Re: SpaceTime

On 06/02/2024 05:31 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 06/02/2024 04:22 PM, gharnagel wrote:

Richard Hachel wrote:

>
Le 02/06/2024 à 19:48, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :

>
Actually, the speed of light is really, really slow compared
to the size of the universe.  This, of course, is a proof
that tachyons MUST exist.

>
 Tu dis n'importe quoi.
>
Les tachyons ne peuvent pas exister, car il s'agirait d'une absurdité
physique.

>
Not at all.  It's not up to us to say what can and cannot be.  It
is absurd to pretend that we are God.
>

 Vous confondez possibilité technologique et possibilité théorique.

>
I'm not confusing them, but confirming the existence of tachyons will
be difficult.  The most likely candidate to be tachyons are neutrinos,
but neutrinos are produced by nuclear interactions and, therefore, most
have energies much higher than their "proper" mass and are traveling at
speeds very close to that of light.  So close that we can't determine
whether they are moving slightly slower or faster than c.
>
So, yes, it becomes a technology problem, as you imply.  One
theoretical
problem for tachyons is the purported possibility that they cause
violations of causality.  This is not possible, however, as asserted in
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
>

 Comme si, un jour, on pouvait dessiner un carré rond, ou synthétiser
de
l'eau déshydratée.

>
Now your claiming impossibility on theoretical grounds, and doing by
analogy, not science.  That is not a valid science.
>

 Vous ne vous rendez pas compte que ce n'est pas une propriété
technologique qui meut les photons à cette vitesse, mais une propriété
de l'espace et du temps : l'anisochronie.

>
Bradyons, which make up us, cannot reach the speed of light, but you
forget that photons are born going the speed of light.  Tachyons are
born
going faster than light.  And they don't violate causality.
>

 Je reste stupéfait par la réflexion stupide des hommes qui mettent la
charrue avant les boeufs.

>
More invalid analogies.

>
Yeah, if you assume causality, then tachyons can't be fantastical,
they're only the result of something that is or did.
>
The neutrino physics are mostly about supersymmetry.
>
The, "superluminal", is sort of different than tachyonic,
like "apparently superluminal jet bundles", or "apparently
superluminal traveling stars", tachyons are particles flowing
out or flux, they're particles and kind of abstract, the
"superluminal" really intends to convey "moving at some
apparent multiple of c that's > 1".
>
>
If you assume lack of causality it's pretty easy to arrive at itself.
>
The usual idea is that causality is justified as it is least action
and sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
>
Then the stochastic interpretation doesn't say anything about actual
determinism or lack thereof, only that waves collapse so fast that
the best estimates of their coalescence as points is as according to
what are law(s) of large numbers as if they were random, because
there's no super-classical notion, like the pilot-wave, ghost-wave,
Bohm de-Broglie real-wave, and these what are super-classical and
extra-local notions, of continuum mechanics, then which of course
could totally simplify things.
>
>

The idea is sort of exactly that tachyons would be as in
the "spacial", as what Einstein terms the relations in
space as according to the everywhere-local governed
by SR, while massy bodies and also electrical and magnetic
fields live in the "spatial", where the usual idea is that
according to the usual nuclear model of atomic theory
that atoms are "mostly space".
(It's known these days that some of the heavier elements
have less space than what otherwise is predicted by the
usual old beautiful theory of electron orbitals and ions,
as with regards to bond angles, and as with regards to
van der Waal's and the ionic vis-a-vis old covalent bonds
and the crystallography, that molecular chemistry and
atomic chemistry are not necessarily the same thing,
because resonance theory is a higher-order form and
structure above wave theory.)
(The hydrophilicity and beta decay make for examples
that the theory of electron orbitals is a conceit
like the theory of particles is itself a conceit,
i.e., that there are "continuous" and "combined"
aspects to these "discrete" and "distinct", things.)
So, massy bodies in the spatial, mostly being space,
involve the "space-frames" and "frame-spaces", or
"Rahme-Raumen und Raume-Rahmen", that in statics,
space is full of a bunch of frames non-privileged, and,
in dynamics that a frame establishes a space that
moves through the space, carrying itself along.
That's a bit _beyond_ Relativity theory though,
while what Relativity theory does is stay out of
the way of that, given that Einstein's mature and
de facto final theory of Relativity has SR as "only local"
while everywhere as according to the "spacial", while,
GR is whatever as according to space governs frames
according to space, and also governs SR.
Einstein's mature and combined theory of Relativity,
is not just a grab-bag of Einstein's usual formulas and
contributions, rather, it's a product of the model philosopher,
Einstein, for the model physicist, Einstein.
Science writ large has never falsified time reversibility,
so "there are no closed time-like curves has never been
falsified, though charge and parity have been thrown out",
and thusly there are never violations of causality according
to a causality to a "the causality" that's modal and temporal.
Also neither tachyons nor the apparently superluminal
neither make for the a-causal, only the super-classical.
Just like neither does the stochastic interpretation
of quantum mechanics.
It's a continuum mechanics, or for Einstein "a differential-system".
Parameterized by "t", a "the time".