"Tachyonic Sea"??? [a hypothesis of a universe of tachyons]

[why06]

Okay I have posted this same thread a mont ago on another site. Amazing ly it is still going. Now I want to ask you the same question. Im not that smart so you probalbly won't have trouble pointing out all the flaws of this hypothesis which is all for the better. So lets get started than.

 

Why are tachyons needed?

> to explain many of the problems in our universe such as: Red-shift and the discrepencies in galaxy formation and strength.

 

Why not dark matter and dark energy?

>IMO dark matter and energy are two excellant theories. The problems arise when we try to find particles for them. I believe tachyons can take the place of dark matter and energy.

 

How so?

> Well I was hoping we would get here. Its make or break time...

 

 

 

-------------------------"The Tachyonic Sea"----------------------------

 

I believe the "tachons sea" is the cause for all of the effects they attribute to dark matter and energy. People were a lot more familiar with tachyons. than some mysterious dark matter. I believe that tachyons are not just a possible candidate for dark matter or dark energy, but both. That is where I stand. I believe the gravitational effect of dark matter are those of tachyons. And I am willing to debate this point further with you in kind manner.

 

The Tachyonic Sea:

1.Tachyons fill the universe.

2.They are FTL particles with imaginary mass. This Imaginary mass should have the same properites as negative mass.

3. The tachyonic sea surrounds galaxies and supplies the pressure that keeps them together.

4. This same force also moves the galaxies apart, providing a possible cause for red-shift.

Shouldn't we see them?

Tachyons are possible to see, but only after they have passed a place. I believe the tachyons surrounding the galaxies are to small and far apart to be seen with the modrn telescope. Can a water droplet be seen in another galaxy? Secondly Tachyons can not form the same intermolecular bonds as normal matter to make compounds such as water and such

 

What about Chrenvok radiation?

I believe that this radiation is still emited, but who knows what way light effects a particle going FTL?

 

These are my reasons for believing in the Tachyonic Sea Hypothesis.

 

 

 

TADA

[Klaynos]

Saying "I believe" does not really give us anything to discusse as you have stated not mathematical foundation for your thoughts.

 

I believe it's little versions of ed84c doing it all has as much scientific merit.

 

Shouldn't this be in speculations?

[Sisyphus]

I'm far from an expert on this stuff, but a couple of things occur to me.

 

First of all, I would be more careful about assigning some kind of physical meaning to "imaginary" or "negative mass." It seems like you mean it as "gravitationally repulsive" or something, but it seems like there must be other and stranger considerations to deal with, like inertia.

 

I'm guessing a model wherein the force holding galaxies together was partially an external "pushing" would produce very different-looking results in terms of those galaxies' shapes and motions. You would, of course, have to test all of that mathematically before considering it remotely plausible. I'd be curious to see a computer model of that sort of thing, actually.

 

Finally, I'm not sure your "shouldn't we see them" explanation holds water. Seems like that much visible matter (?) should, like interstellar dust, at least show up as the objects behind it being dimmer than they ought to be, and probably other, stranger effects. Again, you'd have to do the math.

[why06]

what kind of math?

 

its not visible. It moves FTL and therefore unseen. No radiation can effect it. Please elaborate on the equations you would like to see...

 

whats "ed84c" ???

[Wearden]

Thanks for your Conclusions Why06.

[Klaynos]

what kind of math?

 

its not visible. It moves FTL and therefore unseen. No radiation can effect it. Please elaborate on the equations you would like to see...

 

whats "ed84c" ???

 

Well in that case it's not testable and surely not science?

 

And he's a person.

[Teotihuacan]

Observable, and that's what science is all about: Being able to make the same conclusions from observations based on the same method and apparatus used.

 

Replication of Results.

 

Consider for a moment, that Newton had to invent math, to explain his new idea. Otherwise, it was just a bruised apple, daydeaming of an afternoon.

 

One thing I really like about math... it's cyclic, and proves itself within its own constructs. You don't have to "remember" it, just figure it.

 

There may be other explanations of gravity, that fit within Newtonian physics and calculus, without contradiction. A sea of tachyons is one of them.

 

Something of Zero mass may not be bonded by E=mc^2, a null multiplicand yields zero. These things could be still speeding from (or in) the beginning, with essentially no energy loss, and are no more or less than residual background radiation. Their propogation would assign to Gravity both the attraction of bodies and the expansion of space, no need for an exotic "dark Matter" hypothosis.

 

The idea deserves merit... if no other reason than the simplicity that results.

 

As for "observable" effects...

 

An indirect observation (similar to detecting a planet by the wobble of a star) could be seen in Cosmic Rays, and which pervade the known universe. Known to travel at speeds in excess of 40% C.

 

Why not talk or speculate about it? After all, could the elusive graviton be the mythical tachyon, and knock us off this blind alley impasse about not knowing how Gravity and Time work - having to construct increasingly complex baffles to assauge our ignorance.