Talk:Brane cosmology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
