Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Sci-fi concept of hyperspace?

  1. Jul 14, 2004 #1

    Are there any mathematical explanations to this sci-fi concept of hyperspace? Can there be? What do you think?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 14, 2004 #2
    I thought hyperspace was just a space with more than 3 dimensions. As in a hypercube, etc.
  4. Jul 14, 2004 #3
    two theorys not Presented there are the Farscape theory: You cant travel faster than light, so you move the Universe faster thatn light instead

    and one I cant remember who to attribute it to. Basicly it's like drawing two dots on a peiceof paper, andthe traveling is done by folding the Paper in such a way that the two dots are conected. IMHO opinion this is the mostlikely to be discovered if we ever find one out.
  5. Jul 15, 2004 #4

    I thought I would put this link here for you as well. If certain dynamics are going on with cosmological events geometrically, then why could we have not benefited?
  6. Jul 15, 2004 #5
    Isn't that like an einstein-rosen bridge---a wormhole??
  7. Jul 16, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    One theory that seems like the old hyperspace idea is the brane-bulk idea. This is good brane physics; our spacetime is a brane which is one dimension less than the bulk space it is the boundary of. Think of a face of a cube versus the volume of the cube. By the holographic conjecture of string physics, the physics on the boundary corresponds exactly, in a certain sense, to the physics on the bulk.
  8. Jul 16, 2004 #7
    Have you just realized this? :smile:

    Not to be inconsiderate, but excited that you would have found this relevance in the brane bulk scenario. To me this is the graduation in thinking and visualization that has been so hard for most of us to understand.

    In our previous talks we delved into this by speaking on sachherri and others along the geometrical line of developement. Such developement in the world of Guass carring on here is really quite a feat of proportion recognizing Reinmann along the way. The brane bulk scenario is along ths line for me.

    For you being a topological orientated, such landscape thinking that Susskind likes to talk about, is pretty much the revelation that one has take. Put on new sun glasses, and that when we do, we no longer see the discrete world, but one of energy.

    I am glad that you are seeing this way. Maybe I was a bit slow in not recognizing this before. If this is "new," some of our previous talks on the string developement and radius of a circle will seem a liitle strange as it was not supported but delves along the recognitions of what you have voiced in your post.

    If the radius of the circle changes, then so does the strings length? Could we have not made such a comparison?:smile:


    as the radius grows so does the string and the string as a cylinder?


    Or that one string in a expansive mode of this universe is part of the expansion process we see with the string representing the early formation of that cylinder(string on the brane)? Maybe this has to be played with a bit here? :smile:

    Help Georgi!
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2004
  9. Jul 16, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well I've known the brane-bulk idea since it came out. I don't really understand all the ins and outs of the Maldecena conjecture, holomorphism, AdS/CFT and all that, but I know it at the pop-sci level. I don't endorse something just because I mention it. It's a branch of physics that has been very big for the last few years and has a close resemblence to the hyperspace bafflegab in old science fiction (the older I get the more respectable all those old sci-fi ideas become!).

    I don't think you can get it out of the historical development of non-euclidean geometry. I suppose it was the Anti deSitter component that raised that interest? De Sitter spacetime has a constant positive curvature, and anti de Sitter spacetime has a constant negative curvature. In other words, it's hyperbolic and features (pseudo-) Lobatchevskian non-euclidean geometry, which does go back to Sacchieri.

    Have I ever mentioned Roger Boscovitch to you?
  10. Jul 16, 2004 #9
    No you haven't. Some thoughts here?
  11. Jul 17, 2004 #10
    To move to defining topological feature of those genus figures we had to take a giant leap here. The cube moved to something else, spherical.

    Along the same line of speaking geometrically we had indeed this vison of things moveng dynamcially, although indeed at the below planck length we have run into the non comminitive issues of uncertainty.

    But thnking as deep as we have in regards tothese theoretcial structure swe are building, the brane world considerations ask us to think from supersymmetrical levels and the expansive mode of that point on the brane is circles, torodial? Pierre was quite speicifc about this? :smile:

    How could we have graduate tthe bulk with out it. Boson production, arises out of the geoemtrical consideration of GR? :smile: To join the two principals of GR and QM was a extraordinary feat.

    But on a softer note, think of those Greeks leaving the shore and moving past the horizon. Pretty scary stuff for those restricted to a way of thinking?
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook