Questions About Stars, etc. in Hyper

We know that the lowest alpha band of hyperspace corresponds to n-space at roughly 60:1 linear ratio and that the inherent energy level of hyperspace is higher, and higher, more-compressed bands have yet higher energies. 60³=216,000, which is quite a bit denser indeed.

If the total amount of energy contained in that lowest band of hyperspace is roughly equivalent to that of n-space, we should expect a lot of that energy to have turned into matter-antimatter pairs, and the same process that created n-space matter would presumably have led to (at least local) surpluses of either matter or antimatter. So that band should have an overall density of hydrogen (or antihydrogen) hundreds of thousands of times what n-space has.

And that means that there should be stars in hyper, fusing it into helium (or antihelium). The reduced inflation may mean that in some senses hyper is "younger" than n-space, so that not as many stars will have formed as we have here, but is it enough younger that there are no stars in the hyperspace that corresponds to the explored galaxy? If such stars do exist, have there been enough first-generation supernovae to produce the heavy elements from which planets, asteroids, etc. can be formed for second-generation star systems? What, if any, effect does any of this have on the grav waves that exist in hyper?

Speaking of gravity, do matter and energy warp hyperspace like they do n-space, producing the same gravitational effects upon which astrogenesis depends, or is there something about hyperspace that reduces that effect, as part of what causes the aforementioned grav waves? If stars can exist in hyper, can one of them have a wormhole terminus or junction associated with it? Does that terminus exist in the hyperspace band, or does it push "down" to n-space, causing a wormhole to exist in n-space nowhere near any gravitational anchor? If the worhmole is in hyper, does the other end necessarily terminate near another star in the same hyper band, or can a wormhole bridge bands, with one end in n-space or a different hyper band? Would wormholes that terminate in hyperspace tend to cover longer n-space-equivalent distances than the wormholes that terminate in n-space?

I realize that the higher density also makes it difficult to see ships more than a few light-minutes away, but a star ought to put out quite a bit more energy than a ship, so it should be visible further out. Do these stars exist, but no one has yet happened to pass close enough to observe one while traveling in hyper?

If any do exist, wouldn't one of them be the ultimate Bolthole, which can't possibly show up on any star charts to attract a survey mission, because it can't be seen from any other star system? Living in one of these systems could be difficult due to the much-higher cosmic background radiation, so shielding would definitely be an issue. But is that a deal-breaker? Look at Grayson. People can live under very tough conditions.

TheMonster wrote:We know that the lowest alpha band of hyperspace corresponds to n-space at roughly 60:1 linear ratio and that the inherent energy level of hyperspace is higher, and higher, more-compressed bands have yet higher energies. 60³=216,000, which is quite a bit denser indeed.

If the total amount of energy contained in that lowest band of hyperspace is roughly equivalent to that of n-space, we should expect a lot of that energy to have turned into matter-antimatter pairs, and the same process that created n-space matter would presumably have led to (at least local) surpluses of either matter or antimatter. So that band should have an overall density of hydrogen (or antihydrogen) hundreds of thousands of times what n-space has.

And that means that there should be stars in hyper, fusing it into helium (or antihelium). The reduced inflation may mean that in some senses hyper is "younger" than n-space, so that not as many stars will have formed as we have here, but is it enough younger that there are no stars in the hyperspace that corresponds to the explored galaxy? If such stars do exist, have there been enough first-generation supernovae to produce the heavy elements from which planets, asteroids, etc. can be formed for second-generation star systems? What, if any, effect does any of this have on the grav waves that exist in hyper?

Speaking of gravity, do matter and energy warp hyperspace like they do n-space, producing the same gravitational effects upon which astrogenesis depends, or is there something about hyperspace that reduces that effect, as part of what causes the aforementioned grav waves? If stars can exist in hyper, can one of them have a wormhole terminus or junction associated with it? Does that terminus exist in the hyperspace band, or does it push "down" to n-space, causing a wormhole to exist in n-space nowhere near any gravitational anchor? If the worhmole is in hyper, does the other end necessarily terminate near another star in the same hyper band, or can a wormhole bridge bands, with one end in n-space or a different hyper band? Would wormholes that terminate in hyperspace tend to cover longer n-space-equivalent distances than the wormholes that terminate in n-space?

I realize that the higher density also makes it difficult to see ships more than a few light-minutes away, but a star ought to put out quite a bit more energy than a ship, so it should be visible further out. Do these stars exist, but no one has yet happened to pass close enough to observe one while traveling in hyper?

If any do exist, wouldn't one of them be the ultimate Bolthole, which can't possibly show up on any star charts to attract a survey mission, because it can't be seen from any other star system? Living in one of these systems could be difficult due to the much-higher cosmic background radiation, so shielding would definitely be an issue. But is that a deal-breaker? Look at Grayson. People can live under very tough conditions.

I wondered about that myself, but since we're talking fantasy physics, it's whatever DW says it is. However, consider:

The Universe of Honor Harrington wrote:The major problem limiting hyper speeds was that simply getting into hyper did not create a propulsive effect. Indeed, the initial translation into hyper was a complex energy transfer which reduced a starship's velocity by "bleeding off" momentum. In effect, a translating hypership lost approximately 92% of its normal-space velocity when entering hyper. This had unfortunate consequences in terms of reaction mass requirements, particularly since the fact that hydrogen catcher fields were inoperable in hyper meant one could not replenish one's reaction mass underway. On the other hand, the velocity bleed effect applied equally regardless of the direction of the translation (that is, one lost 92% of one's velocity whether one was entering hyper-space from normal-space or normal-space from hyper-space), which meant that leaving hyper automatically decelerated one's vessel to a normal-space velocity only 08% of whatever its velocity had been in hyper-space. This tremendously reduced the amount of deceleration required at the far end of a hyper voyage and so made reaction drives at least workable.

I have no idea why that's the case, but one possibility is that there is no matter in hyper.

I think it's fairly simple;

Gravity waves. Those do move around too, periodically. Any physical object forming in hyperspace would eventually find itself plunging into a gravity wave and, having no warsawski sail, being torn apart.




As for the ultimate bolthole, you don't need a star. Merely a sufficiently large space station to put all your production on it that is also hyper-capable.

JohnRoth wrote:

The Universe of Honor Harrington wrote:...This had unfortunate consequences in terms of reaction mass requirements, particularly since the fact that hydrogen catcher fields were inoperable in hyper meant one could not replenish one's reaction mass underway.

I have no idea why that's the case, but one possibility is that there is no matter in hyper.

That can't be, because somewhere there's textev about the high particle density in hyper. There has to be some kind of (anti)matter, and unless hyper is so hot that hadrons can't form out of the quark-gluon plasma, that means protons and electrons both exist (neutrons would be formed in hadronization, but if they're not accompanied by protons, they'd quickly decay into protons and Wˉ, which itself immediately becomes an electron and an antineutrino). And if they exist, then fusion can happen.

If some fundamental physics constant is actually a variable that depends on what "layer" of n/hyper you're in, such that hydrogen can't exist in hyper, then all of the people, of whose bodies 90+% is Dihydgrogen Monoxide, would be in big trouble.

So there can't be something about hyper that prevents hydrogen from existing. Also way it's worded, the problem isn't that there's no hydrogen, just that the fields don't work for some unexplained reason. Maybe hyper is so full of grav waves (including ones so weak that they don't threaten to destroy a ship running without a sail, and don't even "move the needle" of a Warshawski grav-wave detector) that they prevent the catcher fields from working, as well as break up any accumulation of hydrogen that could reach the temperature/pressure required for fusion.

Or... We know that a star or even a large planet has a hyper limit, which prevents anything from crossing the Alpha wall in one piece. Could it be that once enough matter accumulates that would produce a hyper limit in n-space, it's somehow pulled "down" to n-space by its own gravity field? That is, if those grav waves don't pull it apart before that can even happen.

TheMonster wrote:

JohnRoth wrote:

The Universe of Honor Harrington wrote:...This had unfortunate consequences in terms of reaction mass requirements, particularly since the fact that hydrogen catcher fields were inoperable in hyper meant one could not replenish one's reaction mass underway.

I have no idea why that's the case, but one possibility is that there is no matter in hyper.

That can't be, because somewhere there's textev about the high particle density in hyper.

Yeah, I remembered that after posting, but by then I was on my way to church.

There is definitely some kind of material in hyperspace. And it is denser than in normal space. However, that is not because hyperspace is "compressed" space. The _correlation_ between the alpha band of hyperspace and normal space is 62:1, but the space and matter in it are not "compressed". Hyperspace is not 216,000 times denser, as theMonster suggests. It is only 20% denser than the interplanetary medium. We know this because particle shielding lets merchant travel at 0.5 c in hyper instead of the 0.6 c they can reach in normal space.

We have no textev regarding the nature of the particles in hyperspace, except that it must be there are high levels of "radiation" of some kind, and that it distorts sensors badly. We do not know whether hyperspace has the same kind of fundamental particles that normal space does. Even if it does have the same type of particles, it does not mean that they would come together to form stars. Others have mentioned grav waves, but I would like to point out the even more ubiquitous gravitational distortions that are mentioned in the text. The reason that warshawski's have a limited detection range is because of these distortions. I picture a chaotic "sea" of gravitational ripples tossing matter about, breaking up any clumps that start to coalesce. This fits very nicely with the comparison between the Honorverse and 19th century sailing ships.

Still, the comparison with oceans brings up the possibility of a "Sargasso Sea" of hyperspace, where matter does manage to collect. We know that the density is not completely even; the 0.5 c limit is only an average. Perhaps there is indeed solid material in hyperspace somewhere (whatever form it takes). It wouldn't necessarily show up in the text.

SWM wrote: Hyperspace is not 216,000 times denser, as theMonster suggests.

I said it would be 216,000 times as dense if the same amount of energy is contained in the lowest Alpha band as in n-space. That wasn't intended to be a firm number, but a reference point

It is only 20% denser than the interplanetary medium. We know this because particle shielding lets merchant travel at 0.5 c in hyper instead of the 0.6 c they can reach in normal space.

That does not follow. There is not necessarily a linear scale between mean particle density and the point at which shielding fails. The relationship may be logarithmic. Also, part of the problem may be the effect of gravitational anomalies reducing the efficacy of shielding, independent of particle density.

We have no textev regarding the nature of the particles in hyperspace, except that it must be there are high levels of "radiation" of some kind, and that it distorts sensors badly. We do not know whether hyperspace has the same kind of fundamental particles that normal space does.

The only way that hyper could have different fundamental particles is if the laws of physics have some parameters that we currently understand to be constant, but are in fact variable displacement out of n-space. And if hyper has different fundamental particles, then how is it possible for starships full of humans and other things made of our fundamental particles to exist in hyper? Those same variable laws of physics might, for instance, cause our protons and neutrons to decay rapidly into esoteric particles that don't normally exist in n-space.

Others have mentioned grav waves, but I would like to point out the even more ubiquitous gravitational distortions that are mentioned in the text. The reason that warshawski's have a limited detection range is because of these distortions. I picture a chaotic "sea" of gravitational ripples tossing matter about, breaking up any clumps that start to coalesce. This fits very nicely with the comparison between the Honorverse and 19th century sailing ships.

Here we're arguing semantics. The "ubiquitous gravitational distortions" are the "weak grav waves" we've kicked around. They're not strong enough to pose a threat to ships, but are strong enough to interfere with sensors (including Warshawskis) and communications. If they are also able to prevent sufficient accumulation of matter to form stars, that's the explanation.

But if any of those grav distortions happen to have the effect of funneling hydrogen from a large space into one particular place, it may actually encourage the formation of stars.

SWM wrote:It is only 20% denser than the interplanetary medium. We know this because particle shielding lets merchant travel at 0.5 c in hyper instead of the 0.6 c they can reach in normal space.

No. Remember, kinetic energy, which is what shielding would care about, is proportional to the square of velocity.

A particle would have 1.44x as much energy at 0.6c as it would at 0.5c.

So has RFC ever answered this? What is in hyperspace? We know it's pretty, and looks like frozen lightning.

I had presumed that it was just like interstellar n-space, but "closer together", so that the hydrogen and helium atoms and whatnot would appear to be more dense.

Which led me to wonder, if you fill up a jar outside a ship in hyperspace, what happens when you bring the jar through the airlock or translate downward? Do the particles "decompress"?

Since the hyper-limit precludes it, I'd have no expectations of the translation of stars or planets in hyperspace, but say you're sitting on the hyper limit outside a star system. Can you observe the n-space star?

Norm.bone wrote:So has RFC ever answered this? What is in hyperspace? We know it's pretty, and looks like frozen lightning.

I had presumed that it was just like interstellar n-space, but "closer together", so that the hydrogen and helium atoms and whatnot would appear to be more dense.

Which led me to wonder, if you fill up a jar outside a ship in hyperspace, what happens when you bring the jar through the airlock or translate downward? Do the particles "decompress"?

Since the hyper-limit precludes it, I'd have no expectations of the translation of stars or planets in hyperspace, but say you're sitting on the hyper limit outside a star system. Can you observe the n-space star?

No, RFC has not really explained what is in hyperspace. But we do know that there are no stars in hyperspace. No, you cannot see or detect the n-space star or any other normal-space phenomenon from hyperspace.