What is Hyperspace?

[Jahled]

Which kinda begs the question why did the Empire build a Death Star in the first place. To destroy a planet all they would have to do is neatly line up a mile long Star Destroyer, do some nifty finger work, and evacute all staff....

 

A mile long object impacting on a planetary surface should incinerate all life.... circa our T-Rex's sudden departure...

 

I can't believe nobody has said it yet.. because that would only destroy all life on the planet, not turn the planet itself into a few rocks!

 

Also the planetary shields would probably slow that ISD down enough.. you have to remember planets aren't as defenseless as Earth is

 

I forgot to mention the initial salvo of SD turbo lasers taking those shields out. These mile long 'engineering marvels' that inspire 'dread and terror,' where ever they went.

 

But as with all things SW Universe; like the fact I counted about 26 SD at the battle of Yavin, any resembalance of any possibility of common sense is entirely lost in the collective SW Universe. Given TIE Fighters are crewed by clones; Wedge and Skywalker would survive about five seconds in combat with such bred automations trained tirellesly for such a role. I've been boring you lot for years now along these lines, but take my word for it, any pilots you see in Ep 3 who arn't Jedi or wierd aliens, will be clones. It's obvious.

 

Deviation or what.

[Guest Scathane]

Ion drives are all nice, but breaking the magical speed limit of c is not a question of more advanced engines, but of fundamental laws of physics. As far as we know, even considering certain "loopholes" in physics, no information, and thus nothing, can travel faster than light. Never. Not at all.

Never?! Now this is a rather medieval way of looking at things... Remember that people once thought that the Earth was a concave dish, that the sun revolved around the Earth, that washing oneself was bad for you, and so on and so on... Your theory might be right but on the other hand, we really shouldn't have any reason to believe this won't change in the future for two fundamental reasons:

 

1. The laws of physics all rely on axiomas and are true until proven otherwise. Since these laws were conceived as we went along, there's no real reason to believe they will all remain upheld.

2. We discover 'new' consequences of those laws of physics as time goes by. Quantum Mechanics and its consequences, for instance, were held impossible, say, twohundred years ago but nevertheless they seem more and more likely as time progresses.

 

Traveling through alternate dimensions might be a workaround, but no usable dimensions were found yet.

Roughly the same goes here, so the emphasis should be on yet. Edited March 3, 2006 by Scathane

[AdmiralFishface]

So far, though, all experiments and mathematical approaches are supporting the theory of "nothing can go faster than light".

You're right, though. Maybe new theories will prove something else. That's why I put "As far as we know" at the beginning.

[Stellar_Magic]

Problem everything but one can't go faster then light in modern physiscs, the effect of gravity. I'm waiting for string theory to give us instantanous travel like the effect of gravity, now that is the future of sci fi!

[Mad78]

I think i read something saying the in 7 years we would be capable of teleporting an atom.

[Guest Scathane]

I think i read something saying the in 7 years we would be capable of teleporting an atom.

I thought we already achieved succesful teleportation...

[Jahled]

I think i read something saying the in 7 years we would be capable of teleporting an atom.

I thought we already achieved succesful teleportation...

 

You use the word 'succesful,' rather liberally my friend; what exactly was teleported?

[Mad78]

Where was this Scath.

I doubt they would have managed to teleport more than an atom. The real problem is to manage to give the object back its orginal form

[AdmiralFishface]

That teleportation thing is interesting - just what was teleported is not that easy to answer.

Via quantum teleportation methods, the electronic quantum state of a given particle can be transferred to another particle of the same kind, which takes the information of the original, which loses its 'identity'.

So, while matter wasn't relocated from one place to another, information was. The new particle, in posession of all the properties of the original now, 'is' the original now.

 

Indeed in 2004, objects as complex as calcium and beryllium ions were teleported. It is estimated that within some years, something as large as a molecule will be able to be treated that way.

 

Read this article for more detailed info.

[Guest Scathane]

I think i read something saying the in 7 years we would be capable of teleporting an atom.

Right. It was already done.

 

Where was this Scath.

Here.

 

I doubt they would have managed to teleport more than an atom.

So? What's your point?

 

You use the word 'succesful,' rather liberally my friend; what exactly was teleported?

No I don't...

 

Read this article for more detailed info.

See?

[Trejiuvanat]

Very interesting finds guys.

[Mad78]

But i guess it would be a bit expensive to get a computer with that kind of technologie at the moment.

[AdmiralFishface]

Yes, but the technology has already been used to send data on a line that is 100% secure. Very interesting links here. (Austrian scientists - a bit of patriotism won't hurt, hm?)

[bobandrubert]

That's an interesting hypothesis, I don't suppose you can back it up with evidence from a book?

I got it from the x-wing book where they got hit by that EMP and captured the corvette.

ok I got info of hyperspace from star wars Attack of the clones Incredible crosses-section

it says

Hyperdrive allow voyeges through an errie realm called hyperspace ie. the onormy universe viewed for a ship travling faster then the speed of light. Hyperdrives adjust to faster then light hypermatter particles to allow a jump thourgh hyperspace without changing the complex mass and energy of the ship.

[mawshiye]

Many have been saying that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Do we, and scientists, forget that atomic particles are already traveling at or very near to the speed of light? And isn't light made up of tiny particles called photons. Don't these photons travel at the speed of light? (maybe thats where they got the name "speed of light"? ) If this is the case then it should be possible to accelerate these already existing particles above the threshold that they have now set?

 

Also, by my understanding of physics, there is no limitation to speed so long as you manage to maintain positive acceleration. This is achieved by aplying greater force to accelerate an object than is being applied to slow it down (gravity or friction). So then what is there that stops an object from achieving this velocity?

 

Another thing, motion, and therefore velocity, can only be measured in realation to other motion. For us, velocity is measured in relation to the earth. Therefore the speed of light is measured as being the speed attainable in relation to our planet or solar system. We exclude the possible and proven motion of our galaxy compared to other galaxies. Then, in relation to other galaxies, the speed of light becomes greater or less depending on what you relate it to. By this theory, named the Theory of Relativity, would mean that there would be no limit to the "velocity" of an object or even that of light.

 

I find it strange that we place a limit on the speed that an object can be moving when the speed that we set as a limit is the speed that is being traveled by already existing particles.

 

Sound confusing? That's the beauty of physics. Nothing is ever cut and dry. Physics is based mostly on theories based on facts that can only be proven with our current technology (and in many cases that technology is centuries old).

 

I've said a lot and yet have said only a tiny bit of what I set out to say originally, but cannot find the words to say it. Oh well, I've given you guys enough to try to interpret.

 

PS It's been a while since I've really read or posted in these forums. I've missed it so much. Time to try and change that

[AdmiralFishface]

Umm... Have a crash-course in relativistic physics. (Warning: Long post ahead)

 

Many have been saying that it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light. Do we, and scientists, forget that atomic particles are already traveling at or very near to the speed of light?

Travelling near the speed of light is not a problem at all, theoretically. Of course, we need particle accelerators of a few kilometers across, but it's really possible. As for the speed of light itself...

 

Don't these photons travel at the speed of light? (maybe thats where they got the name "speed of light"? ) If this is the case then it should be possible to accelerate these already existing particles above the threshold that they have now set?

Well, it all comes down to mass. Mass is the deciding factor here. The mass of a particle or object increases when the object is moving. (Yes, that is 'moving in relation to something. I'll cover that.)

 

Now, for normal speeds, up to several tens of thousands of km/h the increase in mass is negligible. When approaching light speed however, the mass of an object tends to increase dramatically. As in: It becomes infinite for the speed of light.

 

Also, by my understanding of physics, there is no limitation to speed so long as you manage to maintain positive acceleration. This is achieved by aplying greater force to accelerate an object than is being applied to slow it down (gravity or friction). So then what is there that stops an object from achieving this velocity?

See, that's the problem. say you're applying a force F of a certain strength to an object, accelerating it constantly.

F equals acceleration a * mass m. Meaning, if the mass increases (as is proven that it does) and F remains the same, the acceleration will have to decrease. Or, in other words, to maintain the same acceleration, you'd also have to increase F towards infinity.

 

To achieve lightspeed, you need infinite amounts of energy.

 

Now how about light? Why can it move at c while we can't? Isn't that unfair? Not really, because photons have no mass. It's that easy. No mass to accelerate, no problems reaching speed of light. Actually, light can't even move slower than the famous speed of light. Nor faster. It can only move at one speed.

To have anything move faster than light, it'd have to have negative mass. Those babys would be the famous Tachyons. They, unfortunately, have not been proven to exist yet.

 

Another thing, motion, and therefore velocity, can only be measured in realation to other motion. For us, velocity is measured in relation to the earth. Therefore the speed of light is measured as being the speed attainable in relation to our planet or solar system. We exclude the possible and proven motion of our galaxy compared to other galaxies. Then, in relation to other galaxies, the speed of light becomes greater or less depending on what you relate it to. By this theory, named the Theory of Relativity, would mean that there would be no limit to the "velocity" of an object or even that of light.

That's the part of relativistic physics I especially like. Nope, you're wrong. In fact, the Theory of Relativiy says the exact opposite of what you said.

Light always moves at the same speed. Always. No matter where you are or how fast you move. c is a constant at all times. Enter: time dilatation. (is that the word? my scientific english isn't that great.)

 

Say you're cruising the galaxy in your starship at half the speed of light, while out there someone's measuring the speed of light from your ship from another perspective. Now you turn on your headlights.

 

What does the other guy see? Well, from his point of view, he's not moving, while you are, at 0.5c. And you send a beam of light that moves at exactly the same speed as ever, the speed of light.

 

What do you see? Well, from your point of view, you're not moving, the rest of the universe is . And you fire a beam of light that moves at exactly the same speed as ever, the speed of light.

 

How is that possible? Why didn't the light move at 1.5c and if it didn't, why didn't anyone in the space ship notice?

Put simply, you're being slowed down by your speed. Sound confusing? But that's the way it is. The faster you move, the slower does time pass for you and everything around you moving at the same speed. If the observer asked you how long your flight was, and compared the results with his own, you'd see your figure is a lot lower.

 

You wouldn't notice if it weren't for the guy out there to tell you your watch is way off, because it moved slower thanit should for quite some time. Because you were slowed down, you didn't notice the light emitted by you was slower in relation to you.

 

That's what the theory of relativity (the general one, I think) said. That time is relative, depending on movement relative to some observer. Lightspeed, however, is a constant, no matter how you look at it.

 

It gets even more pretty. When approaching lightspeed, apart from becoming infinitely heavy, you also get slowed down infinitely. Were you moving at the speed of light, time would not pass for you at all (while moving faster would mean you'd travel back in time, causing some ugly paradox situations connected with causality).

That's why light moves at exactly that speed. Light is known to take, out of an infinite amount of possibilities for movement, the fastest one. Light speed is simply the speed at which, from the point of view of the photon, no time passes at all. Any other speed would require time to pass, and would hence not be the fastest.

 

Relativity is just so beautiful.

So, couple of nice thoughts there, but unfortunately not quite correct. Feel free to continue the discussion.

Edited January 19, 2005 by AdmiralFishface

[Jahled]

Interesting stuff!

 

However, I got lost in hyperspace comming back from the pub and read this last week.

[Mad78]

Very interessting Fishface. i love Astrophysics even if i doubt i will ever study them.

[mawshiye]

AdmiralFishFace, thanks for clarifying those things up for me. I have never heard that mass increaes with speed, so it makes more sense as to why the speed of light is impossible to reach. I'm going to have to have a little talk with my physics teacher and ask him why he idn't happen to mention any of this stuff.

 

I knew that you would need a long distance in which to accelerate objects, but with the incorporation of increasing mass, that distance and force required gets huge

 

The other thing I forgot in my rant was how they measured the speed of light. They timed how long it took to travel a certain distance, so their odds of being drastically wrong are negligible.

 

In your one post you have taught me more about physics than my teacher has all year , sad, isn't it.

 

Now I go to hang my head in shame over being wrong

[Mad78]

This weight increasing thing is a great problem even when you don't want to reach the speed of light.

Take fight plane pilots, they are already submitted to intense pressure when the approach the speed of sound. Imagine how it would be at the speed of light.

[AdmiralFishface]

mawshiye: Glad I could help. No problem not knowing that stuff, though, I didn't understand or know all of it until i got it explained in the first year of university physics lectures last year. And, to be honest, it's not the kind of everyday physics you really need to know (though it's interesting for sure).

 

Mad: Interesting thought. I'm not really sure if mass increase would matter much, because you'd have to view the events from the pilot's point of view. From his point of view, he's not moving at all (let's say he doesn't accelerate, either). So his mass increase (if I remember correctly) is not noticable to him, only to observers.

As it is with our current airplanes - it only matters how sharp your turn is. (To survive, you'd probably have to fly arcs the size of solar systems . I'd go and calculate, but I'm lazy)

[Mad78]

As it is with our current airplanes - it only matters how sharp your turn is. (To survive, you'd probably have to fly arcs the size of solar systems

 

Thats why i always found ground war better. At least there you don't have to worry at which speed you are goingyou only have to worry about other troops, mines, malaria infested swamps, enemy generals, low flying albatroses,... This may all be bolocks

[mawshiye]

mawshiye: Glad I could help. No problem not knowing that stuff, though, I didn't understand or know all of it until i got it explained in the first year of university physics lectures last year. And, to be honest, it's not the kind of everyday physics you really need to know (though it's interesting for sure).

 

You guys should have waited a year before starting this discussion, then. That way I'd have known all of that (I'm starting my first year at university next fall And don't ask what I'm planning on taking I have no clue )

 

Mad: That is an interesting thought. Although you can't feel your "mass", only your "weight", which is dependent on gravity and other forces being exerted on you (which is why pilots feel heavier and blackout when pulling tight maneuvers). But, still, your mass would be huge (and I'm not going to calculate that either because I'm lazy, too)

 

Maybe I should try going at the speed of light. I might actually gain some weight

[Mad78]

You guys should have waited a year before starting this discussion, then. That way I'd have known all of that (I'm starting my first year at university next fall And don't ask what I'm planning on taking I have no clue )

I am learning a good amount as well Maw. I stilkl have 3 years before I start University.

[Guest Scathane]

Nevertheless, since we once took it as a proven fact that the earth was a concave dish, we might do well to realise that what we believe, think we know or prove may be susceptible to change and new insights as well...