I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past.Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
(1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic considerations.
(3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.
(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation described by Method I.
(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.
(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
situation to Method II.
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation.
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past.Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
(1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic considerations.
(3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.
(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation described by Method I.
(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.
(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiverujpa.2023.170101.
toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the
situation to Method II.
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching
frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to
incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor. Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/
Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
Gary
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the past.
(1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic considerations.
(3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.What if light speed is a variable?
What does that do to E=mc squared?
Mitchell Raemsch
(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation described by Method I.
If they are detectable why are the no detected in certainty?
There is no evidence for them coming back from the future...
(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.
Right. Negative Gamma has never belonged.
(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver
toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the situation to Method II.
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such
physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor. Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
Gary
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:39:29 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:past. Some of the salient points in that paper are listed below.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 9:01:24 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof. DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 present a proof that tachyons, even if they existed, could not violate causality by sending a message into the
(1) The four-momentum formalism (4MF) isn't immune from criticism because it's declared to be a "definition. Nature doesn't care about what humans assert.
(2) By (1), the 4MF, particularly its transformation into other inertial frames, must be justified only if it can be derived from more basic considerations.
(3) The basic energy equation, which can be derived from Lagrangian mechanics, is E = mc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5. For tachyons, m --> im.
(4) E = imc^2/(1 - u^2/c^2)^0.5 is the accepted relationship for tachyons.What if light speed is a variable?
What does that do to E=mc squared?
Mitchell Raemsch
(5) E' = imc^2/(1 - u'^2/c^2)^0.5, where u' = (u -v)/(1 - uv/c^2).
(6) Equivalently, E' = mc^/(u'^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5
(7) E' never becomes negative for ANY real value of u', therefore the 4MF
is invalid for tachyons when u > c^2/v. For u < c^2/v, tachyons are detectable by a stationary receiver, and there is no causality violation described by Method I.
If they are detectable why are the no detected in certainty?How long did it take to verify that neutrinos really existed? There's the answer
to your question. The point of the paper is not whether tachyons exist, but that even if they do, they cannot send messages into one's past. This is important because nearly all physicist who discuss tachyons claim that they can, and use that to claim that they cannot exist.
There is no evidence for them coming back from the future...And there never will be, as DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 demonstrates
that tachyons, even if they exist, cannot send messages into one's past.
(8) u' becomes asymptotic as u approaches c^2/v. Going beyond that
is mathematically inappropriate.
Right. Negative Gamma has never belonged.There is no "negative gamma" in relativity (the square root of a negative number is not negative). In the derivation of the relativistic velocity equation, the gammas cancel out, leaving u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), which CAN become negative if uv/c^2 is greater than 1. Note that in
E' = mc^2/(u'^2/c^2), negative u' values do not produce negative values
for E', which the 4MF does.
(9) Tachyons with u > c^2/v can be detected by moving the receiver toward the tachyon source such that u' < c^2/v, which converts the situation to Method II.
(10) Claims that Method II violates causality are based on switching frames in the middle of solving the problem. Figures 4 and 5 in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 show that the two frames disagree
with the position of the observers, which is due to the relativity of simultaneity. THAT is why switching frames in the middle leads to incorrect conclusions, namely causality violation. The moral is to
stay in ONE frame and solve the problem, as emphasized by such physicists as D. Morin and E. Recami, as well as J. Wheeler and E. Taylor.
Then it's okay to go to the other frame and STAY there and solve the problem. When you do that, you cannot complete a path that violates causality, as described in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Mannerly discussion requested. No response will be made to pejorative posts.
Thank you, Mitch, for replying in a civilized manner :-)Gary
How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
where it passes through billions of miles of material?
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
communication and the limitations thereof.
On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonicThe most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
communication and the limitations thereof.
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic
communication and the limitations thereof.
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
Mikko
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary.
to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot
violate causality. That's an important point because a conventional view held
by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?This is off-topic, but I suggest you check neutrino on wikipedia/
What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
where it passes through billions of miles of material?
Then, if you want more, check the references at the end of that
page.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, becauseRepeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't make them true, it makes you a hardened crank. Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass being imaginary.
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary.
to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannotUnlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.
violate causality. That's an important point because a conventional view held
by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 2:28:12 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 1:50:58 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
How have we detected a neutrino in a supermassive detector?
What atom in it can we watch? How could we watch more?
where it passes through billions of miles of material?
This is off-topic, but I suggest you check neutrino on wikipedia/
Then, if you want more, check the references at the end of that
page.
I don't recommend anybody getting their science from the internet gary.
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2,
indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the
error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm not making any any accusations at this point.
There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.
On 2023-10-27 10:43:57 Mikko said:
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
On 2023-10-27 15:38:48 Gary Harnagel said:
I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2, indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
not making any any accusations at this point.
There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.
All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
Even if a neutrino] were a tachyon it's speed is so close to the speed of light that
for communication purposes it does not make a difference.
Mikko
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-27 10:43:57 Mikko said:
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
On 2023-10-27 15:38:48 Gary Harnagel said:
I'm sure you're aware of the recent history of the attempt to discover the
mass of the electron antineutrino from tritium decay:
2C. Kraus et al, “Final Results from phase II of the Mainz Neutrino Mass
Search in Tritium Decay,” Euro. Phys. J. C, 40:4 (2005), Pp 447-468
3M. Aker et al.,”Improved Upper Limit on the Neutrino Mass from a Direct
Kinematic Method by KATRIN,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 221802 (2019)
The value obtained from the Mainz experiment was M^2 = -0.6 eV^2, indicating that the mass was imaginary (indicating a tachyon), but the error bars were +/- 4.3 eV^2. The initial results from KATRIN were more encouraging: -1.0 +0.9-1.1 eV^2, indicating a significant probability that
the mass of the electron antineutrino is imaginary.
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability
that the mass is imaginary. I read somewhere that this last value was obtained by rejecting some of the data because it was "unphysical," but I'm
not making any any accusations at this point.
There is a lot of older papers hypothesizing that neutrinos might be tachyons,
but we'll see how KATRIN does in its ongoing experiment.
All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
Yes, the error bars include zero, but neutrino flavor oscillation proves that it's NOT
zero.
Even if a neutrino] were a tachyon it's speed is so close to the speed of light that
for communication purposes it does not make a difference.
MikkoNeutrinos are produced by nuclear interactions so their energies are quite high;
however, there are ways to reduce their energies. For example, move the source
away from the receiver: u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2), as v --> c^/u, u' approaches \infty.
As u' --> \infty, E' --> 0. The source would be particles in an accelerator undergoing
a decay process that creates neutrinos.
Detecting them is still a problem, though. We don't know how to detect the low-
energy neutrinos produced by stars in galaxies moving away from us at, say, z = 10 :-(
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 8:00:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
They measure near light speed. They have mass.
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 8:00:01 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 7:54:31 AM UTC-6, Mikko wrote:
All of those are compatible with zero mass of neutr[ino].
They measure near light speed. They have mass.Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
They measure near light speed. They have mass.
Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:10:37 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
They measure near light speed. They have mass.
Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't changefrom that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 5:10:37 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:44:23 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 12:29:38 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
They measure near light speed. They have mass.
Present detection capabilities are unable to discern the speed of neutrinos
How then would you know they only qualify for no mass?
Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't change in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.from that of light. The only way we know that neutrinos have mass is that
they oscillate among flavors while traveling from one place to another.
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
On 10/30/2023 3:20 PM, Derick Belohvostikov wrote:
Gary Harnagel wrote:
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't travel at c.
nonsense. Dr. Mitchel is correct again. A particle with ZERO mass is absurd. Even photons have mass.
Are you sure about photons having mass?
A particle with zero mass would imply
existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, which is absurd. Think again.
Are you sure about photons having mass?
Of course he's sure :-)
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
On October 30, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Are you sure about photons having mass?
Of course he's sure :-)
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
Is Mr. Russell sure about that?
--
Rich
On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonicThe most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
communication and the limitations thereof.
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:44:01 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof.
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there
is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
Indeed.
A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary
mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
try to imagine what properties it might have.
However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore, neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:44:01 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-10-26 16:01:21 +0000, Gary Harnagel said:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof.
The most important limitations are that there is no known way to create tachyons, that there is no known way to detect tachyons, and that there is no good idea about where to look for such methods.
Indeed.
A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to
try to imagine what properties it might have.
However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore, neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
Can you?
As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
conserved, not type of mass.
Got any more misgivings?
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the
tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to try to imagine what properties it might have.
However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore, neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
Can you?
As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
conserved, not type of mass.
Got any more misgivings?
Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
I have ignored your words.
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 9:11:35 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 4:50:38 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
A few moments of thought would show that for a tachyon, with imaginary mass, to be emitted by a particle of ordinary matter with real mass, the tachyon cannot be emitted singly, but rather as one of a pair of tachyons
with opposite imaginary sign, otherwise the emitting particle would be left
with complex valued mass, which quite frankly, gives me a headache to try to imagine what properties it might have.
However, in beta emission, neutrinos are emitted singly. Therefore, neutrinos are not tachyons. Neutrino masses must be real-valued.
Hi PCH, I'm glad you decided to contributed to the discussion.
In physics, it seems to me that energy is the quantity that is important, not mass.
This was pounded into my head during my Orals and, of course, I've never forgotten it. Conservation laws are the sine qua non of physics, and I can't think
of any conservation law that would apply to mass since it is equivalent to energy.
Can you?
As a contrary example, two particles which have m > 0 (bradyons) can interact
and create two particles which have m = 0 (luxons). It's energy and spin that's
conserved, not type of mass.
Got any more misgivings?
Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state, mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an unknown number of lurkers.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
Then why does it not happen?E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
travel at c.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:/
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
You are an EGG gary... How does that prove infinite energy can exist?
m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
travel at c.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.
There is no manifestation of infinite energy of light or particle...
Time has never stopped either. never will...
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 9:05:46 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 11:58:50 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
/E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4.
You are an EGG gary... How does that prove infinite energy can exist?You seem to be the only one claiming that :-)
m = 0 for photons so E = pc. m > 0 for normal particles and
p = mv/(1 - v^2/c^2)^0.5, so particles where m <> 0 can't
travel at c.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
Infinity is an indication either the mathematics has exceeded its usefulness or the condition never happens in reality.
There is no manifestation of infinite energy of light or particle...And now you're making more sense.
Time has never stopped either. never will...Unless you're a photon :-))
Of course he's sure :-)
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always >>> so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
-- Bertrand Russell
Is Mr. Russell sure about that?
Good point!
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
I have ignored your words.
How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted inYes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state, mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim to be valid?
It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an unknown number of lurkers.Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame, and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity). Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:18:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
I have ignored your words.
You failed to think things through.
How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state, mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
to be valid?
It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an unknown number of lurkers.
Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame, and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity). Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?
Consider my Figure 3-12a section in "Energy_and_momentum_conservation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Energy_and_momentum_conservation
I drew this in the rest frame of the negative pion. The pion decays into a muon,
emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary. Therefore the muon's momentum would also be imaginary, which doesn't make any sense.
Muons are not tachyons.
If you explore spacetime diagrams further, you would see that a general implication of the hypothesis that tachyons could be absorbed or emitted by matter would be that tachyons trigger matter instability. I'll leave you to work
out why this must be so.
*Scattering* of tachyons without absorption remains a possibility, as would decay of matter into tachyon *pairs". But since the tachyons would be undetectable, decay of a particle into a tachyon pair would mean that so far as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of existence.
On Saturday, November 4, 2023 at 8:43:25 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2023 at 7:18:36 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote: >> > On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 11:39:51 PM UTC-6, Prokaryotic Capase
Homolog wrote:
Other than the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED what I had to say.
Ummm, I think I answered your objection rather well, so I don't understand how
I have ignored your words.
You failed to think things through.
Au contraire.
How can a single neutrino of supposedly complex mass be emitted in
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state,
mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex.
Yes, mass-energy needs to be conserved, not mass by itself and not energy >> > by itself. IOW, E"2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4. For the three purported classes of >> > matter, bradyons have m^2 > 0, luxons have m^2 = 0 and for tachyonshave
m^2 < 0. To what conservation law are you appealing that requires your claim
to be valid?
None?
It's also rather interesting if you draw a spacetime diagram illustrating
how an FTL particle and a normal particle might interact. I'm sure that >> > > Mikko on this thread would know what I am getting at, in addition to an >> > > unknown number of lurkers.
Well, I don't know what you're getting at, PCH. People have drawn such
diagrams ad infinitim without any apparent difficulty (other than ignoring >> > the fact that any given such diagram is from the perspective of that frame,
and coming to false conclusions because of the relativity of simultaneity).
Perhaps you could enlighten me with more detail?
Consider my Figure 3-12a section in "Energy_and_momentum_conservation"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Energy_and_momentum_conservation
I drew this in the rest frame of the negative pion. The pion decays into a muon,
emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and
opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the
antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary. Therefore the >> muon's momentum would also be imaginary, which doesn't make any sense.
Muons are not tachyons.
Not so, Prok. Certainly, tachyon mass is imaginary, and p = mv/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).
However, since v > c, the denominator is also imaginary, which cancels out the
imaginary in the numerator. Thus tachyon momentum is real, not imaginary.
This was discussed by Bilaniuk et al in their seminal paper over 60 years ago.
If you explore spacetime diagrams further, you would see that a general
implication of the hypothesis that tachyons could be absorbed or emitted by >> matter would be that tachyons trigger matter instability. I'll leave you to work
out why this must be so.
Scattering and absorption is a matter of energy and momentum. Tachyons
have real energy and real momentum.
*Scattering* of tachyons without absorption remains a possibility, as would >> decay of matter into tachyon *pairs". But since the tachyons would be
undetectable, decay of a particle into a tachyon pair would mean that so far >> as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of >> existence.
I thought we had settled the issue of "invisible" tachyons with your last post.
Even if their velocity is beyond the c^2/v limit, they can still be detected.
The method is to move the receiver toward the tachyon source, of course. Then
the
tachyons will have real, positive energy with respect to the receiver. The observer
can then interrogate the receiver and find that nothing has "winked out of existence."
It's analogous to the case where a beta decay in tritium occurs, wherein a neutron
decays creating a proton and an electron -- but the conservation of energy and
momentum demands the existence of a third "invisible" particle to balance conservation
requirements. We don't have the means to detect that third particle, but that
doesn't
mean that particle is nonexistent. If we had the proper instrumentation, we would detect
it.
Gary
Tachyons do[es] not exist.
C'est une absurdité.
Richard Hachel wrote:
“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” -- Albert Einstein
Speak for yourself, Doctor Hachel :-))
There are two kinds of absurdities, certain absurdities, and apparent absurdities.
Saying “there are tachyons”, “there are round squares”, “There is a number between 8 and 9”, these are certain absurdities.
round squares”
To say as Hachel says: "Sometimes the whole can be less than the sum of
the parts", is only an apparent absurdity.
If I take for example all the small segments of proper time during an accelerated trip to Tau Ceti (x=12ly, a=1.025ly/y²) and add them up, I
get the total proper time of the trip. But on the other hand, if I take
all the small improper time segments (terrestrial time), I notice with amazement that the sum of the time segments is greater than the totality
of the measured time.
This seems absolutely absurd, and I am absolutely certain that physicists around the world would give up if I spoke to them like that.
Yet this absurdity is only apparent.
Doctor Hachel is right.
The problem then becomes human: "Other people don't think like me.
THEREFORE he's a moron."
Where is the rule for judging?
Theoretical beauty, theoretical precision, clear explanations,
experimental proofs? I have all that, more than them.
This story of tachyons is physically absurd,
and the abstract idea that we have of it, and that we believe
we can impose, shows that we are in complete ignorance.
R.H.
So, Dr. H, you are late, very late to the party.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
Mitchell Raemsch
The more recent KATRIN result is less encouraging, however, because
their new value is +0.26 +/-0.34 eV^2, but still with about a 20% probability that the mass is imaginary.
Dono wrote:
Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't
make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.
Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass
being imaginary.
to prove that if they DO exist, they still cannot violate causality.
That's an important point because a conventional view held by most physicists is that they cannot exist because they DO violate causality.
I wrote:
My paper, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, casts very serious doubt on
some assertions about tachyons, particularly the use of flawed mathematics to "prove" their nonexistence.
“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell
"Prokaryotic Capace Homolog" wrote complete nonsense in his "rebuttal"
to 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. I corrected him a few messages back, but
he hasn't come forward and admitted his assertions about tachyons are wildly misinformed. I usually find his posts useful and informative,
but not in this case. Everyone makes a gaff once in a while.
(facepalm)
Many of us have pointed out to you the elementary mistakes
that you have committed in your "papers", without you being
able to comprehend our arguments.
beta decay rather than a neutrino antineutrino pair? As you state, mass-energy needs to be conserved, and is is true even if mass is complex."
a muon, emitting an antineutrino. To conserve momentum, the muon has an equal and opposite momentum as that of the antineutrino. If, as you suppose, the antineutrino were a tachyon, its momentum would be imaginary."
tachyon pair would mean that so far as our instruments could tell, a particle of matter would have winked out of existence."
As you age, you have adopted the arrogant attitude of the typical crackpot.
I took a quick glance at your latest publication
and you have not learned a thing.
Dono wrote:
Repeating your same misconceptions about the KATRIN experiments doesn't make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.
They're not just "my misconceptions."
hardened crank.
Now that the forum is closing,
you are trying one last battempt
to defend your crankeries.
[Modifying quotes to cast aspersions proves Dono's dishonesty.]
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 8:58:48 PM UTC-8, Gary Harnagel wrote:
Dono wrote:
You are definitely not a physicist,
I have a diploma, peer-reviewed papers and work experience proving you wrong.
Yet, you turned into a sad sack crank. This is what you are currently.
As to your crap paper published in the predatory crap journal, this proves that you are just that, a sad sack crank.
Dono wrote:
"Gary Harnagel who keeps making this claim based on his personal oft repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME.
I wrote:
"Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).
Precisely.
That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull. So, the fact
that m_nu^2 < 0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.
repeated misinterpretation of KATRIN experiments and of the SME."
I wrote:
Dono seems to claim that m_nu^2 means something other than
m_nu = sqrt(m_nu^2).
Precisely. That is the part that doesn't get thru your thick skull.
So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.
Dono doesn't understand that the three flavors of neutrinos (electron,
muon and tauon) are mixtures of the three neutrino eigenstates (m1, m2
and m3). The effective electron neutrino mass-squared = sum(|Uei|^2*mi^2) where i = 1 through 3 of the eigenstates.
The part that doesn't go thru your hardened crank skull is that the mass
of the neutrino is NOT sqrt (m_nu^2).So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not
mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.
Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You don't count.
Actually, votes don't count.
Actually, they do count,
especially when your nose has been rubbed in your shit paper multiple times.
He has not aired even one actual mistake.
Actually, you are lying, I (and several others) have rubbed your nose in your mistakes. Multiple times. You are a glutton for punishment, Gary.
"Effective mass is defined in this paper:
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/listings/rpp2020-list-neutrino-prop.pdf
"The quantity m^2(eff)νe = sum(|Uei|^2*m^2vi" which I used previously
in this post.
The issue is not the definition of effective mass (which I gave you multiple times),
The issue is that m_neutrino is not equal to sqrt (m_nu^2).
But you are too of a gardened crank to learn that.
So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has imaginary mass.
Is Dono asserting that 1/(1 - uv/c^2) at the limit of u --> c^2/v is "natural"?
Quite the opposite, I have been pointing out to you that it leads to unphysical situation.
Just as I pointed out in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. Dono is trying to appropriate a conclusion in my paper to himself. That would be ... plagiarism.
I rubbed your nose in this issue when your crap paper was just apiece of shit on vixra. So, if anyone is plagiarizing, that would be ....you.
You, being a hardened crank, keep trying to weasel out from this predicament.
As DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 points out, the "predicament" is not real.
It's an artifact of the mathematics, and a way around it was described.
The "predicament" is that tachyons do not exist.
It is the tachyons that are not real.
We have been over this multiple times, the four momentum formalism when applied
to tachyons exposes the fact that energy jumps from +infinity to -infinity.
:-))) Dono looks at E' = gamma(E - vp) = gamma*m*c^2*(1 - uv/c^2)/(u^2/c^2 - 1)^0.5,
which approaches zero as u --> c^2/v and ignorantly and arrogantly claims the
above.
No, it doesn't "approach zero", crank. It has an asymptote from plus to minus infinity.
That represents the limit to the domain of applicability for the RVC,
Crank,
You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of relative speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed.
That was the first and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.
So the domain of applicability of the RVC equation doesn't extend to regions
where u' goes to infinity.
Duh, because it exposes a major flaw in YOUR thinking. Figures.
You keep trying to patch up your insanities by restricting the domain of relative
speed between inertial frames as a function of tachyon speed. That was the first
and very glaring crankery I rubbed your nose in.
I'm just ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth.
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
pile of crap DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 presents a collection
of imbecilities and crankeries
I gave you the explanation multiple times. But you are trying to weaselSo what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says,
You are lying again, crank Gary
out, this is not about what m_nu^2 means, this is about your insane
belief that the mass of the neutrino is sqrt(m_nu^2) and the even more
insane claim that m_nu^2<0 implies that neutrino has imaginary mass.
And I have never lied on this forum.
You lie in every post, crank Gary.
So, the fact that m_nu^2<0 does not mean that the neutrino has
imaginary mass.
Dono seems to be failing high school algebra here.
Crank
The mass of the neutrino is not sqrt(m_nu^2).
You are lying once again. I pointed out your idiocies as soon as you
started crowing about your crap paper being uploaded on the crank vixra
site.
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Sunday, October 29, 2023 at 5:21:11 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?
That's what theory says and what experiment confirms.
Then why does it not happen?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.
Only a finite energy manifests as real gary...
How does an atom absorb infinite energy?
Mitchell Raemsch
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 310 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 147:01:24 |
Calls: | 6,931 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,392 |
Messages: | 5,437,207 |