## CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

### CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

You will have to forgive me for making a thread about this. My motivations may not be entirely angelic in regards to the topic. Reasons why this thread may be inappropriate 1) The topic has likely been beaten to death in other threads. 2) One reason for breaching this topic is because it seems related only to a single regular poster here.

So why create another thread on this topic? Well first of all, I don't want to sift through screens of archived posts hunting down one-liners to quote. Secondly, I know the answer now, and months ago I did not. ( If everyone has grown tired of this topic, I'm okay with this post not seeing any replies.)

The CMBR's blue section indicates the direction the Milky Way is moving towards the Great Attractor. The intensity of this blueshifted light can be used to calculate the velocity of that movement -- clocking in at approx 6 x 105 m/s

Can this phenomenon be used to establish the existence of an absolute stationary reference frame?

Does this phenomenon indicate there is something wrong with the theory of Special Relativity?

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1094
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

hyksos » December 6th, 2017, 1:38 am wrote:
Can this phenomenon be used to establish the existence of an absolute stationary reference frame?

In theory, Yes. But for practical purposes, No.

Ernst Mach considered the collective mass of the universe to be a sort of absolute reference frame and the Sachs Wolfe and Rees Sciama effects lend mathematical support to the idea. Einstein referred to this as “Mach’s Principle.” However, any but the most extreme velocities relative to the combined mass of the universe are so difficult to detect that they can not be used as stationary reference frame for any practical purposes so they can safely be ignored as negligible in SR.

Linear velocities can’t be measured in any useful way relative to the mass of the universe (or the CMBR) but angular velocities can be measured with a gyroscope. A gyroscope doesn’t orient itself with local gravitational sources such as the Earth or even the solar system. A gyroscope orients itself with the overwhelming total mass of the universe and that is one reference we can use as an individual absolute.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Suitable for Framing

"In special relativity, the future is considered absolute future, or the future light cone."

One can imagine several ways that future may be identified for example, background neutrino density, background temperature or cosmological expansion (the distance between two widely separated galactic clusters). "Aging" (time elapsed in a given reference frame, given by its proper time coordinate) is thus measured relative to the change in age of the cosmos (or the CBR*).

If we combine the absolute future with interval coordinates (instead of spatial coordinates), the result is a pretty good invariant reference frame.

*I avoid the term "microwave" in referring to the cosmic background radiation because most of it did not originate as microwaves and some of it (e.g. neutrinos) is not electromagnetic.

Active Member

Posts: 1636
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

There are several distinct concepts posted already. The powerpoint list :

1. Invariant reference frame.
2. stationary reference frame.
3. "total mass of the universe"

In many cases, a modern theory of physics will make predictions, that the actual experiments will either conform to , or not conform to. While that is all fine and dandy, the raw theory on paper may be silent on these other juicier philosophical and metaphysical questions. (the existence of a fabric of space, et cetera).

Parts of the theory of Special Relativity are silent on some issues, and very explicit in others. These distinctions are important. Number (2.) above , "stationary reference frame". Such a beast is explicitly forbidden by Special Relativity. . Ironically, number (1.) above, "Invariant reference frame" is not forbidden by SR. In fact, it is a natural part of the theory itself. Why this is a natural part of teh theory will dovetail neatly into number (3.) this concept of the "total mass of the universe".

"Stationary reference frame" is explicitly forbidden by S-R. If you could perform any experiment which would deduce the existence of a preferred stationary reference frame, S-R would not be a "little bit" wrong. It would be totally wrong, full stop. This argument was apparently made by a regular at this forum, (whose name will be excluded until he joins this thread). He specifically referred to the CMBR as the experiment to perform.

On the other hand, S-R admits invariant reference frames. Why they exist is obvious once explained. Consider a large collection of moving things, whether they be massive asteroids, photons, muons, or neutrinos. There is always an inertial reference frame in which one could place one's self so that the total momentum of the system of moving things is zero. In other words, the vectors of all the momenta of all the things all sum up to a zero vector. They "cancel out", so-to-speak. Such an inertial frame does not exist because "Einstein said so and that's mystical.". The reference frame with zero total momenta must exist because of obvious geometrical truisms.

The above concept in the preceding pargaph is given a funny name in S-R. It is called the ``Rest Frame.`` Rest frames are difficult to argue for , given a small collection of objects. (It's 'hard' and require we draw diagrams and wave our hands). But if you have lots and lots of moving objects, and their directions and velocities are random, the existence of a Rest Frame becomes more obvious and more easily obtained in practice. Photons of the CMBR come from everywhere, go everywhere, and there are gazillions of them at all points in space. For this reason, there is obviously a Rest Frame of the CMBR, and this is totally consistent with S-R. The Rest Frame makes no reference to an absolutely stationary newtonian "space fabric" - at all. It only makes a reference to the total combined momenta of all the photons given some (arbitrary) observer. This is the reason why the CMBR has a dipole. Not because the CMBR is intrinsically connected to a stationary newtonian "Grid" that overlays the universe.

Lets turn the concept of Rest Frame towards something mentioned by bangstrom : "Total mass of the universe". I think what bangstrom really meant to say there was "total mass in the universe" (he can vouch for my correction as he sees fit). Imagine now we took all the stars, all the galaxies and all the dust of the universe and added up all their momenta. What would be the resulting momentum of all those together? (Barring some philosophical digression,) we would naturally expect this to be zero. Galaxies move in random directions relative to each other, and once you have billions of such inter-comoving galaxies, the giant lot of them should all "cancel out" their vectors of direction.... yielding a nice invariant Rest Frame. Same procedure from the photons above.

With this procedure, we can be more explicit about what we mean when was say a gyroscope "Aligns itself with" the total mass in the universe. For all we know, the total mass in the universe coudl all be charging along in one preferred direction. We couldn't ever know this, because S-R. It may also be all rotating at some high angular velocity. We wouldn't know.

That's what I meant earlier when I said these physics theories are often silent on the issue.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1094
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

I prefer to consider an invariant reference frame to be unavailable with present technology rather than “forbidden” and I don’t recall that Einstein ever declared a gravitational reference frame to be nonexistent.

I agree with your statements except for the existence of a reference frame relative to the speed of photons. The general consensus in SR is that photons can not have a speed other than c for all observers. This is illogical because, if photons have a speed, there must be a c+/-v and, since we don’t, this calls for a new understanding of SR.

You are right that we can use spectral shifts within the CMBR as a crude universal reference frame but the CMBR is much too distant and nebulous to be of use locally where an accurate measurement of individual speeds is required.

I like to think of c as a dimensional constant rather than a speed of any kind which is why we can’t have c+/-v for a local stationary reference frame. If c is a dimensional constant, like Newton’s G or Plank’s h, that implies that c is a constant ratio of distance to time such that we have a one second time interval for every 300,000 km of space for all observers. And we can’t add a velocity to c because c is a constant spacetime ratio and not a speed. This is the way c is treated throughout SR so the only thing “wrong” with SR is Einstein’s designation of c as the speed of light rather than as a dimensional constant.

This is where we can begin to look for the “juicier philosophical and metaphysical questions.” If c is a dimensional constant rather than a speed, we still have Doppler shifts, the CMBR dipole, a c related time delay between a signal source and its reception, the fabric of space, and even SR. What we don’t have is a “speed” for light which is likely to be either instant or too fast to measure, photons traveling through space and a Newtonian understanding of time.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
 Braininvat liked this post

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

This is where we can begin to look for the “juicier philosophical and metaphysical questions.” If c is a dimensional constant rather than a speed, we still have Doppler shifts, the CMBR dipole, a c related time delay between a signal source and its reception

Two observers with relative velocity will not agree on the time delay between signal and source. This is particularly true if their relative speed difference is approaching the speed of light.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1094
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

Two observers with relative velocity will not agree on either the time or the distance between signal and sink. This is particularly true if their relative speed difference is approaching the time/distance ratio of c. Both observers will agree that the ratio of time to distance between signal and sink, in each case, is equal to c. This observation is independent of their individual velocities because it is a dimensional constant rather than speed dependent variable.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

bangstrom » 08 Dec 2017, 09:10 wrote:And we can’t add a velocity to c because c is a constant spacetime ratio and not a speed. This is the way c is treated throughout SR so the only thing “wrong” with SR is Einstein’s designation of c as the speed of light rather than as a dimensional constant.

There is nothing wrong with 'c' as a dimensional constant (because it is), but it so happens that light sports a propagation speed that, as far as we know, equals 'c' exactly in every local inertial frame of reference. Einstein took a leap of scientific faith when he made this prediction, but that 'leap' has later been vindicated with very high precision.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2583
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

BurtJordaan » December 9th, 2017, 8:45 am wrote:
There is nothing wrong with 'c' as a dimensional constant (because it is), but it so happens that light sports a propagation speed that, as far as we know, equals 'c' exactly in every local inertial frame of reference. Einstein took a leap of scientific faith when he made this prediction, but that 'leap' has later been vindicated with very high precision.

The only part of SR that has been vindicated is that the time/distance ratio for light events is exactly c for every local inertial frame of reference. In other words, c has been demonstrated to be a dimensional constant without fail but Einstein’s leap of faith that light “propagates” through space with a “speed” has not been demonstrated. The existence of light either as a particle or as a wave traveling through space is not supported by observation.

It is intuitively satisfying to think that an exchange of energy from one electron to another some distance away can only be accomplished by a bundle of energy traveling through the space between with an observable speed but QM does not require a physical contact between particles for one particle to influence another. This latter possibility was proposed in the early days of SR by some members of the Copenhagen school among others but Einstein rejected this explanation as, “spooky action at a distance” and he later stated his objection in writing with the thought experiment known as the EPR effect.

The EPR effect was invalidated by the experiments of Bell and Aspect in the early sixties so Einstein’s objection to a "spooky action at a distance” continues to lack experimental support. It is also difficult to imagine how the radial energy of an electron can be bundled into a portable wave that acts as both a wave and particle having a speed that is instantly and always c for all observers while simultaneously generating the properties of a true dimensional constant.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

bangstrom » 10 Dec 2017, 09:02 wrote:In other words, c has been demonstrated to be a dimensional constant without fail but Einstein’s leap of faith that light “propagates” through space with a “speed” has not been demonstrated.

Sorry @bang, but this is nonsense. Long before Einstein, it has been demonstrated that electromagnetic waves propagate at a finite speed through space. It has even been observed that a magnetic field changing in time causes an electric field to change in space, and an electric field changing in time causes a magnetic field to change in space. Combined, they form an electromagnetic wave that propagates at a speed equal to the dimensional constant c. This has been demonstrated countless times.

It was hinted by Maxwell that light might be an electromagnetic wave, but it was Einstein who put it on a firm footing. The modern, experimentally verified scientific position is that light propagates as an em wave, but is emitted and absorbed in quantized energy packets, called photons.

When we start to mix in entangled particles, we add a lot of 'quantum noise' to a simple and well-understood situation. Things are getting probabilistic and can only be predicted as likelihoods. But it has little to do with the propagation speed of light. However, quantum physics is compatible with SR, so its light still propagates at c.

To get back to the OP topic, the CMBR, which is a cosmological effect, has little to do with Special Relativity, because the way we understand, observe and quantify it lies in the General Relativity domain. There the local propagation speed of light in inertial frames is still observed as c, but that inertial frame's size is strictly limited by the amount of spacetime curvature around. In strong curvature cases, it is only approximately valid over very short distances, because strict inertial frames do not exist there.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2583
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

BurtJordaan » December 10th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote: Sorry @bang, but this is nonsense. Long before Einstein, it has been demonstrated that electromagnetic waves propagate at a finite speed through space.

This does not address my objection that the “through space” part is dubious. There are no observations that demonstrate the existence of light in the space between a signal and sink so any and all of the “through space” part is a conjecture not supported by observation.

BurtJordaan » December 10th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote:
It has even been observed that a magnetic field changing in time causes an electric field to change in space, and an electric field changing in time causes a magnetic field to change in space. Combined, they form an electromagnetic wave that propagates at a speed equal to the dimensional constant c. This has been demonstrated countless times.

It was hinted by Maxwell that light might be an electromagnetic wave, but it was Einstein who put it on a firm footing. The modern, experimentally verified scientific position is that light propagates as an em wave, but is emitted and absorbed in quantized energy packets, called photons.

Your explanations are more than a century old and based on years of philosophical conjecture with little experimental support. Carver Mead has reexamined Maxwell’s laws to bring the theory up to date with modern understandings of QM. His revision has proved to be more economical and exact than Maxwell’s and his explanations are quite different from the classical. Mead does not use photon particles or c as a speed in his revision and he refers to fields as they were understood by Feynman where fields are simply mathematical functions used to avoid the idea of action at a distance.

BurtJordaan » December 10th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote:
When we start to mix in entangled particles, we add a lot of 'quantum noise' to a simple and well-understood situation. Things are getting probabilistic and can only be predicted as likelihoods. But it has little to do with the propagation speed of light. However, quantum physics is compatible with SR, so its light still propagates at c.

Quantum entanglement is an exception to the unity of QM and SR and, in Mead’s theory among others, action at a distance via entanglement replaces the speed of light. Probability, entanglement, and instant interactions among collective electrons are the workings of QM but entropy and distance smooth out the “quantum noise” at the macro level. We know a hot object will cool but we can’t predict when or where one atom will give up a quantum of energy to another.

Events may be instant and non-local at the quantum level but, when those events are separated by spacetime, every interval of space includes an interval of time such that the ratio of time to space is always c. This makes c a dimensional constant rather than a speed.

This is best summed up by the observation that space keeps everything from happening in the same place and time keeps everything from happening at once.

BurtJordaan » December 10th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote: To get back to the OP topic, the CMBR, which is a cosmological effect, has little to do with Special Relativity, because the way we understand, observe and quantify it lies in the General Relativity domain. There the local propagation speed of light in inertial frames is still observed as c, but that inertial frame's size is strictly limited by the amount of spacetime curvature around. In strong curvature cases, it is only approximately valid over very short distances, because strict inertial frames do not exist there.

The CMBR dipole resulting from our speed relative to the universe at large is a matter of SR and I agree with “hyskos” that this is a form of a universal background but I don’t find it to be useful at the local level.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:There are several distinct concepts posted already. The powerpoint list :

1. Invariant reference frame.
2. stationary reference frame.
3. "total mass of the universe"

In many cases, a modern theory of physics will make predictions, that the actual experiments will either conform to , or not conform to. While that is all fine and dandy, the raw theory on paper may be silent on these other juicier philosophical and metaphysical questions. (the existence of a fabric of space, et cetera).

Parts of the theory of Special Relativity are silent on some issues, and very explicit in others. These distinctions are important. Number (2.) above , "stationary reference frame". Such a beast is explicitly forbidden by Special Relativity. . Ironically, number (1.) above, "Invariant reference frame" is not forbidden by SR. In fact, it is a natural part of the theory itself. Why this is a natural part of teh theory will dovetail neatly into number (3.) this concept of the "total mass of the universe".

"Stationary reference frame" is explicitly forbidden by S-R. If you could perform any experiment which would deduce the existence of a preferred stationary reference frame, S-R would not be a "little bit" wrong. It would be totally wrong, full stop. This argument was apparently made by a regular at this forum, (whose name will be excluded until he joins this thread). He specifically referred to the CMBR as the experiment to perform.

On the other hand, S-R admits invariant reference frames. Why they exist is obvious once explained. Consider a large collection of moving things, whether they be massive asteroids, photons, muons, or neutrinos. There is always an inertial reference frame in which one could place one's self so that the total momentum of the system of moving things is zero. In other words, the vectors of all the momenta of all the things all sum up to a zero vector. They "cancel out", so-to-speak. Such an inertial frame does not exist because "Einstein said so and that's mystical.". The reference frame with zero total momenta must exist because of obvious geometrical truisms.

The above concept in the preceding pargaph is given a funny name in S-R. It is called the ``Rest Frame.`` Rest frames are difficult to argue for , given a small collection of objects. (It's 'hard' and require we draw diagrams and wave our hands). But if you have lots and lots of moving objects, and their directions and velocities are random, the existence of a Rest Frame becomes more obvious and more easily obtained in practice. Photons of the CMBR come from everywhere, go everywhere, and there are gazillions of them at all points in space. For this reason, there is obviously a Rest Frame of the CMBR, and this is totally consistent with S-R. The Rest Frame makes no reference to an absolutely stationary newtonian "space fabric" - at all. It only makes a reference to the total combined momenta of all the photons given some (arbitrary) observer. This is the reason why the CMBR has a dipole. Not because the CMBR is intrinsically connected to a stationary newtonian "Grid" that overlays the universe.

Lets turn the concept of Rest Frame towards something mentioned by bangstrom : "Total mass of the universe". I think what bangstrom really meant to say there was "total mass in the universe" (he can vouch for my correction as he sees fit). Imagine now we took all the stars, all the galaxies and all the dust of the universe and added up all their momenta. What would be the resulting momentum of all those together? (Barring some philosophical digression,) we would naturally expect this to be zero. Galaxies move in random directions relative to each other, and once you have billions of such inter-comoving galaxies, the giant lot of them should all "cancel out" their vectors of direction.... yielding a nice invariant Rest Frame. Same procedure from the photons above.

With this procedure, we can be more explicit about what we mean when was say a gyroscope "Aligns itself with" the total mass in the universe. For all we know, the total mass in the universe coudl all be charging along in one preferred direction. We couldn't ever know this, because S-R. It may also be all rotating at some high angular velocity. We wouldn't know.

That's what I meant earlier when I said these physics theories are often silent on the issue.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
There are several distinct concepts posted already. The powerpoint list :

1. Invariant reference frame.
2. stationary reference frame.
3. "total mass of the universe"

Number (2.) above , "stationary reference frame".
Such a beast is explicitly forbidden by Special Relativity. .

SRT allows "stationary reference frame".
In SRT the "stationary reference frame" is Mincowski 4D-spacetime.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
Ironically, number (1.) above, "Invariant reference frame" is not forbidden by SR.
In fact, it is a natural part of the theory itself.

The "Invariant reference frame"  and ''stationary reference frame'' are one and the same system.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
Why this is a natural part of teh theory will dovetail neatly into number
(3.) this concept of the "total mass of the universe".

The "total mass of the universe" in "Stationary reference frame" / "Invariant  reference frame"
is the same.
The "total mass of the universe" is very few.
Most masses in the universe are ''dark matter''

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
"Stationary reference frame" is explicitly forbidden by S-R.
If you could perform any experiment which would deduce the existence of
a preferred stationary reference frame, S-R would not be a "little bit" wrong.
It would be totally wrong, full stop.

"Stationary reference frame" doesn't forbid by SRT.
"Stationary reference frame" / "Invariant reference frame"  is a negative -4D.
"Stationary reference frame" is a Pseudo- Euclidian ( 2D) system.
All billions and billions galaxies surrounded and exist in the negative -4D  -  Vacuum.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
On the other hand, S-R admits invariant reference frames.
Why they exist is obvious once explained.
Consider a large collection of moving things, whether they be massive asteroids,
photons, muons, or neutrinos. There is always an inertial reference frame in which
one could place one's self so that the total momentum of the system of moving things
is zero.

You mixed two different things: ''massive asteroids'', galaxies (planets, stars) and photons.
They are absolutely different kinds of matter.
You cannot use '' massive asteroids, stars . .  '' in SRT because this theory doesn't have gravity.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
The above concept in the preceding pargaph is given a funny name in S-R. It is called
the ``Rest Frame.``

''Rest frames '' is only other name of  "Stationary reference frame"/  "Invariant reference frame"  .

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
Photons of the CMBR come from everywhere, go everywhere, and there are
gazillions of them  at all points in space. For this reason, there is obviously
a Rest Frame of the CMBR, and this is totally consistent with S-R.

Photons and CMBR exist in  ''Rest'' reference frame
Photons in a Rest Frame can move with constant speed according to SRT.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
The Rest Frame makes no reference to an absolutely stationary newtonian "space fabric" - at all.
It only makes a reference to the total combined momenta of all the photons
given some (arbitrary) observer.

We cannot use  Newton's laws  (gravity objects)  in SRT.
The ''space fabric'' is ''Rest'' reference frame with all photons that ''IT'' have.
This ''space fabric'' created everything.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
Lets turn the concept of Rest Frame towards something mentioned by bangstrom :
"Total mass of the universe".  . .
Imagine now we took all the stars, all the galaxies and all the dust of the universe and
added up all their momenta. What would be the resulting momentum of all those together?
(Barring some philosophical digression,) we would naturally expect this to be zero.
Galaxies move in random directions relative to each other, and once you have billions
of such inter-comoving galaxies, the giant lot of them should all "cancel out" their
vectors of direction.... yielding a nice invariant Rest Frame.

You cannot mixed " total gravity-mass of the universe" with SRT.
All billions gravity-mass galaxies exist  in the '' invariant / stationary Rest Frame''.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
Same procedure from the photons above.

Don't agree.
Photons are mass-energy particles ( +/- E=M^2 and E=hf ).
According to SRT their behaviour in the invariant Rest Frame / -4D depends on
Lorentz transformations . . . . and depends on Quantum theory.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 6:39 am wrote:
For all we know, the total mass in the universe coudl all be charging along in one
preferred direction. We couldn't ever know this, because S-R. It may also be
all rotating at some high angular velocity.

Don't confuse ''the total  gravity- mass in the universe ''  with SRT.
SRT is theory without gravity.

The total gravity-masses in the universe can move and rotate by GRT laws.
Their  rotation depends on their masses and speed.

The mass-energy  photons  rotation depend on  SRT laws and Quantum laws.

Today we don't have theory that can combine the SRT and QT with GRT.

==============================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 134
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Massive Error

bangstrom wrote:There are no observations that demonstrate the existence of light in the space between a signal and sink so any and all of the “through space” part is a conjecture not supported by observation.

"signal" is non-specific. There is no reason for you to avoid the more common terms "source and sink" or even better "emitter and absorber". I agree that nothing moves purely through space (that would be instantaneous) however SR's reference to universal speed limit c clearly implies a maximum ratio of space to time. Calling it a dimensional constant doesn't stop it from being a speed. They have the same units and it is a principle of QM that indistinguishable entities may be considered the same.

A laser beam provides ample light quanta* to demonstrate a lightlike trajectory at any spatial location along its trajectory, allowing for the designated time delay. Maxwell's equations do a fine job of predicting this to within measurement error. Any suspicions relating to that derivation of c should focus on the accuracy of the requisite electric and magnetic constants (ε0 & μ0).

*I am not personally an adherent of the photon but it is still a very good model.

bangstrom wrote:Mead's theory among others, action at a distance via entanglement replaces the speed of light. Probability, entanglement, and instant interactions among collective electrons are the workings of QM

I'm for new ideas but if Mead thinks entanglement involves instantaneous communication of energy or information, he'll be found wrong. entanglement involves correlation not translation or communication. It is thus not an interaction or action in any physical sense. Entanglement is a spatially distributed quantum state. Measurement "updates" that state, a term invoked specifically to avoid confusion with conventional "action". Severing a connection between entangled particles does not necessarily entail communication between them.

bangstrom wrote:every interval of space includes an interval of time such that the ratio of time to space is always c. This makes c a dimensional constant rather than a speed.

This is only true for the limiting case of massless interaction (i.e. communication). Clearly a particle in its rest frame, by frame definition, advances only through its proper time. Causality applies to everything on and within the light cone of a particular event.

socrat: Your first quote was unnecessary. It needlessly runs out the page. Better to refer to it by its url (like that) or just mention author & date.
socrat44 wrote:The "Invariant reference frame" and ''stationary reference frame'' are one and the same system.

This is where you go off the rails (i.e. are incorrect). The spatial and temporal coordinates of an inertial frame are specifically relative as the main purpose of the name "Relativity" was meant to indicate. An invariant frame (which I will soon describe in detail) is specifically not relative, as the term "invariant" is meant to contrast with it.

Your "space fabric" is relative. Different inertial observers will measure it differently.

Active Member

Posts: 1636
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Massive Error

socrat44 wrote:The "Invariant reference frame" and ''stationary reference frame'' are one and the same system.

Faradave » December 11th, 2017, 12:29 pm wrote:This is where you go off the rails (i.e. are incorrect).
The spatial and temporal coordinates of an inertial frame are
specifically relative as the main purpose of the name "Relativity"
was meant to indicate.

All  inertial reference frame like stars, planets, galaxies  . . .  are
approximately inertial and therefore they '' specifically relative  as the main
purpose of the name "Relativity"  was meant to indicate.''

Faradave » December 11th, 2017, 12:29 pm wrote: An invariant frame (which I will soon describe in detail) is specifically
not relative, as the term "invariant" is meant to contrast with it.

Please, don't forget to explain why  yours
'' An invariant frame (which I will soon describe in detail) ''
is different from absolute Minkowski spacetime  ( Minkowski cone ).

Why science needs two absolute reference frame: yours and Minkowski ?

Faradave » December 11th, 2017, 12:29 pm wrote:Your "space fabric" is relative.
Different inertial observers will measure it differently.

''my'' space-fabric is not  relative space and not relative time.
''my''  space-fabric is an absolute Minkowski  4D spacetime.

a) SRT describes physics in the absence of gravity,
It means that stars, planets, galaxies cannot be SRT subjects.
It means that SRT is interesting in situation  around gravity-masses.
And the ''object''  that surrounds    all billions and billions galaxies.
is an absolute , infinite, eternal  ''space fabric'' .

b) The laws of physics are the same in all material (!) inertial reference frame
( Galileo transformations  ) and therefore  all different observers
on different inertial  reference frame (planets) will see  that the speed of quantum of light
is constant,  independently of who measures this speed and how fast the observers move
with  respect to the absolute , infinite  ''space fabric'' .

c) All physical laws change when we try to unite inertial and absolute references frame.

============================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 134
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 5:39 am wrote:The reference frame with zero total momenta must exist because of obvious geometrical truisms.

First of all, it should be noted that the CMBR dipole doesn't establish a privileged inertial frame globally -- only locally. Because of the expansion of universe, the rest frame determined by the CMBR is not constant throughout the known universe.

Also, we cannot presume that the universe is finite. Nor can we presume that increasing the region where we add up the momentum will produce a convergent series. This means that the total momentum of the universe may not be well defined and I don't know how we could prove that it is. If the total momentum of the universe is not well defined then how can we claim there is a reference frame with zero total momentum for the whole universe -- it would only be the case for a finite portion of it.

P.S. Just trying to keep things honest. Truth be told my subjective preference is for a finite universe but this is not something we can prove either way. Not yet anyway. BTW, someone on the forum pointed out to me that some of the more recent inflationary models indicate an infinite universe. I actually worked on a something connected with Mach's Principle. It's that published paper I worked on with Lazlo Gergely and Karl Kuchar "The Geometry of Barbour-Bertotti Theories." In this paper we made the total momentum of the universe equal to zero as a physical-mathematical constraint.

hyksos » December 7th, 2017, 5:39 am wrote: the giant lot of them should all "cancel out" their vectors of direction.... yielding a nice invariant Rest Frame. Same procedure from the photons above.

"should?" Is that an example of "knowing the mind of God." LOL (just teasing a little)

mitchellmckain
Member

Posts: 859
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

bangstrom » 11 Dec 2017, 09:09 wrote:This does not address my objection that the “through space” part is dubious. There are no observations that demonstrate the existence of light in the space between a signal and sink so any and all of the “through space” part is a conjecture not supported by observation.

It may be "dubious" for you, but for 99.999% of scientists it seems to be not. A simple lab setup with part-silvered mirrors can do the trick.

BurtJordaan » December 10th, 2017, 3:22 am wrote:
Your explanations are more than a century old and based on years of philosophical conjecture with little experimental support. Carver Mead has reexamined Maxwell’s laws to bring the theory up to date with modern understandings of QM. His revision has proved to be more economical and exact than Maxwell’s and his explanations are quite different from the classical. Mead does not use photon particles or c as a speed in his revision and he refers to fields as they were understood by Feynman where fields are simply mathematical functions used to avoid the idea of action at a distance.

Yea, forget photons! Prof. Mead's interpretation sports waves propagating at the speed of light through space! I admire Prof. Mead for his engineering and technology achievements, and I can't see problems with his rewrite of Maxwell's equations. But I think he may have gone a 'bridge too far' with his "completion" of Einstein's 1911-12 early gravity efforts. On the grounds of that, he also took the bold step of challenging GR on the polarization of GWs and it looks like, with this September's triple detector observation, he has lost that one. However, the jury is probably still out, because only 'leaks' on the polarization have surfaced - no papers that I know of.

The CMBR dipole resulting from our speed relative to the universe at large is a matter of SR and I agree with “hyskos” that this is a form of a universal background but I don’t find it to be useful at the local level.

I think it is more a form of 'background' for the GR case. The distant matter do contribute to the local gravitational potential. SR does not care about the CMBR - it just demands that the frame must be small and in free-fall.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2583
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

BurtJordaan » December 12th, 2017, 3:14 am wrote:]It may be "dubious" for you, but for 99.999% of scientists it seems to be not. A simple lab setup with part-silvered mirrors can do the trick.

Whatever transpires between a light signal and sink is unknown and unknowable with present technology. All we can observe is a rise and fall of energy levels among electrons. The rest is speculation.
BurtJordaan » December 12th, 2017, 3:14 am wrote:
Yea, forget photons! Prof. Mead's interpretation sports waves propagating at the speed of light through space!

Can you provide a citation to support this?

If you follow the works of John Cramer, Pope-Osborne, Milo Wolf, A.F. Kracklauer or Mead (and I could go on) light amounts to a non-local interaction among collective electrons and the timing, path, origin and end point of the exchange is established BEFORE emission so anything traveling through space with a speed is contrary and redundant to their understanding of light. For this reason, we can forget photon particles and their speed.
Here is an article by Carver Mead.
http://cns.caltech.edu/people/faculty/m ... hotons.pdf
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

bangstrom » 12 Dec 2017, 15:21 wrote:Whatever transpires between a light signal and sink is unknown and unknowable with present technology. All we can observe is a rise and fall of energy levels among electrons. The rest is speculation.

I don't know what you mean by "unknowable", but has anyone ever observed the "rise and fall of energy levels among electrons" in a "knowable" fashion? Mincing words aside, we are talking about waves propagating here, not "little balls" of energy. Use a high-energy EM pulse and you can put an unlimited number of detectors en-route to determine that the pulse propagates all the way from source to sink at a speed of c.

BurtJordaan » December 12th, 2017, 3:14 am wrote:
Yea, forget photons! Prof. Mead's interpretation sports waves propagating at the speed of light through space!

Can you provide a citation to support this?

Section 2.9 of Cramer's Collective Electrodynamics (book), around eq. (2.30), pp. 45/46 in my version. I found the book on blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=54868, or google "collective electrodynamics quantum foundations of electromagnetism.pdf", otherwise you may just find preprints or videos.

Cramer wrote:Thus, the wave front propagates in the same manner as the zero crossings of the electron wave function. We have thus come full circle: The Einstein–de Broglie relations for the electron wave function, expressed in a relativistically invariant form, require that a wave front propagate with the velocity of light. It has become clear that the propagation of the electromagnetic wave and the propagation of the electron wave function are, as Einstein posited, two views of the same reality.

BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator

Posts: 2583
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

BurtJordaan » December 13th, 2017, 2:39 am wrote:
I don't know what you mean by "unknowable", but has anyone ever observed the "rise and fall of energy levels among electrons" in a "knowable" fashion? Mincing words aside, we are talking about waves propagating here, not "little balls" of energy. Use a high-energy EM pulse and you can put an unlimited number of detectors en-route to determine that the pulse propagates all the way from source to sink at a speed of c.

“Unknowable” space is space devoid of detectors or the interval between detectors. This sounds like one of those philosophical questions like the one about an unseen tree falling in the forest but an essential part of Mead’s and the other mentioned theories is that the classical photon traveling through space does not exist. To say that light exists between a light signal and sink is conjecture rather than an observation. Mead replaces the classical notion of light moving through space (photons) with quantum action at a distance ‘entanglement.’

In this view, light is explained as energy quanta from electrons in the emitter quantum jumping to electrons in the absorber without passing through the space between. They tunnel. The wavelike nature of the electrons on both ends and the collective wavefunctions of electrons in the vicinity are responsible for the wavelike nature of light. Mead calls this “collective electrodynamics.”

The observed timing of EM events is consistent with spacetime diagrams where a displacement in space is accompanied by a c related displacement in time and this is the origin of c.

BurtJordaan » December 13th, 2017, 2:39 am wrote:

Section 2.9 of Cramer's Collective Electrodynamics (book), around eq. (2.30), pp. 45/46 in my version. I found the book on blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=54868, or google "collective electrodynamics quantum foundations of electromagnetism.pdf", otherwise you may just find preprints or videos.

Cramer wrote:Thus, the wave front propagates in the same manner as the zero crossings of the electron wave function. We have thus come full circle: The Einstein–de Broglie relations for the electron wave function, expressed in a relativistically invariant form, require that a wave front propagate with the velocity of light. It has become clear that the propagation of the electromagnetic wave and the propagation of the electron wave function are, as Einstein posited, two views of the same reality.

The book “Collective Electrodynamics” was written by C.A. Mead (not Cramer) and the above quote is also from Mead. The quote is specifically about the propagation of an Einstein–de Broglie wave function along a coaxial cable.

The E-deB wavefunction is mathematical formula and not a physical wave traveling through space and it demonstrates that we can have the appearance of a wave moving at “light speed” without a lot of actual physical motion, photons, or even light.

The condition of this wave prior to the emission of light from the source determines which electrons can share a quantum of energy. This is somewhat the opposite of the classical view where the photon has a wave and it strikes a distant atom at random but it explains how light appears to move as if prescient of its destination and responsive to its environment.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Re: c the Difference (between lightlike and spacelike intervals)

bangstrom wrote:Mead replaces the classical notion of light moving through space (photons) with quantum action at a distance ‘entanglement.’

I sympathize with Mead's motivation, as the spacetime interval between any emitter and absorber is zero, leaving no room for a massless "particle". However, quantum entanglement is not the best solution. Such a connection is not restricted to speed limit c and may be instantaneous. That is, the spacetime interval has a distinctly spacelike, rather than lightlike, ratio of space & time.

Entanglement connections have been identified with spatial-interconnecting wormholes (my "spinholes"). [1, 2, 3] I view light as involving a different variety of wormhole (discussed elsewhere).

Jorrie's concerns with the wave aspects are valid since they are continuously demonstrable by changing the length of light's trajectory through an interferometer. (e.g. moving the double slits closer or farther from the light source and observing exactly the predicted effect on interference patterns). Low frequency EM can have any convenient length so that detecting antennae may be placed at virtually any position along their course. A field with an associated spin frequency (of a lightlike wormhole) is discussed here.

Active Member

Posts: 1636
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

It is also difficult to imagine how the radial energy of an electron can be bundled into a portable wave that acts as both a wave and particle having a speed that is instantly and always c for all observers while simultaneously generating the properties of a true dimensional constant.

QFT is the unification of S-R with G-R. While it is truly "difficult to imagine", it is mathematically consistent and experimentally sound.

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1094
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

The "Invariant reference frame" and ''stationary reference frame'' are one and the same system.

"Invariant" is a completely different phenomenon than "stationary". In the context of Special Relativity, "invariant" and "stationary" have a, practically speaking, opposite meaning.

Let me expand on that a little bit. When Einstein published his theories in 1905, he did not call them "special relativity". Instead, he called them a "Fully invariant theory of electromagnetism". Einstein was, first and foremost, concerned with which inertial reference frames have Maxwell's Equations as true. Einstein found a theory in which the laws of electromagnetism are always true (the technical word here is "invariant").

And furthermore, isn't that the theory you would really want? I mean, who would want a theory that only works as an approximation in the provincial location of the surface of the earth, but nowhere else? Wouldn't you desire, instead, a totally invariant theory that applies everywhere?

hyksos
Active Member

Posts: 1094
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

### Re:

Faradave » December 14th, 2017, 10:54 am wrote:I sympathize with Mead's motivation, as the spacetime interval between any emitter and absorber is zero, leaving no room for a massless "particle". However, quantum entanglement is not the best solution. Such a connection is not restricted to speed limit c and may be instantaneous. That is, the spacetime interval has a distinctly spacelike, rather than lightlike, ratio of space & time.

I have never been able to find much consensus on the nomenclature of the several non-photon theories. The writers describe their theories in detail and then refer to them by their individual acronyms or vague terms like “quantum phenomenon.”
To me, these phenomena all look like examples of the familiar quantum entanglement so that is my choice of a word and you can blame me, not the others, if entanglement is the wrong word.

Faradave » December 14th, 2017, 10:54 am wrote:Jorrie's concerns with the wave aspects are valid since they are continuously demonstrable by changing the length of light's trajectory through an interferometer. (e.g. moving the double slits closer or farther from the light source and observing exactly the predicted effect on interference patterns). Low frequency EM can have any convenient length so that detecting antennae may be placed at virtually any position along their course.

An entangled pair of electrons share a common wavefunction just as if they were side by side even though they may be an enormous distance apart. Jorie’s concerns are valid but just because we can’t see their common connection doesn’t mean they should be any less responsive to minute changes in distance or the width of the slits than ordinary light waves.

When I first learned of entanglement I thought any phenomenon so bizarre must have some enormous physical importance. I liked the economy of entanglement as a method of exchanging energy across great distances and it served as a better explanation than photon theory for a number of paradoxes including the double slit experiment. I thought, if I were a god, I would use entanglement as the mechanism for light in my universe rather than bother with photons.

A problem with Jorrie’s concern is that we can draw pictures and arrows of light waves passing through a double slit to explain interference but it is easy to forget that we can’t see light waves passing through space any more than we can see entanglement so how do we know that we are not dealing with entanglement in both cases and the photon-light wave theory is a myth.
Last edited by bangstrom on December 15th, 2017, 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

I understand SR to be a limited theory but one that works everywhere in the universe. I agree that the CMBR-dipole is a stationary reference frame but it is much like being on the ocean. The ocean water itself is a stationary reference but there are local currents and eddies that diminish its usefulness.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

### Re: Triple Play

bangstrom wrote:To me, these phenomena all look like examples of the familiar quantum entanglement so that is my choice of a word and you can blame me, not the others, if entanglement is the wrong word.

This might help.

Regional differences are indicated by this 2D slice of Minkowski spacetime. Rotating the lightlike arrow about time yields the oft-referenced "light cone". Such a rotation passes through all three spatial dimensions, encompassing a solid angle (4 pi).

In Minkowski spacetime, speed is the inverse of slope (a consequence of having vertical proper time and horizontal space coordinates). It's divided by a lightlike boundary into a timelike region (slope >1) where the temporal component of slope exceeds spatial component, and a spacelike region (slope <1), where the spatial component of slope exceeds the temporal.

The timelike region contains the subluminal (speed <c) worldlines for translation (motion) of massive particles. This region includes the vertical, proper time coordinate.

The spacelike region contains superluminal (speed >c) worldlines which are nontraversable but may nevertheless act as connections about which correlations (such as entangled spin states) may occur. This region includes the horizontal, spatial coordinate.

The lightlike boundary corresponds to speed c, conveniently depicted with slope = 1, in natural units. This is where massless communication (of energy & information) occurs. It is not included in either neighboring region and is thus not easily explained in terms of phenomena of those regions.

Active Member

Posts: 1636
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

hyksos » December 15th, 2017, 1:14 am wrote:
It is also difficult to imagine how the radial energy of an electron can be bundled into a portable wave that acts as both a wave and particle having a speed that is instantly and always c for all observers while simultaneously generating the properties of a true dimensional constant.

QFT is the unification of S-R with G-R. While it is truly "difficult to imagine", it is mathematically consistent and experimentally sound.

This is incorrect. QFT begins with the unification of quantum mechanics and SR, otherwise known as relativistic quantum mechanics. From there it uses Noether's theorem and the action principle to quantize fields. But there is nothing of GR in QFT. I could add an "OF COURSE", because it is the divide between QFT and GR which has kept gravity out of the unification of all the forces of physics and the realization of a TOE.

As I have mentioned in other posts, we have managed to unify gravity with EM by doing GR in 5 dimensions (called Kaluza Klien theory), but that is as far as the successful unification goes on the GR side of things. M-theory (string theory) PROPOSES a complete unification in an 11-dimensional supergravity which would bring QFT and GR together somewhat, but there are numerous problems remaining -- no evidence to support supersymmetry and a failure to completely renormalize (eliminate infinities) in the perturbative theory. For this reason some scientists have been turning to non-perturbative methods.

mitchellmckain
Member

Posts: 859
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

### Re: Noteworthy

mitchellmckain wrote:QFT begins with the unification of quantum mechanics and SR, otherwise known as relativistic quantum mechanics.

As GR entails SR, I had assumed that's what hyksos meant to type. Worth noting since edit time is limited (seems like 1-2 hours) and some might have been confused.

Active Member

Posts: 1636
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)

### Re: Noteworthy

Faradave » December 15th, 2017, 11:26 pm wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:QFT begins with the unification of quantum mechanics and SR, otherwise known as relativistic quantum mechanics.

As GR entails SR, I had assumed that's what hyksos meant to type. Worth noting since edit time is limited (seems like 1-2 hours) and some might have been confused.

Ah, yes of course.... no unification of GR and SR is needed. So what you say could have indeed been what he meant. ... but it was not obvious and worth clarifying in any case...

mitchellmckain
Member

Posts: 859
Joined: 27 Oct 2016

### Re: CMBR dipole versus Special Relativity

hyksos » December 15th, 2017, 2:27 am wrote:
The "Invariant reference frame" and ''stationary reference frame'' are one and the same system.

"Invariant" is a completely different phenomenon than "stationary".
In the context of Special Relativity, "invariant" and "stationary" have a, practically speaking, opposite meaning.

Let me expand on that a little bit.
When Einstein published his theories in 1905, he did not call them "special relativity".
Instead, he called them a "Fully invariant theory of electromagnetism".
Einstein was, first and foremost, concerned with which inertial reference frames
have Maxwell's Equations as true.
Einstein found a theory in which the laws of electromagnetism are always true
(the technical word here is "invariant").

And furthermore, isn't that the theory you would really want?
I mean, who would want a theory that only works as an approximation
in the provincial location of the surface of the earth, but nowhere else?
Wouldn't you desire, instead, a totally invariant theory that applies everywhere?

Einstein found a theory in which the laws of electromagnetism are always true
(the technical word here is "invariant").
/ by hyksos on December 15th, 2017, 2:27 am

===

So, . . . Einstein found a theory ( SRT ) in which the laws of electromagnetism
are always true
(the technical word here is "invariant") . . . and fundament of this theory (SRT)
is not Galileo transformations ( inertial , relative reference frames ) but ''invariant ''
Lorentz transformations ( an absolute Minkowski 4D spacetime)

You didn't explain why your ''invariant'' is something different from Minkowski ''invariant''

You didn't explain why
>> "Invariant" is a completely different phenomenon than "stationary".
In the context of Special Relativity, "invariant" and "stationary" have
a, practically speaking, opposite meaning. <<

You didn't explain what "stationary" reference frame is.

You didn't explain what is difference between these two systems in your opinion.

===========================
socrat44
Member

Posts: 134
Joined: 12 Dec 2015

### Re: Triple Play

Faradave » December 15th, 2017, 3:02 pm wrote:
In Minkowski spacetime, speed is the inverse of slope (a consequence of having vertical proper time and horizontal space coordinates). It's divided by a lightlike boundary into a timelike region (slope >1) where the temporal component of slope exceeds spatial component, and a spacelike region (slope <1), where the spatial component of slope exceeds the temporal.

The timelike region contains the subluminal (speed <c) worldlines for translation (motion) of massive particles. This region includes the vertical, proper time coordinate.

The spacelike region contains superluminal (speed >c) worldlines which are nontraversable but may nevertheless act as connections about which correlations (such as entangled spin states) may occur. This region includes the horizontal, spatial coordinate.

The lightlike boundary corresponds to speed c, conveniently depicted with slope = 1, in natural units. This is where massless communication (of energy & information) occurs. It is not included in either neighboring region and is thus not easily explained in terms of phenomena of those regions.

No, this doesn’t help. The chart depicts the possibility that we can have separation in space without separation in time. If there is a flash of light at the origin and a simultaneous flash of light somewhere along the “space” axis ( t=0 on the “time axis) an observer at the origin will see the local flash first and the remote flash later. The time delay is c related and one explanation is that the delay is observed because of the time it takes a light signal to travel from the remote location to the origin.

This observation does not rule out another possibility where separation in space always includes a c related separation in time so we never have separation of space without an observed separation in time “spacetime.” The implication of this latter possibility is that the slope of the “communication” line depicts the constant ratio between units of length and units of time. Units of space are interchangeable with units of time as indicated by the slope of the “communication” line so the line is a dimensional constant and not necessarily a speed.

This makes the “spacelike” part of chart unobservable and probably nonexistent because we never have intervals of distance separated by fewer than the c related intervals of time to space.

The remote end of an entangled spin state may be depicted as occurring on the horizontal, spatial coordinate but the observance of the event occurs upward on the time coordinate consistent with the slope of the time/ space ratio (the communication line). The observed effect of an energy exchange by entanglement is the same “light like” observation whether the “communication” line is a speed or a dimensional constant so the assumption of speed may be false.

Faradave » December 15th, 2017, 3:02 pm wrote:
In Minkowski spacetime, speed is the inverse of slope (a consequence of having vertical proper time and horizontal space coordinates).

I see no reason to interpret the slope of the "communication" coordinate as a speed rather than a time/space dimensional constant and I prefer the latter. Largely because it appears as an absolute rather than a speed which should be different for different observers.
bangstrom
Member

Posts: 356
Joined: 18 Sep 2014

Next