Bohm's theory

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear All,

There is an intense debate on validity of Bohm’s theory/hypothesis/interpretation is going on this blog!! Admittedly, I have not read Bohm’s  or Sutherland’s papers. But these days there are so many papers published that no one can read all of them. Now, number of physicists on this blog is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of total number of physicists. I read many physics blogs also. So far none of the top level physicists has come out in favor of Bohm/Sutherland’s theory. If you say it is a matter of time and my attitude is unscientific. Science should not be a popularity contest! Ok! It is possible that 1000 persons may be wrong and one person may be right. But I think, Bohm/Sutherland’s theories have still terrible problems. Quantum mechanics works beautifully in the present linear form and it agrees with experiment to  better than 1 part in a billion or more. If Bohm/Sutherland have to make it highly non-linear to make it compatible with experiments, nobody is going to buy it, not even on Einstein’s authority! By the way, Einstein was probably the greatest scientist ever born , but he was wrong in connection with quantum mechanics (God does not play dice and EPR reality issue). So, although I have an open mind, in my heart, I seriously doubt if these efforts to make QM realist will succeed. Personally I like non-realistic interpretation of QM in agreement with Advaita (Maya) philosophy. Again, since there is no consensus about interpretation of quantum mechanics after 90 years of debate, may be something very subtle could be going on!

Best Regards

Kashyap

 

[Edwards, Jonathan]

I very much are with your analysis Kashyap.

I think it is, however, in some ways a pity that people talk about Bohm as 'realist’. As far as I can judge nearly all the ‘interpretations’ of QM are attempts to make the mathematical relations fit the language one part of our brain uses to tell another part what is happening outside. So they are interpreted as involving ‘particles’ or ‘waves’ or ‘progression through space time’ or ‘collapse’ etc. Yet even the Greeks understood that the term particle cannot really be a basis for reality. It is just an idea one part of the brain uses to indicate to another part of the brain what to expect in a sort of cartoon form. Any mathematical theory that takes the idea of an infinitesimal volume with a finite mass seriously will yield contradictions, as Leibniz told us.

So to my mind Bohm is not a realist but a thinkist, or even ideaist (without the L), or perhaps more strictly a visualizist in the sense of wanting reality to fit the visualisable level of thought. We also have a mode of abstract thought that avoids using the language of senses like vision. It is trickier to convey because the language needed cannot be taught be pointing to things or using analogies with things we can point to.

My conclusion is that the laws of physics are like the laws of chess. A knight can move a certain way but there is no meaning to an ‘interpretation’ of the mechanics of its move, especially if the players are playing electronically. We are told that there are no trajectories in QM. I suspect we should go further and accept that there is o’movement’ or ‘progression’ either. There are just indivisible causal relations that follow mathematical rules. Real ones.

Jo

[Paul Werbos]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Vasavada, Kashyap V <vasa...@iupui.edu> wrote:By the way, Einstein was probably the greatest scientist ever born , but he was wrong in connection with quantum mechanics (God does not play dice and EPR reality issue). So, although I have an open mind, in my heart, I seriously doubt if these efforts to make QM realist will succeed. Personally I like non-realistic interpretation of QM in agreement with Advaita (Maya) philosophy. Again, since there is no consensus about interpretation of quantum mechanics after 90 years of debate, may be something very subtle could be going on!

Let me emphasize that the realist theory of Everett and Wheeler, extended with applications by David Deutsch, agrees with experiment as completely and as fully as the Copenhagen version. The decisive experiment, comparing measurement predictions based on the dynamics of that model WITHOUT extraneous additions, versus classical Copenhagen, has yet to be done.

Instead of arguing and opining, can we not instead try to be open minded and push to do the actual EXPERIMENTS to decide between the two?

The corrected (Deutschian) version of QED which I see as the next true step forward (more precisely, MQED as formulated in my latest paper in QED) is not Einsteinian. Einsteinian issues, using mathematics which is an extension of Sudarshan's and embodies pilot wave concepts, is for a later stage; until QED is corrected, there are substantive reasons why most serious physicists have not interest in any version of pilot wave concepts.

But NO, the EPR experiments do NOT contradict realism, or even local realism as such. Read the original paper by CHSH,

the PRIMARY source, or the review in the QIP paper I mentioned. Maya is predictable as an emergent phenomena in many systems, and much of the popular tertiary writings about quantum theory are themselves a great example of Maya. 

Best of luck,

   Paul 

[Dr Uma Banerjee]

Respected Vasudeva and Edwards

Have you  gone through the publications of Prof . A K Mukhopadhya's

His interpretation worth considering.

Regards 

Uma Banerjee 

Sent from my iPad

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/7ED20020-57DB-4328-B8E8-44A170AA5AF0%40ucl.ac.uk.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Vasavada, Kashyap V]

Dear Umaji,

No. I will be nice if you can summarize his findings.

Best regards

kashyap

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/4607E4A3-558A-4347-90C8-54B7BCA83D5A%40gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: Yet even the Greeks understood that the term particle cannot really be a basis for reality. It is just an idea one part of the brain uses to indicate to another part of the brain what to expect in a sort of cartoon form. Any mathematical theory that takes the idea of an infinitesimal volume with a finite mass seriously will yield contradictions, as Leibniz told us.

=======================

It is certainly true that all forms of QED, and mainstream QFT, treat the electron, for example, as a particle with finite mass and charge located at a point, and that this forces the use of a renormalization and regularization procedure which many of us find troublesome. That procedure is mathematically well-defined, and NOT a contradiction, but it is a strong hint that one could do better.

That is why I agree with Bohm and DeBroglie and Vigier, NOT on everything,

but on the goal of developing a more continuous model, and of deriving (corrected) QED as a statistical approximation to that underlying continuous model. 

That does not require regularization or renormalization and the sense of contradiction which they entail.

It is understandable that many physicists, who have not read the original CHSH paper on the "EPR" or "Bell" experiment (first performed by CHSH and later performed very precisely with SPDC for the first time by a guy I funded), believe that such a continuous PDE-type model cannot be reconciled with those experiments, but in fact it can. But would I need to repeat here the exhaustive review of that experiment and the CHSH theorem in my recent papers at arxiv?

Then again, people who object to mathematical models in principle would of course not give serious thought to the possibility of reconciling math and science with yoga and first person experience. The deep splits in human cultures are long standing... but also increasingly problematic. 

Which language used by humans is most likely to be shared with the rest of the galaxy, let alone the cosmos? Sanskrit? English? Aramaic? Greek? Mathematics?

None with the exact visual symbology... but I would bet on the last of these (and on nonverbal frames)  for the basic conceptual frameworks. Combined with something not yet on earth in any place. 

Best of luck,

   Paul

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Dear Paul,

The fact that renormalisation is mathematically well defined does not seem to me to alter the fact that if a theory that posits a point particle in order to satisfy some intuitive sense of realism then has to perform a mathematical trick that has no intuitive basis there is not much point (in ‘interpretation’ terms) in positing this point particle in the first place. The idea that one can visualise the dynamics within a mode of excitation in terms of a particle as understood intuitively is contradicted. Leibniz told us this would be so and I think he is right. 

As far as I can see all that are needed are best estimates of position for initial and final, measured, junctures for a causal connection. I am not trained in the mathematical formalism of QFT but I find it hard to see why one needs to posit any ‘size' for the connecting mode of action, whether infinitesimal or finite, any more than one needs to posit the size of a knight on a chess board. It may be that assuming an infinitesimal domain of mass and charge is the easiest way to do the arithmetic, but the issue is the ‘interpretation’ rather than the maths is it not? Newton found that one could pretend that the earth’s gravity was at an infinitesimal point at the centre and that made the maths easy but he did not intend us to think all the gravity lived there.

Best wishes

Jo

--
----------------------------
Fifth International Conference
Science and Scientist - 2017
August 18—19, 2017
Nepal Pragya Pratisthan, Kathmandu, Nepal
http://scsiscs.org/conference/scienceandscientist/2017
 
Send a Donation to Support Our Services: http://scienceandscientist.org/donate
(All Indian residents are eligible for tax benefits for their contributions under section 80G of the Income Tax Act)
 
Report Archives: http://bviscs.org/reports
 
Why Biology is Beyond Physical Sciences?: http://dx.doi.org/10.5923/j.als.20160601.03
 
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
 
Harmonizer: http://scienceandscientist.org/harmonizer
 
Darwin Under Siege: http://scienceandscientist.org/Darwin
 
Princeton Bhakti Vedanta Institute: http://bviscs.org
 
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: http://scsiscs.org
 
Sadhu-Sanga Blog: http://mahaprabhu.net/satsanga
 
Contact Us: http://scsiscs.org/contact
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D." group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Online_Sadhu_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/CACLqmgfV%3D2ZZssRs4BtyWc9%2B1o886a_qZf1jgPnCBjdz7Ga6Rg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

Good evening, Jonathan!

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear Paul,

The fact that renormalisation is mathematically well defined does not seem to me to alter the fact that if a theory that posits a point particle in order to satisfy some intuitive sense of realism

Please forgive me for not being clear here.

EVERY version of QED posits electrons as point particles, but they do NOT do this

in order to satisfy a sense of realism. SOME versions of QED are realistic,

and SOME are not, but all represent the electron as a point particle because this gives reasonably accurate predictions.

Some people have said that QED (which makes that assumption)
 is the most successful theory ever developed, with uniformly 12 decimal points accuracy or more in its predictions. In my view, that is a typical human kind of exaggeration, but certainly QED (all versions) achieve that kind of accuracy in some of its predictions.

Why do people continue to use that picture of the electron? People's reasons vary.

Some would say "if it works, don't fix it... at least not until you have something which actually works which is better." 

Personally, I agree with you that I do not like that model as a theory of the cosmos. I have spent many years working to find something which DOES work better,

getting rid of the point particle assumption. So did De Broglie and Einstein, and MAYBE Jack (but it is better if he speaks for himself on this point). 

HOWEVER -- QED still is extremely useful in practice, like Newton's theory of gravity. General relativity is a better theory of gravity than Newton's, and MUCH more plausible as a theory of how things really work underneath, but much harder to work with. In the same way, I would advocate a major but simple fix to QED,

MQED, for important tasks in predicting a wider range of experiments than what older versions can predict correctly. However, ON A PARALLEL track I am still working out details of a more ... complete and tricky model which would get rid of the point particle assumption, with the property that corrected QED is a good approximation to the underlying truth FOR most of what we see at the "level of resolution of our normal vision" (about 1-3 femtometers). 

All forms of QED seem weird to people. (Preskill of CalTech has described quantum computing as "putting weirdness to work.) The deeper theory would be smoother and more satisfying, at a basic axiomatic kind of level, but it would still increase weirdness even further than what most people can imagine today. 

On this list, however, some people may have a greater reach of imagination. 

Best of luck,

    Paul

[JACK SARFATTI]

On May 31, 2017, at 5:50 PM, Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:

Good evening, Jonathan!

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Edwards, Jonathan <jo.ed...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:

Dear Paul,

The fact that renormalisation is mathematically well defined does not seem to me to alter the fact that if a theory that posits a point particle in order to satisfy some intuitive sense of realism

it's not even mathematically well defined.

Is QED consistent?

Quantum electrodynamics (QED) gives the most accurate predictions quantum physics currently has to offer. 
The anomalous magnetic dipole moment matches the experimental data to 12 significant digits:

• M. Passera, Precise mass-dependent QED contributions to leptonic g-2 at order alpha^2 and alpha^3, Phys. Rev. D 75, 013002 (2007). arxiv paper
• B. Odom, D. Hanneke, B. D'Urso, and G. Gabrielse, New Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment Using a One-Electron Quantum Cyclotron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 030801 (2006) pdf 
  The Lamb shift, whose prediction made QED and renormalization respectable, is much more difficult to measure with high precision, hence offers no such phenomenal test of accuracy:
• S.G. Karshenboim, Precision physics of simple atoms: QED tests, nuclear structure and fundamental constants, Phys. Rep. 422 (2005), 1-63 arxiv paper 
  (For proposals to derive the Lamb shift without using QED, see work by Barut and collegues in the report pdf and the papers
• Phys. Rev. A 34 (1986), 3500-3501 Phys. Rev. A 34, (1986) 3502-3503 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 32 (1993), 961-968. 
  They don't seem to have convinced the mainstream.) 
  

  In spite of these successes of QED, many physicists think that QED cannot be a consistent theory. There is a phenomenon called the Landau pole: It indicates that at extremely large energies (far beyond the range of physical validity of QED, even far beyond the Planck energy) something might go wrong with QED. (QED loses its validity already at energies of about 10^11 eV, where the weak interaction becomes essential. The Planck energy at about 10^28 eV is the limit where some current theories try to make predictions. But the Landau pole, if it exists, has an energy far larger than the latter.) This is probably why Yang-Mills and not quantum electrodynamics was chosen as the model theory for the millenium prize. 
  

  Since the existence of the Landau pole is confirmed only in low order perturbation theory and in lattice calculations, 

• hep-lat/9801004 and hep-th/9712244 
  the question whether the alleged Landau pole implies limits to the consistency of QED has currently no rigorous mathematical substance. 
  The observations about the Landau pole in perturbation theory can be recast in mathematically rigorous terms using so-called renormalons, obstructions to Borel summability; see
• V Rivasseau, From Peturbative to Constructive Renormalization, Princeton 1991 
  But the resulting analysis is inconclusive as regards the existence of the theory. 
  

  The quality of the computed approximations to QED are a strong indication that there should be a consistent mathematical foundation (for not too high energies), although it hasn't been found yet. There is no indication at all that at the energies where QED suffices to describe our world (with electrons and nuclei considered as elementary particles), it should be inconsistent. To show this rigorously, or to disprove therefore remains another unsolved (and for physics more important) problem. 
  Perturbative QED is only a rudimentary version of the 'real QED'. This can be seen from the fact that Scharf's results on the external field case 

• G. Scharf, Finite Quantum Electrodynamics: The Causal Approach, 2nd ed., New York: Springer-Verlag, 1995. 
  are much stronger (he constructs in his book the S-matrix) than those for QED proper (where he only shows the existence of the power series in alpha, but not their convergence). 
• J.S. Feldman, T.R. Hurd, L. Rosen and J.D. Wright, QED: A proof of renormalizability, Lecture Notes in Physics 312, Springer, Berlin 1988 
  gives a rigorous proof of perturbative existence of QED at all orders. This means that a formal power series for the S-matrix is shown to exist rigorously. This includes renormalization and is sufficient for actual computations of single electron effects in weak fields (such as the anomalous magnetic moment and the Lamb shift in light atoms) since a few terms in the power series give very high accuracy. 
  However, the power series is believed to diverge if enough (i.e., infinitely many) terms are added, and a consistent nonperturbative treatment of full QED is presently missing. 
  

  The quest for the 'existence' of QED is the quest for a framework where the formulas make sense nonperturbatively, and where the power series in alpha is a Taylor expansion of a (presumably nonanalytic) function of alpha that is mathematically well-defined for alpha around 1/137 and not too high energy. This is still open. 
  More precisely: Probably QED (and thus the QED S-matrix exists nonperturbatively as a 2-parameter theory depending on the fine structure constant alpha and the electron mass m_e; these parameters are the zero energy limits of the corresponding renormalized running coupling constants, and is defined for alpha <= 1/137 and input energies <= some number E_limit(alpha,m_e) larger than the physical validity of pure QED. What is needed is a mathematical proof that the QED S-matrix exists for 0<1 137="" (rather="" than="" only="" for="" infinitesimal="" alpha,="" as="" currently="" established)="" a="" unitary="" operator="" s(alpha)="" in="" the="" hilbert="" space="" h(emax)="" of="" all="" in-states="" energy="" <="E_max=E_limit(alpha)," some="" reasonable="" emax.="" <1>

  We know from perturbation theory how to compute in such a range the coefficients of an asymptotic series in alpha for S(alpha). We also have a number of nonperturbative approximation schemes that give certain nonperturbative results (such as the Lamb shift). 
  But we currently do not have a way to ascertain that some well-defined object S(alpha) exists that has this asymptotic series. The quest for proving that QED exists is that of finding a construction for S(alpha) that makes rigorous sense and has the known asymptotic expansion. 
  

  QED is renormalizable at all loops, which means that the power series expansion of the S-matrix is mathematically well-defined at ordinary energies. The _only_ thing that is missing is to give its limit a mathematically well-defined meaning. Note that the S-matrix S commutes with the Hamiltonian; hence if P is the orthogonal projector to the space H_limit of states involving only energies < E_limit(alpha) then PSP is unitary on H_limit, and my conjecture is that PSP has some (yet unknown but) rigorous nonperturbative construction. 
  The Landau pole (if it exists) just gives an upper bound to the allowed energies. E_limit(alpha) is a function of alpha, which according to perturbation theory has to satisfy

• E_limit(0) < (Landau-pole in lowest order) 
  (and possibly decreases with increasing alpha); apart from that, the known approximate results do not restrict the likely mathematical validity of pure quantum electrodynamics. 
  A cautious evaluation of the situation is given in Weinberg's QFT book, Vol. 2, pp.136-138 - all options are left open. On the other hand,
• D. Espriu and R. Tarrach, The case for triviality, Phys. Lett. B383 (1996) 482, 
  argue that, because of the Landau pole, quantum electrodynamics is only an effective field theory. 
  

  To summarize: 
  QED is renormalizable at all loops, which means that the power series expansion of the S-matrix is mathematically well-defined at ordinary energies. The _only_ thing that is missing is to give its limit a mathematically well-defined meaning derived from a formulation of QED that makes sense also at finite times and not only as a transition from t=-infinity to t=+infinity. 
  

  https://www.mat.univie.ac.at/~neum/physfaq/topics/consistentQED.html

  ---

  
  
  Arnold Neumaier (Arnold....@univie.ac.at)
  A theoretical physics FAQ
• 
  
• http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/renormalization.html
• 
  

[Edwards, Jonathan]

Dear Paul,

I am very aware that quantum theories seem weird to most people but as far as I can see that is mostly because they are not familiar with the neuropsychology of perception. A careful study of perception makes it clear that concepts like ‘spaciousness’ or ‘movement’ or ‘object’ are based on internal tricks that our brains use to talk to themselves. Once one has considered carefully what ones concept of a ‘moving particle’ might actually mean in terms of dynamics it becomes clear that what is ‘weird’ is this strange internal brain language, not the dynamics. Leibniz understood this clearly and predicted that at the level of individual dynamic units physics would be unenvisageable, with no reference to ‘particles’; it would be pretty much exactly like quantum field theory. It would be a set of harmonising histories of units with an internal principle of change that reflected the field they occupied. These units would have no size or shape - such attributes would be meaningless

I went through a phase of being attracted to early Bohm about fifteen years ago when first trying to understand quantum theories but Michael Fisher explained to me why it solves nothing we would want to solve. Leibniz made the reasons much clearer for me.

As I say, I do not follow the math in any detail. However I am not aware of anywhere in QED where the size of an electron is given - particularly not an infinitesimal size.  And as I understand it the only point where a very local domain is involved is at the point of measurement, where all that is needed is for the site of the causal juncture to be predictable to an accuracy given by HUP. As I understand it particle trajectories are abandoned by most interpretations, but often to be replaced by ‘waves’. There is then argument about whether these go forward or also go back etc. Leibniz tells us that this is all irrelevant. A mode of excitation does not even exist as THAT mode unless complete. There can be no meaning to some sort of unfolding or progression within a mode. von Neumann’s two processes are absurd. It just is. This is derived from the a priori principle of identity of indiscernibles, which we know empirically applies in quantum theory.

It seems to me that physicists would do well to take a sabbatical in a neuropsychology lab working on rubber hand illusions and the like. That is where the weirdness lies.

Best wishes

Jo

[Serge Patlavskiy]

-

Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> on May 31, 2017 wrote:

>Which language used by humans is most likely to be shared with 

>the rest of the galaxy, let alone the cosmos? Sanskrit? English? 

>Aramaic? Greek? Mathematics?

>None with the exact visual symbology... but I would bet on the last

> of these (and on nonverbal frames)  for the basic conceptual 

>frameworks. Combined with something not yet on earth in any place. 

[S.P.] For me, the most universal language for sharing ideas among consciousness-possessing beings in the Universe is the language of graphic modeling. I widely use it when elaborating my version of the theory of consciousness. Also, I solve the problem of constructing a special language for talking about consciousness matters. In result, I have got a base of prime concepts where every concept has its exact and unequivocal meaning.

Second. By human language we often mean a vernacular language, or the language the humans use for everyday communication. So, we may formulate the question thus: which national language (in its vernacular form) is most appropriate for describing cognitive activity?

Personally, I vote for Ukrainian language, and for reasons given below:

Ukrainian                    English

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

s-vid-omist'                 consciousness

s-vid-chennia              witnessing, evidence

u-s-vid-omlennia        realization

do-s-vid                      experience

vid-aty                        to know

po-s-vid-chennia        acknowledgement; certificate;

vid-omiy                    familiar

vid-povidaty              to reply, to be responsible for

vid-dzerkal'uvaty       to reflect

vid-kladaty                 to postpone 

vid-movliatysia          to reject, to give up

vid-chyniaty               to open

(and so on; here, the common root is "vid")

zna-ty                         to know

zna-k                          sign

zna-yomiy                  acquainted (with)

zna-nnia                     knowledge

di-zna-nnia                 inquest, inquiry, investigation

zna-chennia                meaning, importance

zna-chniy                   considerable

zna-menytiy              famous

zna-meno                  banner, standard, colours

zna-har                      sorcerer; healer

(and so on; here, the common root is "zna")

As one can see, to describe cognitive activity, in the Ukrainian language the correspondent words share common roots, while in English language the correspondent words have different roots. It would be interesting to know what situation is in other world languages.

Kindly,

Serge Patlavskiy

---

From: Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com>
To: "online_sa...@googlegroups.com" <Online_Sa...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 7:05 PM

Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Bohm's theory

Вірусів немає. www.avast.com