Talk:Hyperspace (disambiguation)

message: I have to agree with Sam: what is the point of this article?  It certainly doesn't seem to reflect a solid grasp of the relevant math or physics:
*The theory consists of the idea that our own universe is connected to other universes through wormholes, and all of the universes are found within "hyperspace".  Not even wrong: there is no "theory" called "hyperspace", and whoever wrote this appears to be confusing at least two distinct concepts (sometimes called "wormhole" and "baby universes").
*the null geodesics are continuous concentric spheres is nonsense: in both math (e.g., Riemannian geometry) and physics, geodesics are always curves; whoever wrote this appears to be confused about the geometrical nature of "dimensional reductions",
*almost becoming an instanton: now I am beginning to think whoever wrote this was simply writing a hoax article using technical buzzwords,
*when you try and compare events from one frame to another with the limits our frame imposes you find that while event rates in hyperspace yield a superluminal path that path in relation to our frame moves into the future: definitely sounds like someone's idea an "amusing" hoax article.
*etc.
This article should probably deleted on the grounds of having no scientific content, and as a possible hoax article.---CH 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point of this article?

message: I nominated this for deletion as patent nonsense.  Someone asked for some specific problems.  Here you are:
*In physics, hyperspace is a theoretical entity.  There is no theoretical concept commonly called hyperspace in physics.  There are similar sounding words like hyperslice, and some physicists have employed this term in popular writings, but not (as far as I can tell) in their scientific work.  The only truly well-known use of this term appears to be in science fiction.
*The geometry of space-time in special relativity with hyperspace added in SR uses a 'flat' 4-dimensional Minkowski space, usually referred to as space-time.  This doesn't even make sense.  The author appears to be confusing spacetime with "hyperspace".  Only the latter is a widely used concept in physics.
*The differential of distance (ds) in Cartesian 3D space is defined as..  This is one way of writing down the metric tensor of E3, via a line element. But this is only valid in a cartesian chart and it is not the definition of differential from advanced calculus (or calculus on manifolds). 
*In the geometry of special relativity, a fourth dimension, time, is added, with units of c... No, not "units of c".  See spacetime and geometrized units.
*In many situations it may be convenient to treat time as imaginary (e.g. it may simplify equations).  No, this is deprecated in all modern textbooks.  See for example Taylor & Wheeler, Spacetime physics.
*We see that the null geodesics lie along a dual-cone.  The usual term is "double-cone", and all this is better treated in light cone and other existing articles.
*If we extend this to three spatial dimensions, the null geodesics are continuous concentric spheres.  No, geodesics are always special curves, never spheres! 
*This null dual-cone represents the "line of sight" of a point in space. No, a null ray represents a line of sight, not the null cone!
*The biggest difference with adding in extra dimensional hyperspace is that the cone spreads out and shortens in height for the hyperspace frame almost becoming an instanton.  This is absolute crap.
I think I've said enough.  There is not one correct or even sensical sentence in this miserable production.  This is without question one of the absolute worst articles I've encounted in WP. ---CH 21:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some specific problems

message: I see from the above discussion that the article was much edited before it became a dab page.  The resulting page is somewhat confused.  For example, it says that "Hyperspace also sounds similar to several terms" including "Hyperspace".
I am re-ordering the entries to follow the historical development of the term, and moving terms other than "Hyperspace" into a "See also" section.  This makes it more like a standard dab page; see WP:MOSDAB.
Note that the articles Euclidean space, Non-Euclidean geometry and Minkowski space do not mention the word hyperspace; perhaps they should.  Some of the comments on this page (e.g. those about paranormal fantasies and about Minkowski space in science fiction) could do with a cited source.  Dab pages do not usually have a "References" section, so I am noting here that my additions are based on the following quotation from 1892 in the Oxford English Dictionary: "W. W. R. BALL Math. Recreations & Problems x. 191 The term hyper-space was used originally of space of more than three dimensions but now it is often employed to denote any non-Euclidean space."  JonH (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Instead of Euclidean space, perhaps Fourth dimension or Higher dimension should mention the word hyperspace. JonH (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-ordering 

message: I replaced the term "space-time" with "spacetime" which is better and more often used by physicists including Einstein. See spacetime - Brad Watson, Miami 72.153.60.84 (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Spacetime' is better and more common than 'Space-time' 

message: I tweaked the following... *higher dimensions including Kaluza-Klein's 4-dimensional space and Superstring theory's 9-dimensional space and Supergravity's 10-dimensional space... In physics: * Minkowski space, a concept, often referred to by science fiction writers as hyperspace, that incorrectly refers to the 4-dimensional spacetime of relativity - Ben Franklin 71.206.87.9 (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Hyperspace' is a synonym for 'Higher dimensions'