M-Brane theory

[Moontanman]

One veiw of an alternitive to big Bang theory. Brane theory accounts for what happened before the universe as we know came into existance as well as how it came to be.

 

SPACE.com -- 'Brane-Storm' Challenges Part of Big Bang Theory

[Moontanman]

I would be wary of this article. The thing you have to remember about string theory and branes and anything with extra dimensions are pretty much fringe theories at best. They are mostly conjecture; most do not make testable predictions, and not a single shred of evidence exists that supports these theories (I know there are many out there who would object to this statement given their popularity, but come on! We all know it's true....)

 

Also, we don't even know if there was anything before the big bang, so a theory that proposes to account for it should raise some red flags....

 

I would have to say the same about the Big Band theory as well. I mean everything in the universe as well as the universe, space and time suddenly appearing out of absolutely nothing? Both are equally untestable and conjecture but Brane theory at least suggests that something didn't have to come from nothing. I can see the higher dimensions easier than I can see something from nothing. As for something before the Big Bang, the Brane theory idea that something has always existed sounds better than nothing before a certian time. I'm not trying to be difficult I just don't see how BB is better than Brane theory.

[Moontanman]

Well, no, the Big Bang Theory has a great deal of evidence supporting it, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation. And the Big Bang theory isn't a statement about what came before or during the event itself, for the plain reason that General Relativity breaks down under those conditions. And it does NOT state that everything came from nothing.

 

Brane theory and others like it on the other hand is pure conjecture, as there is no evidence whatsoever for extra dimensions or parallel universes, it makes no testable predictions and it doesn't seem to really account for anything. Sure, the mathematics might be pretty and the concept of it might be exciting, but until there is physical evidence those theories will remain on the fringe (and are probably wrong....). The article doesn't even include the mathematics in it anyways, it's mostly filled with sound bites and a description of how willing people are to delude themselves.

 

While I agree that brane theory is pure conjecture it does indeed allow for the very same background radiation the BB does. BB is purely mathematics as is Brane theory, both account for the universe we see today. Exactly what did the BB come from? What physical evidence supports the BB that excludes Brane theory. I am more than willing to learn but I don't see simply taking the word of BB any more than Brane theory or Brane over BB for that matter. Brane theory is just a better theory because it does allow for before the universe as we see it existed and even predicts what that might have been. I can see how the BB could be figured out by working back from now to the beginning but the fact it breaks down at some point makes me think it doesn't describe reality all that well. The break down indicates to me it's not a true description of how things came to be. To work past that point requires Brane theory or something similar or at least something other than BB.

[Moontanman]

No, BB is not just pure mathematics. It has made testable predictions, of which has actually been confirmed. Get a textbook on cosmology (or take a class in it) and you can see for yourself.

 

 

 

And that is an argument from ignorance. Just because there is no physical evidence that goes against the existence of branes doesn't mean that it is correct or better. After all, there is no evidence that disproves the existence of ether either, but that doesn't mean that it exists.

 

 

 

Even predicts what might have been? Sorry, but "what might have been" just doesn't cut it. There are a whole bunch of things that could have been, but weren't.

 

Brane theory doesn't really make any testable predictions whatsoever, unlike the Big Bang theory. And besides, you completely ignored my earlier point about the fact that the Big Bang theory doesn't make any statements about what came before it, or what lies outside of it.

 

 

 

Read the above post. Besides, do you even know where and how the name "big bang" was coined? So far, you are proving that you don't really know what you are talking about.

 

And, ALL of our theories break down at some point. Newtonian mechanics, for example, breaks down at subatomic scales. Just because they break down doesn't make them wrong, or unable to describe reality. Newtonian physics describes reality quite well, as does the BBT.

 

 

 

 

No it does not. It requires a theory that can make testable predictions, and a theory that does not break down at the supposed conditions of the so-called primordial atom. Not a theory that is pure conjecture.

 

I'm not ignorant, I acknowledge brane theory is conjecture but I'll say it again so is BBT, until I see something that BBT predicts that excludes brane theory I cannot say one is better than the other. Actually the theory of ether has been disproved, SR would not be true if their was an either.

 

I have read cosmology books and BBT theory is simply working backwards to prove what you already see. Brane theory is the same thing, just another approch. Saying that brane theory doesn't predict anything isn't exactly the situation. Brane theory just doesn't prdict anything different than BBT other than the lack of a point BB.

 

I know BBT doesn't predict what came before or what lies outside it, for me that is a flaw not a proof. Brane theory doesn't contradict BBT it does allow the appearance of the Big Bang and all the things the BB predicts except the actual BB. There is no way anyone can say BBT is anything but reasoning the expansion of the universe back wards in time. You cannot prove it happened only that evidence seems to support it but that same evidence also supports brane theory or at least allows it.

 

If you take away the premise of a BB and still explain what we see in the universe today I cannot say its not true just because it wasn't first. If Brane theory had been first would you still be supporting BBT? One tries to explain the way things are now one way the other approaches the problem from a different angle. BBT cannot be proved or falsified with any more certainty than Brane theory.

 

I do know how BBT came to be, I have been keeping up for more than 40 years. I can remember actually having to argue BBT theory with my science teacher who thought it was nonsense, now he was ignorant. I cannot prove either one but if BBT can explain the universe in a way that excludes Brane theory then I am more than willing to stop considering it but so far I haven't seen anything to make me see that contradiction.

 

Some people have a problem seeing higher dimensions, I do not, I do wish I would have had a chance to learn the language of mathematics when I was young so I could describe the ideas I have in my mind but I didn't and maybe it wouldn't have made any difference. But to me brane theory is a very elegant theory, higher dimensions were obvious to me from a early age. I have for a long time thought of a multi dimensional universe. It started out with the idea of an actual spatial forth dimension. I now see my version was too simplistic but I was only thirteen.

 

More importantly while I can consider the theory of a multi dimensional universe I cannot and will not claim it to be true. I would have to see a real proof of higher dimensions before I would consider it to be true.

[modest]

Branes are a no doubt a good addition to string theory if you're looking for something of a testable prediction.

 

If we measure the effect of gravity at small scales not following the inverse square but rather a value fitting a brane solution then we'd know those crazy geeks are probably onto something.

 

-modest

[Moontanman]

Thanks for confirming that you ARE an ignoramus. I just listed a phenomenon that supports the Big Bang Theory (e.g. cosmic microwave background radiation), and instead of retracting your statement you instead hand wave it away. And without ANYTHING to back up your claim. Until evidence comes up that supports the idea of branes, there is no reason to accept it at all over the Big Bang theory, especially since the brane theory doesn't really make any testable predictions, and certainly not ones that are any different than the ones already made by more mainstream theories.

 

 

 

 

Well, no, the theory of ether has been proven to be not necessary. Indeed, SR does not assume its existence, especially since that it cannot be detected. Of course, one can use Occam's Razor and conclude that ether doesn't exist. The reason I brought it up was because there are theories of ether that does take into account everything that SR does (e.g. speed of light is constant), but the reason SR is used and not those theories is because there is no evidence whatsoever for it's existence. Just like the theory of branes and it's supposed "challenge" to the BBT.

 

 

 

Oh, sure you did. That's why you've made conceptual errors about the Big Bang Theory itself, and hand waved any corrections I have attempted to make in your understanding of it. I have actually studied astronomy and some cosmology at a university level and did some of the equations. You certainly aren't fooling me.

 

 

 

Wow, did you figure that out all by yourself? That was basically my point! It doesn't make any predictions, testable, novel, or useful at all. That's what I've been trying to tell you. As such, the brane theory and by extension, string theory, it is a defacto fringe theory, and has no more credibility than other theories of our reality that are either wrong or unnecessary.

 

 

 

 

The point is that it doesn't make any attempt to explain what is outside or before it, for the simple reason that we don't even know if there is one! We don't know if anything came before the big bang, or indeed if there was even a beginning. The Big Bang theory is a model that describes the expansion of the universe, and attempts to model what has happened throughout the various stages in it's expansion. And so far, it has been very successful.

 

 

 

Read the above. And, no, there is no evidence whatsoever that supports brane theory. There is no evidence for strings, no evidence for branes, no evidence for extra dimensions, etc. I don't have to prove that it doesn't exist, all I have to point out is that there is not a shred of evidence for this theory at all. And, from the looks of it, there probably isn't going to be any testable predictions from it either.

 

 

 

No, I don't think anyone would have supported brane theory, even if it did come before the big bang theory, for the sole reason that there is no physical evidence for it. They would have rejected it for the same reason they rejected the luminous ether.

 

 

 

 

Falsifiability is key to ANY scientific theory. The BBT could have been falsified, for example, by not finding the microwave background radiation. And it still can be too. Since you regard Brane theory as unfalsifiable, then by your own admission, it is not scientific (and therefore has even LESS credibility).

 

 

 

Well, since the BBT can explain the universe in a way that does exclude brane theory, you should probably stop considering it, at least until they come up with some way to make meaningful predictions or a way to falsify it.

 

 

 

Whether or not some people have a problem with higher dimensions is irrelevant. And mathematics does not necessarily prove anything, in physics all they can reliably do is describe physical phenomenon, not find the actual truth behind the matter.

 

And yes, I've been hearing that brane theory is elegant, and attractive. A lot of other scientific theories have been considered elegant and beautiful. However, most of them turned out to be wrong. And for all we know, brane theory may be full of crap. Do not judge a theory by it's elegance or it's supposed attractiveness.

 

 

 

Yeah, no ****. Which was basically the whole premise of my argument. Until we can find any evidence whatsoever for the existence of branes, there is NO reason to accept it over more established theories, especially since it doesn't make any testable predictions.

 

 

I mean, seriously, why do you have such a hard time accepting the fact that M-Theory is basically fringe science? Hell, you even admitted that it can't be falsified, so don't you agree then that there is something extremely fishy about it, and that it really shouldn't be given more credence than it deserves (i.e. none)?

 

Don't start insulting me, the only reason brane theory doesn't predict anything new is that BBT already predicts the same thing. You have only shown me one prediction of the BBT and and I didn't wave it away. I said that brane theory explains it just as well as BBT. BBT theory is no more falsifiable than Brane-T or provable. BTW you are wrong about the ether see these links.

 

Ether -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

 

Michelson-Morley Experiment -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

 

For either to be real it has to have some effect that is measurable, evidence for Brane theory is being gathered right now

 

http://www.mikeschepker.com/blog/2005/03/string-theory-proof-is-near/

 

When you start lowering the conversation into name calling your argument suffers badly.

 

I don't claim that BBT is BS I also don't claim that Brane theory is true, more work needs to be done, I have no axe to grind, no emotional attachment to either theory. I look at both with a skeptical eye. maybe you should stop worshiping at the alter of BBT theory and treat for what it is, a theory, abet a good one but not with out it's own flaws:hyper:

[InfiniteNow]

There's no need for such much invective, guys.

 

Both of your positions have merit, so focus on those.

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking didn't get where he is by throwing feces on others who disagreed... At least, not to my knowledge. :shade:

[Mike C]

Thanks for confirming that you ARE an ignoramus. I just listed a phenomenon that supports the Big Bang Theory (e.g. cosmic microwave background radiation), and instead of retracting your statement you instead hand wave it away. And without ANYTHING to back up your claim. Until evidence comes up that supports the idea of branes, there is no reason to accept it at all over the Big Bang theory, especially since the brane theory doesn't really make any testable predictions, and certainly not ones that are any different than the ones already made by more mainstream theories.

 

The CMBR is not proof of the BBT in my opinion.

The BBT is just a science of UNanswered questions. There are many.

 

Since it is based on the Doppler galaxy redshifts that were refuted and replaced with the 'expansion of space' (nothing(?), I do not see how you can consider it science?

 

I just wrote an article that refutes the BB version of the CMBR redshift as being 1000.

My article says that the CMBR acts as an ideal gas and has a redshift of only 10.1+.

This is because it is expanding in all 3 directions as any gas would with the EoS.

 

I am being denied posting the article because of my criticisms of the BBT and in other areas as well.

 

Mike C

[freeztar]

Yes you did...

 

Euclidean, please refrain from rude posts and name calling. It is against Hypography's policies and is unproductive in scientific discourse. Thanks.

 

Hypography Science Forums - Science forums rules

[Moontanman]

Yes you did, right here:

 

 

 

This is despite the fact that I did show otherwise. Brane theory, as derived from M-Theory, doesn't explain jackshit. It doesn't even have an element of falsifibility, as the BBT does. And yes, I have showed you just ONE prediction of the Big Bang, here is a list of them, most of which has been either confirmed or supported:

 

Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

It is not purely mathematics.

 

 

 

No, they support my conclusions. I suppose you didn't pay any attention to my comment about Occam's Razor, but then you don't seem to be paying attention to a lot of other things and issues that have been raised.

 

 

 

 

What are you talking about? This article basically crams the theory of cosmic superstrings and string theory together, both of which are independant theories. Cosmic superstrings have been predicted long before a full fledged string theory was in place. Sure, some strings theories can be said to predict some sort of cosmic superstring, but then again what doesn't it predict; after all, there are only about 10^500 solutions for it! In any case, the evidence for either or is very sketchy at best, and the Hubble Space Telescope has already shown those galaxies to actually be 2different ones, not images of the same one. It is not evidence for M-Theory at all. And, BTW, the article looks suspiciously to be ripped right from the wikipedia article on cosmic superstrings.

 

 

 

Oh get over yourself, you just don't want to admit that you are being schooled. You are the one who decided to get into an argument way over your head, not me. All you have to do is cry uncle and I'll stop.

 

I never once claimed that the Big Bang theory was perfect, or explained everything. In fact, all I did was say that you should be skeptical of all the M-Theories out there because there isn't a shred of evidence supporting it. My skeptical eye is quite fine. I mean, seriously, I took and passed classes on SR, Quantum Mechanics, and astronomy. You can't possibly tell me I don't know what I'm talking about!

 

I would never suggest you don't what you are talking about, I am suggesting that no matter how great BBT is it is an incomplete theory, it doesn't go but just so far, eventually we need a more complete theory, brane theory would appear to be gaining ground to be that theory. It disturbs me to see something as incomplete as BBT being hawked as the end all be all of of everything and nothing else is allowed to even be suggested. Religion is like that, science shouldn't be. I am quite sure you know what BBT is but there are some pretty heavy hitters supporting brane theory, do you actually think these people are ignorant or just stupid? Are you really good enough to simply say these people are nuts and you are correct? I have a pretty big ego but I know there are plenty of things that I might not know completely and to claim anyone else to be an ignoramus is beyond my ego. Ego shouldn't be a factor in any civil discussion, there was a time When BBT was the new kid on the block and it took time before it was widely accepted but being widely accepted doesn't make it the only game in town.

[Moontanman]

Showing that the other argument is full of crap is considered "throwing feces"!? Shame on you :shade:

 

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. In fact, I do acknowledge that I am ignorant of many, many things. But to simply hand wave away perfectly valid points is just dishonest, and that I will not stand for.

 

I didn't wave away your valid point, I simply pointed out that the CMBR wasn't unique to BBT.

[Moontanman]

You would rather replace a theory for which there is quite a bit of evidence, for one that is pure conjecture? Sorry, but the BBT really is the best we've got, and until a better one (READ: one that can make testable predictions, is falsifiable, and can do BETTER than the BBT) comes along, there is absolutely no reason to dump it. Just because it doesn't explain some things or is incomplete doesn't mean that it's wrong, or a bad theory.

 

I never suggested BBT theory should be dumped, I am just saying that other theories are out there and shouldn't be ignored. discussing one is not dumping others.

 

Oh look at that! Now your claiming that the BBT is a religion, and those who are skeptical of other theories competing for it are being accused of being "closed minded" and "unimaginative". How typical. :shade:

 

I didn't say BBT was religion, I said you act like it is. I like skepticism, everyone could use a healthy dose of it. I am skeptical of BBT being the end all of theories explaining the universe, is that so bad? Is it so bad to simply consider other theories?

 

In my experience, anybody who repeatedly makes mistakes or grossly misunderstands basic concepts about a given topic is guaranteed to be an ignoramus. Oh sure, you and the rest can crow all you like about the books you've read on string theory or cosmology. You could have all of the events that occurred in the first 5 seconds of the Big Bang memorized for all I care. You could know the name of every subatomic particle known. But making a statement like "BBT is just a mathematical model/conjecture" is quite telling about your level of understanding of the theory itself. It's the sort of the same argument you hear from the Intelligent Design proponents against evolution.

 

I don't crow about anything, I am well aware of my limitations if I knew everything I wouldn't be here. Your complete dismissal of Brane theory shows you have an agenda that goes beyond any willingness to discuss anything you disagree with. BBT theory has lots of things that support it but none of them are unique to BBT. None of them prevent other theories from competing. ID? Get real, I thought we were discussing science. BBT was a mathematical concept looking for proof, it found some. Brane theory is the same, it's looking for proof and while it's difficult to test because of the energy required to do so that doesn't mean it's BS.

 

Oh please! Enough of your fortune cookie sound bites. I do say though that I do agree that you do have a pretty large ego, it's certainly a whole lot bigger than mine. You just need to calm down, swallow your pride, and admit defeat. This statement really is nothing more than a red herring on your part, rather than addressing my points you completely ignore them and claim that I a bad person for showing your claims to be full of crap.

 

I never suggested you are a bad person, it wouldn't matter anyway. For this discussion good person bad person means nothing. Defeat has nothing to do with this discussion, all I wanted to do was have a discussion not prove or disprove anything, I certainly didn't want to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed man. Get the chip off your shoulder, was someone who supported brane theory mean to you or something? Is it impossible for you to discuss something with out it being proved? Do you not have enough imagination to speculate? If you want to discuss brane theory then lets do so. If you don't want to discuss brane theory then all you have to do is leave.

[Thunderbird]

There's no need for such much invective, guys.

 

Both of your positions have merit, so focus on those.

 

 

 

Stephen Hawking didn't get where he is by throwing feces on others who disagreed... At least, not to my knowledge. :shade:

 

Rational cohesive arguments as opposed to the irrational self-importance. I don’t think these are both equally valid positions.:shade:

[freeztar]

I'll try.....

In the words of the wise Yoda, "There is no try, only do".

[Mike C]

That's not correct. The expansion of space is precisely what causes most of these Doppler redshifts.

 

 

 

Oh, how convenient. You claim to have some good theory that you don't want to share because you know it will be ripped to shreds. Well, sorry, but that's part of the whole scientific mindset. Besides, we already have a precise measurement of the CMBR, and they seem to contradict your conclusions.

 

Euclidean - Go to the site below for proof that the space expansion cannot be true.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/11581-cmbr-evidence.html

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

Proof? All you did was strung a bunch of numbers together, from various sources, and you don't seem to know what you are doing. And it goes without saying that you brought no physical evidence whatsoever to support your assumptions.

 

 

A red shift occurs because the object in question (which in this case is a galaxy) is moving away from the source. Most of the galaxies that we see out there are red-shifted. Also, the further away the galaxy, the redder the shift (i.e. the faster it is moving away from us). The conclusion that space is expanding is very consistent with these observations, and is the one that makes the most sense.

 

So?

Over a distance of 14 billion years that can be translated to light years as a mearure of distance, a redshift of one thousand occured.

 

So what is so complicated about that? I am quoting here real dimensions as they pertain to the BBT.

 

Dividing the age/distance by the redshift should give us here now a redshift for 'one' as a distance for one unit expansion.

This is simple arithmatic. Why should that confuse you?

 

Mike C

[Little Bang]

There is one theory that does not break down at the BB, wave theory, and I'm pretty sure that it extends to before the BB.

 

Moon, how do we take our imagination that evolved in a three dimensional time related universe and go to a place where measurements are so small as to be almost zero and time is almost zero?