what are p-branes and how did physists come to a solution that the universe will ...(question continued below)

Question

how did scientists actually form the pulsating theory and the steady state theory and how come scientists reached to a decision which clearly states that the universe would end according to big bang theory? and in the end did the universe really start off with a big bang? i mean that is the big bang theory wrong in some ways?

that detail that the universe will end according to the big bang theory, change that bit, the big bang theory to pulsating theory, please

Answer 1

Yes, scientists who support the Big Bang Theory are wrong.
But so are Creationists.
The background radiation and red shift are otherwise explainable
within a suitable cosmology.

Let me start (it's complex, but here goes).

The universe has always existed.
It will always exist.
Its form and contents change over time.

The Radius of the Universe (R) is constant,
approximately 20 billion light-years.

The Age of the Universe (T) is constant,
approximately 20 billion years.

The speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum (c) is constant,
approximately 3x10^10 cm/sec,
or 1 light-year per year.

And R == cT.

Answer 2

The two most convincing facts (not theories) that the universe began in a so-called Big Bang are -- (1)the cosmic microwave background radiation; (2)the expansion of the universe.

(1) Cosmic microwave background radiation. Not long after the Big Bang theory was developed, scientists calculated what the initial temperature of the universe could have been. Then they guess-timated how old the universe was and what its temperature should be today. In the 1960's the CMBR was discovered. It filled all of the observable universe almost without any variation in density and temperature (-454 Fahrenheit). This temperature was very close to what had been estimated before CMBR was found.

(2)Expansion of the universe. Observations show that the space of the universe is indeed expanding. This is consistent with the Big Bang theory.

Answer 3

To understand the presence of objects in string theory that are not strings, but higher dimensional objects, or even points, it helps to know the formulation of Maxwell's equations in the language of differential forms, because this is what tells us that the sources of charge in the Maxwell equations are zero-dimensional objects. Gauge field strengths that are p+2-forms turn out to have sources that are p-dimensional objects. We call these p-branes.


Flatness problem
The Universe as observed today seems to have enough energy density in the form of matter and cosmological constant to provide critical density and hence zero spatial curvature. The Einstein equation predicts that any deviation from flatness in an expanding Universe filled with matter or radiation only gets bigger as the Universe expands. So any tiny deviation from flatness at a much earlier time would have grown very large by now. If the deviation from flatness is very small now, it must have been immeasurably small at the start of the part of Big Bang we understand.
So why did the Big Bang start off with the deviations from flat spatial geometry being immeasurably small? This is called the flatness problem of Big Bang cosmology.
Whatever physics preceded the Big Bang left the Universe in this state. So the physics description of whatever happened before the Big Bang has to address the flatness problem.


There is also the Horizon problem and Magnetic monopole problems to deal with.


http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

Answer 4

I think it was Haley or Huble that discovered the red shift, the background radiation in all directions shifted to the red end of the spectrum that indicated that the universe was expanding. Early calculations from the 50's on indicated that the universe would at some point stop expanding and colapse back on itself. The new calculations show than not only is the universe expanding, it is speeding up and will not collapse.

Answer 5

This has under no circumstances occurred to me before, by means of fact I relatively have under no circumstances made a love concept in my existence.. yet while it did take place, i do no longer think of i could have the flexibility to proceed to be pals.. it could harm me to confirm the only i admire, date different ladies.. i do no longer think of it could be wholesome to ought to confirm that going on surprising in front of your eyes.. of direction, it additionally relies upon on how good the friendship is. If I knew the guy by means of fact that formative years, i think of i could proceed my friendship, by means of fact that he performed and nevertheless performs a great place in my existence.. yet as quickly as I only knew him for a three hundred and sixty 5 days, it may be somewhat greater elementary to enable bypass and attempt to discover somebody who would be the two: a perfect buddy and a lover..

Answer 6

The key word here, and you use it often and correctly, is theory. That means they think maybe, but don't know for sure. Based on that premise, your theory is just as good as theirs, whatever it may be.

Answer 7

The p-branes are hypersurfaces which are used in the analysis of cosmological theories

Answer 8

I think Shakespeare said it best when he said "Nothing is but what is not" when he wrote Macbeth.
Ponder that theory, science dude.