A possible explanation of "big bang" inflation

In the standard model inflation usually refers to the period
of time when space expanded at a rate that exceeded the
speed of light. The usual explanation refers to a "scalar field"
but it is not clear that this refers to a known law of physics.

What I suggest here is a possible alternate explanation of
the concept of inflation. Current theories (TOEs*) deal with
objects called strings. A refinement of the string explanation
is the so called M-theory, in which an 11 dimensional space
models all that is known in physics. The M-theory one
dimensional strings (also called 1-branes) are the ultimate
building blocks of matter. 2-branes would be strings that
have a second membrane-like dimension. 3-branes would
be objects that fill three dimensional space.

If space itself can be quantised, what would be the elementary
particles of space. I suggest that they would be particles that
fill space like 3-branes. Now at the "big bang" mass and
energy of the universe was created. I suggest that at the
same time space was also created by a huge increase in
these 3-brane particles. The volume could have been so
great that space expanded at a rate faster than the speed
of light. This idea suggests that inflation could be explained
under the M-theory and would not require additional
"scalar fields".

It is not clear how the existence (or non-existence) of these
3-branes could be demonstrated experimentally. I suppose
that if the M-theory fits them in and shows their interaction
with known elementary particles ways may be developed
to prove (or disprove) their existence. In any case these
3-branes would be deformed by a gravitational field and
would interact with photons. As matter gets sucked into
black holes, 3-branes would either be excluded or deformed
to the point of extinction.

*) Theory of Everything

Zdenek Jizba wrote:
In the standard model inflation usually refers to the period
of time when space expanded at a rate that exceeded the
speed of light.

That is only vaguely right. More correct would be "to the period
when the expansion of space was proceeding at an exponential rate".


The usual explanation refers to a "scalar field"
but it is not clear that this refers to a known law of physics.

Correction: it is *totally* clear that this is *not* a known
law of physics, but something which has been postulated ad hoc
and so far can not be tested correctly.



What I suggest here is a possible alternate explanation of
the concept of inflation. Current theories (TOEs*) deal with
objects called strings. A refinement of the string explanation
is the so called M-theory, in which an 11 dimensional space
models all that is known in physics. The M-theory one
dimensional strings (also called 1-branes) are the ultimate
building blocks of matter. 2-branes would be strings that
have a second membrane-like dimension. 3-branes would
be objects that fill three dimensional space.

If space itself can be quantised, what would be the elementary
particles of space. I suggest that they would be particles that
fill space like 3-branes.

It's not clear if one *can* even quantize space alone. More probably,
what has to be quantized is *spacetime*. Hence you would need 4-branes.

Another problem here is that, AFAIK, these branes are either infinitely
extended or closed on themselves. I don't see how one could use such
objects as "quanta" of space or spacetime.


Now at the "big bang" mass and
energy of the universe was created. I suggest that at the
same time space was also created by a huge increase in
these 3-brane particles.

Huge increase? So you say that even before, there existed already
a number of them?


The volume could have been so
great that space expanded at a rate faster than the speed
of light.

Since this "space expanded faster than the speed of light" idea
makes little sense (see above), that does not help you much.

What do you *mean* when you say that "space expanded faster than
the speed of light"? A speed is a distance divided by a time. What
distance are you talking about? The curvature radius of the universe,
or what?

And *why* would there have been such a large increase in the number
of the branes shortly after the Big Bang? Standard inflation theory
*does* provide an actual mechanism - you provide only a wild speculation
so far. Further, standard inflation theory provides quantitative
predictions (and some of which already have been tested).



This idea suggests that inflation could be explained
under the M-theory and would not require additional
"scalar fields".

It's fairly clear that your knowledge of inflation and the M-theory
stems only from popular science sources... What you present above
has little to do with what either of those two theories actually
say. Try to get "Principles of Physical Cosmology" by Peebles and
read at least the introduction to his chapter on inflation, please. Then
you will have a much better idea what inflation is about, why an
"inflation field" was postulated. what any alternative explanation
has to explain etc.




It is not clear how the existence (or non-existence) of these
3-branes could be demonstrated experimentally. I suppose
that if the M-theory fits them in and shows their interaction
with known elementary particles ways may be developed
to prove (or disprove) their existence.

How, do you think, could M-theory "fit them in"?


In any case these
3-branes would be deformed by a gravitational field

Why?


and would interact with photons.

Why?



As matter gets sucked into
black holes, 3-branes would either be excluded or deformed
to the point of extinction.

Why?



[snip]

Bye,
Bjoern