SW hyperspace based on physics?

[GStone]

I've heard this for a while now, but where have the people that have said this gotten this idea from? Is it just from basing it off of Saxton's stuff on his site (pre-ICS work) (pretty much every time I've heard it, it was from SDN) or some other fanon or is it something from the EU that's gotten published?

[Who is like God arbour]

As far as I know, Saxton claims, that hyperspace is realspace above light speed. (There is no evidence in the movies or somewhere else for this claim, as far as I know.)

The special theory of relativity shows, that it is impossible to reach light speed in real space. But as a mathematical equation, it shows, that theoretical it is possible to have a speed above light speed as long as you never are as fast as light speed.

That's where the idea of tachyons [1] descend from. The tachyons are quasi mirror particles of known sublight particels [baryons] with contrariwise properties. (For example, they would have only an imaginary rest mass, because per definition, they have to move with speed above light speed. That means, that their mass to the second is negative. But physical values like energy and momentum have to have real values. Furthermore they move in time back and not forward. If you would send a message with tachyons, you would get it, before you have sended it.)

The problem is, that there is no evidence, that tachyonen exist. They are only a mathematical result.

But sometimes mathematics doesn't makes sense.

For example:
You know the Pythagoras' theorem: The sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs (a and b) equals the area of the square on the hypotenuse (c) or better known as a²+b²=c². If you want to know, how long c is, you have to extract the square root of a²+b². The problem is, that you get two solutions, the positive root and the negative root. But the hypotenuse of your triangle can only have a positive length. The negative solution is a mathematical solution, but it doesn't makes sense.

In calculus of probabilities, with different equations, you get sometimes different results. Mathematical, they are all correct. But obviously, only one result can describe the reality, the probability of the implementation of an event.

There are enough other examples, in which mathematics provides one with values, which don't make sense.

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.

With tachyons, it could be the same. They are mathematical possible but don't really exist. At least, there is no evidence for them although many tests were made to prove their existence. All have failed.

To date, the existence of tachyons has been neither confirmed nor explicitly ruled out. The latter could turn out to be impossible because that would be a negative evidence. But the absence of a proof is never a proof for absence!

Insofar, the explaination of Saxton, which is build allone on one possible result of the special theory of relativity, is nothing more than a speculation.

• • And even if it is assumed, that there are tachyons, the theory of Saxton lacks every attempt of a sientifical explanation, how a ship would accelerate to a speed above light speed without passing light speed.

  For common starships, the jump to hyperspace involves a brief but violent acceleration to high relativistic speeds and then a leap beyond the lightspeed threshold by some unknown mechanism.
  [...]
  A starship can exist comfortably above or below lightspeed but cannot pass through lightspeed via ordinary physical means. However all of ordinary physical existence becomes imprecisely defined below a certain subatomic scale, and we can speculate that this may have something to do with the super-technology that permits hyperdrive in STAR WARS. The leap beyond the lightspeed may be an event which exploits some kind of quantum-mechanical effect in order to slip from subluminal to superluminal speed without ever being at intermediate speeds. As seen by an external observer, the jump must be accomplished within Plank time, a tiny time unit below which time itself becomes meaningless.

  • That's nothing but pseudo-science. To an illiterate person, it sounds good, especially because there are some truths in it. But it explains really nothing.

That is not more scientifical, than the warp drive, if not even less scientifical.

The string theories claim, that our universe has several dimensions and that parallel to our universe are unlimited other universes with other physical laws. You could call these dimensions or the other universes subspace. Fact is, that Gene Roddenberry was more concerned about the physical realizability of the warp drive, than George Lucas about the hyperdrive.

[Who is like God arbour]

• • No comments, objections, questions?

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I think people either understood and agreed, did a little research to understand and now agree, or don't understand/ don't care.

[Keiran]

And even if it is assumed, that there are tachyons, the theory of Saxton lacks every attempt of a sientifical explanation, how a ship would accelerate to a speed above light speed without passing light speed.

[...]

That's nothing but pseudo-science. To an illiterate person, it sounds good, especially because there are some truths in it. But it explains really nothing.

You're going to find this problem with any exotic science fiction technology. Warp drive, subspace, phasers, transporters, "energy" shields, lightsabers, turbolasers, blasters, and many other sci-fi technologies can only be explained by creating new rules for physics (or new particles).

The trick is to make sure the new rules do not conflict with real-world physics. And to do it by bending physics as little as possible.

However, even after you receive those "explanations," you still haven't really discovered anything.

How do you create a warp field? How do you access subspace? How does the Heisenberg Compensator work? How can you travel FTL without violating causality?

[Who is like God arbour]

That's nearly exact, what I have said already in another thread:

That is one problem of them.
They think, they can solve all proplems with science.
But they oversee, that for many events in science fiction, there is no scientifical solution.
In Star Trek and in Star Wars were shown many events, for which science has no explanation, especially in the fairy tale Star Wars. For example the behavior of the main weapon beams from the death star. As far as I know, there is no scientifical explanation, why these beams stop at a point in front of the dish and change their course.


Another problem is, that they think, an engineer have to be more qualified to analyze science fiction than another person. I think, that's wrong.
Every person can see science fiction and see, what is done.



For example: Weapons
There could only be two relevant questions:
1.) What effect a weapon has on its target as a result?
2.) What is the operating mode of this weapon?

The first question can answer everyone, who has seen it: Is the target destroyed or not or how damaged is the target?

To answer the second question, it could be benefiting to be an engineer. But only if there is enough information about the operating mode of the weapon.

As far as I know, there is no established theorie about turbo lasers or phasers. The seen effects of both weapons are not explainable with the present understanding of science. Therefore the operating mode is unkown. It is unknown, how such weapons excite their beams and what effects the beams have on their target.

But then, it makes no sense to speculate about the energy, a weapon would need for a certain seen effect, for example to "vaporize" an asteroid. If it is unkown, what exactly happened with said asteroid, it is not possible, to estimate the necessary energy for it. The weapon could have an operating mode, which is far above the present scientifical understanding. And that there is no explanation for the seen behaviour of the weapon, is a strong indication, that this weapon don't have an explainable operating mode.

But then, an engineer is not better than every other person to analyze the only analysable subject: What effect a weapon has on its target as a result?



No scientist could exactly explain, how the warp drive, the hyper drive, the impuls drive, the phasers, the turbo lasers, the blasters, the light saber, the transporter or another of such concepts are working. They can do only the same, every other person can do too. Look at the shown effects and compare them with each other.

Only, I'm the opinion, that though one should orientate on science in the efforts to explain something in a certain extent, but if something is not explainable, one has to accept it. The Heisenberg Compensator is a good example for an unexplainable violation of science. But its existence shows, that in Star Trek, they are able to compensate some science laws.

It is not necessary and often impossible to try to explain the operating mode of some "exotic science fiction technology". Often, it is more fiction than science. Especially if the shown effects are not consistent.

In my answer to Gstones question, I have merely tried to show, that it is absurd to try to explain the hyperdrive with science, especially if it is not based on science but on one tool of science, mathematics, which is not always reliable. And there is not enough knowledge given in the movies about the operating mode of the hyperdrive. And a fortiori is it absurd, to base other speculations on this one totally unfounded speculation. (The whole attempt to explain the hyperdrive is unscientifical in itself. That's no scientifical methods.)

But about the warp drive by contrast, we know a little bit more. A little bit about its operating mode, as it was imagined, how it should work (That's one important difference between Star Trek and the fairy tale Star Wars), and a many about its effects. And as far as I can judge it, the warp drive doesn't violate science totally. There are several possibilities to explain the warp drive.

But the explanation from Saxton is neiter founded on Star Wars nor is there any scientifical explanation, especialy for the part, where the ship jumps from high relativistic speeds to speeds above light speeds without passing light speed. All we know are some shown effects and a round figure of speed. We have to accept, that we don't know, how the operating mode of the hyperdrive is.

[Keiran]

Only, I'm the opinion, that though one should orientate on science in the efforts to explain something in a certain extent, but if something is not explainable, one has to accept it. The Heisenberg Compensator is a good example for an unexplainable violation of science. But its existence shows, that in Star Trek, they are able to compensate some science laws.

That's the thing, nothing is explained. The problem is simply brushed aside and assumed to be solved.

Not that there's anything wrong with doing that in sci-fi.

In my answer to Gstones question, I have merely tried to show, that it is absurd to try to explain the hyperdrive with science, especially if it is not based on science but on one tool of science, mathematics, which is not always reliable. And there is not enough knowledge given in the movies about the operating mode of the hyperdrive. And a fortiori is it absurd, to base other speculations on this one totally unfounded speculation. (The whole attempt to explain the hyperdrive is unscientifical in itself. That's no scientifical methods.)

But about the warp drive by contrast, we know a little bit more. A little bit about its operating mode, as it was imagined, how it should work (That's one important difference between Star Trek and the fairy tale Star Wars), and a many about its effects. And as far as I can judge it, the warp drive doesn't violate science totally. There are several possibilities to explain the warp drive.

Magically creating a subspace-based warp field (how is that done?) is no different than magically converting your mass-energy to all energy and then to tachyonic mass in less than Plank time.

Brushing aside the problem by saying "oh, you just create a subspace warp field" is just moving the problem somewhere else by enveloping it in a black box, not making it go away.

Perhaps you could show how explanations on for drive aren't based only on mathematics? Because I'm pretty sure they are. It's not like we can test this stuff...

But the explanation from Saxton is neiter founded on Star Wars nor is there any scientifical explanation, especialy for the part, where the ship jumps from high relativistic speeds to speeds above light speeds without passing light speed. All we know are some shown effects and a round figure of speed. We have to accept, that we don't know, how the operating mode of the hyperdrive is.

And Star Trek's warp drive follows a scientific explanation? By all means, tell us, what is missing in Saxton's analysis that would be missing in an analysis of the Federation's warp drive?

For one thing, a controlled experiment can't be done on either. That leaves observation (Saxton does this), hypothesis (Saxton does this, only using speculation to fill in gaps that real-world physics can't explain), and prediction (Saxton does this).

[GStone]

For one thing, a controlled experiment can't be done on either. That leaves observation (Saxton does this), hypothesis (Saxton does this, only using speculation to fill in gaps that real-world physics can't explain), and prediction (Saxton does this).

Saxton ignored the episode 6 novelization quote that says the rebel fleet crossed into a warp when they jumped from near sullest. What he calls a wake rotation of the pre-endor arrival is more likely to be from the falcon changing directions, while in hyperspace because we know that the falcon changes direction, as it exists hyperspace because of the position of endor in one of the cockpit's windows switches to another spot.

On his hyperspace page, he says he's trying to come up with an answer that fits all the evidence, but this is 2 pieces that he doesn't work with and he isn't even working with any kind of heirarchy, which was know in a form before anything was said by Chee about different levels.

And if his theorizing was anywhere accepted by LL, wouldn't it have shown up in the text of the ICSs he wrote? His page was up long before he got the gig, so that's probably how they heard of him, even if it was indirectly. The baryonic to tachyonic matter theory isn't backed up anywhere in either book. Hell, it's even contradicted by seeing all of them in ep 4 move and talk like normal aboard the Falcon, while in hyperspace. All of them are acting, as baryonic matter would.

[Who is like God arbour]

I have not said, that we know the exact operating mode of the warp drive. But we know a little bit about its operating mode, as it was imagined, how it should work. That's naturally not enough to reverse engineering it. On SDN, I have read a thread, in which was given a link to this article. I concede, that I have nearly no knowledge about this subject and Quantum Mechanics and therefore am not able to really judge the concepts of science of this article. Maybe that was, what Roddenberry has imagined, as he has coined the warp drive.

And we know from the TNG episode "Schisms", that "subspace has an infinite number of domains [...] It's like a huge honeycomb with an endless number of cells". That described in my humble opinion very good the idea of the M-theory.

That doesn't explain anything. But it shows, that it was attempted, to base Star Trek on science and some things are explainable.



But from the hyperdrive, we know nothing. The movies and novels haven't explained, how it is build and supossed to operate. George Lucas has never attempted to build Star Wars on science. It was alwas a fairy tale. That's why I find it ludicrous, to try to explain all scientifical although there are not enough informations given, to compare what is shown (or better not shown) with known and scientifical explainable effects.

The problem, I have with Saxton is its description:
For exapmle, he writes that "A naive interpretation of Special Relativity would suggest that under some circumstances superluminal travel results in time reversal." But he doesn't explain, why it is a "naive interpretation". As far as I know, it is the etablished explanation. I could be wrong. But if he, as a scientist, made such a statement in a scientifical explanation, he should elaborate it. Why would some interpret the Special Relativity in this way? Why would it be wrong? What would be correct? Why would it be correct?
That's a huge problem in his theory, which he doesn't explain. Furthermore there is, as GStone has mentioned, the question, how baryonic matter could behave as tachyonic matter and why we wouldn't notice a difference. If he attempts to give a scientifical explanation for the hyperdrive, he should be honest. To ignore a known problem is not honest.