Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 47

Thread: Would Tachyons have negative real mass?

  1. #1

    Would Tachyons have negative real mass?

    Do Tachyons have negative real mass? And if so how does that affect their interaction with other particles?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    4,810
    To my understanding, they would have imagina


    (edit - sorry, had to run I will follow up with a complete posting)
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    'That was tops! Who's not good at math? I was all, "Four!"' - Finn, Adventure Time.

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Solfe View Post
    To my understanding, they would have imagina
    imaginary rest mass ... but negative real mass right?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    4,810
    Well, I am not a physicist but anything I have read seems to follow the idea of imaginary rest mass with the tachyon having to be massless. I usually read stuff by Steven Hawkings, which is notoriously light on details, but I will look for other authors in my collection.

    (Here is an interesting link to someone who was thinking about FTL and Tachyons.)

    My though process is that if they are/were massless then it would be like a photon, which would mean positive mass when moving. Of course they would have to be moving to fit the name. I have no idea what that would mean for other forces, which is actually why I am paid the small bucks.

    Since Tachyons haven't been observed and no observations or problems are screaming for a Tachyon solution, they may not exist.
    Last edited by Solfe; 2011-May-19 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Typo again.
    Solfe

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    'That was tops! Who's not good at math? I was all, "Four!"' - Finn, Adventure Time.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    imaginary rest mass ... but negative real mass right?
    What do you mean by "real mass"? They have (must have) positive energy, which is why the mass works out to be imaginary.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    Do Tachyons have negative real mass? And if so how does that affect their interaction with other particles?
    Do you mean negative rest mass?

    If you want them to interact with anything we see then they'd have imaginary rest mass. IE they don't travel backwards in time they more in a transverse manner to our universe's manifold?!? Someone that is better versed on this can either correct any misunderstanding I have or just put it in better words if I'm sort of on track.

  7. #7
    No the reason that it is imagionary is because they travel at speeds greater than the speed of light, producing a negative number inside the sqrt in the denominator.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    What do you mean by "real mass"? They have (must have) positive energy, which is why the mass works out to be imaginary.

  8. #8
    No imagionary rest mass ... negative real mass.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Do you mean negative rest mass?

    If you want them to interact with anything we see then they'd have imaginary rest mass. IE they don't travel backwards in time they more in a transverse manner to our universe's manifold?!? Someone that is better versed on this can either correct any misunderstanding I have or just put it in better words if I'm sort of on track.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    No imagionary rest mass ... negative real mass.
    Yes, but what do you mean by "real mass"?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    No imagionary rest mass ... negative real mass.
    You need to have imaginary mass to counter the imaginary denominator. This leads to negative energy on the left side of the equation.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes, but what do you mean by "real mass"?
    Negative energy ... on the left side ... doesnt that mean negative relativistic mass? via E=MC^2 ? at least from a warpage of space time point of view?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    Negative energy ... on the left side ... doesnt that mean negative relativistic mass? via E=MC^2 ? at least from a warpage of space time point of view?
    Why do you think the energy is negative. If it is (were) a real particle, it would have positive energy given by:
    E= mc2/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

    Because the denominator is imaginary, then m must be imaginary. Energy is still real and positive. It approaches zero as the speed approaches infinity.

    By "real mass", you mean the energy E ("relativistic mass")?

  13. #13
    ahhh so the negative sign from the 1-v2/c2 does not get carried over after the imaginary number has been elimiated. To be honest I forgot my imaginary math. How would that work?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Why do you think the energy is negative. If it is (were) a real particle, it would have positive energy given by:
    E= mc2/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

    Because the denominator is imaginary, then m must be imaginary. Energy is still real and positive. It approaches zero as the speed approaches infinity.

    By "real mass", you mean the energy E ("relativistic mass")?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    ahhh so the negative sign from the 1-v2/c2 does not get carried over after the imaginary number has been elimiated. To be honest I forgot my imaginary math. How would that work?
    Set v=2.236 (tachyon travelling just iver twice the speed of light), the denominator is then sqrt(1-5) = 2i. If the mass is, say, 10i, then the total energy is 10i/5i = 2.The energy can only be negative (and real) if the mass is negative (and imaginary). As neither negative mass nor negative energy make physical sense, we can assume everything is positive.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    As neither negative mass nor negative energy make physical sense, we can assume everything is positive.
    But imaginary mass makes physical sense? How about travelling at 2c and backwards in time? Sometimes things dont make sense in the physical world.

  16. #16
    From: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc.../tachyons.html

    And, indeed, if tachyons do exist, they are exotic. Apart from other oddities, the equations for energy and momentum for such particles reveal that tachyons would accelerate as they lose energy. Conversely, whenever energy was imparted to a tachyon, it would decelerate. This leads to one of the most peculiar characteristics of tachyons: their prima facie possession of negative energy. Let an observer at rest in a reference frame S observe a tachyon traveling with a velocity v relative to him. This same particle will travel with a different velocity u relative to another observer in a reference frame S1 which is moving with respect to S with a velocity w. When the product vw exceeds c2, the tachyon will possess negative energy relative to S1. More peculiar still, such particles will seem to travel backward in time. To the observer in S1 the negative-energy particle would appear to be absorbed first and emitted later.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    But imaginary mass makes physical sense?
    Possibly not. But it is rest mass and a tachyon can never be at erst so it is slightly academic. Whereas the total energy would be observable.

    Sometimes things dont make sense in the physical world.
    And sometimes they don't even exist

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And sometimes they don't even exist
    And sometimes they do. ;-)

  19. #19
    I think it's important to keep in mind that tachyons are hypothetical entities, a result of the thought experiment of "what would happen if there were particles that traveled faster than c." They have never been observed, and I don't think there's any reason to believe they actually exist.
    As above, so below

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    Your quote seems to be from a "Professor of Philosophy" that doesn't have a grasp on what the description of a hypothetical tachyon would do.

    Like it has been pointed out, given their nature they would travel backwards in time. Instead they would travel in imaginary time which is not the same thing.

    By all means feel free to get advice about philosophy from Billy boy but perhaps you should put more weight in descriptions about physics from those that
    actually have degrees in physics related sciences and that is their job. From what I'm reading Bill is using a bad understanding of science to try to prop up
    some theology of his.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,718
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think it's important to keep in mind that tachyons are hypothetical entities, a result of the thought experiment of "what would happen if there were particles that traveled faster than c." They have never been observed, and I don't think there's any reason to believe they actually exist.
    Agreed, I don't even know how we could try to test that they exist. I'm not sure how they'd even interact with our world lines.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think it's important to keep in mind that tachyons are hypothetical entities, a result of the thought experiment of "what would happen if there were particles that traveled faster than c." They have never been observed, and I don't think there's any reason to believe they actually exist.
    Jens. Yep. The Particle Data Group website keeps track of particles for which we actually have experimental evidence of existence and tachyons are not amonst them. Lots of wishful thinking out there in particle-land. pete

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I think it's important to keep in mind that tachyons are hypothetical entities, a result of the thought experiment of "what would happen if there were particles that traveled faster than c." They have never been observed, and I don't think there's any reason to believe they actually exist.
    SEE:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/listings/contents_listings.html

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Jens. Yep. The Particle Data Group website keeps track of particles for which we actually have experimental evidence of existence and tachyons are not amonst them. Lots of wishful thinking out there in particle-land. pete
    Thanks. And the reason I brought it up is that tommac seems to consistently use "have negative mass" instead of "would have negative mass." So it seems that he believes they actually exist. I just wanted to make that clear that they are hypothetical particles that might exist.
    As above, so below

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    4,579
    The Physics FAQ has a good discussion about a few ways that tachyons would behave, if they existed. Note in particular that, if we assume they satisfied the normal rules of quantum mechanics (using an imaginary mass), then we wouldn't be able to use them to send a signal faster than light, even though the tachyons themselves travel faster than light. Of course, if tachyons did exist, we might have to modify the rules of quantum mechanics to properly describe them. But if do that we're in the realm of coming up with new rules for hypothetical particles that have no observations constraints: in principle, we can come up with rules that let them do anything we want them to do.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  26. #26
    I read somewhere that fineman also claimed back in time for these ... so I dont think it is just him. I will see if I can find the piece.

    The argument if I remember it correctly is that if a tachyon is going backward in time and has negative energy ... that it would be the same as moving forward in time with positive energy. I probably have that wrong so let me find the actual quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by WayneFrancis View Post
    Your quote seems to be from a "Professor of Philosophy" that doesn't have a grasp on what the description of a hypothetical tachyon would do.

    Like it has been pointed out, given their nature they would travel backwards in time. Instead they would travel in imaginary time which is not the same thing.

    By all means feel free to get advice about philosophy from Billy boy but perhaps you should put more weight in descriptions about physics from those that
    actually have degrees in physics related sciences and that is their job. From what I'm reading Bill is using a bad understanding of science to try to prop up
    some theology of his.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    Thanks. And the reason I brought it up is that tommac seems to consistently use "have negative mass" instead of "would have negative mass." So it seems that he believes they actually exist. I just wanted to make that clear that they are hypothetical particles that might exist.
    uggg ....

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    6,762
    Quote Originally Posted by tommac View Post
    I read somewhere that fineman also claimed back in time for these ... so I dont think it is just him. I will see if I can find the piece.

    The argument if I remember it correctly is that if a tachyon is going backward in time and has negative energy ... that it would be the same as moving forward in time with positive energy. I probably have that wrong so let me find the actual quote.
    You may be confusing tachyons with anti-particles. The latter can be described as "normal" particles travelling back in time.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Bi-weekly space physics research "blog" at tusenfem.blogspot.co.at

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,042
    Not to mention that FEYNMAN wasn't the biggest fan of the diagrams that adopted his name. He used them as a teaching aid and to the best of my knowledge, never intended them to be used to extrapolate physical meaning.

    We can definitely view a positron as an electron in reverse time, but even reverse time doesn't make sense to me. I can't nake a coherent picture of it.

    Back to tachyons. Make note the formula we've been using here is the special relativity view of rest mass. We're ignoring momentum.

    E= mc2/sqrt(1-v2/c2)

    1 : sqrt(1-v2/c2) when v > c gives an imaginary number. There's only one i because we take a single sqrt of a single negative number.

    2 : if the mass is negative, then the energy is imaginary. I'd love to work with negative mass myself, but the imaginary energy might slow me down.

    3 : assume the mass is imaginary, now we are dividing one imaginary number by another. This is very easy to do. Multiply the numerator and denominator by the conjugate of the denominator. Life is even easier when we realize we are dividing imaginary numbers with no real parts. The answer is a positive number.

    Also, I find it quite rude to answer "uggg" to someone. If you don't like what someone has to say, ignore it or say why you don't agree. A post which simply reads "disgust" will rarely be taken well.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    7,628
    Quote Originally Posted by ShinAce View Post
    We can definitely view a positron as an electron in reverse time, but even reverse time doesn't make sense to me.
    It is just a symmetry, surely; it isn't meant to "mean" anything.

Similar Threads

  1. How much negative mass would it take to rip apart a planet?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2010-Apr-03, 03:51 PM
  2. Can negative mass exist?
    By tommac in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-Dec-27, 09:32 PM
  3. Negative mass
    By WHITE_HOLE in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-08, 02:34 PM
  4. Negative Mass
    By Samba in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2007-May-12, 01:05 AM
  5. Is negative mass possible?
    By Lord Jubjub in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-05, 06:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •