Talk:Tachyon

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

The opening paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Tachyons needs to be challenged. Causality is not a fundamental law of physics. It is a consequence of Special Relativity applicable only to particles that travel slower than the speed of light. The whole idea of "grandfather paradox" is based upon careless use of language (by many respected physicists).A detailed debunking of several anti-tachyon myths is published in: Charles Schwartz, "A Consistent Theory of Tachyons with Interesting Physics for Neutrinos" Symmetry 14, 1172 (2202) Charlieschwartz (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

“Covariant quantum field theory of tachyons”, see https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00450 - looks like it deserves a mention here. Tim Bray (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Too soon. The article is unreviewed. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The text in the History section is, "Oleksa-Myron Bilanuik, Vijay Deshpande and E. C. George Sudarshan discussed this more recently in their 1962 paper on the topic and in 1969."

The inclusion of the phrase "more recently" is misleading and confusing, considering the next date following the phrase is 1962, which is clearly further in the past than the next date afterwards, 1969. This section should be rewritten to be more clear and accurate. Something like:

"Oleksa-Myron Bilanuik, Vijay Deshpande, and E. C. George Sudarshan discussed theoretical faster-than-light particles in a 1962 paper, and then again in 1969."

This information may also be better put before the section detailing the coining of the term tachyon, since at least some of the events precede that occurrence (there is mention of the paper in 1962, while the word tachyon was not coined until 1967). This change is of lesser importance, but I do feel it would be appropriate.

Since I do not have access to the articles/papers referenced, I cannot be sure of all the conclusions I have made. Therefore, I will not be implementing any edits myself. Outisakanobody (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Almost two years ago I entered a challenge, on this talk page of the Wiki article TACHYON. I claimed that tachyons DO NOT imply a causal paradox or allow sending a message into the past. I got no response from anyone; and the misleading/false information in this Wiki article continues to be propagated. So, earlier this month, I tried again; this time I entered an edit to the article, citing my previously published debunking of this (and other) anti-tachyon myths. I cited my paper at doi:10.1142/S0217751X24500854 (maybe this number got misspelled before) as the best source of correct analysis on this topic.My edit was rejected because of a possible COI. There is no COI here. I am a retired Professor of Physics, with a pension from UC Berkeley; but there is no money from anywhere involved in my research/publicaton. I have sought advice from Wiki guardians and it seems I must first convince most of my professional colleagues that I am right about this dispute; but most of my colleagues seem to rely upon Wiki's false statements to support their prejudice. Where can I find intellectual resolution based upon the content of ideas and analysis?21:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

A conflict of interest doesn't need to be monetary. You clearly have an interest in advertising your research. That conflicts with Wikipedia's interest in representing the mainstream point of view. To be included in Wikipedia your point of view needs to become mainstream, or at least adopted by enough scientists to be significant.

And Wikipedia is the wrong avenue to convince your peers. The way you do that is by publishing papers, going to conferences, visiting other universities. Tercer (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I write and publish papers, in peer reviewed journals.

My old colleagues (I am 94 years old) don't respond when I send them these new papers (with real important physics results). Maybe they just assume I am an old crank. Maybe they are supported in erroneous biases by Wikipedia.

There is no way out, as you put it. Charlieschwartz (talk) 23:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit using the summary "Unsourced claims and misformatted content". Based on you post here I would still reject your edit because the source

• Charles Schwartz, "Two proposed experiments for the Tachyon-Neutrino theory of dark matter" International Journal of Modern Physics A 2024 39:21

has a single citation by the same author. We don't cite sources like this, sorry.

Wikipedia is specifically not a place to find intellectual resolution. This is just an encyclopedia, a summary of sources.

Wikipedia fails to summarize sources a lot more than we would like. I looked into a small section of this article and found many failures related to the issues you raised. I corrected some of them, meaning I altered the summary or which sources are used for the summary. Based on this short skimming of sources, I believe our content fails to provide a neutral point of view. Please note, this does not mean I agree with your claims. Instead it seems to me that the scientific papers do not have clear specific conclusions asserted in the text.

If you want to contribute to improving this page, I encourage you to abandon presenting your own point of view. Instead look at the sources that are used here and see if they verify the content. Look for review sources that summarize the existing papers and propose new content. I would encourage you to do that by posting in the Talk pages. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is a source on exactly the topic of causality

• Nibart, G. (2000, May). Do tachyons violate the causality principle?. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 517, No. 1, pp. 383-390). American Institute of Physics.

The last two sentences of the abstract:

• In the present communication, I show that time coordinates of tachyonic referential frames do not preserve causal order and do not make sense for natural observers. Nevertheless I show that the causal order is preserved within the superluminal proper time of tachyons, which is to be related to the proper time of any natural observer.

We can probably sort out what this means, but that is my point: the issue of causality and tachyons is not simple one way or the other based on sources. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

AIP Conference Proceedings is not a reliable source, they publish anything. Tercer (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It appears that you (plural) may disagree among yourselves about which journals are credible and which are not.

Peer review tries to filter for truth/quality. It is not perfect but it is better than what I find in some Wikipedia articles.

My attempts to edit - to correct a serious error in the TACHYON pages - uses the best source of scientific publication on the subject. That just happens to be my own published work. But your COI principle forbids that.Shall I ask a friend to do the edit which I am not allowed to do?16:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 16:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

This reference (Nibart)looks ill-informed. The quoted sentences speak of proper time. That means time in the rest frame of the particle. Tachyons do not have a rest frame. That same nonsense is noted in my referenced paper.

Another of you Wiki guardians says that publisher is not reliable.

If no journal is completely credible (anyone can make a mistake; experts' opinions vary), then I ask you competent thinkers to read my detailed debunking of the causal paradox story and tell me which side is true.14:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

See my reply below.14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted even a publication at Springer Nature with 500+ citation doesn't necessarily warrant a inclusion in Wikipedia; editors decide if a source is or is not necessary to an article.

And MDPI as a publisher is one with less than good standing among all academic publishers, at least here in Wikipedia. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 06:23, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, any publication may be found with some nonsense on its pages. The work of good scientists is to scour the work as presented and use their own experience and logic to decide what is right and what is wrong.

I ask you Wiki guardians to read my debunking of the causal paradox story and tell me whom you see as right. 14:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

We should say this again: Wikipedia is not the arbiter of truth and Wikipedians aren't editors of academic journals; we have no say over what should be considered right or wrong in any scientific field, and merely summarize human knowledge. This means we references consensus, or different viewpoints / theories, each being described in proportional detail to their due weight / acceptance in said scientific community - that is to say, your colleagues. Since the scientific community is currently not having a change of viewpoint, we don't see the point of altering our summary of this field. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the mission of Wikipedia.

I think gossip column is a more correct description of Wikipedia than the official phrase neutral knowledge.15:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The complete sentence in Wikipedia:Purpose is

• The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style".

Johnjbarton (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I think predatory publisher is a better description for MDPI and gossip column a better description for your article instead.

You are claiming your paper to be have more authority of the field over every single textbook and literature reviews in existence (that this article cites), when literally nobody noticed your work in years following its publication. Your article are not qualified for a stay here specifically because we try to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a gossip column.

And no, we don't and won't care about your qualifications, even if you're Neil deGrasse Tyson himself, because Wikipedia currently has no policy with regard to the accuracy, validity, or proper verification of academic or professional credentials of its editors.

Chase your prowess elsewhere. We don't welcome single-purpose users, and using an account soly for self-promotion is treading in the WP:NOTHERE and WP:SPA territory, and a waste of other contributors' time. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 10:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

What I chase is truth.

You (Wikis) declare that truth is immaterial to what you promote - it is popularity that you use as the measure of worth.

I acknowledge the unpularity of tachyon theories among my professional colleagues; and I have been led to believe that Wikipedia, with its false stories about causal paradox, is the main source of that widespread prejudice.

Can you show me one article in a quality journal that shows the story about causal paradox to be intellectually valid? I only see repetitions of a popular myth.16:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

You're trying to add new stuff to this article, so the burden of proof is on you. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 16:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

I have shown you my analysis.

I have asked you for reference to any quality paper that suports the contrary view. You provide none.16:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Wiki gives one reference for the causal paradox claim.

It is Tipler's textbook. Your second reference concerns Higgs theory, which is way outside my concern.

I have now found that text in Tipler's textbook; and it is just the sort of careless talk that I analyze and correct in my published debunking. ~2025-41187-78 (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this Wiki article concludes with: No verifiable experimental evidence for the existence of such particles has been found. This needs to be challenged.

The latest published results from the KATRIN experiment contradict that assertion.They state that the best fit to all of their data on the beta decay of Tritium gives m^2 = - 0.14 +/- 0.14 (eV/c^2)^2. A true negative m^2 means this is a tachyon.The uncertainty here means this is no proof; however it is strong evidence that this neutrino may be a tachyon.16:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

If you provide a reliable source that provides experimental evidence for Tachyons we will change the article. Please don't post gossip about the topic. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Here is the full reference for the KATRIN data which I cited

SCIENCE vol.388, issue 6743 4/10/2025 pp 180-85

Yes, sir: I do not deal in gossip.19:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

For convenience: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq9592 Jähmefyysikko (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

The full reference is

• KATRIN Collaboration†, Aker, M., Batzler, D., Beglarian, A., Behrens, J., Beisenkötter, J., ... & Zeller, G. (2025). Direct neutrino-mass measurement based on 259 days of KATRIN data. Science, 388(6743), 180-185.

They say nothing about Tachyons. Johnjbarton (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. They say nothing about tachyons. And yet, the data they produce can honestly be read to imply that there is an 84% probability that this neutrino is a tachyon.

I wrote about this in a peer reviewed paper published earlier this year.

(But Wiki does not allow me to cite my own work.) I also noted that the KATRIN authors refer to their data showing m^2 < 0 as unphysical. There is nothing unphysical about tachyons - although it appears to be true that they are unpopular. I sent that paper (twice) to leaders of KATRIN, inviting their comment. No response.21:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC) Charlieschwartz (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2025 (UTC)