Brane theory

[Tolmosoff]

Can someone explain the Brane Theory. And did it caused the atom of the big Bang ?.

[ajb]

It would be a misnomer to say the Brane theory as it really work in progress.

 

So, in standard quantum field theory the "objects" are point-particles. In string theory the "objects" are one dimensional strings.

 

In brane theory the "objects" are extended p-dimensional "sheets".

 

Branes have been discussed as generalisations of strings for a while now. However, the important role they play in string theory was not realised until 1995(ish) with the second string revolution. The way to think of branes is as the objects on which open strings can start and end on.

 

After 1995 branes have become important objects in their own right as non-perturbative objects.

 

However, you will find lots of "working definition" of branes. I think one difficulty is a quantum description of branes. I expect this is tied up with a non-perturbative description of quantum gravity. A lot of progress in this direction uses category theory. Very much work in progress.

 

 

As for cosmology there is a lot of work on brane cosmologies. Have a search via google.

[Tolmosoff]

I was watching a program on Science. They showed the brane theory as two giant sheets waveing against each other almost touching.

These sheets looked like one is male and the other a Female like everything else in nature.

The other thing that bothers me is Called ( The God Particle ) named by scientists. What is that ?.

[GutZ]

I am actually reading that book called "the god particle" Leon is funniest physicist I have ever read.

 

The God particle is higgs. I am no expert so don't take what I say as truth but, basically from what i grasp is that there is a particle and a field which give matter mass.

 

Why is a photon massless while other things have mass? for things to makes sense there has to be something like the proposed higgs.

 

It's a pretty good book actually it goes into all the details...a bit more that most books I have read on it....which kinda left me confused with all the generalizations and simplifications and quick jumps from one idea to another..."the god particle" does a decent job of getting into it without really getting into it.

Edited June 17, 2009 by GutZ

[Tolmosoff]

Last year a debate flared between couple of creationists and Evolutionists also Scientists on The Big Bang.

I got tired listening those guys hammer one another about how the big bang and the evolving of animals.

I must have thrown in a good monkey wrench in the boiling pot.

 

They were both wrong and were both right.

 

I said that the Big Bang was the god particle meaning was the god of creation of himself and evolution of animal and plant life was created to evolve to protect his creation from extinction in an ever changing environment.

Charles Darwin was right.

Of cource I was just jokeing around but both sides ageed with my hypotosis

and took me serious but heck what do i know cause i wasn't there when our universe was made.

[iNow]

The "god particle" is probably one of the worst interpretations of science in pop culture seen in quite some time. It has nothing to do with god, and won't even unify physics.

 

It's the Higgs Boson, and that's what any respectable person calls it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#In_popular_culture

The Higgs boson is sometimes referred to as "the God particle," after the title of Leon Lederman's book for lay readers. The term mistakenly implies that the Higgs boson would complete our understanding of physics. In fact, while the discovery of the Higgs boson would be a groundbreaking stage in the story of electroweak unification, it would leave remaining the question of unification with Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), gravity, and the ultimate origins and early evolution of the universe. Being an atheist, Peter Higgs dislikes the epithet "God particle". The term is rarely used by particle physicists when discussing the Higgs Boson; its prevalence is primarily due to its usage in popular media.

[foodchain]

Yes but its all in math. Some of the discoveries behind string theory hail themselves as breakthroughs and or discoveries purely in the realm of math, not so much reality as modeled by it. Just to me is how much does that say about modern physics, what would be the difference if all of that had been worked out in different mathematics. To the topic though as much as brane theory is whatever it is, like our universe being the product of a collision with them or something, how much of that is just math? There is already physical phenomena observed that cannot be explained yet with the standard model, and relativity cant quite explain the universe, so in reality why does anything have to be what it currently is in math.

[ajb]

My posts on Has string theory actually done anything? may be of interest.