Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: A discussion of 'Tachyons, the 4-momentum ...'
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2024 11:28:52 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <c676086a85c7e944a98d4a9e8a1207cd@www.novabbs.com>
References: <7b7801803ba85c52030404bcf149487d@www.novabbs.com> <j3f1ccBcOPWkaLCVw-N3SGdc830@jntp> <b9f3c4b3b921a6bfa6599fdb134f81b1@www.novabbs.com> <Jx4ogSBQnQUGiIj4oQSTCYQhlK4@jntp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="525842"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="TRF929uvrTGZYJLF+N3tVBXNVfr/PeoSjsJ9hd5hWzo";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$F5.uzhf4YvZorid9Adb1AOshap3qI505nLIv/lR2UYVwFMaQ6T102
X-Rslight-Posting-User: cefb4c33981645a229d345bae7bb8942e6b32c35
Bytes: 6639
Lines: 114

On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 18:09:08 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
>
> Le 03/10/2024 à 19:30, hitlong@yahoo.com (gharnagel) a écrit :
>
> > On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 12:36:27 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
> > >
> > > What must be understood in special relativity is that the
> > > photon IS already a tachyon since it moves infinitely fast;
> > > since it IS an instantaneous energy transaction in the
> > > hyperplane of simultaneity of the receiver.
> >
> > Monsieur Hachel, it pains me that I must disagree with you,
> > for you have conflated the frame of the photon (within which
> > no red-blooded human composed of tardyons can be at rest)
> > with the frame in which red-blooded humans CAN be at rest.
> > Photons are generally-believed to experience no time, hence
> > what you assert is true - in THAT frame.
> >
> > However, in the frames which we poor, slow tardyon slugs lounge
> > in comfort, time does indeed pass.  Even we poor slugs measure
> > the speed of photons as 299796458 meters/second in vacuum, thus
> > we are painfully aware that light crawls along so slowly that
> > true tachyons (i.e., those particles that we poor humans would
> > measure traveling faster than those slow photons) MUST exist
> > because the universe is such a really, really absurdly BIG place.
> >
> > I'm really, really sorry that you have deluded yourself.
>
> Monsieur Harnagel,
> I don't mind that you disagree with me, and I respect your way of
> thinking.
> Thank you for your post and the clarifications you give me.
> But don't worry about me, I have too many decades of thinking
> behind me to go back on what I said, and what I believe to be
> true.

Well, they say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks.  But I
am the refutation of that adage.  Why can't you be, too?

> You tell me, if I understand correctly, that in the laboratory
> frame of reference, a certain amount of time passes between the
> emission of the photon at A (in a tube for example) and its
> reception at B, on the other side of the tube.

Indeed it does, as literally millions of experiments confirm it.

> In short, that if time is zero for the photon itself (on the back
> of which we have placed a heavy 120 kg clock that will measure
> zero time), it is not the same for ALL points in the laboratory,
> and that all these points, if AB is 3 meters then all will measure
> t=10 nanoseconds.
> That's exactly what you're saying.

Sadly, it is not what I am saying, and for two reasons.  A clock is
composed of tardyons, particles which always travel slower than
the speed of light, so clocks can never read zero time on any trip
they may take.  And second, photons are very, very small particles
so 120 kg of mass would cause their immediate destruction.

> On this, I do not follow you, and I would like you to understand
> my thinking, not so that I can brag, but because it is very
> important to understand.
> Each point of the laboratory, in Newtonian physics, and even in
> Einsteinian physics, has the same hyperplane of present time,
> the same hyperplane of supposed simultaneity.
> However, this is no longer true in relativistic physics of the
> Hachel type (that's me).
> Everything will depend on the POSITION of the observer in the
> laboratory frame of reference.
> Thus the receiver who will collect the photon, will consider that
> the transfer time is zero although being in the laboratory, whereas
> in the hyperplane of the source, the transfer will take place in
> 20 real nanoseconds.
> It is only a "neutral", transversal observer, having placed a watch
> at A and another at B, will measure t=10 ns.
> Strangely, this evidence disorients men, who are not inclined to
> think of things other than very superficially.
> Yet it is pure logic, physics, mathematics and experimentation.
>
> R.H.

Why would the receiver consider that the transfer time is zero?
How would it KNOW that the transfer time was zero?

We must assume that a 120 kg clock :-) is attached to the receiver,
which we can do because the receiver is not a photon.  It's really
a stop watch, so it needs a signal to start it and a signal to stop
it.  Receipt of the photon stops the clock, but it needs a signal
to start it.

You must be assuming that this signal comes from the instrument that
launches the photon, and this signal travels to the receiver at the
speed of light and would, therefore arrive at the same time as the
photon under measurement, n'est-ce pas?

Well, you can trust me because because I am an experimental physicist,
and we experimental physicists would not make such an unprofessional
mistake.  We would set up the transmitter with a switch like the ones
we installed in the receiver to start and stop the timer in the
receiver.

Then we would locate the start switch halfway between the transmitter
and the receiver.  When the start switch is closed, it sends a signal
to both transmitter and receiver switches which closes both receiver
and transmitter switches simultaneously.  Thus the receiver timer
will measure the true time it takes the photon to travel.

If the good Doctor Hachel's assertion that photons took zero time
to travel, RADAR would not be able to measure the distance of
airplanes from airports and flight controllers would believe that
all planes in flight were actually right on top of the control
tower, which we know is not the case.

So I trust that the old dog has sufficient brain cells left to
process all of this information that is new to him.