perspectiva8

What do you know of the inside of a hadron in order to suposse that the inside spacetime frame is minkowskian. Think about the tremendous densities of matter that are reached there. Clearly our model only has sense if all particles or some of them contains black holes inside. Those hypotesized superluminical neutrinos were not (externally) rotating. I agree that rotation is an essential component of any sensible tachyonic model of (detectable) particles. Thak you for the reference. I can understand why (linear) tachyions should be undetectable, but I have no idea about under which context and why they should they be unstable. I would be very glad if you could give me some brief insight on it

hello ajb. Thank you very much for your interest and analysis. The mechanism that I render mentally is that inside hadrons, some entities are rotating at superluminic speeds . Rotation hold them confined (stabilized) and superluminic avoid its direct observation. As radious of confinance grows velocities slow and approach to c, so requiring more and more energetic suport to be excited (observed) . Moreover, the fact that color (based in three component model ) account very well for hadrons behavior, perhaps (and I know this is very speculative) could be a consequence of the three degrees of freedom of the angular momentum of rotating tachyons inside hadrons.

According with Popper you can not say that a model "is tested". Only that it has not yet falsed. This is fine. It's true that empirical sciences assume axiomatically that things can be isolated from the Universe, and that this assumptios in obviously not true at all. But this hole doesn't support your affirmation of the "reallity" quarks and your negation of the "reallity" of tachyons. The difference is that planets can be observed, but quark and tachyons no, because the same theory that postulates its existence, avoid its proper observation. You only could say that quarks explain now more things that tachyons, which I agree. Ok , but according with te natural lenguage meaning of prefix "ultra" http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ultra- , I find this denomination very confusing No: For tachyons v>c the SR model of energies predicts imaginary values of energy as (1-v^2/c^2) is negative Very Interesting . I dont know. I would be very glad if you could give me some insights or references about this internal inconsistence. The decision about if one prediction is lucky or well based is a question of beliefs. If I was a deep non believer in standard model I could ever argue that predictions of SM are only lucky.

In EPR gedankenexperiment the first object that destroys the coherence of photons is the semitransparent mirror. In particular the non infinite mass of mirror induces a frecuency-energy doppler shift in the reflected photon. ¿Do you think that it worth to model such effect and incorporate to the gedankenexperiment or it would be only noise?

Perhaps you assume axiomatically that "real" means the same as "standard model"? Perhaps You do believe in the standard model. Anyway: the real thing is that isolated quarks remains as unobserved and unobservable as isolated tachyons. I agree. Perhaps "ultrarelativistic" has another meaning (that I don't know) and would be better to say "superluminic" I agree. In fact tachyons have not negative, but imaginary energy in the context of SR. Do you mean it is inconsitent with the standar model? I know. In fact Positrons have positive energy not only in the standard model, but also in Dirac Theory I Know. But Dirac's is a good example of how a ensamble of unobservables can sustain a model able to sucessful predictions. (ie the existence of positrons)

Hi all. I'm new in this forum Please,forgive my no very good english Thanks: health, peace and good luck. lanjarote

I think "real" is a too strong word (at least for quarks). In my opinion, the model of an nonlimited energy increase of the quark ensemble when distances between quarks grow, lead to a theory that is not Popper falsable. You can not desingn an experiment showing isolated quarks because theory prohibit it. So quarks are a "behind the scenario" resource. In this way , tachyons are very similar. They are , teoretically not directly observable, but some models involving tachyons had got great descriptive and predictive success also behind the scenario For example, the model of negative energy states of electron led Diract to the prediction of positron as a hole in the ensamble of negative states . I think this model is implicitly tachyonic as negative energý is tachyonic (at least in the context of SR.) I don't see the relationship between tachyonic states and Higgs field. Are you meaning that Higgs field is a negative energy field?

What is the shape of a particle? It's density function? If so, density functions are distorted. deuterium nucleus (whose specific name, if if exists I dont know) is another frame of states different from single particles I

Hi all. I'm new in this forum Please,forgive my no very good english Quarks and tachions share the feature of be: ¿Unobserved? ¿unobservable? Could an ultrarelativistic (tachionic) model of quarks to describe some features or behavior of quarks? Why a tachion has negative energy in the context of SR? How could this model be contrasted.? That is :how could it be designed an experimet "falsabilizante"? i Thanks: health, peace and good luck. lanjarote

Hi I am Lanjarote from Spain. I love knowledge: specially science, music and philosophy Advertising removed by moderator