So, I'm doing my first technical research paper [I've done research papers before, but nothing about something I needed to actually LEARN as I researched] and I'm flipping out. The research paper is going to be about lightspeed, or the concept of hyperspace. Here's an outline that my Physics teacher OK'd:



What I need help with, is finding the math. I need to give some mathimatical understanding of hyperspace, wether theororized or true. I also need at least 3 sources NOT from the internet. [They can BE online, but they need to be in text form somewhere] Does anyone know of any good physics sites? Can anyone possibly explain what they know about hyperspace and provide a website for support?

ANY assistance I can get with this is appreciated!

JediKirby

It had to be about Star Wars, didn't it.

How well do you understand Physics anyway (what class?) Did you get to light, frequencies, etc.?

It's a HS physics class that doesn't require calc, so it's REALLY basic.

And yes, I couldn't do my paper about something stupid, like superliquids or some crap like that. SW ftw.

You mean, no calculating numbers or no calculus?

E=MCsquared

da

You're asking for concepts WELL beyond simple H.S. level math. Your closest bet on hyperspace are things like M-theory.

Easier in mathematical terms is Relativity. This is your "lightspeed" part. But there are some mind-bending concepts in Relativity (Twin-Paradox, Simultanaity..)

Here's what I remember about relativity.

for starters, mathematical equations from einstein's general relativity theory imply that nothing can go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum such as space (which is what i think you mean when you say "hyperspace"). the reasons why this isnt possible are complicated and well beyond the scope of high school physics. in laymen's terms, energy imparted to an object can be used in one of two ways: (1) it can be transferred as energy, causing the object to move faster or (2) it can be converted to mass, causing the object to have more matter. up until the object approaches close to the speed of light, most of the energy imparted to the object will be used to make it go faster. however, when the object is moving close to the speed of light, the energy becomes converted into mass (methinks the mass variable of some complicated mathematical equation starts exploding as v -> c). at the speed of light, all energy imparted on the object is converted into mass.

some interesting phenomena i thought you might like to know tho:

- let's say you're standing on the ground, and im standing on a train going half the speed of light, holding a flashlight in the direction of the train's movement. if you measure the speed of light coming out from the flashlight, you will measure a speed of not 3/2*c, but c, where c is the speed of light.

- real experiment: there were two planes, each with accurate clocks. one flew east and one flew west. when they met up again, the clock that flew toward the east had recorded slighty less time.

- the uncertainty principle (you might've learned this): the more accurately one tries to measure the position of a particle, the less accurately one can measure its speed and vice-versa. the eq is as follows: (the uncertainty of the position of the particle) * (the uncertainty of the velocity of the particle) * mass of the particle > planck's constant.

some interesting books to read for more info:

- Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
- The Universe in a Nutshell by S. Hawking
- Relativity : The Special and the General Theory by Albert Einstein

Wow. m-theory was freakin' crazy. pretty much the theory of everything: uniting five string theories and 11-dimensional supergravity within a single theoretical framework. ****in' a.

I'm basically trying to explain lightspeed, or the concept of going the speed of light as we know it in starwars. Hyperspace being that dimenson we'd travel on.

I hate to say but your going to have a difficult time trying to explain lightspeed as currently there's no maths that can explain it as Einstein ruled it impossible.

I forget the numbers but as ragna pointed out the closer you get to the speed of light the more energy you need to go faster and it increases expotentially the closer you get, meaning that unless there is a finite limit (which were assuming there isn't) your never going to get past the speed of light.

You'll get bloody close 0.999C, i think we can accelerate electrons and protons to roughly that if not slightly more with the newer particle accelerators.

However IF and I mean if, all data and maths points to otherwise, but if there was a finite limit and you were able to pass beyond it using some mystical energy source with an incredible amount of energy, well who knows what could happen...

Your best bet to explaining how things can go faster than the speed of light is wormholes, bending space and all that to bring two points together.

[edit] Re reading your last post...

In another dimenison where lightspeed is possible...uuummm, a sub-space (star trek) as it were.

not sure how to explain this one either, its pausable I suppose, at least I'd like to think so as long as the laws of physics there were different from our own. You've got to be careful how you say that though, certain laws have to remain otherwise the ship (and everything else including you) you are travelling in would fall apart/blow up/cesae to be and how you'd be able to allow light speed yet keeping everything else would get rather complicated as quite a few laws are based off others.

if you were to do it seriously you'd look into how einstein derived his e=mc^2 and how the law of not going faster than light comes into being. However thats going to be some pretty heavy maths, probably beyond your level, heck even I can't remember how to do that and I've got a BSc in Physics... :p

you've also got to consider if it is even possible for this sub space to exist, yes M-theory talks about 11 dimenisons but a lot of those dimenisons are wrapped in on themselves and exist only to satisfy the maths.

If I was to do this I'd take an angle on what we know about the universe at the moment. (you'll have to check these figures) Currently we can account for about ~30% of the supposed mass of the universe (calculations based on rate of expansions, hubble's constant, bit of einsteins work and a lot of observational work).

We therefore assume the rest of the matter in the universe is made up of dark matter and dark energy, this takes the form of yet-unknown stuff. Have we seen dark matter or dark energy in action...no, we have seen black holes curve light yes but black holes make up a tiny percentage of the remaining ~70%. I'm not sure why we physicist's like the dark matter and dark energy theory better than a sub-space but i'm sure there is a reason, probably involves a lot of maths...ggrrr. You'd have to google as to reason why we think dark matter and dark energy exist other than to just make the numbers fit for the (theorised) mass of the universe.

You could say that this sub-space is actually another layer to the universe as we know, attached to and adding to the mass of the universe but un-seen otherwise. Whats in this sub-space and how it works and how you get there are totally up to you to think on and make fit in your essay but do what seems to tie up best with Star Wars and Star Trek.

I would spend a bit of time looking into it as it sounds quite an interesting thing to do but I'm (supposed to be) packing up my computer from University and driving home...at this rate I'll be getting home around mid-night...

have fun and let us know how it goes.

[/edit]

In our understanding of "light speed" this is what happens. It takes infinite energy as you approach c. Watch what happens when γ approaches c. You stretch out longer and longer until infinitely long as you approach c. Time begins to stand still.

I think you're trying to explain a ficticious item. They used "light speed" because it was convienient and the average population wouldn't know the intracacies of relativistic physics to be a problem. In essence, Star Wars "light speed" != realistic light speed. I think you're really trying to explain faster than light travel. There's a theoretical partical call the tachyon that is supposed to be able to move FTL. And yes, that's a real term and not some Star Trek technobabble. There's been no evidence of a tachyon presented to date...or to my knowledge.

I'm going to say that I think FTL in some fashion is possible as our knowledge of physics grows. It will probably involve some extra dimensional or subspace workings to accomplish it. But to explain this to a bunch of high schoolers will be WAY over their heads. I mean some of this stuff is what doctoral candidates use.

Edit: I'm not trying to discourage you. If you can pull it off, more power to you. I'm just trying to explain the details of some of these modern physics concepts.

Yeah, have a go at explaining it but you are going to have a real tough time putting solid maths in there, other than for explaining why we think it is impossible.

I'd stick to just talking about this sub-space, leave the maths out of that section, all the stuff we have says its impossible so what ever you use you'll get an answer that'll tell you that...

Use the maths instead in the later section, basically put a very large number for V in the equation to work out gamma (like v = 3 x 10^10 m/s take speed of light = 3 x 10^8 m/s) and you can show that gamma will be equal to 1/ SQRT ( negative number ) which is impossible.

you might then want to show the energy something has that is going very close to the speed of light, say 2.997 x 10 ^ 8 m/s, plug that in to work out gamma (which will probably be VERY large) and then use E=(gamma)mc^2 , if the numbers are too big for your calculator shrink the speed down a few decimal places.

If the teachers moans about having no maths in the Star Trek/Star Wars section the he/she is a ........[insert rude word].......because there is nothing you can really put in there, and if there was it'd be beyond degree level.

[QUOTE=James Bond]Yeah, have a go at explaining it but you are going to have a real tough time putting solid maths in there, other than for explaining why we think it is impossible.

I'd stick to just talking about this sub-space, leave the maths out of that section, all the stuff we have says its impossible so what ever you use you'll get an answer that'll tell you that...

Use the maths instead in the later section, basically put a very large number for V in the equation to work out gamma (like v = 3 x 10^10 m/s take speed of light = 3 x 10^8 m/s) and you can show that gamma will be equal to 1/ SQRT ( negative number ) which is impossible.

you might then want to show the energy something has that is going very close to the speed of light, say 2.997 x 10 ^ 8 m/s, plug that in to work out gamma (which will probably be VERY large) and then use E=(gamma)mc^2 , if the numbers are too big for your calculator shrink the speed down a few decimal places.

If the teachers moans about having no maths in the Star Trek/Star Wars section the he/she is a ........[insert rude word].......because there is nothing you can really put in there, and if there was it'd be beyond degree level.[/QUOTE]

Which equation are you using for the V? I'm a litle confused. Are you trying to show that the faster you go, the more your mass increases, and the more energy you need goes up to the point that you'd have to have infinate mass and energy to reach infinate speeds?

JediKirby

No, it's that nothing can accelerate to the speed of light. Einstein said nothing about already moving at or faster than the speed of light. How exactly that helps us with FTL travel, I don't know.

Kirby, Wikipedia these concepts, they'll explain it better than most of us. Relativity, faster-than-light travel (FTL), superluminal communication (FTL communication), hyperspace, etc.

This is what he means.

Geeks have much more fulfilling and fascinating lives because we care about and are interested in this kind of ****... It's amazing stuff... Understanding or even just wondering about the nature of the universe is great.

damm I wish I had a white board ...I was just doing that in paint shop....you bet me to it...lol

another thing you can try Kirby is to use v = 2.9999999999 x 10^8 in the same equation and then compare the values of E when at rest and when with gamma in the equation,

(relativistic effects only happen very close to the speed of light)

just choose a random mass, say 1 kg which equals 10 Newtons.

You'll see that the particle has gained a lot of energy or mass, depends how you arrange the equation.

I must REALLY pack up my computer now...

I don't mind learning the stuff as long as I'm not getting graded on it. :p

Can you tell me what those variables all stand for? I understand it somewhat... but not completelly.

c is the speed of light in a vaccuum. Which is 299,792,458 m/s exact but we like to approximate as just 3.0x10^8 m/s.

v is the speed of any ol' object. Me, you, a rocket, MBeggar. I just gave an arbitrary value.

γ (gamma) is called the Lorentz factor.

What is gamma used for? That confuses me some. I knew the rest :-P

OH wait, I get it now, it's the thing for energy in motion.

Gamma doesn't have any particular meaning on it's own. It's just a factor that appears a lot in various equations of special relativity, so they assigned it the symbol γ just as shorthand.

2 + 2 = 4

Everything after that is pointless. The basis of math is above.

My best suggestion is to forget everything you have ever learned about science (in particular, physics) and start from scratch. Establish for yourself that you want to figure out how it would be possible to travel faster then light speed. In researching, feel free to use any scientific law. Take all "Knowns" into consideration and evaluate how those Scientific Laws came into being (include such things as time period, current state of science and technology, etc). Avoid any theories (such as Relativity, M-Theory, String Theory, etc). This will help you come to your own conclusion.

One final note. Keep in mind that most everything we know about science, particularily in physics, comes from experiments done on Earth. Lightspeed would be achieved in Space. Understand the differences in those two environments first and foremost. Also, you need to evaluate what is tangible and what is mearly a concept. Ubuu presented an interesting point (rather he realized it or not). Is what he stated tangible or a concept? If you can answer that question correctly, you should do just fine in your research.

lol thereisnosp00n lol

(ps, don't listen to this guy. For the love of christ.)

So we'll throw away everything which has ever been scientifically PROVEN and start from scratch. Wow, you think in the ways of progress.


Yes! Create new theories which circumvent everything we know, resulting in a NEW theory which has absolutely NO basis in reality!


Anyone who has taken an introductory course in critical thinking will need no explanation as to why this statement is completely ludicrous. How is 2 + 2 = 4 tangible? Didn't that debate end like three hundred years ago? 2 + 2 is equal to 4 by the definition of 4. It is purely conceptual, there is absolutely no room for debate. Why you bring this up boggles my mind.

Ohhh ****...

Theories are NOT proven, else they would be Scientific Laws and not Theories. The scientific process is Hypothesis->Test->Theory->Law. I advised him that it was okay to use any of the laws. However, there are some laws to which this won't apply. Those laws are the ones that use concepts as if they were tangible. This is my reasoning for the "Concept/Tangible" question. I'll provide a list of concepts that are usually misused as tangible and an explaination as to why after you answer the question below.




I didn't say that. My intent was for him to follow a line of reasoning and see if it coincided with the established theories. If you can't understand the basics of physics and understand how it carries over and applies to advance physics, you'll never understand physics at all.



The statement wasn't ludicrous, I posed a question? Conceptual is the correct responds. Now apply that to the Three Fundamentals Principles of Physics, Length, Mass, & Time. Are they Concepts or are they Tangible (HINT: This question asks not if what they measure is tangible, but as a tool for measuring, if they are tangible. Following the previous question and realizing that measuring requires the use of numbers, what do you think the answer is)? Again, the purpose of this exercise is to make the realization and understanding of the difference between what is tangible and what is conceptual.

To further aid you in answer the question correctly, we'll use an example to repose the question:

We have a Cube that is 1meter Long x 1meter Wide x 1meter Deep. Is the way we measure the Cube by Length Tangible or Conceptual? Provide an explination of your answer.

This thread just went to hell.

like what happened to this thread.

I'm not going to start debating with CaptBevvil because although what you say in essence might be true, its not a practical way to do physics.

But I will say this and nothing more on the matter.

You take something, even only a theory, as fact until proven otherwise, people far more intelligent than you or I spend their entire lives trying to dis-prove relativity, Quantum Mechanics, gravitation, etc...Einstein for one didn't like quantum mechanics and spent the best part of 20 years trying to show it was wrong, he didn't succeed.

I have discussions regarding this fact with my girlfriend often (she has a 1st class honours MSci degree in physics), she is even more rigid to the fact that what we know now is fact and even discussing the possibility that it *might* be possible to go faster than the speed of light to her through what we currently don't know about the universe gets her really annoyed and I normally end the conversation before she tries to hit me :p

I'm probably one of the more open physicist to new ideas (at least I like to think that) but certain laws you can't ignore, the law of gravitation for one. You also say to start from scratch, ignoring all laws you don't either need or think aren't relevant to the discussion....on so many different levels that is impossible to do, many laws/theories are intertwined, one leading on from the next, when and only when they have been proven with factual data.

And please for the love of god leave out all that concept/tangible crap, it belongs in a philosopy lesson and not here.

Could all these theories be wrong...possibly some, but not in the areas in which they have already been proven, which is all of the known universe, the laws of thermodynamics, gravitation are all solid in their foundation and un-shakeable, the laws thermodynamics could even be used in another universe where the laws of physics (as we know them) might be different.

Might some of these laws breakdown in yet unknown regions of space, I defiantly hope so, otherwise the human race is going to have a hard time going to other planets and space will be a very boring place otherwise. I thoroughly believe going faster than the speed of light should be considered and thought about, but in a controlled and realistic manner. The greatest discoveries are made on the back of much smaller ones and only once in every couple of hundred years are amazing leaps, like Brownian motion, relativity, quantum mechanics (photo-electric effect) made. It may well take a leap for a discovery that enables us to go faster than the speed of light but all leaps still have a foundation in a lot of proven ideas, relativity is not even need until you are at 0.99999c .

Physics has got to a stage in its development where nothing is allowed to be said as a theory or as a fact until its results or predictions have been proven by many many different scientists, unlike 200+ years ago where people could talk about "ether" and be allowed to talk about it as fact.

Maybe I've interrupted your posts wrong but you are either extremely naive in your thinking or extremely arrogant, you make assumptions on theories that have been put forward and suggest that they are flawed somehow in their reasoning, that they are taking for granted facts/measurements/observations that are wrong in your judgement.

I do not know what level of education you have studied to and I don't wish to, I would however suggest you thoroughly research anything before making wild accusations about theories that have withstood much much firmer scrutiny from some of histories greatest physicists and noble prize winners than yourself.

I'm not saying stop thinking outside the box, by all means do it, but be careful how far outside it you think because you seem to be going just a little too far.

I'd suggest (if you want to) that you use resources such as

Smithsonian/NASA ADS arXiv or Arxiv.org to thoroughly check your ideas against current (high level) research in those areas before jumping to conclusions.

Also maybe read through some of these search results on the current research into the speed of light, click here it might just prove interesting.

/end rant.

The fact that he says this clearly demonstrates his total lack of understanding of how modern science works, perhaps what it even means. Take his advice with a teaspoon of salt.


Theories will never be proven; theories are qualitatively different from facts/laws. It's not like a game of pokemon where a theory gets a certain amount of proof XP and magically evolves into a law. Laws are simple observations of fact; they are incontrovertibally correct statements of how the universe behaves. Opposite electric charges attract; that's a law. (Quantified, it's Coulomb's Law.) That law is grounded in observation of the universe. It never started as a theory, only to become law with enough proof.

Theories are explanations of observed phenomena, laws are merely descriptions. Theories, in the act of explaning observed facts, make predictions about new things you ought to be able to observe. By testing these predictions, we get a good sense of whether you can rely on it to make other predictions. If it doesn't predict things correctly, there must be something wrong with its explanation. So we test theories, look for evidence, and as long as none of the evidence ever seems to contradict the theory, we trust that, at some level, the theory is an accurate explanation for what we see.

But, regardless of how much evidence you collect, nothing will ever turn that theory into law, because the difference between law and theory is the difference between observation and explanation. Newton's Law of Gravitation describes very well how two massive bodies attract each other; it even gives quantitative results as to how strong that attraction will be. But it doesn't explain anything, it's a statement of countless observations, all it does is describe. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity attempts to explain why gravitational phenomena like this exist. It explains why: it's a theory. It's supported by a great deal of evidence. But no amount of evidence will make it equivalent to Newton's Law, because it does more than just observe.

Theories can't be proven; you can never hope to "prove" causality. Any explanation as to why something happens will always include some amount of doubt. There could be some other cause, the putative cause and effect could not have anything to do with each other besides occuring close together in time, and so on. Theories, as an answer to "why" or "how", have no proof.

Then again, neither do laws. It may be a law that opposite charges attract. We've seen it many times. But what if the next time we look at two opposite charges, they repel? What then? The law, derived inductively from countless examples, turns out to be flawed. There's no guarantee that any of our laws will always turn out right. There's no guarantee that any of our observations are right. How do you know that any of the world around you exists? It could all be an illusion, forced upon you by some evil demon with nothing better to do.

Farfetched?

Well, so's the dismissal, "That's only a theory. It hasn't been proven." Except that that dismissal also displays ignorance about what those words mean.


Sorry about the rant. Pet peeve of mine.

By the way, Kirby, there's a book called "The Physics of Star Trek" that's supposed to be pretty good. I'd reccomend checking that out. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060977108/qid=1135097808/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5701923-8814219?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

*shakes head*

This is why science has come to crawl (relatively speaking). What exactly do you think the science of Physics is? Every Physist dream is to find that "Thoery of Everything" that becomes a scientific law. They'd be out of a job, but that's their quest (or at least it ought to be). The whole point of physics is to be able observe or predict any event accurately with a complete understanding and ability to explain how it does or will work fully and completely.

Hypothesis and Theories are the "thought" process behind laws. The process is actually far more complicated and incorporates psycology (you'll learn in time that many areas of expertise affect the way our current knowledge of physics as evolved). The observations Mr. Newton had brought about a thought. This was the "Insperation" phase. During this phase a hypothesis is formed. If you're a visual learner, picture this as a one-diminsional image of a fact (scientific or otherwise). A simple test is created to test the hypothesis. Here is where the second observation occurs. If the hypothesis doesn't hold, a person enters a "dismisal" phase. If it does hold true, then take what they initially observed + what they observed during the hypothesis confirmation test. This is a "learning" or "growth" phase where they begin to form a deeper understanding of how the system works. At this point, a Theory is derived based on the previous observations and test. A theory establishes the predicted boundries. For the visual learner, this is expanding the one-dimensional image into two-dimensions. Then the Theory is tested and retested and retested to see if the boundries hold true. If not, then the theory is 'revised' (Mr. Einstein did this with Relativity at least once that we know of) to incorporate what was learned from the intial post Theory tests. The new Theory is tested until there is no doubt that the theory is a complete and accurate description and explaination of how the system works. This is when a theory becomes a law. This, for the visual learner, is when our two-dimensional understanding becomes three-dimensional and we completely understand the entire system and how it works.

How long an explaination of how a system works stays in the Theory stage depends on how long it takes to fully understand and explain it. Mr. Newton's law of universal gravitation remained a theory for many years until he finally decided to have his theories published.

The English Language can be a Cruel Mistress. If you were to look up Scientific Law and Theory, you'd find several deffinitions of each. Unfortunately, there are some Scientific Laws that were accepted before they were fully tested (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation being one of them). One of the many problems that plagues the science community today. The scientific community should have come together centries ago and decided on a universal way of communicating (and I'm not talking about Math). A concrete establishment of each new word that is introduced to the scientific community and assigned a unique deffinition for which allows for only one type of context of the word to be used. Until that is done, science will crawl more and more to a halt as they spin their wheels in miscommunications and misunderstandings.

/end rant

My suggestions and conjection and yes, even my opinion on how the scientific process should flow, were intended to help jEDIkIRBY learn as he researched (which is what he said he wanted to do). You have a choice (you always have a choice), you can read my posts and build on it (rather it is in the form of suggestions or general comments) or you can use the ignore fe

F=MA

Physics in a nutshell.

...you speak as if scientists are running around like chickens with their heads cut off because they can't figure out how to communicate with each other.

Science is "crawling" because of lack of research and money to conduct said research. We haven't developed the space program much not because we don't know how or because we can't figure out how to communicate, but because there isn't adequate funding for it.

Bevvil, what are you even TALKING about? How about I mail you a copy of my freshman physics textbook and you can stop posting your misinformation on these forums. Just please stop, if for no other reason than that JediKirby already agrees that you are a completely clueless quack when it comes to physics.

Theory never becomes law.

If you claim otherwise, you make me seriously doubt that you've ever taken even a high-school level science class.

Then again, based on the way you've behaved every time we've had a thread like this, I suspect you're just a troll, and our nifty little ignore feature can deal with that problem.

But for everyone else, please be wary of listening to anything he says.

Bevvil. I want you to take at least three courses of physics. Newtonian Mechanics, Electricity & Magnetism, and Modern Physics. These courses will also involve laboratory experimentation to see the concepts learned in lecture actually play out in real life. Even the modern physics will have labs that show basic quantum mechanics actually playing out in real world.

Physics is not a philosophy class. It is a science. Sure, you can think of new concepts but these concepts will be based on proven facts and not some off-the-wall thinking. You don't just "think" it and it's automatically true. You think it, then you prove it. This is what science is. It is proving what we might believe is true. It furthers our understanding when we prove stuff. If concept x is show to be true and widely accepted then hey! it really does happen like this.

Brutal honesty: This is not malicious or personal attacking. But I have to say this. You're not a deep thinker who's got these wild new concepts that will revolutionize our understanding. You're applying a half-assed use of concepts that you may or may not understand. And when we're all basically telling you to go pick up a physics textbook, I would recommend so. This isn't just one or two people. But as demonstrated by the last thread, there was A LOT of people who clamped on you.

That is all.

The sad part is that he has a degree in physics, or so he claims.