Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Epiphanies, Epiphanies!

  1. Feb 5, 2004 #1
    Okay, I'm in no position to be having any true epiphanies about superstring theory and the arising possibility of brane collision causing the big bang, still, I'd like to ask and say a few things:

    First: Has anyone here heard the theory of the big bang being caused by 2 branes moving through a field and colliding, causing such a massive burst of energy that it would set off, or literally be, the big bang? Update: It's called the Cyclic theory.

    I believe that it was shown this month in Scientific American.. maybe Popular science..Update: Scientific American.

    erh.. Might be better if I could find some pictures..

    here's an unfun link with an animation:


    Sorry to post this before I'd found what I needed...

    ..Well this has come to a bust, everything that makes so much sense in my head based on the pictures I saw.. nevermind..
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 7, 2004 #2
    There are plenty of theories positing a similar chain of events (The Cyclic Scenario, Brane-World Models, etc), so it's not necessarily a novel idea.

    The notion of a big bang spurt, igniting the creation of the universe, is a bedrock of modern cosmology, and it'd be only natural to extend it by contemporary postulates and axioms, inferred directly with the advent of string/M-theory (the BB picture it not ideal; it's chock-full of solemn issues, that have to be dealt with in order to show a consistent picture, that's where these latest theories emerge, tackling those long-standing problems, and by doing so either assuage their implications, or debar them altogether).
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2004
  4. Feb 7, 2004 #3
    Well, things like, in cyclic theory, we have branes moving about, and when they initially touch, it starts the bang of the biggest sort.

    The models I've seen for it show a fair cycle pattern, that being a sort of double ellipse, where we have more than one brane moving in opposite directions.

    This model I saw had a great gaping hole in the center, the only graphical interpretation I can include would be this:


    The Branes would be represented by the >'s or <'s, the dots are just so the picture works in ASCIIart. Anyway, I thought it was sheerly pointless to have the big space in the middle, so the first thing I did was change it to this:


    And you'll have to forgive me, I mean for the center to be a point, not a line, but if you'll take my literary description as an aid:

    I picture a cylinder, one where a brane would extend from the center to the edge, and the outer edge of the brane would slide around the edge of the cylinder. In this way, you would retain the startoff collision, but eliminate the massive void in the 'center'.

    Next, I threw entropy in on a universal scale, rather than just stopping with the universes hitting each other, lets take a look at a possible start to it.

    If we began with a single humongous brane, that curled throughout the surrounding cylinder, it, through eventual loss of energy, can no longer support its own existence, and attempts to break into 2 branes, the surrounding existence has energy floating around in it, but it doesn't have quite enough for 2 large branes. The initial attempted break up introduces a lot of energy, and almost gets it there, but the two smaller branes can't quite be supported, so they form into another single brane, smaller than the original, and less filled with matter and energy, but still overall giant. This also loses energy, up until it just needs to break apart. It's smaller size and the overall greater amount of energy present now than the inital breakup allows it to form 2 smaller branes. Next up, these two branes collide, creating a material universe and an exiting brane, the material universe loses energy and breaks apart after it expands for an extremely long time, and it breaks into 2, bringing our total to 3 branes, then more collisions, BB's, and expansions, and we have 5, more, 8, more, 13, each time with smaller overall branes being formed.

    I'm betting that it follows the Fibonnaci sequence, as you can see from my initial 1,1,2,3,5,8.

    Next, what would make more sense for a big bang than a massively powerful white hole? When the branes initially collide, I believe this is what would cause a white hole. Then, the branes attempt to mix as they pull through each other, and as they pull away, the connection extends and energy falls into it without the possibility of coming back- a black hole! This would constitute an early universe filled with micro white holes, then with micro black holes, eliminating a lot of the excess matter, and the black holes would evaporate as the branes got farther away from one another, since a black hole would exist in each brane, and matter/energy would go into the black hole, so it would introduce more energy into the outer area, allowing for more branes overall, it works out!

    On another note, the amount and size of branes could be comparable to an analog signature, an energetic vibration. Line up millions of these cylinders in a row, and you get what could be seen as, Strings! These make up quarks, and it goes up the ladder to branes again forming new string-bits. There's even a number of ways to look at it that from the number of universes inside the brane, to those the actual brane moved through, to those the cylinder moved through, with time included, would be 10 or 11 universes.

    These have been my epiphanies, I hope I've done them justice in my expanations!
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2004
  5. Feb 19, 2004 #4
    Know what would be nice? A comment.
  6. Feb 19, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Firstly, welcome to PF.

    It's nothing personal, but what you're discovering here is that this kind of naive brainstorming - particularly by new members - tends to be much more interesting to the brainstormer than other members.
  7. Feb 20, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    We should find the way of going beyond naive. Or beyond brainstorming, perhaps.
  8. Feb 20, 2004 #7
    Hey Jeff, Thanks for the welcome.

    I'm fine with that, and I really completely understand that, but couldn't someone have said something like this a week and a half ago when I posted the original topic, rather than now, after checking daily, and just seeing it go slowly down, asking for a comment?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook