Can mass be shunted off into hyperspace, but the matter remains?How much energy does this sun crushing ship, the CrushSun, use?How to build a telescope using gravitational lensing?Could black holes be a better source of energy than stars?Physical laws for a multiverse with white holes?Would immovable rods have infinite mass?What would happen if you could remove the event horizon from Sgr A*?How do I create the largest possible space habitat for humans?Almost realistic way to beat entropyWhat is the “fullest” the universe could be in terms of living space?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole
pgfplots: How to draw exponential graph with 60° start angle?
Am I breaking OOP practice with this architecture?
How dangerous is XSS?
Determining Impedance With An Antenna Analyzer
How to tell a function to use the default argument values?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Is it logically or scientifically possible to artificially send energy to the body?
How would I stat a creature to be immune to everything but the Magic Missile spell? (just for fun)
Personal Teleportation: From Rags to Riches
Avoiding the "not like other girls" trope?
How do I handle a potential work/personal life conflict as the manager of one of my friends?
What method can I use to design a dungeon difficult enough that the PCs can't make it through without killing them?
Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?
Is finding a path with more red vertices than blue vertices NP-hard?
How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?
How can saying a song's name be a copyright violation?
What are some good books on Machine Learning and AI like Krugman, Wells and Graddy's "Essentials of Economics"
Assassin's bullet with mercury
Why would the Red Woman birth a shadow if she worshipped the Lord of the Light?
Is this a hacking script in function.php?
Replacing legend item names in Carto VL
How can I deal with my CEO asking me to hire someone with a higher salary than me, a co-founder?
What exploit Are these user agents trying to use?
What killed these X2 caps?
Can mass be shunted off into hyperspace, but the matter remains?
How much energy does this sun crushing ship, the CrushSun, use?How to build a telescope using gravitational lensing?Could black holes be a better source of energy than stars?Physical laws for a multiverse with white holes?Would immovable rods have infinite mass?What would happen if you could remove the event horizon from Sgr A*?How do I create the largest possible space habitat for humans?Almost realistic way to beat entropyWhat is the “fullest” the universe could be in terms of living space?The mass of an economically feasible non-microscopic traversable wormhole
$begingroup$
My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?
Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?
science-based physics spacetime-dimensions
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?
Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?
science-based physics spacetime-dimensions
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?
Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?
science-based physics spacetime-dimensions
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
$endgroup$
My question is this: can excess mass be bled off into hyperspace (the large and compact extra dimensions, not the Star Wars-esque swirling vortex), yet the matter remains in our universe?
Is mass too fundamentally tied to matter for this to happen, or is it possible to condense a galaxy into a "small" area, but shunt off mass so it doesn't collapse into a black hole?
science-based physics spacetime-dimensions
science-based physics spacetime-dimensions
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
edited 2 hours ago
Cyn
10.9k12350
10.9k12350
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
asked 3 hours ago
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1258
1258
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
From the wiki:
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)
So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.
That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-mass-be-shunted-off-into-hyperspace-but-the-matter-remains%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
From the wiki:
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)
So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.
That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the wiki:
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)
So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.
That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From the wiki:
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)
So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.
That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
$endgroup$
From the wiki:
In classical physics and general chemistry, matter is any substance that has mass and takes up space by having volume. All everyday objects that can be touched are ultimately composed of atoms, which are made up of interacting subatomic particles, and in everyday as well as scientific usage, "matter" generally includes atoms and anything made up of them, and any particles (or combination of particles) that act as if they have both rest mass and volume. However it does not include massless particles such as photons, or other energy phenomena (...)
So no, you can't dissociate one from another, at least not according to our current understanding of science.
That does not keep authors from creating sci-fi munbo-jumbo like EA's Mass Effect, which allows for all kinds of magic. But those have no scientific basis.
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
edited 1 hour ago
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
answered 3 hours ago
RenanRenan
52.2k15119259
52.2k15119259
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Agreed, mass can be thought of in different ways: Inertial mass, active/passive gravitational mass. It is both a property of matter and measure of its resistance to acceleration.
$endgroup$
– Rob
3 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rob indeed, it is kind of a miracle that the inertial mass equals the gravitational mass -- even though the principle of equivalence requires exactly that.
$endgroup$
– John Dvorak
3 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
$endgroup$
There are two kinds of mass. Gravitational mass, which is what keeps you stuck to the ground and makes the planets orbit and all that jazz. The other is inertial mass, which is what pushes back on us when we push on something. Currently, we think these are just two facets of the same phenomenon, but there's no solid proof. If it does turn out that these are actually different things, then it may be possible to alter one without altering the other. This is a big stretch, but if everything I've proposed here is true, you could do exactly what you propose. Reduce gravitational mass while keeping inertial mass the same, and you could make something so large it would normally become a black hole.
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
answered 1 hour ago
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,047928
5,047928
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
$begingroup$
Eintein's general theory of relativity itself postulates that we have no means to distinguish. Indeed, any breakthrough on that would be huge.
$endgroup$
– Renan
54 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
$endgroup$
What you want here is to mask the mass, not get rid of it. Antigrav is what you're after, integrated such that your system shields objects from each other while maintaining their local gravity wells (so you don't end up with the opposite problem of things spontaneously exploding as soon as gravity isn't holding them together).
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered 2 hours ago
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
2177
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
25 mins ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f143133%2fcan-mass-be-shunted-off-into-hyperspace-but-the-matter-remains%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
3 hours ago
3
$begingroup$
What is "excess mass"? Would the matter, after shedding that "excess mass", remain normal matter or it has to become "exotic"? This is outside the realm of known science, by the way.
$endgroup$
– Alexander
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if this question is answerable. Just the existence of hyperspace or "large and compact extra dimensions" is purely theoretical. It's pretty hard to give a science-based answer to a question which is asking about things that haven't been experimentally verified in any way.
$endgroup$
– Gryphon
3 hours ago
$begingroup$
Mass is the energy intrinsic to holding a particle together. The energy allowing the particle to exist is its mass. You can't take the mass away from the particle. That's like taking the speed away from a moving train, without stopping it.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
3 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
It's a common misconception that the Higgs boson provides mass; the existence of the boson is predicted by the standard model and so finding it is evidence for the standard model, but it's not the boson itself that provides mass. Also, while the Higgs mechanism is responsible for the rest mass of fundamental particles, the majority of observed mass is actually due to binding energy, which doesn't involve the Higgs field at all. As @Adrian Hall put it, what we call mass is largely the result of the energy holding stuff together.
$endgroup$
– Dan Bryant
28 mins ago