY mass. The point is that the physics changes. At least that's what I'm working on now. In the mean time, last month the history channel aired a program that claimed that 2 facilities, one in Tokyo and one in Chicago "captured" 12 tachyons. They did not of course mention WHO! I have been unable to find any colabaration. Any guesses out there?
I've been contemplating tachyons for quite some time now. I've read article upon article of how the physics works (or is supposed to work). I'm beginning to think that physics changes when v>c. Time is no longer a constant, or even an invariable. In fact time may not exist at all. So traveling back in time in my humble opinion is a pipe dream. But institanious travel anywhere in the universe is a real possibility. We are also trying to quantify objects with mass (imaginary or not) where according to Einstein, at the speed of light mass becomes infinite. Therefore at c+1 mass cannot exist. I know... I know... that's why it's called IMAGINARY mass. The point is that the physics changes. At least that's what I'm working on now. In the mean time, last month the history channel aired a program that claimed that 2 facilities, one in Tokyo and one in Chicago "captured" 12 tachyons. They did not of course mention WHO! I have been unable to find any colabaration. Any guesses out there?
Shadowfax915
Registered Member
Just Speculation
Hi Reiku, pleased to meet you.
You have a good point. However time needs to be asymmetric and in order to achieve this an additional time is introduced in which the rate of time is directionally periodic to the THING (I like the way you put it) with respect to it's oscillations. We also have to assume that time is homogeneous, the law of conservation of energy holds true, and that rest energy and rest mass are constants.
Yes we can observe true time by a star's red-shift, but I would point out that the speed of light in this case is something less than c because the light is not traveling in a true vacuum. So does true time really hold "true" above c? I know I'm violating the fundamental Principle of Time here but what the heck... question everything right?
I'm trying to work on the assumption that mass can't exist above c... imaginary or otherwise. Imagine the encyclopedia of questions I just opened. Maybe I've been working on the other side of the fense too long. Our THING has to be something else.
Hi Reiku, pleased to meet you.
You have a good point. However time needs to be asymmetric and in order to achieve this an additional time is introduced in which the rate of time is directionally periodic to the THING (I like the way you put it) with respect to it's oscillations. We also have to assume that time is homogeneous, the law of conservation of energy holds true, and that rest energy and rest mass are constants.
Yes we can observe true time by a star's red-shift, but I would point out that the speed of light in this case is something less than c because the light is not traveling in a true vacuum. So does true time really hold "true" above c? I know I'm violating the fundamental Principle of Time here but what the heck... question everything right?
I'm trying to work on the assumption that mass can't exist above c... imaginary or otherwise. Imagine the encyclopedia of questions I just opened. Maybe I've been working on the other side of the fense too long. Our THING has to be something else.