On May 4, 11:37 pm, "Prof Barnhart" wrote:
"El Enrrabadore-mor" wrote in message

...

"Prof Barnhart" escreveu na mensagem
...

To progress further requires conceptualization, not about more transient
particles, but about the true electromagnetic nature of reality.

I'm not sure about a "true electromagnetic nature of reality".

I might have said "wave nature of reality".

It is best to disregard anything that I have said. I am coming from the
position that this universe was built by a superior race. It surely didn't
spontaneously generate. I strongly suspect that a vast portion of this
universal system is hidden from our view.

I agree completely with that last sentence but I consider the
immediately preceding to be unnecessary speculation.

But that's just me.

I also do not quite see that reality must necessarily have an EM
basis. There are plenty of EM-neutral phenomena that nonetheless
display all sorts of interesting orthogonal-gyroscopic effects.

I replied because some of your thinking meshes nicely with some of
mine. Seems to me it does, anyway.

As a line segment is a point if viewed 90 degree out of phase, there is an
electromagnetic sub-system that we cannot perceive except when looking at
space/time effects. There is a Doppler effect: red or blue shift, but there
is also a more complex Doppler (for lack of a better term) effect that is
responsible for time dilation. This effect involves a rotation into a part
of the whole system that is not normally perceived.

*SPECULATION WARNING*

Consider a Minkowski space-time diagram scaled such that the speed
of light is a line sloping at 45 degrees to both the space and time
axes. Draw upon it the trajectory of an extended object which has no
motion; it will be a (slightly thick) straight line "upward" into the
future.

Consider that we now can mathematically describe the location and
momentum of a physical object as a "matter wave". Notice the straight
line depicts the path of propagation of the object's matter wave
through spacetime.

Now accelerate the object to a constant (less than c) velocity to
the right and watch its trajectory describe a (thick) curve blending
into a (thick) line with a constant slope.

Let the slope of that line approach the speed of light and the
extension of the object in the direction of travel becomes noticeably
smaller. That might be viewed as the rotation of the object's physical
extension out of the space dimension and into the "time" dimension. (I
say "might be", but pretty much everyone else views it as "unnecessary
speculation".)

Well, I consider it absolutely necessary speculation. Without
speculation we might as well spend forever searching only under the
streetlamp as the saying goes.

It is (AFAIK solely) my opinion that tachyons exist, and are
perfectly ordinary particles like leptons and quarks (and composites
thereof) and assorted massive bosons. However they are not detectable
as such by us because not only are their physical extensions at right
angles to those of particles we can detect but so are their detectable
fields (IOW a tachyon's matter wave is propagating at right angles to
the trajectories of all ordinary matter's waves- no big deal) For that
matter, so-called "point" particles _have_ no spatial extension except
for their fields, including those of their matter waves.

Hence they exist but we cannot detect them.

What's the point of postulating something forever undetectable? None
of course, but that assumes that word "forever" to be an inescapable
consequence of c being an unbreakable speed barrier.

I do not so assume. I speculate that it _is_ possible to exceed c,
not because I'm an anti-Einstein nutcase but because it has not been
conclusively demonstrated that spacetime is _not_ quantized. I
speculate that it is and that therefore so must velocity be quantized.
Hence exceeding c is subject to tunneling.

(Note that Einstein at first resisted quantum theory, then gave in
and tried to reconcile it with the Relativities but died first.)

Fortunately my speculation is AFAIK not directly contradicted by any
empirical evidence. Unfortunately I have yet to think of a way to
empirically test it, IOW to get something to tunnel past c. I suspect
it'll require a fairly unusual set of circumstances involving fairly
exotic states of matter, like say a programming accident involving
doing high-power NMR on a BEC of Cooper-paired neutrons or similar.

Why should I care? For one, same as you; it'd be a dandy way to
store and retrieve energy. Then there's FTL communications and
travel... but that's a set of speculations for later. And yes I know
about generalizations of the Grandfather Paradox, but notice that
there can be whole classes of FTL trajectories that do not generate
paradoxes, and ISTM those will be the only ones possible to use.

I don't expect anyone to agree, but there is considerable evidence of this
in Einstein's writings (from my perspective). Unfortunatley, my greatest
talent seems to be driving myself into a state of confusion, but I do make
progress.

In my opinion confusion results from failing to recognize one's
stubbornness; don't insist that reality match your opinions.

How do I reconcile that with my speculations? I'm a big fan of
symmetries, and tachyons' existence would be a huge symmetry.

This unseen sub-system is a source of energy, among other things. Right or
wrong it is what I look for. It is best that I pursue this alone. If for
no other reason than because I am almost always at a loss for words.

If by that you mean that you have a hard time supporting your
position in the face of arguments (which easily get vitriolic here in
sci.physics) perhaps you'd care to continue elsewhere, say in
rec.arts.sf.science? I'm quite serious; even though that group exists
to discuss the science in science fiction, speculation is generally
quite welcome if there's any possibility of wrapping a story around
it. I should warn you that it's very difficult to suggest a concept
there that a regular won't be able to mention a published story that
uses it. Also many posters there have rather better educations (not to
mention better manners) than many here; you'll likely get better
feedback there than here.

One of the things that started this search is Einstien"s explanation that
the electric and magnetic fields are one in the same viewed from two
different positions 90 degrees apart.

Yep. Whatever the entities we call "matter waves" are, and those of
tachyons, same same.

Couple the above with the 3 mechanisms for EM propagation. All one can do
is try. There is no way that this happened spontaneously. This place was
built.

I don't see how that last part follows. Is it the sheer complexity
of it that convinces you it is a construct? How about the abode of the
constructors? Would theirs thus necessarily be more, or less complex
than ours? Was _it_ constructed? How do you avoid the "turtles all the
way down" trap?

Thanks to all of you for not ripping my face off. Have Fun, Mark

Do my best!

Sure there are lots of important "mechanisms" into electromagnetism,
that show effects acting instantaneously at orthogonal directions (axis).
Light is an electric field acting 90 degrees out-of-phase from
the associated magnetic field.
(90 degrees out-of-phase means orthogonal to my understanding).

As mentioned elsewhere, that depends on whether in vacumm or a
refractive medium.

Reality is made of mass and electromagnetism (massless).
Both don't seam to mix quite well.

In terms of mass behaviour, orthogonal like phenomenon only in
gyroscopes.

Speaking of which, I suggest you (and he-who-names-himself-rudely)
investigate nuclear magnetic resonance.


Mark L. Fergerson