34 replies to this topic

[Zero]

Is hyperspace possible?
According to modern science, it's not because hyperspace would be completely flat, not allowing for the curves that form gravity. If I'm not mistaken, however, according to GR, isn't space-time a 4D Lorentzian Manifold that bends in the presence of matter/energy, the bend in space-time pretty much causes a hole under the object which it settles into, anything that falls into the declining sides gets sucked toward's the object's gravitational pull (that's pretty much it in a nutshell). Others say it would be impossible becuase for one to travel faster than light in space would require for gravity to be nonexistent. Isn't it possible hyperspace is just a thicker and denser region of space-time than the one we exist in, a part of the universe where it is harder and takes more mass to bend space-time? What do you think?

[CodeCat]

Maybe it's a good idea if you first define what hyperspace is or at least what properties it should have, because it's a rather loose concept.

[Medve]

This is hugely theoretical and fiction therefore it's impossible to say it exsists or not.

[Zero]

I just want to know if this is possible. So, waht do you think? And in case you ask, yes, this is completely theoretical.

[CodeCat]

Is WHAT possible? You never explained what hyperspace is.

[Zero]

Hyperspace is a flat region of space where you can move faster than light, some people say it's because there is no gravity, and hence, no limit, however, I hopothesize that it is just very dense and very hard to bend it by the means of which we know.

[Dauth]

I don't rate the idea, either the energies required are unobtainable (look at the energy of a OMG-particle) or it doesn't exist. We have no reason to assume there is a hyperspace.

Note hyperspace is used to describe a phase space of more than 4 dimensions. I know people who have done 6-d analysis.

[Libains]

Possible but highly improbable.

[Nakamura]

First of all I don't think that it is worth the working for those things that aren't needed for a functional universe.
There isn't any sign that could show or proove that the hyperspace exist. And if there is a hyperspace than we could say that it is an other universe with other laws of phisics. You can't exist in a universe with different phisical laws!

[Destiny]

Hyperspace? Wait till we invent FTL engines that will bring us into "Hyperspace". Meanwhile, sit back and enjoy "Hammerspace" that is prevalent on Earth today.

[Zero]

Nakamura, on 20 May 2008, 12:06, said:

First of all I don't think that it is worth the working for those things that aren't needed for a functional universe.
There isn't any sign that could show or proove that the hyperspace exist. And if there is a hyperspace than we could say that it is an other universe with other laws of phisics. You can't exist in a universe with different phisical laws!

hyperspace wouldn't have different laws of physics, it would just have a much thicker sheet of space-time, gravity would be unable to form because it would take too much matter/energy, much more than what shows up in conventional space.

Edited by CodeCat, 20 May 2008 - 23:40.

[CodeCat]

Nakamura, on 20 May 2008, 13:06, said:

First of all I don't think that it is worth the working for those things that aren't needed for a functional universe.
There isn't any sign that could show or proove that the hyperspace exist. And if there is a hyperspace than we could say that it is an other universe with other laws of phisics. You can't exist in a universe with different phisical laws!

The universe doesn't function. It doesn't even have a function for that matter. Nothing dictates that a universe can't collapse within a day. A universe doesn't have to 'survive', nor does it have to be composed of laws that allow it to.

Secondly, while it's true that as of now there is no evidence that hyperspace exists, science by its very nature is curious and wants to learn new things about the universe. If there are no signs and we would like to find them, we start looking for them. That's how a lot of things have been discovered: the need was there, scientists started researching, and progress was made.

[Nakamura]

I just want tskasa1 to remember on an earlyer post of him. ->"Hyperspace is a flat region of space where you can move faster than light, some people say it's because there is no gravity, and hence, no limit, however, I hopothesize that it is just very dense and very hard to bend it by the means of which we know."
How would you like to explain me that a gravityless flat space has the same phisical laws as ours (and don't forget about the speed that can be more than c)?

Edited by Nakamura, 21 May 2008 - 17:39.

[Zero]

I never said there is no gravity "SOME PEOPLE SAY", I didn't say it, it's just that that's what some people believe. I hypothesize that hyperspace is just very thick, dense, space-time and that all the laws of our universe apply to it and because you can obtain FTL because gravity (one of the main things that limited speed in the universe) is not in effect because nothing we know of can bend it's space time and apply gravity. On top of that, I also hypothesize that the voids in the universe (the regions where there is no matter and the antimatter-network is not focused in) are the regions of hyperspace mainly because, since no matter can bend it, all matter that once occupied the void was sucked in to the network because of it's strong gravitic pull, especially in comparison to the hyperspace's no gravity.

[Zero]

Is this topic dead or what? I just want to see if anyone has any new ideas.

[Shirou]

Destiny, on 20 May 2008, 13:30, said:

Hyperspace? Wait till we invent FTL engines that will bring us into "Hyperspace".

Will you do that for us pls?

No shit, wait for us to invent engines to travel into hyperspace before we get to know what the heck it actually is...

[Destiny]

You didn't catch on to what I said? Hmm...

When humans finally invent FTL drives in millions of years later, going FTL will definately get us into "hyperspace". It's human nature. After we had the Monitor, next we had Battleships. So if we had Warp Drives, we'd have Hyperspace engines next.

In space, we have no friction. When you use a liquid-fuelled engine in space, you'll accelerate. And without friction, we will keep on accelerating. Engines on or off. Unless you bang into something which is very plausible, your speed will continue increasing perpetually, you'll eventually go faster than light, and voila, FTL. And once you get to FTL...

When humans get to FTL, this topic will be carried on by future generations.

[Dauth]

Destiny, on 5 Jun 2008, 17:00, said:

You didn't catch on to what I said? Hmm...

When humans finally invent FTL drives in millions of years later, going FTL will definately get us into "hyperspace". It's human nature. After we had the Monitor, next we had Battleships. So if we had Warp Drives, we'd have Hyperspace engines next.

In space, we have no friction. When you use a liquid-fuelled engine in space, you'll accelerate. And without friction, we will keep on accelerating. Engines on or off. Unless you bang into something which is very plausible, your speed will continue increasing perpetually, you'll eventually go faster than light, and voila, FTL. And once you get to FTL...

When humans get to FTL, this topic will be carried on by future generations.

Have a dose of Wrong while you're here.

You accelerate and gain energy, however the faster you go the more energy required to increase the speed (special relativity), you require infinte energy to accelerate any object with mass to the speed of light.

[Sgt. Rho]

How exactly do we know that? IIRC light speed is 300000 km/s, not infinite km/s...

[Destiny]

Knew I had to refresh my brain a bit...theory was wrong >.<

So in theory, a spacecraft with a nuclear-pulse propulsion can bring us to speeds of, about 1km/s?

It'll be hard to tell whether if hyperspace is applicable. It wouldn't make much sense OR be possible to invent Hyperspace engines before we even go FTL.

Star Wars-esque hyperspace much?

[CodeCat]

There are actually two common SF theories of FTL. Both of them attempt to circumvent the limit on light speed by using special nonrelativistic movement.

A warp drive works by warping spacetime around itself. Relativity states that light has a fixed maximum speed through spacetime, but the warp drive uses a loophole by moving spacetime itself.

A hyperdrive uses hypothesized extra dimensions to travel. Essentially, a ship with a hyperdrive does not travel through spacetime, therefore it is not bound by the speed of light.

[CommanderJB]

If we found a faster-than-light particle (they are known as tachyons, am I correct?), would it be possible to surrond an object with these particles and allow it to keep on accelerating past C while remaining in 'real-space'? Keep in mind that my knowledge of these things is virtually nonexistent.

[Dauth]

Master_Chief, on 6 Jun 2008, 1:01, said:

How exactly do we know that? IIRC light speed is 300000 km/s, not infinite km/s...

Energy is equal to Rest mass*gamma factor

The gamma factor is 1/(sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2)))

As v approaches c the denominator gets closer to zero, at v = c the denominator is zero, the fraction is undefined and the energy is undefined.



beta = v/c and the gamma factor is described as above.

CommanderJB, on 6 Jun 2008, 2:34, said:

If we found a faster-than-light particle (they are known as tachyons, am I correct?), would it be possible to surrond an object with these particles and allow it to keep on accelerating past C while remaining in 'real-space'? Keep in mind that my knowledge of these things is virtually nonexistent.

No, tht would imply a tacheon field, aslo how would you get the craft to keep up with them to start with?

[CommanderJB]

Oh well. I didn't think things would work like that somehow.

[Sgt. Rho]

Also, not even diamond would resist. At light speed, the ships would have such a high mass ,that it gets squished by it's own gravity.