How Does the Fourth Dimension Affect Gravity?

[daveed]

Hey guys,

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

We all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension, a swirling torus around the nucleus but in the fourth dimension you have to imagine that the Earth is flattened into a zero-mass plate. Now it is very important that we realize stellar bodies have no mass in the fourth-D because of what I will explain later.
There is an article in Wired magazine about semi-conductor pseudo-atom formation. The semi-conductor is shaped like the prongs of a fork all pointing into a central location spaced a few atoms apart. This allows the formation of a specific number of electrons to form together in a pseudo-atom without a nucleus. Now, with the absence of a nucleus to make the atomic structure unstable they are able to create huge atomic structures that will interact with other elements much the same as real atoms. The mass-less atoms are able to support these atomic "super-structures"; by comparison the graviton orbitals are able to remain stable in the 4th-D because 3rd-D stellar bodies also have no relative mass.
Electron spin cannot be rectified mathematically unless they pass in and out of the 4th-D, therefore the connection between the graviton and the electron must be bound together, proving super-string theory. The electron passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting strongly in the 3rd-D and the graviton passes in and out of the 3rd-D and 4th-D interacting weakly with the 3rd-D but strongly with the 4th-D.
A graviton passing through the Earth would do so instantaneously because of the fact that it is flat in the 4th-D however it would take some time to complete the rest of it's orbit. A magnetic flux is the fastest known force to us meaning that gravitons must be smaller than a photon to satisfy the Special-Theory of Relativity.

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,
David

 

[Danger]

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?

 

[simon009988]

i'm just curious to where u found this?

 

[daveed]

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.

 

[NewScientist]

Gravitons are thought to exist, and are the carrier particle for gravity - a good site for explaining this is www.particleadventure.org/particleadventure/[/URL]

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[NewScientist]

I read yur post and was worried! So i found the specific links!

http://www.particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/gravity.html

and
http://www.particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_cutouts/forces.jpg

gravitons are explicitly mentioned on both :P

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[daveed]

I understand that theory predicts a graviton- but my question is, does the quoted text sound kosher? a "graviton orbital"? What?

 

[Danger]

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.

 

[pervect]

I understand that theory predicts a graviton- but my question is, does the quoted text sound kosher? a "graviton orbital"? What?

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 all know what the graviton orbital looks like in the third dimension, a swirling torus around the nucleus

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.

 

[andrewchang]

there's another thread related to gravitons:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=102942

 

[Doc Al]

I understand that theory predicts a graviton- but my question is, does the quoted text sound kosher?

No, it sounds like gibberish.