Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Tachyons are bosons?

  1. Mar 7, 2017 #1
    Are tachyons force Particles/messenger particles ? Is so do they act messenger between two entangled particles and allow faster than light information exchange? Thank for the answer.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 7, 2017 #2

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Tachyons don't exist, to the best of our current knowledge. They do not appear in any of our current theories.
     
  4. Mar 7, 2017 #3
    But "hypothetically" since they have mass -1 maybe?
     
  5. Mar 7, 2017 #4

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor


    No, there is no evidence for any of the above and no reason to think they do.
     
  6. Mar 8, 2017 #5

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I thougt they had ##m^2=-1##.
     
  7. Mar 8, 2017 #6
    My bad their m=√-1
     
  8. Mar 8, 2017 #7

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Or do they? Higgs field before symmetry breaking can be thought of as a tachyon field with ##m^2<0##. Nevertheless, it does not propagate faster than ##c##. It has been discussed in more detail in
    https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-tachyons-exist.827961/
     
  9. Mar 8, 2017 #8

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    What is the precise definition of a tachyon? (This is a B thread so I can ask clarifying questions, right? :wink: )
     
  10. Mar 8, 2017 #9

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Tachyons are objects with ##m^2<0##, but the meaning of the parameter ##m## depends on the context. It may be the "mass" of the particle or the "mass" of the field.

    In the particle case, ##m## defines the relation between energy ##E## and 3-momentum ##{\bf p}## through
    $$E^2-{\bf p}^2=m^2$$

    In the field case, one considers a field ##\phi(t,{\bf x})## which can be Fourier transformed in terms of plane waves ##e^{-i(\omega t- {\bf k}\cdot{\bf x})}##. Here ##m## defines the relation between frequency ##\omega## and wave 3-vector ##{\bf k}## through
    $$\omega^2-{\bf k}^2=m^2$$
    Is that precise enough?
     
  11. Mar 8, 2017 #10

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Can you clarify what you are referring to here?
     
  12. Mar 8, 2017 #11

    PeterDonis

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    They don't have to have ##m^2 = -1##. They just have ##m^2 < 0##.
     
  13. Mar 8, 2017 #12
  14. Mar 8, 2017 #13

    martinbn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The particle case is clear to me because it connects with the causal structure. It's what I thought tachyons are. In the field case it is not clear to me why that should be called tachyons (or anything at all), and how does the definition go in a general space-time?
     
  15. Mar 8, 2017 #14

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I am referring to the Higgs potential
    $$V(\phi)=-\frac{\mu^2}{2}\phi^2+\frac{\lambda}{4}\phi^4$$
    where ##\mu^2>0## and ##\lambda>0##. For small ##\phi## you can ignore the ##\lambda##-term, so what remains is a "mass" term with a wrong sign. Does it help?
     
  16. Mar 8, 2017 #15

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    But the point is that for this potential pertubation theory around ##\phi=0## doesn't make sense, because it's a maximum of the potential rather than a minimum. That's why you expand around the minimum,
    $$V'=\phi (-\mu^2+\lambda \phi^2)=0,$$
    i.e., around ##\phi_0=\mu/\sqrt{\lambda}##.

    You can, to a certain extent, define QFTs of tachyons. See, e.g.,

    J. Dhar, E.C.G. Sudarshan, Quantum Field Theory of interacting tachyons, Phys. Rev. 174, 174 (1968)
     
  17. Mar 8, 2017 #16

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I guess you know that quantization of fields leads to quantum states that can be interpreted as quantum particles. If they are states with definite energy and momentum, then their energy and momentum satisfies the same relation as that for the corresponding classical particles. That explains why such fields are called tachyon fields.

    Concerning general spacetime, it's much easier to write down the partial differential equation which the fields satisfy. This is the Klein-Gordon equation
    $$(\nabla^{\mu}\nabla_{\mu}+m^2)\phi(x)=0$$
    in general spacetime with metric signature ##(+,-,-,-)##, where ##m^2<0## for tachyon fields.
     
  18. Mar 8, 2017 #17

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, it depends on what do you mean by "doesn't make sense". Mathematically, it makes sense if you are studying a regime in which ##\phi## is close to zero. It is certainly not easy to satisfy this condition in an LHC experiment, but in principle it is not impossible. Initial conditions are, in principle, arbitrary, so there is no physical principle which would forbid ##\phi(t=0)=0##. For a short time after such initial condition, the system would behave as a tachyon field.
     
  19. Mar 8, 2017 #18

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    That's an interesting gedanken experiment. However, I've no clue, how you'd experimentally make ##\phi=0## at some time ##t##.
     
  20. Mar 8, 2017 #19

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

  21. Mar 8, 2017 #20

    DrDu

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Terms luke "soft modes" and " glass transition" come to my mind.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Tachyons are bosons?
  1. Why NO tachyons ? (Replies: 2)

  2. Tachyon question (Replies: 1)

  3. Higgs Boson (Replies: 1)

  4. Electroweak Bosons (Replies: 6)

Loading...