I was reading "Warped Passages" and she was talking about branes and bulk. That supersymmety problem in our 3+1 dimensional, could be solved by isolating the particles in one brane (ours) and confining other exotic particles like supersymmetric partners in another brane that's separated by a bulk.
Only thing that can "communicate" between the branes is a graviton particle.
Sounds good but are there any "proof", even mathematical? I presume they have "things" worked out mathematically and not just dreaming this stuff up?
Only thing that can "communicate" between the branes is a graviton particle.
Sounds good but are there any "proof", even mathematical? I presume they have "things" worked out mathematically and not just dreaming this stuff up?
-
Yes, some of it is worked out mathematically.
Models such as branes or bulk theory are highly mathematical (you generally don't see the complete maths in most popular science books) and can be used to make theoretical predictions which could, in principle, be tested by experiment. These models are able to explain certain phenomena that can't be explained by our current understanding.
Right now, however, we have no way of confirming if any of these models are correct. They seem to explain certain things we've observed, but we don't have sufficient experimental evidence that they are an accurate description of what's really going on.
To a certain extent, this stuff is being dreamed up, but when it is, attempts are then made to see if we can actually test it to see if it means anything. A few models show promise, but none have been conclusively demonstrated (and no physicist is claiming that they are definitely correct, either).
Models such as branes or bulk theory are highly mathematical (you generally don't see the complete maths in most popular science books) and can be used to make theoretical predictions which could, in principle, be tested by experiment. These models are able to explain certain phenomena that can't be explained by our current understanding.
Right now, however, we have no way of confirming if any of these models are correct. They seem to explain certain things we've observed, but we don't have sufficient experimental evidence that they are an accurate description of what's really going on.
To a certain extent, this stuff is being dreamed up, but when it is, attempts are then made to see if we can actually test it to see if it means anything. A few models show promise, but none have been conclusively demonstrated (and no physicist is claiming that they are definitely correct, either).