Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

Le 05/04/2024 à 04:09, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 04/04/2024 à 16:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
>
The notion of tachyon is an abstract, absurd notion.
It's like asking a Pythagorean to draw a perfectly round square.

 Actually, tachyons fit perfectly into SR's equation:
 E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), when v > c the denominator is imaginary,
so the energy is real if m is imaginary, too.  The general energy
equation is E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4, so if E^ > p^2c^, then m^2 is
positive (normal matter), if E^2 - p^2c^2 = 0, then we have luxons
(photons, gravitons) and if E^2 - p^2c^2 < 0 we have tachyons.
 Abstract?  Perhaps, although neutrinos seem to have tachyonic
properties.  Absurd?  Not so until proven wrong.

I have read your response carefully, and I notice that you do not agree with my thoughts, but I am not offended by it as long as my correspondent remains intelligent, honest and courageous in his actions.
As for the notion of tachyons, it is obviously an absurd notion, and I have often and clearly explained why.
It's not that we can't observe observable speeds faster than light by technological default, it's that it's physically absurd.
This is like trying to isolate dehydated water or draw a round square. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's absurd.
You pose the equation E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2), it is both correct and incorrect because it does not define v.
How do you write this equation?
If you write it E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - Vo^2/c^2) it is true.
But you will notice that I define here the observable, measurable speed of things.
If I speak in real speed, I have to ask the same equation, but written differently: E = mc^2.sqrt(1+Vr^2/c^2)
We then see that the energy of a body can only be positive, and that the trick, which uses a speed Vo supposedly greater than c (which is absurd), has no reason to be.
Then, we have the right not to believe me, and to invent tachyons and round squares.
But it won't get very far, I think, even with big oars.
It's the intellectual masturbation of bored physicists.
To say that we cannot exceed Vo because it is physically and theoretically absurd, and to write that Vo/c can have a value greater than 1, is ridiculous.
I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I don't follow them.
R.H.