Original post by kennz
Hi there,
I'm just editing my coursework assignment I finished in June last year, which was on the hypothetical particle; the tachyon. Tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles, but I'm having trouble finding out what metaparticles actually are.
Please help
I'm just editing my coursework assignment I finished in June last year, which was on the hypothetical particle; the tachyon. Tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles, but I'm having trouble finding out what metaparticles actually are.
Please help
Meta-physics is a branch of philosophy that attempts to explain the fundamental nature of existence. i.e. what exists and how to describe it.
Meta-particles are therefore hypothetical with nothing but circumstantial or indirect evidence to support their unobserved (or currently unobservable) existence. In other words they are imagined to exist simply because there is no way of refuting or confirming their existence. Rather like saying there is a flying teapot orbiting the sun - now prove I am wrong.
Hence Tachyons are contentious meta-particles because if they exist, we have no way of observing them and also that they would hypothetically break laws of determinism - or would they?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by kennz
Hi there,
I'm just editing my coursework assignment I finished in June last year, which was on the hypothetical particle; the tachyon. Tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles, but I'm having trouble finding out what metaparticles actually are.
Please help
I'm just editing my coursework assignment I finished in June last year, which was on the hypothetical particle; the tachyon. Tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles, but I'm having trouble finding out what metaparticles actually are.
Please help
What was your source for the statement that tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles?
Original post by LaughingBro
Wow. 6 neg reps...
Original post by Implication
What was your source for the statement that tachyons are theorised to be metaparticles?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JxauCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=tachyon+metaparticle&source=bl&ots=q5O2p5av3C&sig=IRLoGP_cIa4zQHPozwnb-eGF-D8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwie5t2pg9fKAhWJ7hoKHSllAhEQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=tachyon%20metaparticle&f=false
Well according to that book (p52, paragraph 2), 'meta particle' is just the word used to refer to a tachyon by a previous paper. Saying 'tachyons are metaparticles' is not giving you any extra information about tachyons; it's just letting you know an alternative word for them.
However, I've never encountered the phrase before and it doesn't seem to occur in many (if any) journal articles so I don't think it is really in use. I would avoid using the term so you don't confuse your audience. It does not seem to have a well-defined meaning in an academic (or otherwise) context, and may accidentally point them towards the seemingly pseudoscientific work on metaparticles.com.
A tachyon, or a tachyonic particle, is named after the word for 'rapid' in Greek.
There are three types of particle:
The tachyon; always moves faster than light
The luxon; always moving at the speed of light
The bradyon; always moving slower than light
A metaparticle is so called because it was first predicted by metaphysics.
There are three types of particle:
The tachyon; always moves faster than light
The luxon; always moving at the speed of light
The bradyon; always moving slower than light
A metaparticle is so called because it was first predicted by metaphysics.
Original post by Implication
Well according to that book (p52, paragraph 2), 'meta particle' is just the word used to refer to a tachyon by a previous paper. Saying 'tachyons are metaparticles' is not giving you any extra information about tachyons; it's just letting you know an alternative word for them.
However, I've never encountered the phrase before and it doesn't seem to occur in many (if any) journal articles so I don't think it is really in use. I would avoid using the term so you don't confuse your audience. It does not seem to have a well-defined meaning in an academic (or otherwise) context, and may accidentally point them towards the seemingly pseudoscientific work on metaparticles.com.
However, I've never encountered the phrase before and it doesn't seem to occur in many (if any) journal articles so I don't think it is really in use. I would avoid using the term so you don't confuse your audience. It does not seem to have a well-defined meaning in an academic (or otherwise) context, and may accidentally point them towards the seemingly pseudoscientific work on metaparticles.com.
Yeah when i looked at metaphysics theories i thought that must have been the case.its probably another word for being a hypothetical particle like many of you have said. Thanks everyone for your input.
Original post by kennz
Yeah when i looked at metaphysics theories i thought that must have been the case.its probably another word for being a hypothetical particle like many of you have said. Thanks everyone for your input.
YW
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- TSR Study Together - STEM vs Humanities!
- I need to write a personal statement for my dream sixth form
- Uni?...
- cant decide on a course
- What do I say about books on my personal statement?
- Advice
- AQA GCSE English Language Paper 1 (8700/1) - 7th November 2023 [Exam Chat]
- 2023 National poetry day
- Unit 11 - Cybersecurity 2024
- How do u find out what would you like to do for a career?
- why am i dreading a levels so much
- Unsure of a 3rd A level
- Sticky situation
- Btec level 3 Business
- Medicine
- What should I be when I’m older???
- what are you meant to talk about on a personal statement?
- DWP Operational Delivery Leadership HEO - 332920
- What things should I know for a nursing interview?
- Apprenticeship or uni
