Conjoined Brane Dynamics - a new model of the universe

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

Conjoined Brane Dynamics is a developing model of the physical structure of our universe that is based on an alternate perspective of the nature of branes - one in which matter, energy, and force are emergent properties of elastic brane deformations. This model investigates brane-brane interactions as the foundation for understanding our universe, including; the nature of matter, energy, wave-particle duality, composite particles, electromagnetic force, gravity, strong force, weak force, dark matter halo formations, and the creation events. This model does not contradict our current understanding of the laws and observations of physics; it stands on the shoulders of Einstein's revelations to propose a physical structure to the universe from which these laws and observations follow more intuitively.

Model Website: http://www.conjoinedbranedynamics.net

I respectfully submit these ideas for review, and look forward to any and all constructive feedback and discussion.

[captain swoop]

Welcome to BAUT. Please take some time to read the Rules For Posting and the Advice for ATM thread both linked at the bottom of this post.
If you wish to lay out and defend an ATM 'idea' then you need to do it here, linking to a website isn't the way to do it. This is a forum where your idea will be questioned and attacked, it's not a place for developing or just discussing ideas

[Tensor]

Conjoined Brane Dynamics is a developing model of the physical structure of our universe that is based on an alternate perspective of the nature of branes - one in which matter, energy, and force are emergent properties of elastic brane deformations. This model investigates brane-brane interactions as the foundation for understanding our universe, including; the nature of matter, energy, wave-particle duality, composite particles, electromagnetic force, gravity, strong force, weak force, dark matter halo formations, and the creation events. This model does not contradict our current understanding of the laws and observations of physics; it stands on the shoulders of Einstein's revelations to propose a physical structure to the universe from which these laws and observations follow more intuitively.

Model Website: http://www.conjoinedbranedynamics.net

I respectfully submit these ideas for review, and look forward to any and all constructive feedback and discussion.

It seems to me that you are using terms in a different way than physicist generally use them. For instance, you call everything a distortion of a brane. This paper talks about interaction of branes, including parallel, perpendicular, with different boundary conditions. What, are your boundary conditions and your boundary equation? Or, are you simply using a different definition of the term Brane?

You also use the term Soliton. Wikipedia, using Drazin and Johnsons' definition, defines them (non-mathematically) as having:

1. They are of permanent form;
2. They are localised within a region;
3. They can interact with other solitons, and emerge from the collision unchanged, except for a phase shift.

Given that your description (on your website) disagrees with all three of these, I'm guessing that you have a different definition of soliton than that of most physicists. The mathematical description require partial differential equations, of which I've seen none, on your website. Another point against your use of the term.


This is just for a start. I'll continue when you decide to actually bring your idea here.

[abcdefg]

Conjoined Brane Dynamics is a developing model of the physical structure of our universe that is based on an alternate perspective of the nature of branes - one in which matter, energy, and force are emergent properties of elastic brane deformations. This model investigates brane-brane interactions as the foundation for understanding our universe, including; the nature of matter, energy, wave-particle duality, composite particles, electromagnetic force, gravity, strong force, weak force, dark matter halo formations, and the creation events. This model does not contradict our current understanding of the laws and observations of physics; it stands on the shoulders of Einstein's revelations to propose a physical structure to the universe from which these laws and observations follow more intuitively.

Model Website: http://www.conjoinedbranedynamics.net

I respectfully submit these ideas for review, and look forward to any and all constructive feedback and discussion.

Does emergence mean what I think it means, all of a sudden out of nowhere?

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

Welcome to BAUT. Please take some time to read the Rules For Posting and the Advice for ATM thread both linked at the bottom of this post.
If you wish to lay out and defend an ATM 'idea' then you need to do it here, linking to a website isn't the way to do it. This is a forum where your idea will be questioned and attacked, it's not a place for developing or just discussing ideas

Thanks captain swoop - I had missed the "linking" section in my eagerness to post.

The ideas being proposed are in the form of a collection of thought experiments, in the spirit of Einsteins' thought experiments, which formed the foundation for his further and deeper development of the concrete mathematics. My intent is to see if these thought experiments hold up under scrutiny first by others with greater expertise. Only if this foundation is sound, will the mathematics be pursued. If this is not the place for that than I apologize and withdraw my request for review.

If this is the right forum, then I can certainly post the content from the website directly in this forum. Let me know which way I should go based on the purpose of this board.

Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated.

[abcdefg]

Thanks captain swoop - I had missed the "linking" section in my eagerness to post.

The ideas being proposed are in the form of a collection of thought experiments, in the spirit of Einsteins' thought experiments, which formed the foundation for his further and deeper development of the concrete mathematics. My intent is to see if these thought experiments hold up under scrutiny first by others with greater expertise. Only if this foundation is sound, will the mathematics be pursued. If this is not the place for that than I apologize and withdraw my request for review.

If this is the right forum, then I can certainly post the content from the website directly in this forum. Let me know which way I should go based on the purpose of this board.

Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated.

Something is wrong. The math, for some reason, seems a viable tool for describing the universe.

Why would that follow?
It should be a preamble to a proposal..

Perhaps, I misunderstood.

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

It seems to me that you are using terms in a different way than physicist generally use them. For instance, you call everything a distortion of a brane. This paper talks about interaction of branes, including parallel, perpendicular, with different boundary conditions. What, are your boundary conditions and your boundary equation? Or, are you simply using a different definition of the term Brane?

Thanks for taking the time to review, Tensor - much appreciated.

I struggled with what word to use, but ended up falling to "brane". I perhaps should have used membrane instead, to avoid confusion. In this model these branes are not meant to correlate to the current theories regarding the nature of branes. You could say I am proposing a redifition of the concept of brane (which is why it may be easier just to call them something different).

This model does not work to define the specific characteristics of branes, only that in this model they have the general properties of being elastic, under tension, spacially fixed parallel to eachother, and allow for conjoining - all per the assumptions contained on the home page. These general characteristics create the playing field for the true meat of the model - which is to examine the dynamics of how branes with these properties may conjoin, and how these dynamics actually match observed physical phenomena.

It's almost working backwards. First I'm creating assumptions of a foundational system (parallel elastic branes under tension that can conjoin with eachother) and examining how the system behaves. Then if the behaviors correlate to the physics of the universe, then there may be truth to the assumptions that form the foundation (parallel elastic branes under tension that can conjoin with eachother). At that point then the work can begin to delve into the mathematics and specific properties and makeup of these "branes". This progression does seem odd, but it's how my mind works.

You also use the term Soliton. Wikipedia, using Drazin and Johnsons' definition, defines them (non-mathematically) as having:

1. They are of permanent form;
2. They are localised within a region;
3. They can interact with other solitons, and emerge from the collision unchanged, except for a phase shift.

Given that your description (on your website) disagrees with all three of these, I'm guessing that you have a different definition of soliton than that of most physicists. The mathematical description require partial differential equations, of which I've seen none, on your website. Another point against your use of the term.

I believe the use of Soliton in the model is correct - the issue is probably my presentation of it. What I'm trying to convey is that a soliton looks like a conjoined particle (the 3-D shaded graphic in thought experiment #01 best renders this), but that the upper and lower branes don't actually meet to conjoin - they form instead two travelling "humps" that travel as a waveform but are shaped similarly to a particle: fulfilling the characteristics of being localized in a region, permanent of form, and able to interact with matter and other solitons.

Let me know if you hava any more questions on this, as Solitons were one of the hardest things for me to convey in this model, mostly due to my graphical skill level.

Thanks for the feedback - much appreciated.

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

Does emergence mean what I think it means, all of a sudden out of nowhere?

Thanks for the question, abcdefg.

My intent is to say that matter, energy, and force all emerge as a result of the conjoining of this model's branes. Instead of intrinsic "things" in and of themselves; matter, energy and force emerge as constituents of the universe only as the result of branes interacting with branes. (Per previous posts, please understand that my use of the term "brane" only refers to an elastic membrane under tension that is able to conjoin with other similar membranes).

Let me know if that clarifies my intent - again, thanks for the question.

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

Something is wrong. The math, for some reason, seems a viable tool for describing the universe.

Why would that follow?
It should be a preamble to a proposal..

Perhaps, I misunderstood.

Thanks for the question, abcdefg.

I understand your perspective, and believe it's a matter of individuality and makeup. Many people are travelling to the same destination, but will choose different means to arrive there. I don't believe it's impossible to reach an understanding of the universe from an intuitive perspective.

But my personal opinion is not the purpose of this thread, so I will continue to field questions pertaining only to the specifics of this model, unless this forum does not allow for an intuitive pursuit of the understanding of the universe.

Again, thanks for your question - much appreciated.

[abcdefg]

Thanks for the question, abcdefg.

My intent is to say that matter, energy, and force all emerge as a result of the conjoining of this model's branes. Instead of intrinsic "things" in and of themselves; matter, energy and force emerge as constituents of the universe only as the result of branes interacting with branes. (Per previous posts, please understand that my use of the term "brane" only refers to an elastic membrane under tension that is able to conjoin with other similar membranes).

Let me know if that clarifies my intent - again, thanks for the question.

No.

I mean emergence is emergence and religion from my POV.

I would expect to see a set of necessary conditions leading to a result and not an emergence argument.

[abcdefg]

Originally Posted by abcdefg
Something is wrong. The math, for some reason, seems a viable tool for describing the universe.
Why would that follow?
It should be a preamble to a proposal..

Perhaps, I misunderstood.

Thanks for the question, abcdefg.

I understand your perspective, and believe it's a matter of individuality and makeup. Many people are travelling to the same destination, but will choose different means to arrive there. I don't believe it's impossible to reach an understanding of the universe from an intuitive perspective.

But my personal opinion is not the purpose of this thread, so I will continue to field questions pertaining only to the specifics of this model, unless this forum does not allow for an intuitive pursuit of the understanding of the universe.

Again, thanks for your question - much appreciated.

The two bold above are in conflict.


If you believe a math based universe is a matter of personal taste, you will not succeed in an ATM on physics.

You have done much work. But, you need the math.

[macaw]

But, you need the math.

How come your ATM's have no math whatsoever?

[Tensor]

The ideas being proposed are in the form of a collection of thought experiments, in the spirit of Einsteins' thought experiments, which formed the foundation for his further and deeper development of the concrete mathematics.

This is just a flat out wrong statement. This is his original paper on Special Relativity, published in Annalen der Physik #17 1905 You will find no mention of any thought experiment, but, you will find the math to back up his radical (at the time) new ideas on spacetime. You will also note that he provides the math for the changes in Maxwell's equations. Here you will find his original paper on General Relativity (Published in Annalen der Physik #49 1916 and also read to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in November of 1915. Note again, no thought experiments, but plenty of math.

He used the though experiments to try and describe his theories in a non-mathematical way, to the general public. Perhaps you are thinking about his book "Relativity the Special and the General Theory" In this, he uses thought experiments to explain the two. Note though, that this book was published in 1916. After he had already published both papers introducing his theories.

But, be very sure about this, he had the mathematics to back up his "thought experiment" descriptions of his theories, before using the thought experiments to describe them. Many amateurs make the mistake of coming up with descriptions, without understanding, or expecting others to do the math.

[abcdefg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by abcdefg
But, you need the math.

How come your ATM's have no math whatsoever?

What's this? [A link (now removed) to your ATM thread that needs to stay in your ATM thread]

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

This is just a flat out wrong statement. This is his original paper on Special Relativity, published in Annalen der Physik #17 1905 You will find no mention of any thought experiment, but, you will find the math to back up his radical (at the time) new ideas on spacetime. You will also note that he provides the math for the changes in Maxwell's equations. Here you will find his original paper on General Relativity (Published in Annalen der Physik #49 1916 and also read to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in November of 1915. Note again, no thought experiments, but plenty of math.

He used the though experiments to try and describe his theories in a non-mathematical way, to the general public. Perhaps you are thinking about his book "Relativity the Special and the General Theory" In this, he uses thought experiments to explain the two. Note though, that this book was published in 1916. After he had already published both papers introducing his theories.

But, be very sure about this, he had the mathematics to back up his "thought experiment" descriptions of his theories, before using the thought experiments to describe them. Many amateurs make the mistake of coming up with descriptions, without understanding, or expecting others to do the math.

Thanks for your comments Tensor.

Let me clarify my intent further. My understanding is that Einstein's thought experiment of chasing a beam of light lead to General Relativity. I took this to mean that such an effort might loosely follow a progression such as:
- An experimental concept is visualized
- new ideas are formed based on mental consideration of the scenarios within the experiment
- any new ideas that violate basic principles of nature are discarded
- ideas that seem plausible are explored and developed through concrete math

In the case of Einstein, I doubt he needed to be so deliberate in his steps. If he did, I'm sure many of these steps occurred in the blink of an eye for him. Neither did he need to solicit the insight of others prior to developing the math and publishing his theory.

I, however, am not a professional physicist. I am amature. I work much more slowly and deliberately. I also want to make sure that the ideas I am proposing based on the scenarios within my thought experiments do not have fundamental flaws that violate basic principles of nature before investing in the math.

That is to say that this model is currently at the 3rd step mentioned above; "any new ideas that violate basic principles of nature are discarded". As an amature I come to this board not looking for mathematics experts just yet - I'm sorry I have nothing for you at this time. I come for those who can examine a model conceptually and point out flaws on that level.

If I proposed a model which had balls rolling uphill against gravity with no explanation for this deviation, I would expect the readers of this board to point out that this violates the observed and proven force of gravity. No math is necessary to make that point.

In the Conjoined Brane Dynamics model, a flat elastic membrane under tension is stretched upward at a point to create a distortion, and that distortion wil tend to return to its flat position through the forces of tension. This is a concrete mathematical actuality that can be explained in equations, but its also equally capable of being explained based on the tendency towards lower states of energy. Simply put I'm not at the equations point yet - I'm looking for someone to point out where physical construct "A" in the model is flawed because it violates principle "B".

I posted this model on this forum specifically because it appeared to be open to those at an amature level. The board rules also stated that while discussion may be rough, the responders are ultimately here to help the theory. Based on these two points I expected that this forum was the right place to have this model examined for problems in its current state.

I believe this question needs to be forced. To the moderator: Is this forum the right place for amatures to post conceptual frameworks without mathematics to be examined in the light of basic principles of nature?

If so, I'll begin transferring the model content directly into this forum for futher discussion at that level.

Again, thanks for your comments Tensor - they allowed me to really hone in on how to convey what I'm looking to accomplish here.

[captain swoop]

abcdefg and Macaw. Knock it off. One more exchange like this in anyone elses thread and I will give you time off.

[PetersCreek]

To the moderator: Is this forum the right place for amatures to post conceptual frameworks without mathematics to be examined in the light of basic principles of nature?

This forum is intended as a place where you can present, support, defend, and answer questions about your ATM theory. If you haven't yet developed it to that point, this isn't the place for it. However, if you're ready for it to be rigorously and enthusiastically challenged, by all means, present it here.

I'll reiterate the admonition to become familiar with our rules in general and rule 13 in particular as it pertains to this forum. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to check out the FAQ and advice links in my sig line, below.

[conjoinedbranedynamics]

This forum is intended as a place where you can present, support, defend, and answer questions about your ATM theory. If you haven't yet developed it to that point, this isn't the place for it. However, if you're ready for it to be rigorously and enthusiastically challenged, by all means, present it here.

I'll reiterate the admonition to become familiar with our rules in general and rule 13 in particular as it pertains to this forum. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to check out the FAQ and advice links in my sig line, below.

Thanks PetersCreek - that is the reply I was looking for.

Based on what I've learned already, I've got some work ahead of me to condense and frame the content of this model into a more forum-friendly format. When that work is done I'll be back to post the result and get this conversation rolling.

Thanks - to all - for your patience and feedback!

[PetersCreek]

Based on what I've learned already, I've got some work ahead of me to condense and frame the content of this model into a more forum-friendly format. When that work is done I'll be back to post the result and get this conversation rolling.

That being the case, I've closed this thread to further comments (and premature questions) until such a time that you're ready to procede. PM a moderator...or better yet, use the report button (see below)...to ask for the thread to be reopened.