- #36
Neo_Anderson
- 171
- 1
DaveC426913 said:He was not referencing a Wiki article per se. There are references to peer-reviewed articles in the reference section is all.
No, we do not. Discussion of tachyons does not violate PF rules.
JesseM said:What you don't seem to understand is that it's irrelevant whether we believe they actually exist or not, the point is that they are interesting on a theoretical level and compatible with relativity. If you think that anything that likely doesn't exist is "crackpot", I'd suggest you don't really understand what that word means. For example, most physicists think singularities of infinite density will be ruled out by quantum gravity, most physicists think eternal Schwarzschild black holes which connect to other universes are impossible (because the universe itself is probably not eternal), most physicists think the universe won't collapse in a Big Crunch, most physicists think closed timelike curves will turn out to be impossible, but none of these ideas are "crackpot". Crackpot refers to a style of bad unscientific reasoning (see here, here and here) to support conclusions which usually contradict known evidence, there is nothing crackpotty about an informed discussion of theoretical possibilities which everyone acknowledges are not likely to exist in reality.
YOU GUYS: JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION DOES NOT MAKE IT ACTUAL PHYSICS! Wormholes. Tachyons. Superstrings. This is the stuff Hollywood is made of, and is believed wholeheartedly by every crackpot that watches it.
Does Captian Piccard deserve the Nobel Peace Prize for making peace with the Romulins(Y/N)?
Does Dr. Beverly Crusher get the Nobel Prize in medicine for "Practical Applications of the Tachyon in Accelerated Healing Processes" (Y/N)?
Does Jodie Foster deserve the Nobel Prize for the discovery of wormholes in that Hollywood movie Contact (Y/N)?