A tachyon /ˈtæki.ɒn/ or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. The word comes from the Greek: ταχύς or tachys, meaning "swift, quick, fast, rapid", and was coined in 1967 by Gerald Feinberg.[1] The complementary particle types are called luxon (always moving at the speed of light) and bradyon (always moving slower than light), which both exist. The possibility of particles moving faster than light was first proposed by Bilaniuk, Deshpande, and George Sudarshan in 1962, although the term they used for it was "meta-particle".[2]
Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[3][4] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.[4] Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier.
In the 1967 paper that coined the term,[1] Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light,[5] and instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation.[3] Nevertheless, negative squared mass fields are commonly referred to as "tachyons",[6] and in fact have come to play an important role in modern physics.
If we go back to our three dimensional model which looks like a solar system, we will find there are five levels in this design. The outside level is the outside of the proton or neutron. We cannot see it with scientific instruments because it is too small, we can only "see it using mathematics. Imagine that a tachyon called a Bakite, because I'm flying a bit of a kite here, falls toward the centre of the model, (toward the centre of mass, at many times the speed of light, because it is so small. It follows the laws of conservation of momentum, and obeys all the laws of collisions when it encounters a mass which is does not pass through.
Somewhere after the second level down, it takes a turn, and heads directly toward the nearest biggest mass, which could be the mass at the centre of the galaxy, a huge black hole, or the mass in the next closest galaxy, andromeda, which would only be a second ot two away at the speed it is travelling.
The way to depict this path scientifically is to represent the particles as object in a line.( 0-0-0-0-0) and the way to represent the flow of energy (particles) is with a line at a specific angle (90 or 60 degrees to the perpendicular to the centre of mass 0-0-|-0-0-0), and for every alpha bakite travelling one way, there is an omega bakite flowing in the opposite direction to fulfil the laws of conservation of momentum. To the first level would double the amount of mass in the universe, and the next level would double it again.
So we have two things to consider. What is the correct shape and design of the proton and neutron, and how do particles travel at faster than the speed of light. Why couldn't have Einstein have done this? For one thing, he didn't have as much scientific knowledge as we do today. The other thing is he had enough trouble getting his theories accepted in his day, without taxing people's minds with something too complex. My personal feeling is that he could have done more, but was satisfied that he had done enough,and others could do the rest.
This is all a bit vague, but we must understand what the fourth, fifth and sixth dimensions etc are like, and work with them the way we currently work with three. We must also completely understand what gravity is. It is most like angular momentum, because although scientists are looking for a gravity "particle", it is unlike they will find one because they are on the wrong track there. The best illustration of gravity is the cannon ball fired from the top of a high mountain, parallel to teh ground. It falls at the speed of gravity, but if fires fast enough, it has enough velocity to "fall around the curviture of the earth, and so goes into orbit in space.
Since the discovery of the Neutron by James Chadwick in 1932, showing that particles (neutrons) existed which displayed little electrical interactivity, there has been little in the way of major new discoveries about matter (atoms).
It is likely that before we can fully understand space, we must remove the concept that time is anything more than a means of measuring the "distance" between events, and that it does not have any physical properties of its own, as mass does. We must therefore remove it from equations. Light has a frequency and a wavelength. Frequency contains the distorting time value, whereas wavelength is purely a measurement of distance.
The key to the equation explaining the momentum of light is to show it as a relationship between wavelength and volume of a photon as a proportion of (relationship between) the distance a photon travels in space given a finite energy input (velocity). Photons travel at teh speed of light in space, tachyons, if they exist, cannot travel below the speed of light. Remember, things change when photons encounter a mass in space, they slow down and give up kinetic energy. But how can photons pass each other without bumping into each other as billiard balls would? Do they actually pass through each other, and does this imply a substabce like electricity or an electromagnetic force, like a tachyon which is much smaller than a photon but much faster than a photon? If so, what shape is this photon? Is it like the discs which surround Jupiter, or like a tiny donut, a taurus shape with a hole at the centre)? Is it flat or round??
And, what conclusions can we draw? For that you will have to wait for the conclusion, at the end of this book, but who is controlling this big game of universal chess? Can we give the credit to God, if we believe in a God, and if we don't believe in God, should we also question religion and Christianity itsself?