Talk:Tachyon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Plagiarism / Copyright Violation

The second paragraph from this article appears to be plagiarism and a copyright violation, taken from a paper titled "No Tachyons" by S. Kalimuthu, which can be found here. The following is the matching text from the paper:

The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld; however, it was George Sudarshan, Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk Vijay Deshpande and Gerald Feinberg (who originally coined the term in the 1960s) that advanced a theoretical framework for their study.

Does anyone have a reason to believe this is not the case?

-- JPMcGrath (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The author you quote was presumably just copying from wikipedia. The paper No Tachyons is dated from 10 April 2009. while this version of the wikipedia article from July 2006 says:

The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld, but it was George Sudarshan[1][2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term) in the 1960s who advanced a theoretical framework for their study.

The name "Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk" was added to the wikipedia paragraph on 7 February 2007, as you can see in this version. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Tachyons are in a Different 'Time Zone '

In being caught up in our inability to detect FTL particles, could there be other interpretations of time that play a part ? If other species here on Earth unknowingly 'approach' time differently in their existance, we need to understand that approach. Maybe, it just might be possible to create some type of particles recording device that would, indirectly, not detect them in normal time. Only if there were a way to take the information and break it down enough to 'something' akin to echos or trails. It just might acknowledge some sort of hereto unknown particles were traveling beyond our species ability to sense it or record it 'normally' - per our limitations to currently detect directly the particles in their space/time & unknown wavelengths.

Sorry for the layman language, but maybe it's time to find a way of turning theory into a sophistcated device that can be used in this investigation.

Just a layman's mind turning over.PFSLAKES1 (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

I had to read over this a few times to understand precisely what you meant, not that it's poorly articulated, just that the idea was so original. Essentially my response is thus: If tachyon's exist they are governed by the same rules as all other matter in the universe since their existence is derived from those equations. The fact that we haven't discovered them yet is simply a matter of the particle-detectors we're using.

The manner in which a tachyon interacts with sub-luminous matter is a difficult subject and currently I can think of two specific theories governing that interaction, both of which have exceptionally weak interactions and wouldn't be discernible from background noise with the current resolution of the instruments used to track the interactions. Looking for Tachyons would require highly specialized devices with resolutions much higher than those currently available, which is why no large-scale experiments have been devised yet.

I hope this helps clarify, at least a little bit.

DacodaNelson (talk) 23:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New Age Technobabble

The last section regarding Tachyon Healing should be deleted on the grounds of being nonsense. Andrewhayes (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Andrewhayes

I agree. How did such garbage manage to get into the article in the first place? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it doesn't belong here, or anywhere for what matters.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see wikipedia's policy on fringe theories. Hypnosifl (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I Really Hate Stuff Like that. BTW, How's the Video at the top. I re-inserted it last year, and nothing was said 99.49.192.223 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

FTL? WTF.

I don't know what the status quo is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure that implicitly introducing acronyms of terminology is not it. 74.14.134.82 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's a very common acronym in discussions of faster-than-light travel, see this search of google books for example. Hypnosifl (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. But that does not mean that the acronym should not be properly introduced before it is used. I fixed this in the article. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 02:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that frequent acronyms should be avoided, but "FTL" is one of the more common ones in this field; it is akin to SETI and LASER. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 02:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I looked here first because I was about to remove the abbreviation from the article. Still, I think the usage in this article is unusual in one respect: Glancing at the Google books link above, "FTL" is used as an adjective but rarely as an adverb. For example, concerning "FTL information transmission" and "moving FTL", the latter appears to be nonstandard usage. Would people agree with changing this? Maghnus (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed it because I probably won't remember to come back and check later. If anyone feels strongly that the article should use this convention, feel free to revert. Maghnus (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tachyonization

Hi. I'm trying to find information about "Tachyonization", and was hoping there may be reference to it in this article, but it appears not. Would anyone know if anything about Tachyonization is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia please? --Rebroad (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that it means transforming normal matter into tachyons. Useful in sci-fi, probably not got any real theoretical basis. M0ffx (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Neutrino tachyon

There's some research on the possibility neutrinos are tachyons, like this theoretical paper: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/9807324 , cited by some later experimental work suggesting it may be correct. I'm not sure what the current opinion on this is. M0ffx (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tachyons in six-dimensional special relativity

I today put external links to two researchers and myself which all three independently have shown the existence of generalised LT, valid for superlight velocity using real transformation if space-time is extended to six dimensions , three space and three time dimensions. Dr Cole have published extensively on this see his homepage DrEABCole mainly in Il Nuovo Cimento and among else from this theory predicted dark mater which is very interesting as many cosmologist say dark matter is needed for the theory of Big Bang to work. Also Dr Pavsic have publised in physicla journal se his hompage DrMPAvsic. I am a former doctoral student in theoretical physics and have a B.Sc. in mathematics and theoretical physics. I have not published in english journals but in books and psychiatric journal in Swedish. Headbom deleated the text with the links but I put it back and "talk" to him. I hope for scientific arguments after due study of published papers rather than censorship — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpilotti (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Tachyon a Mathematical Residue

I can't think of the word I really mean instead of residue.

This is the first time I've read about tachyons, but have pursued some study of Einstein, relativity, and such as an amateur.

Is it fair to say that a tachyon (described in the particle) is just a consequence of the mathematics of the theory of relativity? I mean, it is hypothesized because the mathematics allow for the possibility of imaginary time (i), and hence, using the same equations that are used to describe slower than light particles like, I don't know, photons, when solved for real time, allow a hypothetical solution for faster than light particles (tachyons) when solved for imaginary time?

If so, it would be helpful, I think, to add something more to the article to mention this point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhkramer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are exactly correct. In contemporary physics, "tachyon" is used in the sense of an instability in a quantum field (as is briefly described in the article), not to mean an actual propagating particle with imaginary mass or faster-than-light speed. The concept which the term originally described is now commonly understood as a mathematical artifact in relativistic kinematics, as you suspect. However, the term does still have some traction from its older usage. Maybe I should rearrange some parts of the article to emphasise the modern usage, while still including the older form, which is probably better known in to most Wikipedia users. The modern usage is certainly related to the older usage, and that could be explained better. The rough explanation could be something like this, with cleaned-up language: In quantum field theory, particles are the small excitations around some background state (usually called the vacuum state). There exist models which have both unstable states (like a rigid-rod pendulum balanced at its top point) and stable states (like the pendulum at its bottom point). Examination of the small excitations around the unstable point using the same mathematical tools that used to derive the particle spectrum around a stable point usually results in a spectrum of imaginary mass particles, that is tachyons. In the pendulum analogy, the oscillation frequency around the top point turns out to be an imaginary number instead of a real number. That doesn't mean the pendulum oscillates into "imaginary time", it means that what you tried to write down as small oscillations actually runs away from top point instead of oscillating around it. Similarly, a state of a quantum field model which exhibits tachyons in it's spectrum is understood as an unstable state of the model. Ok, none of that is original research on my part, but it might be tough finding a suitable reference. Maybe one of the newer QFT textbooks would contain similar statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spatrick99 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Similarities to sonic boom

The diagramatic imagery is reminiscent of an object when it breaks the speed of sound — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.71.182 (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Info box - bluish? reddish?

The two objects referred to in the box that shows what an observer would see of a superluminal object describes the red and blue objects as 'reddish' and 'bluish'. Is there a reason for not just calling them 'red' and 'blue'? I haven't edited it myself as I'm not a physics grad and there may well be a good reason for it for all I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.27.244 (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Animation

The animation in the first image is very annoying. I suggest buttons "pause" and "play". –Miha 20:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.32.254 (talk)

Tachyons what are they?

I am just a interested layman, so this is probably glaringly stupid but could tachyons be just pure energy which only gain a mass after reaching and exceeding the speed of light, thus not violating Einstein. And would this not explain how faster-than-light inflation was possible in the first instants after the Big Bang. If this is naive, so be it. CarbonMike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.86.193 (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Faster than light inflation was able to not violate relativity because it was actually space that was expanding faster than light, not the matter in the space. The matter in the space did not move. Yankeesrule3 (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

neutrino propagation

In the introduction it states "Recently, time of flight measurements from the CERN-OPERA collaboration have indicated that muon-neutrinos may exceed the speed of light". However from neutrino oscillation it is known that neutrinos mass eigenstate is different to their flavour eigenstate. So does it make sense to talk about muon-neutrios travelling faster than light when they propagate via the mass terms so a muon-neutrino is made up of m1 m2 and m3, as are electron and tau neutrinos. It surely only makes sense to say m1 or m2 or m3 travel faster than light rather than muon-neutrino. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.217.134 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm... didn't they clock neutrinos traveling faster than the speed of light? 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See OPERA neutrino anomaly. JRSpriggs (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Complex mass

If there is theoretical work being done on the possibility of subatomic particles with strictly complex mass(non imaginary, and nonreal), I would appreciate very much reading about it in this or in a related article.Thanks, 24.7.28.186 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Location of two sentences in the lede

I'm creating this section as a place to discuss the best location of two sentences in the lede: Today, "tachyon" often[1][3] refers to imaginary mass fields rather than to faster than light particles. Such fields have come to play an important role in modern physics.

These two sentences contain the most important information in the article, apart from those that state that FTL particles can send info FTL and that most physicists don't think they exist. Much of the article, and several of the quotes in the sources, don't make much sense without it. Approximately 1/3 of the material in the body of the article is directly related to imaginary mass.

No one has disputed any of that, so it's just a question of where the sentences should go. Because of the importance both to the article and the topic, I think they should go in the first paragraph. Waleswatcher (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The article about the particle, i.e. the hypothetical FTL particle which is the common usage for the word 'tachyon'. Here is the discussion where this was thrashed out and resolved. It makes sense to note that the word has other meanings but as part of the discussion of the history/derivation of the term. It is not part of the definition of the topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This is not about whether the sentences in question should be in the article, that has already been resolved in favor (after prolonged opposition from User_talk:JohnBlackburne, I might add). It is about where in the lede they should go - the end of the first paragraph, or somewhere in the second. As I pointed out, those sentences are directly relevant to at least 1/3 of the material in the body, as well as reference [1], as well as all the most important physics. Therefore, they should come in the first paragraph. That serves to alert the reader to the most important aspects of tachyons. Waleswatcher (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

he said It makes sense to note that the word has other meanings but as part of the discussion of the history/derivation of the term. Why do you deliberately misunderstand people Bhny (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Please note that three editors have reverted you now, so the consensus is for it to be in the second paragraph. As for your argument that is not a valid reason. The whole lead is meant to summarise the article, not the first paragraph. If the article consists of two to four main sections it's normal to summarise them in different paragraphs, not try and cram them into the first one. In this case the other use of "tachyon" fits most naturally in the second paragraph where the history term is discussed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I've made a new edit in an attempt to find a compromise. The sentences at issue remain where you seem to want them (in the 2nd paragraph), but I've split the material on etymology into a new 3rd paragraph. Waleswatcher (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You are right there's no guideline (that I know) that explicitly says e.g. "that sentence should go there". The most relevant guideline is probably WP:LEDE which says the lead should summarise the article. It does not say the first paragraph should do so, so there is no guideline that supports your version.

But it's not just a matter of personal preference. It's a matter of good, clear writing and presentation, which in this case means using paragraphs to group related ideas so the whole lead reads better, especially to readers unfamiliar with the topic. It's a matter of judgement what works best but you are alone in thinking the lead is improved by including that sentence in the first paragraph. All other editors who've looked at it recently think it more logically follows from the second paragraph.

One guideline though that should be noted is that the lead section should have no more than four paragraphs, per WP:LEDE. Adding another paragraph simply makes things worse, and as you just tried again breaks the logical order of the section.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That paragraph doesn't sit well in the lead. If I were the only editor here, I would either move it to later on in the article. Or I would write in the lead a brief explanation for the statements in the opening sentences, i.e. that tachyons are not possible. So, you can think of writing that tachyons would have to have an imaginary mass, and then in a field theoretic description, what you get is that the potential energy is not a minimum when the fields are zero, rather it is a maximum there, the minimum is somewhere else, and if you expand around that point, you'll get an ordinary positive mass term (which is the coefficient of the field squared). A simple sketch of the potential energy can illustrate this, including the instability of tachyons; if you are at the maximum, you are going to roll down to the minimum. :) . Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with you regarding your "brief explanation" proposal. Unfortunately there is a group of aggressive reverters here that will barely tolerate any discussion of imaginary mass fields in this article. Their position at its root seems to be that this article should only refer to FTL particles, and not mention imaginary mass. Of course that's almost impossible, since the two are intimately connected by both physics and terminology, and that resistance eventually got overcome (after an enormous amount of effort and time) resulting in the current article. But it still lingers on in this current debate, making it very difficult to improve the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussions here, just came here after a notice on Wikiproject physics was posted. I agree that one has to link the QFT picture of "imaginary mass fields" more firmly to the classical tachyon (the FTL particle). Regardless of whether it is mentioned in the lede or not, I think one should explain this to the reader, even if it is done in a dumbed down way. There are certainly plenty of reliable sources one can cite... Count Iblis (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to explain that link is to say that imaginary mass fields are referred to as tachyons largely for two reasons: (1) kinematically FTL particles would have imaginary mass (explained in the body), and hence (2) Feinberg proposed an imaginary mass field model for FTL particles that, while it failed to go FTL, had important implications for all sorts of other things. Casual readers won't understand (1), but (2) needs to be stated clearly for several reasons: there is a very high likelihood of semantic confusion (many editors of this article fell victim to it, for example), and imaginary mass fields have become ubiquitous in modern high energy physics and are much more important than FTL particles themselves. Waleswatcher (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

But that's a different topic. This article is about the FTL particle. We has this debate a short time ago on this page, and it was resolved that the common meaning of "Tachyon" is the FTL particle. It does not matter if another topic is more important (in modern high energy physics or wherever), it is another topic. And as such it has its own article. It is already linked prominently in the hatnote, it should not be mixed into the definition of the particle confusing the two.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not what was decided, and no, it's not really another topic. Not to mention the fact that a good fraction of the current article is about imaginary mass, including the two sentences you are disputing the position (but not existence or content) of. So as is often the case, your position is incoherent - it's just "no no no", with no logic or reason attached. Waleswatcher (talk)

Cherenkov radiation

Comment - Would be very interested in seeing a mathematical discussion of the claims made in the section labeled "Cherenkov radiation", particulary the statement "A charged tachyon traveling in a vacuum therefore undergoes a constant proper time acceleration". Cherenkov radiation is associated with the coherent polarization of a medium by a particle traveling faster than the speed of light in that medium. Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum is not well defined. Granted if you take the conventional current density for a point particle and extended it to v>c in a vacuum, and solve Maxwell's equations, the particle will radiate and accelerate to an infinite speed. Is this what is being refered to here? What current-density was used to make this calculation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.34.19 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical and theoretical

I've undone a change from "hypothetical" to "theoretical" because I think it conveys the wrong nuance. A "theoretical particle" suggests to me a particle that theory predicts ought to exist but hasn't been discovered, but tachyons are widely suspected not to exist. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

E C George Sudarshan

Tachyons were first proposed by EC George Sudarshan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.100.165 (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments by IP1 38.99.34.19

Comment - Would be very interested in seeing a mathematical discussion of the claims made in the section labeled "Cherenkov radiation", particulary the statement "A charged tachyon traveling in a vacuum therefore undergoes a constant proper time acceleration". Cherenkov radiation is associated with the coherent polarization of a medium by a particle traveling faster than the speed of light in that medium. Cherenkov radiation in a vacuum is not well defined. Granted if you take the conventional current density for a point particle and extended it to v>c in a vacuum, and solve Maxwell's equations, the particle will radiate and accelerate to an infinite speed. Is this what is being refered to here? What current-density was used to make this calculation? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.34.19 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Massive particle

I think that tachyon should be classified as a massive particle, because the definition of massive particle includes tachyons. Petr Matas 11:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I see no source for that definition. Shouldn't tardyon simply be moved to massive particle (per WP:COMMONNAME)?TR 13:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this discussion is about science or science fiction. In science, or at least in particle/high energy physics, "tachyon" almost always refers to tachyonic fields, which have imaginary mass but do not have particle-like excitations (so they are certainly not "massive particles"). If it's about science fiction, anything goes but I think it's confusing to refer to faster-than-light particles - that in some ill-defined sense have imaginary mass - as "massive", as if they were just like real, ordinary particles with real mass. As for the massive particle article, it should probably be deleted or just redirect to particle. Waleswatcher (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think we have previously established that this article is (and should be) about tachyonic particles not tachyonic fields. Contrary to your assertion, those have nothing to do with science fiction, but occasionally pop up in scientific discourse. (For example, surrounding the bogus OPERA results a few years back) TR 16:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have "established" no such thing. The fact that putative faster than light particles occasionally pop up in scientific discourse does not change the fact that they are relevant to science fiction, nor is it contrary to any assertion I made just now or previously. Scientists do discuss faster than light propagation, but the fields that do that are called "ghosts", not tachyons. The only time I've seen scientists refer to FTL particles as tachyons are either when they are speaking to the public (and hence using the parlance of popular fiction), or when they are not specialists in this area and erroneously believe that fields with imaginary mass propagate superluminally. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

In any case you are derailing this discussion. It appears we agree that referring to the putative FTL particles that are currently discussed in this article as "massive" is not a good idea. Is that correct? Waleswatcher (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I don't think that's helpful. (Same thing goes for the massive particle article, which seems completely useless.)TR 18:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• I agree, tachyon should not be called massive. The bradyon – luxon – tachyon classification, partially covered in massive particle, should be kept, but moved elsewhere. Petr Matas 08:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

tachyons and neutrinos

The lead had the following: "It is important to note that many physicists do infer a possible link between the properties of neutrinos and theoretical tachyons." There was a reference to an article by Feinberg in the Encyclopedia Americana. I've deleted the sentence, which reads to me as something written by someone with a faulty or shallow understanding of the subject. Historically, there was some speculation that neutrinos might actually be tachyons, and experiments to try to determine whether or not they were. However, that was all a long time ago, and I don't think there are any noteworthy theories today that say there is any "link between the properties" of neutrinos and tachyons -- whatever that vague statement might be. If anyone has access to the Encyclopedia Americana, it would be nice to know if there was any relevant text there.--75.83.65.81 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a line in the introduction about reevaluating the electron neutrino to have imaginary mass. The paper referenced: "Six observations consistent with the electron neutrino being a tachyon with mass: m^2_νe=−0.11±0.016eV^2 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.2804) is not a notable addition to this article and has not gained the attention of the physics community. It is an inapproriate addition to the introduction which should be limited to well established information about the concept of tachyons. I am the second editor to remove the line. Before a user reverts this, this concern should be addressed. 65.129.236.210 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Mass

If they do exist, tachyons travel faster than the speed of light, which gives way that tachyons can actually time-travel. However, the mass must be the electrons weight divided by ? and at least 1 electron weight less than a photon, proving that photons have way undetectable mass, but still have mass.

thank you,polpoluu~ 00:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe they have a negative imaginary mass. The Great Leon (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I'm clear as to why the mass has to be imaginary. If we can do funny things to physics such as assuming mass to be imaginary, why can't the total energy of the particle be imaginary and the mass real?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.249.187 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Illustration makes no sense

It would make sense if it depicted a particle, but sphere? Shapes change with the speed, and to suggest that something moving faster than light would be shaped as a perfect sphere is pretty baseless. 95.155.21.31 (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tachyons cause gravity!

We cannot see or hear everything. Tachyons cannot be "seen" as suggested in the current article graphics because they do not reflect photons. They can be detected as they pass or collide with solid matter. .....They cause gravitational force and in that way they can be detected........ That is then also proof of their existence! .......Tachyons are the missing masses and energy in the universe. ..... I am preparing a paper to the scientific world about this and how therefore all the remaining mysteries of science are solved.....

Source: Rudolf Rangutan Graspointner Theory since 1988

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.35.175 (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

tachyons+higgs=gravity The5thForce (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

tachyon particles are created by the symmetry breaking of light

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the symmetry breaking of light is itself observation, which is relevant to my previous post:

space-time dictated by the uncertainty principle generates the multiverse which is an "infinitely" evolving fractal feedback loop(every-thing is a re-source from the singularity) through the quanta of all our minds which are folds/symmetry-breaks of/in space-time. our minds are themselves tachyon particles simply because we can visualize potential future states before the light of that event occurs in reality, if you believe multiverse theory you can reasonably assume that future state manifests in a parallel universe even if not in your own, our mind is a fold of spacetime where the purely abstract mathematical truth of a wave meets reality in the form of consciousness. necessarily the mind is also a superposition or 'entangled' with the 'abstract' uncertainty|certainty of the 'real' past|future, always obeying the uncertainty principle of information. through the uncertainty principle your mind is semi-randomly phase transitioning/symmetry breaking a novel worldline through the multiverse, helping to generate infinite complexity. perfect randomness is itself perfect infinity.

The5thForce (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

please read: FyzixFighter, Im going to ask you to first dispute the content of my post so we can reach a consensus over whether it warrants being included on this talk page unimpeded, if you cannot offer a constructive dialogue I will request additional oversight from wiki administrators The5thForce (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have requested additional editor comments after user FyzixFighter has deemed my contribution 'off topic' or otherwise unworthy of this talk page which i strongly disagree with, please offer any relevant comments if you are an active editor of this article. The5thForce (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@The5thForce: please note that article talk pages are for discussions about the article, not about the subject. You can propose additions to, changes to and removals of content from the article, but you can not discuss the subject here. See wp:Talk page guidelines. - DVdm (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

this section is both: an attempt to have the article improved by discussing the subject, specifically 'the symmetry breaking of light is itself observation' as demonstrated by the double-slit experiment when combined with the copenhagen interpretation, im proposing this article should acknowledge that any observer is itself fundamentally both a tachyon particle and a creator of tachyon particles(procreation), if observation is the symmetry break of light and if mass and energy are equal- observation is also the symmetry break of all other forms of energy regardless of how spatially compact(massive) the energy appears relative(relativity) to the observer. The5thForce (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(Off-topic, copied to (User talk:The5thForce )

If you can produce wp:reliable sources (and in this case wp:secondary sources) for your suggestion, then please do so now. Otherwise whatever you say here is off-topic and will be treated as talk page abuse and disruption, or ultimately as vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

-207 references in total(i like reading, hopefully you do):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking#References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment#References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Notes_and_references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle#Notes

what i am saying is not off-topic and if you remove it i will request mediation and then arbitration with or without a request for disciplinary action on your account. The5thForce (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Do not forget to read wp:CIRCULAR and wp:SYNTH and wp:NOR. - DVdm (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

http://robotics.cs.tamu.edu/dshell/cs689/papers/anderson72more_is_different.pdf

Feynman, Lectures on Physics 3:Quantum Mechanics p.1-1 "There is one lucky break, however— electrons behave just like light.".

Feynman, Richard P.; Robert B. Leighton; Matthew Sands (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3. US: Addison-Wesley. pp. 1.1–1.8. ISBN 0201021188.

See: Davisson–Germer experiment "The diffraction of electrons by a crystal of nickel". BSTJ 7: 90–105. 1928.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/physicists-smash-record-for-wave-particle-duality-462c39db8e7b

Eibenberger, Sandra; et al. (2013). "Matter-wave interference with particles selected from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10000 amu". Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 15: 14696–14700. arXiv:1310.8343. Bibcode:2013PCCP...1514696E. doi:10.1039/C3CP51500A.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-4sJ_fgyZJEC&pg=PA2&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

---observation is the fundamental symmetry break necessitating that the observer is simultaneously a tachyon particle who both came from and creates other observers(other tachyonic particles), due to the uncertainty principle- an object moving faster than light fundamentally can only be reduced to a break in the symmetry of that light- the observation itself. The5thForce (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so propose a precise and concrete addition of content here, with the exact sources to support it, so the other contributors can verify the lot, and discuss whether it is wp:DUE here. But before you do, have a close look at wp:SYNTH. - DVdm (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is really 'Tachyon' something?

As 98% people say light is faster but 2% say Tachyon is faster + IS REALLY TACHYON THERE IN OUR UNIVERSE?

I

Is the 98% right or Is the 2% right? Asy113 (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Tachyon is faster by definition; the question is whether it exists or not. Wikipedia cannot answer that question, but see second sentence in the article. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:07, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tachyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071218162544/http://rd11.web.cern.ch/RD11/rkb/PH14pp/node26.html to http://rd11.web.cern.ch/RD11/rkb/PH14pp/node26.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/FTL.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge [in fiction] into [[1]]. I think it would be better if both of the topics are in the same article. 2405:201:600B:C08B:EDB5:452E:3C16:E517 (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I do agree with you that there should be a larger and more well-sourced section on tachyons in fiction on this page, but I personally would be against merging the two articles, as even though both articles are not yet up to par, tachyons in fiction is a significant and detailed enough subject that it does deserve its own article separate from the one on tachyons in general. Yitz (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Tachyons and Lev Yakovlevich Shtrum

In fact, the tachyon hypothesis was first suggested much earlier by Lev Yakovlevich Shtrum in 1923. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.10739 and references therein. Zurab Silagadze. 84.237.42.63 (talk) 12:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Does light can.

A tachyonic antitelephone is a hypothetical device in theoretical physics that could be used to send signals into one's own past........

    Q#So if this could  be real ,can light can be used to send signals to past¿How...... Saaroj Rawal (talk) 14:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

That is an incorrect and failed interpretation of the theory of relativity and shows the problem of interpreting the results of math blindly. Timetravel is also impossible by default because you cannot travel to something that does not exist yet/any more. If you read Einstein you would note that he does not speak of timetravel but of "in the eye of the beholder", as in, something travelling FTL might APPEAR to mess with time from the point of view of a watcher, but it does NOT actually do so. DW75 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The assumption that the past or future "does not exist yet/any more" is completely unfounded. This is what happens when physical scientists think they are qualified to speak on ontological questions without ever bothering to consult with the generations of philosophical work on the subject: you treat hypotheses like facts -_- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.222.175.18 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

17 and 28 GeV neutrinos were assumed to be tachyons

See Neutrino. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly? --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They were assumed to be, but it turned out to be an error. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tachyon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yitzilitt (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is dedicated as thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me get the article Joel S. Levine to the point where I felt comfortable giving it a GAN (which it just passed!), so I'm going to try and give back by working on other GANs for while, starting with this one :) Yitz (talk)

detailed review section

As I work I will try to fill in this section with specific feedback. Yitz (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A good article is—

(1) Well-written

Actual Criteria

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

criteria 1a is pretty much met in terms of minimum standards, in my opinion, although it certainly can be improved to be a bit more readable for the average reader. For criteria 1b, I edited the lead section significantly, so as to better follow MOS:LEAD, and I believe it now qualifies in that regard. Layout seems fine. Words to watch has a few words mentioned that are used in the article, but are used in the proper context, so shouldn't be a problem. The section on fiction doesn't really apply at all here, and finally, the section on lists doesn't present any problems here.

(2) Factually accurate and verifiable

Actual Criteria

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Criteria 2a and 2c is mostly followed, with the exception of the section Tachyon#In_fiction, which seems to present original research without citation. I find myself unable to verify 2b is followed, and may need to call in a second reviewer who is more knowledgeable on the topic to go through this.

(3) Broad in its coverage

Actual Criteria

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Criteria 3a and 3b seem to be mostly followed, although I would add significantly more to the section Tachyon#In_fiction, as there really isn't much to the section right now, and is likely to be of high interest. I am also unsure if all of the technical sections are necessary, or even if they're mainstream in the scientific community.

(4) Neutral

Actual Criteria

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4 is fully covered here, in my opinion, though it's possible there's some scientific bias I'm not aware of.

(5) Stable

Actual Criteria

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

As far as I am aware, this article is indeed stable

(6) Appropriately illustrated

Actual Criteria

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

6 is fully covered here.

Call for second opinion

I feel the need to bring on a second opinion at this point, due to my lack of technical knowledge which has prevented me from fully verifying this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzilitt (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yitzilitt, this is not a second opinion, but the use of arxiv sources makes me think this fails criterion 2b. Arxiv is sometimes reliable, but here, it is self-published research without evidence of peer review. Urve (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The use of arXiv sources is not a problem per se; the only two I found [2][3] are by recognized experts. I'm more worried about this one [4]: it is peer-reviewed, but published in a borderline journal, and is defending non-mainstream ideas. Also, the History section is problematic, it makes suspicious claims, and needs a secondary source to give an overview of what happened, as opposed to citing only the original proposals. I tagged it with a citation needed. Tercer (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion by Femke

Firstly, I would like to thank the IP editor and the original reviewer for tackling such an important article. Unfortunately, I do not believe it meets the GA criteria as it stands. Criterion two is not met at the time. Like the original reviewer indicated, the text in the fiction section is not reflected by the source. This is however not the only instance of a failure to meet the verification criterion. Further examples are:

• ‘’ Further investigation of the experiment showed that the results were indeed erroneous’’
• “This resulted in the necessity for the GSO projection.”
• “and are probably inconsistent quantum mechanically.”

Agreed that the fiction section can be expanded, but would lean towards saying that the article does mean the broadness criteria, the expansion is only necessary for the more demanding FA criteria.

Like the original reviewer, I do not have the expertise to save the article is or isn’t neutral (a BSc in physics isn’t quite enough). However, given the article is not meeting criterion 2b, I do feel confident saying it does not meet the GA criteria. This second opinion request has been open sufficiently long that it's unlikely an expert will show up still. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to close?

Yitzilitt, as you are the original reviewer, it is up to you to complete the review. Under the circumstances, and with FemkeMilene's second opinion noting that the article indeed does not meet the GA criteria as you noted originally (2b in the verifiability criteria), the article should almost certainly be failed (especially as the original nominator has not addressed the issue since you first raised it in mid-February). Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! Yitz (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Infographic meme

Regarding the one that makes it to Reddit and Stack Exchange and such, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Spacetime that has the tachyon vector situated on the axes of a single dimension (as it is a line) and multiple time dimensions.

Since imaginary time gets a mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, why doesn't it get a mention here? I'm in favour of including some of the various theories and citing them.

Since I'm not Steven Hawking, and the best I can do is copy-paste, I'll leave this here,

"It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"

- Stephen Hawking 49.183.10.84 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)