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
Took a trip to a parallel universe, need help deciphering
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
Stopping power of mountain vs road bike
What is a clear way to write a bar that has an extra beat?
Why doesn't using multiple commands with a || or && conditional work?
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Why are electrically insulating heatsinks so rare? Is it just cost?
Can one be a co-translator of a book, if he does not know the language that the book is translated into?
How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?
AES: Why is it a good practice to use only the first 16bytes of a hash for encryption?
1960's book about a plague that kills all white people
What does it mean to describe someone as a butt steak?
What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?
How to take photos in burst mode, without vibration?
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
Modeling an IP Address
Can a rocket refuel on Mars from water?
What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?
Why does Kotter return in Welcome Back Kotter?
How many spell slots should my level 1 wizard/level 1 fighter have?
Assassin's bullet with mercury
Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
Emailing HOD to enhance faculty application
What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?
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 yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
$endgroup$
|
show 3 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 yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
|
show 3 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 yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
$endgroup$
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 yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
edited yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
edited yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
edited yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
edited yesterday
Cyn
11.1k12352
11.1k12352
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
asked yesterday
UshumgalluUshumgallu
1358
1358
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
yesterday
$begingroup$
I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
$endgroup$
– Ushumgallu
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
|
show 3 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 yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
$endgroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
$endgroup$
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 yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
answered yesterday
RenanRenan
52.4k15119261
52.4k15119261
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
@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
yesterday
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 yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
$endgroup$
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 yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
answered yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
answered yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
answered yesterday
Ryan_LRyan_L
5,077928
5,077928
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
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
yesterday
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 yesterday
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 yesterday
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered yesterday
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered yesterday
G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson
2177
answered yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
yesterday
$begingroup$
Re: the "problem of things spontaneously exploding," you've just invented the Little Doctor, which has its own set of uses.
$endgroup$
– thirtythreeforty
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
$begingroup$
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
yesterday
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
yesterday