Seasons

True. In fact i beleive we already can "beam" electrons back and forth using a similar principle.

True about the 25 tesla. It would make a real mess of everything. But we don't how the physics of being faster then the speed of light would effect the enviroment.

Perhaps if you could use the force of the coil to send you to your destination. So to speak, pushing you along or towing you. therefore, the 25 tesla feild would be away from you. and you would not be effected. So then you just have to worry about space/time effects of traveling at an incredilbe speed.

the resl question is, why are we talking about this in the Seasons forums??? lol

why are we talking about this in the Seasons forums???
Well, like it says at the top of the page:
"get crazy deep on something"

But it would only look like an incredible speed in this space-time - in hyperspace it could be a comparatively gentle motion. But I say "could" - I don't understand what basis there actually is for assuming the speed of light would be much higher in hyperspace than in "our" space. But there's only so much they can fit into a potted explanation in a popular science mag I guess (hmm, sorry New Scientist - I expect they wouldn't think of themselves as primarily in that category, but you know what I mean

we already can "beam" electrons back and forth using a similar principle.
Indeed, but we still can't get them to break local light-speed (AFAIAA), which does make me wonder.
I can't help thinking that this view of "hyperspace" is only a dim glimpse of adjoining dimensions with fairly similar physical laws and constants. We see it through a glass darkly, and imagine all sorts of wonders - here be dragons - but when we get there, we'll find it's not so very different. I'm inclined to think they spread off across a continuum with only a single quantum state-change between each. Just think how many identical yous there could be out there!
It's not so much "when we get there" - we're already there. We just don't notice the difference! (crazy deep enough?

I don't understand what basis there actually is for assuming the speed of light would be much higher in hyperspace than in "our" space.

I don't know if this answers your question or not. But I will do the best I can. Light which tavels at 186,000mps (miles per second) Is the basis of what time exists on. Imagine you have an electron is a glass jar. Now this electron hits the top and bottom of the lid once a second. As you approach the speed of light, the electron would slow down, and would hit the lid less often. Once you are at the speed of lgiht. It wouldn't hit it at all. Thus the theory that You cannot go over the speed of light. It is impossible. (maybe)

It's not so much "when we get there" - we're already there.


Are you saying that the future already exisits? want to discuss the theories of time travel?

So deep I get a head ache..Wouldn't it possible that a adjoining dimension could be 'out side' of time and able to view all time at once, therefore able to travel in time the same way we travel in three dimentions?

Yeah, I know that's why we can't exceed the speed of light in this universe, but I don't understand where Dröscher drags in the idea that the speed of light would be any higher in hyperspace.

(from the article)
Dröscher is hazy about the details, but he suggests that a spacecraft fitted with a coil and ring could be propelled into a multidimensional hyperspace. Here the constants of nature could be different, and even the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. If this happens, it would be possible to reach Mars in less than 3 hours and a star 11 light years away in only 80 days, Dröscher and Häuser say. (my italics)

"could be several times faster than we experience"? Could just as likely be be several times slower, surely?

I'm afraid it all comes down to the thorny problem of the non-existence of time in this universe (most things do, one way or another.) You see there are two types of time in Relativity - there's little "t" - that's the time in space-time, and that exists alright. No problem there - it's part of the matrix that macro-scale physics works in (we'll ignore the quantum-scale problems for now I think.)
And then there's big "T" - that's time that causality subsists in. You know, the stuff that ticks along at 60 seconds to the minute. And Gödel not only demonstrates that it does not exist in this universe, but that it cannot exist in any possible universe. That's an oversimplification of course. I can recommend a couple of good books:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465092934/
reasonably simple introduction

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812694082/ meatier, but pretty heavy-going in places

Are you saying that the future already exisits
Since whatever it is that we try to describe when we label it "time" is of fixed quantity within this Universe, and ultimately illusory anyway, yes. Except that "already" is a redundant descriptor. There is only Now

Something exists, we don't exactly know what. It interacts with our consciousness, we don't exactly know how. We call it "time", but it's a slippery beast that's at least as different from, as it is similar to, what we think it's like. That's about as definite as I'd care to be.

Sadly we can only perceive Reality with limited minds, and so we go groping around the universe like the blind men inspecting an elephant. It's really not to be wondered at that it doesn't make a lot of sense most of the time. But that's why it's so much fun

That makes sense to me, Prob123, but I have only a superficial understanding of physics. I once read a book called "Flatland" that had 2 dimensional characters arguing about the possibility of a 3rd dimension. Something in this discussion reminds me of that.

The speed of light discussion also reminds me of an earlier thread we had here when people posted links to sites explaining how the speed of light may vary in our dimesion, and isn't really as constant as all that.

If Jasake, Einstein and Hawkins are correct and time is based on the speed of light, that variation would mean time "varies" in our dimesions as well, right? Please correct me if I am wrong. We never covered this in law school.

Another little thing I've come accross (and may have been discussed here too) is the "Spooky" effect (where far-distant particles appear to influence one another instantaneously, see e.g. http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st29) which may indicate somethings must travel faster than light (or the nature of space is completely different than we imagine it). It's all very weird. It kind of leads me to the "space and time are an illusion" way of thinking.

Prob123, this shouldn't make your head hurt, even if there are many here who know a lot about the topic. You are a Terry Pratchett fan. Who needs Hawkins to tell you about the other trouser leg of time when you can read Lords and Ladies or The Theif of Time? To know is good, to imagine is better :-)

Oh, and I meant Hawking (I drop the g in my head). Never could learn to spell or type. :-)

I've finally got round to writing a Brother Jerome homepage - http://www.be9.net/BJ/ - with some coding examples (tic tac toe and square/cube roots ATM. Still haven't finished the poker), links and (the beginnings of) a page of handy hints/bot-building tips. It's all a bit sparse ATM, but I aim to expand it considerably.
Hope it's of interest.

Here is a theory that that may shed some light on the "spooky action at a distance" observation - this theroy views the universe as a hologram where all matter is connected:

http://twm.co.nz/hologram.html

Indeed, the notion of a holographic universe is an appealing model, but it is still bounded by the problem that it is a notion. As soon as you start to describe things, you've stopped dealing with the things, and started dealing merely with descriptions.
I don't believe that any descriptions are objectively "better" or "worse" (whatever those terms mean) than any others, but I admit I do find the hologram analogy more appealing than most.

And I agree with Bev - there's no need to get a headache. Consistency is for cakes, and true understanding is that no thing is known.

but...
To know is good, to imagine is better :-)

I'd have to say "to know is impossible". But imagining's fun

further to "spooky action at a distance", and why it's not actually as paradoxical as it seems, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox
No information, energy or matter actually travels faster than light at any point in any possible demonstration of the phenomenon. So the whole thing boils down to co-incidence (and I use the word carefully in a very Latin sense, with no implication of "chance" intended. I might say instead "contingent", but with no implication of causality intended.)
There is a repeatable and reliable co-incide - they happen in different places at exactly the same time.
And I've always wondered why that should seem so spooky, when we don't consider it at all spooky when things apparently happen in exactly the same place at different times.

The problem comes down to a basic incompatibility of the concepts of locality and causality as we understand them.
My intuitive prejudice (as most people's seems to be, though I probably try to fight it more than most,) is that locality exists - there are different points in what we call space that things may occupy and move through. Despite intuitively sharing this prejudice, I am very uneasy about it in a number of ways that largely result from my views on causality. I don't so easily share the common prejudice that there are "real" causes and effects that emanate from them. I guess that's because I find it easier to see time as an illusion than space.
But like Augustine, (to paraphrase from memory) "when I think about time, I know exactly what it is. But when you ask me about it, I open my mouth to answer - and realize that I can explain nothing about it."

So, I'm going to end there - I have bread to bake, and that somehow seems more productive than indulging my concept-mongering tendencies any more at this time (as it were.)

Hmmm. To know is impossible. Failure is impossible. Therefore, to know is failure. My poor students. All this time I've been telling them to learn things.