Talk:Brane cosmology

disappearing gravitons
"For example, in a particle accelerator, if a graviton were to be discovered and then observed to suddenly disappear, it might be assumed that the graviton 'leaked' into the bulk."

This sentence is problematic for several reasons. First of all, there is little chance of ever detecting an individual graviton, because of the weakness of the gravitational force. (Experiments are under way to detect gravitational waves, however.) Second, how could you detect that a graviton had "disappeared"? Particle detectors can track charged particles (which the graviton is NOT), but otherwise you generally look for the characteristic decay products of the particle. Meaning, the particle has already ceased to exist by the time you detect it. If a graviton simply vanished, you'd have no way to detect it in the first place. At best, you might be able to detect some missing energy, but all this would mean is that something escaped from your detector, not that it escaped into another dimension -- and you'd have no way to identify the escaped particle as a graviton.

Furthermore, this isn't an example of the "various experiments" mentioned in the previous sentence. The actual experiments don't have anything to do with searching for individual gravitons.

Anyway, I've removed the sentence quoted above, and added a link to some descriptions of experiments. Tim314 21:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Parallel?
I have some concern with the terminology used to describe the origin of the big bang. That is to say if two branes are parallel in the traditional sense of the word, it is impossible for them to touch. I'm not suggesting a replacement word right now, but definitely the term parallel doesn't seem sufficient or at least proper. --Riluve 17:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Further results?
The most recent reference in the article is to a conference in 2004. Have there been any more updates? -- Hongooi 11:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Copy and Pasted Text
More than half of this article has been copied and pasted from "Applied Differential Geometry: A Modern Introduction" by Ivancevic; which I just happen to have been reading. Agalmic (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please delete any offending copyvio text immediately. --Closedmouth (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

In depth
A review of why gravity is weak is in order. This entire article states concepts (cf. conceptually), and does not provide any sufficient technical overview. Rajpaj (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Brane cosmology itself is "why" gravity is weaker, at least according to the theories mentioned in the lead. Physicists have been trying to figure out why it's weaker for decades. --Closedmouth (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology?
This article is titled brane cosmology, but I'm not seeing much cosmology content in the article, at least in the sense in which I understand cosmology--a largely observational science. The content of this article is much more oriented toward theoretical considerations, so I submit that the article might be better titled Braneworld, as that is the redirect link I used to find the article.

My non-expert two cents.

70.247.174.22 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

please add brane illustrations

 * 1) Planck brane (or Planck-sized brane)
 * 2) Holographic brane
 * 3) Many parallel brane slices side by side
 * 4) Universal brane collision

These are 4 fundamental brane illustrations to add, you can add more. Open a Brian Greene or Michio Kaku book and illustrate your own brane. The brane is depicted a bit wavy. If your illustration isn't good please do not upload it. The point is to evolve this page not to add random data.