Sign in to follow this  
Captain Ericks

Sub-space

Recommended Posts

I've been writing some fan-fiction for Star Trek and I was just wondering, so I don't make a fool of myself, what exactly is sub-space. Is it like a hidden fold, or another realm or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wish I could help, but I have been wondering the same thing for quite some time myself. It is never explained in Star Trek and sources that talk about the physics of Star Trek never seem to mention sub-space. I'm betting that it was made up just for the sake of allowing quick communitcation over large distances. But I cannot say for sure. Hope someone has the answer for both of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that it is like another layer of space (3D - 4D?)...where distance has no meaning.....other than that - im stumped too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could easily take the better part of a week to explain fully.

 

The simple explanation is to think of the universe like a cake with normal space as the middle layer and other layers are above and below. There are many layers and each layer is made up of many smaller subunits of "phase" Remember, our phase in normal space is 3-D you have to move in the 4-D (not time) to reach subspace.

 

... (more layers)

---------

-

-Superspace

-

---------

-

-Normal Space

- (<-this mark is a different phase below us in normal space)

---------

-

-subspace

-

---------

... (more layers)

[Fig 1]

 

Subspace is in reality very much like our space with some important differences:

• Subspace is more dense - meaning 1 meter in normal space is actually equivalent to two meters in subspace (this does not mean it is 2:1, the ratio actually varies - just an example)

• Subspace is filled with a much higher amount of ambient energy and has many distortion waves (such as those that can be seen in all subspace rifts)

 

Hopefully this will provide you with a short understanding of subspace.

 

For further reading and insight visit: (I did a search for subspace)

 

Subpsace Theory

Subspace Phenomena

Edited by Xeroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are many layers and each layer is made up of many smaller subunits of "phase"  Remember, our phase in normal space is 3-D you have to move in the 4-D (not time) to reach subspace.

 

... (more layers)

---------

-

-Superspace

-

---------

-

-Normal Space

- (<-this mark is a different phase below us in normal space)

---------

-

-subspace

-

---------

... (more layers)

[Fig 1]

 

Subspace is in reality very much like our space with some important differences:

• Subspace is more dense - meaning 1 meter in normal space is actually equivalent to two meters in subspace (this does not mean it is 2:1, the ratio actually varies - just an example)

• Subspace is filled with a much higher amount of ambient energy and has many distortion waves (such as those that can be seen in all subspace rifts)

 

Hopefully this will provide you with a short understanding of subspace.

 

For further reading and insight visit: (I did a search for subspace)

 

Subpsace Theory

Subspace Phenomena

That is some deep s**t. So it would be actually possible for some one to enter sub-space, with a ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all i know is that in sub space the speed of light is much faster then in our space. for us its a 1,000,000,000 kph (22,000,000,000 mph) for sub space its...i don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trekzone... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". I didn't find it to be a very credible source. For starters, for their "theory" they violate the definition of space. It said that "Space is made of quantized (meaning it is not uniform) particles." This would mean that space is matter since matter consists of particles (more accurately particle-waves). But space is NOT made up of particles or matter. It is the absence of matter, also known as a vacuum. Furthermore, the site talks about "Space Tunneling" and "Spatial Resonance" it goes on to say that these ideas are things that are not talking about in the current time period of Star Trek (Nemesis for example). See Spoiler for quotes referring to this. Since the author made these concepts up and changed the idea of what space is, I belive we should not subscribe to their theory of sub-space.

 

Click for Spoiler:

Space Tunneling is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

 

Spatial Resonance is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

 

 

The second site entitled "Subspace Phenomena" does not attempt to explain what subspace is. It merely states that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region”. It then goes on to talk about different subspace phenomenon. The first is Subspace compression. The “phenomenon is caused when an object is partially encased in a subspace field.” Here is says that subspace is a field. If subspace is a layer of space as the first site “claimed” it to be, then according to this phenomenon, normal space itself could have a field, which is cannot.

 

Therefore, assuming that subspace can generate a field, I draw the conclusion that subspace is a phenomenon with completely different characteristics from normal space. I think this is a fair assumption in the trek universe because subspace fields are necessary for the use of warp drive, as we all know. Reading more of the second site brought me to the conclusion that the site remains within the known facts of subspace as given by Star Trek; and that the other site does not.

 

The statement that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region” is very correct. Some of the subspace phenomena seen in Star Trek are likely made up which would not allow the writers to come up with a concrete definition of subspace as it would likely contradict much of what subspace has done over the years in Star Trek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is some deep s**t. So it would be actually possible for some one to enter sub-space, with a ship.

Yes, they actually have done this before.

• DS9 "One Little Ship" - They went into a subspace rift (where the normal space layer in that area is destroyed and subspace seeps up into our layer) - they were shrunk because subspace is more dense as stated earlier.

• TNG "Force of Nature" - They went into the subspace rift and experience distortion waves as stated earlier.

• TNG "Schisms" - They were being abducted by aliens who lived in subspace - showing subspace is in fact a habitable space layer like ours.

 

 

all i know is that in sub space the speed of light is much faster then in our space. for us its a 1,000,000,000 kph (22,000,000,000 mph) for sub space its...i don't know.

That is because subspace is more dense than our space. Traveling 1 light year in subspace is like ten in normal space (not really the exact ratio - just an example)

 

 

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory".  I didn't find it to be a very credible source.  For starters, for their "theory" they violate the definition of space.  It said that "Space is made of quantized (meaning it is not uniform) particles."  This would mean that space is matter since matter consists of particles (more accurately particle-waves).  But space is NOT made up of particles or matter.  It is the absence of matter, also known as a vacuum.

Wait a minute. We don't really know what space is. In fact, quantum mechanics states that space must be quantized to comply with quantum mechanics. That doesn't mean it is matter. Actually, a vacuum itself is not really a vacuum and is filled with a huge array of virtual particles (quatum fluctuations).

See:

Virual Particles

What are Virtual Particles?

 

 

Furthermore, the site talks about "Space Tunneling" and "Spatial Resonance" it goes on to say that these ideas are things that are not talking about in the current time period of Star Trek (Nemesis for example). See Spoiler for quotes referring to this.  Since the author made these concepts up and changed the idea of what space is, I belive we should not subscribe to their theory of sub-space. 

 

Click for Spoiler:

Space Tunneling is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

 

Spatial Resonance is not something talked about in any previous Star Trek scenarios and has to do with some advanced subspace properties not known during current Star Trek time frames. (TNG etc.)

Yes, that site did go off on some unrelated tangents, but the concepts could be valid, and don't violate any ST laws. I don't think we should discount the whole theory because of imagination.

 

 

The second site entitled "Subspace Phenomena" does not attempt to explain what subspace is.  It merely states that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region”.   It then goes on to talk about different subspace phenomenon.  The first is Subspace compression.  The “phenomenon is caused when an object is partially encased in a subspace field.”  Here is says that subspace is a field.  If subspace is a layer of space as the first site “claimed” it to be, then according to this phenomenon, normal space itself could have a field, which is cannot.

Wait, no, it doesn't state that subspace is a field. It just says a "subspace field". Just like an electromagnet creates an electromagnetic field. Does this mean the elcromagnet itself is just a field? No. The electromgnet itself is an object I can hold in my hand - it just generates the field. And who says normal space couldn't have some sort of field. Maybe we just can't see it unless we are in subspace? Maybe the quantum field is the normal space field? We really don't know!

 

 

Therefore, assuming that subspace can generate a field, I draw the conclusion that subspace is a phenomenon with completely different characteristics from normal space.  I think this is a fair assumption in the trek universe because subspace fields are necessary for the use of warp drive, as we all know.  Reading more of the second site brought me to the conclusion that the site remains within the known facts of subspace as given by Star Trek; and that the other site does not. 

 

The statement that “Subspace is a mysterious and complex region” is very correct.  Some of the subspace phenomena seen in Star Trek are likely made up which would not allow the writers to come up with a concrete definition of subspace as it would likely contradict much of what subspace has done over the years in Star Trek.

Well, It seems to me that both sites seem to fit together with ST and each other (mostly). I just did a search, and from what I know, picked what looked like the most relevant and accurate sites. That doesn't mean I got them all and that those are 100% correct.

Edited by Xeroc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, no, it doesn't state that subspace is a field. It just says a "subspace field". Just like an electromagnet creates an electromagnetic field. Does this mean the elcromagnet itself is just a field? No. The electromgnet itself is an object I can hold in my hand - it just generates the field. And who says normal space couldn't have some sort of field. Maybe we just can't see it unless we are in subspace? Maybe the quantum field is the normal space field? We really don't know!

 

Ok, so scientists don't really know what space is. I'll give you that one. But I did not say an electromagnet itself is just a field. I would not agree with that statement. A field is created by the net movement of elections through the electromagnet.

 

Futhermore, I did not say subspace was a field. I simply admitted the fact that in Star Trek, it can GENERATE a field; not that is was a field. My argument was that since normal space does not generate a field (even in Star Trek), and that since subspace does, they must be completely different phenomena, because they have different characteristics altogether. Follow the logic? I will admit this is not factual evidence but is logic derived from the lack of relationships between the two. To prove my theory (and it is just that) I would need to discount all other possibilities, which I could not do.

 

And you were right, just because the author went off on a ideas that don't exist in Star Trek, that doesn't mean we should critisize his/her creativity or imagination. I applaud imagination. My point was that we should not consider such information when seeking the answer for was subspace is, because we are concerned with what it is in regards to Star Trek, are we not?

 

Oh, I just noticed that I did say that subspace was a field in itself. That was an error on my part; both not noticing I said it, and saying it in the first place.

Edited by Commander Bolivar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you were right, just because the author went off on a ideas that don't exist in Star Trek, that doesn't mean we should critisize his/her creativity or imagination. I applaud imagination. My point was that we should not consider such information when seeking the answer for was subspace is, because we are concerned with what it is in regards to Star Trek, are we not?

Yes, you're right, for this dicussion those tangents really do not even apply. They aren't even about what subspace is, just some new properties/technologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OFF-TOPIC:

 

im confused, Xeroc ... in your quote of Comm. Bolivar it said:

QUOTE (Commander Bolivar @ Oct 27 2003, 04:00 PM)

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory".  I didn't find it to be a very credible source.  For starters, for their "theory" they violate the definition of space.  It said that "Space is made of quantized (meaning it is not uniform) particles."  This would mean that space is matter since matter consists of particles (more accurately particle-waves).  But space is NOT made up of particles or matter.  It is the absence of matter, also known as a vacuum.

 

 

Wait a minute. We don't...

 

But in the only post by Bolivar it says:

 

Trekzone... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". I didn't...

 

and its not 4pm...

 

anyway ... my advice on subspace is the same as temporal mechanics:

 

"Avoid It"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Commander Bolivar @ Oct 27 2003, 04:00 PM)

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". 

 

Trekzone... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". I didn't...

 

Notice in the 2 quotes above of what I said start are different. One starts off with "Xeroc" and the other starts off with "Trekzone". They should both say "Trekzone". Anywho, in response to your previous post Trekzone, you are in a different time zone than me, so I could post something at 4 when it isn't yet 4 where you are. And yeah, we probably should avoid the topic of subspace and temporal mechanics, but I don't wanna! :lol: I wonder if the Star Trek Encyclopedia actually defines subspace? Anyone know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xeroc... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". 

 

Trekzone... I checked out your first link "Subspace Theory". I didn't...

 

Notice in the 2 quotes above of what I said start are different. One starts off with "Xeroc" and the other starts off with "Trekzone". They should both say "Trekzone".

I assumed that "Trekzone" was a typo because I provided the links!

For further reading and insight visit: (I did a search for subspace)

 

Subpsace Theory

Subspace Phenomena

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xeroc, I am so sorry! I didn't mean to discredit you. Just a silly mistake on my part. I hope you forgive me!!! Anywho, Happy Halloween. This apologetic message has been sent to you via subspace priority channel one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this