MadScientist Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 I was just thinking about tachyons, yes I know they're only theoretical and said to be used to explain away a hole in a theory but assuming they do exist... Wouldn't they be made from the same fundamental particles (strings or whatever) that everything else is made from?? And if a tachyon is travelling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time doesn't that mean they're travelling to the start of the universe since they can't exist before it started because there'd be nowhere for them to exist. And what could possibly take a collection of fundamentals and create one of these tachyons, wouldn't it take a phenomenal amount of energy to send something off at a speed faster than light?? It would need to be something more powerful than a sun since even a sun can only send out particles with enough energy to travel at the speed of light. But doesn't a black hole have more energy than a sun?? What if the body that creates tachyons also created gravity, some of the energy escapes as gravity and some as tachyons, explaining the weaker than expected gravity we have. But all bodies emit gravity so all bodies would need to be powerful enough to create tachyons since all gravity is weaker than we expect it to be. So tachyons could only really be coming from one place, a force of greater power than the initial big bang. An analogy would be tennis, the server sends the ball which would be the big bang, the ball travels across the court which would be the timeline of everything in the universe then the receiver returns the ball. To return the ball the receiver is going to have to use as much force as the server used and to send the ball even faster than the server they're going to need to use even more energy than the server used. So what happens when the tachyons reach their destination, the big bang?? They've got all that extra energy so when they collded in this now vastly smaller sized universe they would set off an even bigger big bang where the fundamentals from the tachyons were reshaped into new particles that formed elements that formed us... But that leads to another implication about what the universe is. That the very first cycle of this big bang out and tachyon back loop was really small, it fired particles out which didn't form much of anything, then they returned as tachyons and got fired out again but with more energy thus forming a larger universe. The cycle continues over and over until the cycles are long enough for life to form on a planet labelled as Earth. The only way I can describe what this phenomena is that sends fundamentals back as tachyons is the big bang is expanding into nothing, which acts like a gas tank container. As the big bang expands it fills the container and buids up pressure against it. So eventually the pressure outside the universe forces it back with more energy as tachyons. It also means the universe can only expand into the same finite amount of nothingness each cycle, which means our universe too. So as galaxies or other collections of particles reached the nothingness they got mangled into a new form we call a tachyon and rebound back into the universe with more energy. The nothingness would be as good as a vacuum but working inversely, instead of the universe saying to the vacuum "I don't like you so I'm going to throw particles into you." the nothingness would be saying "I don't like you so I'm throwing you back." As if there's a pressure level the nothingness can take before it throws particles back. The more energy used to reach that pressure level the more energy it throws them back with. AFAIKnow the only way to prove that would be to see a galaxy moving into the nothingness and getting converted into tachyons as it did so. So long as the galaxies we can see ahead of us aren't moving into this nothingness we should be okay, shouldn't we?? Maybe the light travelling for millions of years or whatever from these galaxies they could have already reached it and we just can't see it yet. Another important implication is that the same fundamental particle would exist travelling out from the big bang as a particle we can detect and at the same time travelling backwards through time and at some point in time both particles will exist at the same time and they would be the same fundamental particles. Wouldn't they?? Isn't that just what anyone who mentions tachyons is implying?? It all souds logical to me. One of my crazy ideas that leads me to is.. What if you could recreate this nothingness in our universe and manipulate a tachyon in some way as to embed a message in the fundamentals of some kind?? You could pass a message onto the next cycle of the universe in as many fundamentals as you could send back as tachyons. Wouldn't it be great if one day we learned how to fully examine a fundamental and one of them happened to be one of these very rare ones with a message embedded in another dimension or something from a species that existed in a previous cycle?? I've mentioned it before in other threads but I imagine if these fundamentals can exist in higher dimensions they would be far larger than they are in ours and be capable of storing vast amounts of information. So an embedded message could be huge and contain all the information they ever discovered about how the universe works. It would be the ultimate message in a bottle.
philbo1965uk Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 I liked your post it proves someone can actually make a good case for the hogwash of quantom physics.Sometimes it is the most simple of people who post their thoughts however incorrect the reasoning and blow huge holes in theories that simply are too stupid to be believed.Quantom physics really gets up my nose paradox after paradox,i do wish at times that good people would spend less time on ruining the science of physics.Everything is finite,schroeders cat was dead in the box.When the tree falls sound waves are created regardless of anyone being around to hear it.Just because we cannot understand things dont spoil the science by evolving it into gibberish.Even Einstein said this is crap.
MadScientist Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 I liked your post it proves someone can actually make a good case for the hogwash of quantom physics.Sometimes it is the most simple of people who post their thoughts however incorrect the reasoning and blow huge holes in theories that simply are too stupid to be believed.Quantom physics really gets up my nose paradox after paradox,i do wish at times that good people would spend less time on ruining the science of physics.Everything is finite,schroeders cat was dead in the box.When the tree falls sound waves are created regardless of anyone being around to hear it.Just because we cannot understand things dont spoil the science by evolving it into gibberish.Even Einstein said this is crap. Thanks philbo, I'll be glad if even just one person got something from it but I feel the need to clarify something. I'm not saying tachyons can't exist, all I'm saying is whenever someone mentions tachyons that that's what they surely must be. The question then is whether you can accept it all or not. I'd like to hear any views on whether my theory on tachyons is right or wrong though.
swansont Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 I was just thinking about tachyons' date=' yes I know they're only theoretical and said to be used to explain away a hole in a theory but assuming they do exist... Wouldn't they be made from the same fundamental particles (strings or whatever) that everything else is made from?? [/quote'] No. If they have normal mass, then they have imaginary energy. If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass.
pi_of_9 Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 And if a tachyon is travelling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time doesn't that mean they're travelling to the start of the universe since they can't exist before it started because there'd be nowhere for them to exist If the Big Bang happens more than once and universal expansion/contraction is cyclical, than perhaps the cycle is infinite and therefore, the tachyons could continue to travel back in time. For us to detect such a (particle?) wouldn't some other source than the Big Bang be responsible for the tachyons as our timeline is the furthest point in the future for every nanosecond that passes. And what could possibly take a collection of fundamentals and create one of these tachyons, wouldn't it take a phenomenal amount of energy to send something off at a speed faster than light?? Who knows, perhaps ours is not the only universe and tachyons are not native to ours. A Black Hole does not capture everything. Maybe tachyons exist and are uneffected by events such as the Big Bang. Just some thoughts over my morning cup of java. Thanks for the thread, gave my mind a kickstart this morning.
Gilded Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 "You could pass a message onto the next cycle of the universe in as many fundamentals as you could send back as tachyons." I think there would be (even with the assumption that tachyons are real) a disturbance in the tachyon "routes" making it impossible to send anything anywhere. "If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass." Isn't it generally thought that if tachyons exist, they have negative mass, therefore they must go above c?
MadScientist Posted October 10, 2004 Author Posted October 10, 2004 No. If they have normal mass, then they have imaginary energy. If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass. I thought absolutely everything in the universe had to be made from the same fundamental particles albeit in different "flavours"?? The big bang just created all the fundamentals and the forces from the big bang formed them into elements, energy and everything else. So at the moment I don't see how they can't be made from anything but fundamentals. Because I was thinking of something else RE tachyons. If they are indeed the same fundamental particles we're made from "bouncing" off the edge of the universe, repelled by the force of nothingness outside, since you can't destroy energy you obviously can't send it into an area of nothingness... But that would mean for every single moment in time there would be two of the same fundamentals in the unverse. One would be travelling forwards and the other would be travelling backwards through time. I was just wondering if that could have anything to do with these entangled particles.
ydoaPs Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 IAnd if a tachyon is travelling faster than the speed of light and backwards in time doesn't that mean they're travelling to the start of the universe since they can't exist before it started because there'd be nowhere for them to exist. traveling than c does NOT make you travel backwards in time. it makes your time imaginary. "If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass." Isn't it generally thought that if tachyons exist' date=' they have negative mass, therefore they must go above c?[/quote'] their mass SQUARED is negative. their MASS is imaginary
swansont Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 "If they have normal energy they must have imaginary mass." Isn't it generally thought that if tachyons exist' date=' they have negative mass, therefore they must go above c?[/quote'] In the energy equation, m is outside of the radical, and v is inside. If v>c your have sqrt(-1). Something has to be imaginary.
swansont Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 I thought absolutely everything in the universe had to be made from the same fundamental particles albeit in different "flavours"?? The big bang just created all the fundamentals and the forces from the big bang formed them into elements' date=' energy and everything else.So at the moment I don't see how they can't be made from anything but fundamentals. [/quote'] Show me an actual tachyon.
ydoaPs Posted October 10, 2004 Posted October 10, 2004 [math]t'=\frac{t}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}[/math] [math]m'=\frac{m}{\sqrt{1-\frac{V^2}{c^2}}}[/math] try it out for yourself. plug in any value for mass or time and velocity. mass prime or time prime will be the mass or time at that speed. it may be fun to put your own mass in the equation to see your mass at different velocities. in case you don't know, to get your mass, divide your weight by [math]9.81\frac{m}{s^2}[/math]. if you are using the english system divide your weight by [math]32.2\frac{ft}{s^2}[/math].
philbo1965uk Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 well done mad scientist,when all you get back is imaginary you know you have thought of a peach....and swansont again thats lame....
fuhrerkeebs Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 What's lame is your constant attacks on those who know more than you and can prove you wrong.
MadScientist Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 Swan was making a valid point Philbo, I can't show him a tachyon just as he can't show me one so anything spoken on the matter can only be theoretical. He just showed me some good reasons why they don't fit into the model of the universe. But again I say, I was only following tachyons to their logical conclusion of having to be travelling to and from somewhere in time.. But after doing that I think I like the idea of them. If they do behave in a manner similar to my theory it means the initial big bang could have simply been a very small amount of energy that the edge of the then very small universe repelled back with more force and putting more energy into the next cycle. Until you end up at the stage where the bangs are truly big. And as intelligent people we should leave the mud slinging to others, don't you think?? We should provide intelligent views so they can be corrected of validated by others, it's a way of learning and catching up with these clever guys.
YT2095 Posted October 12, 2004 Posted October 12, 2004 and swansont again thats lame.... that`s all well and good as an OPINION, but what evidence do you have to back it up? comments such as this are a joke! amongst a true Scientific comunity, as it`s easy to SAY without evidence, and is treated as such. something a little more Concrete if you can provide it to support your claim would go a LONG WAY in your favour! I`m sure that I and Others can hardly wait to see evidence of this claim
MadScientist Posted October 12, 2004 Author Posted October 12, 2004 If the Big Bang happens more than once and universal expansion/contraction is cyclical' date=' than perhaps the cycle is infinite and therefore, the tachyons could continue to travel back in time. For us to detect such a (particle?) wouldn't some other source than the Big Bang be responsible for the tachyons as our timeline is the furthest point in the future for every nanosecond that passes. Who knows, perhaps ours is not the only universe and tachyons are not native to ours. A Black Hole does not capture everything. Maybe tachyons exist and are uneffected by events such as the Big Bang. Just some thoughts over my morning cup of java. Thanks for the thread, gave my mind a kickstart this morning.[/quote'] Glad you liked it, your reply had me foxed for a while but I think I've reasoned it out. If I'm right (this is just a theory Swan and tachyons are created by the fundamental particles hitting the edge of the universe and getting rebounded back in with more energy as tachyons. They wouldn't be able to exist outside the confines of the universe and if they were travelling back through time to the big bang they would be contained in the really small universe at that time. They would have to be compressed and somehow revert back to fundamentals with their initial energy and their new extra energy being released at the same time. The pressure from the edge of the galaxy bouncing them back in and the pressure from the compressed universe throwing them out. Whether it's a viable theory or not, I still like it. The idea of them coming from another universe is pretty cool too. The way I see that working is both universes would be swapping particles each cycle. Theirs starts off in reverse and ours starts off in forwards.. Whilst on the subject of the big bang is there evidence to prove there wasn't more than one explosion?? Could there have been several over the universes life?? Either inside the same universe or creating many smaller ones which have combined over time and possibly still are doing. Or would the microwave map from WMAP have discovered them??
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