1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gravity and how it works?

  1. Dec 5, 2005 #1
    Hey guys,

    I was reading on another forum when someone posted the following:

    I have no idea what to make of it
    As the posters here are much more qualified in the field of physics than I am, could someone please give me a sense of what the above says, or if it's even coherent?

    thanks much,
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 5, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    While the words themselves are coherent enough, the rest sounds like crackpottery to me. How does he figure that we know what a graviton orbital looks like when we don't even know that they exist?
  4. Dec 5, 2005 #3
    i'm just curious to where u found this?
  5. Dec 6, 2005 #4
    The physics section of the "art of problem solving" forum
    The link is here: http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/Forum/topic-64451.html
    Basically, the people on the forum are around high-school to college, with a few adults scattered here and there. We focus mainly on problem-solving(math, physics, informatics, etc.). But that post was just... baffling.
  6. Dec 6, 2005 #5
    Gravitons are thought to exist, and are the carrier particle for gravity - a good site for explaining this is www.particleadventure.org/particleadventure/[/URL]
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  7. Dec 6, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That's a very interesting link, NewScientist, but I don't see anything there that even hints at the existence of gravitons. You'll notice that gravity is specifically excluded from the Standard Model. I'll start believing in the little buggers when somebody detects one. :biggrin:
  8. Dec 6, 2005 #7
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  9. Dec 6, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Alright, now I see it. No bloody wonder I missed those pages the first time around. They're so buried that my finger would have worn out before I could click all the way into them. Still, though, all that is says is that they're predicted to exist, and haven't been detected. And there are still those who don't believe in them at all. I reserve my opinion about that until more data come in, but I still don't believe that this guy can know all that much about something that might not even be there. The Higgs bosun has been more intensely theorized and searched for, and I still occassionally see disparate notions of its characteristics.
  10. Dec 6, 2005 #9
    I understand that theory predicts a graviton- but my question is, does the quoted text sound kosher? a "graviton orbital"? What?
  11. Dec 6, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah, that kind of threw me too. As a bosun, it wouldn't have an orbital such as an electron does. Since he's referring to a multi-dimensional construct, though, I figured maybe the term means something else in that context.
  12. Dec 6, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I usually think of gravity clasically, since we don't have a good quantum theory for it. Skipping that issue in the name of giving the poster a break, a "graviton orbital" still doesn't make any sense around an object less massive than a black hole.

    Looking at the original quote
    we can see that the original poster of this remark was apparently extremely confused, apparently conflating (conflating = confusing + combining) the electromagnetic interactions which hold an atom together with gravity.
  13. Dec 6, 2005 #12
  14. Dec 7, 2005 #13

    Doc Al

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    No, it sounds like gibberish.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook