[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

[Euclidean-Paradox]

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....

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox

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.

[Euclidean-Paradox]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

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.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox

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.

[Euclidean-Paradox]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

To work past that point requires Brane theory or something similar or at least something other than BB.

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.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox

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.

[Euclidean-Paradox]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

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.

Actually the theory of ether has been disproved, SR would not be true if their was an either.

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.

I have read cosmology books and BBT theory is simply working backwards to prove what you already see.

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.

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.

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.

I know BBT doesn't predict what came before or what lies outside it, for me that is a flaw not a proof.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, no shit. 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)?

[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]

Originally Posted by Euclidean-Paradox

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 shit. 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/200...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