Hyper Space - Is it possible?

smurf975 · 2004-10-15 15:48:18

Okay last day I saw an documentary on black holes.

That made me think. What if black holes really puncture the fabric of space. What's there? Could it be the hyperspace that you see in SF movies like Star Wars or Babylon 5?

Even if matter couldn't travel through this hole in the fabric of space perhaps you could use it to send information. Which is still very usable not only from the point of real time communication with possible far off (but still solar) colonies.

An example would be the von neumann probe (like star treks V'ger). Send it to a neighboring star that has planets. Include on it the device for hyperspace communications. Now when the probe arrives at its destination, many hundreds of years will have past on Earth and you could send this probe new technological specifications for building self replicating machines to prepare for the arrival of humans.

This all implying that if space would be punctured at one place and you could see/work with whats on the other side of the puncture, other laws of physics apply.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-15 17:52:27

It's accepted that quantum entanglement between two particles enables a change in the first particle to be instantaneously reflected in the behaviour of the second particle, no matter how far apart they may be.
This rather spooky concept indicates to me - perhaps mistakenly, I don't know - that there's more to reality than the space-time we all know.
Whether we could ever utilise this phenomenon to create something like the "sub-space frequency" used in Star Trek to communicate instantly across stellar distances, is another matter entirely. Apparently, instantaneous communication violates causality laws. This means information about an event might arrive somewhere before the event has actually taken place.
I've never quite understood this problem myself but I'm reliably informed, by smarter people than I'll ever be, that it's true. In my innocent ignorance, I imagine a situation in which someone on Earth is talking to someone on Alpha-Centauri 3 via Star Trek's fabled "sub-space frequency". Let's assume there's no significant relative velocity between the two star systems and that, therefore, the two people are in the same space-time frame of reference. Why can't Person-A ask Person-B how they are and receive an immediate reply?
I don't see why the speed of light needs to be a limiting factor in this hypothetical conversation.

I know I'm going to regret having raised this point but somebody was bound to do it sooner or later. I just know one of our Relativity gurus here is going to offer me an answer more perplexing than the question!
:bars:

SpaceNut · 2004-10-15 20:09:41

Lets not forget about the magical worm hole in space the throw any ship entering them 100 of light years from where they entered.

On the note of black hole and of entanglement,I believe that I read that the data that would enter is not destroyed but I do not remember the total theory on it.

Still would be nice to travel near light speed or beyound in order to get to even our nearest neighbors.

smurf975 · 2004-10-15 22:07:35

Just wondering what kind of space excists between wormhole entry and exit.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-16 00:45:35

Hi Smurf975!
In the turmoil in my head (which I laughingly call thoughts! ) when I contemplate questions like this, small snippets of information from Relativity or Quantum Mechanics sometimes drift by.

I know there's such thing as quantum tunneling, whereby a particle can pass 'through' a barrier which classical physics says it shouldn't be able to overcome. The particle disappears at point A and reappears at point B, on the other side of the barrier, in the same instant. And, unless the particle ceases to exist, it must at least pass through a higher space-like dimension, if not a time-like dimension, in getting from A to B. (Mustn't it?)
Wormholes have been described as bending space-time like folding a piece of paper. If you were to connect one point on the paper to another point, via the surface of the paper, you would need a line of a certain length to do it. But you can short-circuit this requirement by folding the paper until the two points touch each other - the distance between them now artificially reduced to zero along with the travel time.
This implies that there must be at least one higher dimension we don't know about (except in mathematical theory) through which to fold our 4-space universe.
If so, is it the same higher dimension through which particles appear to travel when they exhibit quantum tunneling? And might we some day figure out how to exploit that dimension?

This higher dimension, if it exists in reality, would presumably also explain how information passes instantaneously between quantum entangled particles.
Getting off the beaten track a little here, such information transfer might even throw some light on those uncanny instances of telepathic transfer of information we've all either experienced or read about.

Just a few thoughts. ???

Euler · 2004-10-16 15:53:32

I've never quite understood this problem myself but I'm reliably informed, by smarter people than I'll ever be, that it's true. In my innocent ignorance, I imagine a situation in which someone on Earth is talking to someone on Alpha-Centauri 3 via Star Trek's fabled "sub-space frequency". Let's assume there's no significant relative velocity between the two star systems and that, therefore, the two people are in the same space-time frame of reference. Why can't Person-A ask Person-B how they are and receive an immediate reply?
I don't see why the speed of light needs to be a limiting factor in this hypothetical conversation.

You understand that simultaneity is different in different reference frames, right? So two events in different places that happen at the same time in one reference frame would not happen at the same time in another reference frame.

Well, suppose that in addition to the people on the two planets, you have a space ship near earth that is moving at a high velocity relative to Earth. The ship's velocity is such that it believes that the people on Alpha Centauri receive the message before it is sent.

Now, imagine a second ship in the same reference frame as the first, but near Alpha Centauri. If people on Earth send an instant message to Alpha Centauri, it would arrive before the ships thought it had been sent. It could be communicated to the second ship using light speed communications, and then the second ship could send an instant message to the first ship. It would arrive instantly in the ships' reference frame, but that would mean going back in time in the planets' reference frame. The first ship could then send the message back to Earth and it would arrive before it had been sent.

It's accepted that quantum entanglement between two particles enables a change in the first particle to be instantaneously reflected in the behaviour of the second particle, no matter how far apart they may be.
This rather spooky concept indicates to me - perhaps mistakenly, I don't know - that there's more to reality than the space-time we all know.

I think that there are really two explanations for this. There is the "spooky" explanation that the two particles are communicating, and the "non-spooky" explanation that the particles are not changing at all. As far as I know, neither theory has been conclusively proved or disproved. However, most physicists seem to think that even if the "spooky" explanation is correct, that it would not be possible to use this phenomenon for FTL communications.

I know there's such thing as quantum tunneling, whereby a particle can pass 'through' a barrier which classical physics says it shouldn't be able to overcome. The particle disappears at point A and reappears at point B, on the other side of the barrier, in the same instant. And, unless the particle ceases to exist, it must at least pass through a higher space-like dimension, if not a time-like dimension, in getting from A to B. (Mustn't it?)

I don't really understand how this works, but I think it has something to do with not knowing exactly where the particle is. I'm guessing that if part of the region where the particle could be ends up on the other side of the barrier before all of it has hi the barrier, then the particle could just "decide" that it is on the other side of the barrier. It is pretty weird, though the physicists seem convinced that it can't be used for FTL communications either.

~Eternal~ · 2004-10-16 19:09:33

Enivatably we will discover that there is a way to travel faster than light, and that nature itself may create these faster than light wonders in the forms of wormholes and tachyons, and we may utilize hyperspace one day but far from soon, but not too far.

Considering that energy needed to open a 'window' to hyperspace is supposed to be plank energy.

(btw, plank energy = 1.956 × 10^9 Joules)

So thats about 22 micograms of antimatter needed to result in that amount of energy, or 25 million dollars worth of antimatter.

So wheres the technology?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-16 19:19:09

I knew it .. an explanation from Euler! And, as I feared, it's a thought experiment I don't understand.
The two ships are travelling in the same direction at the same velocity relative to Earth and Alpha-Centauri-3 (AC3), one close to Earth and the other close to AC3. The two planets are in one reference frame, the two ships in another. Time is passing more slowly on board the ships relative to the passage of time on the planets, say half as fast.
Let's assume the clocks on the planets are synchronised. I'm on Earth and I send an instant 'sub-space frequency' message to my friend, Bill, on AC3 at exactly 1pm. Bill receives it (4 light years away) at exactly 1pm. It's a unidirectional signal, using quantum entangled particles, so nobody but the person I'm sending it to can receive it.
The people on board the ships have no idea a message has been sent, nor any idea it's been received. Everyone goes about their business, albeit in a different reference frame on the ships.
Where's the problem? ???

Euler · 2004-10-17 00:34:36

Let's assume the clocks on the planets are synchronised. I'm on Earth and I send an instant 'sub-space frequency' message to my friend, Bill, on AC3 at exactly 1pm. Bill receives it (4 light years away) at exactly 1pm. It's a unidirectional signal, using quantum entangled particles, so nobody but the person I'm sending it to can receive it.
The people on board the ships have no idea a message has been sent, nor any idea it's been received. Everyone goes about their business, albeit in a different reference frame on the ships.
Where's the problem?

I am assuming that if subspace frequency messages exist in one reference frame, then it must be possible for them to also exist in other reference frames. If all of the FTL communicators are in the same reference frame then I don't think there will be any violations in causality. There will also be no violation in causality if there is absolutely no interaction between the ships and the planets, or if the ships are sufficiently far away from the planets. There would not be a violation in causality every time FTL communication happen.

However, the point is that with multiple communicators operating in different reference frames, it would be possible to cause a violation in causality to happen. This gets back to my thought experiment. You send a message to Bill at 1 PM and it arrives at 1PM. However, since the people on the ships are in a different reference frame, they think that the message was sent at 1PM and arrived at noon. Bill decides to inform the ships about the message at 1:01 planet time, 12:01 ship time. The ships instantly converse with each other, so the other ship is also informed at 12:01 ship time. However, since the planets are in the other reference frame, they think that the ships sent a message at 1:01 that arrived at 12:01. So now the ship near Earth has learned of the message, and everyone agrees that the time is 12:01. At 12:02 the people on the ship send you back the message that you won't write for another 58 minutes.

smurf975 · 2004-10-17 00:57:16

Well time and space are still puzzling to me.

I read that modern day humans have no basis for comparing relativity theories with, thats why its hard for many humans. Maybe in the future it will change through technology or better SF series

Personally I think there are more then the 4 dimensions (or do I want to believe that?). However the multi-verse where every action has it own universe is to strange for me.

I understood the explanation of wormholes though and it sounds like warp technology used in star trek.

I personally think that time travel is not possible, as why haven't we seen future humans yet? But then the future hasn't happened yet but then if the future humans travel to the past is it then the real past as we now and in the past never saw evidence of them, so they would travel to some pseudo past. The argument would be that future humans have reached some un-human state of mind and make no mistakes like modern humans do that would betray their existance to modern and past humans.

---
The universe is so big, that to understand it size you should cross each nation on earth on your hands and knees and even then the earth is nothing.

So with no faster then light travel and possibly being the only intelligent beings in the universe this would so sad. I want to spread live in this universe. Not just human but any life.

Space exploration for me means also making up for what humans did to the earth by spreading earth life. Let earth life prosper not only on earth but on many planets and repay our debts to it by this, this is what life really wants.

---
On the other hand, speed is related to time. Instead of increasing speed perhaps you could mess with time. So a star ship traveling a 2000 m/s would be slow but because time is slower on it, people, life and matter age much slower. It would be like traveling faster then time.

I have seen freakish theories that tesla's last ideas would tab energy from the time dimension. IF true it would be something like that.

This makes me think of time as some kind of radiation. It decays matter.

smurf975 · 2004-10-17 01:13:46

Let's assume the clocks on the planets are synchronised. I'm on Earth and I send an instant 'sub-space frequency' message to my friend, Bill, on AC3 at exactly 1pm. Bill receives it (4 light years away) at exactly 1pm. It's a unidirectional signal, using quantum entangled particles, so nobody but the person I'm sending it to can receive it.
The people on board the ships have no idea a message has been sent, nor any idea it's been received. Everyone goes about their business, albeit in a different reference frame on the ships.
Where's the problem?
I am assuming that if subspace frequency messages exist in one reference frame, then it must be possible for them to also exist in other reference frames. If all of the FTL communicators are in the same reference frame then I don't think there will be any violations in causality. There will also be no violation in causality if there is absolutely no interaction between the ships and the planets, or if the ships are sufficiently far away from the planets. There would not be a violation in causality every time FTL communication happen.
However, the point is that with multiple communicators operating in different reference frames, it would be possible to cause a violation in causality to happen. This gets back to my thought experiment. You send a message to Bill at 1 PM and it arrives at 1PM. However, since the people on the ships are in a different reference frame, they think that the message was sent at 1PM and arrived at noon. Bill decides to inform the ships about the message at 1:01 planet time, 12:01 ship time. The ships instantly converse with each other, so the other ship is also informed at 12:01 ship time. However, since the planets are in the other reference frame, they think that the ships sent a message at 1:01 that arrived at 12:01. So now the ship near Earth has learned of the message, and everyone agrees that the time is 12:01. At 12:02 the people on the ship send you back the message that you won't write for another 58 minutes.

Your example sound like any situation you can get on earth on different timezones.

If I send you an email now (from europe) to you (assuming USA NY). Then I send the message 6 hours in the past.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-17 05:52:00

I don't know whom to acknowledge first, Smurf975 for raising the thorny subject of hyperspace or Euler for attempting to explain it all!
Before I forget, Smurf975, I've long admired your sig. ... it's a beauty! (Should have mentioned it sooner but always got side-tracked.)

Euler, you're a scholar and a gentleman and I appreciate you taking the time to open a chink of light into my darkness. I sort of understand the little thought experiment you devised, in a broad-brush sense, but not entirely. It's possible that coming at it from a different direction might clarify it for me, though I wouldn't presume to ask you because you've done more than enough already.
You have succeeded in answering a question, by the way, which has been festering in the recesses of my ageing brain for many years(! ). You've reassured me that FTL information transfer might be permissible in certain well-defined circumstances, i.e. where the information passes between points in the same reference frame and not to points in other reference frames. In other words, there may be special cases wherein causality is not necessarily violated by FTL information exchange. I've often thought this must be so but have never asked anyone before and, consequently, never had anyone confirm the idea.

Smurf975,
The difference in the time-frame between Earth and the hypothetical spacecraft in Euler's thought experiment is more profound than the differences in Earth's timezones. The timezones here are just a way of dealing with daylight and darkness so that, when the sun comes up, it's about 6am-ish more or less wherever you are in the world (too confusing otherwise). Despite the ambient light-level differences and the hands on the clock pointing to different numbers, New York, London, Beijing, and Honolulu are still in the same relativistic frame of reference. But travelling very close to the speed of light, relative to Earth, will radically change how time passes for you compared to someone you left behind, anywhere on this planet - and the effects are real.
While it may be true that living in New York is likely to age you faster than living in Honolulu, it's not quite the same thing! :;):
[P.S. I think I know understand what you were getting at though.]

MarsDog · 2004-10-19 02:48:11

"The problem with relativity isn't that it's hard to understand,
it's that it is hard to believe." - Anonymous

http://homepage.sunrise.ch/homepage/sch … l]Absolute time ?

http://www.wsws.org/public_html/prioris … htm]Faster than light ?

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space … ap/#1]From CNN

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asia … ghtspeed/] E <> M*C^2 relatively wrong ?

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gra … ml]Gravity is how fast ?

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0009023]Near Field Faster

smurf975 · 2004-10-19 13:45:23

Before I forget, Smurf975, I've long admired your sig. ... it's a beauty! (Should have mentioned it sooner but always got side-tracked.

No big deal, I picked it up at some Russian site that spits out sigs. I found it very real for me.

----
Maybe if you would talk about, something like 14 billion years and x days and x hours after the big bang. As that would be universal time not? Or like in star trek, star date 45630.23 (or something).

Shaun Barrett · 2004-10-20 01:47:57

Thanks for those links, MarsDog.
I've been aware for a long time now of the incompatibilities of Einsteinian Relativity (ER) and Quantum Mechanics (QM) - if not in terms of the mathematical intricacies (unfortunately I'm not smart enough for that), at least in general terms.
I've also heard of the heroic efforts of experimenters and theoreticians to unify the two pillars of modern physics into one Grand Unified Theory of Everything. Creating ever more powerful colliders to mimic conditions prevalent in the earliest moments after the Big Bang is one such line of endeavour, while creating ever more elaborate mathematical theories, such as 10-dimensional String Theory, is another.
But I wasn't aware that there were moves, at least in some quarters, to remove the incompatibilities between ER and QM by the seductively simple means of re-introducing absolute (or Newtonian) time. It appears this would not only reconcile ER and QM but would remove the causality problems which prohibit Faster Than Light (FTL) travel and communication.

According to the "Absolute time?" link, what we need now is evidence that FTL information transfer is actually possible. Once we've done that, then a serious re-evaluation of ER would have to follow. Although this would cause a lot of pain in many circles, as all significant paradigm shifts invariably do, it could bring about a new renaissance in physics and radically change our current pessimistic view of the practical feasibility of interstellar travel.
The "Gravity is how fast?" link to a paper by Dr. Tom Van Flandern, suggests that gravity propagates at speeds vastly greater than light-speed. Dr. Van Flandern's work on this has interested me for some time and, although much of it is difficult to follow, the essence of it seems plausible to me. If he is right, and I've yet to see a refutation of his work, then we already have the FTL information transfer we need to shake the foundations of ER by re-instating absolute Newtonian time.

The very fact that ER and QM can't currently be reconciled is a good reason, to my way of thinking, to conclude that one or other of them is flawed. Could it be that the first fine cracks are showing in the edifice that is Einsteinian Relativity, meaning that it is the pillar of physics which will have to give ground in order to mesh with Quantum Mechanics?
It's fascinating stuff!

MarsDog · 2004-10-20 14:45:47

http://www.glafreniere.com/sa_light.htm]The material universe is purely made out of aether:

I am looking at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wave-Stru … age/5]Wave Structure of Matter

Interesting links:

http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/]Caroline Thompson's Physics

http://members.aol.com/sergecabala/]Relativity and Waves

Time Lord, http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line … .asp]Louis Essen, comments on http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Re … Relativity Theory

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-20 07:31:36

maybe an older thread worth bumping

More fringe StarTrek stiff

An Alternative Theory of Inertia will Get Tested in Space
https://www.universetoday.com/160516/th … -to-space/
One of the most exciting aspects of the current era of space exploration (Space Age 2.0) is how time-honored ideas are finally being realized. Some of the more well-known examples include retrievable and reusable rockets, retrieval at sea, mid-air retrieval, single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) rockets, and kinetic launch systems. In addition, there are also efforts to develop propulsion systems that do not rely on conventional propellants. This technology offers many advantages, including lower mass and improved energy efficiency, ultimately leading to lower costs.

On June 10th, 2023, an all-electrical propulsion system for satellites (the IVO Quantum Drive) will fly to space for the first time. The system was built by North Dakota-based wireless power company IVO, Ltd., and will serve as a testbed for an alternative theory of inertia that could have applications for propulsion. The engine will launch atop a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket as part of a dedicated rideshare (Transporter 8) hosted by commercial partner Rogue Space Systems. If the technology is validated, the Quantum Drive could trigger a revolution in commercial space and beyond. And if not, then we can relax knowing that the laws of physics are still the laws of physics!

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-10-01 17:50:17)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-10-01 17:49:54

Not hyperspace but more Spooky Science?

Highest-energy observation of entanglement

https://cerncourier.com/a/highest-energ … anglement/

Calliban · 2023-10-02 06:30:17

Given the sort of energies being produced in particle accelerators, if hyperspace did exist and was at all accesible at achievable energies, wouldn't we see some evidence of it by now? The same with warp drive.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-11-28 08:19:14

'Did string theory poison physics | Eric Weinstein and Brian Greene clash over theories of everything'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyFMB1xfePw

'If Warp Drives are Impossible, Maybe Faster Than Light Communication is Still on the Table?'
https://www.universetoday.com/164502/if … the-table/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-12-27 13:07:53

Why Quantum Mechanics Defies Physics

https://www.universetoday.com/164871/wh … s-physics/

the politics of the institutions?

EricRWeinstein
https://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/stat … 5956256792
Some people said this was “Way over the top” at the time (April 2020)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-03-29 13:03:05

Milky Way black hole has 'strong, twisted' magnetic field in mesmerizing new image
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/28/12414034 … etic-field

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-10-15 15:48:18

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#2 2004-10-15 17:52:27

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#3 2004-10-15 20:09:41

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#4 2004-10-15 22:07:35

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#5 2004-10-16 00:45:35

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#6 2004-10-16 15:53:32

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#7 2004-10-16 19:09:33

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#8 2004-10-16 19:19:09

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#9 2004-10-17 00:34:36

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#10 2004-10-17 00:57:16

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#11 2004-10-17 01:13:46

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#12 2004-10-17 05:52:00

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#13 2004-10-19 02:48:11

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#14 2004-10-19 13:45:23

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#15 2004-10-20 01:47:57

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#16 2004-10-20 14:45:47

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#17 2023-03-20 07:31:36

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#18 2023-10-01 17:49:54

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#19 2023-10-02 06:30:17

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#20 2023-11-28 08:19:14

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#21 2023-12-27 13:07:53

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

#22 2024-03-29 13:03:05

Re: Hyper Space - Is it possible?

Board footer