Brane world with finite thickness

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mersecske
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Thickness
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of brane worlds, specifically questioning whether models exist in which the brane has a finite thickness, as opposed to the commonly assumed infinitesimal thickness in higher-dimensional theories. Participants explore various interpretations and implications of brane theory within the context of string theory and higher-dimensional physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that most brane world models depict our universe as an infinitesimally thin surface in a higher-dimensional space.
  • Others challenge this view, suggesting that it is possible to conceive of a brane with finite thickness, potentially on the order of the Planck scale.
  • A participant emphasizes the distinction between branes in string theory and brane-world theories, arguing that the latter represents the entire universe rather than individual particles.
  • There is a contention regarding the physicality of higher dimensions, with some arguing that they may only exist as mathematical constructs rather than physical realities.
  • One participant mentions theories like DGP branes that may allow for finite thickness in certain dimensions.
  • Concerns are raised about the speculative nature of brane theories and the difficulty of proving the existence of higher dimensions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of branes, with no consensus reached regarding the existence of finite thickness in brane models. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the speculative nature of brane theories and the challenges in conceptualizing higher dimensions, including the limitations of current models and the dependence on mathematical frameworks.

mersecske
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
In most of the brane world models:
our world is supposed to be an infinite thick mathematical surface
in the higher dimensional world.
Which is very curious.
Are there any model in which the thickness of the "surface" is finite?
Please, could anyone submit a good paper to me in this topic?
 
Space news on Phys.org
mersecske said:
In most of the brane world models:
our world is supposed to be an infinite thick mathematical surface
in the higher dimensional world.
Which is very curious.
Are there any model in which the thickness of the "surface" is finite?
Please, could anyone submit a good paper to me in this topic?
It's, um, the other way around. It's an infinitessimally thin surface.
 
Chalnoth said:
It's, um, the other way around. It's an infinitessimally thin surface.

NOT. Its a lower dimensional surface! You are wrong. I've talked a lot with an expert.
 
Discussion with one expert is insufficient to confer credibiltiy. The whole brane thing is purely speculative to begin with, so, who has the moral authority to judge what may be right or wrong when it's all just toy models?
 
I say that:
Most of the models assume a lower dimensional surface (=infinitely thin),
and not a same dimensional but thin physical surface.

If you know something belongs to the latter one
please link it for me.
 
mersecske said:
NOT. Its a lower dimensional surface! You are wrong. I've talked a lot with an expert.
Branes are boundary conditions for open strings. That is to say, in string theory, when you have a string that doesn't wrap back on itself, it's called 'open'. The tips of the string can be confined onto a surface of any number of dimensions. And if our universe is a brane, it would be a 3+1 dimensional surface to which the tips of these strings are confined (the tips of these open strings would be seen as particles). This brane would have no extent in any of the other directions besides the 3 spatial and 1 time dimensions we experience (i.e. no thickness).
 
I am talking about brane worlds, and not branes in string theory. Branes in string theory is totally different. Brane in brane-world theories represent the whole Universe and not a particle.

Yes, most of the brane-world theories the Universe is a 3+1 dimensional infinitesimal surface in a higher dimensional "world". But its very unphysical. An other possibility is that the brane is a higher dimensional object, but very thin, and practically is like a surface, but with finite thickness (maybe Planck scale). Thats what I am talking about.
 
mersecske said:
I am talking about brane worlds, and not branes in string theory. Branes in string theory is totally different. Brane in brane-world theories represent the whole Universe and not a particle.
The brane world is string theory.

mersecske said:
Yes, most of the brane-world theories the Universe is a 3+1 dimensional infinitesimal surface in a higher dimensional "world". But its very unphysical. An other possibility is that the brane is a higher dimensional object, but very thin, and practically is like a surface, but with finite thickness (maybe Planck scale). Thats what I am talking about.
I don't think finite extent in this manner makes sense. The way this is done, instead, is that the brane is wrapped back on itself tightly in these other dimensions. This wouldn't be seen as a thickness. However many dimensions it has, it's still infinitessimally thin. Even if some of those dimensions are small and wrapped up.
 
mersecske said:
I am talking about brane worlds, and not branes in string theory. Branes in string theory is totally different. Brane in brane-world theories represent the whole Universe and not a particle.
Dude, you're totally confused. Brane-worlds were originally based on M-theory branes, and have since been generalized to accommodate branes from the 10-dimensional string theories. Branes in string theory are extended, non-perturbative objects; 3-branes are popular candidates for our universe in brane-world models.

Yes, most of the brane-world theories the Universe is a 3+1 dimensional infinitesimal surface in a higher dimensional "world". But its very unphysical. An other possibility is that the brane is a higher dimensional object, but very thin, and practically is like a surface, but with finite thickness (maybe Planck scale). Thats what I am talking about.
Not sure what you mean by 3+1 dimensional infinitesimal object. Let's focus just on the spatial dimensions here for simplicity. A 2-brane, for example, is a 2D sheet. In 3D space, it has no thickness. When embedded in an even higher dimensional space, it likewise has no thickness in any of the higher dimensions. You seem to be suggesting the following: a 3-brane with 2 infinite dimensions and a 3rd finite dimension -- giving the sheet some tiny thickness (like a 2-brane with some small thickness in 3rd dimension.)

There are theories in which the brane is given a finite thickness in directions orthogonal to those dimensions that are space filling -- I believe DGP branes have a finite thickness.
 
  • #10
I don't understand how it is possible that you don't understand me :)
It is very hard to imagine (if you are a physicist)
that there exist a higher dimensional physical World,
but our world is only a surface in that World.
We can never prove its physical existence.
That higher dimension can be only a mathematical imagination
for a nice theory. However I can imagine that the real physical world
has more dimension than 3+1, and we are localized
on a real surface with finite thickness,
and our measurements are somehow restricted also,
therefore we can observe 3+1 dimension SEEMINGLY.
 
  • #11
mersecske said:
We can never prove its physical existence.
Why not?
 
  • #12
Because you are in an other dimension.
Its like being outside the event horizon you can never prove the existence of the event horizon.
 
  • #13
mersecske said:
Because you are in an other dimension.
Its like being outside the event horizon you can never prove the existence of the event horizon.
It's actually nothing at all like being outside an event horizon. In some string theories, gravity probes the whole extra-dimensional space. Since we interact with gravity, in principle, we interact with the extra dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 86 ·
3
Replies
86
Views
17K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
356