I can't get my head around it when theoretical physicists talk about types of branes and how these branes could be described in order to account for a cause of the initial creation event as it is now posited. It seems to me that because it is obvious that we will never be able to get enough energy in particle accelerators to probe anything near the Planck length as it is, then it seem that a concept of coming up with a cause that could explain the cause of the original postulated planck length and time creation event seems less than pointless as it is logically impossible to ever being subject to testing of any kind whatsoever. So it seems that it can only be a mathematical exercise with no basis as all in any empirical reality, however anyone cares to define reality. Yet in spite of this, theoretical physicists seem to talk about stuff before the initial creation event as if it can be known in the future as a scientific 'fact'. Is there any point to it other than clever math for maths sake? I mean can anything before the creation event be seriously regarded as science?