Re: Oh my God!

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:33:39 +0000, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:

On Fri, 27 Sep 2024 14:19:35 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
>

Why not focus on where Hachel is WRONG, rather than merely "sloppy"?
>
He was using the so-called "gap" in the traveler's simultaneity lines
to "prove" that wiki got it wrong.  Sort of like what YOU did last
year when you falsely dissed my paper on tachyons.  Remember?

>
LOTS of people dissed your paper from different standpoints, not
just me.

The only other persons that I'm aware of was (1) dono, and his
assertions were clearly false, too, and (2) Athel, who criticized
where the paper was published and who wrote it rather than on the
content of the paper.

Like too many others, you seem unable to comprehend legitimate
criticism of your pet notions to which you have devoted years of

your life.
Pot, kettle, black Prok.
Your two criticisms were false.  In the first one you claimed
u > c^2/v cannot mean that a tachyon becomes undetectable because
all particles must be observable in a frame.
The answer to your criticism:
Of course, an observer must use instruments to observe particles,
so a method of observing particles which have u > c^2/v was
described in the very paper that you were criticizing:
DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101.
Your second criticism was that that imaginary mass means that
tachyons have imaginary energy and momentum.
This, of course, is also false.  Discerning physicists know that
imaginary mass of tachyons was hypothesized to counter an imaginary
sqrt(1 - u^2/c^2) in the denominator of equations for energy and
momentum when u > c.  This was the BASIC proposal by Bilaniuk et al
(19620 which allowed tachyon energy and momentum to be real.
As for dono asserting that "effective mass" measured in beta decay
experiments wasn't the "true" mass of neutrinos, this is basically
correct, but it's an insignificant difference.  He was quite
confused about how the neutrino eigenvalues correspond to the
neutrino flavors and the mechanics of the measurement of m_eff^2.
He had some other wild assertions, but they were nonsense.  In
any case, I know of no legitimate criticisms.
SO these are the only "criticisms" of DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101
(other than Athel's which was, basically, a type of attack on the
messenger rather than the message).
So if you are aware of any other criticisms, I would really like to
know about them.  The only type of criticism that is possible, IMHO,
is that it's classical physics rather than quantum physics.
I believe that QFT has a long way to go to be able to deal properly
with tachyons.  A recent paper has come the closest to doing this:
"Covariant quantum field theory of tachyons" Phys. Rev. D, 110,
015006, (2024). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.015006.
arXiv:2308.00450v2.
They have a rather extensive history of previous attempts at
quantization of tachyons and why they failed.