Brane world=non-compact extra dimensions?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of brane world scenarios in theoretical physics, specifically examining the relationship between branes and non-compact extra dimensions. Participants explore the implications of these ideas for gravity and the dimensionality of spacetime.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the brane world concept implies non-compact extra dimensions.
  • Another participant agrees that in certain braneworld scenarios, the bulk can indeed be non-compact if the 3D brane is moving through it.
  • A participant suggests that for macroscopic gravity to exist, the bulk may need to have a finite size.
  • Different models are mentioned, with some proposing finite extra dimensions and others infinite ones, referencing the works of Randall and Sundrum.
  • It is noted that brane world papers do not universally assume a total of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions, as some only postulate a fifth dimension or consider different dimensional frameworks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the implications of brane world scenarios, particularly regarding the nature of extra dimensions and the requirements for gravity, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the dimensionality and characteristics of the bulk remain unresolved, as well as the implications of different models on gravity.

arivero
Gold Member
Messages
3,485
Reaction score
188
Just wondering. All this stuff of the brane world, where spacetime is a 3-brane inside a 10 dim world... is not the same than telling that we want to use non compact extra dimensions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you've got a braneworld scenario where the 3D brane is moving through the bulk then yes, the bulk is non-compact.
 
cristo said:
If you've got a braneworld scenario where the 3D brane is moving through the bulk then yes, the bulk is non-compact.

I was thinking so. On other hand, in order to have macroscopic gravity I imagine they need some finite "size" of the bulk.
 
arivero said:
I was thinking so. On other hand, in order to have macroscopic gravity I imagine they need some finite "size" of the bulk.

There are different models, some with finite extra dimensions, some with infinite extra dimensions (the first two papers of Randall and Sundrum propose on of each type).
And by the way, in brane world papers they don't necessarily assume that the total number of spacetime dimensions is 10 or 11. In the papers by RS, they simply postulated a fifth dimension. Some other works consider 6 dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K