¿Could quarks be tachions?

[perspectiva8]

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

[mathematic]

Quarks are real. Although very difficult to observe, since they can't be detached, there have been experiments, using high speed electrons, that indicate protons have three scattering centers. Moreover, qhantum thermodynamics is a very successful theory.

 

Tachyons, on the other hand, are completely hypothetical. There is no evidence that they exist.

[alpha2cen]

Till now quarks are element particles. But we have not made protons by using this reaction, u +d +u --->P, yet. Standard Model fits everything well, although it has a few exceptions. So quarks exits.

Element particles captured by Higgs field are quarks? So, how to hold element particles by Higgs field would be a good experiment. How about doing a simulation or an animation about Higgs field effect?

Real experiment might be almost impossible now.

[perspectiva8]

Quarks are real.

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.)

 

Element particles captured by Higgs field are quarks? So, how to hold element particles by Higgs field would be a good experiment. How about doing a simulation or an animation about Higgs field effect?

 

I don't see the relationship between tachyonic states and Higgs field. Are you meaning that Higgs field is a negative energy field?

[juanrga]

Quarks and tachions share the feature of be: ¿Unobserved? ¿unobservable?

 

Quarks are real particles and part of the standard model. Tachions are highly speculative particles.

 

Could an ultrarelativistic (tachionic) model of quarks to describe some features or behavior of quarks?

 

No, because quarks are relativistic particles and satisfy SR. Let me add that "ultrarelativistic" does not mean tachionic.

 

Why a tachion has negative energy in the context of SR?

 

There is no negative energies in SR. Moreover a negative energy does not imply tachionic motion.

 

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.)

 

This is incorrect. First, Dirac model has been abandoned because it is inconsistent. Second, in modern quantum field theory positrons have positive energy. Third, even if you were to ignore the inconsistencies of the Dirac model, this model is not tachionic. The negative energy Dirac electrons are not tachionic.

[perspectiva8]

Quarks are real particles and part of the standard model. Tachions are highly speculative particles.

 

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.

 

 

 

Let me add that "ultrarelativistic" does not mean tachionic.

I agree. Perhaps "ultrarelativistic" has another meaning (that I don't know) and would be better to say "superluminic"

 

There is no negative energies in SR. Moreover a negative energy does not imply tachionic motion.

I agree. In fact tachyons have not negative, but imaginary energy in the context of SR.

 

 

This is incorrect. First, Dirac model has been abandoned because it is inconsistent.

 

Do you mean it is inconsitent with the standar model?

 

 

Second, in modern quantum field theory positrons have positive energy.

 

I know. In fact Positrons have positive energy not only in the standard model, but also in Dirac Theory

 

Third, even if you were to ignore the inconsistencies of the Dirac model, this model is not tachionic. The negative energy Dirac electrons are not tachionic.

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)

[juanrga]

Perhaps you assume axiomatically that "real" means the same as "standard model"?

 

No.

 

Perhaps You do believe in the standard model.

 

The Standard Model is not a belief it is tested.

 

Anyway: the real thing is that isolated quarks remains as unobserved and unobservable as isolated tachyons.

 

That is as saying that the Earth is not real because is not isolated.

 

I agree. Perhaps "ultrarelativistic" has another meaning (that I don't know) and would be better to say "superluminic"

 

Ultrarelativistic means that the speed is close to c and the relativistic effects are much more relevant/evident.

 

I agree. In fact tachyons have not negative, but imaginary energy in the context of SR.

 

Energy in SR is real.

 

Do you mean it is inconsitent with the standar model?

 

No, it is internally inconsistent and abandoned.

 

I know. In fact Positrons have positive energy not only in the standard model, but also in Dirac Theory

 

Yes, but Dirac positron theory is based in the supposition of negative energy electrons and there are no negative energy particles in the Standard Model (by good reasons including that no one has been detected).

 

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)

 

As said before Dirac model is inconsistent. The prediction of the positron was more heuristic and lucky than a real prediction (moreover Dirac initially believed that the positive charge hole was a proton).

 

Steven Weinberg, quoting Julian Schwinger, correctly states:

 

The picture of an infinite sea of negative energy electrons is now best regarded as a historical curiosity, and forgotten.

[perspectiva8]

The Standard Model is not a belief it is tested.

 

According with Popper you can not say that a model "is tested". Only that it has not yet falsed.

 

 

That is as saying that the Earth is not real because is not isolated.

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.

 

Ultrarelativistic means that the speed is close to c and the relativistic effects are much more relevant/evident.

 

Ok , but according with te natural lenguage meaning of prefix "ultra"

 

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ultra-

, I find this denomination very confusing

 

Energy in SR is real.

 

No: For tachyons v>c the SR model of energies predicts imaginary values of energy as (1-v^2/c^2) is negative

 

 

No, it is internally inconsistent and abandoned.

Very Interesting . I dont know. I would be very glad if you could give me some insights or references about this internal inconsistence.

 

 

The prediction of the positron was more heuristic and lucky than a real prediction (moreover Dirac initially believed that the positive charge hole was a proton).

 

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.

[swansont]

According with Popper you can not say that a model "is tested". Only that it has not yet falsed.

 

Tested is not the same as proven. Testing, in this context, is a legitimate attempt at falsification that did not falsify the theory.

 

No: For tachyons v>c the SR model of energies predicts imaginary values of energy as (1-v^2/c^2) is negative

 

Circular reasoning, since Tachyons have not been shown to exist.

[ajb]

Tachyons are unstable. In quantum field theory tachyons imply an instability of the vacuum state of the

field. In string theory, they imply an instability of the D-brane to which the (open) string is attached meaning that the system decays to a stable set of closed strings or D-branes.

 

If one wants tachyonic matter the instability problem needs to be addressed. In Minkowski space-time a tachyon is classically unstable under small perturbations. I believe you can stabilise tachyons in certain non-trivial gravitational backgrounds, you would have to look into this more yourself.

 

So, at the nuclear level you need some mechanism or situation that could stabilise tachyons. This I think would be the biggest objection to your idea as it stands.

[juanrga]

According with Popper you can not say that a model "is tested". Only that it has not yet falsed.

 

I said "tested" instead "verified" to avoid certain philosophical misconceptions. In any case what Popper said about scientific theories is incorrect. As is well-known his ideas have been criticized by both scientists and posterior philosophers.

 

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.

 

No. Empirical science does not assume that systems under study are isolated because otherwise no measurement could be possible! The only object which is generally considered to be isolated is the Universe as a whole.

 

I did not use this hole in your statements about isolated systems for showing that quarks exist. I already offered you other argument before and it was not about isolated systems. I repeat: quarks have been detected in the lab and their properties measured. Nobody has detected a tachyon and, theoretically, its existence is very unlikely.

 

Ok , but according with te natural lenguage meaning of prefix "ultra"

 

http://dictionary.re...m/browse/ultra-

, I find this denomination very confusing

 

If you read the link, the prefix ultra is also used as meaning "carrying to the furthest degree possible", "on the fringe of", "extremely". Ultrarelativistic means ,extremely relativistic, as it was explained to you before.

 

No: For tachyons v>c the SR model of energies predicts imaginary values of energy as (1-v^2/c^2) is negative

 

No. Energy is real because the Hamiltonian is the generator of time translations. The imaginary values for the time-dilation factor are compensated by an imaginary factor in the mass term.

 

Very Interesting . I dont know. I would be very glad if you could give me some insights or references about this internal inconsistence.

 

Virtually any textbook on QFT explains why Dirac original theory is inconsistent and limited. For instance, his negative energy Sea model cannot be applied to other particles (Dirac just ignored this problem when he was asked about this aspect) and for electrons you need to assume that the infinite charge and energy are unobservable via nonsensical manipulations such as (Q +∞) - ∞ = Q, for example.

 

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.

 

The decision is based in analysis. As stated before, Dirac initially believed that the hole in his theory was a proton. This historical remark and the fact that his original theory is abandoned (read again the Nobel laureate quote "[...] is now best regarded as a historical curiosity") reveal how lucky Dirac was.

Edited August 6, 2012 by juanrga

[perspectiva8]

hello ajb. Thank you very much for your interest and analysis.

 

So, at the nuclear level you need some mechanism or situation that could stabilise tachyons. This I think would be the biggest objection to your idea as it stands.

 

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.

[juanrga]

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.

 

You are not giving any stabilization mechanism and the last part of your statement is not "very speculative" but incorrect.

Edited August 6, 2012 by juanrga

[ajb]

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.

 

 

You might be interested in R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 023531 (arXiv:1110.2015v4 [hep-th]). They claim that tachyons can be stable in an expanding and rotating Universe. So it may be possible that some rotation of the nucleus could be used to stabilise tachyonic quarks.

 

You would have to see if any ideas here could be applied to quarks. That said, the standard model works well and QCD looks to be the best model of nucleons.

[juanrga]

You might be interested in R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 023531 (arXiv:1110.2015v4 [hep-th]). They claim that tachyons can be stable in an expanding and rotating Universe. So it may be possible that some rotation of the nucleus could be used to stabilise tachyonic quarks.

 

You would have to see if any ideas here could be applied to quarks. That said, the standard model works well and QCD looks to be the best model of nucleons.

 

Even if we assume that their stabilisation of tachyons is valid, it applies to an expanding and rotating Universe, but not inside a nucleus (where spacetime can be taken as Minkowskian).

 

It is also relevant that their claims about supposed superluminical neutrinos (OPERA) was settled recently by demonstration that neutrinos are not tachyons (e.g. ICARUS) and, subsequently, by OPERA report claiming that it was a hardware problem and that substitution eliminated the anomalous results.

Edited August 6, 2012 by juanrga

[ajb]

Even if we assume that their stabilisation of tachyons is valid, it applies to an expanding and rotating Universe, but not inside a nucleus (where spacetime can be taken as Minkowskian).

 

The question is could one use another classical background field in tachyon stability?

 

I should say that I have no reason to thing that tachyonic quarks are a good idea, but it could be interesting to push this idea to the limit.

[perspectiva8]

Even if we assume that their stabilisation of tachyons is valid, it applies to an expanding and rotating Universe, but not inside a nucleus (where spacetime can be taken as Minkowskian).

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.

 

 

 

It he is also relevant that their claims about supposed superluminical neutrinos (OPERA) was settled recently by demonstration that neutrinos are not tachyons (e.g. ICARUS) and, subsequently, by OPERA report claiming that it was a hardware problem and that substitution eliminated the anomalous results.

 

Those hypotesized superluminical neutrinos were not (externally) rotating.

I agree that rotation is an essential component of any sensible tachyonic model of (detectable) particles.

 

You might be interested in R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 023531 (arXiv:1110.2015v4 [hep-th]). They claim that tachyons can be stable in an expanding and rotating Universe. So it may be possible that some rotation of the nucleus could be used to stabilise tachyonic quarks.

 

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

[juanrga]

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.

 

All the experiments that test matter at small scales are compatible with a Minkowskian spacetime and both QFT and the Standard Model are built on such spacetime.

 

One would not mix quantum particles with black holes; the black hole mode is an approximation that arises when one ignores the higher order graviton corrections to geometrodynamics.

Edited August 7, 2012 by juanrga