Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on April 05, 2002, 10:10:18 am
-
Alright, what about this:
subspace.
Now, I know that this is getting off to a bad start in fantasy-land, due to the fact that s-space is also featured in the FS series, however, I'm deathly serious about this.
Since, according to Einstein, light-speed travel is impossible because of the inherent problem of the fact that the traveler's mass would become infinent, and therefore, you would become a strand of spaghetti.
So, how about subspace? It's perfectly logical, with the increased speed as you tunnel through space, however, it also has it's share of problems. For instance, we don't know exactly what it is. And that is what this discussion is for. When we gather enough info on it, I'll try to start another thread, dealing with how this could be made to happen.
First off, I'm going to say that subspace is not a whole in space, where the ship transports into a fantasy-world of swirling colors and magical shivan ships:D. That's what FS says it is. I think it's a bit stranger, however. For instance, I don't think that subspace is something we can touch/feel, and this because all of it is negatively charged. If you think about it, it is the 5th dimension, where the first four are the ones we live in (although, I've heard time is the 5th, so this would be the sixth dimension, whatever:D), where everything is opposite to what we live in. We live in a positive universe, and subspace is the universe below us, the negative universe. As for the one above us, well, that's left for another discussion, and another topic.
Also, I think that subspace does not accelerate time, only alter our preception of it. After all, we're not moving very fast in our universe, we're moving fast on an entirely different universal plane! So,therefore, time where we are slows down (to the traveler), but time in our normal universe stays the same.
I've got to go no, so I'll see what you guys think.
Unknown Target
-
well, I just have this stupid idea that subspace is were all this black matter ( supposed to make up half or universe, but scientits haven't a clue where all this as gone -or maybe it's another matter, I can be mistaken), it's another dimension, yup, and there, lwas of physics are different and ships can travel much faster there, tho they can't control their direction ( hence the fact that you're sucked all along this tunnel, and whatevers your speed, the tunnel will still scroll in the same direction). Voila, it's just my opinion, an I don't ask anybody to share it if they're againts :)
-
minor correction time is the 4th dimsion
other than that its all sci fi so cant comment but there is no evidence to support a subspace as shown in games etc if anything its tiny coiled up strings so small they cant be detected however that said traveling through them is still teoretically possible acoording to afew theorys i read but nothing concerte all highly speculative
-
Originally posted by Unkown Target
Alright, what about this:
subspace.
Now, I know that this is getting off to a bad start in fantasy-land, due to the fact that s-space is also featured in the FS series, however, I'm deathly serious about this.
Since, according to Einstein, light-speed travel is impossible because of the inherent problem of the fact that the traveler's mass would become infinent, and therefore, you would become a strand of spaghetti.
Um. More accurately, the amount of energy required for any object with mass to reach the speed of light is infinite. IE, to accelerate a single particle with mass to the speed of light, you would have to expend all the energy in the universe--and it still wouldn't be enough.
So, how about subspace? It's perfectly logical, with the increased speed as you tunnel through space, however, it also has it's share of problems. For instance, we don't know exactly what it is. And that is what this discussion is for. When we gather enough info on it, I'll try to start another thread, dealing with how this could be made to happen.
Subspace is science fiction fluff to explain the 'advanced' technology of Star Trek. It has no scientic basis.
First off, I'm going to say that subspace is not a whole in space, where the ship transports into a fantasy-world of swirling colors and magical shivan ships:D. That's what FS says it is. I think it's a bit stranger, however. For instance, I don't think that subspace is something we can touch/feel, and this because all of it is negatively charged. If you think about it, it is the 5th dimension, where the first four are the ones we live in (although, I've heard time is the 5th, so this would be the sixth dimension, whatever:D), where everything is opposite to what we live in.
We exist in a 3+1 space: length, breadth, depth and duration. X, Y, Z and tau (time). Anything beyond that is hypothetical mathematical constructs postulated to help explain relationships between particle interactions on quantum scales. Do some research on string theory. You'll find out plenty of good hypothetical information.
We live in a positive universe, and subspace is the universe below us, the negative universe. As for the one above us, well, that's left for another discussion, and another topic.
I don't have words.
Also, I think that subspace does not accelerate time, only alter our preception of it. After all, we're not moving very fast in our universe, we're moving fast on an entirely different universal plane! So,therefore, time where we are slows down (to the traveler), but time in our normal universe stays the same.
I've got to go no, so I'll see what you guys think.
Unknown Target
Time is relative. It speeds up and slows down based on who is timing an event, and how fast they are moving. Only the speed of light is constant.
-
i didn't read to closely lol but i think micheal said it all lol
-
subspace IMO is simply a glorified wormhole...the universe from "outside"
String theories...uhg. My head hurts.
I prefer...multiverse/quantum membranes as a better explanation but it still doesnt work.
Its almost like everyones trying so hard to make the maths work it..is. which leads onto a very interesting philosophical debate on whether the physical reality of the universe is purely subjective, IE, if you want that equation on string theory to work, it will.
Either way..matching these theories to observational evidence is hundreds of years away and/or impossible.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Subspace is science fiction fluff to explain the 'advanced' technology of Star Trek. It has no scientic basis.
Nah, subspace is the space in the cellar of your house :D
-
Why move yourself, when the universe can move for you! Warp Travel in ST is possible as a form of FTL travel.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
Nah, subspace is the space in the cellar of your house :D
whew, at last a sentence i can understand!!! :D
Wowee!
-
Of course, like I said, this is all conjecture, and even though many scientists have theory's about it, the truth is that it may (and probably) not exist.
However, the reason I started this thread is so that we could seperate fact from fiction, even if it means totally killing the idea.
-
We exist in a 3+1 space: length, breadth, depth and duration. X, Y, Z and tau (time). Anything beyond that is hypothetical mathematical constructs postulated to help explain relationships between particle interactions on quantum scales. Do some research on string theory. You'll find out plenty of good hypothetical information.
Yeah, no such thing has really been observed or is even accepted as possible (or impossible) yet; more data is required to make a physics conjecture. ;) It would indeed make sense though to have not only an infinite number of dimensions, but an infinite number within a finite interval. In other words, the "subspace" would be something like the 2.5th, 2.9th, pth, etc. dimensions (everything between the integer dimensions) and could provide a slightly different path to get through two points in the 3D universe. Mathematically it is quite possible and makes perfect sense for other dimensions to exist, but it is of course unobservable so far. ;)
More of an issue, however, is moving out of our universe/dimension and into another. The blue tunnel effect in FS doesn't really make any sense and is probably just there to look cool. :D (an instantenous transition seems more realistic) If this was at all possible, I think that it would either have to exploit properties of quantum entanglement or the extreme spacetime curvatures around massive objects, particularly at infinitely-curved singularity points. ;) It would of course be impossible for humans to utilize if the latter possibility was correct, but we can theorize all day, right? :D
-
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few things:
1) Subspace was invented by Gene Roddenberry to explain warp. He admitted this many times, literally saying that he just made it up.
2) Some theoretical FTL physics thingies have adopted the term subspace so that they don't have to explain their FTL universes/regions/domains to the less informed people in an extremely detailed manner. Everyone is familiar with startrek and the fact that subspace means FTL.
3) All scientific data on unknown or theoretical occurances is based upon observation of things within our measurable field of view. We know gases expand when heated because we sealed containers and heated them. They popped. Unles we discover some form of energy or matter which we can control, measure and manipulate which also affects subspace then we will never invent any kind of subspace technology. Think of it like this: If there is a person who is, say, out of phase with us. They can see, hear, smell, taste everything in our universe but they cannot move anything or interact in any way with us. Then they are quite simply, not there. My point is, if we can't find a way to interact with something then it isn't there.
4) If the laws of physics are set by the universe rather than the individual particles, then as soon as any subspace drive entered subspace it would cease to function and either be annihilated or trapped in subspace with no way to get back or interact with anything in subspace. However if (as I beleive) the laws of physics are determined on a molecular level, then all the nice subspace particles would most likely begin interacting with the subspace drive and anything attatched to it, probably annihilating it in the process.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few things:
1) Subspace was invented by Gene Roddenberry to explain warp. He admitted this many times, literally saying that he just made it up.
2) Some theoretical FTL physics thingies have adopted the term subspace so that they don't have to explain their FTL universes/regions/domains to the less informed people in an extremely detailed manner. Everyone is familiar with startrek and the fact that subspace means FTL.
3) All scientific data on unknown or theoretical occurances is based upon observation of things within our measurable field of view. We know gases expand when heated because we sealed containers and heated them. They popped. Unles we discover some form of energy or matter which we can control, measure and manipulate which also affects subspace then we will never invent any kind of subspace technology. Think of it like this: If there is a person who is, say, out of phase with us. They can see, hear, smell, taste everything in our universe but they cannot move anything or interact in any way with us. Then they are quite simply, not there. My point is, if we can't find a way to interact with something then it isn't there.
4) If the laws of physics are set by the universe rather than the individual particles, then as soon as any subspace drive entered subspace it would cease to function and either be annihilated or trapped in subspace with no way to get back or interact with anything in subspace. However if (as I beleive) the laws of physics are determined on a molecular level, then all the nice subspace particles would most likely begin interacting with the subspace drive and anything attatched to it, probably annihilating it in the process.
Gruesome thought.........
-
Originally posted by an0n
I'd like to take this opportunity to say a few things:
Think of it like this: If there is a person who is, say, out of phase with us. They can see, hear, smell, taste everything in our universe but they cannot move anything or interact in any way with us. Then they are quite simply, not there. My point is, if we can't find a way to interact with something then it isn't there.
sorry to say but this appears to be incorrect.
Hearing, tasting, smelling and seeing is interacting.
To hear you need to block soundwaves, made out of air (thus stopping movement)
To smell you need to be able to affect the movement of air into you nose
To taste you must be able to eat, drink or move air onto your tongue
To see you need to be able to catch the reflection of photons on stuff.
-
Me-ta-phor.
I was merely trying to illustrate that if something can't affect us then for all intents and purposes, it ain't there.
-
I was merely trying to illustrate that if something can't affect us then for all intents and purposes, it ain't there.
I quite agree on that point; at least, things that do not affect our universe should not be taken into account until all other possibilities have been fully analyzed. ;) Still, subspace/hyperspace/etc. does actually make sense by mathematics; it just has not been physically observed. ;) (kind of like Neptune, several decades ago)
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
Why move yourself, when the universe can move for you! Warp Travel in ST is possible as a form of FTL travel.
I assume that you are referring to the Alcubierre 'Warp' Effect. Sure, you'd be moving purely at subrelativistic velocities, but the contraction wave at the leading edge of your movement and the expansion wake you leave behind you would have problematic side effects, like ripping stars apart and leaving their bits strewn carelessly across several lightyears of space.
Besides that, you would need to generate matter with a negative density. Good luck.
-
You just need to ask the aliens howe they do i... er... why's everyone looking at me funny? :nervous:
-
bah, quantum physics isnt my field. I'll just say what Mark told me: Subspace is kinda like a the chocolate pudding in a chocolate-vanella pudding bowl (real-space is the vanella part and the bowl would be the universe). Traveling through a wormhole should be traveling through subspace, as wormholes (in theory at least) are tunnels in subspace. The ST warp travel thing is based off the idea that speeds are different in subspace and that by riding half way between realspace and subspace, you can go faster than the speed of light (all theoretical and mostly BS). On the other hand, if a ship could survive traveling through subspace, you can (theoretically once again) get from one place in the universe to another faster than light would. You would not actually travel faster than light, but you would still get there sooner (based of the theory that the subspace plain distorts speed).
As you probably figured out already, everything we know about subspace, including the possiblity that it even exists, is completely theoretical. We dont even know if wormholes exist.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
As you probably figured out already, everything we know about subspace, including the possiblity that it even exists, is completely theoretical. We dont even know if wormholes exist.
Um. No. Everything we 'know' about subspace came from Gene Roddenberry. Its StarTrek Physics. It has--repeat after me--No Basis In Real World Physics.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Um. No. Everything we 'know' about subspace came from Gene Roddenberry. Its StarTrek Physics. It has--repeat after me--No Basis In Real World Physics.
you sure about that, from what ive been hearing (non st related) theres been a lot of theorizing about subspace and wormholes.
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
you sure about that, from what ive been hearing (non st related) theres been a lot of theorizing about subspace and wormholes.
Wormholes? Perhaps. Subspace? Not from any scientific circles I've ever heard of. A quick search for 'subspace physics' reveals that pretty much ever thing written on the subject is a rationalization of 'Trek Physics' or stuff about the game 'Subspace'.
-
want to see any serious stuff about FTL travel and alike?http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/warp.htm
-
the term warp drive is a str trek term however due toa similarity with certain theory of late its beent aken up by the real scietific comunity to explain possible methods od traveling faster than light by folding space time etc etc etc - but its folding this space time not some other dimesions so there is no subspace involved at all its all in real space we just move the space time contiunium to where we want to be so - while we are limited to less than lightspeed the fabric of the universe isn't
negative mass isn't needed for warp drive theorys - just a anitigravitational field i did some looking into this - but it does have to be anti gravity not a gravity negating device i need ot push things away push all things away witha gravitation field now if it can be achieved without negamtive mass then we dont need the negative mass but its though of as the most likely candidate for creatinga genuine antigrav field but perahps one day when we understand gravity better we can do ti without it
-
Gravity can be blocked using high-speed spinning super-conductor discs.
-
anyway venom that site it hasn't been updated in years and i mean it litterally at least 4 probally alot longer well last tiem i check anyway unless its been updated in the alst month but the info on there is still interesting and acurate for the most part
-
Actually, he's right McHale(:D), there has been a lot of theorizing on it.
-
that gravity blocking device is still under scutity the russian who did it wellllllllllllllllllllllll........................... i dont know nasa tried it and it didn't work he said it was cause you need a verys specific forula for some cehmeicals or something but hes supposedly working with nasa now to re evaluate the tech if it works great but my gut tells me the guy was just trying to get into the papers
if its true i herby profusely apoligise to the man and declare hima genius of huge proprtions
-
It doesnt block gravity....
-
the NASA scientists had marginal success - it did actually work, but just not as well..
something like .01% of this russian guys' supposed results.
I wonde what would happen if you stacked a number of such disks on top of one another?
the GS on the Havok origionally used something like this to negate "local" gravity...but then I opted for braneworld control instead cause nobody understands it well enough to put up a convincing argument against is :p
-
Originally posted by Zeronet
It doesnt block gravity....
How not? It was specifically stated that it'd 'inhibit gravitational field effects'.
-
it NEGATES gravity, doesnt block it.
theres a difference. i think.
:confused: :confused: :confused:
either way...a conclusive..err...conclusion to experiment like this could be very interesting for graviton theory :)
-
The only FTL theory I that can be anywhere close to possible is B5 hyperspace.
There, hyperspace is the center of the universe, and the galaxies are on the outside of the universe (expanding universe). You can get to places faster in you take hyperspace because of the tighter turn in the universe. Its like how you can make a turn on the inside portion of a track faster than on the outside portion of a track. Only thing it can't explain is how you can suddenly get to hyperspace from normal space.
-
an0n's basics of sci-fi physics
Subspace - Invented my Gene Roddenberry to explain Enterprise FTL travel. Subspace is an energy plane which underpins all space and time throughout the universe. It affects and can be affected by things in our realm. Distance and time in subspace are non-existent and non-linear respectively.
Hyperspace - And artificial conduit or natural plane created to allow FTL travel or an energy plane where time and space are much the same as in our realm with the exception that travel through hyperspace equates to a much larger distance in our space. In certain sci-fi (Stargate) venturing into such a space without adequate protection (such as being inside a ship) from the temporal and kinetic would be lethal due to the sheer force exerted by the forced formation of a hyperspace realm.
-
Blocking is not a good term to use, its misleading.
-
Gravity negation and Gravity blocking are as yet, not proven. Whereas the Russian 'physicist' claims results, no one has been able to make his idea work using anything remotely resembling the methods he says he used. It is, I am afraid, Cold Fusion II: The Son of Fusion.
Venom's site is probably the most useful thing contributed to this conversation, since it discusses, rationally, theories of efficient propulsion in space. Some of these theories are FTL in nature. It does, however, gloss over several things, like the ramifications of using such effects as the Alcubierre 'warp' theory.
KMN: every plausible faster than light propulsion theory put forth by a credible scientist with a solid grounding in physics has required 'negative mass' or 'negative energy' (interchangeable, of course) to produce important effect: FTL transit. Even most most theories involving the use of wormholes require the use of negative energy/mass to open and maintain the tunnel.
BTW, about that site being out of date?
Last major update on 11-20-01
First page, right below the privacy statement.
-
Actually Alcubière's theory is rather Space Folding IMHO.
Funny how french takes a good place in FTL travel: Alcubièrre, Lagrange, her... did I just said that? :nervous:
-
Originally posted by venom2506
Actually Alcubière's theory is rather Space Folding IMHO.
Funny how french takes a good place in FTL travel: Alcubièrre, Lagrange, her... did I just said that? :nervous:
Oh, I hate to hurt you like this, Venom, but its Miguel Alcubierre-Moya, and he's Mexican by birth.
Alcubierre's effect is not space folding. It is the induction of a controlled compressive effect on the leading edge coupled with a expansive effect on the trailing edge of the field. This is not 'space-folding' so much as it is a local-slope induction.
-
I think that the hyperspace theory might have some credit to it as it would properly explain the quantum entanglement phenomenon; basically if it was possible to leave the fourth dimension and exist in only three, velocity as a function of time would be meaningless (effectively eliminating the c limit) and all actions would take place simultaneously. ;)
Also, that site venom posted has a bunch of useful information on this topic. :yes:
Lagrange
This guy was cool; he was one of the two creators of my favorite subject in math. :D
-
"Subspace - Invented my Gene Roddenberry to explain Enterprise FTL travel. Subspace is an energy plane which underpins all space and time throughout the universe. It affects and can be affected by things in our realm. Distance and time in subspace are non-existent and non-linear respectively. "
anOn
If time is non-linear, then how do people come out of subspace _after_ they went in? or is this a stupid question?
-
Think of a stream...it's much easier to go in the direction the water-or time- is traveling, and it takes a lot more energy to go against the current. So the problem might be power requirements, as they would be VERY high for traveling through time.
-
energy requirements are high enough for travelling through subspace; but snce there's non-linear time in subspace, technically, it doesn't need energy to travel through time. subspace automatically dumps you out in a different time... doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by LtNarol
bah, quantum physics isnt my field. I'll just say what Mark told me: Subspace is kinda like a the chocolate pudding in a chocolate-vanella pudding bowl (real-space is the vanella part and the bowl would be the universe). Traveling through a wormhole should be traveling through subspace, as wormholes (in theory at least) are tunnels in subspace. The ST warp travel thing is based off the idea that speeds are different in subspace and that by riding half way between realspace and subspace, you can go faster than the speed of light (all theoretical and mostly BS). On the other hand, if a ship could survive traveling through subspace, you can (theoretically once again) get from one place in the universe to another faster than light would. You would not actually travel faster than light, but you would still get there sooner (based of the theory that the subspace plain distorts speed).
As you probably figured out already, everything we know about subspace, including the possiblity that it even exists, is completely theoretical. We dont even know if wormholes exist.
Food... I can understand food!!!
No... wait... What if we're out of vanilla???:eek: :eek:
-
I just had an idea from all those Star Trek movies. Instead of attaching a subspace or hyperdrive to the ships, why not build warp gates? Well, I don't really know what to call them but my idea is that since it is highly dangerous for humans to tranvel faster than light, why not just "teleport" the various molecules from one gate to the destination gate? You know...like how those Star Trek guys always beam up and down?
There are dangers to thise idea too. What if the molecules fail to reach the destination gate? What if the molecules are not re-assembled correctly? What if the gate malfunctions halfway?
-
"I just had an idea from all those Star Trek movies. Instead of attaching a subspace or hyperdrive to the ships, why not build warp gates? Well, I don't really know what to call them but my idea is that since it is highly dangerous for humans to tranvel faster than light, why not just "teleport" the various molecules from one gate to the destination gate? You know...like how those Star Trek guys always beam up and down?
There are dangers to thise idea too. What if the molecules fail to reach the destination gate? What if the molecules are not re-assembled correctly? What if the gate malfunctions halfway?"
NeoHunter
Aren't those warp gates like another form of FTL travel? cause how would you teleport the molecules around? shove them in another dimension and pull them back in a different spot... which is essentially subspace stuff...
-
the laws of physics are determined on a molecular level, then all the nice subspace particles would most likely begin interacting with the subspace drive and anything attatched to it, probably annihilating it in the process.
an0n said this earlier in the thread. The FS subspace drives actually *do* operate on this principle. The blue shimmering vortex we all know and love is from the annihilation of particles, and a velocity over 42 m/s needs to be reached or you'll be fried.
Similarly, the tunnel is formed from realspace "flowing through" and annihilating with the "edges." Killjoy ages ago wrote a more technical sounding explanation saying the same thing, and everything [V] has said stays pretty true to his idea since well I think they let him do the grunt work on "explaining" subspace. ;) (despite explaining the annihilation effects and tunnel, it still doesn't say much of what subspace is)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I think that the hyperspace theory might have some credit to it as it would properly explain the quantum entanglement phenomenon; basically if it was possible to leave the fourth dimension and exist in only three, velocity as a function of time would be meaningless (effectively eliminating the c limit) and all actions would take place simultaneously. ;)
'Time' as a concept is nothing more than the observerable consequence of the the increase of entropy. Thermodynamics always wins. Further, as an axis of movement, it only goes in one direction, starting at the planck time and moving on from there in planck lengths. It doesn't even have a Zero point. Tau is as inescapable as the speed of light, it just isn't as constant.
Generally, our universe is called a "3+1" space. Tau is seperated from the more prosaic X, Y and Z axes because it works differently. I strongly suspect that you cannot remove tau from any dimensional model of the universe. You could, for example, find a dimensional model that drops a dimension, but you would find that you had a "2+1" space. Similarly, all hyperspace (proper definition: space with more four or more physical dimensions) models that are mathematically viable can always be represented as "N+1" spaces. Tau is always in there because entropy is always in there.
This isn't as coherent as I'd like, but it will do for now.
Also, that site venom posted has a bunch of useful information on this topic. :yes:
This guy was cool; he was one of the two creators of my favorite subject in math. :D
On the subject of the calculus, I recommend David Berlinksi's 'A Tour of the Calculus'. Brilliant, though perhaps a bit basic for you, CP. For the rest of us, however, its a good primer and is just a damned fun read.
-
the reason negative mass is needed is to prevent the space time bubble, wormhole, wave all the planned theroys is to generate an anti gravitation ring around the ship or at the enterance to the wormhole to prevent its collapse - there might be more to it than that but i just read the reports availble on the internet and they dohnt mention anything other than that when tis taken down toa basic level so its the genuine antigravity a repulses force based on gravity that is the main requirement - but as of yet we have no way to do that negative mass would be the obvious solution - but we dont have that either yet but it is theorteically possible
-
Isnt subspace below realspace?
-
It's in the same dimension as realspace whereas Hyperspace is generally some kind of extra dimensional place.
-
Originally posted by NeoHunter
I just had an idea from all those Star Trek movies. Instead of attaching a subspace or hyperdrive to the ships, why not build warp gates? Well, I don't really know what to call them but my idea is that since it is highly dangerous for humans to tranvel faster than light, why not just "teleport" the various molecules from one gate to the destination gate? You know...like how those Star Trek guys always beam up and down?
There are dangers to thise idea too. What if the molecules fail to reach the destination gate? What if the molecules are not re-assembled correctly? What if the gate malfunctions halfway?
ST goes with the idea of converting energy into matter when it does its teleportation thingy (same for its replicators). The idea is that an object (or person) is disassembled on the molecular level turning it (he/she) into pure energy. That energy is then used to recreate that object (or person) molecule by molecule somewhere else. As for replicators, they just straight out convert from energy to matter using pre-establised forumlas.
-
Transporters work by binding normal matter to an energy stream and mixing in a little bit of subspace to get through ceilings and things.
-
Originally posted by KillMeNow
...tis taken down toa basic level so its the genuine antigravity a repulses force based on gravity that is the main requirement - but as of yet we have no way to do that negative mass would be the obvious solution - but we dont have that either yet but it is theorteically possible
I do not think that negative mass/energy groupings generate negative gravitation. Gravity in our present--admittedly limited--understanding, is always attractive. Even when various symmetries are flipped, gravitation remains the same.
Whereas the masses necessary for things like the Alcubierre Warp are used for generating massive alterations to the surrounding spacetime matrix, it has nothing to do with gravity. In this case, the mass isn't being used to generate gravity-like space distortions, such as those found around stellar objects and collapsars. Instead, the mass is being used to generate two very specific effects: early post-Big-Bang expanionism (wherein the universe expanded faster than lightspeed) and late pre-Big-Crunch collapse (when the universe would start to contract faster than lightspeed).
In the case of Alcubierre and some wormhole theories, the negative mass is used to debit the universe in a way, thus allowing physics to reassert the balance by normal rules. This is roughly, but not quite, analogous to blackhole evaporation on a large scale or the Casimir effect on a small one. When the artificially induced gradient (be it collapse or expansion), the universe must assert certain conditions such that the balance remains unchanged (cf. difference between special and general relativity).
-
'Time' as a concept is nothing more than the observerable consequence of the the increase of entropy. Thermodynamics always wins. Further, as an axis of movement, it only goes in one direction, starting at the planck time and moving on from there in planck lengths. It doesn't even have a Zero point. Tau is as inescapable as the speed of light, it just isn't as constant.
Generally, our universe is called a "3+1" space. Tau is seperated from the more prosaic X, Y and Z axes because it works differently. I strongly suspect that you cannot remove tau from any dimensional model of the universe. You could, for example, find a dimensional model that drops a dimension, but you would find that you had a "2+1" space. Similarly, all hyperspace (proper definition: space with more four or more physical dimensions) models that are mathematically viable can always be represented as "N+1" spaces. Tau is always in there because entropy is always in there.
Ah I see, but why is time referred to as a fourth dimension then? From what you said, it doesn't really seem like a real dimension at all, but rather a physical limit like c, except that it varies with gravity fields. I think that the currently accepted theory says that the value of t at a gravitational singularity is always equal to ¥, which would leave a hole in space and therefore get rid of the time limit at that point.
On an unrelated note, does the second thermodynamics law (the entropy law) imply that at some point in time everything in the universe will turn into heat energy with uniform distribution?
On the subject of the calculus, I recommend David Berlinksi's 'A Tour of the Calculus'. Brilliant, though perhaps a bit basic for you, CP. For the rest of us, however, its a good primer and is just a damned fun read.
You know, I think I have actually that title and have skimmed through it a few times. My dad collects various math and science books from second-hand bookstores, so I have a bunch of these types of books and older textbooks by now. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Ah I see, but why is time referred to as a fourth dimension then? From what you said, it doesn't really seem like a real dimension at all, but rather a physical limit like c, except that it varies with gravity fields. I think that the currently accepted theory says that the value of t at a gravitational singularity is always equal to ¥, which would leave a hole in space and therefore get rid of the time limit at that point.
Tau is a dimension because it forms a metric that can be used to localise any phenomenon in a regular geometric space. It is, in short, a fourth coordinate. Two events in the life of a moving particle can be localised by spatial and temporal coordinates, IE: Event A took place HERE at THIS time and event B took place THERE at THAT time. Relationships, both physical and mathematical, can be deduced from the numbers involved.
Mapping mathematical logic onto the real world is the entire purpose of the calculus. In that context, all functions, in all forms, relate change over time and change over space. What is the classic y=mx+b linear function, if not a relation of linear movement over time?
On a more physical note, tau only has its bottom limit at the planck time because of simple exclusion. Anything BEFORE the planck time is both unobservable and unable to have any effect on anything AFTER the plank time. Before the planck time, time could have run in a loop, taking 180 degree turns on every loop, but it doesn't matter. There is a disconnect.
On an unrelated note, does the second thermodynamics law (the entropy law) imply that at some point in time everything in the universe will turn into heat energy with uniform distribution?
'Entropy increases' does pretty much imply a heat death, at which a local variation of only a fraction of a Kelvin difference is observable between any two arbitrary regions of space. This enforces a condition of near perfect uniformity. Of course, that assumes an open- or flat-model universe. A closed universe, naturally, begins to contract and the heat death is reversed. Rather than an eternal chill, the whole thing shrinks until all mass/energy exists as superfluid plasma.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
whew, at last a sentence i can understand!!! :D
Wowee!
(http://members.cox.net/kancho3/Smilies_Happy/iamwithstupid.gif)
I agree though. You guys talk in riddles sometimes. Speak regular normal English so that we can all understand please!
-
Originally posted by Corsair
(http://members.cox.net/kancho3/Smilies_Happy/iamwithstupid.gif)
I agree though. You guys talk in riddles sometimes. Speak regular normal English so that we can all understand please!
ST talk: We've got a quantom induced, negative wave form, its breaking through the tacyhon field.
Laymens terms: A pipes burst, waters everywhere.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Oh, I hate to hurt you like this, Venom, but its Miguel Alcubierre-Moya, and he's Mexican by birth.
Alcubierre's effect is not space folding. It is the induction of a controlled compressive effect on the leading edge coupled with a expansive effect on the trailing edge of the field. This is not 'space-folding' so much as it is a local-slope induction.
bah, I know, but some didn't :D
wel, to me, that sounds much more like space folding than anything else. Just imagine what happens. actually, they increase mass in front of the ship so much that... rah, too long to say again, anyway, what's far away from you is brought close w/o you even moving, so that's space folding for me :nod: