Question about tachyon
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Hi,
I am pretty confused with the tachyon condenstation
If a tachyon does condense as a result of imaginary mass fields which do not in fact propagate faster than light but rather go into instability known as tachyon condensation. What type of particles would be created as a result of mass-energy equivalence theory would they be bradyons or another duplicate tachyons?
I am pretty confused with the tachyon condenstation
If a tachyon does condense as a result of imaginary mass fields which do not in fact propagate faster than light but rather go into instability known as tachyon condensation. What type of particles would be created as a result of mass-energy equivalence theory would they be bradyons or another duplicate tachyons?
Hi,
OrionMaster.
Your sentences and question are worded in a way which kind of does not make sense. It seems you are not confused, but actually just not understanding at all. I really think if you want to get a good grip on this stuff, you should spend a bit of time going back to 'basics'. I have no idea what level you're at, because you only post questions here about some of the more crazy (and usually only theoretical) things in physics, so I'm not sure where to suggest you start, but here is definitely not the place.
People always want to dive in at the most advanced and latest theories. String theory, multiverses, black holes etc... These topics have answers that do not make sense without a solid basic foundation in quantum field theory and relativity, which are both currently widely accepted as the best theories we have, experimentally heavily backed up and off which all these things you are asking about are built upon.
To use a programming analogy, since you seem pretty good at that - You're asking about how to build a neural net without having a firm foundation in control loops, thus the confusion.
Edit: Typo
OrionMaster.
Your sentences and question are worded in a way which kind of does not make sense. It seems you are not confused, but actually just not understanding at all. I really think if you want to get a good grip on this stuff, you should spend a bit of time going back to 'basics'. I have no idea what level you're at, because you only post questions here about some of the more crazy (and usually only theoretical) things in physics, so I'm not sure where to suggest you start, but here is definitely not the place.
People always want to dive in at the most advanced and latest theories. String theory, multiverses, black holes etc... These topics have answers that do not make sense without a solid basic foundation in quantum field theory and relativity, which are both currently widely accepted as the best theories we have, experimentally heavily backed up and off which all these things you are asking about are built upon.
To use a programming analogy, since you seem pretty good at that - You're asking about how to build a neural net without having a firm foundation in control loops, thus the confusion.
Edit: Typo
Last edited on
| You think THAT's cool, we've got a tachyon particle cannon that'll blow you into last week! |
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Actually no, it is right (the question) as look at this equation I came up with this and according to my particle physics lecturer my logic here is right but I need info about this to actually get my entire equation formula right.
http://i.imgur.com/DlpFWAk.png
I never got to ask him as these lectures take place like ever week and this means I need to wait right till next monday. But I really like this theory here even though it is very very very inefficient way of energy generation possibly only 1 billionth of the original energy would be usable rest will become matter which may Or may not be dense to be used even in a nuclear fission & fusion.
http://i.imgur.com/DlpFWAk.png
I never got to ask him as these lectures take place like ever week and this means I need to wait right till next monday. But I really like this theory here even though it is very very very inefficient way of energy generation possibly only 1 billionth of the original energy would be usable rest will become matter which may Or may not be dense to be used even in a nuclear fission & fusion.
Last edited on
Can you explain what the terms in your equation are supposed to be? It looks to me like L - ( Newton's equation for gravitation,). I'm not sure what L is? Or why you think the (incorrect) equation for gravity Newton came up with should be almost the entire equation? Also, it is not usual to put units in the equation.
I'm surprised your professor hasn't mentioned something to you about this.
I'm surprised your professor hasn't mentioned something to you about this.
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Okay,
The equation actually uses high impact particle collisions to predict that mass generated could actually create "extremely small" gravitational fields.
Normally, during high-energy particle collisions it takes few TeV of energy to give it enough energy to have a possibility of creating matter (M = E/C2, which is part of Maxwell Equations) This means we need tremendous amounts of energy to ever create the smallest amount of mass.
However in tachyons (theoretical) there is a limit before they condensate to produce some matter (guaranteed) so what my theory is IF tachyons exist if we can energize them they could condensate to produce matter but in a more efficient way to that of normal matter in high energy collisions. There is a lot more math involved I actually did behind it however lets not get into it yet.
This should mean using energy we can create gravitational fields so Mtach is actually the mathematical derivation for mass generated after the initial tachyon decay took place as a result of instability as a result of imaginary mass fields. I theoretically suggest the decay should not be instable as a result of energy spreading and wasted in creation of the matter. The M is the second mass we are measuring the affect of force on it.
It should mean energies here should be less but more efficient than normal mass produced in normal particle collisions.
As for the units even einstein & maxwell originally used Meters per second in their equations (Plz don't take this as I comparing the geniuses with myself) . It not too big problem we could always simply change the units to MU or something similar .)
So at the end I am asking whether tachyons create\condense into bradyons or tachhyons this could help me loads in changing this to more efficient.
The equation actually uses high impact particle collisions to predict that mass generated could actually create "extremely small" gravitational fields.
Normally, during high-energy particle collisions it takes few TeV of energy to give it enough energy to have a possibility of creating matter (M = E/C2, which is part of Maxwell Equations) This means we need tremendous amounts of energy to ever create the smallest amount of mass.
However in tachyons (theoretical) there is a limit before they condensate to produce some matter (guaranteed) so what my theory is IF tachyons exist if we can energize them they could condensate to produce matter but in a more efficient way to that of normal matter in high energy collisions. There is a lot more math involved I actually did behind it however lets not get into it yet.
This should mean using energy we can create gravitational fields so Mtach is actually the mathematical derivation for mass generated after the initial tachyon decay took place as a result of instability as a result of imaginary mass fields. I theoretically suggest the decay should not be instable as a result of energy spreading and wasted in creation of the matter. The M is the second mass we are measuring the affect of force on it.
It should mean energies here should be less but more efficient than normal mass produced in normal particle collisions.
As for the units even einstein & maxwell originally used Meters per second in their equations (Plz don't take this as I comparing the geniuses with myself) . It not too big problem we could always simply change the units to MU or something similar .)
So at the end I am asking whether tachyons create\condense into bradyons or tachhyons this could help me loads in changing this to more efficient.
Last edited on
Do you see units (Einstein's notebook)?
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/39L.jpeg
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/5R.jpeg
Anyway, it just makes equations really hard to see if you throw units in.
Okay so I have some questions for you...
"Normally" - When?
"to give it enough energy" - To give what energy?
"creating matter" - Where is the matter coming from? Where did the few TeVs you put in go?
"more efficient" - How can it be more efficient if you're saying it still follows the same equation?
"this could help me loads in changing this to more efficient. " - You're going to make nature more efficient?
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/39L.jpeg
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/5R.jpeg
Anyway, it just makes equations really hard to see if you throw units in.
Okay so I have some questions for you...
| Normally, during high-energy particle collisions it takes few TeV of energy to give it enough energy to have a possibility of creating matter |
"Normally" - When?
"to give it enough energy" - To give what energy?
"creating matter" - Where is the matter coming from? Where did the few TeVs you put in go?
"more efficient" - How can it be more efficient if you're saying it still follows the same equation?
"this could help me loads in changing this to more efficient. " - You're going to make nature more efficient?
closed account (13bSLyTq)
Hi,
1. Normally - I don't have all stats and such however professor said under circumstances where the random\probability is higher for a event to happen.
2. To give the colliding particles energy
3. Well, I have not researached about it but all I know is they are created in those collisions: http://www.gizmag.com/lhc-proton-lead-collision-exotic-matter/25202/
It converts from energy to matter, similar to nuclear explosion where small mass can generate lot of energy, opposite happens a lot of energy (the TeVs) become small mass.
4. Yes, one could then see if they become tachyons or bradyons different way of measuring energy so we could see if it would become more efficient or not.
5. No, You understood it wrong - we could see if they are more efficient or not. So it's down to nature.
1. Normally - I don't have all stats and such however professor said under circumstances where the random\probability is higher for a event to happen.
2. To give the colliding particles energy
3. Well, I have not researached about it but all I know is they are created in those collisions: http://www.gizmag.com/lhc-proton-lead-collision-exotic-matter/25202/
It converts from energy to matter, similar to nuclear explosion where small mass can generate lot of energy, opposite happens a lot of energy (the TeVs) become small mass.
4. Yes, one could then see if they become tachyons or bradyons different way of measuring energy so we could see if it would become more efficient or not.
5. No, You understood it wrong - we could see if they are more efficient or not. So it's down to nature.
Okay so I'm still confused. You've started by talking about symmetry breaking and now you're talking about nuclear explosions and particle colliders...
So what particles are you talking about colliding here?
Obviously not. Perhaps you should? Color-glass condensates have nothing to do with tachyon condensates. I'm going to stick with what I said before and say if you really want to know what is going on here, you need to go back to basics.
Edit: Typo
| during high-energy particle collisions it takes few TeV of energy to give it enough energy to have a possibility of creating matter |
So what particles are you talking about colliding here?
| 3. Well, I have not researached about it but all |
Obviously not. Perhaps you should? Color-glass condensates have nothing to do with tachyon condensates. I'm going to stick with what I said before and say if you really want to know what is going on here, you need to go back to basics.
Edit: Typo
Last edited on
closed account (13bSLyTq)
I don't think you are understanding right here.
2. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-accelerator-works You will understand what particles I am talking about
3.Yes I am researching, thanks
2. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/how-accelerator-works You will understand what particles I am talking about
3.Yes I am researching, thanks
Last edited on
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.