Talk:Tachyon

17 and 28 GeV neutrinos were assumed to be tachyons

See Neutrino. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Faster-than-light neutrino anomaly? --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

They were assumed to be, but it turned out to be an error. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tachyon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yitzilitt (talk · contribs) 18:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This review is dedicated as thanks to the Wikipedia community for helping me get the article Joel S. Levine to the point where I felt comfortable giving it a GAN (which it just passed!), so I'm going to try and give back by working on other GANs for while, starting with this one :) Yitz (talk)

detailed review section

As I work I will try to fill in this section with specific feedback. Yitz (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A good article is—

(1) Well-written

Actual Criteria

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

criteria 1a is pretty much met in terms of minimum standards, in my opinion, although it certainly can be improved to be a bit more readable for the average reader. For criteria 1b, I edited the lead section significantly, so as to better follow MOS:LEAD, and I believe it now qualifies in that regard. Layout seems fine. Words to watch has a few words mentioned that are used in the article, but are used in the proper context, so shouldn't be a problem. The section on fiction doesn't really apply at all here, and finally, the section on lists doesn't present any problems here.

(2) Factually accurate and verifiable

Actual Criteria

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Criteria 2a and 2c is mostly followed, with the exception of the section Tachyon#In_fiction, which seems to present original research without citation. I find myself unable to verify 2b is followed, and may need to call in a second reviewer who is more knowledgeable on the topic to go through this.

(3) Broad in its coverage

Actual Criteria

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Criteria 3a and 3b seem to be mostly followed, although I would add significantly more to the section Tachyon#In_fiction, as there really isn't much to the section right now, and is likely to be of high interest. I am also unsure if all of the technical sections are necessary, or even if they're mainstream in the scientific community.

(4) Neutral

Actual Criteria

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4 is fully covered here, in my opinion, though it's possible there's some scientific bias I'm not aware of.

(5) Stable

Actual Criteria

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

As far as I am aware, this article is indeed stable

(6) Appropriately illustrated

Actual Criteria

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

6 is fully covered here.

Call for second opinion

I feel the need to bring on a second opinion at this point, due to my lack of technical knowledge which has prevented me from fully verifying this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitzilitt (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Yitzilitt, this is not a second opinion, but the use of arxiv sources makes me think this fails criterion 2b. Arxiv is sometimes reliable, but here, it is self-published research without evidence of peer review. Urve (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The use of arXiv sources is not a problem per se; the only two I found [1][2] are by recognized experts. I'm more worried about this one [3]: it is peer-reviewed, but published in a borderline journal, and is defending non-mainstream ideas. Also, the History section is problematic, it makes suspicious claims, and needs a secondary source to give an overview of what happened, as opposed to citing only the original proposals. I tagged it with a citation needed. Tercer (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion by Femke

Firstly, I would like to thank the IP editor and the original reviewer for tackling such an important article. Unfortunately, I do not believe it meets the GA criteria as it stands. Criterion two is not met at the time. Like the original reviewer indicated, the text in the fiction section is not reflected by the source. This is however not the only instance of a failure to meet the verification criterion. Further examples are:

• ‘’ Further investigation of the experiment showed that the results were indeed erroneous’’
• “This resulted in the necessity for the GSO projection.”
• “and are probably inconsistent quantum mechanically.”

Agreed that the fiction section can be expanded, but would lean towards saying that the article does mean the broadness criteria, the expansion is only necessary for the more demanding FA criteria.

Like the original reviewer, I do not have the expertise to save the article is or isn’t neutral (a BSc in physics isn’t quite enough). However, given the article is not meeting criterion 2b, I do feel confident saying it does not meet the GA criteria. This second opinion request has been open sufficiently long that it's unlikely an expert will show up still. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to close?

Yitzilitt, as you are the original reviewer, it is up to you to complete the review. Under the circumstances, and with FemkeMilene's second opinion noting that the article indeed does not meet the GA criteria as you noted originally (2b in the verifiability criteria), the article should almost certainly be failed (especially as the original nominator has not addressed the issue since you first raised it in mid-February). Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! Yitz (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Infographic meme

Regarding the one that makes it to Reddit and Stack Exchange and such, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Spacetime that has the tachyon vector situated on the axes of a single dimension (as it is a line) and multiple time dimensions.

Since imaginary time gets a mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, why doesn't it get a mention here? I'm in favour of including some of the various theories and citing them.

Since I'm not Steven Hawking, and the best I can do is copy-paste, I'll leave this here,

"It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?"

- Stephen Hawking 49.183.10.84 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Magnesium light speed

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

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)