A discussion of 'Tachyons, the 4-momentum ...'

[gharnagel]

In DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, Figure 4 depicts a thought
experiment involving FTL communication. This figure is
attached to this post. We, the viewers, are at rest with
observers A and B.

At event E1, observer A, at x = 0, t = vL/c^2, sends an
infinitely-fast tachyon signal to observer B, who receives
it at x = L, t = vL/c^2. B immediately passes it to D, who
is moving at velocity v. D's clock reads t' = 0.

D is now going to send it to C. The question is, where is
C? Is C at x = 0 or is C at x = Lv^2/c^2? According to
us (the viewers), C is at x = Lv^2/c^2, but if we (the
viewers) switched frames so we're at rest with C and D,
(see Figure 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101). Now,
it appears that D can send a signal to c at t' = t = 0
(infinitely-fast).

But according to our (the viewers) present position in
Figure 5, A (at t = 0) could only send the original signal
to B, who would receive it at t = vL/c^2, or the loop
would not be completed (because of the relativity of
simultaneity).

Let's move back to Figure 4. So in order to complete
the loop, D must send the signal to where C is not (at
t = 0, x = 0), which flouts RoS. But at t = vL/c^2, C
is not adjacent to A, so no closed loop can be completed
in this scenario.

Comments, Prok?

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by gharnagel
In DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, Figure 4 depicts a thought
experiment involving FTL communication.  This figure is
attached to this post.  We, the viewers, are at rest with
observers A and B.
At event E1, observer A, at x = 0, t = vL/c^2, sends an
infinitely-fast tachyon signal to observer B, who receives
it at x = L, t = vL/c^2.  B immediately passes it to D, who

who is getting it before E1 happened.
Or isn't he, poor halfbrain?

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
In DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, Figure 4 depicts a thought
experiment involving FTL communication. This figure is
attached to this post. We, the viewers, are at rest with
observers A and B.
At event E1, observer A, at x = 0, t = vL/c^2, sends an
infinitely-fast tachyon signal to observer B, who receives
it at x = L, t = vL/c^2. B immediately passes it to D, who
is moving at velocity v. D's clock reads t' = 0.
D is now going to send it to C. The question is, where is
C? Is C at x = 0 or is C at x = Lv^2/c^2? According to
us (the viewers), C is at x = Lv^2/c^2, but if we (the
viewers) switched frames so we're at rest with C and D,
(see Figure 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101). Now,
it appears that D can send a signal to c at t' = t = 0
(infinitely-fast).
But according to our (the viewers) present position in
Figure 5, A (at t = 0) could only send the original signal
to B, who would receive it at t = vL/c^2, or the loop
would not be completed (because of the relativity of
simultaneity).
Let's move back to Figure 4. So in order to complete
the loop, D must send the signal to where C is not (at
t = 0, x = 0), which flouts RoS. But at t = vL/c^2, C
is not adjacent to A, so no closed loop can be completed
in this scenario.
Comments, Prok?

What must be understood in special relativity is that the photon IS
already a tachyon since it moves infinitely fast; since it IS an
instantaneous energy transaction in the hyperplane of simultaneity of the
receiver.
There is a lack of understanding of generalized RR that makes even the
biggest experts no longer understand anything about it and worse, probably
start laughing when they read interesting and decoding stuff like:
"photons go much faster than the speed of light". This seems FORCEFULLY
absurd to them.
They do not understand what Dr. Hachel says, which is in fact: "Photons
are instantaneous transactions in the hyperplane
of the receiver (which is the photon extractor from the source) but which
seems to move at c, in the hyperplane of the neutral observer placed at an
equal distance from the source and the receiver.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel
What must be understood in special relativity is that the photon IS
already a tachyon since it moves infinitely fast; since it IS an
instantaneous energy transaction in the hyperplane of simultaneity of
the receiver.

Monsieur Hachel, it pains me that I must disagree with you, for you
have conflated the frame of the photon (within which no red-blooded
human composed of tardyons can be at rest) with the frame in which
red-blooded humans CAN be at rest. Photons are generally-believed
to experience no time, hence what you assert is true - in THAT frame.

However, in the frames which we poor, slow tardyon slugs lounge in
comfort, time does indeed pass. Even we poor slugs measure the
speed of photons as 299796458 meters/second in vacuum, thus we are
painfully aware that light crawls along so slowly that true tachyons
(i.e., those particles that we poor humans would measure traveling
faster than those slow photons) MUST exist because the universe is
such a really, really absurdly BIG place.

I'm really, really sorry that you have deluded yourself.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
What must be understood in special relativity is that the photon IS
already a tachyon since it moves infinitely fast; since it IS an
instantaneous energy transaction in the hyperplane of simultaneity of
the receiver.

Monsieur Hachel, it pains me that I must disagree with you, for you
have conflated the frame of the photon (within which no red-blooded
human composed of tardyons can be at rest) with the frame in which
red-blooded humans CAN be at rest. Photons are generally-believed
to experience no time, hence what you assert is true - in THAT frame.
However, in the frames which we poor, slow tardyon slugs lounge in
comfort, time does indeed pass. Even we poor slugs measure the
speed of photons as 299796458 meters/second in vacuum, thus we are
painfully aware that light crawls along so slowly that true tachyons
(i.e., those particles that we poor humans would measure traveling
faster than those slow photons) MUST exist because the universe is
such a really, really absurdly BIG place.
I'm really, really sorry that you have deluded yourself.

Monsieur Harnagel,
I don't mind that you disagree with me, and I respect your way of
thinking.
Thank you for your post and the clarifications you give me.
But don't worry about me, I have too many decades of thinking behind me to
go back on what I said, and what I believe to be true.
You tell me, if I understand correctly, that in the laboratory frame of
reference, a certain amount of time passes between the emission of the
photon at A (in a tube for example) and its reception at B, on the other
side of the tube.
In short, that if time is zero for the photon itself (on the back of which
we have placed a heavy 120 kg clock that will measure zero time), it is
not the same for ALL points in the laboratory, and that all these points,
if AB is 3 meters then all will measure t=10 nanoseconds.
That's exactly what you're saying.
On this, I do not follow you, and I would like you to understand my
thinking, not so that I can brag, but because it is very important to
understand.
Each point of the laboratory, in Newtonian physics, and even in
Einsteinian physics, has the same hyperplane of present time,
the same hyperplane of supposed simultaneity.
However, this is no longer true in relativistic physics of the Hachel type
(that's me).
Everything will depend on the POSITION of the observer in the laboratory
frame of reference.
Thus the receiver who will collect the photon, will consider that the
transfer time is zero although being in the laboratory, whereas in the
hyperplane of the source, the transfer will take place in 20 real
nanoseconds.
It is only a "neutral", transversal observer, having placed a watch at A
and another at B, will measure t=10 ns.
Strangely, this evidence disorients men, who are not inclined to think of
things other than very superficially.
Yet it is pure logic, physics, mathematics and experimentation.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel
What must be understood in special relativity is that the
photon IS already a tachyon since it moves infinitely fast;
since it IS an instantaneous energy transaction in the
hyperplane of simultaneity of the receiver.

Monsieur Hachel, it pains me that I must disagree with you,
for you have conflated the frame of the photon (within which
no red-blooded human composed of tardyons can be at rest)
with the frame in which red-blooded humans CAN be at rest.
Photons are generally-believed to experience no time, hence
what you assert is true - in THAT frame.
However, in the frames which we poor, slow tardyon slugs lounge
in comfort, time does indeed pass. Even we poor slugs measure
the speed of photons as 299796458 meters/second in vacuum, thus
we are painfully aware that light crawls along so slowly that
true tachyons (i.e., those particles that we poor humans would
measure traveling faster than those slow photons) MUST exist
because the universe is such a really, really absurdly BIG place.
I'm really, really sorry that you have deluded yourself.

Monsieur Harnagel,
I don't mind that you disagree with me, and I respect your way of
thinking.
Thank you for your post and the clarifications you give me.
But don't worry about me, I have too many decades of thinking
behind me to go back on what I said, and what I believe to be
true.

Well, they say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. But I
am the refutation of that adage. Why can't you be, too?

Post by Richard Hachel
You tell me, if I understand correctly, that in the laboratory
frame of reference, a certain amount of time passes between the
emission of the photon at A (in a tube for example) and its
reception at B, on the other side of the tube.

Indeed it does, as literally millions of experiments confirm it.

Post by Richard Hachel
In short, that if time is zero for the photon itself (on the back
of which we have placed a heavy 120 kg clock that will measure
zero time), it is not the same for ALL points in the laboratory,
and that all these points, if AB is 3 meters then all will measure
t=10 nanoseconds.
That's exactly what you're saying.

Sadly, it is not what I am saying, and for two reasons. A clock is
composed of tardyons, particles which always travel slower than
the speed of light, so clocks can never read zero time on any trip
they may take. And second, photons are very, very small particles
so 120 kg of mass would cause their immediate destruction.

Post by Richard Hachel
On this, I do not follow you, and I would like you to understand
my thinking, not so that I can brag, but because it is very
important to understand.
Each point of the laboratory, in Newtonian physics, and even in
Einsteinian physics, has the same hyperplane of present time,
the same hyperplane of supposed simultaneity.
However, this is no longer true in relativistic physics of the
Hachel type (that's me).
Everything will depend on the POSITION of the observer in the
laboratory frame of reference.
Thus the receiver who will collect the photon, will consider that
the transfer time is zero although being in the laboratory, whereas
in the hyperplane of the source, the transfer will take place in
20 real nanoseconds.
It is only a "neutral", transversal observer, having placed a watch
at A and another at B, will measure t=10 ns.
Strangely, this evidence disorients men, who are not inclined to
think of things other than very superficially.
Yet it is pure logic, physics, mathematics and experimentation.
R.H.

Why would the receiver consider that the transfer time is zero?
How would it KNOW that the transfer time was zero?

We must assume that a 120 kg clock :-) is attached to the receiver,
which we can do because the receiver is not a photon. It's really
a stop watch, so it needs a signal to start it and a signal to stop
it. Receipt of the photon stops the clock, but it needs a signal
to start it.

You must be assuming that this signal comes from the instrument that
launches the photon, and this signal travels to the receiver at the
speed of light and would, therefore arrive at the same time as the
photon under measurement, n'est-ce pas?

Well, you can trust me because because I am an experimental physicist,
and we experimental physicists would not make such an unprofessional
mistake. We would set up the transmitter with a switch like the ones
we installed in the receiver to start and stop the timer in the
receiver.

Then we would locate the start switch halfway between the transmitter
and the receiver. When the start switch is closed, it sends a signal
to both transmitter and receiver switches which closes both receiver
and transmitter switches simultaneously. Thus the receiver timer
will measure the true time it takes the photon to travel.

If the good Doctor Hachel's assertion that photons took zero time
to travel, RADAR would not be able to measure the distance of
airplanes from airports and flight controllers would believe that
all planes in flight were actually right on top of the control
tower, which we know is not the case.

So I trust that the old dog has sufficient brain cells left to
process all of this information that is new to him.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
If the good Doctor Hachel's assertion that photons took zero time
to travel, RADAR would not be able to measure the distance of
airplanes from airports and flight controllers would believe that
all planes in flight were actually right on top of the control
tower, which we know is not the case.

I see that you also do not understand what I am saying.

That is a pity.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
If the good Doctor Hachel's assertion that photons took zero time
to travel, RADAR would not be able to measure the distance of
airplanes from airports and flight controllers would believe that
all planes in flight were actually right on top of the control
tower, which we know is not the case.

I see that you also do not understand what I am saying.
That is a pity.
R.H.

I DO understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is YOU that does
not understand what you are saying.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
If the good Doctor Hachel's assertion that photons took zero time
to travel, RADAR would not be able to measure the distance of
airplanes from airports and flight controllers would believe that
all planes in flight were actually right on top of the control
tower, which we know is not the case.

I see that you also do not understand what I am saying.
That is a pity.
R.H.

I DO understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is YOU that does
not understand what you are saying.

No. I am not Joe Biden.

R.H.

[gharnagel]

Post by gharnagel
In DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101, Figure 4 depicts a thought
experiment involving FTL communication. This figure is
attached to this post. We, the viewers, are at rest with
observers A and B.
At event E1, observer A, at x = 0, t = vL/c^2, sends an
infinitely-fast tachyon signal to observer B, who receives
it at x = L, t = vL/c^2. B immediately passes it to D, who
is moving at velocity v. D's clock reads t' = 0.
D is now going to send it to C. The question is, where is
C? Is C at x = 0 or is C at x = Lv^2/c^2? According to
us (the viewers), C is at x = Lv^2/c^2, but if we (the
viewers) switched frames so we're at rest with C and D,
(see Figure 5 in DOI: 10.13189/ujpa.2023.170101). Now,
it appears that D can send a signal to c at t' = t = 0
(infinitely-fast).
But according to our (the viewers) present position in
Figure 5, A (at t = 0) could only send the original signal
to B, who would receive it at t = vL/c^2, or the loop
would not be completed (because of the relativity of
simultaneity).
Let's move back to Figure 4. So in order to complete
the loop, D must send the signal to where C is not (at
t = 0, x = 0), which flouts RoS. But at t = vL/c^2, C
is not adjacent to A, so no closed loop can be completed
in this scenario.

This scenario is described as Method II, which demonstrates
that RoS limits the ability to complete a closed message
loop that violates causality. There are some that still
can't understand the logic, so let's look at Method I.

Method I shows that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^ - 1) for tachyons,
where the tachyon mass is im and u is the tachyon velocity
in frame S. The valid range of u is split: -\infty < u < -c
and c < u < \infty. It is VERY important to note that
E NEVER becomes negative for ANY valid value of u.

By the Principle of Relativity, the tachyon velocity in frame
S' is E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' has the same
range as in S. E' may be derived from the E equation by the
relativistic velocity composition equation (RVCE):

u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)

This is just as valid as the Lorentz tranformation equations.
Applying this,

E = mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)

Conventional physicists have made an error at this point which
isn't wrong unless 1 - uv/c^2 < 0. When they do this, they
proclaim that E becomes negative, which E NEVER does throughout
the whole valid range for u, as demonstrated above!

This should alert any thoughtful physicist that the RCVE has
a limited domain of applicability. This must mean that the
LT also has the same limitation.

Those that assert that Method II can violate causality do so
by working in the region where 1 - uv/c^2 is negative, which
is outside of the applicability range of the LT. They have
no foundation for their assertions.

[Richard Hachel]

Post by gharnagel
This scenario is described as Method II, which demonstrates
that RoS limits the ability to complete a closed message
loop that violates causality. There are some that still
can't understand the logic, so let's look at Method I.
Method I shows that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^ - 1) for tachyons,
where the tachyon mass is im and u is the tachyon velocity
in frame S. The valid range of u is split: -\infty < u < -c
and c < u < \infty. It is VERY important to note that
E NEVER becomes negative for ANY valid value of u.
By the Principle of Relativity, the tachyon velocity in frame
S' is E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' has the same
range as in S. E' may be derived from the E equation by the
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
This is just as valid as the Lorentz tranformation equations.
Applying this,
E = mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
Conventional physicists have made an error at this point which
isn't wrong unless 1 - uv/c^2 < 0. When they do this, they
proclaim that E becomes negative, which E NEVER does throughout
the whole valid range for u, as demonstrated above!
This should alert any thoughtful physicist that the RCVE has
a limited domain of applicability. This must mean that the
LT also has the same limitation.
Those that assert that Method II can violate causality do so
by working in the region where 1 - uv/c^2 is negative, which
is outside of the applicability range of the LT. They have
no foundation for their assertions.

We should start by understanding the theory of relativity.
I have been denouncing the problem for 40 years. "YOU do not understand
the words you pronounce, and you stupidly apply equations whose meaning
you do not understand".

When I pose v=x/t, I understand what I am saying.

When I say x=(1/2)at² I understand what I am saying.

I visualize my mathematical thought in a physical thought.

I understand things.

Physicists, too, obviously. They are not thugs, or bandits.

But if I ask them to visualize in their minds the Lorentz transformations,
or To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax),
they are incapable of "thinking of something physical", and there are only
formulas learned by heart, but without any idea in the mind of what it
represents in the real universe.

We should start by putting words to the ideas, and if possible, to clear
ideas.

Dilation of internal chonotropies: Richard Hachel understands.

Dilation of times by change of reference frame: I do not understand.

"If two mobiles, one in Galilean motion, the other in uniformly
accelerated motion starting at rest, travel in the same observable time an
identical distance, their proper times will be equal": Richard Hachel
confirms.

The proper times will differ: false and of no interest, I do not
understand.

There are many things I do not understand in RR, but rest assured,
friends, it is not because I lack practical intelligence.

An infinite intelligence would not understand any more.

R.H.

[Python]

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
This scenario is described as Method II, which demonstrates
that RoS limits the ability to complete a closed message
loop that violates causality. There are some that still
can't understand the logic, so let's look at Method I.
Method I shows that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^ - 1) for tachyons,
where the tachyon mass is im and u is the tachyon velocity
in frame S. The valid range of u is split: -\infty < u < -c
and c < u < \infty. It is VERY important to note that
E NEVER becomes negative for ANY valid value of u.
By the Principle of Relativity, the tachyon velocity in frame
S' is E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' has the same
range as in S. E' may be derived from the E equation by the
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
This is just as valid as the Lorentz tranformation equations.
Applying this,
E = mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
Conventional physicists have made an error at this point which
isn't wrong unless 1 - uv/c^2 < 0. When they do this, they
proclaim that E becomes negative, which E NEVER does throughout
the whole valid range for u, as demonstrated above!
This should alert any thoughtful physicist that the RCVE has
a limited domain of applicability. This must mean that the
LT also has the same limitation.
Those that assert that Method II can violate causality do so
by working in the region where 1 - uv/c^2 is negative, which
is outside of the applicability range of the LT. They have
no foundation for their assertions.

We should start by understanding the theory of relativity.
I have been denouncing the problem for 40 years. "YOU do not understand the
words you pronounce, and you stupidly apply equations whose meaning you do not
understand".
When I pose v=x/t, I understand what I am saying.
When I say x=(1/2)at² I understand what I am saying.
I visualize my mathematical thought in a physical thought.
I understand things.
Physicists, too, obviously. They are not thugs, or bandits.
But if I ask them to visualize in their minds the Lorentz transformations, or
To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax),
they are incapable of "thinking of something physical", and there are only
formulas learned by heart, but without any idea in the mind of what it represents
in the real universe.
We should start by putting words to the ideas, and if possible, to clear ideas.
Dilation of internal chonotropies: Richard Hachel understands.
Dilation of times by change of reference frame: I do not understand.
"If two mobiles, one in Galilean motion, the other in uniformly accelerated
motion starting at rest, travel in the same observable time an identical distance,
their proper times will be equal": Richard Hachel confirms.
The proper times will differ: false and of no interest, I do not understand.
There are many things I do not understand in RR, but rest assured, friends, it
is not because I lack practical intelligence.
An infinite intelligence would not understand any more.
R.H.

Abstract: On old fart who used to be an M.D. is demented, egomaniac and
pretend
to reinvent physics.

Anyway he's never convinced anyone (Wozniak's style) and produce more and
more
b.s. every year.

So what? *yawn*

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Richard Hachel

Post by gharnagel
This scenario is described as Method II, which demonstrates
that RoS limits the ability to complete a closed message
loop that violates causality.  There are some that still
can't understand the logic, so let's look at Method I.
Method I shows that E = mc^2/sqrt(u^2/c^ - 1) for tachyons,
where the tachyon mass is im and u is the tachyon velocity
in frame S.  The valid range of u is split: -\infty < u < -c
and c < u < \infty.  It is VERY important to note that
E NEVER becomes negative for ANY valid value of u.
By the Principle of Relativity, the tachyon velocity in frame
S' is E' = mc^2/sqrt(u'^2/c^2 - 1), where u' has the same
range as in S.  E' may be derived from the E equation by the
u' = (u - v)/(1 - uv/c^2)
This is just as valid as the Lorentz tranformation equations.
Applying this,
E = mc^2 sqrt[(1 - uv/c^2)^2]/sqrt(u^2/c^2 - 1)
Conventional physicists have made an error at this point which
isn't wrong unless 1 - uv/c^2 < 0.  When they do this, they
proclaim that E becomes negative, which E NEVER does throughout
the whole valid range for u, as demonstrated above!
This should alert any thoughtful physicist that the RCVE has
a limited domain of applicability.  This must mean that the
LT also has the same limitation.
Those that assert that Method II can violate causality do so
by working in the region where 1 - uv/c^2 is negative, which
is outside of the applicability range of the LT.  They have
no foundation for their assertions.

We should start by understanding the theory of relativity.
I have been denouncing the problem for 40 years. "YOU do not
understand the words you pronounce, and you stupidly apply equations
whose meaning you do not understand".
When I pose v=x/t, I understand what I am saying.
When I say x=(1/2)at² I understand what I am saying.
I visualize my mathematical thought in a physical thought.
I understand things.
Physicists, too, obviously. They are not thugs, or bandits.
But if I ask them to visualize in their minds the Lorentz
transformations, or To=(x/c).sqrt(1+2c²/ax),
they are incapable of "thinking of something physical", and there are
only formulas learned by heart, but without any idea in the mind of
what it represents in the real universe.
We should start by putting words to the ideas, and if possible, to clear ideas.
Dilation of internal chonotropies: Richard Hachel understands.
Dilation of times by change of reference frame: I do not understand.
"If two mobiles, one in Galilean motion, the other in uniformly
accelerated motion starting at rest, travel in the same observable
time an identical distance, their proper times will be equal": Richard
Hachel confirms.
The proper times will differ: false and of no interest, I do not understand.
There are many things I do not understand in RR, but rest assured,
friends, it is not because I lack practical intelligence.
An infinite intelligence would not understand any more.
R.H.

Abstract: On old fart who used to be an M.D. is demented, egomaniac and
pretend
to reinvent physics.

And whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read (even if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).