Faster than Light Particles Could Exist After All, New Study Says
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2024
- Learn more about the science behind the videos you watch with Brilliant! First 30 days are free and 20% off the annual premium subscription when you use our link ➜ brilliant.org/....
Physicists recently published a new paper noting that tachyons, particles that move faster than the speed of light, can exist after all. Is this just more hype over nothing, or is this science fiction becoming reality? What do these tachyons have to do with wormholes and warp-drives? Let’s have a look.
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com...
The paper is here: journals.aps.o...
🤓 Check out my new quiz app ➜ quizwithit.com/
💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ donorbox.org/swtg
📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ sciencewtg.sub...
👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ / sabine
📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ sabinehossenfe...
👂 Audio only podcast ➜ open.spotify.c...
🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜
/ @sabinehossenfelder
🖼️ On instagram ➜ / sciencewtg
#science #sciencenews #tachyons #physics
This video comes with a quiz which you can take here: quizwithit.com/start_thequiz/1722233290908x869950802248489500
Let's just say time is treated as a dimension if it is then in this higher Dimension all-time exists at once... if all time exist at once then there are infinite amounts of three-dimensional potentiality you could go to at any point and you're not physically changing time you're just going back to where that time existed in the now...
Again I think this is just a failure of understanding of the logical progression of the spatial dimensions because infinite amount of 0 dimensional existence can stack into any size one dimensional existence and infinite amount of one dimensional existence can stack into any size two dimensional existence and infinite two-dimensional existence can stack into any size three dimensional existence so if there's a fourth special Dimension then infinite three-dimensional existence can stack into any size four dimensional existence and will stack into any size four dimensional existence because it will be compressed down into a flat existence if it is not the highest spatial dimension just as the established pattern lets us know. Therefore if we live in a 3 + 1 System of space-time then we should expect to see the relative state or shape of the universe in a spherical or even distribution of matter in all three-dimensional directions and this is not what we see we see a compressed state of the universe into a flat state just like we would expect to observe if we are not the fundamental highest spatial Dimension of 3.
I'm so disappointed in you Sabine I have spelled this out for you so many countless number of times and somehow you still don't understand it or you're just blatantly ignoring it...
I have heared Tachyon on other RUclips video not have in relating to have connection wormhole too
Photion has zero mass travels at speed light tachyon travel faster than the speed of light has negative mass negative engery ➖ 1 travel faster than the speed of light .
The bartender says, "We don't serve tachyons." A tachyon enters the bar.
Makes sense not to serve tachyons. They spit beer into their glass and then take money.
Good one
@arctic_haze Do you know any tachyon jokes?
@@miikavihersaari3104I dunno, ask this guy.
The bartender can write calculations on a coaster, I just drink🍻.
I read decades ago that tachyons only ever travel faster than the speed of light, and cannot cross the barrier that would cause them to travel slower than the speed of light.
Yes, that's correct!
For me it is less important that tachyons exist naturally than if they can exist. Note that electrons and positrons can not get up to lightspeed, but together they make light which only travels at c, depending on the medium.
That's what I read anyway.
@@SabineHossenfelder so do they only travel toward the past ? Like in the movie Tenet ?
Tachyons would accelerate to infinite speed. The only problem is that you cannot detect them.
You know what is the funniest thing in all this?
If you check formulas and equations for supersonic movement, you will find same "barrier" there - so called Prandtl-Glauert singularity, which is NOT the real physical phenomenon, but rather product of crude approximations and oversimplified assumptions. Years ago, some could say that supersonic flight is impossible because you can't cross that speed limit - "look at the equations, you will need infinite amount of energy!". And now we have supersonic jets.
Supersonic "paradox" was solved when molecular properties of air particles were taken into account.
What if FTL paradox just needs conjunction of GR and QT?..
Reminds me of:
There once was a girl named Bright
Who could travel faster than light.
She left one day,
in a relative way,
and returned on the previous night !
On the other hand, at exactly the speed of light, time would not exist.
@@Jeff-zs2pq It does, but an outside observer just can't see you experience it. This is because there are actually two completely separate times involved for any coupled interacting system (like your body) versus all decoupled systems (someone else's body) -- personal time and world time. That is what the "Relativity" part of Relativity is all about and from where it arises. Your personal time experience does not change no matter how fast you move.
There once was a girl named Lenive
Who invented a tachyon drive
And was never quite able
To keep to the timetable -
Before she had left, she’d arrive
@@Jeff-zs2pqit would I think, because the observer-at-lightspeed's perspective is at standstill. Actually you could say that if you sit still you are moving at lightspeed in the time axis direction of spacetime.
@@daanschone1548 Correct. I was imagining it traveling at light speed. But then if you are traveling at light speed then light cannot catch up with you...so you are right, the light speed perspective is at standstill!
Amazon is _already_ doing tachyonic deliveries. Several times I've ordered one thing and got something else. The only logical explanation is that I'm going to order that thing sometime in the future.
That was crazy to observe from the Polish point of view where we have that controversial but very popular professor Andrzej Dragan giving a series of interviews and lectures on youtube where he mentions that he is working on the problem of particles going back in time and that he thinks they solved the problem (together with other people working with him). I was watching him with "hey that looks big, I wonder if this will be noticed by the international scientific community". And then I see Sabine talking about this just several days later.
I heard Dragan talking about it like 1 or 2 years ago, but there was no paper at the time, so that was just talking
Now, we finally have the paper
@@qj0n maybe but a few last weeks he was mentioning it very frequently. Two years ago I wasn't really up to date with him.
I was the same. So hyped for tachions but sceptical at first. Then it turns out there is no hole yet in Dragan's physics game :)
photon: does exist, but doesn't like to be observed
tachyon: doesn't mind to be observed, but doesn't exist
What isn't necessary, does not exist.
Modern theoretical parsimony.
@@-danRuntil we realize it is in fact necessary, then it begins to exist?
Ah but what pronoun do they ask to be identified with?
Neutrino: boss
@@-danREverything is possible, if it happens. - my little brother
Everyone in science fiction knows the tachion cannon, it hits the target before you pull the trigger, right? 🤣
It's mathematically identical to regular cannon shooting from the target to you :)
You only fire it when you've confirmed the hit.. Very cheap to use ;)
Is it canonical?
Depends, because of the distances involved, it might turn out they just always appear to impact as you press the trigger despite technically having impacted in the past....
Though, an external observer might question whether Han shot first...
The beam comes out of the target and is absorbed by the canon. It can even be converted to free energy 😅
I'm proud to see Andrzej Dragan's work finally appearing here on your channel. He's very famous in our country (Poland).
I heard universe at home boinc project is in Poland
Online project is stopped due to death ☠️💀 of a scientist in the country 😢
I remember I had a physics professor in college tell me that you could describe most, if not all, anti-matter as just being regular matter that is traveling backward in time. Like a positron is just an electron with the t flipped instead of the q.
I asked him what the consequences of this were and he said "Oh, nothing. It's just a theory math thing."
Well, if you are actually travelling backwards in time one day, make sure to not touch anything else :P
TENET
This reminds me of a phone call between Richard Feynman and John Wheeler. Wheeler related that he knew why electrons all had the same charge. It was because they were all the same electron. The idea presented here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
It was such a number sign anomaly that probably led to Dirac's prediction. You can't really know a formula until you have spent a long time playing with it.
_"What will you do if I poke you here?"_
@@timjohnson979 That's something people don't understand about electricity. There are no moving electrons in a wire, just the wave function of the system and energy is transferred by the field around the wire, not within it. You can't paint an electron green going in to see if it comes out the other end. It's not possible to distinguish one from another except for their ubiety.
1:35 - We appreciate that even the physicists don't intuitively understand their own models.
2:25 - You have to be a "firend" in order to go backward through time?
It all makes sense now. 😉
The problem with Firends is the energy requirement is in excess of a Foe
Still read it as friend phoncially speaking
Photonic doppler effect at its finest
You're all FIRE...ND!
Inverse of a bellend?
I officially stopped being able to recognize if Sabine is being serious or sarcastic.
definitely sardonic here
She‘s achieved quantum superposition.
I think that's just a general thing with Germans.
both
It’s called deadpan delivery.
[Checks notes]
😂😂😂
what, one day ago, what
This guy traveled back in time. What the heck?!
Probably a RUclips member to Sabine's channel @@ericthyren1015
@@benjarsenault sounds like something a time traveler would say to throw me off. 🤔
Genius!! She would make a great stand up comedian
tldr: introduce time-direction into your parity models, suddenly observer discrepancies of ftl particles can be resolved. since this time-direction quantity exists it could also be used to negate other "impossible negative energies", and thus some things which we say can't exist, could.
Of course, this has no bearing on whether anything can cross the speed of light, or if we can measure those particles and use them.
My guess is. space is inverted. Then you don't need to deal with going back in time.
What inverted space looks like, I have no clue.
15 years ago, I asked a worker in a Walmart parking lot how do I get into the store. He said, "Go through that door that says Exit." I've been stuck inside ever since. Help.
You'll be OK. Just dress like you belong there.
just use your negative energy to go backwards in time.
A London hospital has a sign saying exit through both doors.
Of all places to be stuck for eternity. Is hell in fact real?
Now that you're inside try walking inside.
Hang on a sec. All the equations of Special Relativity (SR)-addition of velocities, length contraction, time dilation, equivalence of mass and energy etc.-are derived by starting with two axioms, one of which is that there's a finite upper limit to the speed at which 'things' move in empty space, which we call _c._ (To be clear, we're not talking about the speed by which space itself can expand-we're only talking about 'things' that travel through space relative to observers.)
Consequently, it can be shown that _c_ is the speed of causality-otherwise we get paradoxes. It can further be shown that _c_ is the speed at which massless particles like photons and gluons travel. And it's also the speed for medium-less waves like electromagnetic and gravitational waves.
If you break the assumption that _c_ is the upper limit for speed, then the equations of Special Relativity are no longer valid, and it doesn't make sense to apply them to particles traveling faster than _c._ Because-hello!-you started with the assumption that nothing can travel faster than _c!_
Tell me, is there or is there not an upper limit to speed?
• Yes, there's an upper limit? Then nothing can travel faster than that.
• No, there's no upper limit? Then the equations of SR are not valid-so stop using them!
As an analogy: The series definition of the Riemann Zeta Function, that is ζ(s) = s^(-1) + s^(-2) + ..., is valid only in regions where it converges. If you deliberately apply it in regions where it doesn't converge, you'll get absurd results like ∞ = -1/12.
"I alway have been, and always will be, your firend." (I appreciate Dr. Hossenfelder very much, just couldn't resist.)
I’ve always considered even thinking about time travel to be nonsense
Mostly true, but it's an interesting puzzle to make it self-consistent for fiction and it makes sense to think about the arrow of time and exactly why time travel has to be nonsense. Convoluted way of saying that it is interesting to know why something is impossible.
Probably most "thinking" is nonsense. Our brains enlarged for navigational and muscle coordination purposes. We are trying to think using a Garmin. Most of our reasoning terms are navigational in nature. "Get ahead of yourself. Go back to what you said. Don't go there. I'm lost."
Technically, "always" implies you considered it nonsense in the future as well as in the past. Are you be secret time traveler? 😛
@@mikemondano3624 Could you please elaborate on that? I'd love to know your thoughts!
2022 Nobel in Physics basically proved 'subspace' exists, as the only realistic mechanism for entanglement. If we can learn how to open holes into subspace large enough for a ship .... welcome to warp speed, and Star Gates.
Then the aliens will have to return our calls
A gentleman whose me I cannot recall was on StarTalk rrecently and was claimng that it's possible because the whole universe and everything in it is just one big wave function. It's all part of the same connected thing?
Neal Asher calls this U-space in his books.
Really? I thought they showed there are no local hidden variables, cementing QM's claim about superpositions being physically real as opposed to particle states being decided ahead of time without us knowing how.
I don't see how that relates to subspace. The same math that gave us QM says we can't use entanglement for FTL communication, much less for actually moving things.
@@user-bl9cl8jq2l Nice, I just started reading shadow of the scorpion a few days ago
I think "spooky action" is the thing you get with faster than light stuff.
Its not really instantaneous but rather going from one entangled particle to the other in the equivalent speed it would take to get there but going backwards in time to reach as if from our perspective no time has passed at all making it seem instantaneous.
I'm going with another paper: K. Jodlowski, "Comment on Covariant quantum field theory of tachyons". In the discussion and conclusions section, Jodlowski writes: "The theory proposed has serious problems because the formulas adapted from the standard toolkit of QFT lead to unphysical behavior due to the tachyon dispersion relation." Thanks for sharing this fun theoretical topic.
I thought the issue with tachyons, FTL travel, and negative energies is that they would emit a kind of "Cherenkov radiation" continuously as they travel. This radiation would reduce the particles energy. This would actually cause the particle to increase in velocity, emitting more radiation and therefore causing infinite acceleration.
Hmm I thought that was a problem for the tachyons only?
@@juimymary9951 No. The crew of the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 D can tell you all you need to know.
Except of course if a tachyon had negative mass then its kinetic energy would also be negative. - So in losing that negative energy it would actually slow down. Eventually decaying into an STL particle.
No...only if they are charged..i think they are neutral
They would absorb a kind of cherenkov radiation
I have learned more from your videos, the ones that aren't over my head, this was great. Thank you.
"This is a space time diagram with time on the... *checks notes*" 🤣 I love you, Sabine!
Ekert, Dragan et al papers exploring the consequences of the existence of superluminal observers were alluding these consequences may look like quantum mechanical effects. They do in a one dimensional space (which iirc was the first claim in their series of papers on the subject)
But they don't really deal with the problem at its centre. It's nothing new that we can make tachyons work, the question is - should we? All tachyonic theories will be inherently problematic IMO. I was adamant critic of this paper from the start since I really can do anything by defining convenient hilbert spaces and allowing for negative energy. The logic here is kinda circular.
@@NerveConserve I am not sure I understand your objection, why do you think they are problematic?
@@juimymary9951 precisely because we may want to do physics without FTL effects. Or without negative energy states. Or preserving unitarity. Physics isn't exactly noncommital about these things and is not just a set of math equations.
@@NerveConserve and...we want to do physics without these things...because?
Also since when is physics about 'wanting' something? Physics isn't about what we 'want' it's about investigation and experimentation
@@juimymary9951 Since the dawn of time. Newton and Aristotle were not doing physics because it was nice and clean empirical branch of science. It clicked with their worldview.
From a modern point view the answer is really simple - you can't be expected to be well-versed in every field of physics or think about every new theory equal amount of time. If you are doing physics professionaly you need something to base your career on and then you start to choose what to investigate. This choice is based on nothing more than personal preferences (or is entirely practical if most people you work with are doing, let's say, string theory).
Eckert and Dragan for example are doing this line of thinking for a couple of years now - it gets published and it gets them some recognition but if proven incorrect at any time you can consider the effort wasted
Particles change state and are subject to interactions with other things, so they experience time in that respect. If two observers travelling at different speeds interact with a tachyon, they may disagree about the order of events. Thats fine for sub-light particles, but for tachyons wouldnt the spacetime interval also be different?
If FTL communication and travel are possible, what prevents paradoxes?
Good question.
There is a video about this on the 'Science Asylum' channel, even if tachyons (or any other FTL phenomena) exist(ed) if one tried ot use them to send information into the past, the particles carrying that information would have a negative velocity from the perspective of the past-observer, which means that they'd never reach them ensuring a closed time-like curve never forms, thus preserving causality.
The video about this is 'the problem with faster than light particles).
I've never understood why the paradox is a problem. You receive a message that you sent/will send in the future and then do not send it because you've already received it, so why bother. So what? Quantum theory is filled with alive and dead cats and that doesn't seem to bother anyone. That's equally weird, if not technically a paradox. It's just a word/concept. That doesn't mean it's a problem for reality.
They don't have brains or nervous systems to experience anything at all.
Btw there is actually older paper (maybe it is even series of papers) from some of the authors of that paper (ekert and dragan) that derives quantum mechanics by using Galilean transformation (yep, not the lorentz transformation) and taking into account faster than light particles.
I didn't read it so I might misremember something, but paper is called Quantum principle of relativity if I remember correctlt
I've always been fascinated with tachyons.
I don't 'believe' that they exist - just because it would work in the equations. I just think that it's an interesting outcome of the math. Even if it doesn't reflect any real thing.
There's no evidence to indicate that they do exist. Although of course, you can't disprove a negative.
(It seems to me, maybe slightly likelier than the existence of particles with negative mass.
Although I don't know why I would say that.)
Live long and prosper, Sabine Hossenfelder!
Sabine, you are soooo much smarter than me. I am grateful we can still hang out on RUclips.
Nice graph Sabine, especially at 2:26 when it says "Your Firend."
It's a hidden threat: "You're fired!"
Fir ends don’t observe speed or anything else, as is well known. Because they can’t see the forest through the tree needles.
I've read in a magazin named P.M. from 1981 that Tachyons do not move at all, but have theoretically infinite energy at an absolute speed at 0 km/h , and lose all their mass and energy at the speed of light. Therefore they could be used to accelerate an spaceship up to 50% of the spead of light (because then the energy/mass of the space ship made of regular matter would be equally to the mass and energy of the used Tachyons)
Another thing that Star Trek predicted? Woah.
basing your scientific hopes on a low budget sci-fi show is crazy
@@escottc Star Trek had the tachyon pulses. I can’t even remember what they used them for.
@@battlelawlz3572 It's not about "scientific hopes", whatever that is, it's about imagineering. Notorious examples are Jules Vernes, HG Wells, Tjolkovski,...
The laughable thing about Star Trek is the idea that they could travel at warp 8 and really go anywhere in space. Even at warp 4 million, it would still take them 3,000 years to cross a 13 billion light year wide universe. At warp 8 it would take them 6 months to get to the star nearest to our sun from earth.
@@banjohappyyou are assuming the warp factors are linear which in the show they are not described as such
“Tachyon Me” was a big hit in the 80’s for some Norwegian time travellers.
We in open software don't like the niceties much. We go directly to "Fork me", elsehere, elsenow.
🤔 My favourite music group? The Moody Blues....."Days of Future Past" 🚬😎👍
Wonderful group. I literally wore out the hunk of vinyl the album came on.
“Particles are in space somewhere at some time. That’s it. They don’t move in time, that doesn’t mean anything.”
Despite pondering it, I still have no idea what this sentence means. It sounds very Zen, though. “The time of one hand not ticking,” perhaps?
The bogus math behind all tachyon musings arises from nothing more than applying special relativity to the concept of “simultaneous” space in some well-defined, extended inertial frame such as the fast train Einstein used to illustrate non-simultaneity.
If Einstein’s train is at rest in the station and everyone on the train flashes a light out their window at the same train clock instant, an outside observer sees a single flash that looks like an object moving at infinite speed in either direction.
If the train is moving, however, non-simultaneity of space as viewed from another frame means the platform observer instead sees a flash that moves from the back of the train towards the front. This flash moves much faster than c but less than infinity. The closer to lightspeed the train is moving, the more this flash slows down. When the train moves very close to the speed of light, the flash barely manages to move faster than lightspeed.
Every tachyon speculation in physics uses the same algebraic equation as this flash. If you examine its use carefully, it is nothing more than a misinterpretation of the inevitable non-simultaneous space flash as a physical particle
The flash is non-causal since all the lights inside the train had to be synchronized ahead of time. The flash is no more meaningful than raking a laser beam across the moon’s surface at an angular velocity, making its lunar surface speed appear faster than light.
I am tired of tachyons. Folks comfortable with advanced physics mathematics should not create bogus, non-causal particles by misunderstanding the simpler algebraic components of special relativity.
Good stuff. Thanks Sabine! 🙂
Getting your Amazon order before you ordered it is what has made you decide to order it.
We create a model to approximate reality and then we define reality using the model and then we build another model on top again and again. Like mixtapes copied over and over, we lose fidelity in the process.
You missed all the stuff where we do experiments and observations to check the model and update it.
@@101Mant We check what we can check, not the entire model not all possibilities. So it is a low resolution picture. Science always have uncertainty embedded, unlike math.
Yes, it's a house of cards. Thoughts are models. We need to remember to look out the window or we'd think like theologians. Korzybski's referents are fundamental.
@@utkuaSure, but the experiments that we can do ensure that our fidelity increases rather than decreases. We make more accurate predictions with practical applications.
@@utkua "unlike math" Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem would like a word
I want to thank you for the incredible service you do for humanity.
You come through strong as a brilliant, kind, and honest person.
I appreciate your dedication to the scientific method and your ability to communicate complex ideas in an accessible way. Love to see your joy in examining new evidence and then.. boom you change your stance 180 degrees. This is the definition of science. Thats how it works. It’s self correcting. I hope you have a strong youth following Sabine. If civilization stands a chance it will require more role models like you.
Yes,💯
It’s all explained in Hollywood sci-fi films. 😹😹😹
But this doesn't change the fact that if you can send the information faster than light it's possible to construct a series of events to send information back in time.
You can mathematically change the direction of the arrow but if on one end you have an emitter and on the other end a detector from an actual communication event you still get reverse causality. You can then chain these together to arrive at the source of the message before it was sent.
00:02:27 When traveling faster than light, it's not about the destination, but the FIRENDS we make along the way. 😜
👍 Most of time over head, but always enjoy your way of explaining… Thank you👍👍
The key is understanding what negative energy really means. Interesting video, thanks.
I don't think it needs to *mean* anything in particular. Energy isn't "stuff" in the universe, it's a useful accounting unit and conserved quantity that summarizes the velocity and mass of a thing and all the forces acting upon it, and it's observer dependent and relative to other things. It doesn't have some universal correct absolute value.
You can have a negative balance in your bank account if you get overdrawn - we call it debt instead of negative money.
@@fwiffoYou can only have an overdraft if the bank says yes. In this case, the bank is reality, and it says no.
@@andrewhotston983 Unless this paper is correct, and thus would say: shrodinger cat.
"Negative energy" is a concept, that is taken from pseudo-psychology.
In physic it means nothing intelligent.
There is no negative energy.
The line, between negative-positive, is drawn in water.
Concept "negative energy" belongs to psychology, not physics.
There is not energy, in physics, that is "negative".
It means nothing.
The line is drawn in water.
Been following Sabine for years and she never fail to impress with inspiration, what a great video to watch. many thanks
There once was a lady named Sally Brite. She always traveled faster than light. She left one day in a relative way, and arrived the previous night.
I love the quiz! I was surprised to get full points. Sometimes I feel like I spend time watching videos, but not absorbing all of the main points. These quizzes can help!
And they are funny too😅
5:45 On the Fermi Paradox, I suspect the more likely scenario is that intelligent life in the universe follows a Power Law distribution curve, with roughly 1% of life in the universe possessing 99% of the intelligence, and 99% of all life in the universe accounting for only 1% of all intelligence.
In other words, it's mostly single-celled stuff until it suddenly isn't.
Granted, I also suspect we might really be 5-dimensional beings, with our bodies and the ensuing brain activity in 3-D being shadows or slices of our manipulating/collapsing probabilities in 4-D (think Carl Sagan's explainer on Flatlanders and apples)... so take what I have to say with some skepticism.
The explanation for the current lack of aliens is probably simple: distance. The universe is a big place and the average distance between intelligent civilizations could be prohibitive. Or maybe the average isn't prohibitive on average, but we're just outliers on the normalcy curve.
But getting back to those dimensions: Five sounds good to me; that might be an explanation for the missing sock paradox.
@@2ndfloorsongs Honestly I sometimes just think about how ridiculous abiogenesis is
@@LoLaSn Yes, ridiculous, with the possible exception of mosquitoes.
Physics is functionality. Only causality is functional. An effect can only be caused in a fixed sequence or can only be caused by chance. Insofar as time is always directed and not a continuous or discrete symmetry. Therefore, time or energy paradoxes are of course nonsense. Any finite speed is therefore of course conceivable.
If we could travel at twice the speed of light, and we traveled one light year away from Earth, we would see Earth as it appeared one year before we left. Nothing happened two time.
So we just need to send a super video camera out at twice the speed of light. and we have video of evey crime ever committed. It has to return in the same fashion.so we can use it as evidence.
Except that going that fast, you may not be able to stop. It's not like bigger brake calipers will help.
Much like Waiting For Godot (sorry to be the arse to point out your typo, at least I did it humorously)
Interesting, why not?@@mikemondano3624
@@mikemondano3624 Gotta upgrade our space-time tires
Another good video. And I got to hear that adverb again that I've never heard anywhere else, intriguingly.
Something going faster than the speed of light would therefore appear either invisible (because it's not emitting light) or slower than it's actually moving.
This is because, from a front view; it will block its own reflecting light. And from a side view; it'll look like a sparkler light trail.
When the object stops however; you might see where it started and ended simultaneously (after image)
Don't know if that applies like that.
But a situation that can be thought to happen when you still move physically through space at high sublight or faster than light speed, is that you scoop up all the gas and light in your path and release it at your destination, obliterating anything there.
Light (photon) is the released excited state of an electron orbital, in which case it is either an expansion of an electron orbital or its escaped excited state.
Thus, the wave nature of the photon is a consequence of the wave nature of the electron orbital (so, it is connected to electron's probability wave function).
A photon manifests itself as a particle when it interacts with matter:
The photoelectric phenomenon can be interpreted in such a way that the electron released ("nudged") by the photon (and then "measured") is a result from the collapse of the probability wave function (the excited and escaped state of the electron orbital) still connected to the atom, from which it was emitted (quantum entanglement).
So, "scooped up light" would be some kind of substance of the orbital's wave function:
Simply put: "light-ether", without mass.
Tachyons (now) are as real as Star Trek.
FTL particles hitting normal observers would just be the same as QM random noise - virtual particles appearing "out of nothing". Look at the previous paper by Dragan & Ekert - "Quantum Principle of Relativity" where they derive QM from special relativity using this insight.
I really like your channel, and I am so happy to see you highlighted this article. I've read one of the book of Andrzej's Dragan and I think this is a first attempt to explain how quantum physics work. From my perspective, his approach is much better than string theory, but I am not a professional physicist. I got master degree of electronics, and we were taught about quantum physics at university.
I always had one thought about time flow. Science says it can flow only in one direction, but how can we know this ? Science says there is no evidence of time flowing backwards, but is it possible to prove it at all ? Time flow direction is somehow related to entropy, we know how fast time flows after observing how some events in our surroundings happen. This is our metronome, cells aging, memories, frequency of crystals etc. What if time will stop ? We will not be able to measure it or notice that at all. What if the time will go reverse ? All the events we observed will be also reversed, and we somehow will end in some point in the past, unaware there was a future. My point is: with our capabilities, we are able to observe only one direction of time flow. So one direction of time is only a hypothesis. I would love to see your answer to that idea ;)
Regards !
It is that pesky speed of causality that bugs me …
Causes and effects exist simultaneously and are therefore just a single event and concept. Our Aristotelian thought has dichotomized them.
I really appreciate how you use the word appear.
What about time dilation?
That's a shorter, compacted discussion.
Brilliant analysis. Thanks
In my opinion: similar to supersonic airplanes cannot be heard if it is moving towards to the observer, superluminous particles can not be observed by an observer, until it passed near the observer. Like this nothing is broken, and no reverse time. But boy after it passes the observer an immense broad spectrum light boom will follow
Gotta wonder, what would that boom look like and would it be analogous to anything previously observed
Dtibor,light itself cannot be observed until it interacts with something
@@user-qh4vg3cr9z dense gamma ray burst
A tachyon? Yeah, tachyon. D
Read about them in high school over a decade ago. Glad to see more research.
Finally someone with some common sense. Believing FTL means backwards in time is just nonsense.
Except it isnt' nonsense. It's a simple logic problem:
The speed of light is really more like "the maximum speed at which information can propagate." The reason nothing can travel faster than that speed is causality: An event can't be observed before the event actually occurred. Remember: *All* observers of information must be able to "agree" from their points of reference; so even if you're not violating causality between Observer's A and B in a hypothetical scenario, you're still likely to violate causility to some arbitrary Observers C, D, E, etc.
So it's not that things are going "backwards in time," but rather to *remote observers of an event,* it would appear as if that event occurred before it ever actually started (from that observer's frame of reference). Since this is functionality impossible, we have the practical limit of "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light."
People much smarter than you or I have been trying to solve this problem for nearly 100 years, and the general consensus is that it's not a solvable problem. Not that our opinions aren't important (at least to one another), but... let's not pretend we're anything but armchair enthusiasts about a topic neither of which are particularly well versed in against, say, Einstein or Hawking (both of whom agreed with the sentiment that FTL was simply an impossibility).
But that is a consequence of even just FTL communication. You could literally send yourself the lottery numbers into the past by first sending them with 4 times the speed of light to a spaceship that moves away from earth at say 75% of the speed of light, and have it sent back to earth right away also at 4 times the speed of light.
Now the further that space ship is from earth, the farther back in time your message will be sent. Sabine even touched on that a little bit with her space-time diagrams.
So apparently there's no way around classical time paradoxes once you have FTL communication, which casts serious doubt on the whole thing if you ask me.
It becomes a lot more clear if you plot back and forth trajectory of a FTL vessel on the spacetime chart and switch frame of reference. To a different observer, on the back leg of the journey the vessel arrived before it departed.
@@helgefan8994uhh, no? Thats not how anything works. From the perspective of your message, so to speak, time is ticking by 4x faster in earth as well. So yes your message is moving very fast, but ultimately it’s still arriving… later.
Fallacy of personal incredulity.
Positrons already move faster-than-light.
That is why they go backward in time.
We have physical objects that occur in labs that already do this.
Where is the surprise?
The surprise is that Sabine forgot that positrons exist.
5:40 That doesn't solve the fermi paradox. Because if aliens achieved ftl travels and communication they could have visited us. It is not a one way discovery direction where we are up to the task only.
Maybe they did a long time ago and did not find anyone interesting?
Scientists are desperate to promote any new speculative solutions to the fermi paradox because if my very pragmatic solution to the fermi paradox is correct, within decades all future scientific progress will be halted due to increasingly large technologically induced catastrophes. And they refuse to face that reality.
@@XMickyMouseX History Channel was right after all about aliens building the pyramids!
@@chrisheist652 You mean some version of the Great Filter theory?
@@anatolydyatlov963 Yeah, there's videos from 2 years ago on my channel describing it.
Assuming you could see or detect a tachyon, wouldn't it just appear to be visible in more than one location at once, to any light speed or slower detector?
It would seem to present as a line segment, whose length is determined by the rate of detection: The conceptual time conflict only being due to the observer(s).
Amazon orders breaking causality.
I'm way ahead of Amazon. I spend my money before I earn it.
Not really breaking it, just like bending it
@epimolophant , there are a lot of us in the warp capable starship USS Debt.
Its NCC designation is NCC-♾️. In this case, NCC stands for Number of Credit Cards.
No causality at all for Temu.
Every time we know more about astronomical objects or more physics, I keep getting reminded of the cosmic horrors found in scifis like the 3BodyProblem.
Hawking warned us.
Have been wondering if it would be better to think of frequencies positive and negative instead of time?
use a sigmoid function. and there, I fixed it.😁
@@paperburn daftarse oriental. I bet you delight in Freud rice.
Our universe has a key chain rule, 2^32 - 1. If you can break this keychain rule, your particle is allowed to be in multiple universes. Its not quite that difficult, perhaps forces are alternate key chain rules, because time doesnt exist unless a force is holding multiple universes. This is easier to stomach as vacuum pressure. If you performed an operation; 12 dimensional gyro LiFe 7% group 8060 stainless, 42 billion pound gyro, space would have 7 alpha pressure operations, logrithmic transform levels, and then it wouldn't work anymore. But it always works, a keychain from another universe, not 2^32 - 1 compatible will flood the computation.
Don't correct the slide that says "your firiend". That's because in this example, your friend is a furry friend, or a "firiend". Because if he's seeing a particle that goes back in time then he's living in a fantasy and thereby exhibiting "woolly" thinking. Hence the furry aspect.
Seeing works of Andrzej Dragan nad his collegues recognized by You warms my heart. As always, love and respect, Sabine! Keep up the good job!
What a silly thing. Everyone has seen tachyons in action in Star Trek. Used to detect cloaked romulan ships.
The problem is that you cannot measure its speed and existence at the same time.
😮
What units is existence in?
@@benjaminbeard3736 units
@@alieninmybeverage you said that speed and existence can't be measured at the same time. Implying that you can measure its existence. Time is measured in seconds, minutes or hours. What units does existence come in?
Yes, you can. No problem there.
The idea of directionality to time akin to space ought to be scrutinized more.
So basically youre suggesting our outward expansion of the universe is actually the reverse of local temporal inflation intriguing that kinda does make sense logically speaking atleast in terms of FTL if all observable matter eventually falls behind lights fluctuating constant meaning they get left in the dark
Dragan, the co author of this paper, has written an absolutely awesome book "Kwantehizm" (translates to "Quantechism"). Higher level physics from first principles. A must read.
lol, I now do understand where the word Tachometer comes from.
Biggest question I have is how an observer would be able to tell the differences, other than velocity, between a particle going backwards in time and one going forward in time?
Velocity can be zero and still move through time. In the experiments, the particle causes an event that has already occurred.
@@mikemondano3624 Was that an experiment or a simulation? Anyhow what I meant was if velocity was somehow measured to be above the speed of light. Also it really depends on what time actually is to the universe, whether it is something more than how we use the cesium standard or if it is just a perspective based measurement relating to change and not something that is really traveled through. For instance, if an object or region never experiences any form of change or interaction, how would time be measured for that object or region?
@@jonloomis5210 Time is not a thing. It is emergent.
@@mikemondano3624 Again it depends on how one looks at it. In GR it is not emergent, but fundamental, hence the term space-time. The only study I have seen on the emergent properties was the one in 2013, which needs a lot more to demonstrate that scale of quantum entanglement across the universe. And that still depends on if that is even the kind of emergent time you are referring to.
@@jonloomis5210 Time is always emergent. It is a perceived consequence of thermodynamics. GR makes time not only emergent, but variable and mutable.
Oooh, Dragan stuff, nice. Thanks Sabine
Tachyon condensation is a process in particle physics in which a system can lower its potential energy by spontaneously producing particles. The end result is a "condensate" of particles that fills the volume of the system. Tachyon condensation is closely related to second-order phase transitions.
The Exciton polariton condensate (EPC) fits this process because The EPC continually loses energy due to the dispersion of energy when photons are produced and released by the EPC. Each particle in the EPC aggregation terminates in a few picoseconds but that particle is immediately replaced by another one. This continual generation of light by the EPC is where the energy goes. But in the LENR reaction such as occurs in the SunCell or the NGU reactor, loads of light are produced. But that energy is continually regenerated in a self sustaining mode by the LENR based nuclear energy effects produced within the EPC.
The EPC has been shown to exhibit negative mass properties.
In May 2023, researchers at the Australian National University (ANU) observed negative mass in exciton-polaritons, a type of light-matter hybrid particle. They discovered that under certain conditions, the dispersion of the exciton-polaritons became inverted, which is equivalent to negative mass. The researchers also found that the negative mass was caused by losses, specifically interactions between exciton-polaritons and phonons in an atomically-thin semiconductor. When the exciton-phonon interactions were turned off, the mass changed from positive to negative.
Implications
The results of this study are relevant to a wide range of photonic platforms that support Bose-Einstein-like transitions, such as photon condensates, vertically emitting laser diodes, and plasmonic structures embedded in cavities. The researchers also proposed using negative mass states to help establish long-range order, which could be useful for achieving stable condensation in these platforms
The SunCell by Brilliant Light Power's (BLP) primary energy source has a power density of 5 megawatts per liter (MW/liter) which comes in the form of EUV light. This is about the same power density of a nuclear reactor.
Rossi first attempted to sell a LENR light source a few years ago but that product was not the killer app that everybody wanted to buy. But Rossi have not given up on energy production through light generation. He will soon demo a version of the NGU LENR reactor using solar cells to convert LENR derived light into electrical power.
Here's something I thought of a while ago. The mass of a particle at a particular velocity, relative to its mass at rest, is: (M @ V) = (M @ rest)/SQRT[1 -- (V^2/C^2)]. As V approaches C, M increases without bound. So, you can't "get there from here." But what is a particle is "there," already? The denominator of the expression (and hence, M), is then, complex. One of the properties of the imaginary operator, is it shifts the direction of a vector by 90 degrees. Could there be another universe, occupying the same space as our own, but with its dimensions orthogonal to ours?
I adore your solution to the ferme paradox, because its kinda star trek logoc.😊😅 In the show civilizations dont join the galactic 'neighborhood" until they invent warp drives, aka FLT
The thing about traveling backwards in time is that there is nothing there.
_In the beginning, there was nothing. Then God said, "Let there be light!", and there was light. There was still nothing, but now you could see it a lot better._
Tachionic Amazon deliveries? Yeah, they charge you even before you've made the order.
As soon as I saw the title I knew that it was a work by my country mate. I've heard that he worked on this topic some time ago. And now he is part of they youtube video by Sabine, this is better than getting Nobel prize.
The problem with tachyons is that they are also moving from lower entropy to higher entropy. But to us it will look like spontaneously emergent order from disorder. e.g. like the start of the Universe.
Thats why what we think of as the beginning of the universe might actually be its end. We are just experiencing it in the other direction towards the heat death of the universe which was more like the heat birth of the universe.
Sabine is a beautiful world keeping her comforts until the next, big/thing✨️
I read an article many years ago by Isaac Asimov in which he proposed the existence of "tachyons". I had always thought he invented the concept, because he also designated everything that moved slower than the speed of light as "tardyons". If there is an earlier reference to either of these words in relation to FTL particles could someone please let us all know.
Czech's notes?
Fun to think about entropy in both time directions
Tenet
Sabine, the topic you were explaining today was interesting and informative. While I've taken College Algerba and did better than average. From the quadratic formula on my brain has lost all of it, well alot. I have understanding of what you discussed. A high-school physics instructor once gave me a lecture on how and what a Breeder Reactor does before school while not in his class. It was the most ENLIGHTENING material I got from someone who loves physics. Your lecture was awesome! I will like and subscribe, THANKYOU!
Everything I learned in undergraduate physics makes tachyons unphysical, violating mechanical and quantum equations.
I appreciate that one should explore all equation solutions, even those that are in the math but seem counter to all current experiments.
Would you share a talk on exploring nonphysical solutions, and when they were interesting (such as Dirac for antiparticles)?
I still think that moving forwards in time is not the same as moving backwards. Dynamics doesn't work like a videotape that you can rewind especially not in (post?)relativistic conditions. Just think on this:
I move with my surroundings faster than light, so backwards in time, and push a ball on a pool table which pushes another ball which pushes a third ball, so like me->A->B->C and the ball rolls out in the middle of the table and stops losing its momentum. Now forwards in time this should look like the particles of the table and the air an of the whole environment somehow align themselves so that they push ball C with the exact same force that it was pushed with backwards in time by B, and then B pushes A, which pushes me with the exact same force I used when I started the whole chain of events. I don't like to use the notion of entropy, but it is at least something you can understand. When a system moves in time (either forwards of backwards) there are many configurations in which a system can end up and most of the time it will end up in a configuration to which the most number of paths lead. But in order to rewind something in time exactly as it was played forward, there is only one configuration. Its like throwing a dart, you aim for the bull and you hit it 1 out of 10 times. You hit the bull and then you'd do the shot backwards in time, now your chances must be 100%, because you already know the past (that you hit it) and you can't fail. If going backwards in time was just a rewind of the events then quantum mechanics could not be applied on anything moving backwards in time, because the probabilistic nature wouldn't be there anymore.
Now about tachyons: I'd put on a different diagram with two orthogonal time axes, one real and one imaginary. The speed of light would be the 90° perpendicular to the real time axis (so 0+1*i). As an observer from stationary state accelerating to the speed of light would have a time vector rotating from 0° to 90° and past 90° the real component would be negative and that's when you move backwards in time compared to your previous stationary state, but your local time (becoming the imaginary component) would still move forward. And its not just the energy that'd be negative but the mass I think, and it would result in anti gravity, so this would repel subluminal matter, making it behave at is surroundings like there was more gravity between massive objects than expected and as if space was expanding and so on. Oh and the whole thing would be of course completely dark. Ring a bell?
The whole "forwards in time going right is the same as backwards going left" is fine for particles that already exist, but any process that creates tachyons will break this, no? Some observers would see tachyons being created, while others would see them being destroyed. The observer could then accelerate to a different frame, and observe tachyons appearing out of nowhere again.
In one dimension of space, two tachyons will perceive each other as bradyons. It is possible to say that nothing can travel slower than the speed of light, the situation being a symmetric one.
It is also possible to guess that one component of the wave function is subluminal, and the other component superluminal. This is a bit like saying that the Earth is round, but alternates between a concave form and a convex form, so it is flat on average. We shouldn’t be scared of weird ideas when we are trying to understand quantum mechanics.
You wouldn't actually notice any particle going back in time. If I see a particle in T0, and I also saw it in T0-1, then to me, it just looks like a particle moving around or appearing or disappearing. Proving or disproving tachyons would be really difficult because of this.
How do you reconcile this belief in faster than light travel with basic causality? Because regardless of any arguments regarding which way the particles move and such, paradoxes will arise when we can send signals at a speed faster than light.
Why does sending a signal faster than light pose an inherent issue with causality?
For instance construct a paradox that would occur if that were the case as an example
I've always had a problem with speed somehow being capped. Maybe it's just a limit they set on the simulation so it can run on their omega sigma quantum CPU.
I've always wondered if the physics of accelerating an object and increasing it's mass would be applicable to the the frame of reference observing the object but not to the object's own frame of reference. Sort of the same way time is different between the moving object and the observing stationary objects. It's easy for me to understand why particle accelerators using magnetic fields can't speed up an object to the speed of light, but it puzzles me to think that you couldn't use some sort of propulsion to push something faster than light especially if the change in mass is only relative to the observer. I suppose we could make a black hole just by speeding up any bit of mass until the mass approaches infinity, never thought of that before!
Well, the way i see it, this is true. In fact, if i am not wrong, if you travel at speeds close to the speed of light, and you decide to accelerate more, from your point of view, you would might run at speeds faster than light. You can in theory accelrate to speeds twice the speed of light. OUTSIDE observers would see you moving slower tham light, but they would also see your "clock" tick slower. For examble they would see your click tick at half the speed while you move at 99.99% the speed of light. From your perspective, your are moving at approximately twice the speed of light, or 600.000 kilometers per second. But keep in mind that YOUR definition of a second is different from the definition of "second" of the outside observera. Precisely your definition of a second is two times less than that of the outside observers. I think that this is how it works.
You would also see the rest of the universe change is size due to size contracting effects. In fact you can move from earth to another galaxy in just hours, WITHOUT the need to travel faster than light (according to outside observers) due to the effects i wrote above. From your perspective you can move at any speed, even faster than light, or at least mimic this speed with the length contraction events.
You can't reach black hole mass by speeding up a particle with mass. There is actually a speed limit just below C that you cannot exceed called the GZK cutoff which is exactly 99.99999999999999999998% the speed of light. At that speed you will collide with photons left over from the big bang with enough energy which will create neutral pions which will RAPIDLY decrease your energy levels and instantly take your speed down to 99.99999999999999999996% the speed of light. It is like a speed limiter that rapidly hits the brakes for you. The more energy you put into the system, the more neutral pions you create that sucks all your energy away.
The drop at the beginning is bangin
Most of the real storage of meds is in the hall closet in my house, three to six months supply. The meds we are currently taking are in medicine cabinet. I heard diamorphone hcl can last up to forty years if stored in a cool, dry place in an air tight container.