/sci/ - Science & Math

You're an idiot.

>hypothetical
>evidence

Pick one. The math >implies that they should exist, but then our models of reality =/= reality.

no evidence at the moment.

>>2641419
your a retard

>>2641425
>your

TROLLING IS A ART

>If some form of engine which could use them was made, it may be possible to travel faster than light.

lolwuat

>travel faster than light.

Dude, no. Moving a physical object with mass to faster than light speed is impossible.

>>2641429
it's impossible to accelerate up to and beyond the speed of light

>>2641411 Tachyons are hypothetical
>>...
>>Is there any evidence to support or disprove their existence?
Dude, learn what hypothetical means. If there was evidence to support or disprove Tachyons they wouldn't be hypothetical.

Tachyons (if they exist) are incapable of interacting with any other form of matter and energy. This means we can't test for them, let alone use them for anything like space travel.

tachyons in current theory do not transmit information
so even if they exist they would not prove the existence of FTL travel or communications

>>2641427
>A ART

TROLLING IS A ART

>>2641466
NO, ITS AN SCIENCE. ALSO YOUR AN FAG

>>2641442
>>2641448
There's nothing in physics that cannot be tested. Please visit a philosophy of science course.

>>2641487

Propose a test to prove or disprove the existence of tachyons.

>>2641487
There shouldn't be, but there are. The laws of physics do place some limits on what we can test. Copenhagen vs Multiple-World and String Theory are the classic examples.

>>2641489
I don't know one. But then, I didn't invent Tachyons.

>>2641493
Yep, that's why those claims aren't physics. The thoughs behind them might be motivated by physical things, but everything beyond that is nothing but, well, something like metaphysics.

>>2641494

Nor does anyone else. Such a test is simply inconceivable.

>>2641497

I see your problem. You've mistaken science for religion. Don't worry, it's a common mistake and one easily rectified: The key difference is that religion deals in certainty while science is all about the doubts. The claim that a theory mustn't predict that some things are impossible to know is a religious one, not a scientific one. In fact, the impossibility of knowledge is one of the central ideas science inherited from philosophy via the cynics and empiricists.

>>2641505
... so you don't know about falsifiability. Bravo. Keep going.
(And in addition, you've misunderstood my post.)

>>2641497
It's called HYPOTHETICAL physics. This word is very important. Its what we call something which has not been empirically tested. Based on our present understanding of physics it is impossible to test certain concepts. However it is incorrect to say they will never be tested because this asserts our present understanding of physics is absolute truth.

>>2641487
>Ignoring string theory

>>2641512 Based on our present understanding of physics it is impossible to test certain concepts.
"There are many worlds" as a hypothetical claim is nothing but words. There is no theory that suggests it, and there is no experiment that suggests the need for a theory. It's the same like talking about the invisible rosa unicorn.

>>2641511
>> I've just read Popper. Now I'm qualified to decide if things which I don't understand qualify as science. Please rape my face.

>>2641525 ad hominem
You win.

>>2641523
"many worlds" is a proposed model to explain findings in QED, not a theory or hypothesis. Models don't have to be true, merely useful.

>>2641523 there is no experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

>>2641526
pointing out the other person uses a fallacy doesn't mean you're right

and yes, I appreciate the irony that I'm only pointing out that you're using a fallacy

god i don't want this to turn into a shity ftl thread...

okay listen, no object can move through space faster then light, achieving ftl speed is only possible on a relative scale.

the tachyon may travel faster then light simply on a relativistic scale or it may move faster then light in normal space, we don't know and we can't know, it a theoretical particle.

knowing what will happen is if a theoretical particle was found is impossible beacuse we don't even know how it works.

we can't even guess, we don't understand it.

>>2641543
Except that tacyhons are allowable given the current laws of physics.
Things can't move at the speed of light but if they have an initial velocity higher than c there is nothing to prevent them from existing

>>2641554

yes but again, we don't know enough about them to fucking use them for anything.
they are theoretical and beacuse they should move faster then light we would probably never be able to detect them.
so how are we ever supposed to use that knowledge for anything?
it's theocratic and most probably always be.

>>2641554

All you're saying is, the math doesn't rule them out. That doesn't mean they're real, nor does it mean we can ever detect them (our current understanding in fact claims we cannot). Models are always best-guess approximations to reality, they never explain all things which are possible and nor do they ever exclude all things which are impossible.

>>2641572
They should emit radiation when they travel faster than light. That would mean, however, that they would have to emit radiation all the time, since they can't go slower than light. Furthermore, they should get faster and faster as they loose more energy. It's also possible that they will create gravity waves that can be detected.
/speculating

>>2641591

that's interesting i didn't know that but how will we detect that radiation?
the universe is full of radiation, we have the background radiation of the big bang, the radiation from the sun etc... etc...

i heard people tried to detect dark matter by borrowing under the earth and they still got to much background interference.

also why should it cause a gravity wave?
i thought gravity is theorized to be caused by the Higgs boson particle?
how is it related to the tachyon?

>>2641607
Well, as I understand them they are related.
The radiation would be easy enough to detect. It's plain old photons. Gravitational waves are a little harder. Gravitational waves are essentially ripples in spacetime. Some people have argued that it should be possible to detect the existence of tachyon over large distances in this way.

see
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02722230

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian_principle

If it can exist, it does

>>2641679
That only works in the many-worlds interpretation of QM
and only in one of the infinitely possible universes

>>2641720
BZZZZZZT. It's one of the main criticism of heim theory

>>2641720
It may be, then, that the appearance of parasitic gaps in form of matter and energy inaccessible to ordinary extraction is to be regarded as the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol.

This suggests that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds suffices to account for problems of Tachyons and morphological analysis.

On our assumptions, relational information does not affect the structure of a parasitic gap construction.

Analogously, the earlier discussion of deviance is necessary to impose an interpretation on an abstract underlying order.

Clearly, a case of form of matter and energy of a different sort, raises serious doubts about a corpus of utterance tokens upon which conformity has been defined by the paired hypothetical subatomic particles.

>>2641768 this anon speaks some interesting science.

If you read it, you'll find out what I'm talking about.

>>2641736
hm... I concede

then the reverse is also true, if it does not exist, there must be some reason, some rule against it existing, no?

>>2641883

Not necessarily. My twin brother doesn't exist, but there is no law of nature that makes his existence a priori impossible.

>>2641883
Hey faggot, LRN2SCIENCE..
We have already seen that most of the methodological work in modern linguistics may remedy and, at the same time, eliminate a stipulation to place the constructions into these various categories. A consequence of the approach just outlined is that a subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds suffices to account for problems of phonemic and morphological analysis. Conversely, any associated supporting element is to be regarded as a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. Analogously, the systematic use of complex symbols does not readily tolerate an important distinction in language use. I suggested that these results would follow from the assumption that this analysis of a formative as a pair of sets of features is not to be considered in determining irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.

My science is just a bit stronger than your science.
/thread

>>2641894
Doesn't this only apply to interacting particles?

If it is valid on a macro scale, then I don't see how there could not be another you somewhere, or some rule of nature that prevents it that we don't know of.

>>2641411

It doesn't matter how hard you want to travel faster than light, it wont come true. At least not with a "Tachyon engine".

>Implying that if you draw energy from a particle that travel faster than light you will be able to move at the same speed as it.

For the record, im implying you are an idiot

>>2641433
it is possible

>>2642120
it is not impossible for an object to exist which always moves faster than light