- #1
Debaa
- 22
- 0
Are tachyons force Particles/messenger particles ? Is so do they act messenger between two entangled particles and allow faster than light information exchange? Thank for the answer.
Debaa said:Are tachyons force Particles/messenger particles ? Is so do they act messenger between two entangled particles and allow faster than light information exchange? Thank for the answer.
No, there is no evidence for any of the above and no reason to think they do.Debaa said:But "hypothetically" since they have mass -1 maybe?
I thougt they had ##m^2=-1##.Debaa said:But "hypothetically" since they have mass -1 maybe?
My bad their m=√-1DrDu said:I thougt they had ##m^2=-1##.
Or do they? Higgs field before symmetry breaking can be thought of as a tachyon field with ##m^2<0##. Nevertheless, it does not propagate faster than ##c##. It has been discussed in more detail inPeterDonis said:Tachyons don't exist, to the best of our current knowledge. They do not appear in any of our current theories.
Demystifier said:Or do they? Higgs field before symmetry breaking can be thought of as a tachyon field with ##m^2<0##. Nevertheless, it does not propagate faster than ##c##. It has been discussed in more detail in
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-tachyons-exist.827961/
Tachyons are objects with ##m^2<0##, but the meaning of the parameter ##m## depends on the context. It may be the "mass" of the particle or the "mass" of the field.martinbn said:What is the precise definition of a tachyon? (This is a B thread so I can ask clarifying questions, right? )
Demystifier said:Higgs field before symmetry breaking can be thought of as a tachyon field with ##m^2<0##
DrDu said:I thougt they had ##m^2=-1##.
Thanks I needed this kind of an answer.Demystifier said:Or do they? Higgs field before symmetry breaking can be thought of as a tachyon field with ##m^2<0##. Nevertheless, it does not propagate faster than ##c##. It has been discussed in more detail in
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/do-tachyons-exist.827961/
Demystifier said:Tachyons are objects with ##m^2<0##, but the meaning of the parameter ##m## depends on the context. It may be the "mass" of the particle or the "mass" of the field.
In the particle case, ##m## defines the relation between energy ##E## and 3-momentum ##{\bf p}## through
$$E^2-{\bf p}^2=m^2$$
In the field case, one considers a field ##\phi(t,{\bf x})## which can be Fourier transformed in terms of plane waves ##e^{-i(\omega t- {\bf k}\cdot{\bf x})}##. Here ##m## defines the relation between frequency ##\omega## and wave 3-vector ##{\bf k}## through
$$\omega^2-{\bf k}^2=m^2$$
Is that precise enough?
I am referring to the Higgs potentialPeterDonis said:Can you clarify what you are referring to here?
I guess you know that quantization of fields leads to quantum states that can be interpreted as quantum particles. If they are states with definite energy and momentum, then their energy and momentum satisfies the same relation as that for the corresponding classical particles. That explains why such fields are called tachyon fields.martinbn said:In the field case it is not clear to me why that should be called tachyons (or anything at all), and how does the definition go in a general space-time?
Well, it depends on what do you mean by "doesn't make sense". Mathematically, it makes sense if you are studying a regime in which ##\phi## is close to zero. It is certainly not easy to satisfy this condition in an LHC experiment, but in principle it is not impossible. Initial conditions are, in principle, arbitrary, so there is no physical principle which would forbid ##\phi(t=0)=0##. For a short time after such initial condition, the system would behave as a tachyon field.vanhees71 said:But the point is that for this potential pertubation theory around ##\phi=0## doesn't make sense, because it's a maximum of the potential rather than a minimum.
Neither do I. That's one of the reasons forvanhees71 said:That's an interesting gedanken experiment. However, I've no clue, how you'd experimentally make ##\phi=0## at some time ##t##.
Demystifier said:I am referring to the Higgs potential
Can you be more explicit?DrDu said:Terms luke "soft modes" and " glass transition" come to my mind.
PeterDonis said:Tachyons don't exist, to the best of our current knowledge. They do not appear in any of our current theories.
LeandroMdO said:They do, though. As Demystifier pointed out, they show up whenever you are perturbing around an unstable vacuum.
Drakkith said:I'm pretty sure Peter was saying that tachyons, in the context of FTL particles that the OP was asking about, do not exist.
Tachyons are hypothetical particles that are believed to travel faster than the speed of light. They are predicted by some theoretical models, but have not yet been observed or proven to exist.
Tachyons are predicted to be bosons, which are particles that have integer spin values. This is based on their theoretical properties and behavior in mathematical models, but it has not been confirmed through experimentation.
Tachyons are believed to be force particles, which means they are responsible for carrying and mediating fundamental forces such as gravity and electromagnetism. However, their role as force particles is still a topic of debate and further research is needed.
According to current scientific understanding, it is not possible to use tachyons for faster-than-light travel. The properties and behavior of tachyons are still largely theoretical and there is no evidence to suggest that they can be harnessed for practical use.
Tachyons are not included in the Standard Model of particle physics. This is because their existence has not been confirmed and they do not fit into the current framework of the model. However, some extensions to the Standard Model, such as string theory, do incorporate tachyons in their theoretical models.