This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Knowledge Bank page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. jSarek 07:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not a scientific quibble...it's about the continued viability of starwars as our current level of technology advances.
We, earthlings, are ...when that actually happens the starwars universe is going to lose some of its grounding (much like star trek did when the 1990's happened differently than they said it would).
I believe George Lucas avoided this problem when he initially created starwars, but some of the filler material since has been based on Einstein's theories. I believe we need to start rewriting the behind the scenes date regarding hyperspace and travel between stars without Einstein's input.
The basic problem is that there is no speed limit. Things can travel faster than light because speed is a relative measurement. Living on the surface of a planet hides that fact in that we measure speeds relative to the ground without thinking of them as relative.
In space, one can continue to accelerate indefinetly, with speeds measured from their starting point exceeding lightspeed, 2xlightspeed, 10xlightspeed, etc. Then, of course they have to slow down when they near their destination point.
This actually explains how the Millenium Falcon was able to travel from Hoth to Bespin without those two planets being in the same system. This type of 'darkroute' travel, dark because it's not in the bright lights of hyperspace, is dangerous because most matter in the galaxy is traveling at about the same speed. If it went slower it would fall into the center, if it went faster it would fly out of the galaxy. This means that if you are travel ing 10xlightspeed in normal space and run into a fist sized chunk of rock...the collision occurs at 10xlightspeed. Ship hits rock, rock hits ship...it's all a matter of perspective. The damage would be immense.
This is a good reason for the developement of Hyperspace travel, in which there is no matter to run into. And it also allows for an instantaneous acceleration rather than a long drawn out one. The visible acceleration when jumping to hyperspace can be attributed to an illusion caused by the transition between 'dimensions.'
I think this approach will prove to be scientifically sound for years to come while Einstein's theories will go the way of the dodo. It will also help explain that nagging ESB question.
Since you asked . . . I think you're all wet. :-p I get the distinct impression you don't have a solid grasp of what special relativity entails, and what evidence has been brought to bear that reinforces it. That said, while there isn't actually matter in hyperspace, there ARE mass shadows in hyperspace of matter in realspace; these are dangerous navigational hazards, so hyperspace is still a difficult place to navigate at superluminal speeds. jSarek 00:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
My grasp on physics and such isn't real solid. You start throwing numbers and formulas my way and I'm lost. Anywho, I was always under the impression that hyperspace is essentially a wormhole of sorts. It's just a bridge. While the wormhole itself isn't visible, such as the ones used in Deep Space 9 are, it's still a wormhole. The space-time continium is being warped, bringing two points closer together, like folding a piece of paper. Or something. Gah, I should stick to biology theories, I suck at physics... Trak Nar 04:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Just to back up jSarek's reply: we are not "nearing the point of debunking Einstein's theory of relativity", it's a very well-attested and understood theory at this point. Relativity also says that an object with non-zero rest mass cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum with respect to any reference frame (even if it accelerates indefinitely), and that the speed of light relative to any reference frame is exactly the same. Hyperspace, as described in the Expanded Universe (and in most other science fiction that uses it) is a way of ignoring these aspects of relativity so the characters can go to another star system with reasonably short travel times and without worrying about time dilation. Trak Nar's explanation is pretty close to how I think it's supposed to work. —Silly Dan(talk) 19:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do we need to reconsider the physics of hyperspace anyway? let's face it, we're at least decades, if not centuries from developing sustainable inter-stellar travel. Can't we just sit back, relax with a glass of smooth correlian whiskey, and accept the fact that, like all other Sci-Fi shows, Hyperspace is just a method of allowing characters to travel between planets rapidly to allow the plots in films, novels and comics to continue?Darth Xadún 09:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it fun to try and unravel the mechanics and physics behind things; it makes it seem more real. If the science can be determined, then that's a step closer in the right direction and a step closer to developing the technology to achieve what would previously be seen as science-fiction. Without people who put logic behind the illogical, without people who dare to dream where no one has dreamed before, we wouldn't have alotta the technology that we do now. The world needs obsessive nerds! Trak Nar 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)