Dear Reader,
it seems that there's an awakening interest in neutrinos as the particle that best conforms to that required by dark energy. This is wrong. To begin with a neutrino is a particle that has been seen and measured and even ascribed a charge ' or 'flavour' as it's known. There is no need to theorise on this particle. It's most certainly extant. Of interest is that there is experimental evidence that this can exceed light speed.
The tachyon is another animal altogether. This THEORISED particle ALWAYS exceeds light speed. Nor has it EVER been seen. For those that know this, apologies in advance. For those who don't know this - here's the thing. Light, photons - are the means by which we see the world. No accident that - according to Genesis - God first said 'let there be light'. As it turns out - light comprises photons that travel as a wave. It always travels in a straight line but given interstellar distances it also bends with gravity. It is neutral - having no evident 'polarity'. And light travels at the velocity of a little under 300 000 kilometers per second - regardless of its frequency.
Now. here's the analogy. Imagine that a red photon, for instance - has a size of 10. And then imagine that an ultra violet photon has the size say of 1. Then if the violet photon travels through space at approximately 300 000 kilometers per second as does the red photon then the ultra violet photon is actually moving at 10 times the velocity of the red photon. In the same way - imagine that a man with legs of about 2 meters long races a child with legs only half a meter long. If the child covers the same distance in an equivalent time then that child has also taken many more steps to cover that same distance. And given this example, where he covers the distance in the same time it can be said that his velocity - relative to his size - was 2/0.5 - 4 times greater than the man's.
Now. Back to the argument. For us to see something - then it first needs to interact with photons. And - given a source of light - we can see that object - almost instantaneously. But the question is this. How does one see a particle or even a field of particles if those little particles are also moving at faster than light speed? Think about it in this context. We can see a sand storm. But we cannot see the air molecules and atoms that make up the wind blowing that sand. In the same way and more specifically. We can shine a light at a permanent magnet - forever - without ever seeing the magnetic field that we KNOW is there in that magnet. We know the shape the field takes because its shape can be reflected in the interaction of iron filings. We know there's a force there because we see how it interacts with other magnets and/or with magnetisable material. But we CERTAINLY DO NOT SEE THE FIELD. And we cannot therefore do more than - perhaps propose that the field comprises particles. But the argument holds that IF the magnetic field itself is made up of really small particles - then the chances are that those particles must, therefore, be that small that light cannot find it.
Our thesis proposes that magnetic fields comprise a non-standard tachyon. It is NOT a neutrino. It is something more elusive and yet also more pervasive. I'll take this argument further when I get more time.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
