Turtles or 'branes'...? Please read all the details before answering.?

Question

I'm re-asking a q. I tried to ask weeks ago, only people answered before I could finish putting in all the details, and obviously had no idea of wha i was really asking. Okay, bear w' me.

I want to draw an analogy. The story is told of an elderly lady who attended a lecture on cosmology. Afterward, she told the lecturere that she didn't believe the Earth was a sphere, or that it floated in space.

"What do you believe?" he asked.

"The Earth is circular but flat,"she replied. "And it's not floating in space."

"What holds it up, then...?" he wanted to know.

It's resting on the back of a gigantic elephant!"

"What holds the elephant up?"

"It's standing on the back of an enormous turtle!"

"But what holds the turtle up?"

"It's standing on the back of an even more enormous turtle!"

"And where is that turtle standing...?"

"It's no use," she said with a smile. "It's turtles, all the way down!"

Now, when I reflected on this story and compared it to the theory of multiple universes, or 'branes' as I have heard them called, I wondered whether any of those who have subscribed to the brane theory realize how similar it sounds to "It's no use, it's turtles, all the way down!"

If I understand correctly-- and please correct me-- gently-- if I'm wrong...? IIUC, the theory of branes was postulted (in part) to account for phenomena (such as ourselves) which, going by chance alone, would not only require a longer time period than the universe has existed, but longer than it is predicted to remain.

In other words, if I understand correctly, the 'brane' theory was developed partly to provide an alternative as a philosophical escape hatch to the dilemma of the possibility of our having been created by an intelligence other than ourselves, in other words, by an insistence on chance.

If the universe is too small and too ephemeral to allow of the appearance of life and intelligence by chance, hypothesize a larger, longer lasting universe, so that it is possible, and we don't have to consider any of the other possibilities.

Have I summarized the theory correctly...?

Does anybody else think that subconscious fear of a superior being might be one reason why people have come up with the theory of multiple universes and 'branes'...?

I hope I am not being unfair, to compare noted scientists and thinkers to the apocryphal stubborn old woman.

Answer 1

If you are asking why we "believe" in cosmological theories like "brane" theory or "superstrings" or "supersymmetry" but not theories like the universe is a dcotor Seuss stack of turtles, then I have an observation.

Any theory is subject to the same skepticicm as the turtles theory. You should no more blindly believe a physicist's claim of unlocking the secrets of the universe than you should blindly believe the earth is flat.

The thing about theories is that they make predictions. As long as what we observe in the real world matches the predictions of the theory, then we have no reason to throw the theory out. That is not the same as saying the theory is TRUE. It just means that it models the real world sufficiently well that it may continue to be used as an analog, or model of the real world.

All theories are eventually found to be wrong, at least in some small detail. Then the theorists must either find a way to adjust the theory or scrap it and make way for a theory that fits reality better.

If two competing theories seem to predict the same things, scientists usually choose the simplest theory that fits observations in the real world. Its called Occam's Razor, and it would throw out the turtle theory because there ave been no observations of turtles in any of our space missions.

Those scientists theorizing this way are certainly not "afraid" of a higher power. It is just that God is unproveable by definition. faith requies the absence of proof or faith would be meaningless. Scientists deal in the observeable and predictable. God is Neither.

Answer 2

Not really very surprising.... The attempt is to bring the unlimited into the limited canvas ! Even the visualisation, when coupled with mathematical logic seems infinitely capable, but with just the sense organs, as inputs, there is a restriction imposed on the mind. Yet the mind refuses to accept such imposed restrictions, and then turns to invent larger versions of stored memory versions... turtles ! Only, turtles seem funny, whereas incomprehensible theories of experts 'seem' credible... in many cases, they themselves had to deny their own theories in the absence of worthy criticism/evaluation ! They saw no point in winning over or defeating simpletons ! The problem is, these learned people are too busy with their minds, and set apart no time to explore parallely, a possibility to supplement their own perception skills, especially beyond sense organs ! Any living example around seems to them too incredible to 'fit' into their yardstick of measurement ! When the perception deepens, then the range of 'visibility' too extends incredibly ! This cannot be demonstrated for others to 'see' , but is purely experiential ! Yes , "the innate personal character" is the clue !

Answer 3

Hi. I'm a layman so bear with me. As I understand the 'brane' theory it is mostly an attempt at visualizing a multiple, or infinite, set of universes. The picture it paints in my head is simplistic because I can only grasp four dimensions. The idea that branes, if they exist, must lie in an infinite number of directions as well as depths is beyond me, but it IS fascinating to contemplate.

Answer 4

Love that story.

Brane theory came about through some of the implications of string theory. Branes are extensions of strings into more than one dimension. My understanding of branes as it applies to ekpyrotic theory is that the universe as we know it occupies a 4-brane in some higher-dimension space. The event we know as the Big Bang is the result of our 4-brane contacting another 4-brane in this higher-dimension space. Supposedly, this contact provides enough energy to generate the observed amount of matter and (light) energy we currently see in the universe today.

There may be branes everywhere in this higher-dimension space but right now they're theoretical constructs used to determine measurable, predictable characteristics that can be tested to derive a more complete description of the universe.

Answer 5

A fair question. First, I do not believe the physics community has any fear of a supreme being. Like any other cross-section of the population, some have faith and some don't, and those that do have found a way to reconcile their beliefs with their study of the natural world.

Second, I would also say that anyone who claims to have a way to calculate how long it takes for life to develop is blowing smoke. No "out" is needed in the context you present it as there is no credible method of calculating such a time frame. There is no crisis requiring us to create other universes so that one would eventually have life. There are far to many unknowns regarding the evolution of complex organic molecules to realistically tackle such a problem.

However, the way in which many physical parameters seem fine-tuned to support life does invite some considerations as you present, since such a coincidence can be reconciled either anthropically thru a multi-verse concept or religiously via intelligent design.

Answer 6

Damn, that's a lot of reading. Doesn't make sense to me though.
Chao

Answer 7

I'll try and reply to your question intelligently....see you next September.



(I'm SO confused)

Answer 8

Did you read the whole book?