Re: The most ridiculous science mistake in history.

Richard Hachel wrote:

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

>
Richard Hachel wrote:

>
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.

I haven't heard a valid explanation.

It's not that we can't observe observable speeds faster than light by technological default, it's that it's physically absurd.

Why is it "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.

That's not even a valid comparison.

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.

"v" conventionally (since the Galilean transform was introduced) means the
speed of an inertial frame with respect to the "reference" frame, and this
carries over into SR.  That's why I use it, but it is somewhat incorrect for
tachyons because they may not have a reachable inertial frame.  So I usually
write E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2), then translate it to another inertial
frame moving at v wrst the reference frame.  I used v in this case because
it is common to do so in relativity discussions.

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.

Your method isn't the common way to write it.  Those conversant with relativity
understand v implicitly, but they do not understand Vo because v is the
observable speed of an object.  So you have invented your own term and conflated
it with v.

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)

Which makes no sense to those who understand SR:  They know it is wrong.

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.

I'm afraid your equation is incorrect.  I can demonstrate a derivation that
E = mc^2/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) with v as the velocity of a particle moving at
observable v wrst a reference inertial frame.  It results in a minus sign,
not a plus sign.

Then, we have the right not to believe me, and to invent tachyons and round squares.

For tachyons, E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1), where u > c and m is the absolute
value of the tachyon "invariant" mass.  The minus sign derives from the
correct SR equation for energy.

But it won't get very far, I think, even with big oars.
It's the intellectual masturbation of bored physicists.

Perhaps.

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.

Vo is a bastard expression, I'm afraid.

I let the mathematicians and physicists play that if they want, but I don't follow them.
>
R.H.

I'm afraid that YOU are the one that is playing.  You cannot show a derivation,
let alone a valid one, of your equation.  I can.