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...
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 .
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.
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 !
@@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.
@@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!
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.
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.
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?..
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'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 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."
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
Trying to wrap my head around how you even work out what the real momentum of such a thing woukd be. Best I can think of is - you have a box in space, where there is free fall, i.e. no apparent gravity. On either side of the box are two people, each with a thruster pack which is designed to work at their real maximum physical speed. They use this to push from opposite directions on the box. Now.. in principle, if you could read the deformation of the box you could compute the effective total force being applied, but otherwise you are depending on the momentum of the whole system, so the only force you can measure is which direction, and st what speed the whole system of box, and pushers, was accelerating at. Now.. assuming that a tachyon applied a set of forces, on impact with another particle, it would, or maybe I am wrong, appear to apply, based on such quantum equations, two opposing forces, which average to the apparent "real one". Since we can't measure a deformation in a particle, to determine the real momentum, how do you know if you haven't already detected them and just has no idea what it was? Mind, I am probably just talking out of my ignorance, so.... lol
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.
@@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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
I think that of FTL travel was possible, colonization efforts would be trivial. And on cosmic timescales, such triviality would mean that most of the galaxy should have been colonized by now. Unless of course we're alone in the galaxy. I think a far better explanation for the fermi paradox is that faster than light travel is impossible and life is rare enough to where we're alone within our lightcone.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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)
“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.
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.
@@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.
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!
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 !
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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?
This means that we almost know what causes the quantum wave collapse. We have a very distorted idea of time. Or we have invented the notion of time to accommodate other beliefs and it's part of a belief system that prevails in the western scientific world. This means that your present state, thoughts, desires, choices are influenced and affected by your whole story, which is not just your past, but also your future.
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?
@@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?
@@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.
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!
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.
Seems to me that saying that particles do not travel through time breaks down when you consider unstable particles traveling through a region not conducive to their formation -- let them travel forward in time long enough and they decay, but the decay products have such a low probability of recombining to form the original particle that for all practical purposes the probability might as well be zero.
Glad to see you guys are finally getting it.... I proposed that velocity was like latitude, and that light speed was the equator of time some years back and posted a thesis on NASA questions, and never heard from them,,, But maybe six months or so later my entire thesis was an artical on Fox News, minus one thing I proposed. I also planted it on Asrophysics forums. And took alot of Flak. Did get to chat with one actual smart Astro Physicist about it, and he was intrigued. Part of it was that time reversed on the other side of the light speed barrier. I also discussed it on a manosphere forum at the time... All of that is in the way back machine... Also have planted pieces here in your comments occaisionally... Keep negating! Until you get it!
Why many people think past can't be changed? Can you know that whether today's event is changed by future or not? If we can change the past or communcate with the past, that means past is not past at all. Past is future. Because change of past will also change today and future too.
Knowing what Dragan and Ekert were working on, I was sure it was only a matter of time until Sabine brought up the topic on her channel. I think it was also worth mentioning that the tachyon world has one space dimension and three time dimensions. Trying to grasp this with your imagination can cook the brain.
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).
Only for "our" reference frame. If a spaceship fly's past you going 50% of C then it's speed of light angle is screwed from 45 degrees from your perspective. That's where Lorentz transformations come in.
0:40 I'm near the beginning of the video, and I'm rather skeptical. When virtual particles go faster than light in one frame, they become faster-than-light antiparticles in another frame, going the opposite direction. 6:00 If your order arrives before you make the order, you have no motivation to make the order.
That is not possible. Causalty is directed and not a continuous or discrete symmetry.The speed of information (c) is not identical with causality.Just because we first knowing only the effect does not mean , that it had no cause.Any finite speed for a causal relationship is conceivable. This does not have to be limited to c. Causality is a functional connection that cannot be changed. It is bound to a sequence that is unchangeable.
@@JohnRandomness105 No, That does not mean it . Physics is in love with its continuous or discrete symmetries. That is why they would like to have time symmetry and information conservation. Unfortunately, the most important law of physics is causality. This is directed and therefore asymmetrical. A look in the mirror shows this fact immediately. Beginning (rear) and end (in front) cannot be swapped at will. They remain the same in every reference system.This fact has already been proven experimentally. All mirror symmetries have been proven to be broken , in directed processes ( CPT symmetries).An opposite orientation of particles does NOT mean that causality is thereby invalidated. Every orientation remains causally directed. No paradox can arise. So faster than light is possible, because the speed of light only limits actually the possibility of perception and not the actual connections. See the entanglement. This is not acausal, as is often claimed. Of course there is a cause before this effect. That is the Interaction at the moment of entanglement and the measurement. Without the moment of entanglement and measurement there is no effect. That is finite speed of causality , beyond the speed of light.The fact that this effect is not used for information transmission ( information detection limited by c) does not change the fact , that it obeys a causal order of events. So faster than light explicitly does NOT mean that causal paradoxes arise, in the form that an effect occurs before the cause has been set. It simply means what it says: a speed that is also finite, but faster than light. All signals that reach the faster than light , will simply appear to us as simultaneous , synchron or instantaneous. Does this remind you of your current reality ? Things always seem to be there before you notice them. And in fact, they are there even before you can perceive them. We call this fact object permanence. Object permanence means nothing other than that a causal connection has been realized before you can perceive it.
To the extent I understand, it does seem like a cleaner way of distinguishing time direction than by defining the future by being the direction in time in which entropy tends to increase. Although I did find it cute to imagine tachyons as particles that did travel backwards in time, in that their interactions lowered entropy from our perspective. But not as a serious concept to entertain
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.
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.
How will we be able to conclude that a particule moves faster that light... if the information is conveyed to us through light (assumed to be a constant) ? Assume an horizontal axis, we are at the origine. Assume a particle moving at 2c located at x= - 4 at t=0. It will be at x = -2 one second later, x=0 at t=2, and so on. But that particle emit light, moving at 1 c. Let us compute WHEN we wee it: at t particle at its light reach us in so, it reaches us at 0 -4 4 sec later t=4 1 -2 2 t=3 2 0 0 t=0 3 +2 2 t=2 4 +4 4 t=6 So, we see nothing before t=0 At t=0, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, appears a particule which splits into two particules, one moving left, one moving right. And if we have beacons at distances of -4, -2, +2 and +4, or otherwise to get the time when the "image" of the particle reaches us, so that we can compute the speed of that "image" of the particle (since at t=4, looking at the left, we DON'T SEE the particle, but the IMAGE it emitted, since what we see is not the particle but its image, like we see the image of Betelgeuse, not the actual Betelgeuse), we conclude the "image" at the right starts fast ( 2 seconds to travel 2c, then 6-2 = 4 second to travel the same) and slows down. The image from the left does the reverse: 3 seconds to travel 2c, then 1 second to travel ... 2. So, assuming that we have these beacons (what are they?) we will see that, at first, these "images" have not a constant speed, and that there is something that accelerate (de-accelerate) them. We won't even see them as just one particle. And that is just in theory. How will we really detect a particle moving faster than the speed of light using the speed of light to carry us the proper info?
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 UA-cam 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🍻.
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.
Man, it would be great to airdrop yourself some resources in the past.
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!
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
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?..
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 😢
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 :)
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.
1:35 - We appreciate that even the physicists don't intuitively understand their own models.
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.
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.
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 😅
[Checks notes]
😂😂😂
what, one day ago, what
This guy traveled back in time. What the heck?!
Probably a UA-cam 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.
I have learned more from your videos, the ones that aren't over my head, this was great. Thank you.
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?
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.
"I alway have been, and always will be, your firend." (I appreciate Dr. Hossenfelder very much, just couldn't resist.)
0:29 “Wormholes and Warp Drives” sounds like the title of a Muse song
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.
So Einstein was wrong
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!
Been following Sabine for years and she never fail to impress with inspiration, what a great video to watch. many thanks
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.
@@JPdeRuiter Nice, I just started reading shadow of the scorpion a few days ago
Trying to wrap my head around how you even work out what the real momentum of such a thing woukd be. Best I can think of is - you have a box in space, where there is free fall, i.e. no apparent gravity. On either side of the box are two people, each with a thruster pack which is designed to work at their real maximum physical speed. They use this to push from opposite directions on the box. Now.. in principle, if you could read the deformation of the box you could compute the effective total force being applied, but otherwise you are depending on the momentum of the whole system, so the only force you can measure is which direction, and st what speed the whole system of box, and pushers, was accelerating at. Now.. assuming that a tachyon applied a set of forces, on impact with another particle, it would, or maybe I am wrong, appear to apply, based on such quantum equations, two opposing forces, which average to the apparent "real one". Since we can't measure a deformation in a particle, to determine the real momentum, how do you know if you haven't already detected them and just has no idea what it was?
Mind, I am probably just talking out of my ignorance, so.... lol
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
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.
Good stuff. Thanks Sabine! 🙂
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!
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
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
Live long and prosper, Sabine Hossenfelder!
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,💯
"This is a space time diagram with time on the... *checks notes*" 🤣 I love you, Sabine!
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
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.
Or general theory is wrong and we though wrong way
I think that of FTL travel was possible, colonization efforts would be trivial. And on cosmic timescales, such triviality would mean that most of the galaxy should have been colonized by now. Unless of course we're alone in the galaxy.
I think a far better explanation for the fermi paradox is that faster than light travel is impossible and life is rare enough to where we're alone within our lightcone.
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.
Very intelligent wise lady & six languish faster than light.
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.
Sabine, you are soooo much smarter than me. I am grateful we can still hang out on UA-cam.
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
Getting your Amazon order before you ordered it is what has made you decide to order it.
It’s all explained in Hollywood sci-fi films. 😹😹😹
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)
🤔 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.
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.
Excellent video that sent me down a huge rabbit hole in the study. Keep up the great work Sabine.
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
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😅
00:02:27 When traveling faster than light, it's not about the destination, but the FIRENDS we make along the way. 😜
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 !
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
This sounds similar the interpretation that antimatter is matter moving backwards in time.
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.
Or meaby we think wrong how time travel and speed works
And general relativity is wrong
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
“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.
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.
A tachyon? Yeah, tachyon. D
Read about them in high school over a decade ago. Glad to see more research.
What about time dilation?
That's a shorter, compacted discussion.
👍 Most of time over head, but always enjoy your way of explaining… Thank you👍👍
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'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.
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.
Another good video. And I got to hear that adverb again that I've never heard anywhere else, intriguingly.
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.
Sabine had a very nice summer holiday 😊
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.
3:00 ~ Aren't we and everything we can see already travelling at the speed of light?
no
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.
2:27 Friend*
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.
Sabine is a beautiful world keeping her comforts until the next, big/thing✨️
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.
Exactly 💯 these ultra ancient galaxies are observed within a vector thingy
nothing can travel faster than mom calling you for dinner
This means that we almost know what causes the quantum wave collapse. We have a very distorted idea of time. Or we have invented the notion of time to accommodate other beliefs and it's part of a belief system that prevails in the western scientific world. This means that your present state, thoughts, desires, choices are influenced and affected by your whole story, which is not just your past, but also your future.
Exactly 👍
I didn't know my tachometer could go both ways.
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.
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!
2:26 What type of particle is a "FIREND" ?
It sleeps on your couch long past its welcome and eats all your food.
@@mikemondano3624 That sounds like the elusive particle Mi-X
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.
Physics are only theory
Functionality is when we apply physics into practice
Seems to me that saying that particles do not travel through time breaks down when you consider unstable particles traveling through a region not conducive to their formation -- let them travel forward in time long enough and they decay, but the decay products have such a low probability of recombining to form the original particle that for all practical purposes the probability might as well be zero.
It is as crazy as it sounds but could be mathematically true after all 😏
Fun to think about entropy in both time directions
Tenet
I'm just here for the paradoxes. Paradoxii? 🤷
Glad to see you guys are finally getting it....
I proposed that velocity was like latitude, and that light speed was the equator of time some years back and posted a thesis on NASA questions, and never heard from them,,,
But maybe six months or so later my entire thesis was an artical on Fox News, minus one thing I proposed.
I also planted it on Asrophysics forums. And took alot of Flak.
Did get to chat with one actual smart Astro Physicist about it, and he was intrigued. Part of it was that time reversed on the other side of the light speed barrier.
I also discussed it on a manosphere forum at the time...
All of that is in the way back machine...
Also have planted pieces here in your comments occaisionally...
Keep negating!
Until you get it!
Why many people think past can't be changed? Can you know that whether today's event is changed by future or not? If we can change the past or communcate with the past, that means past is not past at all. Past is future. Because change of past will also change today and future too.
Knowing what Dragan and Ekert were working on, I was sure it was only a matter of time until Sabine brought up the topic on her channel. I think it was also worth mentioning that the tachyon world has one space dimension and three time dimensions. Trying to grasp this with your imagination can cook the brain.
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).
If there's one thing I've learned from this channel it's that by convention we draw the speed of light at a 45 degree angle.
Only for "our" reference frame. If a spaceship fly's past you going 50% of C then it's speed of light angle is screwed from 45 degrees from your perspective. That's where Lorentz transformations come in.
0:40 I'm near the beginning of the video, and I'm rather skeptical. When virtual particles go faster than light in one frame, they become faster-than-light antiparticles in another frame, going the opposite direction.
6:00 If your order arrives before you make the order, you have no motivation to make the order.
That is not possible. Causalty is directed and not a continuous or discrete symmetry.The speed of information (c) is not identical with causality.Just because we first knowing only the effect does not mean , that it had no cause.Any finite speed for a causal relationship is conceivable. This does not have to be limited to c.
Causality is a functional connection that cannot be changed. It is bound to a sequence that is unchangeable.
@@skhi7658 Of course, this shows that the situation is impossible: the order can't arrive before it was placed.
@@JohnRandomness105
No, That does not mean it .
Physics is in love with its continuous or discrete symmetries. That is why they would like to have time symmetry and information conservation. Unfortunately, the most important law of physics is causality. This is directed and therefore asymmetrical. A look in the mirror shows this fact immediately. Beginning (rear) and end (in front) cannot be swapped at will. They remain the same in every reference system.This fact has already been proven experimentally. All mirror symmetries have been proven to be broken , in directed processes ( CPT symmetries).An opposite orientation of particles does NOT mean that causality is thereby invalidated. Every orientation remains causally directed. No paradox can arise. So faster than light is possible, because the speed of light only limits actually the possibility of perception and not the actual connections. See the entanglement. This is not acausal, as is often claimed. Of course there is a cause before this effect. That is the Interaction at the moment of entanglement and the measurement. Without the moment of entanglement and measurement there is no effect. That is finite speed of causality , beyond the speed of light.The fact that this effect is not used for information transmission ( information detection limited by c) does not change the fact , that it obeys a causal order of events. So faster than light explicitly does NOT mean that causal paradoxes arise, in the form that an effect occurs before the cause has been set. It simply means what it says: a speed that is also finite, but faster than light. All signals that reach the faster than light , will simply appear to us as simultaneous , synchron or instantaneous.
Does this remind you of your current reality ? Things always seem to be there before you notice them. And in fact, they are there even before you can perceive them. We call this fact object permanence.
Object permanence means nothing other than that a causal connection has been realized before you can perceive it.
Brilliant analysis. Thanks
Did you know that travelling faster than the speed of time, would allow a person to be in every point in the universe, simultaneously?
To the extent I understand, it does seem like a cleaner way of distinguishing time direction than by defining the future by being the direction in time in which entropy tends to increase. Although I did find it cute to imagine tachyons as particles that did travel backwards in time, in that their interactions lowered entropy from our perspective. But not as a serious concept to entertain
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.
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.
How will we be able to conclude that a particule moves faster that light... if the information is conveyed to us through light (assumed to be a constant) ?
Assume an horizontal axis, we are at the origine. Assume a particle moving at 2c located at x= - 4 at t=0. It will be at x = -2 one second later, x=0 at t=2, and so on.
But that particle emit light, moving at 1 c. Let us compute WHEN we wee it:
at t particle at its light reach us in so, it reaches us at
0 -4 4 sec later t=4
1 -2 2 t=3
2 0 0 t=0
3 +2 2 t=2
4 +4 4 t=6
So, we see nothing before t=0
At t=0, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, appears a particule which splits into two particules, one moving left, one moving right.
And if we have beacons at distances of -4, -2, +2 and +4, or otherwise to get the time when the "image" of the particle reaches us, so that we can compute the speed of that "image" of the particle (since at t=4, looking at the left, we DON'T SEE the particle, but the IMAGE it emitted, since what we see is not the particle but its image, like we see the image of Betelgeuse, not the actual Betelgeuse), we conclude the "image" at the right starts fast ( 2 seconds to travel 2c, then 6-2 = 4 second to travel the same) and slows down. The image from the left does the reverse: 3 seconds to travel 2c, then 1 second to travel ... 2.
So, assuming that we have these beacons (what are they?) we will see that, at first, these "images" have not a constant speed, and that there is something that accelerate (de-accelerate) them. We won't even see them as just one particle.
And that is just in theory. How will we really detect a particle moving faster than the speed of light using the speed of light to carry us the proper info?
Tachionic Amazon deliveries? Yeah, they charge you even before you've made the order.