YT2095 Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Tachyons are allegedly supposed to exist at the speed of light and above only, as of yet they are hypothetical only and have to be proven to exist.
aommaster Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 ummm... isn't the speed of light the fastest speed an 'thing' could travel at?
YT2095 Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 to our current understanding, C is the fastest a Photon can travel, but no "Thing" can travel at that velocity, it`s the exclusive domain of photons only. Tachyons on the other hand are said to travel faster than C and cannot exist at speeds below this. as mentioned before, there are Hypothetical ONLY
aommaster Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 but no "Thing" Are you mocking me??? )))))) j/k Is there any research benig done to prove the existance of tachyons?
[Tycho?] Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 Are you mocking me??? )))))) j/k Is there any research benig done to prove the existance of tachyons? Undoubtedly, however I am guessing they would be difficult to detect.
aommaster Posted July 18, 2004 Author Posted July 18, 2004 I am guessing should be. Everything in theory seems to be difficult ))
Sayonara Posted July 18, 2004 Posted July 18, 2004 "I've heard of tachyons" is not terribly helpful. As I understand it, mass cannot travel at light-speed due to E = mc2. If you solve the equation with negative mass however, you can. Or something.
aommaster Posted July 19, 2004 Author Posted July 19, 2004 Is negative mass similar to dark matter, or is it something totally different?
TheProphet Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Dark Matter is Matter that we can't se. In other words Dark matter is matter that interact very weakly with ordinary matter! Neutrinos might be one, and can here serve as a good example!
Sayonara Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Is negative mass similar to dark matter, or is it something totally different? MrL will know
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 I thought he was just Jakiri now! Must be a habit, I'm always tempted to say MrL too. Dark Matter is Matter that we can't se. In other words Dark matter is matter that interact very weakly with ordinary matter! Neutrinos might be one, and can here serve as a good example! I'm not so sure about that. Never heard anyone say that. I thought it was all this stuff that had large amounts of mass... but I'm probably wrong...
ydoaPs Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 Tachyons don't have negative mass. They have imaginary mass.
JaKiri Posted July 19, 2004 Posted July 19, 2004 MrL will know Negative mass is something quite different, and has been hypothesised as being required for wormhole travel, as in the centre repulsion, rather than attraction, is required, and the only way to acquire this from gravitation forces is with negative mass. This then implies (or is implied by, I forgot the reasoning) negative energy. Of course, the wormhole thing is entirely incidental, but then again I haven't seen anything on this for a few years so god knows what's happening now. and it also wouldn't be too far-fetched to assume that maybe Einstein's theory only applies to matter in the phases we are familiar with I'm afraid it would; special relativity has nothing to do with the phases of matter, merely mass and relative velocity.
TheProphet Posted July 20, 2004 Posted July 20, 2004 I thought he was just Jakiri now! Must be a habit' date=' I'm always tempted to say MrL too. I'm not so sure about that. Never heard anyone say that. I thought it was all this stuff that had large amounts of mass... but I'm probably wrong...[/quote'] Well Black holes could also be in this category but acording too most popular thories i'd like to say that Black holes are then wrong inteprated and should be in the normal matter box.. but that's just me.. But i'm sure MrL (why this name Jakiri?)can fill us in on this one, since he's the one with a PhD and im just a wanna/gonna be
JaKiri Posted July 20, 2004 Posted July 20, 2004 Dark matter is theorised to be a lot of things, mostly of the order of neutrinos and black bodies. The argument goes that, if it wasn't a black body, or an undetectable particle, then we could detect it and so the mass wouldn't be 'missing'. Black holes may well fit into this as well, depending.
ydoaPs Posted July 20, 2004 Posted July 20, 2004 We can barely detect really massive planets. What about terrestrial planets or comets and asteroids.
Jonfraz Posted July 26, 2004 Posted July 26, 2004 Is liquid plasma theoretically possible? Are liquids to dense for the component atoms to be ionised or will the temperature cause the liquid to become gaseous anyway? If mercury vapor can become plasma at room temperature under a electric current then maybe a liquid could under similar circumstances? I'm sorry if the post sounds stupid to physicists who know their stuff, but the thought intrigued me.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now