Well, I guess then the technical understanding of 'imaginary numbers' is a bit like irrational numbers - or numbers that cannot be expressed as a fraction. They don't make much sense, and we have difficulty expressing them, but they exist.
I agree they exist (at least mathematically), but that doesn't mean we can observe imaginary quantities of something. I'd be very interested in seeing any evidence that suggests otherwise.
That's because we're not talking about colloquial-imaginary (which means "doesn't exist"), we're talking about mathematical-imaginary (which means "different").
They exist in that they're mathematical constructs, but my whole argument is that nothing in real life (i.e., something that's observable) consists of imaginary quantities of something (how would you even be able to detect something with imaginary mass?). Imaginary numbers are nothing more than mathematical abstractions used to make problem solving easier. The same goes for negative quantities of something. Have objects with negative mass been observed? If so, I'd be willing to reconsider my position.
Chemical definition of "Activation": Making it easier for a substance to react with other substances. Military definition of "Activation": Being ordered to begin active duty If somebody were trying to have a military conversation involving "activation," and I insisted on using the chemical definition instead of the military definition ("You can't 'activate' a soldier, there are far too many different materials in the human body to do the same thing to single one of them simultaneously"), do you see how that would cause a problem? If somebody were trying to have a chemical conversation involving "activation," and I insisted on using the military definition instead of the chemical definition ("You can't even order non-citizens to serve their country, how do you expect to give the order to a non-sentient liquid?"), do you see how that would cause a problem? Colloquial definition of "Imaginary": Non-existant Mathematical definition of "Imaginary": Different If somebody were trying to have a colloquial conversation involving "imaginary" constructs, and I insisted on using the mathematical definition instead of the colloquial definition ("You can't measure concepts like that on any number line, be it the real or the imaginary."), do you see how that would cause a problem? They're trying to have a mathematical conversation involving "imaginary" numbers, and you insist on using the colloquial definition instead of the mathematical definition ("If the particles have an amount of mass, then they're not imaginary, they're right there."), do you see how that is causing a problem?
So then what does having imaginary mass mean? "Different" doesn't cut it because that's a very vague definition. Here's a relevant answer from askamathematician.com. He states that certain quantities, like energy, must be real (not real as in existing in real life but real as in based on natural numbers) based on the fact that we can observe them. If mass and energy had imaginary components (imaginary as in extending into the complex number system), the universe would be a lot different. So going back to my original point about tachyons, I don't think they can exist in our observable universe.
who talks about negative mass in here? the mass of a tachyon mt is always a positive real number because is a massless field. use your head.
yes. the wiki entry is only the Klein-Gordon solution with negative-squared mass. in here i discuss a massless tachyon vector field for the OP to use in his novel.
Forgot to reply to this thread. I think that it's quite a lot more complicated than just solving for the lethal kinetic energy. The reason is that it would probably go straight through you (causing a lot of damage on the way). Basically, the speck of dust would still have quite a lot of kinetic energy on leaving the person's body, so not all of the mv2/2 will have been transferred to the unfortunate person. You'd probably need to work out the effective cross-sectional area of the speck of dust (bigger than its actual cross-sectional area but smaller than the hole it burns through the body, I think), then use this to work out how much it is slowed down by the body. It's probably not all that easy.
When I saw the subject line for this thread, I assumed there would be discussions of Alpha, Beta, Gama and Neutron radiation, but I suppose that would be more along the line of sub-atomic shrapnel...interesting discussion
@criticalsexualmass : discussion about high energy radiation/particles is welcome See : https://www.writingforums.org/threads/ftl-atomic-shrapnel.133006/#post-1245601
there is no need to do such thing. the ship is covered in aerogel panels which are known to stop relativistic specks of dust from comets an other sources easily.
