• #### Discussion on tachyons

From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Oct 26 09:01:21 2023
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. 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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 26 09:12:55 2023
On Thursday, 26 October 2023 at 18:01:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
I think it's time to have a rational discussion of tachyonic communication and the limitations thereof

And I think it would be better to discuss what is the
second from insane prophecies of your idiot guru.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 26 09:34:15 2023
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 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.

In classical crank fashion, hardened crank Gary Harnagel abandons the thread in which he has been pantsed and opens a new thread. Repeating the same crank claims doesn't make them true, it makes you a harder crank, Gary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 26 10:39:27 2023
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 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.

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Oct 26 12:32:20 2023
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:39:29 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
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 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.
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.

Gary

Thank you, Mitch, for replying in a civilized manner :-)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Oct 26 12:50:55 2023
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 12:32:22 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, October 26, 2023 at 11:39:29 AM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
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
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.
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.

Gary
Thank you, Mitch, for replying in a civilized manner :-)

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Oct 26 14:28:09 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Mikko@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 27 13:43:57 2023
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Oct 27 04:25:10 2023
On Friday, 27 October 2023 at 12:44:01 UTC+2, 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.

It's making them slightly similiar to purple unicorns
spitting with acid. Well, physics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Mikko on Fri Oct 27 05:38:46 2023
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 4:44:01 AM UTC-6, 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.

Mikko

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.

If neutrinos are indeed tachyons, that doesn't bode well for communicators using tachyons. At present, detectors involve a cubic kilometer of ice or a huge take of cleaning fluid :-(.

The point of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, however, is not to prove the existence of tachyons but 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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Dono.@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 27 07:07:23 2023
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.

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.

Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Oct 27 12:21:04 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Dono. on Fri Oct 27 12:23:05 2023
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 7:07:25 AM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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.
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.
Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

Mainstream is lamestream...
Your authority makes you a bigot.
That is all you want.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Fri Oct 27 15:18:59 2023
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-6, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

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.

Ummm ... this discussion group is ON the internet. Why is it any better?

Anyway, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino I followed to the Cowan-Reines neutrino experiment in 1956 where, for the first time,
neutrinos were detected coming from a nearby nuclear reactor.
They used large tanks of water in which the neutrinos interacted
with protons in the nuclei of the hydrogen atoms, producing a neutron
and a positron. The positron immediately found an electron and
produced two gamma rays with a particular energy.

Even though the flux of neutrinos from the reactor was quite large, the detection rate was very low because the cross-section for the reaction
was very, very small. That's why such large tanks were used.

The problem with present detectors is that high fluxes of neutrinos are
needed in order to detect a few. The neutrino is a very strange particle
with its exceedingly small mass (less than 1 eV, 500,000 times less
than electron. and its unbelievably small cross-section (less than 10^-43
cm^2, 20 orders of magnitude less than other elementary particles).
Perhaps this strangeness may be because it's a tachyon?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Mikko@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 28 16:54:27 2023
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 neutron. Even if a neutron
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Mikko on Sat Oct 28 07:59:59 2023
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.

Mikko

Neutrinos 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 :-(

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Oct 28 11:29:36 2023
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:
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].

They measure near light speed. They have mass.

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.

Mikko
Neutrinos 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 :-(

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sat Oct 28 12:44:21 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Oct 28 16:10:34 2023
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:

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

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sat Oct 28 18:45:29 2023
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?

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 29 16:02:59 2023
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 6:45:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
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?

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.
Time stands still for massless particles like photons, so they can't change

Light moves and waves in time. There is no place for still time for it...
Time cannot be stopped mathematically.
Show how finite slow time can jump to the infinitely slow gary?

in flight. Neutrinos change from one flavor to another, so they're not not massless and they're not raveling exactly at c.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 29 16:21:09 2023
On Saturday, October 28, 2023 at 6:45:31 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
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?

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.
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.

Would traveling at c not give infinite kinetic energy?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Oct 29 19:20:12 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 30 10:58:47 2023
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Mon Oct 30 15:00:13 2023
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?
Every photon would have it.
But clearly they do not.

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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Chris M. Thomasson on Mon Oct 30 19:10:18 2023
On Monday, October 30, 2023 at 4:44:54 PM UTC-6, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

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?

Of course he's sure :-)

“There is generally an inverse relationship between confidence and intelligence.” – Jean Campbell

“ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
– Charles Darwin

“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

A particle with zero mass would imply
existence 𝗼𝗳_𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲_𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀, which is absurd. Think again.

The existence of a particle with zero mass does NOT imply the existence
of particles with negative mass.

I thought. You didn't.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 31 11:47:05 2023
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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to RichD on Tue Oct 31 14:53:03 2023
On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 12:47:08 PM UTC-6, RichD wrote:

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

Good point!

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Mikko on Tue Oct 31 15:50:35 2023
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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Oct 31 19:11:33 2023
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?

“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Tue Oct 31 22:39:49 2023
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:

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?

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Nov 1 05:56:22 2023
On Wednesday, 1 November 2023 at 13:18:36 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
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

Maybe he COMPLETELY IGNORED what you had to say.
Relativistic idiots always do.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Wed Nov 1 05:18:34 2023
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.

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?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Nov 1 20:05:44 2023
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:

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.
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...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Thu Nov 2 05:58:56 2023
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 :-))

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Nov 2 12:08:16 2023
On Thursday, November 2, 2023 at 5:58:59 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
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 :-)

How is your equation showing it gary?

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.

Infinite energy math shows it does not exist.

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 :-))

How much kinetic energy does it have?

Light waves and moves in time.
Nothing has still time.

Mitchell Raemsch

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From RichD@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Thu Nov 2 15:23:17 2023
On October 31, Gary Harnagel wrote:
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!

When it comes to philosophy, I'll take Moe, Larry and Curly over Bertie any day -

--
Rich

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Prokaryotic Capase Homolog@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sat Nov 4 19:43:22 2023
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

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Prokaryotic Capase Homolog on Tue Dec 19 00:08:42 2023
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

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 19 10:31:58 2023
Le 19/12/2023 à 01:08, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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

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 does not exist.

C'est une absurdité.

Ceux qui pense que cela peut exister n'ont absolument rien compris à la théorie de la relativité.

Ce sont des idiots.

Et parmi eux, des scientifiques de renom qui feraient mieux d'ouvrir un
petit commerce de campagne dans le Nevada.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Tue Dec 19 13:42:02 2023
Richard Hachel wrote:

Tachyons do[es] not exist.

Peut etre.

C'est une absurdité.

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

“In order to attain the impossible, one must attempt the absurd.” – Miguel de Cervantes

“The most absurd and reckless aspirations have sometimes led to extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers

“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible,
he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” -- Arthur C. Clarke

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way
past them into the impossible." -- Arthur C. Clarke

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” -- Albert Einstein

“Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.” – M. C. Escher

“I’m right and you’re wrong.” – Everyone on the internet

Ceux qui pense que cela peut exister n'ont absolument rien compris à la théorie de la relativité.

Ce sont des idiots.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell

What is absurd is that, in a universe extending over billions of lightyears,
it take over billions of years to traverse it.

Et parmi eux, des scientifiques de renom qui feraient mieux d'ouvrir un
petit commerce de campagne dans le Nevada.

R.H.

Speak for yourself, Doctor Hachel :-))

Consider the neutrino. Its mass is not zero, but it's many orders of magnitude less than the next particle with mass. And its interaction cross section is orders of magnitude less than any other particle.

C'est deux absurdités, oui? Deux absurdités, pourquoi pas trois?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 19 18:03:42 2023
Le 19/12/2023 à 14:42, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
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.

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to R. Hachel on Tue Dec 19 19:59:57 2023
R. Hachel wrote:

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.

The only (possibly) "certain" absurdity you assert is that “there are
round squares”

There ARE an infinity of numbers between 8 and 9, so that is only an
apparent absurdity. As for tachyons, "absence of proof is not proof
of absence."

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.

Nope. This is a THIRD kind of absurdity. This kind happens when the purveyor is either confused or devious.

The problem then becomes human: "Other people don't think like me.
THEREFORE he's a moron."

Where is the rule for judging?

Why should you judge at all when the vision is unclear?

Theoretical beauty, theoretical precision, clear explanations,
experimental proofs? I have all that, more than them.

I see no beauty in your argument, nor precision, nor proof.
Ya got nuttin', Doc.

This story of tachyons is physically absurd,

An unsubstantiated assertion. You have provided no proof.

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.

Apparently, YOU are in complete ignorance of the arguments for
the existence of tachyons. First, read

Bilaniuk O. M. P., Deshpande V. K., Sudarshan E. C. G. ,
“’Meta’ Relativity,” American Journal of Physics, 30, pp.
718-723, 1962. DOI: 10.1119/1.1941773.

Then, to really get into it, try

Ehrlich, R., “Tachyonic neutrinos and the neutrino masses,”
Astropart. Phys., 41, pp. 1-6, 2013.
DOI:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.009.

Ehrlich, R., “Six observations consistent with the electron
neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe = −0.11 ± 0.016 eV^2,” Astropart. Phys., 66, pp. 11-17, 2015.
DOI: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.12.011.

Schwartz, C., “Tachyon dynamics— for neutrinos?” Int. J. of
Modern Phys. A, 33, pp. 1-23, 2018.
DOI:10.1142/S0217751X18500562.

Schwartz, C., “Revised theory of tachyons in general relativity.”
Modern Physics Letters A, 32, pp. 1750126(1-6), 2017.
DOI: 10.1142/S0217732317501267

These were some of the references referred to in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, which refuted some of the claims
that tachyons cannot exist. So, Dr. H, you are late, very late,
to the party.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 19 20:40:13 2023
Le 19/12/2023 à 20:59, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

So, Dr. H, you are late, very late to the party.

Les tachyons ne peuvent pas exister.

C'est ce que disiant beaucoup de physiciens des temsp modernes, et c'est
ce que le docteur Hachel aussi a toujours dit.

Ce n'est pas un problème de technologie, ou de preuve expérimentale.

C'est un problème de logique pure.

Comme c'est une évidence de logique pure que de dire que les carrés
ronds n'existent pas, qu'une eau déshydratée est une absurdité, ou
qu'une teinte blanche écarlate est un non sens.

Toutes ces choses ne sont que des abstractions et créations mentales ridicules.

Si vous ne comprenez pas pourquoi les tachions ne peuvent pas exister,
c'est que vous n'avez pas compris correctement, VOUS, la théorie de la relativité.

Personnellement, je l'ai étudié pendant quarante ans et pendant des
milliers d'heures, cherchant à comprendre pourquoi il s'y trouvait des paradoxes, voire des absurdités, et la centaines d'équations que j'ai trouvées, ou retrouvées, me donnent le droit de parler de ce que je
comprends parfaitement et beaucoup mieux que vous.

R.H.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Wed Dec 20 00:05:55 2023
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

Photons have no mass, Mitch, so they never have infinite
energy, even at speed c. Atoms have mass, so they can
never be accelerated to c.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Fri Dec 22 14:13:57 2023
On Friday, October 27, 2023 at 5:38:48 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

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:

make them true, it makes you a hardened crank.

They're not just "my misconceptions." I'm merely the messenger of what
others have claimed. Dono is too focused on labeling me a "crank" rather
than expanding his own hermetically-closed mind to let in some uncertainty.

"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth."
-- Richard Feynman

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

Unlike you, the mainstream physicists at KATRIN never claimed the mass
being imaginary.

Of course they wouldn't! The Gran Sasso physicists got a black eye for publishing their paper on neutrinos from CERN traveling faster-than-light
when it turned out to be a bad connector. They lost credibility, just as
any other experimentalist would who claimed something similar.

Theorists, OTOH, have more latitude, a fact that Dono tries to bury in
his attacks.

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.

Unlike you crank misconceptions, mainstream physicists know better.

Mainstream experimental physicists dare not repeat the Gran Sasso fiasco. Theoretical physicists such as Charles Schwartz, Alan Chodos, Erasmo
Recami, Robert Ehrlich, and others still investigate the possibility.
A recent special issue of Symmetry was dedicated to the subject:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/symmetry/special_issues/tachyons_fundamental_symmetries

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
wildly misinformed. I usually find his posts useful and informative,
but not in this case. Everyone makes a gaff once in a while.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 22 20:29:50 2023
Prokaryotic Capase H - Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:44 wrote:

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.

(double facepalm)
Doubling down on your simplistic mistakes is not an encouraging sign, Prok.
It demonstrates that YOUR comprehension level is very low.
Mistake #1:
"> > > 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 must be conserved, and it is conserved since tachyon energy
is real, not imaginary. You made the serious blunder of not understanding
the basic argument laid down in 1962 by Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudarshan:
that in order for energy to be real, mass must be imaginary for speeds greater than c.
Mistake #2:
"> 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."

Momentum, like energy is REAL for tachyons. p = mu/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2), so when |u| > c, the denominator is imaginary. Surely you know enough mathematics to realize that i/i = 1.

Mistake #3:
"> 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."

You brought up the "undetectabilty" argument right after the paper was published
(DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101). It's another of your canards, and I thought we had settled the issue of "invisible" tachyons then because you went away and never responded to my response. The answer is simple: 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. This was explained in the paper, which, apparently, you never really tried to understand.

As you age, you have adopted the arrogant attitude of the typical crackpot.

My, Prok, you're sounding more and more like Despicable Dono. I'm appalled!

I took a quick glance at your latest publication

That should be a lesson to you not to make snap judgments.

and you have not learned a thing.

Case of the pot calling the kettle black, Prok. I can understand that you
feel you have better things to do with your time, but you could have done
that with a bit of tact. It was totally unnecessary for you to make these false accusations. Now you owe me a BIG apology, and you must now truly
read and understand DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 because you have impugned not just me, but every tenured physicist who has advocated studying tachyons, from Bilaniuk, Deshpande and Sudarshan through Chodos, Recami, Ehrlich and Schwartz with many more in between. I expected better from you, Prok.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 24 04:15:07 2023
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."

Sure they are ,

You're just wrapped up in your delusions, as usual. A previous post of mine proves your dishonesty:

Apparently, YOU are conveniently in complete ignorance of the arguments for
the existence of tachyons:

Bilaniuk O. M. P., Deshpande V. K., Sudarshan E. C. G. ,
“’Meta’ Relativity,” American Journal of Physics, 30, pp.
718-723, 1962. DOI: 10.1119/1.1941773.

Ehrlich, R., “Tachyonic neutrinos and the neutrino masses,”
Astropart. Phys., 41, pp. 1-6, 2013.
DOI:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2012.09.009.

Ehrlich, R., “Six observations consistent with the electron
neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe = −0.11 ± 0.016 eV^2,” Astropart. Phys., 66, pp. 11-17, 2015.
DOI: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.12.011.

Schwartz, C., “Tachyon dynamics— for neutrinos?” Int. J. of
Modern Phys. A, 33, pp. 1-23, 2018.
DOI:10.1142/S0217751X18500562.

Schwartz, C., “Revised theory of tachyons in general relativity.”
Modern Physics Letters A, 32, pp. 1750126(1-6), 2017.
DOI: 10.1142/S0217732317501267

So, Dono's depiction of me is an attack on all those authors. Anyone
with nominal intelligence would agree.

hardened crank.

Only in sophomoric Dono's fantasies.

Now that the forum is closing,

google groups has degenerated over the years, allowing spamming
from philistines like Dono and recently unable to prevent all
kinds of spam. One of their "solutions" involved an "I'm not
a robot" screen which had no way to continue. I sent multitudes
of feedback messages to google for more than a month. I notice
it has, apparently, finally been fixed, but it's too little too
late. They seem to have been discouraging posting before they
made the announcement to shut down.

I was able to circumvent the problem be posting to novabbs that
has sci.physics.relativity board that connects with the google
group. My first act was to respond to Prok's uneducated comments
on DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101. It was almost as bad as Dono's
malicious sideswipes which seldom have any clarification and are
wrong when they do.

you are trying one last battempt

A "battempt"? Is Dono saying that I'm Batman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman#/media/File:Keaton_as_Batman.jpg

There is no need to defend DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 from
knowledgeable, intelligent and honest researchers. That
removes Dono from consideration on three counts.

[Modifying quotes to cast aspersions proves Dono's dishonesty.]

Yep, it sure does. As for what I wrote:
"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."

KATRIN experiments"

is laughable because Dono has proven by his previous posts that HE
fails to understand the beta decay experiments like KATRIN. Does
he believe that no measured data point had a negative m^2 result?
Perhaps he would present a proof of that?

But I have come to the conclusion that negative m^2 values do not
indicate the mass of a purported tachyon. Perhaps someone would
like to take a whack at explaining why they don't, even given that
tachyons actually exist.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to Dono. on Tue Dec 26 15:41:35 2023
On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 11:12:37 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:

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.

Only in Dono's demented and prejudiced mind :-))

As to your crap paper published in the predatory crap journal, this proves that you are just that, a sad sack crank.

DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 (contrary to Dono's assertions prejudiced by
his incompetence at understanding physics and logical reasoning), presents a well-reasoned proof that tachyons, if they exist, cannot violate causality.

Dono disparages anything that disagrees with his prejudices. This is not the path to enlightenment. It leads only to darkness and decay.

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.

So what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says, he just
makes vacuous assertions with nothing to back them up.

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.

What gets through my "thick skull" is that Dono denies that what KATRIN
and all the other beta decay experiments measure is the square of the
electron antineutrino mass, which is contrary to the authors of all
the peer-reviewed papers published in respectable journals.

He has taken upon himself to misinterprete "effective electron anti-neutrino mass defined as m_nu^2 = Sum(|U_ei|^2 * m_i^2)" in the KATRIN papers to
mean "not the neutrino mass" which the actual physicists doing the work
clearly disavow. And what they measure is the energy of the electron
created in the decay (E_e) and the energy produced by the decay E_0).
The difference is the energy carried away by the neutrino (E_nu, and since
they only measure the electrons which have E_e ~ E_0, E_nu ~ |m_nu|c^2.
They actually measure E_e^2 and plot the frequency distribution of E_e

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.

Many physicists have actually claimed that, so Dono is sinking into
deep water over his head again:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804, "Six observations consistent with the
electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2νe=−0.11 ± 0.016 eV2"
R. Ehrlich, DOI: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.12.011

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Ehrlich
citations: 511

"Are muon neurtinos faster-than-light particles?" Gianneto, Maccarrone,
Mignan and Recami

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erasmo-Recami
citations: 7114

Ciboroski and Rembielinski, "Tritium Decay and the Hypothesis of Tachyonic Neutrinos," The European Physical Journal C - Particles and Fields, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s100529901062
Ciboroski citations: 21189, Rembielinski citations: 1911

C. Schwartz, "Tachyon dymacs - for neutrinos?" Int. J. Mod. Phys A 33,
1850056 (2018). arxiv 1710.09904.

So these are tenured physicists with thousands of citations, proving that
Dono is dissembling again.

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.

Repeating bool poop doesn't make it true.

Relativity is not wrong. You are a crank that claims it is wrong. You don't count.

Actually, they do count,

Dissembling Dono shoots the bool again.

especially when your nose has been rubbed in your shit paper multiple times.

Dono's nose is the one buried in lies and bool poop.

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.

Dissembling Dono knows all about lies and misinformation since he does it all the time. And I have never lied on this forum. Dono makes unsubstantiated assertions and deludes himself that he has "proved" something.

"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),

Dono's "definition" was wrong :-))

The issue is that m_neutrino is not equal to sqrt (m_nu^2).

See? He never admits his errors, even such a gross one as this.

But you are too of a gardened crank to learn that.

Dono NEVER learns anything, particularly when he misunderstands physics.

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. He must have been
wearing the dunce cap through math class.

But I have said I agree that negative m_nu^2 in the the beta decay experiments don't imply that m_nu is imaginary, but Dono keeps beating the same disinformation
that I am saying that. It's many tenured physicists with beaucoup citations that
have said this. I've asked Dono to explain why that's so and he has avoided that
challenge like a plague. C'mon, Dono, man up!

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.

Nope. The first time you did it was after DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 was published. You just make vacuous assertions with no proof. I, OTOH, provide links and more to my claims.

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.

Dono doesn't know that. Another assertion with no evidence.

"Lack of evidence isn't evidence of absence."

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.

Dono doubles down again on his mathematical incompetence. The fool can't even analyze a simple algebraic equation. The fool doesn't even bother to graph it before he posts this baloney after being warned multiple times.

That represents the limit to the domain of applicability for the RVC,

Crank,

Nope. It's simple physics and math, which Dono has proven to be completely incompetent at both.

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.

Delusional Dono goes hyperballistic again :-))

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.

Repeating lies doesn't make them true.

I'm just ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth.

I agree with you on this one. That's what Dono does when his incompetence is showing. Dono conveniently forgets that E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) has a limit to its domain of applicability so he can rant and froth at a limit on the RVC. That's another violation of sagan's kit:

10. Inconsistency https://www.themarginalian.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

Wow! Is he trying to cover all twenty? Plus the infamous 21st.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to gharnagel on Tue Dec 26 20:21:59 2023
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 7:42:18 AM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:

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

Yet Dono is unable to point to one single example. Previously, he
claimed Figures 1 and 2 were wrong, which is abysmally stupid because
those were examples taken from physics textbooks and papers "proving"
that tachyons would violate causality :-)

So what does Dr. Dono believe that m_nu^2 means? He never says,

You are lying again, crank Gary
I gave you the explanation multiple times. But you are trying to weasel
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.

Once again, Dono never says what he believes m_nu^2 means, which proves
that I'm not the liar here. He has repeated a bunch of garbage about
neutrino oscillation, but that has nothing to do with the beta decay experiments. So will Dobo come clean and repeat this garbage or will he
just weasel out and bluster that he "gave the explanation multiple times"?

And I have never lied on this forum.

You lie in every post, crank Gary.

Dono is projecting hi own modus operandi.

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

Name-calling is not a valid argument: Sagan, #1 Ad hominem.

The mass of the neutrino is not sqrt(m_nu^2).

So what is it then? Dono won't say. He just repeats an unsubstantiated banality.

The point is that beta decay experiments come up with negative values
for m_nuw^2. Simple mathematics says that the square root of a negative
number is imaginary. Man up, Dono. What is m_nue^2?

You are lying once again. I pointed out your idiocies as soon as you
site.

Dono never supplies proof of his assertions. He won't do so in this case either, so it's obvious who is lying.

Dono is no physicist, nor a mathematician, nor is he an honest person. Has
he admitted that E' does not go from +infinity to -infinity as u passes c^2/v? Nope. I asked him to graph the equation and see for himself. Has he done it? No-o-o. He makes incorrect assertions and claims he pointed out this and that but never supplies a link to support them. He just blathers on and on and on.

Meanwhile, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, in a peer-reviewed journal, is still standing unyielding and triumphant over all specious attacks.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Tue Dec 26 20:57:39 2023
On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 12:22:26 PM UTC-8, gharnagel wrote:

Dono refuses again and again to engage in an honest discussion, preferring to prevaricate, bluster and denigrate. Consequently, his posts are meaningless drivel. Meanwhile, DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101 stands unrefuted and unsoiled by pernicious and spiteful attacks.

It's well past time for Dono and Prok to man up and take responsibility for their gross mistakes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 28 13:59:02 2023
No response from Dono. Perhaps he's rethinking his mathematical
blunders:

Donoblunder #1: He claims that 1/u approaches infinity as u
approaches infinity :-))

Donoblunder #2: sqrt(a^2) does not equal a, or -a, or apparently
anything else.

Donoblunder #3: m_enu isn't the mass of the electron neutrino,
which every respectable physicist affirms that it is. Dono
gives no explanation for his assertion, which is his common
behavior. It is also his common behavior to combine his
blunders with scurrilous personal attacks.

These are just a few of the blunders Dono has made over the
years.

Prokblunder #1: Claimed that u > c^2/v cannot mean that a
tachyon becomes undetectable because all particles must be
observable in a frame. Of course, an observer must use
instruments to observe particles, so a method of observing
particles which have u > c^2/v was described in the very
paper that Prok was criticizing: DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101

Prokblunder #2: Claimed that imaginary mass means that tachyons
have imaginary energy and momentum, when discerning physicists
know that imaginary mass of tachyons was hypothesized to counter
an imaginary sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) in the denominator of equations
for energy and momentum when u > c.

Neither of these "gentlemen" have recanted these false allegations
that they combined with defamatory personal attacks. As I said,
it's time for them to face up to there spurious assertions and
inappropriate behavior.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
• From gharnagel@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sun Mar 31 02:57:22 2024
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?
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

There's an example of a question from a great physicist: assume infinite energy in a photon and then ask why an atom can have infinite energy.

I'm amazed at the lack of interest in the subject of this thread (see the o.p.) I've been reading some papers by Charles Schwartz:

"A Consistent Theory of Tachyons with Interesting Physics for Neutrinos," (2022). doi.org/10.3390/sym14061172

"Tachyon Interactions," Symmetry 2023, 15, 209. doi.org/10.3390/sym15010209

"Two Proposed Experiments for the Tachyon-Neutrino Theory of Dark Matter,"
doi: 10.20944/preprints202312.0775.v1.

I was thinking about coming up with a Dirac equation for tachyons and Schwartz has done it! He's also done significant work on the causality problem.

https://physics.berkeley.edu/people/faculty/charles-schwartz

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)