Rrerku

One verb to replace 'be a member of' a club

Personal Teleportation: From Rags to Riches

Can we compute the area of a quadrilateral with one right angle when we only know the lengths of any three sides?

If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?

How to show a landlord what we have in savings?

What type of content (depth/breadth) is expected for a short presentation for Asst Professor interview in the UK?

Is there an expression that means doing something right before you will need it rather than doing it in case you might need it?

Should I cover my bicycle overnight while bikepacking?

In 'Revenger,' what does 'cove' come from?

What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?

Why do bosons tend to occupy the same state?

Short story with a alien planet, government officials must wear exploding medallions

How dangerous is XSS?

Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?

Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?

How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?

Am I breaking OOP practice with this architecture?

What mechanic is there to disable a threat instead of killing it?

How to properly check if the given string is empty in a POSIX shell script?

How would I stat a creature to be immune to everything but the Magic Missile spell? (just for fun)

Forming a German sentence with/without the verb at the end

Unlock My Phone! February 2018

How do I handle a potential work/personal life conflict as the manager of one of my friends?

Alternative to sending password over mail?

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

3

$begingroup$

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

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
  $endgroup$
  – Ushumgallu
  4 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
  4 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
  40 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

3

$begingroup$

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

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

$endgroup$

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  $begingroup$
  I can clarify and edit the question if needed.
  $endgroup$
  – Ushumgallu
  4 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
  4 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
  40 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

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

$endgroup$

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

share|improve this question

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

edited 2 hours ago

Cyn

10.9k12350

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

asked 4 hours ago

UshumgalluUshumgallu

1258

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

8

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

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 | 

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

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
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

$begingroup$

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).

share|improve this answer

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
  37 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
);



);

draft saved

draft discarded

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

Name

Email

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

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

8

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

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 | 

8

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

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.

share|improve this answer

edited 1 hour ago

answered 3 hours ago

RenanRenan

52.2k15119259

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

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

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

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
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

1

$begingroup$

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.

share|improve this answer

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
  1 hour 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.

share|improve this answer

answered 1 hour ago

Ryan_LRyan_L

5,047928

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

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

0

$begingroup$

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).

share|improve this answer

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
  37 mins ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

0

$begingroup$

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).

share|improve this answer

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
  37 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).

share|improve this answer

answered 2 hours ago

G. B. RobinsonG. B. Robinson

2177

$endgroup$

share|improve this answer

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