A simple Brane theory

A simple Brane theoryFirst Dimension (aka Up/Down Dimension) Second Dimension (aka Left/Right Dimension) Third Dimension (aka Depth Dimension/In-Out Dimension) Fourth Dimension (aka Time Dimension)Change only occurs through time so I propose that since time is moving forward (as of now) that at one time it was moving backwards (not in the sense that we know it, but backwards as in a backwards void). This vaccuum may have pulled the other dimensions which may have been very distant (beyond what we know and consider space, this could have happened over many quadrillions of years and sextillions of lightyears) into an amalgamation of a singular dimension (Space-Time Continuum) The possibility of an epoch such as this isn't uncredible.Within this Space-Time Flux, primordial quarks were being created as were protons, and other sub-atomic particles.
Within this large suction, eventually the mass (for lack of better terms) was shrunk down to a nearly infinite small sizeAfter so long, an instability in space-time occurred (which I wouldn't discredit could be a possible fifth dimension) which caused the space-time flux to explode exponentially outward and for time to reverse (going forward seemingly perpetually) and also is probably why the known universe is seemingly continuously expanding outwardsIn relation to my theory, I think parts of the branes may have "clung together" while other parts of it didn't towards the outer parts, explaining possible clumps in the red feild. Sort of like a "bubble" effect.I also theorize that Black Holes are less "space" than they are "time" - when taken into account that most objects that exist in "space-time" are destroyed at event horizon, I propose that objects that are symbiotic to space-time are destroyed for the fact that matter exists relative to space-time, not time alone. Black holes could be literally bubbles which time is dominant over space and causes a void. Also other scientific theory surrounding black holes seem to concur with the fact that time is dominant over space with black holes.ST= -S 1, - S2, - S3 + -T * -XSimple as it may seem, this is the equation I've deduced, Spacetime = the 3 spacial dimensions plus time times the extra dimension to set things forward.This may also explain the existance of dark-matter/anti-matter, because of the pre-existing "anti-universe" (for lack of better term) which was existant before the fifth dimension influenced the other 4.If there are problems with this theory, let me know.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The problem is that you have no idea what you are talking about. You seem to have read one or two books or articles and are mashing a variety of words together without any regard for any sense what so ever.(I may be wrong, I'm not a physicist. But you'll have to do better than make stuff up. Care to show the mathematics behind all this? )

AN, you promoted this one while I was preparing message to suggest that we have an existing Brane theory topic at http://EvC Forum: brane theory -->EvC Forum: brane theoryAdminnemooseus

Everything assumed here is infinite, while the X proposed fifth dimension multiplies the others to create a positive universe which expands outwards rather than inwards its pretty simple math I know it seems as though it makes no sense but I'm just guessing here, I'm not a physicist either, most of what I'm saying probably just sounds like BS but it makes sense to me, but I always heard simpler is better, why go for this 14 million string theory? I don't get why cosmology can't use occams razor more often.Sure, there are probably thousands of other dimensions out there which we will never experience, but perhaps the inflation occurred before they could join this universeAlso, as this suggests multiple universes not unlike ours could infinitly exist outside of oursWho knows, I'm just guessing at it though. Oh well.This message has been edited by Darrel, 08-18-2004 04:20 PM

What do you mean by X? What is a positive universe? You aren't making any sense.

by 'x' he might also mean, comparitively to current theory, the scale factor, 'a(t)', which tells how the expansion (or contraction) of the universe is dependent on time.by positive universe, i'm assuming he means curvature which in most cosmological equations is defined by 'k'. k = 0 assumes a flat curvature of space and the three spatial dimensions appear the way most people think of three dimensions (kind of like a cube i guess).just a quick thought experiment to explain (since i'm bored);
flat space - draw a triangle on paper. its angles will add up to one pi radians.
negative curvature - take the paper and bend it into a saddle shape. this is negative curvature. if the triangle is in the right spot (and the triangle is big enough), it's angles add up to < one pi radians.
positive curvature - if you make a triangle on a sphere (pos curvature) its angles add up to > one pi radians.kinda hard for me to make sense of this cosmologically, since i cant really imagine curved space easily. but wasnt that fun?last thought. to explain expansion, i'm pretty sure we use freidmann's equation and the value of a(t)(which i don't think we know). curvature only shows the effects of dimensions on observation.
so postive or negative in terms of expansion refer to a(t).This message has been edited by usncahill, 08-19-2004 12:18 AM

quote:

---

...but I always heard simpler is better, why go for this 14 million string theory? I don't get why cosmology can't use occams razor more often.

---

Occams Razor is a little more than just "the simplest theory is the best". Take planetary orbits for example. A theory where the planets remained motionless would be the simplest because there would be no variables, just a bunch of constants. That is way simpler than any other theory. The problem is it doesn't explain the evidence, so it can't be used.On the other hand, it is also possible to create a geocentric model of the solar system in which all the planets have perfectly circular orbits. This is possible from the observations, but it requires adding in many extra variables to force them into convoluted orbits that contain perfect circles.Then we have the heliocentric model with the planets following eliptical orbits. This ties in with newtons laws of gravity which also predicts eliptical orbits. It has no added variables that the geocentric/perfectly circular theory has but it still explains all the observations. Therefore Occams Razor says to accept this theory.Now, what advantages does your proposed Brane theory have over the already existing one(s)? For this you'd need to know the maths of the existing ones, exactly what they predict AND what they already explain about current observations. Your theory has to at the very least match the current Brane theory on all points where the current Brane theory is correct. I don't know enough about current Brane theory to know what it explains and what it predicts exactly so I can't help you there I'm afraid.

You may be new but you set a good example. Thanks

The most exciting (to me) development in brane theory is the ekpyrosis theory that creates the same conditions as the standard model big bang theory at the end of the "inflation" period without the need for (a) inflation, (b) dark energy and (c) dark matter. These are all weaknesses in the standard model. As I understand it the testable difference between the two is the presence\absence of gravity waves: the standard model predicts them, the ekpyrosis model predicts a lack of them, and currently they have not been detected.That said, I see no relation between the {simple brane theory} proposed here and the ekpyrosis or other current brane theories in physics.As far as Occam's Razor goes, the brane\string theories require around 10 dimensions to work, and the standard model requires something like 94% of the universe to be currently undetect(ed\able).for more on ekpyrosis see
The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | SpaceEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ok, that's quite a post. All it needs now are some evidence to show that it has more advantages than the current one, that is if it makes sense at all.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

My pleasure Ned. Actually I've been lurking on the boards for a few months but not plucked up the courage to write anything till now lol.