PDA

View Full Version : Sub space



briguy213
July 17th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Is there really a sub space? I know will have a good answer :)

_Owen_
July 17th, 2005, 07:27 PM
Theoretically, subspace exists. But we have not proven anything yet.

Owen Macri

briguy213
July 17th, 2005, 07:30 PM
is there a theoretical way of getting there?

_Owen_
July 17th, 2005, 07:34 PM
Theoretically, there are several ways of getting there, but seeing as it is concept that we know basically, nothing about, we cannot really theorize how to get there, but I could say perhaps, if you managed to "rip" the fabric of space-time. But I am just guessing.

Owen Macri

jaden10
July 18th, 2005, 11:15 PM
Theoretically, there are several ways of getting there, but seeing as it is concept that we know basically, nothing about, we cannot really theorize how to get there, but I could say perhaps, if you managed to "rip" the fabric of space-time. But I am just guessing.
Owen Macri

In theory it can be done, It is real? Can't say, we DO NOT have the technology to measure or detect it.
But in theory there are about 3 ways of doing it, all incluse a huge energy burst. But until we develop the technology or we have a alien with the technology that is willing to share. The answer is simply "we don't know.

jpf190279
July 19th, 2005, 03:58 AM
Don't want to put a downer on your party but Su space does not exist, it is just made up. So is hyperspace, though some scientists refer to the extra-dimensional "space", and I use the term space lightly here, as hyperspace.

Hyperspace if it does exist, exists outside our universe and does not include the complex set of 11 dimensions that exist theoretically in our universe, so if you were able to punch a hole into hyperspace and travel into it, you would most likely cease to exist.

However, as I understand it, since hyperspace doesn't include the 4 basic dimensions that restrict FTL travel in our universe, if someone was to punch a hole into hyperspace wrap a bubble of our universe around them, travel into hyperspace, punch a second hole back into our universe at a chosen position, and travel back into the universe, they in "theory" could travel across the universe in a matter of seconds.

However, big problem with this idea is;

1. punching holes into hyperspace requires more energy than a galaxy puts out in its life time.

2. punching permanent holes into hyperspace is just a BAD idea, it leaves our universe's menbrane openly leaking into hyperspace.

3. plotting a course in hyperspace is just going to be near impossible since there are no basic height, width, depth and time dimensions as we know them, this also knocks onto the fact that any energy that we used in our universe to make the holes, might not exist in hyperspace.

All in all, just plain silly.

The most likely course for FTL development is most likely going to be some form of spatial warping device, i.e. a warp drive. It would require less power, is more liely to be able to be built and doesn't cause serious and permanent damage to the universe unless you exceed warp 5 :P

J.

Darkstar
July 19th, 2005, 04:50 AM
im a simple guy myself i get confused :D can someone please eloborate on the 11 dimesions poster above in this thread?

~Thor~
July 19th, 2005, 05:03 AM
All I know (or have read somewhere) is that there is another 13 dimensions (or maybe 13 in total) that has someting to do with super-strings.

Darkstar
July 19th, 2005, 05:21 AM
All I know (or have read somewhere) is that there is another 13 dimensions (or maybe 13 in total) that has someting to do with super-strings.

13 eh unlucky number for some i wonder which one we live in i hope its not 13 that would put a major crimp in my day. :eek:

Colonel Sharp
July 19th, 2005, 05:31 AM
All I know (or have read somewhere) is that there is another 13 dimensions (or maybe 13 in total) that has someting to do with super-strings.

Oh yes, I've heard that too, and all the branes!!! (membranes) About half a year ago I saw this amazing documentry on, I think, the discovery channel about all this stuff, I wish I could remember what it was called, it had a good way of explaining things.

cozzerob
July 19th, 2005, 05:54 AM
Are you sure it's 13 - I thought it was supposed to be 11.

Oh, and from what I can gather, the other dimensions explain things like magnetism, gravity, etc. However, it should be said that string theory - as beautiful in its simplicity as it is - is just an idea. There is no supporting evidence for it (yet). However, it does appear to work as a theory. Anyone with more info is very welcome to comment.

UNRE4L
July 19th, 2005, 06:14 AM
SubSpace does exist. I am sure Einstein proved something like that, But it involves traveling the speed of light. The universe can be compared to a bubble. All the galaxies and stuff are on the outside of the bubble. It is possible to travel through the bubble in no time at all.

T_S
July 19th, 2005, 08:16 AM
Are you sure it's 13 - I thought it was supposed to be 11.

Oh, and from what I can gather, the other dimensions explain things like magnetism, gravity, etc. However, it should be said that string theory - as beautiful in its simplicity as it is - is just an idea. There is no supporting evidence for it (yet). However, it does appear to work as a theory. Anyone with more info is very welcome to comment.

According to http://superstringtheory.com/basics/ (which by the way has some nice pieces about that) it's either 10 or 26 for one version (the one that includes tachyons).

briguy213
July 19th, 2005, 08:52 AM
I have a great movie on string theory. It is a thing made by "NOVA". If you are intrested in this stuff you should definetly check it out.

briguy213
July 19th, 2005, 08:53 AM
JPF,
What do you mean by warp drive?

T_S
July 19th, 2005, 08:56 AM
I have a great movie on string theory. It is a thing made by "NOVA". If you are intrested in this stuff you should definetly check it out.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html ?

briguy213
July 19th, 2005, 08:56 AM
I just looked and the movie is called, The elegant universe. It is really good.

jpf190279
July 19th, 2005, 09:57 AM
I'm happy to see my post caught peoples attention, usually I just get ignored :D

Read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

Basically there as been in recent years a number of theories relating to the makeup of the universe. This is all to do with the grand unified theory of EVERYTHING. It is a theory which Albert Einstein was working on when he died. Basically it relates to the unification of general relativity, special relativity and Quantum Mechanics, basically don't get along very well until you put them in their own contexts.

In order to understand how the universe exists, was created and how it functions you need to understand how all its part work not only on their own but together. Thats the unified theory, anyways, a number of years ago a bunch of scientists got together and tried to clock this idea with a bunch of theories, first I believe was string theory, this included 10 dimensions and was the most popular, next was the less popular super-string theory with 11 dimensions.

Basically everyone liked the 10 dimension one more than the 11 dimension one because it didn't include hyperspace and gravity being a foreign force from another universe/hyperspace. So people piled onto string theory for a while, problem was that the numbers simply didn't crunch when it came down to it string theory was fatally flawed. So the guy who invented super-string got together with some other scientist working on a new theory called Menbrane theory which is different from string theory in that it visualises the universe as being a sheet/menbrane and matter/energy being formed by ripples upon the menbrane. Problem was that it didn't crunch well too, until the super-string theory guy turned up and added an 11th dimension to the equation. Then everything fitted perfectly, now M-theory is the most popular and allows scientists to visualise the universe externally via hyperspace(the 11th dimension I think) and speculation on how the universe began.

All in all GREAT news for boffins.

P.S.

According to M-Theory the universe existed before the big bang but was change/created from what it was by an impact with a second universe floating in hyperspace. Basically universes are menbranes just floating around in hyperspace and the ripples upon them form the universal matter/energy/forces that we know and love. So in theory another impact could fundamental change our universe forever. Just imagine if tomorrow the electromagnetic force in our universe suddenly vanished. Yikes!

briguy213
July 19th, 2005, 10:21 AM
The movie is based on the book. I like the movie better because it gives you visual examples.

_Owen_
July 19th, 2005, 02:00 PM
In theory it can be done, It is real? Can't say, we DO NOT have the technology to measure or detect it.
But in theory there are about 3 ways of doing it, all incluse a huge energy burst. But until we develop the technology or we have a alien with the technology that is willing to share. The answer is simply "we don't know.
You are right, we are here theorizing and hypothesizing about how to get into subspace when we don't actually know if it exists. But it is still fun. I completley agree, and attempt to acces subspace would require an amazing amount of energy.

Owen Macri

Lord §okar
July 20th, 2005, 03:41 AM
Subspace does not exist. Hyperspace is theorized to exist but bearing absolutely no similarities to the Stargate version.

But in theory there are about 3 ways of doing it, all incluse a huge energy burst.
How's that?

Darkstar
July 20th, 2005, 04:04 AM
if say in theory one was to enter the subspace hyperspace whatever you want to call it in say a ship if possible what would one see from the window?
if traveling trough such a dimesion was possible and was instintasious then i guess you would just pop inside then pop out at a different point in space without ever noticing it like nothing ever happened time could in effect to the occupants be stoped and no time would have passed if this is so then what about reversing time to go inside and then somehow rig it to go back and emerge say 200 years before?

in effect one could go anywhere in the universe by means of this hyperspace/subspace instantly now thats freaky dose this spill onto the realms of time travels or dose my small imagination just let me down? :S

Lord §okar
July 20th, 2005, 04:08 AM
if say in theory one was to enter the subspace hyperspace whatever you want to call it in say a ship if possible what would one see from the window?
If I had to guess I'd say nothing. Just as the fladlander sees nothing in a three dimensional wormhole (since he can only see infinitessimally thin slivers of three dimensional space) we would see nothing in a tunnel through our higher dimensions.

Darkstar
July 20th, 2005, 04:35 AM
^well im sure gonna miss all of them stars flying by the window LOL!

if what i said before were to happen and humans didt use hyprspce for ships they could do the journy in stages.

1. earth or solar system we jump inside for a short amount of time to a point in space we have selected.

2. we emerge at the designated coordinates in an instant and keep this up all the way there.

or we may be able to illicit a bleed through effect by not fully being absorbed into hyperspace but brigning it to them sort of when there is a lump in the carpet you could grab it and simply pull it along until you got where you wanted i have no idea if this is possible or if its a expedient way of getting to somewhere as fully entering hyprspce but if all ships did this then we could be safer than impacting other ships in hyprspce in the time it takes to blink an eye.

any ideas??????

Dazmeister
July 20th, 2005, 09:01 AM
Ok assume subspace is accessible. It would be incredibly difficult to emerge at a chosen destination wouldnt it?

If subspace has none of the attributes of regular space, such as stable matter, etc, would time also operate differently?

If this is the case, then wouldnt you need to calculate not only the distance in space, but also a point in time?

This raises yet ANOTHER question, would time travel be made possible (to some extent) because of this?

Im not that qualified in many spacial stuff, I just find it interesting.

Lord §okar
July 20th, 2005, 09:17 AM
Since it doesn't actually have any basis in reality it's perfectly simple to appear anywhere you want, just use the same process that you used to access a non-existent region of the universe.

If subspace has none of the attributes of regular space, such as stable matter, etc, would time also operate differently?
What is "stable matter" (by corrolary there must be "unstable matter", what would that be like?), why can't subspace have it and how does it relate to time?

_Owen_
July 20th, 2005, 11:20 AM
^well im sure gonna miss all of them stars flying by the window LOL!

if what i said before were to happen and humans didt use hyprspce for ships they could do the journy in stages.

1. earth or solar system we jump inside for a short amount of time to a point in space we have selected.

2. we emerge at the designated coordinates in an instant and keep this up all the way there.

or we may be able to illicit a bleed through effect by not fully being absorbed into hyperspace but brigning it to them sort of when there is a lump in the carpet you could grab it and simply pull it along until you got where you wanted i have no idea if this is possible or if its a expedient way of getting to somewhere as fully entering hyprspce but if all ships did this then we could be safer than impacting other ships in hyprspce in the time it takes to blink an eye.

any ideas??????
You are thinking of the Warp Drive, from Star Trek, correct? The Warp Drive works on a diffrent principle, it works on the principle of condensing the space ahead of you and stretching the space behind you, I had a link to a good page, it is actually a theoretical study that was done, if anyone can help me with a link, I can't remember what the guys' name was or the actual name of the drive.

Owen Macri

EDIT: Ok, I found the stuff I was looking for. The scientists name is Migel Alcubierre. The Alcubierre Drive is also known as the Warp Drive, and is a solution for Einsteins' equations to disallow faster than light speed travel.

This is the website: (It is actually a wikipedia article)

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

and this is a picture of the Warp bubble, or Alcubierre bubble:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Warp_drive.jpg

As you can see, the space infront of the craft is condensed and the space behind the craft is streatched.

Owen Macri

Dazmeister
July 20th, 2005, 04:28 PM
Ok, forget I said "stable matter", and assume I meant any matter of any kind.

_Owen_
July 20th, 2005, 04:49 PM
Still, just because subspace does not contain matter, has nothing to do with time. You are making many assumptions, with no basis, if you would care to elaborate?

Owen Macri

Darkstar
July 21st, 2005, 01:34 AM
if travelling at faster than light speeds can effectively slow or stop time according to releativity then such a warp drive technicly be as effective as hyperspace IF! when you did manage to enter such a region time was also stopped due to do forces acting on the area around you or your ship being no existant and so on if it even exists at all but i have always liked the idea behind warpdrive it seems a more acceptable means of faster than light space travel.

Question?

if you could condesnse space in front of an object and expand the space behind then wouldn't this work for say a planet? or do gravitational forces prohibit such an act

note my head is functioning at a slower rate than the norm i need coffee before my brain works at full speed so im going to go and have a look properly at relativity with an espresso. :S

_Owen_
July 21st, 2005, 02:02 AM
No, it would work fine with a planet, the bubble just needs to be expanded. Like in The Next Generation when the moon was decelerating out of orbit, and I believe they tried to extend their warp field around it. Or they often extend their warp field around slower ships. In fact their was one whole episode about a warp bubble, I can't remember what it was called, but it was shrinking and Beverly Crusher was inside, and The Traveller came back to help save her.

Owen Macri

Darkstar
July 21st, 2005, 02:18 AM
hmm next gen i think i remember that episode with the moon and the shrinking warp field funny its usually the deflector dish that helps save them all the time. :D

_Owen_
July 21st, 2005, 02:45 AM
Ya, they do use the deflector dishes a lot, for something meant to push away small objects it is often used to emit some type of beam, to kill, blow up, heal, or push copies of ships back together. But they do use warp fields and sheilds a lot too.

Owen Macri

Dazmeister
July 22nd, 2005, 04:11 PM
Ok Owen, subspace just interests me thats all. I know im making many assumptions but Im not that qualified in space theory or anything.

My main point was this.

Its pretty obvious subspace differs from the space/time that we know. I was just wondering that because in the show they send communications via subspace, and travel via subspace, they must have a way to get the signals to enter and exit subspace at designated times. Either to recieve a signal or to travel. I was just discussing how difficult this would be because subspace bears no resemblance (in terms of physics) to our space, therefore not only destinations would have to be calculated, but also points in time as well. I hope that makes sense.

_Owen_
July 22nd, 2005, 04:23 PM
Oh, that's ok, I didn't say there was anything wrong with making assumptions with no basis, I do it all the time, if no one made assumptions where would we be today? Subspace interests me too. I want to appoligize for my last post responding to yours I sounded very ofending, even when I read it the second time, I have no idea, why I posted that. Please forgive me.

As for subspace messages, they might not need the messages to exit, if they had sensors that could scan in subspace then they could read the messages without needing them to exit. As well, they could generate the meessages already in subspace.

You have nice thoughts in your post.

Once again I appoligize for everything I said.

Owen Macri

jaden10
July 23rd, 2005, 12:15 AM
Subspace does not exist. Hyperspace is theorized to exist but bearing absolutely no similarities to the Stargate version.


This is going to come off as cocky, but I shall continue knowing that risk.

You say subspace doesn't exist.

Are we a Quantum Theorist? Have you taken any courses in any science?

So unless you have actually tried to jump into subspace or even transmitted into subspace you have NO PROOF.

Just because we can't do it with our LEVEL of technology and Scientific knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

hundreds of years ago we thought the earth was flat, columbus proved it was round. They said the sound barrier could not be broken, but it was broken. Subspace is just another challenge. And if you learn anything about humans you should learn that people like me (A scientist) LOVE challenges that people say can't be done.

T_S
July 23rd, 2005, 02:53 AM
Just because we can't do it with our LEVEL of technology and Scientific knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Yes, but that fact doesn't prove it actually exists either.

For now, using all those extra dimensions may allow some theories to be used as a basis to compute and predict experimental results - but that doesn't mean those theories are "true".

The "aether" concept was, if I remember correctly, used to predict light's path and behaviour, and has since then be dismissed - the same thing may happen with subspace.

Now, I still see your point - we don't know yet, would be a bad thing to dismiss it without a remote proof of its non-existance.

Dazmeister
July 23rd, 2005, 09:01 AM
Oh, that's ok, I didn't say there was anything wrong with making assumptions with no basis, I do it all the time, if no one made assumptions where would we be today? Subspace interests me too. I want to appoligize for my last post responding to yours I sounded very ofending, even when I read it the second time, I have no idea, why I posted that. Please forgive me.

As for subspace messages, they might not need the messages to exit, if they had sensors that could scan in subspace then they could read the messages without needing them to exit. As well, they could generate the meessages already in subspace.

You have nice thoughts in your post.

Once again I appoligize for everything I said.

Owen Macri


Thats ok Owen, thanks for clearing up what I asked though :)

EDIT

Regarding the above posts about subspace existing.

The most logical course of action if someone actively wanted to find out about subspace would be to treat it as if it already existed. That way, any theories or concepts that were tried on the assumption that it existed, would either work, proving its existence, or not work, proving its non existance.

Im afraid that isnt terribly clear, but I hope you understand it.

In addition, we may not be able to see or interact with subspace, because of the space/time we live in at the moment.

Assuming that subspace is very different to our universe in terms of time progression, existance of matter etc, anything created in our universe may conflict tremendously in any other "realm". Likewise, the mere concept of "subspace" or any equivalent may be beyond our perception as humans, only increasing the mystery about this void.

_Owen_
July 23rd, 2005, 06:47 PM
Personally, I agree with this philosophy, we assume, that everything we know is solid and if it is a law, it must be true, but it must not be. We assume that gravity is a universal constant, we assume that all matter attracts all other matter, and as far as we know this is true, but it might not be, simply because it has been proved doesn't mean it is wrong.

When the candle light is hot we assume it must be fire.

Owen Macri

_Owen_
July 23rd, 2005, 06:48 PM
Thats ok Owen, thanks for clearing up what I asked though :)

EDIT

Regarding the above posts about subspace existing.

The most logical course of action if someone actively wanted to find out about subspace would be to treat it as if it already existed. That way, any theories or concepts that were tried on the assumption that it existed, would either work, proving its existence, or not work, proving its non existance.

Im afraid that isnt terribly clear, but I hope you understand it.

In addition, we may not be able to see or interact with subspace, because of the space/time we live in at the moment.

Assuming that subspace is very different to our universe in terms of time progression, existance of matter etc, anything created in our universe may conflict tremendously in any other "realm". Likewise, the mere concept of "subspace" or any equivalent may be beyond our perception as humans, only increasing the mystery about this void.
Ok, thank you very much, and you are very welcome, I hope that I could help.

Owen Macri

Three PhDs
August 6th, 2005, 04:29 PM
Theoretically, subspace exists. But we have not proven anything yet.

Owen MacriBy what theory? I've heard nothing of this.


In theory it can be done, It is real? Can't say, we DO NOT have the technology to measure or detect it.
But in theory there are about 3 ways of doing it, all incluse a huge energy burst. But until we develop the technology or we have a alien with the technology that is willing to share. The answer is simply "we don't know.What theory of subspacce are you referring to. Subspace as far as I'm concerned is just a throwaway word used on Sci-Fi shows.


Still, just because subspace does not contain matter, has nothing to do with time. You are making many assumptions, with no basis, if you would care to elaborate?

Owen MacriAssumptions with no basis... like... maybe... that subspace exists? Why has everyone latched onto this idea since it was mentioned in Star Trek and Stargate? It was made up by some sci-fi writers.


This is going to come off as cocky, but I shall continue knowing that risk.

You say subspace doesn't exist.

Are we a Quantum Theorist? Have you taken any courses in any science?Are you? Certainly not seen any evidence of that yet.


So unless you have actually tried to jump into subspace or even transmitted into subspace you have NO PROOF.So it's down to the burden of proof? Prove to me it exists. No, I'll make it easy... prove to me there's even the slightest suggestion or hint that it might exist.


Just because we can't do it with our LEVEL of technology and Scientific knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Just because it was mentioned on a Sci-Fi show doesn't mean it does exist.


hundreds of years ago we thought the earth was flat, columbus proved it was round. They said the sound barrier could not be broken, but it was broken. Subspace is just another challenge. And if you learn anything about humans you should learn that people like me (A scientist) LOVE challenges that people say can't be done.Yes, but we knew the Earth was either flat or round. We knew the barrier existed and either could or couldn't be broken. We don't even have any evidence to suggest that subspace might even exist.

_Owen_
August 6th, 2005, 04:38 PM
By what theory? I've heard nothing of this.
[/Qupte]

It is my theory, unfortunatly I don't have anything to back it up. So it is more of an idea.

[Quote=Three PhDs]Assumptions with no basis... like... maybe... that subspace exists? Why has everyone latched onto this idea since it was mentioned in Star Trek and Stargate? It was made up by some sci-fi writers.

Seeing as we do not have proof one way or another, to continue a fruitiful discussion we must assume that it does.

Owen Macri

Three PhDs
August 6th, 2005, 04:43 PM
It is my theory, unfortunatly I don't have anything to back it up. So it is more of an idea.

Seeing as we do not have proof one way or another, to continue a fruitiful discussion we must assume that it does.

Owen MacriYeah, maybe... but I see it as... well, I have no proof for the existence of leprechauns... see, you were until now talking about subspace as a real thing, saying things like "Theoretically it is possible to access it but it would take a lot of energy" etc, but the moment I challenge you on it you say "Oh well it's just my opinion." Do you see? You're presenting your opinion and your ideas as fact, when (apparently) there's no basis to them. I don't mean to be cheeky, but perhaps you should be more clear in future between what is opinion or speculation and what is fact.

_Owen_
August 6th, 2005, 10:17 PM
No, you are right, what I should have said would have been,

"Theoretically, if subspace does exist it would likley take a lot of power to acces it, other wise we would have done it by now."

However at the time I believe everyone was already working on the assumption that it existed.

Owen Macri

Lord §okar
August 13th, 2005, 05:59 PM
This is going to come off as cocky, but I shall continue knowing that risk.

You say subspace doesn't exist.

Are we a Quantum Theorist? Have you taken any courses in any science?

So unless you have actually tried to jump into subspace or even transmitted into subspace you have NO PROOF.

Just because we can't do it with our LEVEL of technology and Scientific knowledge doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

hundreds of years ago we thought the earth was flat, columbus proved it was round. They said the sound barrier could not be broken, but it was broken. Subspace is just another challenge. And if you learn anything about humans you should learn that people like me (A scientist) LOVE challenges that people say can't be done.
That's like calling someone narrow minded because they don't believe in leprechauns. [EDIT: That is uncanny, I replied to this message, independently, with the same analogy as Three PhDs.] Gene Roddenberry invented subspace, it isn't covered by any scientific meterial that I know of, it's a pipe dream of scifi chic.

Have you taken any courses in any science?
Four, in physics, every semester.

_Owen_
August 15th, 2005, 09:08 PM
True there is no proof of subspace, but there is no proof of a lot of things that we believe in.

Owen Macri

Lord §okar
August 15th, 2005, 09:15 PM
It's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of there being any reason to even consider that possibility that it exists. And there isn't.

_Owen_
August 15th, 2005, 09:18 PM
If we do not even consider the possibility that it exists, then we will not contemplate it at all, and if we do not contemplate it at all, how will any progress in that field be made? Whether it be positive or negative.

Owen Macri