Is this word pretty generic now?

this is why i don't write sci-fi anymore, it's like you've got to have a phd in quantum physics to sound credible. obviously there're going to be plenty of theories out there.

something like this i agree with p, there wouldn't be an exhaust trail, per se, but there may be some kind of distortion of the area, sort of like a ripple. pair it up with a fancy term, and most regular people would probably bite. when you throw in the word 'signature,' that's not an exhaust trail, rather more like, for lack of a better term, space echo. i think you're totally cool if you wanted to use it. honestly, were it anything other than a specifically trademarked term (which i'd guess it'd have to be, but i'm not sure on that), i don't see how it's possible to get in trouble for using it. i think that if i write a sci-fi story with a great invention in it, but someone else actually invents it, i think i'm screwed on that. same thing here? it's already half generic terminology, eh?

i'd use it. seriously, what's the worst that can happen? they take your birthday away? lol.

I think you're right, preyer. It is pretty much generic, in that hyperspace is a broadly accepted and used 'bolognium' in sci-fi. If a writer used the phrase 'hyperspace signature', I can't see another writer objecting just because they used it in their story. I mean, just how many ways can you refer to evidence of a ship in hyperspace showing up on the detection equipment of another ship?

Hyperspace signature
Hyperspace echo
Hyperspace ping
Hyperspace reflection
Hyperspace trail
Hyperspace footprint
Hyperspace fingerprint
Hyperspace image
Hyperspace trace
Hey looky there, a ship in hyperspace!

You could always come up with a bit of shorthand, to make it sound a bit colloquial:

"Sir?" the operator said, "Scanners have picked up forty new hy-sigs. They don't look like friendlies."

They might even just say 'sigs' or 'flecs', though you'd have to establish this shorthand early on in the story, find a way to show the reader the full version before using the shorthand the rest of the way through. David Webber does this kind of thing really well in his Honor Harrington books.

i like the 'flecs' one the best. i don't know, would it be inappropriate to preface the story with a short glossary of terms? that's probably risky, but you might get away with it if you've got a really long story, no?

That would probably work in a book where a lot of the action will take place where this "lingo" would be used a lot and knowing it is crucial to understanding what's happening in the story. Weber does it by weaving it into the story; such as introducing characters new to the locale -- a new navigator on the bridge, or new gunner in the armoury of Harrington's starship, that sort of thing. Then the reader learns along with the rookie. Another way with a military ship would be to have the crew be all officious in the presence of a visiting dignitary, then lapse back to their slang afterward. There are lots of ways. You would just need to find the one that flows naturally out of the particular story.

To me, signature would relate to something that the ship leaves behind as it travels, something measurable like exhaust, or an altered or bend in the space around the vehicle.

Hyper-space, to me, seems to indicate a method of travel and not a propulsion method.

So the two words together for me doesn't make much sense.

How about Propulsion Signature or if they use Ion or Particle drives, the Ion or Particle Signatures?

Just to be pedantic about something that probably doesn't even exist, "hyperspace signature" sounds like a nonsense term to me. When they enter normal space, would you refer to their "normal space signature?" The medium a vessel travels in doesn't really mean anything when talking about the trace that vehicle leaves behind.

Maybe a few different analogies would work. Boots don't leave "mudtracks," they leave foot prints. Cars don't leave "road echos," they leave tire tracks. The space they're traveling through isn't even referenced. The thing leaving those tracks (boots, tires) are what's talked about, like "motorboat wake" or "engine exhaust." You're talking about the propulsion method.

That leaves you with "hyperdrive signature" or something similar, refering to the thing leaving the trail, not the space through which the thing travels.

And, yes, that's pretty generic. Nobody'll come after you for using hyperanything trace/trail/echo/whatever.

Good point, Galoot. Star Trek uses "warp signature" which they define as a measurement you can take with sensors of the effect a ship's warp drive has on the fabric of space/time.

Joe -- the sci-fi convention is that hyperspace is a place as opposed to a method of travel. Ships travel through hyperspace at faster-than-light speeds. But there the convention ends. How hyperspace works is entirely up to each author and there are probably as many different hyperspaces as there are sci-fi authors. Your point, however, is well taken. Place or method, hyperspace signature doesn't feel quite right since a signature suggests something "emitted" by the ship.

I keep going back to Webber because his books are so spaceship oriented. He has his ships "translating" from normal space into hyperspace and back again, using a gadget called a Warshowski (sp?) Sail. He has it worked out in incredible detail and it really gives his stories a sense of realism. You can't help but feel that if these 'sails' actually existed and worked the way he lays it out, this is exactly how a real ship's captain would make use of them. His books are great fun.

I like the simplicity of calling it hyperdrive signature, as you suggest above, Galoot. Definitely not a phrase you'd need to worry about another author believing they "own."

Talking quantum, has anyone done a novel of travelling through the "brane" (M theory, I think). The notion interests me, but I lack the science to understand it, so a fiction version (quantum for dummies?) would be nice.

Not familiar with the "brane", Jenny. Can you elaborate for us?

...just googled it. You're talking about superstring theory and 11-dimensional space and trying to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. Pardon me while I go lie down, I think I just blew an aneurysm.

I'm okay, it was just gas.

interesting points. not being much into sci-fi, i certainly wouldn't be entertained by webber, but for fans of his, perhaps hyperspace signature does sound off. being a complete layman, i'd have given the 'signature' part of it an 'evidence' connotation, so how a reader is most likely going to interpret 'signature' will probably alter the phrase itself. for me, it sounds perfectly fine, but there are plenty of armchair hawkings out there who'd be quick to disagree.

the 11th dimension? i thought the big bang theory involved only ten. where do they get 11 at?

wouldn't ya think the enterprise wouldn't have that background engine rumble?

wouldn't ya think the enterprise wouldn't have that background engine rumble?

Click to expand...

No kidding! They supposedly have "inertial dampers" that keep people from being squashed into paste when they accelerate at 100 or 1000 gees or something, you'd think they could figure out how to keep the motor from vibrating all the way up to the bridge!

Naturally, that kind of thing is a convention designed to keep the audience engaged in the action, but as a plausability exercise, it's rather silly. Same with the whoosh Trek spaceships make as they go by, or the scream Star Wars ships make. Hello? No air in space to transmit sound! But we all make allowances for these sorts of things, so I can certainly see your point about the word "signature" being the important one. I guess the author would have to know just how picky is target audience is and make choices like this accordingly.

the 11th dimension? i thought the big bang theory involved only ten. where do they get 11 at?

Click to expand...

The problem is that Einstein's theory of general relativity does not account for everything observable in the universe. It is incompatible with quantum mechanics. I'm far too dense to understand the deeper concepts, but in order for quantum mechanics to work, and observation shows that it does (I read somewhere that if quantum theory was wrong, cell phones wouldn't function), then there need to be more dimensions than Einstein postulated.

The four dimensions we humans can directly perceive are the three spatial dimensions, and time. The problem for using superstring-level dimensionality in a story as a foundation for faster-than-light travel is that the extra dimensions that allow for the existence of a superstring are incomprehensibly tiny. Physicists haven't even developed the mathematical tools to properly describe them yet. It would take someone pretty smart to figure out a plausible way to use them in a story that wouldn't have readers scratching their heads and wondering if the publisher had accidentally printed up a bunch of Steven Hawking's notes instead of the novel. Superstring theory is as cutting edge as it gets in physics. Writing a novel incorporating it now would be similar to writing one using E=mc2 before Einstein had published his paper describing the equation.

My brain hurts every time I try to learn a little more about it. Just google "superstring theory" and you'll see what I mean.

Sounds in vacuum?

ChunkyC said:

No kidding! They supposedly have "inertial dampers" that keep people from being squashed into paste when they accelerate at 100 or 1000 gees or something, you'd think they could figure out how to keep the motor from vibrating all the way up to the bridge!

Naturally, that kind of thing is a convention designed to keep the audience engaged in the action, but as a plausability exercise, it's rather silly. Same with the whoosh Trek spaceships make as they go by, or the scream Star Wars ships make. Hello? No air in space to transmit sound! But we all make allowances for these sorts of things, so I can certainly see your point about the word "signature" being the important one. I guess the author would have to know just how picky is target audience is and make choices like this accordingly.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that explosions have sound as well--or that the sound arrives at the same moment as the explosion is seen, even though the explosion is usually very far from the observers. These things ARE to mollify the general audience: unlike those of us here, who know better. I would like sometime to take a film such as, say, Star Wars, Episode 4, and remove all sound that emanates from any event in the vacuum of space. I wonder how much it would detract from the effect. To me, it would enhance the experience.

In a similar vein, have you noticed that in EVERY where there is a lightning storm, the sound of the thunder accompanies the flash of the lightning bolt? I can't think of any that don't. Now, this is surely possible, IF you are right next to the thing. Problem is, that when you're that close, the sound is not only ear-shattering, it's bone crunchingly loud. I'm always amazed that the characters in these films don't react properly to such events. Twice, I was within less than a hundred meters from lightning strikes. Believe me, you want to find a safe, dark place with a very thick (and electrically insulated) roof. Actually, in both instances, it took me a second or two to realize what had just happened.

To me, it would enhance the experience.

Click to expand...

You hit on one of the big reasons why 2001: A Space Odyssey is such a remarkable film. They stayed true to scientific knowledge, including the stuff about sound in a vacuum (other than the musical score, natch). I saw the film in it's first theatrical release (I think I was eleven) and when that little moon ship was zipping along above the lunar surface in absolute silence, I was riveted.

my step-father-in-law has been struck by lightning. if you knew him you'd find that hilarious. i still derive amusement from him being scared during lightning storms.

anyway, once you start getting into superstrings and such, i'm so out of my element i don't even attempt to comprehend it. my brain just doesn't work like that. i hate math, too. anything with formulas and equations i skip right to the end. some people love that stuff, though, and can't get enough of it. for me, if it's something you can't explain in a nova episode, count me out, lol. at the same time, things beyond practical plausability i want to have some basis to believe in, usually.

some other well-worn, often noted sci-fi cliches:

laser guns that have massive recoil

space fighters that are able to lift-off with no apparent anti-gravity apparatus, yet rely on very mundane technology for propulsion

holographic wristwatches

space pants that bind in the crotch

small space fighters who can get shot all to hell yet still re-enter an atmosphere without going up like flash paper

can you imagine what the star wars' cantina's bathroom must look like?

everyone can navigate an asteroid belt, and when asteroids collide they explode as if they were made by korean car companies

hand-held scanners that not only contain the sum of all universal knowledge, but can give you the gastric readout of a fly's fart from the other side of the planet

humanity of the future isn't so completely bored with their trite lives that they have more or less lost all sex drive

the general populace are trusted with flying vehicles, while people now can barely use the land-based versions

the biggest form of entertainment in the future is talking through personal issues

holographs that are able to move around anywhere

robots with personal issues. here's a newsflash, kronkite-- reset the damn thing. better yet, get a new one

'robot gladiators' are considered 'low-brow' entertainment

every piece of new technology *isn't* tested out for their sexual implications first. trust me, if we ever figure out anti-gravity, people will want to do it while floating over their bed. just watch out for the ceiling fan

everyone has a job they love

all social issues have been worked out to everyone's liking

people trust authority figures, who are always honest and brave

no one smokes, people have zero individuality, and there is no poor class

dogs have become extinct. you're allowed a robot parrot

they have so much technology they no longer feel the need for god/s

one of my personal favourites from 'the empire strikes back'-- you can crash your ship in a swamp, let it sink to the bottom of said swamp, and after a few daze drying time everything works just fine. not only that, when it's time to leave, you climb the ladder up to the cockpit and take off with it hanging off the side of your ship. i guess artoo reached his slot by luke or yoda raising him up? and, really, from a practical side, what the hell do you need an expensive astromech droid for, anyway? when a ship blows up, it's just another piece of equipment you've lost. good plan, rebels. who finances you guys, anyway, microsoft?

you can derive complex ideas from a creature's mono-syllabic grunt

Ah, those laser weapons. The soldiers fight with them as though they were projectile rifles: aim at the target, pull the trigger, zap! How absurd! If it were me, I'd hold the trigger down and just wave the thing about, not bothering to aim at all.

Then, there are idiocies such as in Star Gate SG1 (and its derivitives) where they use machine guns, spraying bullets around inside space ships willy-nilly. Must be some hulls they have. I am just waiting for someone to fire a 9mm Glock in a shuttle craft, miss the target (as they usually do) and then say, 'oops' as their atmosphere slowly seeps away.

can you imagine what the star wars' cantina's bathroom must look like?

Click to expand...

Gotta remember that one!

I also like how ships bank into a turn in space where there's no air for wind resistance. Just rotate the thing to face the direction you want to go and fire the thrusters!

Another one is how the Republic ship at the beginning of The Phantom Menace is landing in the space station (there appears to be artificial gravity in the station, people and machinery are walking and rolling around the deck, not the walls) and these manouevering jets come on just as it slowly settles down to the deck. If the ship's antigrav engines are powerful enough to hold the whole ship up, why do they need rockets that might fry any ground crew nearby?

Hi ChunkyC, glad it wasn't an aneurysm - and glad I wasn't in the room when you found that out.

My brain gets all confused when I try to think quantum, but my interest in the "brane" was because I wondered if it might mean a different sort of space travel. Worm holes and hyperspace have to give way to something new soon. Someone wrote that the quantum universe (ours, no matter how little we understand or perceive it) does NOT have a cause-and-effect structure. That opens the door wide for weird science.

Look at entanglement which Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". Entangled particles mean that what one is doing in America, another will replicate wherever else it is. Which may mean (and I'm no expert) that although separated by space, they are one entity. Apparently the concept is being looked at for cryptography.

Quantum stuff blows my mind. I only wish I understood it, but you're right. I doubt anyone could wrap the way out and detailed science into a fiction story. Still, there was no damage in hoping.

Jen

ChunkyC said:

I also like how ships bank into a turn in space where there's no air for wind resistance. Just rotate the thing to face the direction you want to go and fire the thrusters!

Click to expand...

There is a reasonable explanation for doing this: When a ship is underway, it would no doubt use more energy to shut down the torch, turn, and relight the torch to go in a new direction. But this does bring up another dilemma: Ever notice that when underway, the ships' torches are ALWAYS lit? Where do they store the fuel for all that accelleration? In current technology, a ship burns a goodly portion of its fuel, then coasts. What little fuel remains is to brake at the destination. And THAT brings up yet another dilemma: in most SciFi films, the ships you see just stop. How?

Another one is how the Republic ship at the beginning of The Phantom Menace is landing in the space station (there appears to be artificial gravity in the station, people and machinery are walking and rolling around the deck, not the walls) and these manouevering jets come on just as it slowly settles down to the deck. If the ship's antigrav engines are powerful enough to hold the whole ship up, why do they need rockets that might fry any ground crew nearby?

Click to expand...

Why, to show that the ships have "brakes" of course. See above.

i love how the millenium falcon lands gracefully using little landing thrusters that couldn't light my cigar for the amount of time they stay on, not to mention have any bearing on a 100 ton ship (or however heavy it is).

i'm sure most of us are pretty huge 'red dwarf' fans, eh? several years ago i visited a 'red dwarf' site where the guy answers all of the weird scientific questions that seemed like holes. after a few minutes my eyes began to swim.

here's a question i posed a long time ago and, let it to me, turned it into a big row:

if you shot a lead bullet at a lightsabre, would the bullet be deflected, absorbed, or split in two?

anyway, ever notice how men in the future never have to shave? hell, they don't even get a five o'clock shadow.

humanoid robots always walk with a human gait.

no ship has any kind of automatic targetting system. sure, they'll tell you *when* you've got the target in your sights, but the computer doesn't do one thing to help you get the enemy in the crosshairs. you'd think all you'd have to do is actually see the target, the weapons adjust to that point by virtue of tracking your eye movements, you pull the trigger and poof. *anything* is better than making minour ship movements until your fixed cannons happen to cross their path.

most fat women in the future have four boobs to compensate for their additional mass.

the ultimate security system of the future relies on fingerprint scans, retina scans, and voice recognition, as if the combination of all these things are unbeatable. gee, like i can't pop the guy's eyes out, cut off his hands, and use a voice recording to get inside the lab. basically, all this fancy crap still pales in comparison to having to pass through a security checkpoint where the guard is actually doing his job.

robot guards of the future don't have a built-in auto-targetting system, either, that's why they can't hit the broad side of a sandcrawler at point-blank range.

junkyards of space have an old blafomian xc-67 model B, version 7.1 that you need, though they've been out of production for a thousand years and came from the other side of the universe.

all forms of life play a stringed instrument, because no culture considers banging rocks against their skulls to be a form of music.

in an earth-like atmosphere, twenty-foot tall humans have no problem getting around, neverminding it defies all laws of physiology. same is true for creatures six inches tall.

even in space, girl scout cookies are still overrated and expensive.

junkyards of space have an old blafomian xc-67 model B, version 7.1 that you need, though they've been out of production for a thousand years and came from the other side of the universe.

Click to expand...

Maybe that's where quantum mechanics and 11 dimensions come in, so that junkyards 100yds on a side can contain at least one of every piece of technology produced over a period of a millennium in a starfaring civilization with a million worlds.

I still think it was great that Watto's junkyard in The Phantom Menace has a pod from the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I always wondered where that ended up.