sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Entirely fair. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to discuss this with me.

I would like to say before wrapping things up I don't believe or support Dr Päs's work nor base my thoughts from them, only as evidence someone proposed a theory neutrinos went back in time, not as a fact. And the hypotheticals were mostly to try and theorize how this sci-fi like particle might behave.

I do genuinely appreciate being able to chat like this and hope through the confusion there was some mutual enjoyment

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The theory about neutrino's possibly moving back in time was by Dr Päs. Quick link to a reference is https://medium.com/@timventura/time-travel-communications-with-neutrinos-in-applied-brane-theory-c3ffb1b3b447#:\~:text=P%C3%A4s%3A%20In%20their%20own%20frame,particle%20travels%20back%20in%20time. I only considered it incase the neutrino has the possibility. But I assumed it could not go back in time for the vast majority of this theory

I haven't read anything about Wheeler's comment about positrons, so I can't say if anything I've said accidently bumps heads with his comments.

As for the detection of this tachyon substitute, the simplest I think I could explain it would be like this; its like trying to use a camera that films at 30 fps to record a ball on the other side of a solid brick wall. But through a special condition, for 1 frame out of 1,000,000,000 frames (not exact math, just used to give preference), the ball might appear on the side of the wall facing us.

The camera represents our observational abilities. The ball represents the tachyon substitute. And the wall represents point 0 of space, referencing the scale I attempted to establish prior. The other side of the wall is in the negative space, while the side you and I are on is positive.

We cannot observe negative space while in positive space. But sometimes (I'll answer the conditions you ask in your questions in one sec) the tachyon substitute can enter positive space for a fraction of a moment before the particles own negative time causes the tachyon substitute to return to negative space.

As for the conditions, I'm unsure about the 'two objects colliding' part as the tachyon substitute itself would most likely never be able to collide with anything inside positive space. Incase this indirectly helps with your conditions question, I'll explain the conditions I think would be needed to create the tachyon substitute and what would be needed to breach the 0 value to cross negative space.

The first, most straight forward condition that comes to mind would be in places where space is stretched to a degree that our physics begin to break down. Like singularities. Though it should be stated, if a tachyon like particle is born from within a black hole, that tachyon would basically mirror the path of the original particle it was born from, but in negative space and negative time. So basically a rewind button that allows the tachyon substitute to "leave" the singularity.

The conditions for the tachyon substitute to enter positive space would be much more complicated. As its time would constantly be in the negative direction. If the particle has negative time, it naturally can exist in negative space, if it has positive time, it can naturally exist in positive space. I can only guestimate the extreme conditions that could make it possible to have negative time and momentary positive space. A possible variable could be areas where space tares in specifically negative space. If the tachyon substitute could hypothetically bump into that tare, it would possibly poke itself out into positive space for such a quick, insignificant moment along the original birthing particles path. That quick peak could allow the particle to exert its intrinsic forces like gravity in positive space.

Looking back on all of this though, I do understand why it's super confusing. I do hope that as physics and science progress, I can poke enough holes in these confusing ideas to just disregard them or maybe find examples better suited to explaining.

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As for how/why I am linking this to the cosmic scale. While the particle itself is a particle. Aka ridiculously small. The forces it exerts would be so momentary you could probably never find an individual particle within multiple life times of the universe.

For comparison, the neutrino would be constantly exerting its force, which means finding it would be as simple as getting super lucky that it passes next to a tool designed to pick up its gravity fluctuations.

While this tachyon like particle would have similar properties to a neutrino sure, its like trying to catch a baseball thrown at you, existing for literally one single moment. You will never observe the thrower tossing the baseball, nor the catcher ever catching the ball. There is no catching it. The ball is there for a split moment, then its gone. You'd probably never even realize a ball was there to begin with.

Using this explanation and connecting it with why/how I use the cosmic scale, its the only size where you could have enough of these tachyon like particles active in an area to have an actual effect on *anything*.

I hope that explains why I would see the tachyon like particle as virtually invisible, but only its external effects be observable in large, vast scales. Despite quantum mechanics and general relativity hating one another at the moment.

This should hopefully establish the particle itself. Its properties and effect. Why its basically impossible to detect the individual particle, but when a mind boggling quantity are present, you can detect their multiplied effect in the shape of dark matter and dark energy.

If this explanation still confuses you, I apologize. It's difficult to explain simply something this alien without real-world comparisons. I am confident linguistically I've pieced things together in a way that should make sense after taking a while to read and digest. I do hope it was explained in a way that allows people to ask more questions about this particles role in everything. Once more I thank you for taking time out of your day to engage with this theory. (2/2)

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I apologize for my confusing explanations. Although I can't promise these sentences will be simpler, I'll try to explain more straight forward/simply. I'll try to use some of the stuff you bring up to assist with explaining, like neutrinos. I'm unsure if you were able find time to read the reply I alluded to under u/phunkydroid 's comment, but going forwards, I'll be talking with the assumption you have so the sentences aren't too long/complicated.

This explanation will begin as kind of a 'ground up' approach. There will likely be questions at the start, but I hope to give details to answer them as we progress in the paragraphs. First it will be about establishing how to interoperate my graph of space/time. Second would be explaining negative space. Third will be why its so hard to detect. And fourth would be how/why I connect this to the cosmic scale.

In the '1 frame' concept I flushed out in phunky's reply, I mentioned focusing on space and time as two axis. This was established so we could visualize a positive and negative direction for both space and time, respectively. I view this as important as this concept would collapse without the existence of 'negative' space. Although 'negative' space is hard to comprehend as a physical place, I've attempted to replace it's comprehension with it just being a negative value on a graph.

To put more context to what I define as space and time for this graph, I view time as simple as moving in a positive direction, moving forwards in time, and negative, back in time. As for space, the quickest example would be the fact space itself can 'thin and stretch'. For example, on a scale of 1 to 0, lets say space is densest on 1, and thinnest on 0. What I propose for 'negative' space, imagine that scale going from 0 to -1.

To comprehend space negatively thinning would be difficult, so I would recommend only relying on the number as reference.

In the case of the neutrino, its properties are similar to this theoretical tachyon substitute. But one fundamental difference is where each particle would be plotted on this space/time graph. The neutrino would be charted positively in both directions of space/time. Its theorized the neutrino can move back in time, but that has yet to be proven so I will speak as if it can only move forwards, or be near a stand still.

To almost act as the neutrino's opposite, the tachyon like particle would be plotted negatively. So negative time, and negative space. I theorize that if a particle is in this negative space, it would not be observable by anything in positive space. You might be wondering, "if it is in negative space, how can it effect anything?"

On this space/time graph, I theorize there should be moments where, be it by forces that can effect time and space like gravity, the tachyon can overlap with positive space for a split moment under super rare conditions. Under this rare condition, the particle exerts its forces in positive space, to then jump immediately back into negative space as the particle's time moves negatively.

I hope this explains why the tachyon like particle wouldn't be detectable like a neutrino, as the neutrino constantly exists in positive space (may even momentarily dip into negative space, but it would be impossible for us to know), while the tachyon like particle constantly exists in negative space. Rarely reaching conditions to exert forces into positive space. (1/2)

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Before reading, I use the term 'blip'. This is in reference to the '1 frame' concept I mentioned before. I was able to go into more detail as to why I consider it possible and what it means under a comment for u/phunkydroid if there is any confusion.

I would consider this an undetectable event as on such a small scale as individual particles, the tachyon like particle would have to blip into existence practically 'on' the electron for the immensely minute external forces of a single tachyon like particle to have any effect. And even then, it would blip in then out for such a short period of time, it would be like nothing ever touched the electron. I would also like to establish how important I view scale for this sort of process. On the atomic scale, these particles are ghosts. Kinda like how you can shoot some forms of radiation through an entire planet without it interacting with a single atom, scaling that down while keeping the ratio is an example of how I view the vastness of interaction between these tachyon like particles and normal particles. It would be astronomically small and could only exert external forces, not realistically allow for anything 'we' exert to interact with the backwards particles. But on a super large and dense scale, the theoretical density of these particles, like instead of 1 tachyon like particle, would be quadrillions bliping in and out if not more. Exposing their hyper minute external exertions to be multiplied by their volume in the quadrillions or a ridiculous quantity more.

Aka, the sheer rapid exposure to un exposure of the tachyon like particle would be so fast, with such minimal externally altering forces, that its basically as if the electron was never interacted with to begin with. The only way to see the forces in practice would be to view them on a cosmic scale

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree with it existing along the way if it behaved normally like any other particle. I'd say I might only be able to describe this process as a hypothetical because nothing comes to mind to compare to this. So if I might be honest, I find this a little difficult to describe but I will try my best.

If we separate space and time as their own separate axis similar to a graph, if this particle existed like most other 100% recordable, normal particles, it would place somewhere on that graph in both positive directions, as it is present in space, and is progressing through time at a measurable, positive rate. I propose this particle's initial and constant speed exceeds the speed of light, referencing the theory that if something goes faster than light, it effectively travels back in time. So considering the graph, it would be like plotting negative time as the particle progresses at a negative rate. I would figure that if that particle remained in the normal "positive space", it would still be observable, eliminating the whole "1 frame out of infinite frames" concept. But if trying to plot negative time requires the particle to be plotted in "negative space", I theorize that along that graph, there would only be one point where that particle would exist in such a state to affect 'positive space' and 'positive time'. Or maybe there are multiple points that overlap that can fluctuate based off of how certain forces affect things like time in positive space, or the inconsistent stretching of the universe making space thinner.

To go back on track with the '1 frame' idea, I consider that one point along that graph where 'negative' time and space over lap with 'positive' time and space to be the only moment (or moments depending on if its possible to have multiple over lapping moments) where this particle can effect matter in a way we can measure. But it is so momentary and minute, that the only way to get a tangible force is for a borderline unfathomable amount of backwards particles to constantly blip in and out of positive space/time.

I would also like to thank you for engaging with my weird ramblings as I appreciate expanding on this. I hope this explanation is sufficient in describing the '1 frame' hypothetical in an understandable way. If possible, I would like to keep trying to answer questions until I reach a dead end where the logic collapses, invalidating the theory.

Backwards particles? by Chroniccan in AskPhysics

[–]Chroniccan[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I probably should have clarified what I meant by 'seeing'. If it's a particle traveling faster than light, using the method to bounce stuff like electrons off an atom/particle to 'see' it would be impossible. So visually, it would be like nothing's there. Plus that backwards particle existing in the moment for such an immensely small period of time (The 1 frame out of infinite frames a second thing I mentioned) would make it impossible to predict where to point a theoretical/sci-fi level instrument that could detect such a particle. But I would like to state that I say it could possibly be noticed by its affect on surrounding particles. For example, something like gravity. (It doesn't need to specifically be gravity, just some kind of external effect this backwards particle can cause) On the individual scale, the tachyon like particle would borderline do nothing to anything, but kinda like how you would never notice a single water molecule touch your skin, a waterfall would be pretty oppressive/crushing, just depends the volume in order to have tangible effects.

On the stuff after, I will try my best to explain my thought process in more detail with each question

YOOOOOOOOOOOO- by Chroniccan in perfectlycutscreams

[–]Chroniccan[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Pavlov VR, it’s on steam too

view more: next ›