## Negative Quantum Space-Time

**Moderators:** gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Negative Quantum Space-Time

I am claiming something revolutionary here, but likely, do not have the correct terminology ..I'm no expert, please don't kill me. Tell me if you think I'm on to something.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?

Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?

Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

The uncertainty principle is really just a simple mathematical thing about the relationships between waves and their fourier transforms, where the frequency of a wave in time is its energy (which is thus uncertain together with its position in time), and the frequency of a wave in space is its momentum (which is thus uncertain together with its position in space). There's a great, really approachable video from Sixty Symbols about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwGyqJMPmvE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwGyqJMPmvE

"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

and I'm saying, look what else it's revealing.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

And I'm saying, is a short chug of a guitar string having a wider pitch spectrum than a long clean pluck of one evidence that the guitar string somehow "isn't really there"? Because that's the same thing that's going on with the uncertainty principle. There's uncertainty between the length of a guitar note and the pitch of the note, and it's nothing weird and quantum mechanical. It only becomes "weird" in quantum mechanics because that's saying that elementary particles are like notes on an instrument, they're waves; the uncertainty stuff about waves already applied perfectly fine to macroscopic waves long before that idea came along.

"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote: Tell me if you think I'm on to something.

In a word - no.

But that is ok, I think I can speak for most of us when I say we have all been where you are.

Some questions for you that might help:

What is your definition of a "genuine" 3d+1 "space-time object"?

Do you consider, say, an electron, to actually be a small round ball?

How do you know what might suggest a particle is "on another timeline"?

I think you have drawn a too-classical conclusion on the nature of the cause-and-effect of observation/waveform-collapse.

Its not like focusing a camera.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

space-time is a dimension outside of width, depth, height. If a 3d object, on our scale, lost a dimension it wouldn't be visible to us.

Anything that can display quantum weirdness doesn't have all the dimensions we experience until we observe it. and even then it might only be partial.

If we can't focus on something moving it means the frame-rate is off or the object doesn't posses the properties needed.

Anything that can display quantum weirdness doesn't have all the dimensions we experience until we observe it. and even then it might only be partial.

If we can't focus on something moving it means the frame-rate is off or the object doesn't posses the properties needed.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:space-time is a dimension outside of width, depth, height. If a 3d object, on our scale, lost a dimension it wouldn't be visible to us.

Thing is, time *isnt* actually a physical dimension. It is sometimes useful to imagine it as one, but it isnt another "length" that we just happen to be travelling through.

Thats why its "3+1" and not actually "4".

pittsburghjoe wrote:If we can't focus on something moving it means the frame-rate is off or the object doesn't posses the properties needed.

The uncertainty principle is *not* like focussing a camera. There is no "frame rate" and observations do not have a shutter speed. The conclusions you are drawing are based on incorrect assumptions.

The uncertainty of position, of a particle, is *not* dependant on its speed. It is dependant on the accuracy-of-measurement of its speed.

Consider a hypothetical particle "at rest" - according to your "frame rate" hypothesis, we should be able to get a real good idea of its position.

However, this ignores the fact that observing it at all will dump energy into it (This is not avoidable. There are some examples of zero-energy observations, but they are extremely specific and not applicable to this physical question), accelerating it in some fashion.

Now it is not at rest any more and though you may have gotten some data on its initial coordinates, it certainly isnt there any more.

Where is it? You are *not certain*.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Space-time is just as good as any other dimension to make something disappear.

---------------------------------

or you could say you can't be accurate because it isn't completely there.

---------------------------------

or you could say you can't be accurate because it isn't completely there.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Just wondering if you watched that thing about the guitar notes?

"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.

Why would you say that?

What "quantum weird things"?

What are you trying to say?

What are the properties of something that does not "inhabit spacetime"?

How do you know?

- Eebster the Great
**Posts:**3484**Joined:**Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC**Location:**Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

p1t1o wrote:pittsburghjoe wrote:space-time is a dimension outside of width, depth, height. If a 3d object, on our scale, lost a dimension it wouldn't be visible to us.

Thing is, time *isnt* actually a physical dimension. It is sometimes useful to imagine it as one, but it isnt another "length" that we just happen to be travelling through.

Thats why its "3+1" and not actually "4".

I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. Time is every bit as much of a dimension in GR as spatial dimensions are, not just treated like a dimension as part of a mathematical trick. Obviously in QM, the story is different, but I think it would be premature to say how many dimensions we "really" inhabit in QM anyway. The reason 4-dimensional spacetime is called "3+1-dimensional" sometimes is because the metric signature is (3,1) (or (1,3)), meaning one dimension has the opposite sign of the other three. Calling it therefore "not real" needs some justification.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Eebster the Great wrote:Calling it therefore "not real" needs some justification.

I didnt say it wasnt real, or not a dimension, but that it wasnt physical.

"Time" is, in physical reality - and as far as I understand - not equivalent to a physical property/length - though it may be treated in a similar, or identical, way mathematically.

Is that way off?

- Eebster the Great
**Posts:**3484**Joined:**Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC**Location:**Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Duration is directly analogous to length in classical physics. In special relativity, the spacetime interval is distance² - c² * duration ², and it's the minus sign that distinguishes the time coordinate from the spatial coordinates (note that you could equivalently define it as the opposite difference; the important thing is just that space and time have different signs). This is invariant under Lorentz boosts, which means the interval between two events in spacetime is the same for all observers, even if they are moving at relativistic speed, which is not true for distance or duration on their own.

So you can't say that length is a "physical property," when it depends on the reference frame, but the spacetime interval is not, even though it is independent of reference frame. Spacetime as a 4-dimensional manifold is much more meaningful than the 3-dimensional subspace corresponding to the spatial dimensions in a particular frame of reference.

So you can't say that length is a "physical property," when it depends on the reference frame, but the spacetime interval is not, even though it is independent of reference frame. Spacetime as a 4-dimensional manifold is much more meaningful than the 3-dimensional subspace corresponding to the spatial dimensions in a particular frame of reference.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Do you think there is something here worth investigating?

- Eebster the Great
**Posts:**3484**Joined:**Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC**Location:**Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:Do you think there is something here worth investigating?

I think you need to study more physics, because most of what you are saying in the OP is not even wrong, in the sense that it is not scientifically meaningful. It's gobbledygook.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

I said I didn't know the correct terminology. You really can't decipher my grunts to see what I'm pointing at?

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Eebster the Great wrote:Duration is directly analogous to length in classical physics. In special relativity, the spacetime interval is distance² - c² * duration ², and it's the minus sign that distinguishes the time coordinate from the spatial coordinates (note that you could equivalently define it as the opposite difference; the important thing is just that space and time have different signs). This is invariant under Lorentz boosts, which means the interval between two events in spacetime is the same for all observers, even if they are moving at relativistic speed, which is not true for distance or duration on their own.

So you can't say that length is a "physical property," when it depends on the reference frame, but the spacetime interval is not, even though it is independent of reference frame. Spacetime as a 4-dimensional manifold is much more meaningful than the 3-dimensional subspace corresponding to the spatial dimensions in a particular frame of reference.

When you say "directly analogous", what do you mean? "Analogous" does not mean "the same as", it doesnt even have to imply much in the way of similarity, jusy that its...well...analogous. Could be "the nearest thing in another given system". Like an apple is analogous to a chickens egg, in terms of how trees reproduce, but an apple is not an egg, nor does it work in the same way nor even do exactly the same thing. Know what I mean?

But if you...as I suspect you do...do mean that time and length are essentially the same in concept, then:

Well blow me down, consider my headcanon somewhat updated. At least as far as I understand.

I knew already that GR makes things...interesting...between time and spatial coordinates....but are they really so identical?

The 3 physical dimensions of ,say, my phone, are equivalent to the "time" its moving through?

Is there ANY significant difference between "time" and distance?

pittsburghjoe wrote:I said I didn't know the correct terminology. You really can't decipher my grunts to see what I'm pointing at?

This is what quantum physics looks like, simple quantum physics, not even touching quantum gravity or virtual particles or relativity or anything even approaching exotic, its just the Hamiltonian for an atom of Lithium:

So, no, your grunts are not enough.

- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
**Posts:**26818**Joined:**Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC**Location:**Here and There-
**Contact:**

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:I said I didn't know the correct terminology. You really can't decipher my grunts to see what I'm pointing at?

It's not the lack of terminology that's the problem, it's that you don't understand the underlying concepts, either. The uncertainty principle doesn't say what you think it says, no matter what words you use to talk about it.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

And you are refusing to look at what else it says because you hate new ideas. You don't want an answer to quantum weirdness?

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

stuck up snobs. I obviously didn't go to school for this so you won't bother even looking at what I wrote? How about pulling your head from your ass and think about this new idea?

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Pittsburghjoe, I'm really wondering if you watched that short video about guitar note uncertainty I linked to earlier? Here it is again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwGyqJMPmvE

I think it's super helpful for understanding why uncertainty itself isn't really all that weird, and applies too all kinds of normal, not-weird waves, and so has nothing to do really with the kind of weirdness you think it does. The only thing that makes it seem weird in QM is that QM says that fundamental particles are waves, but uncertainty is a normal thing that applies to all kinds of big normal waves, not just weird quantum stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwGyqJMPmvE

I think it's super helpful for understanding why uncertainty itself isn't really all that weird, and applies too all kinds of normal, not-weird waves, and so has nothing to do really with the kind of weirdness you think it does. The only thing that makes it seem weird in QM is that QM says that fundamental particles are waves, but uncertainty is a normal thing that applies to all kinds of big normal waves, not just weird quantum stuff.

"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."

The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

- Eebster the Great
**Posts:**3484**Joined:**Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC**Location:**Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

p1t1o wrote:Eebster the Great wrote:Duration is directly analogous to length in classical physics. In special relativity, the spacetime interval is distance² - c² * duration ², and it's the minus sign that distinguishes the time coordinate from the spatial coordinates (note that you could equivalently define it as the opposite difference; the important thing is just that space and time have different signs). This is invariant under Lorentz boosts, which means the interval between two events in spacetime is the same for all observers, even if they are moving at relativistic speed, which is not true for distance or duration on their own.

So you can't say that length is a "physical property," when it depends on the reference frame, but the spacetime interval is not, even though it is independent of reference frame. Spacetime as a 4-dimensional manifold is much more meaningful than the 3-dimensional subspace corresponding to the spatial dimensions in a particular frame of reference.

When you say "directly analogous", what do you mean? "Analogous" does not mean "the same as", it doesnt even have to imply much in the way of similarity, jusy that its...well...analogous. Could be "the nearest thing in another given system". Like an apple is analogous to a chickens egg, in terms of how trees reproduce, but an apple is not an egg, nor does it work in the same way nor even do exactly the same thing. Know what I mean?

But if you...as I suspect you do...do mean that time and length are essentially the same in concept, then:

Well blow me down, consider my headcanon somewhat updated. At least as far as I understand.

I knew already that GR makes things...interesting...between time and spatial coordinates....but are they really so identical?

The 3 physical dimensions of ,say, my phone, are equivalent to the "time" its moving through?

Is there ANY significant difference between "time" and distance?

Different reference frames will experience time and space differently. A moving observer will appear time-dilated and length-contracted from my frame of reference, as I will seem to them. So we won't agree on how far apart two events are or in which order they happened. But we will both agree on the spacetime interval between two events. Space and time are not identical, but they both have equal right to being a "dimension."

Another way to look at it is that the x, y, and z directions don't have independent meaning. There is no "down" in space. By rotating, my x-direction can become a mix of your x, y, and z-directions. Similarly, through a Lorentz boost, my x, y, z, and ct-directions can become a mix of yours. So in that sense, space and time don't really have independent meaning; you have to consider them together.

This becomes even more true in general relativity. You can't just "curve space" or "curve time," you can only curve spacetime. Space and time don't have to be "the same" for them to be dimensions of the same manifold any more than electricity and magnetism have to be the same to be fields of the same interaction.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

@PittsburghJoe:

3blue1brown also did a video on the uncertainty principle, again showing that it applies to everyday, normal, non-QM waves.

He talks through sound waves (time vs frequency), Doppler radar (distance vs velocity) and then QM (position vs momentum).

As Pfhorrest says, the weird bit is that the fundamental units of nature are waves. The uncertainty principle itself isn't actually weird, it just naturally falls out from the maths once you make that assumption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4

3blue1brown also did a video on the uncertainty principle, again showing that it applies to everyday, normal, non-QM waves.

He talks through sound waves (time vs frequency), Doppler radar (distance vs velocity) and then QM (position vs momentum).

As Pfhorrest says, the weird bit is that the fundamental units of nature are waves. The uncertainty principle itself isn't actually weird, it just naturally falls out from the maths once you make that assumption.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBnnXbOM5S4

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

What? You are saying 3D matter turning into a math wave is the same as a sound wave? My goal is to discover why matter is able to be represented as a wave to begin with. I don't care that sound can mimic it ..for all we know sound is quantum also.

- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
**Posts:**26818**Joined:**Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC**Location:**Here and There-
**Contact:**

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

What do you mean "turning into"?

And sound waves aren't quantum in the sense of "quantum weirdness". We can understand them quite well (including the part about uncertainty) just from the mathematics of waves (i.e. periodic trig functions).

If the fact that particles are waves is what gets you, then say that first. Uncertainty is a completely unsurprising and unavoidable mathematical consequence of that.

And sound waves aren't quantum in the sense of "quantum weirdness". We can understand them quite well (including the part about uncertainty) just from the mathematics of waves (i.e. periodic trig functions).

If the fact that particles are waves is what gets you, then say that first. Uncertainty is a completely unsurprising and unavoidable mathematical consequence of that.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

Surely you don't believe matter goes through both slits of the double slit experiment? The math says waves ..I say it's temporary disconnected from spacetime. There are lots of properties that are considered quantum, the weirdness ones are what I'm after. I was saying the argument that uncertainty happens at our scale ..is bogus because the example given is quantum. Granted probably not the quantum weirdness type.

- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
**Posts:**26818**Joined:**Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC**Location:**Here and There-
**Contact:**

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:Surely you don't believe matter goes through both slits of the double slit experiment? The math says waves ..I say it's temporary disconnected from spacetime.

You say that based on what, exactly?

Surely you don't believe being "disconnected from spacetime" is somehow *less* weird and unlikely than going through two slits and interfering?

It's not bogus, it's a fairly straightforward mathematical consequence.I was saying the argument that uncertainty happens at our scale ..is bogus because the example given is quantum.

Sure, it's time and frequency instead of position and momentum, but the principle really is essentially the same.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

yes ..yes that is what I believe, because physical mass, that can only be describe by math, is too pathetic for mankind. The answer has been sitting in-front of our face all this time.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:Surely you don't believe matter goes through both slits of the double slit experiment? The math says waves ..I say it's temporary disconnected from spacetime.

It's less that 'the math says waves', and more that the experiments do. QED has been shown to be accurate to within about 10

^{-8}

If you want to come up with a theory that says that matter is actually particles but not waves even though, as best we can tell, experiments show it behaves exactly like waves, you're going to have to come up with an explanation why.

I mean, if matter is particles but just 'disconnects from spacetime' then there's no reason why it would match the math for waves at all...

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

obviously, matter disconnected from spacetime is seen to us as math waves.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

If it looks the same, then it becomes a distinction without a difference, in which case Occam’s Razor rules.

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:obviously, matter disconnected from spacetime is seen to us as math waves.

But why? There are countless other things matter disconnected from spacetime could look like.

It's a little like the argument against the earth being young. A scientist might say 'if the earth is actually young, how come we have fossil evidence, carbon dating, tectonic plate evidence and so on, all pointing to the earth being old?'

A young earther would say 'That's easy! God put that evidence there to test us!'

You don't even seem to have that good a reason why all the evidence for matter being wave-like exists (or, in fact, being excitations of a field, which is the even more up-to-date version)...

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

disconnecting from spacetime doesn't seem complex to me

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

It's not that it's complex, it's that it's arbitrary.

There's a billion ways matter 'disconnecting from spacetime' could look nothing like waves. You haven't given a reason why it would do so.

There's a billion ways matter 'disconnecting from spacetime' could look nothing like waves. You haven't given a reason why it would do so.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

We see what matter looks like disconnected with quantum weirdness. Why fight it? Let's get science to the next era.

- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
**Posts:**26818**Joined:**Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC**Location:**Here and There-
**Contact:**

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

All you've done is push the question back a level without explaining anything in the meantime.

Question: Why does matter look like waves?

All of modern science: Because matter is waves.

(Yes, now we can ask, "Why is matter waves?" That's a different question, and one that we don't need to answer right away now that we see how the mathematics of waves can give us extremely accurate predictions about how matter behaves.)

Question: Why does matter look like waves?

pittsburghjoe: Because it disconnects from spacetime.

Question: Why does disconnecting from spacetime look like waves?

pittsburghjoe: .......

(If you say something like, "Because disconnecting from spacetime is waves," then you're just at the same point as the rest of physics except you've added an unnecessary and useless intermediate step in the middle. We don't usually like useless complexity in our scientific theories.)

Question: Why does matter look like waves?

All of modern science: Because matter is waves.

(Yes, now we can ask, "Why is matter waves?" That's a different question, and one that we don't need to answer right away now that we see how the mathematics of waves can give us extremely accurate predictions about how matter behaves.)

Question: Why does matter look like waves?

pittsburghjoe: Because it disconnects from spacetime.

Question: Why does disconnecting from spacetime look like waves?

pittsburghjoe: .......

(If you say something like, "Because disconnecting from spacetime is waves," then you're just at the same point as the rest of physics except you've added an unnecessary and useless intermediate step in the middle. We don't usually like useless complexity in our scientific theories.)

You're the only one "fighting it". What you call "quantum weirdness" is not actually that weird once you accept that everything is waves, but it remains just as weird when you give the arbitrary non-answer of "disconnected from spacetime".pittsburghjoe wrote:We see what matter looks like disconnected with quantum weirdness. Why fight it? Let's get science to the next era.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

The math says the physical object remains 3D when in superposition. So the only avenue left is spacetime. In math, it is waves, in reality, it has lost a dimension. Something that that has lost a dimension is crazy.

- gmalivuk
- GNU Terry Pratchett
**Posts:**26818**Joined:**Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC**Location:**Here and There-
**Contact:**

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

pittsburghjoe wrote:The math says the physical object remains 3D when in superposition. So the only avenue left is spacetime. In math, it is waves, in reality, it has lost a dimension. Something that that has lost a dimension is crazy.

I'm not sure any of that means anything.

- pittsburghjoe
**Posts:**44**Joined:**Thu May 23, 2019 12:34 pm UTC

### Re: Negative Quantum Space-Time

It means the new era can begin.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests