Is "subspace" really existing?

[mooeypoo]

Hi guys

 

I was reading some scifi books, and watching Star trek and was wondering about something. I know that Startrek is fictional, and is MORE fiction than science (please don't start bashing shows here;) ) but I also know that the creators at least TRIED bringing some frictions of truth in their fiction..

They talk a lot about Subspace, and they're not the only show that does that..

 

Does Subspace really exist? Is it theoretically possible, and.. what.. exactly.. is it?

 

Thanks..

 

~moo

[gib65]

First of all, I don't watch Star Trek that much - or any sci. fi. TV shows for that matter - so I don't even know what "subspace" is. I'd assume it's the opposite of "hyperspace" - can hyperspace even have an opposite?

 

If you define "subspace" for me, I'll give the question my best shot.

[mooeypoo]

Well, they claim that Subspace is a "Layer" of timespace.. since Spacetime can be 'curved', they claim that if you have a "hole" or tear in it, you get "Subspace".. if.. I understood correctly.

 

I'll try to find how Startrek universe define it, maybe it'll help...

 

Can that be existing....?

 

~moo

[JTM³]

From the Stark Encyclopedia:

 

Spatial continuum with significantly different properties from our own, a fundamental part of warp drive. Warp-driven starships employ a subspace [field?] generator to create the asymmetrical spatial distortion necessary for the vessel to travel faster than the speed of light. Subspace is also used as a medium for subspace radio transmissions. [behind the scenes comments] Einstein's theoriees suggest that light-speed travel is impossible in our universe, so subspace and warp drive were "invented" by Star Trek's writers to explain how a starship might do it anyway. On the other hand, Professor Stephen Hawking, when visiting the Enterprise-D engine room at Paramount Pictures in 1993, said he was working on warp drive. We can hardly wait.

[gib65]

That sounds really weird...

 

Anyway, you (mooeypoo) say that subspace is what you get when you tear space. Is it the tear itself, or a layer of spacetime with a tear in it? Or have I missed the definition all together .

[mooeypoo]

its supposed to be a layer.. like a 'sublayer'... err.. dont know really does this make sense?

[gib65]

Well, if it's a "sublayer", then I don't see why it wouldn't exist. Spacetime can't exist unless all the subspace layers that make it up exist as well.

 

But if subspace is the tear in a sublayer of spacetime (or, I guess, a "hole" in 4D spacetime), then it couldn't exist. It would be a void, a pure emptiness, a nothingness.

 

That would be my take on it, anyway.

[Klaynos]

There are some theories that talk about sub/hyper space situations, none have been proven afaik, the last one I read is http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200

 

It's been discussed on the forums, and I'm highly skeptical...