Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
Whenever two Branes "touch" it causes another Big Bang.....creating a new universe with NEW Physical laws. I think I got that "mostly" correct.
Well, maybe. When they make contact, they might trigger the formation of a new Big Bang that results in the formation of a new universe. But it's also possible branes could interact in other ways. For example, one or more branes could mix in with another one. Sort of like colliding galaxies. Galaxies that collide sometimes form a larger galaxy. Branes might do the same. Or perhaps one brane might oscillate in a way that only a piece of it enters our brane universe, then oscillates back out of it again.
A new universe might indeed have very different physics, maybe even different dimensions, with weird stuff we can't even imagine. Some universes might vanish almost immediately after its initial attempt to expand. Some universes might not have any stars or galaxies.
Some might have physics and dimensions similar to ours, but still be uniquely different in how they develop. Or some might be on the order of holographs or fractals.
It's also possible we may perceive our own universe completely wrong. What we see as our universe might be much larger and older than we imagine. It might be similar to galactic clusters, except with other universe-sized clusters far beyond our view. Like a mega universe. The possibilities are endless.
We won't likely ever have a positive confirmation to prove or disprove that there are any universes beyond or outside of our own. It's possible we might be able to detect or infer something outside of our own, but we'd still never be able to make a direct observation of it. You can't see it from here.
Well, maybe. When they make contact, they might trigger the formation of a new Big Bang that results in the formation of a new universe. But it's also possible branes could interact in other ways. For example, one or more branes could mix in with another one. Sort of like colliding galaxies. Galaxies that collide sometimes form a larger galaxy. Branes might do the same. Or perhaps one brane might oscillate in a way that only a piece of it enters our brane universe, then oscillates back out of it again.
A new universe might indeed have very different physics, maybe even different dimensions, with weird stuff we can't even imagine. Some universes might vanish almost immediately after its initial attempt to expand. Some universes might not have any stars or galaxies.
Some might have physics and dimensions similar to ours, but still be uniquely different in how they develop. Or some might be on the order of holographs or fractals.
It's also possible we may perceive our own universe completely wrong. What we see as our universe might be much larger and older than we imagine. It might be similar to galactic clusters, except with other universe-sized clusters far beyond our view. Like a mega universe. The possibilities are endless.
We won't likely ever have a positive confirmation to prove or disprove that there are any universes beyond or outside of our own. It's possible we might be able to detect or infer something outside of our own, but we'd still never be able to make a direct observation of it. You can't see it from here.
As far as the theory goes Branes are seperate spacetime continuims and when they occasionally touch the energy release would be tremendous and the Branes "rebound" off of one another....this may be part of the explanation of Brane movement.
As far as the theory goes Branes are seperate spacetime continuims and when they occasionally touch the energy release would be tremendous and the Branes "rebound" off of one another....this may be part of the explanation of Brane movement.
And indeed they probably would contain separate spacetime continuums, but a brane is also something beyond spacetime. However, that doesn't mean that couldn't interlap or become somewhat entangled if they oscillate. The thing is that there are a number of ways to illustrate what a brane is and what they might do. The problem is that it's extremely difficult for an illustration (or example) to depict the reality of something like a brane which is intangible.
There are plausible mathematical theories about branes, but how do you actually go about testing something that's outside of spacetime? There are several theories about branes. What you've suggested has gained some popular support, and sounds like a reasonable theory to me as well. But we don't really know if there are branes beyond the spacetime of our own brane universe, much less know if they rebound and touch off tremendous energy from contact. I agree that it may be part of the explanation, but it may or may not be right.
Branes are often depicted as flat layers, one on top of the other. Somewhere among those layers is the brane that contains our universe. If our universe is sandwiched between two branes, one above and one below (or however else you want to think of it), then it's possible for either of those branes to flucuate through ours, that is the part of the brane that comes into contact. It may be an extremely small part of a brane that merges into another. If that happens to our universe, then it's possible that some kind of strange anomaly may show up somewhere in our universe as a result of that merging.
For example, gravity is regarded as a weak force, very weak. When you consider all that's in the universe, you'd think that gravity should be much stronger. But it isn't. There are some thoughts that gravity might be "leaking" out of the universe in some way. One possibility is that it could be leaking into another brane. If there are occasional mergings between branes, that might explain why gravity has become a weak force in our universe.
It's often depicted and easy to think of branes as a boundry or outer skin surrounding the universe. But that's not the case at all. If branes exist, they may exist at the Planck scale. One also has to wonder what exists between branes? Hard to say, but for lack of a better description, it might be thought of as hyperspace. That conjures of thoughts of some other kind of space, except it isn't space at all. Space is something within the boundries of three dimensions. But there is no space-time in hyperspace because it's outside of our universe. Spacetime is contained within our universe. Okay, that seems to make sense, but only until things get more complicated and say that there is no outside of the universe. There is no edge to it. It's just this enormous expansion that resulted from the Big Bang.
The way I understand branes (and I could be completely wrong) is that it is probably the same thing as the strings in String theory. Strings may exist both at the macro scale and the quantum scale at the same time. Branes might simply be macro strings that oscillate. The reason why things are the way they are in the universe (physics, dimensions, you name it), or any other universe, may depend on the frequency of how the string oscillates. Different frequencies of macro strings may produce different results, which could also mean different kinds of universes. But strings at the quantum scale, maybe even at the Planck scale, oscillating at different frequencies would probably be why there's a difference between us and stars even though we are made of the same stuff as stars. The atoms are just arranged differently.
And if a person isn't happy about brane universes, there's always bubble universes in a hyperspace of quantum foam. LOL!
And indeed they probably would contain separate spacetime continuums, but a brane is also something beyond spacetime. However, that doesn't mean that couldn't interlap or become somewhat entangled if they oscillate. The thing is that there are a number of ways to illustrate what a brane is and what they might do. The problem is that it's extremely difficult for an illustration (or example) to depict the reality of something like a brane which is intangible.
There are plausible mathematical theories about branes, but how do you actually go about testing something that's outside of spacetime? There are several theories about branes. What you've suggested has gained some popular support, and sounds like a reasonable theory to me as well. But we don't really know if there are branes beyond the spacetime of our own brane universe, much less know if they rebound and touch off tremendous energy from contact. I agree that it may be part of the explanation, but it may or may not be right.
Branes are often depicted as flat layers, one on top of the other. Somewhere among those layers is the brane that contains our universe. If our universe is sandwiched between two branes, one above and one below (or however else you want to think of it), then it's possible for either of those branes to flucuate through ours, that is the part of the brane that comes into contact. It may be an extremely small part of a brane that merges into another. If that happens to our universe, then it's possible that some kind of strange anomaly may show up somewhere in our universe as a result of that merging.
For example, gravity is regarded as a weak force, very weak. When you consider all that's in the universe, you'd think that gravity should be much stronger. But it isn't. There are some thoughts that gravity might be "leaking" out of the universe in some way. One possibility is that it could be leaking into another brane. If there are occasional mergings between branes, that might explain why gravity has become a weak force in our universe.
It's often depicted and easy to think of branes as a boundry or outer skin surrounding the universe. But that's not the case at all. If branes exist, they may exist at the Planck scale. One also has to wonder what exists between branes? Hard to say, but for lack of a better description, it might be thought of as hyperspace. That conjures of thoughts of some other kind of space, except it isn't space at all. Space is something within the boundries of three dimensions. But there is no space-time in hyperspace because it's outside of our universe. Spacetime is contained within our universe. Okay, that seems to make sense, but only until things get more complicated and say that there is no outside of the universe. There is no edge to it. It's just this enormous expansion that resulted from the Big Bang.
The way I understand branes (and I could be completely wrong) is that it is probably the same thing as the strings in String theory. Strings may exist both at the macro scale and the quantum scale at the same time. Branes might simply be macro strings that oscillate. The reason why things are the way they are in the universe (physics, dimensions, you name it), or any other universe, may depend on the frequency of how the string oscillates. Different frequencies of macro strings may produce different results, which could also mean different kinds of universes. But strings at the quantum scale, maybe even at the Planck scale, oscillating at different frequencies would probably be why there's a difference between us and stars even though we are made of the same stuff as stars. The atoms are just arranged differently.
And if a person isn't happy about brane universes, there's always bubble universes in a hyperspace of quantum foam. LOL!
My head hurts now. Think it's time for a nap.
I totally agree about the "missing gravity"...just seems like it is not has powerful as current theories suggest. And I too think of bBranes as "flat strings", I can only explain it in my own terminology; I too get a terrible headache thinking about this stuff...but I love it and I think "the foam or bubble concept also has merit...but something I read swayed me toward that Brane point of view...later.
I don't think there are enough zeros in the world to depict how many there are. I know, I watch the science channel too. Fascinating isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saturdayskids
We've known that there's more than one universe for a very long time. Well, not known for certain, but "scientists" have been very sure of it for a long time. Nothing new.
Are you kidding? That's where I heard the first theory of multiverses, scientists themselves, history, national geographic and discovery channels. I watch all I can catch on cable of it.
I like to watch certain TV preachers talk about heaven, which I accept as truth but we won't be able to prove until we die. That is called faith.
You like to watch scientific preachers talk about multiverses, which you accept as truth but which the scientists themselves acknowledge as unprovable. Yet you call that science.
I fail to see the difference. It looks like faith to me.
I like to watch certain TV preachers talk about heaven, which I accept as truth but we won't be able to prove until we die. That is called faith.
You like to watch scientific preachers talk about multiverses, which you accept as truth but which the scientists themselves acknowledge as unprovable. Yet you call that science.
I fail to see the difference. It looks like faith to me.
As more powerful particle accelerators are built, like the Large Hadron Collider, we get more information about the fundamental laws of nature.....like finding the Higgs Boson. Science seeks the truth..nothing more and nothing less. Science does NOT dispute that there may be a 'God" and that before the Big Bang we are totally clueless. It is Religion that tries to dictate truths and not actually find the truth. When science does not suit religion it is discarded NEVER the other way around. Remember the Inquisition and Gallileo...and the flat Earth theory of the Church....people killed for telling the truth....this is where people loose respect for religion for I think God knows the planet is an "egg" shaped spheroid and NOT flat; why is religion afraid of the truth? Science is truth and when Science is wrong or does not have an answer...we freely admit....we do not "silence" the opposition. May Gallileo rest in peace...they "tortured" that man! Science and religion are compatible in my mind....a lot of scientifically orientated people feel that way also. Religion is too inflexible, never admits mistakes as in the Crusades...justifies violence and hate....these are its issues....that it must deal with....science is not your enemy but religion has and will again attack science if it undermines the churches power....that's history and the truth. P.S. I am somewhat religious and was raised Roman Catholic. Good Debate...thanx.
Last edited by PITTSTON2SARASOTA; 06-28-2009 at 06:51 PM..
Many of us are also science educated...we don't rely on TV. I read Scientific American and other science orientated publications. Religion preaches dogma ....science preaches fact. Why do you mock and attack science.....loosing faith??? LOL...I am secure in my beliefs like the Earth took billions of years to evolve...not days......etc. I do not need religion to prop up my belief system, and why is religion hostile towards science or anyone/anything that questions....see science questions everything to find the ultimate beauty or truth in the universe; it is not out to get religion! Your post helps lend credence to a belief that religion "destroys" whatever interferes with its control of the masses. NOONE ever said boo-hoo....till you started up seemingly with an agenda to fulfill. I bet you love your computer...science brought the technology to fruitioin; if science is BS as you seem to think than why can you keyboard to people around the (used to be flat) world.
I totally agree about the "missing gravity"...just seems like it is not has powerful as current theories suggest. And I too think of bBranes as "flat strings", I can only explain it in my own terminology; I too get a terrible headache thinking about this stuff...but I love it and I think "the foam or bubble concept also has merit...but something I read swayed me toward that Brane point of view...later.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who have various views about gravity, but current theories do consider gravity as a weak force. Or maybe you just got that reversed. What's at odds is trying to figure out why it's so weak. I'm not sure anyone has nailed it down yet. There is some speculation about leakage out of the universe, but as far as I know, there's no evidence showing that gravity is leaking out of or into the universe. Here's one view that thinks leakage might be happening. Keep in mind that even if it's true, we have little need to be concerned that we'll find outselves floating off the planet any time soon. LOL! SPACE.com -- Leaking Gravity May Explain Cosmic Puzzle
Anyway, the only reason I mentioned it is because if gravity is leaking out of the universe, it could provide a clue to a multiverse, or as suggested in the article, it could suggest the presence of some extra hidden dimensions.
M-theory comes close to solving the concept of superstrings. It pretty well ties a lot of things together. Of course, branes and strings aren't flat or any other shape, even though we might visualize them like a stack of flat sheets or cosmic walls. They're nothing more than vibrations or oscillations of different frequencies (I'm not sure I'm saying that right). What causes these vibrations is anyone's guess. I certainly have no idea. Nor does anyone else. Thinking of strings as being flat is sort of like thinking of neutrons as tiny round solid spheres, or where the edge of the universe is located, or how far you have to go to reach the end of east. Obviously such concepts have no real meaning. But we still use examples to visualize them and express them to other people.
I agree the bubble universe idea has plausible features, or at least interesting ones. There are a couple of views about such bubble multiverses that have caught my attention.
Bubble Bobble Branes
This is based on the impression that our universe is like a gigantic expanding cosmic bubble. Our own bubble universe may be one of countless other bubble universes, close to or right next to each other, all bobbing around in a hyperspace sea of quantum foam. Some may remain independent. Some bubble universes might merge with other universes creating an even larger bubble universe. Others may just pop out of existence before they even have a chance to start expanding. Some may contain stars and galaxies and life like the one we live in. Others may have physics that simply don't allow the formation of anything and may be empty, or have other kinds of weird physics and dimensions that generate different results.
Mega/Fractal Universe?
Another exotic view is that our own universe may be much larger and older than we imagine. The idea seems to be somewhat akin with the Steady State universe theory that Sir Fred Hoyle proposed which was pretty much discarded in favor of the Big Bang. Hoyle was correct about some things, but his view regarding the origins of the universe was severely limited. A Megaverse or Fractal Universe, like Bubble universes, are more like imagining universes on steroids in comparison to the Steady State universe.
We only have a limited view of our own universe. That's because at some point, the light is just too far to have reached us yet. Regardless, we can never see the beginning stages of the universe because early particles were beginning to form and had not yet reached the point (in quantity) to start attracting and clumping together enough for stars to form and generate light. Indeed the early universe would have been a very dark, hot, rapid expansion of spacetime and the initial expansion could well have been even faster than the speed of light. Regardless, the light of the most distant things in the universe simply haven't had enough time to reach us. And the idea that the universe is still expanding and at an increasing rate, may mean that we'll never see beyond a certain point. The light will always remain out of reach. I suspect what we see as the speeding up of the expansion might be an illusion. Anyway, it means our view of the universe is limited to what is known as the observable universe. Even that may change if galaxies continue to become more distant from each other over time. In the distant future, all other galaxies may become so remote that they're no longer visible to us. In a sense, the visible universe would be confined to what we see in our own galaxy. That's a peachy thought, isn't it?
Could the observable universe simply be part of an even larger Mega Universe? Our universe might be similar to galaxies and galactic superclusters, except on a much larger scale. Far beyond our view at distances so vast that it makes the observable universe seem small, there might be other clusters of universes scattered all over within this imagined Megaverse. Even the Megaverse might only be part of something larger than that. That starts smacking at the idea of the universe as being something rather fractal in nature.
Life On Subatomic Particles?
On the other end of the size chart, there are obviously scales much smaller than the scale we ourselves occupy. Some people have wondered if there might be life existing on atoms or subatomic particles. That's silly, because they're very different things. Protons, neutrons, etc., can't do very much on their own, not to mention they aren't physical things. But combined to form atoms, they become part of the foundation that in massive numbers allow for the existance of life.
How Low Can You Go?
Even protons and all subatomic particles seem to be composed of something. That's where it gets into the weirdness of quantum scale. And what about quantum particles? One thought is that they are the result of tiny strings that oscillate at different frequencies, different frequencies cause different kinds of quantum particles. Even smaller than the quantum scale is thought to be the Planck scale. I have no idea what's going on there or whether that's as far as small can go or not. At a wild guess, the Planck scale may be some kind of foam of strings that oscillate and wobble with peaks and valleys that in certain combinations provide the formation of quantum particles.
So we as human beings might be pretty close to the lowest end of the fractal scale of everything. The highest scales could go above that of a Megaverse indefinately. It's kind of hard to conceive, and even harder to make sense of. The point is that there may indeed be something, perhaps at the Planck scale or an even smaller scale, that simply has always been around and always will. But we just don't know, and we might never really get to the bottom (or the top) of it.
Fractal Vs Steady State Vs Big Bang
It differs from the Steady State of the universe though, because Hoyle's Steady State theory assumes that our own universe has always been around. That doesn't seem to be the case. Our universe looks like it had a beginning before which it did not exist. However, it could have formed much in the same way as galaxies do, except on a much larger scale. With a megaverse or fractal universe there's no real limit to large scales, or small scales unless something like the Planck level is the lowest point. My bet would be on something even smaller than the Planck scale.
That might seem to indicate there would've been no Big Bang. Not so. The MBR seems to show something big happened a long time ago. A Fractal Universe or Megaverse does not necessarily rule out the Big Bang of our universe any more than we could rule out super-sized super novas in the galaxy. The difference is that the Big Bang may be an event that can happen more than once within a Megaverse. If it happened somewhere else in the Megaverse, it would be so distant, we'd never know about it.
Is the Ultimate Answer 42?
I suppose one objective of science is to discover the ultimate source or beginning of everything as well as the ultimate end of everything. Where did everything come from? Where's it all going? It's pretty hard to envison ultimate limits, especially when taking into account an infinate number of probable outcomes which leaves us with the idea that there really are no limits. So would it really make any difference if we discover whether or not multiverses exist? In some ways, probably not. But in other ways, the search could lead to other new discoveries or spin-offs that could benefit everyone in one way or another. And it could also give us a much greater knowledge and appreciation of all the things around us.
Okay, my brane is acting up again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
Linear Mode
