Re: SpaceTime

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.