Hyperspace

[ImperialJoe985]

I woz just wonderin how close do u think in reality are we to creating hyperspace engines?! Give me your thoughts and ideas!!

[Fun-We]

Hyperdrives travel far faster then the speed of light. We can not even travel at the speed of light so we have an incredibly long way to go. Even then I doubt they will work like they do in starwars. We will probably have to travel at that speed constantly.

[Tyranus_pff]

Warp Drive systems will be first. Scientists are already experimenting with colliding matter and anti-matter to create massive amounts of power needed to reach Warp 1: the speed of light. Hyperdrives throw starships into another dimension... that's pure science fiction. We don't even know hyperspace exists, yet we know about the speed of light and, thanks mainly to Star Trek, we have a general idea of how to reach Warp Speed. In the next century, we will achieve space travel at Warp.

[Foshjedi2004]

We'll make it eventually. If we can make the speed of light then we could techincally get to a place and arrive before we left.

[Ghostly_Substance]

From what i'm hearing and seeing everybody is concentrating on business stuff such as Boeing or Airbus planes or just putting satallites into space. Or building more ships for the military or civilians. Who knows we might have the tech now but its extremely top secret or we may not and it may pop up 1 year after we die or 20 years. We need ships first then the engines to push them so who knows. Or is it the Engine then the frame.

[Zerogravity]

better computers and scientists that have the intellectual capacity to put them to good use. then we will be at the point of discovering such stuff. thousands of years away though most likely...lol we haven't even found a strong substitute to using gas in our vehicles. on your poll, you should've included 1000-2000 years...cuz that seems to be the only logical answer.

 

i honestly don't think such things will ever exist. wormholes possibly...but i disagree with a hyper drive.

[Lord Sidious]

faster than light travels might be achieved by creating artifical blackholes or wormholes, but that technology seems quite distant now...

[Seewolf]

we dont get any hyperdrive, ion engines or fusion generators in the next time. its not the problem that we dont know how to build it. the problems are the politks from every land.

 

ourer country put a large amount of money into the war factorys of their lands. if every country says. "Stop the war. we dont want to work against the other we should work as partners." in the first steps of the space exploration both great lands USA and Russland research ageinst the others a way to get in the space. They put a large amount of money in theyr projekts. But in the end they have reached the same that the other land had reached with the same amount of money. But if they had take all the money from all lands, maybe we will be a step further. A Base on the moon, Manned Missions to the mars aso.

 

If they dont can work as partners we will wait a long time do reach other stars. Maybe one of ourer Grandchilds will see the first pictures on the TV from another Earthlike Planet with the first traveller or Kolonist.

[Admiral Cotla Charre]

We'll make it eventually. If we can make the speed of light then we could techincally get to a place and arrive before we left.

 

No.. that would be time travel. Travelling at the speed of light does not make you travel in time, despite what people think. Time is a constant. You would simply arrive at a place before people would see you travelling there. I mean, you're driving down the highway at a constant speed.... you're not changing time there. Lets say you double, triple that speed, get up into the Mach-speeds. You're still travelling at a constant speed, and time is still flowing normally. So, if you travelled at the speed of light, 300,000 km/s (i think it is) you would simply travel at 300,000 km/s and it would take 1 second for your image to reach the people at the starting location. But guess what, you'd still have only travelled for one second, and you would only be one second older.

 

As well, we can guaruntee its going to happen eventually. I mean, we used to only travel at horse-speed. Then we get into motor vehicles/trains/primitive aircraft. We're already travelling faster than the speed of sound. It is only a matter of time until we learn how to travel faster than the speed of light.

 

My 2c.

[Foshjedi2004]

3x10^8 m/s is the speed of light.

[Stellar_Magic]

No.. that would be time travel. Travelling at the speed of light does not make you travel in time, despite what people think. Time is a constant. You would simply arrive at a place before people would see you travelling there. I mean, you're driving down the highway at a constant speed.... you're not changing time there. Lets say you double, triple that speed, get up into the Mach-speeds. You're still travelling at a constant speed, and time is still flowing normally. So, if you travelled at the speed of light, 300,000 km/s (i think it is) you would simply travel at 300,000 km/s and it would take 1 second for your image to reach the people at the starting location. But guess what, you'd still have only travelled for one second, and you would only be one second older.

 

As well, we can guaruntee its going to happen eventually. I mean, we used to only travel at horse-speed. Then we get into motor vehicles/trains/primitive aircraft. We're already travelling faster than the speed of sound. It is only a matter of time until we learn how to travel faster than the speed of light.

 

Ahem, Albert Einstein would disagree completely with what you said. There is only one constant to the universe, and that is c. The Speed of light. As an object approaches the speed of light time slows down, mass increases, distances contract, and mass begins to convert to energy.

 

You really need to think about relativity bub.

 

Will "Hyperspace" Engines ever arrive probably not. While there are some theoretical means to travel faster then light, "Hyperspace" is not considered a viable means of travel simply because, as far as we can tell, hyperspace doesn't exist. The most likely forms of faster then light travel come through string theory and wormhole mechanics, not warp drives or hyperspace engines.

[Admiral Cotla Charre]

K, look at it this way. The speed of light in a vacuum is 3x10^8 m/s. When, outside of the lab, is light ever in a vacuum? Never! Space isn't even a complete vacuum. And according to quantum theory, light isn't even made up of waves, its made up of particles, i.e. photons. The constant of the speed of light isn't even an absolute constant, as the speed of light is dependant upon the medium through which it travels. Time is a constant, but what is time? Time is a measurement of our planet's revolution. One second is equivalent to the time it takes our planet to complete 1/86400 of its revolution. So even time is relative to our frame of reference. But what is the smallest unit of time that we can consciously recognize? Most people take .05-.15 seconds to react to a stimuli. But then look at computers, that run at 3.4 GhZ. That processor makes 3.4 Billion cycles per second. Anyways, I'm rambling on. I'm saying that time as a measurement is infinite. You can always measure time in a smaller chunk then you previously did... Eventually we'll have Terra-hertz PCs. So the measurement of time grows even smaller. What if some cosmic event slowed down our earth's revolution? (unlikely as it is) Would our perception of time change with a longer day?

 

When you say that time slows down at the speed of light, is it merely possible that we're able to react in .005-.015 of a second? Therefore experiencing 100x the time everyone else is? A sort of hyper-thought perhaps, when viewed from a non-lightspeed observer. This would explain time slowing down for someone travelling at the speed of light, yet would leave them in sync with the time-plane that they departed from. In other words, they would experience more time, not travel through it.

 

Wow, I really hope this makes sense to anybody trying to read it, I think I lost myself, hehe...

[Zerogravity]

umk

[Guest JediIgor]

Seeing as how we couldn't get a solar sail launched I'd say we're pretty far off (100+). As for FTL itself, I have my faith.. Newton was wrong about being able to constantly accelerate, so I'm sure Einstein is wrong about not going faster than the speed of light .

[Jahled]

Wow, I really hope this makes sense to anybody trying to read it, I think I lost myself, hehe...

 

No, it doesn't. Where are all the time travellers travelling faster than the speed of light? Excuse the pun, but they have have had plenty of time to to greet us. That is what faster than light travel is; time travel.

[Admiral Cotla Charre]

Wow, I really hope this makes sense to anybody trying to read it, I think I lost myself, hehe...

 

No, it doesn't. Where are all the time travellers travelling faster than the speed of light? Excuse the pun, but they have have had plenty of time to to greet us. That is what faster than light travel is; time travel.

 

Uhh.. are you trying to say that by travelling faster than light people travel backwards in time? *lost*

[Zerogravity]

in time travel i'm sure you can go forward, not just backwards.

[Stellar_Magic]

Oh Dear, we have a scientific debate appearing.

 

K, look at it this way. The speed of light in a vacuum is 3x10^8 m/s. When, outside of the lab, is light ever in a vacuum? Never! Space isn't even a complete vacuum. And according to quantum theory, light isn't even made up of waves, its made up of particles, i.e. photons. The constant of the speed of light isn't even an absolute constant, as the speed of light is dependant upon the medium through which it travels. Time is a constant, but what is time? Time is a measurement of our planet's revolution. One second is equivalent to the time it takes our planet to complete 1/86400 of its revolution. So even time is relative to our frame of reference. But what is the smallest unit of time that we can consciously recognize? Most people take .05-.15 seconds to react to a stimuli. But then look at computers, that run at 3.4 GhZ. That processor makes 3.4 Billion cycles per second. Anyways, I'm rambling on. I'm saying that time as a measurement is infinite. You can always measure time in a smaller chunk then you previously did... Eventually we'll have Terra-hertz PCs. So the measurement of time grows even smaller. What if some cosmic event slowed down our earth's revolution? (unlikely as it is) Would our perception of time change with a longer day?

 

When you say that time slows down at the speed of light, is it merely possible that we're able to react in .005-.015 of a second? Therefore experiencing 100x the time everyone else is? A sort of hyper-thought perhaps, when viewed from a non-lightspeed observer. This would explain time slowing down for someone travelling at the speed of light, yet would leave them in sync with the time-plane that they departed from. In other words, they would experience more time, not travel through it.

 

Wow, I really hope this makes sense to anybody trying to read it, I think I lost myself, hehe...

 

Alright, lets summarize what you're saying...

 

1. Light is a Particle

2. Light (The Particle) travels at different speeds

3. Time is a constant

 

Now, things are about to get confusing... Here's what observations made by physcists states.

 

1 and 2: Light acts both as a particle (Photon) and as a wave. Photons and neutrinos remain extremely close to or on the barrier referred to as the speed of light. There is debate as to whether photons have mass and neutrinos appear to have mass but for a particle to have mass it must travel slower then the speed of light. Why?

 

E=mc2 or Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. So, when a particle reaches the speed of light it is converted to energy.

 

What does this mean... Well, it means that the speed of light actually might not be exactly the same as the speed of a photon. Otherwise other known effects including photon pressure wouldn't exist. Perhaps the Speed of Light should be renamed...

 

3. Time isn't a constant but is relative to the speed and acceleration of the observer. This is an observable fact and is indisputable in modern physics in Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and M Theory (aka String Theory).

 

This effect, known as time dialation, couldn't be proven until the invention of the atomic clock and jet engine due to just how small the effect is even at transonic speeds. By some calculations the Apollo astronaughts only gained a tenth of a second to their lifespans through their trip to the moon. By using atomic clocks in fast flying aircraft scientists have observed this effect which had been predicted almost fifty years before by Einstien.

 

Time is a part of the fabric of space itself, (Ever hear of Spacetime) and as part of modern physics it can be warped by gravity and velocity. This is what creates the unusual and well known effects of a black hole. It also clarifies the nature of gravity and makes it so the force isn't an instantaneous force throughout the universe but one governed by the speed of light and dictator of the warping of space.

 

You think Relativity is bad, I could be really evil and start explaining Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

[Admiral Cotla Charre]

I guess even though I said time was a constant, I kind of explained the contrary (that time is relative to your frame of reference (or point of observation)). Yeah, I've read about quantum mechanics and string theory (the latter of which I believe is horribly wrong) and it's incredibly deep and the applications are amazing.

 

What does this mean... Well, it means that the speed of light actually might not be exactly the same as the speed of a photon. Otherwise other known effects including photon pressure wouldn't exist. Perhaps the Speed of Light should be renamed...

 

Agreed... Light and Protons, in this case, are basically the same thing, since the Speed of Light (capitals) would, upon being attained, cause all the mass to be converted into energy, if I understood you correctly.

 

Let me see if this makes sense... quantum physics and all that fun stuff aside...

 

Time is constantly flowing. What I mean by that is that 5 seconds where I am is the same as 5 seconds where you are. 5 seconds if i'm travelling at 100 km/h is the same 5 seconds as someone standing at the road watching. If you were travelling near the speed of light for exactly 5 seconds, 5 seconds would pass for me as well, although since you would be 5 light seconds away, I wouldn't actually see you at your destination until 5 seconds had passed since your arrival.

 

By the way, I think you're taking E=mc^2 out of context. Mass doesn't instantly turn to energy when it approaches the speed of light. That equation is only applicable when mass is being directly converted into energy, or during its destruction, such as during a nuclear event.

 

Anyways... you like to dabble in science, Stellar? You're pretty good at arguing this But good fun, nonetheless!

 

Edit: fixed a few grammar stuffs and typos

[Zerogravity]

umk, good work both of you

 

amazing this topic started as a simple question, and now it's gotten all technical and more in depth about hyperspace then i coulda ever imagined

[Stellar_Magic]

Whats that startrek quote... "I hate Temporal Mechanics."

 

Read the twin paradox, time stops at the speed of light. For a conscious being traveling at the speed of light there wouldn't be any travel. You'd arrive at your destination at the same moment you left. Aging stops, atomic clocks stop, and so on...

 

Time doesn't flow the same everywhere, it is influenced by both Gravity and Velocity. I mean how do you measure time? A clock, a watch, the time it takes for light to travel x. According to Einstein only the last option reveals the true nature of time.

[Admiral Cotla Charre]

Without reading the twin paradox (which I will do shortly) I'd disagree... Even while travelling at the speed of light, it would still take time to arrive at your destination.... Light takes 1.1 seconds to reach the moon from Earth and around 8 minutes for the Sun's light to hit the Earth. The only way you could arrive at a destination without taking any time would be to travel at infinite velocity, or to simply teleport.

[Zerogravity]

i agree

[Joshinator]

Wow, this topic is very fasinating, there are a lot of smart ppl here. I wish i knew more about physics, quantum machanic's and string theory. I'm just taking it all in.

[Foshjedi2004]

Trust me. Its a B****. I was so confused when we were doing it in Phys earlier this year and a Book I've got by Stephen Hawking String Theory is a confusing thing.