Why time-traveling tachyons probably don't exist

[Admin]

Einstein toyed with the idea of faster-than-light-particles but found that such particles violated a central rule of the universe: causality.

Why time-traveling tachyons probably don't exist : Read more

 

[Pentcho Valev]

These are all conclusions deduced, validly or invalidly, from Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate stating that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. Actually, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as posited by Newton's theory. Einstein "borrowed" the false constancy from the nonexistent ether:

Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." Quoted in Wikipedia

 

[Robert Lucien Howe]

Was expecting the article to fall into one of Special Relativities catch pits, but everything said looks correct.

It still has to be said though (and its not said often enough) that all predictions made by the theory about physics above the speed of light are still basically speculation. There is a disjunction at the speed of light so that the current mathematical rules we know may apply or may not.

I have worked on imaginary numbers (within computational logic) and believe that imaginary values might always add up to net zero. - From that photons could be described pretty accurately as having imaginary & net zero mass. Zero mass gives you zero inertia which equates to infinite speed and in reality limits at what we know as the speed of light.

My own prediction is that taychons carrying reverse causality enter or exist in our STL universe all the time but they are quantum objects and don't generally carry useful information. Dark matter for instance might have an imaginary or negative mass..

 

[rod]

"And because we don't live in a universe where these contradictions and violations of causality happen, it seems unlikely that tachyons exist."

What? consider other reports on physical law and QM stuff on space.com. Does consciousness explain quantum mechanics? | Space.com Forums

It does seem that there should be no causality to the universe today, quantum or macro level. Everything should just be random chaos starting from an area smaller than an electron where everything we see today, evolved from.

 

[rod]

Another observation after pondering this article a bit more. In BB cosmology, all redshifts 1.4 or larger are explained where 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity (comoving radial distances) and the inflation period where space expands some 10^20 or 10^21 faster than c velocity. Apparently, there is no causality violation here, a fundamental rule of the universe, yet the BB cosmology does not explain how causality was created or even when. So, in the methodology, I can rule out tachyons, but accept 4D space expanding much faster than light speed today in cosmology. Cool Here is something from the early part of this report.

"Tachyons are hypothetical particles that always travel faster than the speed of light."

The cosmological redshift answer for larger redshifts requires *travel faster than the speed of light* too.

 

[rod]

"And because we don't live in a universe where these contradictions and violations of causality happen, it seems unlikely that tachyons exist."

Does this thinking apply to 4D space expanding faster than c velocity used in BB cosmology (and inflation) too?

 

[grigor60]

I do not understand, why every time when we talk about the speed of light it is tightly coupled to time.
As well, as I do not understand this statement
> The issue comes if you start moving. In relativity, from your perspective, you are standing still while Earth appears to be receding.
Maybe because of a lack of knowledge.

Is there any good reason to think that the speed of photons differs from that of other objects?
I see only one reason for this kind of statement, that we do not have the ability to measure processes faster than the speed of light, because right now we don have the ability to do measurements or collect information from observation faster than the speed of light,


People cannot observe faster than the speed of light, moreover, we cannot measure the process of movement of something faster than the speed of light just because humans can't retrieve information faster than the speed of light.
And so we believe that the speed of light is related to time,
But it is connected only with time, where a starting point is a person, not the universe.

I don’t understand why the fact that we can’t do something, due to purely technical limitations, becomes a postulate about how the universe works.

 

[Ian]

The argument around causality is broadly applicable to anything that permits superluminal travel or communication. Causality itself is not a principle that can be derived from either General Relativity or quantum theory- it is simple a phenomenon we observe in our everyday experience, and as such may be an illusion derived from the way we perceive reality. Even if causality is taken to be a real physical principle it doesn't preclude the existence of tachyons, since causality issues only arise if it's also possible to somehow use them to exchange information with the slower-than-light world. Quantum entanglement also creates issues with time because observing the spin of one entangled particle instantly determines that of the other one, in all reference frames. It doesn't create a causality problem though, because the phenomenon can't be used to exchange information.

 

[Ian]

I do not understand, why every time when we talk about the speed of light it is tightly coupled to time.
As well, as I do not understand this statement
> The issue comes if you start moving. In relativity, from your perspective, you are standing still while Earth appears to be receding.
Maybe because of a lack of knowledge.

Is there any good reason to think that the speed of photons differs from that of other objects?
I see only one reason for this kind of statement, that we do not have the ability to measure processes faster than the speed of light, because right now we don have the ability to do measurements or collect information from observation faster than the speed of light,


People cannot observe faster than the speed of light, moreover, we cannot measure the process of movement of something faster than the speed of light just because humans can't retrieve information faster than the speed of light.
And so we believe that the speed of light is related to time,
But it is connected only with time, where a starting point is a person, not the universe.

I don’t understand why the fact that we can’t do something, due to purely technical limitations, becomes a postulate about how the universe works.

The issue is that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant in all reference frames. This we do observe. To make it stay constant in all reference frames requires that moving objects experience time-dilation. This we also do observe. The problem with superluminal communication is that- when coupled with the time-dilation effect that we know exists- it results in scenarios where effect can precede cause and result in paradoxes. There might be a way around this if there was such a thing as 'absolute rest', but as far as anyone can tell at this point, all inertial reference frames can be deemed to be 'at rest' with equal validity. There is a thought experiment described in the first response to the question on this forum: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...es-faster-than-light-travel-violate-causality that illustrates the problem nicely.

 

[Hotseflats]

Uhm, surely sending the Tachyon back from your moving point of view will make it seem from your perspective that the Tachyon will reach Earth before the button is pushed. In reality, time on Earth is still moving forward, whilst the Tachyon is travelling however fast it goes, as long as it is not infinity. And from Earth's perspective the Tachyon will arrive at a future point in time, leaving causality in tact.
I really think the world of physics is having a collective brain fart, starting with mister Einstein.

 

[jengwall]

An unusual thing happened in my perspective on the way to a Cubs game (though you may disagree). The Sears Tower appeared over the horizon much before the building's neighbors. This has stuck in my mind for decades now. Something BIG ENOUGH or TALL ENOUGH seemingly violates perspective. If I have your attention at this point consider the question: 3(-i) is or is not equal to -i+-i+-i...is -1i equal to 3x(-i)? A case may be so, yet a host of contrapositives should occur. What I suggest is acceleration to light speed by the displacement x2,y2 - x1,y1 of mass to light speed should stand unequivocal in the first place. According to rules confirming particles never slower than light, what would convert slow mass into fast mass? The point being that a phenomenon of a higher order should not be demonstrable while also being observable. To put it more brusque, if one should walk before crawling does that individual crawl? It seems to me no, that individual walks and then runs.