Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 17 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 16 17
Bill S. #46933 12/20/12 07:25 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Another good article from Stassler. It goes some way towards answering my earlier question: "In most of the matter we see around us, particles are bound together by forces. Presumably, the energy involved in these forces creates mass. What role, if any, does the Higgs have in the creation of this mass?"

Originally Posted By: Orac
he has an underlying assumption that the Higgs isn't itself moving.


Can you explain the implications of that, please.


There never was nothing.
.
Bill S. #46961 12/21/12 05:36 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
This is going to be to complicated so I will do this by links otherwise I will need to write a wall of text

Matt takes you to the Hierarchy problem

http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/the-hierarchy-problem/

Quote:

The problem is with how big the non-zero Higgs field is. (For experts — quantum mechanics corrects not the Higgs particle mass but the Higgs mass-squared parameter, changing the Higgs field potential energy and thus the field’s value, making it zero or immense. That’s a disaster because the W and Z masses are known. The Higgs mass is unknown, and therefore it could be very large — if the W and Z masses were very large too. So it is the W and Z masses — and the size of the non-zero Higgs field — that are the problem, both logically and scientifically.)


He however avoids the discussion so lets look at the wiki link and go down to the conformal solution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_problem

That will lead you into Coleman–Weinberg potential

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coleman%E2%80%93Weinberg_potential

And the bottom line for that mechanism is

=> vortex fluctuations becomes important which drive the transition to second order.

So field movement can drive a mechanic that resolves the problem.


Now I am not saying the idea is proved or even likely but it is inaccurate to say that the Higgs and Gravity must be different effect ... remember I never lie :-)


I should complete the story

Originally Posted By: conformal theory

Mass obtained in this way is far too small with respect to what is seen in accelerator facilities and so a conformal Standard Model needs more than one Higgs particle.


So is the idea dead we found the Higgs ... Right?

Well not quite I have discussed this a number of times since the announcement of the Higgs there is something not quite right with the Higgs observation.

http://resonaances.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/twin-peaks-in-atlas.html

They have checked for errors and I liked Jesters answer

=> The likely cause being an ECAL calibration error, an unlucky background fluctuation, or alcohol abuse.


The tricky problem is strictly you can't eliminated there being two particles with close masses and thus a valid mechanism for conformal theory.

So I would say the odds against the Higgs being the cause of gravity is extremely high you can not rule it out at this stage with any certainty.

That ends the memo on this story.

If your happy with all that shall we discuss Energy post Higgs now?

Edit: I should add Matt's response in full to the complaint since he has gone on the front foot and given a full explaination of his stance.

Originally Posted By: Matt Strassler

Posted on December 17, 2012

There’s been a little silliness floating around (sadly, in Scientific American, whose article contains at least two factual errors) unscientifically speculating that ATLAS’s new results on the Higgs-like particle, from data collected at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC], suggest there are two such particles rather than one. The mass measurement of this particle using the data when it decays to two photons, 126.6±0.3±0.7 GeV/c², is different, by 2.7 standard deviations, from the mass measurement obtained from its decays to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs, 123.5±0.9+0.4-0.2 GeV/c². So… huh… gee… maybe there are two Higgs-like particles, a lighter one which rarely decays to two photons and a heavier one which rarely decays to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs?

[Note Added: I should emphasize, lest anyone blame ATLAS for this implausible line of speculation, that in the ATLAS presentation last week, which was one of several presentations that morning, these two mass measurements were presented simply and responsibly, as results from data. Not a single speculative word was said about there being a hint of two Higgs particles. I don't know who got the ball rolling on that idea, but it wasn't ATLAS. And it's not a plausible idea: see below.]

Take a deep breath. For not only would the two types of particles somehow have to be magically and implausibly arranged to mimic, at first glance and to a rough extent, a single Standard Model Higgs particle (the simplest possible type of Higgs particle), there’s another experiment, which unfortunately the writer of the Scientific American article neglected to consult.

ATLAS’s mass measurement from the events with two lepton/anti-lepton pairs also disagrees with CMS’s mass measurement obtained from the same type of events: 126.2±0.6±0.2 GeV/c². Two similar experimental detectors, same measurement, moderate disagreement. Nature is nature; there’s no way that ATLAS can be making one type of particle all the time, while CMS is making a different one all the time. So there is no evidence here, taking ATLAS and CMS together, favoring the existence of a separate particle with a mass of about 123.5 GeV/c² that decays to two lepton/anti-lepton pairs.

What is behind these discrepancies, then? ATLAS and CMS each have scarcely a dozen of these two lepton/anti-lepton events, and their extraction of the Higgs particle’s mass from each event is somewhat uncertain, which is why many events are required for a good mass measurement. When you still have small amounts of data, funny statistical fluctuations will often occur. We’ve seen this before; back in 1989, when the Stanford Linear Collider (SLC) produced its first few Z particles at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, the plot of the Z particle’s mass gave a double resonance peak, instead of the single peak that was expected. A brief moment of speculation occurred, but with more data the anticipated single peak structure emerged. I’ve heard at least one other similar story from an earlier decade. In fact ATLAS and CMS had a 2 GeV mass discrepancy when the first Higgs hints came in; that was just an effect of statistics. Combine a fluctuation of this form with a minor detector calibration problem, and you’ll get discrepancies like this.

Multiple types of Higgs particles are certainly possible; people have considered this scenario for decades, and I’ve written about it here, for instance. Efforts to search for a second type of Higgs particle have been going on since the discovery of the first one. But let’s not manufacture one out of thin air by looking selectively at the data; that’s not how reliable science gets done.


Last edited by Orac; 12/21/12 07:06 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46971 12/21/12 03:36 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks, Orac. It's going to take me a while to wade through that lot, but expect more questions. smile


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46978 12/21/12 11:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
OK, questions start here:

The Open University Science Foundation Course introduced me (in 1983) to the invariance of the speed of light. It took me some time to feel comfortable with that idea.

Now MS says: “No matter how you are moving, you are not moving relative to the Higgs field…….and it is possible for there to be fields that are at rest with respect to all observers!”

Is there some form of time dilation at work here?

Does this mean that it is not a particle’s motion through the Higgs field that gives it mass; because it is always stationary relative to the Higgs field?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46983 12/22/12 02:23 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ok lets see how I go putting this into simple English and here we have to go from the simplification of higgs particles dragging on matter to a proper higgs field be warned.

In the standard model, spacetime points are allowed to move between planck time ticks. From one time tick to the next, the average position of a point (neglecting random quantum fluctuations) can either remain stationary (velocity = 0) or move one space increment (velocity = c, speed of light).

The Higgs field is the velocity field of this movement. It has a value equal to the Planck energy for a stationary point and a value of zero for a moving point. The vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field, 246 GeV, is a measure of the average ratio of moving points to stationary points, which is about 10E17.

If all points were stationary the electron would have the Planck mass, and nothing could move. If all points moved at the velocity of light, the only possible particles would be massless neutrinos and nothing could stand still.

So in other words the Higgs field is a name we give to the field caused by the expansion or movement of spacetime itself and within spacetime. Since you are in spacetime you can't be moving relative to it.

Again it's one of those case that if you accept they have found a Higgs boson you must also accept that spacetime is expanding.

Last edited by Orac; 12/22/12 02:30 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46984 12/22/12 03:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Let’s see if I have grasped any of that.

Any point in spacetime, whether it is occupied by anything, or not, may, at any point, change its location in relation to any/every other point in spacetime by one unit of Plank time.

At any time, a given point in spacetime may either move by that amount at v = c; in which case it is moving; or it may not make that move, in which case it is stationary.

This movement of spacetime points is linked to the Higgs field in that the energy value of the Higgs field is a measure of the ratio of moving to stationary points. I.e. vastly more spacetime points are able to move than remain stationary at any given juncture, and this is because of the presence/value of the Higgs field.

The Higgs field exists, and is necessary, because of the way in which spacetime expands. The influence of the Higgs field makes it possible for stationary matter particles and moving massless particles to co-exist.


There never was nothing.
Orac #46985 12/22/12 03:17 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Since you are in spacetime you can't be moving relative to it.


I'm confused here, I thought everything was moving through spacetime.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #46986 12/22/12 07:43 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S

I'm confused here, I thought everything was moving through spacetime


LOL yes much confusion sorry it will be my translation by look lets try this again a different way.

Perhaps start with reading background to space inflation and I will isolate the important bits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Read the section on space expands

Quote:

Space expands

... snip

Since the space–time metric has no explicit time dependence, once an observer has crossed the cosmological horizon, observers closer in take its place. This process of falling outward and replacement points closer in are always steadily replacing points further out—an exponential expansion of space–time.

This steady-state exponentially expanding spacetime is called a de Sitter space, and to sustain it there must be a cosmological constant, a vacuum energy proportional to everywhere. In this case, the equation of state is . The physical conditions from one moment to the next are stable: the rate of expansion, called the Hubble parameter, is nearly constant, and the scale factor of the universe is proportional to . Inflation is often called a period of accelerated expansion because the distance between two fixed observers is increasing exponentially (i.e. at an accelerating rate as they move apart), while can stay approximately constant (see deceleration parameter).


In the above discussion it uses the phrase "The physical conditions from one moment to the next are stable" which you should recognize as a planck unit of time we use in QM.

So everything inside spacetime is indeed moving but we are talking about the mechanism of how space expands so we are talking about how we add in plank distance units of space in to expand space without the whole system collapsing.

Remember you aren't adding new bits of space in at the edge like say when you do paving each and every point in space is expanding.

This is why have the CMBR because the section of space you are standing in right now was also there at the start of the Big Bang and I know you know all this.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Radiation)

So there are two types of movements in spacetime we talk about depending on the reference frame. The reference frame for the higgs is the same as the reference frame for CMBR from Matt's point of view static in relation to the universe.

Does that clarify it?

Last edited by Orac; 12/22/12 07:44 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #46987 12/22/12 07:52 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Let’s see if I have grasped any of that.

Any point in spacetime, whether it is occupied by anything, or not, may, at any point, change its location in relation to any/every other point in spacetime by one unit of Plank time.

At any time, a given point in spacetime may either move by that amount at v = c; in which case it is moving; or it may not make that move, in which case it is stationary.


Yep thats the process of inflation and the average rate of expansion will be the average between those bits moving or not moving per second.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

This movement of spacetime points is linked to the Higgs field in that the energy value of the Higgs field is a measure of the ratio of moving to stationary points. I.e. vastly more spacetime points are able to move than remain stationary at any given juncture, and this is because of the presence/value of the Higgs field.


Ok this is the bit Matt and his detractors are arguing about lets go to wiki inflation link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Quote:

Theoretical status

In the early proposal of Guth, it was thought that the inflaton was the Higgs field, the field which explains the mass of the elementary particles.[36] It is now believed that the inflaton cannot be the Higgs field[64] although the recent discovery of the Higgs boson has increased the number of works considering the Higgs field as inflaton.[citation needed] Other models of inflation relied on the properties of grand unified theories.[42] Since the simplest models of grand unification have failed, it is now thought by many physicists that inflation will be included in a supersymmetric theory like string theory or a supersymmetric grand unified theory. At present, while inflation is understood principally by its detailed predictions of the initial conditions for the hot early universe, the particle physics is largely ad hoc modelling. As such, though predictions of inflation have been consistent with the results of observational tests, there are many open questions about the theory



Originally Posted By: Bill S

The Higgs field exists, and is necessary, because of the way in which spacetime expands. The influence of the Higgs field makes it possible for stationary matter particles and moving massless particles to co-exist.


That bit is true relative to particles but as Matt explains you can't expand the theory out to encompass Gravity as per above when we tried the theory failed.

So Matt is saying the Higgs field is created or linked to inflation others are trying to set the higgs up to drive inflation and he is objecting.

Either way the Higgs field still requires there to be inflation so in the same was A CMBR it locks in another proof of some sort of big bang.

Last edited by Orac; 12/22/12 08:00 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #46991 12/22/12 05:57 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

Thanks. Still a little refining needed, though.

If individual points move by a unit of Plank time, how does this bring about movement through space?

If the Higgs field is not the inflaton, does it act as a sort of governor that prevents run-away inflation?

The Higgs field requires inflation, but does inflation necessarily require the Higgs field?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47020 12/23/12 03:47 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Some more Higgs thoughts.

If the Higgs field is linked to inflation it must have been created in the first instant of the Big Bang.

If the Higgs field is the inflaton it must have preceded the start of inflation.

If it is not the inflaton it could have been created after inflation started, and might have been the influence that "stopped" the initial fast inflation.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47021 12/23/12 04:26 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Now Bill S I can truely say you have understood the implications and I am sorry to say you like me will need to wait for confirmation and further testing.

What hawking had derived mathematically that you can't kill QM information in a black hole is now confirmed by the Higgs. QM was there at the birth of universe and it will be there at the end whatever that fate is.

What the Higgs role is in inflation well the jury is out all your suggestions are valid and in the mix.

The importance of the Higgs is it is the first scalar field to be proven and a scalar field can only exist in the world of QM because everything is working on quantum spin and the standard model is now the gold standard for understanding the universe.

Originally Posted By: Rolf-Dieter Heuer Director General CERN

"All the matter particles are spin-1/2 fermions. All the force carriers are spin-1 bosons. Higgs particles are spin-0 bosons (scalars). The Higgs is neither matter nor force. The Higgs is just different. This would be the first fundamental scalar ever discovered. The Higgs field is thought to fill the entire universe. Could it give some handle of dark energy (scalar field)? Many modern theories predict other scalar particles like the Higgs. Why, after all, should the Higgs be the only one of its kind? [The] LHC can search for and study new scalars with precision."


I will need some time to simply and update my expansion of space mechanisms for you. Prob drop a new update up between christmas and new years depending how I go.

Best of the season to you if I don't speak to you in meantime.

Edit: Reading this again I should add a small correction to the CERN quote technically the Higgs is not signed off as a spin-0 boson, spin-2 is still valid as of right now it is being disfavored at 90% confidence level. All odd parity and higher even spins have exceeded exclusion levels.

Last edited by Orac; 12/23/12 04:56 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47036 12/24/12 09:12 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570

I’m beginning to think I don’t truly understand very much. frown

I’ve been trying to get a grip on the concept of a scalar, and how that might be equated with a spin-0 boson, or any other particle.
Probably it is my lack of maths that causes a blockage.

Another thing I don’t see is how the Higgs confirms that “you can't kill QM information in a black hole”.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47057 12/26/12 04:51 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
This may be just an interesting aside, or it could have its uses for those of us who struggle with maths.

http://www.ultimate-theory.com/en/2012/12/26/special-relativity-mass-calculator


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47070 12/27/12 01:43 AM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: M Stassler
The non-zero Higgs field has a size of about 250 GeV


I'm OK with the idea that the mass of a very small object can be expressed in eV, but what is meant by describing the size of a field in eV?

Is this size in the usual sense of the word, ie dimensions, or is it strength?

Isn't the Higgs field something that permeates the Universe?

In which case, how could either its size or strength be described as 250 GeV?


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47077 12/27/12 04:18 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: M Stassler
The non-zero Higgs field has a size of about 250 GeV


I'm OK with the idea that the mass of a very small object can be expressed in eV, but what is meant by describing the size of a field in eV?

Is this size in the usual sense of the word, ie dimensions, or is it strength?

Isn't the Higgs field something that permeates the Universe?

In which case, how could either its size or strength be described as 250 GeV?


A field is something we can measure as a quantity at any point in spacetime. No field is really in the universe they permeate the universe if you want to look at it like in your words.

Magnetism for example we measure in Tesla, Electricity in Volts we could make a unit up for the Higgs and perhaps as they start exploring and understanding the relaytionships better it will be given a unit.

Until that point it's strength is given in the detection units of the device that detects it in this case by balancing energy in those units.

When Watts first discovered the concept of power and work he invented the horsepower unit. It had no relationship to anything other than something he had at hand to compare power with which was a draft horse.

With understanding we know what he described as a horsepower is equal to 746 watts in SI units.

We also have atmospheric pressure in inches of mercury long before we have had lbs per suare inch or the pascal.

Science is littered with these sorts of measurements and with understanding of how to quantify the Higgs it will probably be given it's own unit and definition.

Last edited by Orac; 12/27/12 04:18 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Bill S. #47078 12/27/12 04:35 PM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I’m beginning to think I don’t truly understand very much. frown

I’ve been trying to get a grip on the concept of a scalar, and how that might be equated with a spin-0 boson, or any other particle.
Probably it is my lack of maths that causes a blockage.

Another thing I don’t see is how the Higgs confirms that “you can't kill QM information in a black hole”.


In layman terms the Higgs interacts via quantum spin and is NOT IN SPACETIME how can a blackhole which is simply a spacetime singularity at planck distance grids destroy something that exists between the grid.

In layman terms it would be like you telling me you were going to contain and capture water with a tenis racket. You know it's not possible simply based on the grid construction of the racket and relative size of the water molecules.

Last edited by Orac; 12/27/12 04:40 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Orac #47086 12/27/12 10:20 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
No field is really in the universe


Now you’ve lost me. If a field is not in the Universe, where is it?

I think the next bit makes sense. A field is of indeterminate extent, its energy value can vary from one place to another but will have an average value for the field generally. The average for the Higgs field is 248 GeV. Am I on the right track?


There never was nothing.
Orac #47087 12/27/12 10:32 PM
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Bill S. Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
In layman terms the Higgs interacts via quantum spin and is NOT IN SPACETIME how can a blackhole which is simply a spacetime singularity at planck distance grids destroy something that exists between the grid.


The same question comes up again here: If it is not in spacetime, where is it?

Beyond that; if you are saying that a black hole exists on a (spacetime?) grid, and information exists “between the grid”, I can see that the black hole might not be able to destroy the information. I’m not clear as to where the Higgs fits into this, though.


There never was nothing.
Bill S. #47095 12/28/12 02:22 AM
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Now you’ve lost me. If a field is not in the Universe, where is it?


In the space between the planck distances if you want to take a "flywire mesh" like view of space.

I used the word universe in the context of meaning spacetime that which you and I see the universe.

Perhaps if I adhere to the the standard I will use spacetime to mean the planck distance grid structure and the universe to mean everything.

If that is the case then I need to modify the above

=> No field is really in SPACETIME
=> Fields are measured in SPACETIME but exist in that part of the universe that isn't SPACETIME.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I think the next bit makes sense. A field is of indeterminate extent, its energy value can vary from one place to another but will have an average value for the field generally. The average for the Higgs field is 248 GeV. Am I on the right track?


Correct the field is assumed to permeate all space thats what our theory says, which is how we found it. We always intially make the assumption our patch of space is not special it is like any other piece of space. We could be wrong and we are well aware that may be the case but since we cant easily transport the LHC to another piece of space it's the logical start point.


The measurement can be in whatever you like really Bill S units, Orac units, the number science is using at the moment is the energy units of a collider or a moving charged particle because thats how we measure it. Right here right now we can't give you an exact realtionship to other forces because we are still trying to understand the realtionships ... if you like we are like James Watt with power and work.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 8 of 17 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5