Einstein and idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light

[Neo_Anderson]

QM alone does not predict any specific particles, it's just a general framework for dealing with particles. The standard model doesn't predict tachyons, but no one really believes the standard model includes all the types of particles that will appear in a complete theory of quantum gravity or TOE.

Speculative things are fine as long as they don't explicitly conflict with what we already know. Speculative does not equal crackpot, if it did all attempts at new theories (like string theory) would be crackpot.

JesseM, you have an idea how well QM (and the Physicists that do their QM research) predicts natural phonomena. The more educated I become on the subject matter, the more I am amazed at how well the QM Phd Physicist predict certain of phonomena. I cited anomolus quantum Hall-effects in graphene, earlier.
QM is a prediction generator, it seems. Yet nothing in QM seems to suggest the existence of the tachyon.

 

[JesseM]

JesseM, you have an idea how well QM (and the Physicists that do their QM research) predicts natural phonomena. The more educated I become on the subject matter, the more I am amazed at how well the QM Phd Physicist predict certain of phonomena. I cited anomolus quantum Hall-effects in graphene, earlier.
QM is a prediction generator, it seems. Yet nothing in QM seems to suggest the existence of the tachyon.

Nothing in the general framework of QM suggests the existence of any particular particles--protons, electrons, photons etc. Only specific quantum field theories predict specific particles, like quantum electrodynamics predicting photons, or the Standard Model predicting the Higgs particle. We expect new particles to be predicted by new quantum field theories (or more novel types of quantum theories like some quantum gravity theories purport to be).

 

[JesseM]

We have every reason to "suspect" that tachyons do not exist; the only very flimsy reason for their alleged existence would be explinations of violations of Bell's inequalities (the 'carriers' of action-at-a-distance, perhaps?).

What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether we believe they actually exist or not, the point is that they are interesting on a theoretical level and compatible with relativity. If you think that anything that likely doesn't exist is "crackpot", I'd suggest you don't really understand what that word means. For example, most physicists think singularities of infinite density will be ruled out by quantum gravity, most physicists think eternal Schwarzschild black holes which connect to other universes are impossible (because the universe itself is probably not eternal), most physicists think the universe won't collapse in a Big Crunch, most physicists think closed timelike curves will turn out to be impossible, but none of these ideas are "crackpot". Crackpot refers to a style of bad unscientific reasoning (see here, here and here) to support conclusions which usually contradict known evidence, there is nothing crackpotty about an informed discussion of theoretical possibilities which everyone acknowledges are not likely to exist in reality.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please, Dr. Greg, I'm hoping you don't reference Wikipedia articles. If there be a peer-reviewed article on the topic of discussion, I'm hoping you'll reference the peer-reviewed article. Thank you in advance.

He was not referencing a Wiki article per se. There are references to peer-reviewed articles in the reference section is all.

I am requesting we abandon this discussion on tachyons and its crackpot tenets. We continue to violate forum rules by not doing so.

No, we do not. Discussion of tachyons does not violate PF rules.

 

[Neo_Anderson]

What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether we believe they actually exist or not, the point is that they are interesting on a theoretical level and compatible with relativity. If you think that anything that likely doesn't exist is "crackpot", I'd suggest you don't really understand what that word means. For example, most physicists think singularities of infinite density will be ruled out by quantum gravity, most physicists think eternal Schwarzschild black holes which connect to other universes are impossible (because the universe itself is probably not eternal), most physicists think the universe won't collapse in a Big Crunch, most physicists think closed timelike curves will turn out to be impossible, but none of these ideas are "crackpot". Crackpot refers to a style of bad unscientific reasoning (see here, here and here) to support conclusions which usually contradict known evidence, there is nothing crackpotty about an informed discussion of theoretical possibilities which everyone acknowledges are not likely to exist in reality.

No, no and no! Only one of your crackpot links is correct (the second one, especially those crackpot tenets that garnered 30 points+ each). The first link was nothing more than an assault on Intelligent Design (and religion in general), and item #24 in the third one was incorrect (one quack should think of another quack's theories as revolutionary, not crackpottery).

Go back to the Crackpot Index you provided (link #2), and review all items that weighed 20 points or more. Now that's crackpottery!

 

[Neo_Anderson]

He was not referencing a Wiki article per se. There are references to peer-reviewed articles in the reference section is all.

No, we do not. Discussion of tachyons does not violate PF rules.

What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether we believe they actually exist or not, the point is that they are interesting on a theoretical level and compatible with relativity. If you think that anything that likely doesn't exist is "crackpot", I'd suggest you don't really understand what that word means. For example, most physicists think singularities of infinite density will be ruled out by quantum gravity, most physicists think eternal Schwarzschild black holes which connect to other universes are impossible (because the universe itself is probably not eternal), most physicists think the universe won't collapse in a Big Crunch, most physicists think closed timelike curves will turn out to be impossible, but none of these ideas are "crackpot". Crackpot refers to a style of bad unscientific reasoning (see here, here and here) to support conclusions which usually contradict known evidence, there is nothing crackpotty about an informed discussion of theoretical possibilities which everyone acknowledges are not likely to exist in reality.

YOU GUYS: JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION DOES NOT MAKE IT ACTUAL PHYSICS! Wormholes. Tachyons. Superstrings. This is the stuff Hollywood is made of, and is believed wholeheartedly by every crackpot that watches it.
Does Captian Piccard deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for making peace with the Romulins(Y/N)?
Does Dr. Beverly Crusher get the Nobel Prize in medicine for "Practical Applications of the Tachyon in Accelerated Healing Processes" (Y/N)?
Does Jodie Foster deserve the Nobel Prize for the discovery of wormholes in that Hollywood movie Contact (Y/N)?

 

[DaveC426913]

YOU GUYS: JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION DOES NOT MAKE IT ACTUAL PHYSICS! Wormholes. Tachyons. Superstrings. This is the stuff Hollywood is made of, and is believed wholeheartedly by every crackpot that watches it.
Does Captian Piccard...

Nice try. What does Star Trek and Hollywood have to do with anything? No one is referencing them except you. Please use peer-reviewed references.



Look, no one is making any statements about tachyons - since there are pretty much none that can be made - except:
- they are hypothetical
- they are nothing more than a definition: the group of any particles that move faster than c
- relativity does not forbid them
- if they did exist, they could not decelerate to subluminal velocities

There's nothing crackpot about any of that.

 

[atyy]

So how can tachyons be detected if they do exist?

 

[DaveC426913]

So how can tachyons be detected if they do exist?

That's putting the cart before the horse.

Tachyons are not even theoretical particles (like gravitons or the Higg's boson are); they are hypothetical. i.e. there is no reason to even suppose they exist. They answer no questions, they fill no voids in our understanding, they explain nothing.

 

[atyy]

That's putting the cart before the horse.

Tachyons are not even theoretical particles (like gravitons or the Higg's boson are); they are hypothetical. i.e. there is no reason to even suppose they exist. They answer no questions, they fill no voids in our understanding, they explain nothing.

So tachyons are like pink fairies? Relativity doesn't forbid them, they they are hypothetical, they explain nothing.

 

[atyy]

Do tachyons have energy? If so, they would cause spacetime curvature and could be detected that way.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1583
http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1070
http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.0375

Ah too bad, looks like tachyons are not like pink fairies!

 

[russ_watters]

YOU GUYS: JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION DOES NOT MAKE IT ACTUAL PHYSICS! Wormholes. Tachyons. Superstrings. This is the stuff Hollywood is made of, and is believed wholeheartedly by every crackpot that watches it.
Does Captian Piccard deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for making peace with the Romulins(Y/N)?
Does Dr. Beverly Crusher get the Nobel Prize in medicine for "Practical Applications of the Tachyon in Accelerated Healing Processes" (Y/N)?
Does Jodie Foster deserve the Nobel Prize for the discovery of wormholes in that Hollywood movie Contact (Y/N)?

You do understand that those concepts did not originate with Hollywood, don't you? They are real scientific concepts.

 

[YellowTaxi]

You do understand that those concepts did not originate with Hollywood, don't you? They are real scientific concepts.

What about Dr Who though? He's a timelord from England and has never had anything to do with Holloywood, or Star Trek's warp factor nonsense.

 

[statdad]

"Like superstrings, no Physicist takes tachyons very seriously"

Superstrings don't take tachyons seriously? How interesting.

 

[{~}]

Cherenkov radiation as I understand it happens only in a medium (I have been fortanate to witness with my own eyes in a small "swimming pool" reactor). It's a phenomenon similar to the sonic boom only with light. Electrons emitted from fission travel at a speed greater than light in water though slower than light in vacuo.

I think any detectable tachyons would need to carry a charge and pass through an insulator like water.

Question,
Cherenkov radiation energy comes from the mechanical energy of the charged particles. Electrons slow down as they radiate. Wouldn't tachyons speed up? If so would this increase the radiation? What happens when the tachyons reach the maximum speed of 2c?

I think this paradox is one more reason why tachyons might not exist. Is this thinking wrong?

 

[matheinste]

I think any detectable tachyons would need to carry a charge and pass through an insulator like water.

I thought water was not an electrical insulator. I was always taught that changeing a light bulb standing in a bath of water was not a good idea.

Matheinste

 

[Integral]

I thought water was not an electrical insulator. I was always taught that changeing a light bulb standing in a bath of water was not a good idea.

Matheinste

Carefully filtered and deionized water is a very good insulator. Water itself is not a conductor, it is the free ions in the water which conduct electricity.

 

[Dale]

Pure water is not a good conductor, but your bath water is not very pure.

Ah, Integral beat me

 

[matheinste]

Pure water is not a good conductor, but your bath water is not very pure.

Ah, Integral beat me

It certainly isn't after I've bathed.

I remember, in my early school years, seeing demonstrated a piece of glass apparatus consisting of glass tubing, bent in a U shape, containing water, with electrodes fitted. When a DC voltage was applied to the electrodes hydrogen and oxygen were generated and collected in the tops of the tube. I assumed this was distilled, or pure water. I was obviously incorrect in this.

Matheinste.

 

[Integral]

It certainly isn't after I've bathed.

I remember, in my early school years, seeing demonstrated a piece of glass apparatus consisting of glass tubing, bent in a U shape, containing water, with electrodes fitted. When a DC voltage was applied to the electrodes hydrogen and oxygen were generated and collected in the tops of the tube. I assumed this was distilled, or pure water. I was obviously incorrect in this.

Matheinste.

I believe that the electrodes you use will introduce ions under the influence of an electric field, these ions will then provide the current.

 

[matheinste]

I believe that the electrodes you use will introduce ions under the influence of an electric field, these ions will then provide the current.

Sounds reasonable.

Thanks for the explanation.

Matheinste.

 

[sophiecentaur]

My bath water is extremely pure - especially when I'm laying in it.

Pure (enough) water has such a high resistance that they can use it to circulate round the Anodes of Transmitting Valves, operating at tens of kV, to cool them.