Reality Check

Tachyons and Other Nonentities

What I like is the irrelevant logic. "Because of its speed, Tachyon can exist everywhere." A non sequitur if I ever heard one. Before it can exist anywhere, a tachyon must exist somewhere. And there's the rub.

About 25 years ago, a number of physicists suggested the possibility that there exist particles that normally travel faster than the speed of light. In order for this hypothesis to be consistent with relativity, the mass of such particles would have to be imaginary-that is, contain the square root of minus one. Gerald Feinberg gave this hypothetical particle the name "tachyon" and was most prominent in publicizing his brainchild, with the aid of an avid press corps. Mind you, the theory was a proper theory in the sense that it was mathematically consistent, and also because it predicted certain observable consequences-namely, that if tachyons existed they would emit a certain type of radiation (Cerenkov radiation) in a vacuum. This radiation was searched for, and none was found. So, after a flurry of excitement, physicists lost interest in tachyons and went on to more massive hypotheses, such as black holes. As far as physicists are concerned, tachyons do not exist. (But black holes do!)

However, that small fact does not deter the spiritualists of the Pacific Coast. To them, giving the tachyon a name is the same as proving its existence. They then expect the skeptics to prove that it does not exist. For this reason we must always remember the first rule of skepticism: Those who claim the existence of any object or entity have the responsibility of proving its existence.

Don't let the believers sucker you into thinking you have to prove the nonexistence of something that does not exist.

Pseudoscience in the media, Part II

When I finally saw the show, I realized that I had not counted on the mighty power of the editor. In the 15 minutes devoted to the topic of psychic healing, the only skeptic (me) got at most one minute. Brenda Dunne made the most of her prestigious connection with Princeton University. (Robert Jahn and Brenda Dunne have spent many years in a laboratory at Princeton purporting to demonstrate that the mind can change the motions of electrons and the workings of random-number generators.) The fact that most of the faculty at Princeton considers this work an embarassment wasn't mentioned. The program also gave much time to research I had never heard of showing that prayer improves the life of bacteria and earthworms, as well as humans.

I must say, however, that in my one minute of fame I sounded very good. All I said was that nobody had demonstrated the existence of psychic forces that allow one mind to directly influence things happening at a distance. As far as physics is concerned, these forces do not exist.

Once more we find ourselves dealing with the fundamental question posed in the paragraph above: If somebody says something exists, who is responsible for proving its existence? There is no physical evidence for any kind of psychic force. Yet a majority of people (even many scientists) believe that they exist. Belief without evidence is a symptom of a religious system. You can't argue with that kind of belief, and I don't want to. But as soon as you claim that scientific experiments give evidence for that belief, then scientists have the responsibility to examine that claim and to see if that evidence is truly valid. And as soon as you get into that area, the rigid rules of scientific research must be followed.

Sorry I couldn't be at what must have been a very educational event, but I was spending the time posing as a target for 10-Mev X-ray machine, converting high energy photons into low energy electrons, positrons, and ions, with enough efficiency to burn my innards to a crisp. Ooh.

Related Information

• Search CSICOP: Milton Rothman, Reality Check, free energy

Feedback | Reverse links for this page | Translate this page