More psuedo-Religious science

[muman613]

This story is completely ridiculous in my opinion. I have heard to supposed 'scientific' explanations for the parting of the sea of reeds {not the red sea as they state in the article} and I do not believe it for a second. There are so many problems in the story as the scientists present it... Also this article mentions that the Exodus is in the 'bible and the Koran' yet fail to mention that the story comes from the TORAH, not the Christian or Muslim bible.

Also the Jewish explanation doesn't stipulate that they entered on one side of the sea of reeds and exited on the other, instead the Midrash says that they did made a semi-circle and exited on the same side of the sea that they entered.

This story is just more of the pro-Islamic anti-Torah polemic which the media likes to pump out..


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/21/computers-explain-moses-parted-red-sea/

Computers Explain How Moses Parted the Red Sea

Moses might not have parted the Red Sea, but a strong east wind that blew through the night could have pushed the waters back in the way described in biblical writings and the _Koran, U.S. researchers reported on Tuesday.

Computer simulations, part of a larger study on how winds affect water, show wind could push water back at a point where a river bent to merge with a coastal lagoon, the team at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder said.

"The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus," Carl Drews of NCAR, who led the study, said in a statement.

"The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in."

Religious texts differ a little in the tale, but all describe Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt ahead of a pharaoh's armies around 3,000 years ago. The Red Sea parts to let Moses and his followers pass safely, then crashes back onto the pursuers, drowning them.

Drews and colleagues are studying how Pacific Ocean typhoons can drive storm surges and other effects of strong and sustained winds on deep water.

His team pinpointed a possible site south of the Mediterranean Sea for the legendary crossing, and modeled different land formations that could have existed then and perhaps led to the accounts of the sea appearing to part.

The model requires a U-shaped formation of the Nile River and a shallow lagoon along the shoreline. It shows that a wind of 63 miles per hour, blowing steadily for 12 hours, could have pushed back waters 6 feet deep.

"This land bridge is 3-4 km (2 to 2.5 miles) long and 5 km (3 miles) wide, and it remains open for 4 hours," they wrote in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS ONE.

"People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts," Drews said. "What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws."

Details of the model described can be seen here and www.plosone.org/article

This story is a horrible misrepresentation of the facts... Shame on those involved in writing it.


Here is the Jewish explanation of the Splitting of the Sea:

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/825980/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm

30 Thus, on that day, G-d rescued Israel from Egypt.
The pathways through the sea were semicircular, and the people emerged from the water on the same side of the sea as they had entered, further north along the shore (see Figure 7).40  The people did not see the Egyptians drown, so they feared that they, too, had left the sea somewhere else along the shore. They thus doubted G-d's ability to rescue them for a second time.41 In order allay this fear, G-d made the sea wash up all the dead Egyptians, and thus Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore.  After the Israelites saw them, the earth swallowed the dead Egyptians. In the merit of Pharaoh having previously submitted to G-d,42 G-d granted them proper burial.43

Footnotes:
40.    See Tosefot, Arachin 15a, s.v. Kesheim sheAnu; Maimonides, Commentary to the Mishnah, Avot 5:4; Shitah Mekubetzet, Arachin 15a §13.
41.    Arachin 15ab.
42.    Above, 9:27.
43.    Rashi on 15:12, below.

[muman613]

Is it also not funny that the Torahs narrative discusses a strong eastern wind?

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/825980/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm
21 Moses raised his arm over the sea. And God drove back the sea throughout the night with a powerful east wind—which He uses to punish the wicked32—and turned the sea into dry land, and, in addition the waters all over the world split, so the whole world would know of this miracle. The sea split into twelve pathways, one for each tribe.33

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't understand what the problem is.

The Torah itself says there was a strong eastern wind.

They mathematically determined a way in which an eastern wind could possibly cause what the Torah describes as having happened.   

Wouldn't you be more concerned if it was mathematically impossible?  Wouldn't THAT make it less believable?   Why would G-d supposedly cause a natural phenomenon that is actually not physically possible within the natural rules with which G-d governs the world?   Does that make any sense?  No!  Not to me anyway.

I believe in either Nachmanides or Maimonides somewhere he says that there are always natural explanations to miracles so that everyone has free will and non believers use that to deny it, but believers know better.   

The question is what do you do with this information.    I don't see what is wrong with the information on its own.

[muman613]

I don't understand what the problem is.

The Torah itself says there was a strong eastern wind.

They mathematically determined a way in which an eastern wind could possibly cause what the Torah describes as having happened.   

Wouldn't you be more concerned if it was mathematically impossible?  Wouldn't THAT make it less believable?   Why would G-d supposedly cause a natural phenomenon that is actually not physically possible within the natural rules with which G-d governs the world?   Does that make any sense?  No!  Not to me anyway.

I believe in either Nachmanides or Maimonides somewhere he says that there are always natural explanations to miracles so that everyone has free will and non believers use that to deny it, but believers know better.   

The question is what do you do with this information.    I don't see what is wrong with the information on its own.

The issue is that regardless of how it happened, it happened at the time it was most necessary. Nachson jumped into the sea at the very moment all seemed lost as the Mitzrim chariots were bearing down on the Children of Israel at the edge of the sea. I doubt that the scientists could determine the odds of that happening, or can they?

Also their model only discusses a single passage way from one side of the sea to the other, not the twelve separate channels which only made a semi-circle..... That seems to me to be a problem..

[Meerkat]

couldn't science be the answer to how and not the answer to why?

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

couldn't science be the answer to how and not the answer to why?

Sure, I'd say quite possibly so.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

I don't understand what the problem is.

The Torah itself says there was a strong eastern wind.

They mathematically determined a way in which an eastern wind could possibly cause what the Torah describes as having happened.   

Wouldn't you be more concerned if it was mathematically impossible?  Wouldn't THAT make it less believable?   Why would G-d supposedly cause a natural phenomenon that is actually not physically possible within the natural rules with which G-d governs the world?   Does that make any sense?  No!  Not to me anyway.

I believe in either Nachmanides or Maimonides somewhere he says that there are always natural explanations to miracles so that everyone has free will and non believers use that to deny it, but believers know better.   

The question is what do you do with this information.    I don't see what is wrong with the information on its own.

The issue is that regardless of how it happened, it happened at the time it was most necessary. Nachson jumped into the sea at the very moment all seemed lost as the Mitzrim chariots were bearing down on the Children of Israel at the edge of the sea. I doubt that the scientists could determine the odds of that happening, or can they?

But showing a mathematical model for how it could have happened does not dispute that it happened at the right time or that G-d was behind it.  We believe as a foundation of our faith that G-d arranged this and did this for us.   So are we supposed to think simultaneously that it was impossible but it also happened?   I tend to think it was possible and it happened.   Or else it's nonsensical.

Also their model only discusses a single passage way from one side of the sea to the other, not the twelve separate channels which only made a semi-circle..... That seems to me to be a problem..   

Well, it could be that the midrashim which speak about this were not historical but allegorical.    There's no objective proof one way or the other, but they certainly do not seem likely to me whenever I hear this.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Actually the point of this action of G-d is that it was a miracle.  People that try to find other explanations for it diminish from faith in the fact that G-d did it despite that it would normally be impossible.  So the idea that it can be mathematically proven actually takes away from the event rather than adds to it. 

I strongly disagree with this point.   

First off, this is not a "proof that it happened."
This is merely evidence that it was scientifically possible and could have happened.   There's a big difference.


Secondly, I am fairly certain that a major rishon (I think it was Ramban) speaks about the fact that Every miracle Hashem does has a corresponding natural explanation.  The role of the believer is to not let the natural explanation take away from the power of the miracle or the faith that God was behind it.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Actually the point of this action of G-d is that it was a miracle.  People that try to find other explanations for it diminish from faith in the fact that G-d did it despite that it would normally be impossible.  So the idea that it can be mathematically proven actually takes away from the event rather than adds to it. 

I strongly disagree with this point.   

First off, this is not a "proof that it happened."
This is merely evidence that it was scientifically possible and could have happened.   There's a big difference.


Secondly, I am fairly certain that a major rishon (I think it was Ramban) speaks about the fact that Every miracle Hashem does has a corresponding natural explanation.  The role of the believer is to not let the natural explanation take away from the power of the miracle or the faith that G-d was behind it.

But you just did let the natural explanation take away from the power of the miracle when you said the following:

Wouldn't you be more concerned if it was mathematically impossible?  Wouldn't THAT make it less believable?   Why would G-d supposedly cause a natural phenomenon that is actually not physically possible within the natural rules with which G-d governs the world?   Does that make any sense?  No!  Not to me anyway.

 

Not really because... the power of a miracle is not it's "impossibility."   Like my comment reflects above, I don't think they were impossible.

Lack of scientific explanations do not make something that G-d does less believable, and being not physically possible within natural rules does not mean G-d can't do it.  

But we are talking about a time when the world was already existing and G-d acted.  Why wouldn't it conform to the laws G-d made the world operate with when He created it?    I never said "G-d can't do it" but I do think it's less believable to a person living today, when someone thousands of years after the fact like you or I is presented with this Torah account as a historical event.   And to me it makes more sense that it happened with a natural mechanism.   I also feel this way about evolution.  There is a natural explanation but G-d is behind it.

I would actually have more respect for these scientists if they just came out and said the stuff didn't happen rather than offering scientific explanations for things that G-d clearly intended to be miracles.

But miracles can have scientific explanations - that doesn't make them Not miracles!    I'll have to find the source I'm referring to, but I'm pretty sure there's a major rishon who says every miracle has a corresponding natural explanation to it - so that rishon disagrees with you that the existence of that explanation makes it no longer a miracle.

As to these scientists, I think they are looking at it as a historical account of some event, and rather than assuming it's simply untrue or mythical hogwash like many ignorant people assume today, they are assuming it refers to some kind of thing that actually happened, and then speculating about plausible ways in which it could have happened or what the event was.

[Meerkat]

To say that a miracle must conform to the laws of the natural world is to say that G-d can't act outside the laws of the natural world, when He very clearly does this in the Bible on many occasions.  G-d is beyond the physical world, and His actions are also beyond the physical world.  There is no scientific explanation for the chariot of fire that carried Elijah into heaven, water from a rock, a woman spontaneously turning into a pillar of salt, fire from the sky that burned water, etc.  If these "scientists" need a natural explanation for these things then that means they are limiting G-d and their faith in G-d is weak or nonexistent and they are just playing around with theories.

maybe god just chooses to use natural phenomena.

[muman613]

Some miracles are not explainable by science... Remember that some things Hashem created before he completed Creation. Pirkie Avot mentions ten things which were created on the Eve of the 1st Shabbat {on the Friday night}...

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/680290/jewish/Chapter-Five.htm

6. Ten things were created at twilight of Shabbat eve. These are: the mouth of the earth [that swallowed Korach]; the mouth of [Miriam's] well; the mouth of [Balaam's] donkey; the rainbow; the manna; [Moses'] staff; the shamir; the writing, the inscription and the tablets [of the Ten Commandments]. Some say also the burial place of Moses and the ram of our father Abraham. And some say also the spirits of destruction as well as the original tongs, for tongs are made with tongs.

And Pirkie Avot also mentions ten miracles which were performed by Hashem for our forefathers... Has science explained them?

5. Ten miracles were performed for our forefathers in the Holy Temple: No woman ever miscarried because of the smell of the holy meat. The holy meat never spoiled. Never was a fly seen in the slaughterhouse. Never did the High Priest have an accidental seminal discharge on Yom Kippur. The rains did not extinguish the wood-fire burning upon the altar. The wind did not prevail over the column of smoke [rising from the altar]. No disqualifying problem was ever discovered in the Omer offering, the Two Loaves or the Showbread. They stood crowded but had ample space in which to prostrate themselves. Never did a snake or scorpion cause injury in Jerusalem. And no man ever said to his fellow "My lodging in Jerusalem is too cramped for me."

Remember that Hashem is not equal to nature, he is above nature and as a result anything Hashem does is not limited by our understanding of physical nature... Any other belief rises to the level of denying Hashem is all powerful and that he incorporeal.

PS: BTW KWRBT I was wondering the other day whether you believe in something called the G-d particle. I don't know what it is, but in my mind I already think it is a heretical thing to name something. Hashem, who we call our G-d, 'cannot' exist as a particle.

[muman613]

Just for review purposes I will post the thirteen principles which Rambam laid out concerning Jewish faith:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
2. The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.
3. The belief in G-d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
4. The belief in G-d's eternity.
5. The imperative to worship G-d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
6. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.
7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
10. The belief in G-d's omniscience and providence.
11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.



http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/The-13-Principles.htm

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

To say that a miracle must conform to the laws of the natural world is to say that G-d can't act outside the laws of the natural world,

I didn't (or didn't intend to) say they "must," but it makes much more sense to me that they would.

If these "scientists" need a natural explanation for these things then that means they are limiting G-d and their faith in G-d is weak or nonexistent and they are just playing around with theories.

I think you are confusing or conflating science with religion.  The scientists are not setting out to prove God or make theories about faith.  It's a separate genre.    They are making an assumption that the Bible describes some historical event, and then they set out to determine if it was mathematically possible to simulate or plausibly recreate with a model based on natural phenomena.    They are not really interested in proving religion or disproving it, nor does this study do either of those things.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

Just for review purposes I will post the thirteen principles which Rambam laid out concerning Jewish faith:

1. Belief in the existence of the Creator, who is perfect in every manner of existence and is the Primary Cause of all that exists.
2. The belief in G-d's absolute and unparalleled unity.
3. The belief in G-d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling.
4. The belief in G-d's eternity.
5. The imperative to worship G-d exclusively and no foreign false gods.
6. The belief that G-d communicates with man through prophecy.
7. The belief in the primacy of the prophecy of Moses our teacher.
8. The belief in the divine origin of the Torah.
9. The belief in the immutability of the Torah.
10. The belief in G-d's omniscience and providence.
11. The belief in divine reward and retribution.
12. The belief in the arrival of the Messiah and the messianic era.
13. The belief in the resurrection of the dead.



http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/The-13-Principles.htm

It's always good to review the 13 Principles of Faith, but can I ask how this is relevant to this discussion?  Maybe I'm missing the point of what you're saying here.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

PS: BTW KWRBT I was wondering the other day whether you believe in something called the G-d particle. I don't know what it is, but in my mind I already think it is a heretical thing to name something. Hashem, who we call our G-d, 'cannot' exist as a particle.

Do you even know what the "God particle" refers to?   It's not a religious doctrine.

I think your question reflects a level of ignorance about the subject matter in question.  "God particle" does not mean the scientists think the particle is God!     

" I don't know what it is, but in my mind I already think it is a heretical thing "

This quote, and the sentiment behind it, is the root of folly for the non-thinking fanatics in today's Jewish religious world.   It is this sentiment which fuels the book banning, the increasingly insane chumrah culture, the ignorance of Jewish philosophy and hashkafa, the ignorance of Jewish law, the obsession with appearances and so-called "frumkeit" over substance...   So many ailments in our world are in major part caused by this type of attitude. 

How can something be heretical if you don't even know what it is or don't even bother to evaluate whether or not what it is constitutes heresy?   Anything that strikes you as odd or uncomfortable can be labeled heresy?   Do you realize how strong the term is and what it means?  It can't be thrown around to flippantly label anything one "doesn't like."   It has a meaning and much-debated and much-discussed criteria.  Why is thought removed from the equation when it comes to this subject, I don't know.

[Meerkat]

i came up with an idea just a few minuted ago and i figure i have to post it

what if G-d is so awesome he knew in advance every single miracle he would need to preform so he constructed the entire universe in such a way that would accommodate those miracles?

[muman613]

i came up with an idea just a few minuted ago and i figure i have to post it

what if G-d is so awesome he knew in advance every single miracle he would need to preform so he constructed the entire universe in such a way that would accommodate those miracles?

That is certainly a possibility. But my point is that we cannot constrict Hashem such that He could only do things which we consider physically possible. I believe that one who believes that Hashem MUST be constrained by physicality is testing the principle of Rambam of "3. The belief in G-d's non-corporeality, nor that He will be affected by any physical occurrences, such as movement, or rest, or dwelling."

Certainly Hashem is SO AWESOME that He knows the deeds of every soul, and he also is said to do everything in this world {including leaves falling from trees, blades of grass, etc.}, He creates it all every moment... Creation did not stop after the six days, it continued each and every moment. Every atom of every molecule is held in place, and kept in existance, by Hashem. Believing this allows one to have a strong faith and trust in Hashem.

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

i came up with an idea just a few minuted ago and i figure i have to post it

what if G-d is so awesome he knew in advance every single miracle he would need to preform so he constructed the entire universe in such a way that would accommodate those miracles?

That is certainly a possibility. But my point is that we cannot constrict Hashem such that he could only do things which we consider physically possible. I believe that one who believes that Hashem MUST be constrained by physicality is testing the principle of Rambam of "3.

That's a straw-man argument because that's not what I'm doing with what I'm saying in this thread.
Creation ex nihilo was beyond physicality or logic.  And I believe God did that (creation ex nihilo).

However, I don't see any problem with other miracles having natural explanations.

Was the ingathering of exiles and re-establishment of Israel as a nation in its homeland a miracle?  I would say yes.  Did it happen through natural means?  Also yes.   Does this limit God?   No.  And does it say that it couldn't have happened through supernatural means?   No, but naturally (pun intended), the world (God's world and God's action in it) operates such that it wouldn't happen that way but rather through disguised natural means.   

I'm not saying "God is incapable of x, y, z"   - I'm saying it wouldn't make sense for it to happen that way or for God to do it that way because that is not how we experience the world ourselves.  In much the same way I say that the Temple will not fall from the sky but we will build it.   Because while of course God could make it fall from the sky if He wanted to, theoretically speaking God COULD do anything, it is IMO silly to expect that to happen that way and very unlikely that God would do that because we don't really experience God in that manner in this world we live in.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

I said outright that I did not know what the particle is... I simple commented on the fact that the name sounds heretical to me. Putting the word G-d and particle together seems odd to me. I don't fear it, nor do I want to stop people looking at it. I just want them to acknowledge that it is not like G-d, because Hashem is not a particle, or a concept, He is the One.

If you would like to explain what this G-d particle is, it may be interesting. But I really don't want to go seek out what it is, unless I happen to read about it in the media.

[muman613]

i came up with an idea just a few minuted ago and i figure i have to post it

what if G-d is so awesome he knew in advance every single miracle he would need to preform so he constructed the entire universe in such a way that would accommodate those miracles?

That is certainly a possibility. But my point is that we cannot constrict Hashem such that he could only do things which we consider physically possible. I believe that one who believes that Hashem MUST be constrained by physicality is testing the principle of Rambam of "3.

That's a straw-man argument because that's not what I'm doing with what I'm saying in this thread.
Creation ex nihilo was beyond physicality or logic.  And I believe G-d did that (creation ex nihilo).

However, I don't see any problem with other miracles having natural explanations.

Was the ingathering of exiles and re-establishment of Israel as a nation in its homeland a miracle?  I would say yes.  Did it happen through natural means?  Also yes.   Does this limit G-d?   No.  And does it say that it couldn't have happened through supernatural means?   No, but naturally (pun intended), the world (G-d's world and G-d's action in it) operates such that it wouldn't happen that way but rather through disguised natural means.   

I'm not saying "G-d is incapable of x, y, z"   - I'm saying it wouldn't make sense for it to happen that way or for G-d to do it that way because that is not how we experience the world ourselves.  In much the same way I say that the Temple will not fall from the sky but we will build it.   Because while of course G-d could make it fall from the sky if He wanted to, theoretically speaking G-d COULD do anything, it is IMO silly to expect that to happen that way and very unlikely that G-d would do that because we don't really experience G-d in that manner in this world we live in.

KWRBT,

I do believe the nation of Israel is a kind of miracle, unfortunately not enough of us saw it that way and time has caused the memory to fade. But I don't know if it came about through physical means. I mean the Nazis venom for Jews was almost super-natural. Hopefully we will see the truth eventually, may it be soon.

 

I can only imagine what Massuh is going to say about this considering what I think his opinion on the State of Israel....

[Kahane-Was-Right BT]

KWRBT,

I said outright that I did not know what the particle is... I simple commented on the fact that the name sounds heretical to me. Putting the word G-d and particle together seems odd to me. I don't fear it, nor do I want to stop people looking at it.  I just want them to acknowledge that it is not like G-d, because Hashem is not a particle, or a concept, He is the One.

They don't claim it's God.   So you don't need to worry about it.

If you would like to explain what this G-d particle is, it may be interesting. But I really don't want to go seek out what it is, unless I happen to read about it in the media.

I actually find it kind of stupid and the name is supposed to be clever but it's also sort of simplistic and silly in a way.   It's really called the Higgs Boson.  But they are basically saying that this particle a "scalar boson" - the only particle predicted by standard model not yet observed - that they will find one somehow (using hadron collider) and that this particle holds the key to understanding how there is mass in the universe.   This particle supposedly caused all the other particles we have observed to actually acquire mass themselves.   I don't fully understand it because I'm not a physicist, but I think that's a basic synopsis.

It was made famous by a book in which it was referred to by this name - Leon Lederman's "The God Particle - If the Universe is the answer, what is the question" so the media love to parrot this, but I read on wikipedia now that actually many scientists don't like the name and voted to change it to a different nickname.  So I guess I'm not the only one that thinks it's a stupid name.

[muman613]

KWRBT,

I said outright that I did not know what the particle is... I simple commented on the fact that the name sounds heretical to me. Putting the word G-d and particle together seems odd to me. I don't fear it, nor do I want to stop people looking at it.  I just want them to acknowledge that it is not like G-d, because Hashem is not a particle, or a concept, He is the One.

They don't claim it's G-d.   So you don't need to worry about it.

If you would like to explain what this G-d particle is, it may be interesting. But I really don't want to go seek out what it is, unless I happen to read about it in the media.

I actually find it kind of stupid and the name is supposed to be clever but it's also sort of simplistic and silly in a way.   It's really called the Higgs Boson.  But they are basically saying that this particle a "scalar boson" - the only particle predicted by standard model not yet observed - that they will find one somehow (using hadron collider) and that this particle holds the key to understanding how there is mass in the universe.   This particle supposedly caused all the other particles we have observed to actually acquire mass themselves.   I don't fully understand it because I'm not a physicist, but I think that's a basic synopsis.

It was made famous by a book in which it was referred to by this name - Leon Lederman's "The G-d Particle - If the Universe is the answer, what is the question" so the media love to parrot this, but I read on wikipedia now that actually many scientists don't like the name and voted to change it to a different nickname.  So I guess I'm not the only one that thinks it's a stupid name.

I remember hearing in the late 80s about a 'particle' called the Tachyon which was supposed to go faster than light. I don't know if they ever really discovered them... It was a theoretical particle...

Let me see what wikipedia says about the Tachyon..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

A tachyon (pronounced /ˈtæki.ɒn/; Greek: ταχύς, takhus, "swift" + English: -on "elementary particle") is a hypothetical subatomic particle that moves faster than light. In the language of special relativity, a tachyon is a particle with space-like four-momentum and imaginary proper time. A tachyon is constrained to the space-like portion of the energy-momentum graph. Therefore, it cannot slow down to subluminal speeds.

The first description of tachyons is attributed to German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. However, it was George Sudarshan,[1] Olexa-Myron Bilaniuk,[2] Vijay Deshpande,[2] and Gerald Feinberg[3] (who originally coined the term in the 1960s) who advanced a theoretical framework for their study.

If tachyons were conventional, localizable particles that could be used to send signals faster than light, this would lead to violations of causality in special relativity. But in the framework of quantum field theory, tachyons are understood as signifying an instability of the system and treated using tachyon condensation, rather than as real faster-than-light particles, and such instabilities are described by tachyonic fields. Tachyonic fields have appeared theoretically in a variety of contexts, such as the bosonic string theory. According to the contemporary and widely accepted understanding of the concept of a particle, tachyon particles are too unstable to be treated as existent.[4] By that theory, faster than light information transmission and causality violation with tachyons are impossible.

Conventional massive particles which travel slower than the speed of light are sometimes termed "bradyons" or "tardyons" in contrast, although these terms are only used in the context of discussions about tachyons.

Despite the theoretical arguments against the existence of tachyon particles, experimental searches have been conducted to test the assumption against their existence; however, no experimental evidence for the existence of tachyon particles has been found.[5]

This is another reason I sometimes question these scientists... I have heard of so many theoretical particles that I get confused...