If our universe was a collision of two branes when is the third one gonna hit and whipe everything out? Its such a moronic theory.
QUOTE
If our universe was a collision of two branes when is the third one gonna hit and whipe everything out? Its such a moronic theory.
Please explain why its so moronic. Is it moronic because you don't like the idea? Or is it moronic because you know something about it mathematically that I don't? If (I say if) this is true, we would have no idea, because inside of our brane we would not be able to see other branes. We would just have to wait and find out.
The form of the universe is the surface of an expanding hypersphere. The universe is finite yet unbounded. As Einstein said it is closed.
We are moving away from the center of the fourth dimension as the hypersphere expands. The 4th dimension is the originating dimension.
We are moving away from the center of the fourth dimension as the hypersphere expands. The 4th dimension is the originating dimension.
We are barely understanding the theories that relate to the creation of the universe. Everything we know is exactly just that, supposed theories. We can only but speculate on the matter. Einsteins theories or the Branes colliding theory are both under further studies.
Under my opinion though, the branes theory doesn't answer the bigger problem. It takes one dormant universe and another active one to make two active universes. But what created each one in the first place?
Under my opinion though, the branes theory doesn't answer the bigger problem. It takes one dormant universe and another active one to make two active universes. But what created each one in the first place?
QUOTE
We are barely understanding the theories that relate to the creation of the universe. Everything we know is exactly just that, supposed theories. We can only but speculate on the matter. Einsteins theories or the Branes colliding theory are both under further studies.
Under my opinion though, the branes theory doesn't answer the bigger problem. It takes one dormant universe and another active one to make two active universes. But what created each one in the first place?
Under my opinion though, the branes theory doesn't answer the bigger problem. It takes one dormant universe and another active one to make two active universes. But what created each one in the first place?
It only sort of doesn't answer the bigger problem. If there actually were more dimensions its possible that we live in a brane of 4 dimensions. IF is the key there. Because IF we live in a higher dimensional universe, we have learned a great deal more about the universe. We may still not know how the universe as we know it formed, but we would know how our little niche in it was. And as all good science does, it would just lead us to many more questions.
QUOTE
It only sort of doesn't answer the bigger problem. If there actually were more dimensions its possible that we live in a brane of 4 dimensions. IF is the key there. Because IF we live in a higher dimensional universe, we have learned a great deal more about the universe. We may still not know how the universe as we know it formed, but we would know how our little niche in it was. And as all good science does, it would just lead us to many more questions.
If I may.... The big bang is pretty much settled on as the creation event of our universe and has been proved by a number of experiments e.g. The cosmic microwave background the tricky part is figuring out where the huge amount of energy came from (since it was energy that created the mass we see E=mc^2). Branes theory If I remember correctly states there are multiples of branes existing very close together but never touching except at certain events. When a brane moves towards another brane it "speeds up" gaining kinetic energy. The brane moves faster and faster until it connects with the other brane at a single point (the singularity of the big bang) at this point all the kinetic energy of the branes (as it is possible that both branes move towards each other) is transferred into one and the branes then move apart. Inside the brane that just received this huge amount of energy at a single point is where the big bang comes into play. Imagine you shoot a bottle of cola with a gun at the point the bullet hits you see a rush of fizz spraying from the hole the same goes with the universe. All this energy cannot be contained at a single point and thus expands. The energy is transformed into the mass we see today for example two X-ray photons can generate an electron-positron pair (im not saying at the beginning of the universe all matter was created from X-rays I'm just saying that energy can be turned into matter) this requires allot of energy at the same place E=mc^2. The big bang spreads out and we get the universe as it is today. The difference between branes theory and others is that branes states our universe will not implode but simply everything will move further and further away and the universe will simply fade out and then in another n number of years the branes will collide again and the same process happens again.
Im not a PhD theoretical physicist and some of my information might be wrong. If it is please tell me as I would like to make sure I get it right the next time.
QUOTE (Steve0612+Jun 13 2011, 02:43 PM)
If I may.... The big bang is pretty much settled on as the creation event of our universe and has been proved by a number of experiments e.g. The cosmic microwave background the tricky part is figuring out where the huge amount of energy came from (since it was energy that created the mass we see E=mc^2). Branes theory If I remember correctly states there are multiples of branes existing very close together but never touching except at certain events. When a brane moves towards another brane it "speeds up" gaining kinetic energy. The brane moves faster and faster until it connects with the other brane at a single point (the singularity of the big bang) at this point all the kinetic energy of the branes (as it is possible that both branes move towards each other) is transferred into one and the branes then move apart. Inside the brane that just received this huge amount of energy at a single point is where the big bang comes into play. Imagine you shoot a bottle of cola with a gun at the point the bullet hits you see a rush of fizz spraying from the hole the same goes with the universe. All this energy cannot be contained at a single point and thus expands. The energy is transformed into the mass we see today for example two X-ray photons can generate an electron-positron pair (im not saying at the beginning of the universe all matter was created from X-rays I'm just saying that energy can be turned into matter) this requires allot of energy at the same place E=mc^2. The big bang spreads out and we get the universe as it is today. The difference between branes theory and others is that branes states our universe will not implode but simply everything will move further and further away and the universe will simply fade out and then in another n number of years the branes will collide again and the same process happens again.
Im not a PhD theoretical physicist and some of my information might be wrong. If it is please tell me as I would like to make sure I get it right the next time.
I'm not up on the Steinhardt and Turok model. I read their paper but I didn't retain much. I'm sure they have some mechanism which answers your query. I haven't read about any empirical support for the model. I prefer the Guth model which has empirical support from WMAP. It's easy to figure out where all the matter came from. Welcome to the forum.
http://web.mit.edu/physics/news/physicsatm...2_cosmology.pdf
Guths Eternal Inflation. This is really trippy since there is some recent evidence, analysis of CMBR, which looks like another universe went 'bumpity bump' with our universe.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdf
I have the paper on the possible 'bumpity bump' if you would be interested in checking it out?
QUOTE (Steve0612+Jun 13 2011, 02:43 PM)
If I may.... The big bang is pretty much settled on as the creation event of our universe and has been proved by a number of experiments e.g. The cosmic microwave background the tricky part is figuring out where the huge amount of energy came from (since it was energy that created the mass we see E=mc^2). Branes theory If I remember correctly states there are multiples of branes existing very close together but never touching except at certain events. When a brane moves towards another brane it "speeds up" gaining kinetic energy. The brane moves faster and faster until it connects with the other brane at a single point (the singularity of the big bang) at this point all the kinetic energy of the branes (as it is possible that both branes move towards each other) is transferred into one and the branes then move apart. Inside the brane that just received this huge amount of energy at a single point is where the big bang comes into play. Imagine you shoot a bottle of cola with a gun at the point the bullet hits you see a rush of fizz spraying from the hole the same goes with the universe. All this energy cannot be contained at a single point and thus expands. The energy is transformed into the mass we see today for example two X-ray photons can generate an electron-positron pair (im not saying at the beginning of the universe all matter was created from X-rays I'm just saying that energy can be turned into matter) this requires allot of energy at the same place E=mc^2. The big bang spreads out and we get the universe as it is today. The difference between branes theory and others is that branes states our universe will not implode but simply everything will move further and further away and the universe will simply fade out and then in another n number of years the branes will collide again and the same process happens again.
Im not a PhD theoretical physicist and some of my information might be wrong. If it is please tell me as I would like to make sure I get it right the next time.
I realized my post was a bit off topic. Here is a very recent paper on the topic you're discussing. Some very informative diagrams describimg the bang crunch cycle derived from the theory.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3606
Multi-dimensional thinking is very hard. And it's hard to separate out 'time' as a dimension (when thinking about dimensions higher than 5), while realising that there are analogous dimensions TO time in those higher dimensions.
So, in 4D, time doesn't change, it just is. But a 4D universe can have a fifth changing dimension that's not variable in the 5 dimension universe.
It's tough to understand.
Regarding branes: there's no need for there to be a 'when' another one collides, because the time dimension of branes is not the equivalent of what we think of as time. Their time dimension is merely the dimension along which they change.
So, in 4D, time doesn't change, it just is. But a 4D universe can have a fifth changing dimension that's not variable in the 5 dimension universe.
It's tough to understand.
Regarding branes: there's no need for there to be a 'when' another one collides, because the time dimension of branes is not the equivalent of what we think of as time. Their time dimension is merely the dimension along which they change.
^ I hate to break it to you but you obviously don't know how to think about multidimensional things such as branes in string theory. There aren't analogous time dimensions in higher dimensions in branes.
You say it is hard will pretending you understand it. You don't.
You say it is hard will pretending you understand it. You don't.
No, I'm pretty sure I'm right.
There's nothing about brane theory that demands that branes change along our dimension of time. Now, the theory is capable of having changes in branes with those changes corresponding to changes in our time dimension, but that's just because brane theory itself has a lot of wiggle-room.
The orientation between branes (er, 'between' not being quite the right word) can change, and brane theory requires that they do change. But their changing is within their own dimensional coordinates, which don't need to be within our (perceived) dimensional coordinates.
In fact, the language basically describes what I'm saying. We say "branes collided", which is analogues to something occurring along a time dimension. But there is no need for this change in the orientation between two branes to be along our time dimension. We can use brane collisions to create a universe that move towards complete entropy and infinite 'forward' time, without any additional change in the coordinates in which branes interact.
There's nothing about brane theory that demands that branes change along our dimension of time. Now, the theory is capable of having changes in branes with those changes corresponding to changes in our time dimension, but that's just because brane theory itself has a lot of wiggle-room.
The orientation between branes (er, 'between' not being quite the right word) can change, and brane theory requires that they do change. But their changing is within their own dimensional coordinates, which don't need to be within our (perceived) dimensional coordinates.
In fact, the language basically describes what I'm saying. We say "branes collided", which is analogues to something occurring along a time dimension. But there is no need for this change in the orientation between two branes to be along our time dimension. We can use brane collisions to create a universe that move towards complete entropy and infinite 'forward' time, without any additional change in the coordinates in which branes interact.
QUOTE (Nick+May 30 2006, 08:39 PM)
If our universe was a collision of two branes when is the third one gonna hit and whipe everything out? Its such a moronic theory.
It works for modern ID theory...
Features of the Universe and of Living Things
Big Bang Theory indicates the universe is expanding. Conservation of matter/energy additionally suggests a cyclic model of the universe where expansion is part of a wave in a sustained oscillation that changes polarity (matter to anti-matter) at a point in 3D space called a “singularity” (in 2D space the 0 or center Ground line on oscilloscope). In electronics, where nothing exists to distort the sustained oscillation of an oscillator, regardless of their waveform, complexity all waves are 100% identical. Adding harmonics would produce a variety of returning waveforms.
In a system where it is possible for each cycle to be like the last (or in a range) we must consider it to be deterministic, always the same result any time called with a specific set of input parameters. This is true of digital computers. As a result, the computer model of this theory relives the same lifetime over again every time it is restarted with the same input parameters, regardless of it using the systems random generator to take a guess. More appropriately, a digital computer is pseudorandom.
It might seem highly unlikely for either a digital computer or the universe to be this deterministic, yet for matter to be nondeterministic a chemical reaction would have to produce different results each time it is performed with a specific set of reactants and conditions. The computer model of self-learning intelligence is none the less autonomously making its own decisions, and has freewill.
http://sites.google.com/site/intelligencep...igentDesign.doc
It works for modern ID theory...
Features of the Universe and of Living Things
Big Bang Theory indicates the universe is expanding. Conservation of matter/energy additionally suggests a cyclic model of the universe where expansion is part of a wave in a sustained oscillation that changes polarity (matter to anti-matter) at a point in 3D space called a “singularity” (in 2D space the 0 or center Ground line on oscilloscope). In electronics, where nothing exists to distort the sustained oscillation of an oscillator, regardless of their waveform, complexity all waves are 100% identical. Adding harmonics would produce a variety of returning waveforms.
In a system where it is possible for each cycle to be like the last (or in a range) we must consider it to be deterministic, always the same result any time called with a specific set of input parameters. This is true of digital computers. As a result, the computer model of this theory relives the same lifetime over again every time it is restarted with the same input parameters, regardless of it using the systems random generator to take a guess. More appropriately, a digital computer is pseudorandom.
It might seem highly unlikely for either a digital computer or the universe to be this deterministic, yet for matter to be nondeterministic a chemical reaction would have to produce different results each time it is performed with a specific set of reactants and conditions. The computer model of self-learning intelligence is none the less autonomously making its own decisions, and has freewill.
http://sites.google.com/site/intelligencep...igentDesign.doc
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.