Talk:Tachyon

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Tachyon. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Tachyon at the Reference desk.

Tachyon was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 6, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

CERN experiment

"In September 2011, it was reported that a tau neutrino had traveled faster than the speed of light in a major release by CERN." Well, not quite. It was reported that a tau neutrino was measured to have travelled faster than light. The most obvious explanation for this anomaly was always inaccurate equipment. Probably no-one at CERN reported that the particle had actually broken the law of special relativity. Shouldn't we change the text accordingly? Steinbach (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of "Tachyon"??

The current article leads with an colorful image With the caption = Because the tachyon travels faster than light, the observer sees nothing until it has already passed. Then, two images appear: one of the sphere arriving (on the right) and one of it departing (on the left).

The image is fun, but meaningless. What are the axes here? the bold lines? The colors? The meaning of the shapes? What of there velocities? How can we see a "tachyon" if tachyon's do not exist?

Without answers to these kinds of questions I think a a picture of a donut or yummy cake with sprinkles would be better. It would look just as good but not raise as many questions. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove here and in faster-than-light unless somebody can clarify what the x, y and color axis mean.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane @Sumanch @TxAlien do you have any suggestions? Johnjbarton (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found some hints on How these images were made

I gather that this is not a "tachyon" but rather a uniformly emissive (but transparent?) sphere . The visualization shows Doppler shifted frequencies in colors on a surface corresponding to Lorentz transformations of the sphere. That's why the colors are reddish to the left and bluish to the right.

I don't understand the two images, what velocities are shown, the amount of Doppler shift. This can't be anything like what a "tachyon" would "look" like even if it was an emissive sphere. If it were Earth sized and coming directly at you, the point of light would fill your visual field in about a second; if it were pea sized you would not even see it. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This diagram is applicable for anything moving FTL. You might want to watch this video for a more intuitive explanation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of the video "What would we see at the speed of light?" is an excellent description of optical effects. The only thing related to the animation however is the two-image explanation. As the object travels light is "dropped off" and travels towards us at the speed of light. Once the object passes, the older and new light arrives. But of course the entire sequence is is sub-second and a complete fantasy on multiple levels.

As a visualization I can imagine that it could be suitable for faster than light travel, but I don't see how it is related to Tachyon in any significant way. It certainly does not belong in a box labeled "Tachyon". Johnjbarton (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Magnesium light speed

New experience witp particel,s from magnesium and light 199.47.67.33 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

debunking anti-tachyon myths

The opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Tachyons needs to be challenged. Causality is not a fundamental law of physics. It is a consequence of Special Relativity applicable only to particles that travel slower than the speed of light. The whole idea of "grandfather paradox" is based upon careless use of language (by many respected physicists).A detailed debunking of several anti-tachyon myths is published in: Charles Schwartz, "A Consistent Theory of Tachyons with Interesting Physics for Neutrinos" Symmetry 14, 1172 (2202) Charlieschwartz (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paczos et al

“Covariant quantum field theory of tachyons”, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00450 - looks like it deserves a mention here. Tim Bray (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon. The article is unreviewed. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear Wording in "History" Section

The text in the History section is, "Oleksa-Myron Bilanuik, Vijay Deshpande and E. C. George Sudarshan discussed this more recently in their 1962 paper on the topic and in 1969."

The inclusion of the phrase "more recently" is misleading and confusing, considering the next date following the phrase is 1962, which is clearly further in the past than the next date afterwards, 1969. This section should be rewritten to be more clear and accurate. Something like:

"Oleksa-Myron Bilanuik, Vijay Deshpande, and E. C. George Sudarshan discussed theoretical faster-than-light particles in a 1962 paper, and then again in 1969."

This information may also be better put before the section detailing the coining of the term tachyon, since at least some of the events precede that occurrence (there is mention of the paper in 1962, while the word tachyon was not coined until 1967). This change is of lesser importance, but I do feel it would be appropriate.

Since I do not have access to the articles/papers referenced, I cannot be sure of all the conclusions I have made. Therefore, I will not be implementing any edits myself. Outisakanobody (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]