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

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.

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

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.

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 .

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

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.

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...