Orath (I thought I was muted! :P ) Sure...it changes the mechanism that explains what we see...but it doesn't change the ultimate question. I didn't read the entire article...but whether a point singularity exploded, or out universe was squeezed out of something else like tooth paste is meaningless to me...in either case...SOMETHING was there before...this doesn't answer the question of existence from "where did the point singularity come from and why did it explode" to "who squeezed the tube of toothpaste"...

...and where did the tube of toothpaste come from...

And even more importantly, why is it always so hard to get the last little bit out of a tube of toothpaste.

Seed for the next universe...

Eeeewwwww Krellin is squeezing out seed. Disgusting.

I didn't squeeze seed...God did

Leave it to Draug to make that kind of remark.

How could we ever figure out what was before the Big Bang? We'd have to actually find the singular point of the explosion (or something else if this new thing is the case). It seems like a crazy, crazy low possibility we get any further. Though I could be looking at it all wrong - I have a way of doing that ya know...

Clearly, since we don't understand what happened, then God must have done it.

Intellectually lazy and bankrupt.

Also, its the same thing ancient peoples did when they encountered a concept they couldn't understand. Thunder? Must be Zeus. Plague? God is angry with us. Earthquakes? Also God.

And as knowledge increases, your gods become less and less. What a tiny thing, is your god.

I'd rather rely on human intellect and curiosity. Do we understand such things now? No. But maybe someday we'll figure it out. Maybe. But we've got a better chance of figuring it out by relying on intellect and investigation than on bronze age superstitions.

Like most theories that rely on branes and hyperworlds, this one remains, for now at least, completely untestable. Such things are completely routine in modern theoretical physics, of course, but it's hard to see why they merit a great deal of interest. (Which is different from saying that they're necessarily wrong).

if it cannot be tested than it is kind of "wrong" in the sense that it does not exist in science. if it can generalize calculations, or provide a different framework for viewing things, then it can be a useful aid - but that is it.

if after binging for weeks i end up losing my job i can come up with a theory that there is a god who occasionally punishes us for our sins, that may be a theory that can work for me, and explain things in an alternate way. but without any way to really test it, we cannot say that the phenomenon exists.in science. only that it is another way of describing the world.

but then again, i hope most sane physicists do not think there are real multiple universes somewhere out there and are just using these words as a tool for calculation not confusing untestable theories with reality. but who knows with todays academic community.

@krelly-poo: 'Orath (I thought I was muted! :P )' you were, until about a month ago, have you not noticed me conversing with you on kultiple threads??

'.SOMETHING was there before...this doesn't answer the question
of existence' - first was there a 'before' of is that you ape brain making the mistake of assuming common sense concepts of time/space and causation work on a universal scale? Second we know particles in a vacumn spontaneously create&destroy without any 'cause' so we are certain that causality breaks down in some sense. Thridly we still don't have a theory of quantum gravity (or general relativity on tiny scales, whether quantum or not) so physicists know they can't describe the big bang (or any other singularity for that matter)

So basically your question is either A) unanswerable or B) non-sense (unaskable/unsenseible to ask) or C) understood when you take out Ape-thinking and replace it with the harder to comprehend evidence of reality.

Regardless, this theory isn't trying to answer your question. It is trying to describe the evidence we do have. And it should produce testable predictions (so may prove to be 'science' and more so than any string theory) it is interesting, but it is not what you are interested in.

So if you don't care about the evidence for the expansion of the universe you can stop right there. (do not pass go, do not collect $200) just stay where you are stuck in your mindset, and continue asking your questions.

The linked article itself links to a paper on ArXiv. *That* article talks about a 5 Schwarzschild black hole, not 4 (it also reads like Star Trek hand-waving science double talk. I kept expecting to read "and then we invert the warp field").

There's a BBC "Horizon" program from 2008 on the subject of membrane universes (branes):-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7SDrj4Tjvk

@speaker, em, yes. Looking at the paper itself i am more than a little confused. I wonder would the authors care to produce a short youtube series to explain themselves... (i've been enjoying Susskind's cosmology lecture series - on youtube from stanford - and he manages to talk sense that any graduate physics major can understand, unlike this paper)