Hyperspace

[quantumcrack]

It is theoretically possible that a construct such as hyperspace exists, but could it be true that hyperspace itself is a dimension??

feel free to comment......

Constructive criticism, if you have any......

[mezarashi]

I've read Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace, and personally I believe that it is very possible that the theory of hyperspace is true, although I find your comment "that hyperspace is a dimension" a bit confusing.

 

The only problem here is that this continues to stay out of main stream science due to its untestability. The types of energy required to probe objects of Planck length like the supposed contracted dimensions in hyperspace theory or the strings in string theory are and will not be possible with our technological prowess anytime soon. Many theorists in the field try hard to find some observable measurement that can be attributed as a consequence of the theory. So far they haven't been very convincing.

 

Hyperspace has many philosophical implications as well and its enigmatic nature is what makes even the general audience interested. Found some websites that show video of rotating hyper structures. The best way to understand these structures would be by observing the shadow of rotating a bare 3-D cube structure. How would you explain to the 2-D man what he is seeing? And what happens now if you rotate a 4-D cube and 5-D, etc...

 

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ma/gallery/hyper/cube.html

[Bettina]

Here is a good article on how to explain a sphere to a 2D man. With this, you can teach yourself how to imagine the hypersphere. Go to each section in the series. I really liked this article a lot and when I finished, I was able to visualize the hypersphere. For awhile anyway.....but its gone now.

 

Bettina

 

http://www.geocities.com/jsfhome/Think4d/Hyprsphr/repspher.html

[quantumcrack]

I dont want you to understand it, because it is a secret. LoL!

thank you for the constructive criticism, but i have read many books by Kip S Thorpe and Stephen Hawking.

Thank you

[Xyph]

If you mean by "hyperspace" another space existing adjacent to our 3-dimensional space, then I don't see how it can be anything but a dimension. That said, it's probably not going to be any use to us anytime soon.

[quantumcrack]

Well, sir arthur eddingtons theory based on entropy has never been proven, so how is this any different.

[Xyph]

Could you summarize whatever it was he said about hyperspace? Are you sure it wasn't just an analogy to explain the effects of mass on space (and hence, gravity)?

[h4x0r]

hyperspace could indeed be a dimension but what really is hyperspace anyway?

[BrentNewland]

I don't think that hyperspace exists, but I believe it is possible to travel vast distances in short amounts of time. It takes some roundabout thinking, so here goes (note: I am only 17 years old and planning on being a HS dropout, so take everything I say with a couple buckets of salt):

 

A one dimensional plane may contain one dimensional objects. A two dimensional plane may contain two dimensional objects and one dimensional objects on one dimensional planes contained within the two dimensional planes (multiple basic planes inside a more advanced plane). Extending this, one can surmise that a fourth dimensional plane (time) may contain multiple 3-dimensional planes within it. In order to travel quickly across a 3-dimensional plane, one would have to remove ones self from the plane, in essence becoming their own plane, and travel to another part of the first 3-dimensional plane through the fourth-dimensional plane.

 

All this talk of planes is kind of confusing. Might it be more likely that instead of multiple universes and planes containing many objects, each most basic particle is its own plain of existance, with the planes interacting with each other to form matter and universes? To make that fit though, I think that the most basic element of matter would have to exist in the most basic dimension. And the definition of basic is the most fundamental, the building block. And fundamental is an essential component; therefore the most basic dimension would be the dimension that all other dimensions must be able to exist in. So the most complex dimension (the tenth or eleventh according to our theorys?) would have to be the most fundamental and basic. So if each fundamental particle of matter were its own universe, then they would all be the 10th or 11th universal objects, and they interact to create lesser dimensions.

 

Does this make any sense to anyone else? Because I've kind of confused myself.

[Timetravler]

Ok If there is a such thing as hyperspace..... Do you think we could ever reach it?

 

 

Also i have a big question.... Can time travel ever work.... i dont think it is possible.... and if it was, when someone got back from the past they could have some how altered their future... this would then change memorys..... this effect would construct years of old memorys into new.... This would result in massive Brian hemoraging.. I cant spell that word..... the result is massive reconstruction of the brain... this would result in death or a coma! someone plz tell me if my thoughts sound like a theroy!

[BrentNewland]

It is all very hard to find out with what we know of science right now. However, I find it hard to believe that going forward from the past would change your memories. In order for hyperspace to work, or for us to leave the universe, I think that we would have to hope that my theory that the most basic building blocks of matter exist independently of each other and are their own forms of a high dimension. If this is so, then leaving the universe would be possible, because we would in essence have our own universe. If we could leave the universe, then travelling through the fourth dimension might not be a problem, since you would be travelling independently of our universe. You could trael through time and reenter a prior version of the universe, change something, then travel back. That, of course, assumes that the fourth dimension does not have to contain a copy for every possible moment in time for every iteration of the universe, but instead keeps a memory of each point in time for the said universe. So, if you travel outside of the universe and back into it at a previous point in time, it could very well be like living a memory, with you being unable to change anything. Of course, under this model, you might not even be allowed to enter the memory under normal circumstances, simply because it would be a memory and not real.

[h4x0r]

we will eventually be able to reach what we call hyperspace.

[Timetravler]

What i meant was after we travel to the past, once we get back to the present, or if you were coming from the past it would be the future. Some way you altered your future memorys would change and this would cause the brian hemorage!

[Xyph]

Nah.

[quantumcrack]

after all, many physics ideas are alittle bit impossible. So why am i different?

[cpwmatthews]

How would you explain to the 2-D man what he is seeing? And what happens now if you rotate a 4-D cube and 5-D, etc...l]

 

Suppose you showed the 2D man a glass sphere. He would see his dimention and also see through it to view every other dimention at the same time?

[aj47]

quote -Many theorists in the field try hard to find some observable measurement that can be attributed as a consequence of the theory''

 

Arent they looking at the ditribution of dark matter which they believe is a consequence of a parallel universe in a higher dimension??

[Xyph]

Suppose you showed the 2D man a glass sphere. He would see his dimention and also see through it to view every other dimention at the same time?

No, he would just see a single slice of the sphere as it passed through his 2D universe. As the sphere passed through his 2D universe in front of this 2D man, it'd be like a glass point appearing from nowhere, expanding to a glass circle, then shrinking again to a point and disappearing.

 

So, by analogy, if a glass hypersphere was passing though our 3D universe, we'd see a glass sphere expand from a point, then contract again.

 

 

 

Arent they looking at the ditribution of dark matter which they believe is a consequence of a parallel universe in a higher dimension??

In String Theory, as far as I understand it, gravitons "leaking" from other branes could provide an explanation for dark matter. Or dark energy. I forget which, although I'd think the latter. There's no way to prove that this is actually the case though, and that dark matter doesn't just exist as dark matter in the literal sense in this universe.