<p>I didn't read the SciAm article, but: Any cosmological theory compatible with "the" mainstream big bang theory doesn't assume material to have been contained in "Our Universe" (needs to be defined) from the very beginning.
Instead a very hot, unified state, is assumed, which then underwent several symmetry breakings (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism</a>), before "material" came into existence, as we observe it by now.</p>

<p>So, the very hypothetical, presumed four-dimensional star just needs to trigger an initial state causing the big bang. Whether "Our Universe" is a brane universe embedded in a higher-dimensional universe, is another mere hypothesis. Whatever "star" or "black hole" in a higher-dimensional universe would mean, the physics would be very different from the physics we can observe. For instance, inverse <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law" rel="nofollow">square laws</a> wouldn't hold due to the additional dimension(s), hence orbital dynamics, electromagnetism needed for atoms, etc., all would either fail, or work rather different. Presuming the existence of stars in such a hypothetical universe is very daring, already.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-08T15:28:57.030Z
2015-12-08T15:28:57.030Z
Gerald
<p>So I got this information from a magazine , Scientific American issue Physics at the Limits. The theory is that our Universe came about, when in the "Bulk Universe", which is four dimensional, a four dimensional Star collapsed and formed a black hole which became our 3 dimensional "Brane Universe", in which we live. My question is, how could this one Star have contained all the material that is in our Universe ?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-07T21:37:29.467Z
If I understand you correctly, you seem to be talking about a simplification of brane cosmology. Given the imprecision of the simplification you are dealing with, it may be difficult to answer such a "how" question, but I'm no cosmologist.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-07T21:38:32.817Z
You should also note that brane cosmology is a collection of theories without any evidence thus far.
called2voyage
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-12-07T21:46:46.523Z
Is this the article you're referencing?   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-black-hole-that-birthed-the-big-bang/   It's worth pointing out that the first line under the title is a question.   "Is the big bang, and all that came from it, a holographic mirage from another dimension?"   This is a creative idea more than it is a theory with any evidence behind it.
userLTK
<universe>
Formation of our Universe
Peter U
# Formation of our Universe

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-12-07)

So I got this information from a magazine , Scientific American issue Physics at the Limits. The theory is that our Universe came about, when in the "Bulk Universe", which is four dimensional, a four dimensional Star collapsed and formed a black hole which became our 3 dimensional "Brane Universe", in which we live. My question is, how could this one Star have contained all the material that is in our Universe ?

**Tags:** universe
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: If I understand you correctly, you seem to be talking about a simplification of brane cosmology. Given the imprecision of the simplification you are dealing with, it may be difficult to answer such a "how" question, but I'm no cosmologist.  
> **username_1**: You should also note that brane cosmology is a collection of theories without any evidence thus far.  
> **username_2**: Is this the article you're referencing?   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-black-hole-that-birthed-the-big-bang/   It's worth pointing out that the first line under the title is a question.   "Is the big bang, and all that came from it, a holographic mirage from another dimension?"   This is a creative idea more than it is a theory with any evidence behind it.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-12-08. Score: 1

I didn't read the SciAm article, but: Any cosmological theory compatible with "the" mainstream big bang theory doesn't assume material to have been contained in "Our Universe" (needs to be defined) from the very beginning.
Instead a very hot, unified state, is assumed, which then underwent several symmetry breakings (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking>, <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism>), before "material" came into existence, as we observe it by now.

So, the very hypothetical, presumed four-dimensional star just needs to trigger an initial state causing the big bang. Whether "Our Universe" is a brane universe embedded in a higher-dimensional universe, is another mere hypothesis. Whatever "star" or "black hole" in a higher-dimensional universe would mean, the physics would be very different from the physics we can observe. For instance, inverse [square laws](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law) wouldn't hold due to the additional dimension(s), hence orbital dynamics, electromagnetism needed for atoms, etc., all would either fail, or work rather different. Presuming the existence of stars in such a hypothetical universe is very daring, already.


---

