Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

String Theory Under Attack!

by Laurent GUERBY Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 10:57:17 AM EST

Via slashdot, Has string theory tied up better ideas in physics?:


 (AP) - Nobel physicist Wolfgang Pauli didn't suffer fools gladly. Fond of calling colleagues' work "wrong" or "completely wrong," he saved his worst epithet for work so sloppy and speculative it is "not even wrong."

That's how mathematician Peter Woit of Columbia University describes string theory. In his book, "Not Even Wrong," published in the U.K. this month and due in the U.S. in September, he calls the theory "a disaster for physics."

A year or two ago, that would have been a fringe opinion, motivated by sour grapes over not sitting at physics' equivalent of the cool kids' table. But now, after two decades in which string theory has been the doyenne of best-seller lists and the dominant paradigm in particle physics, Mr. Woit has company.

"When it comes to extending our knowledge of the laws of nature, we have made no real headway" in 30 years, writes physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, in his book, "The Trouble with Physics," also due in September. "It's called hitting the wall."

He blames string theory for this "crisis in particle physics," the branch of physics that tries to explain the most fundamental forces and building blocks of the world.

[...]


Display:
I need to write a diary about this. Colman has already asked me before why I don't like string theory, and since I almost did my Ph.D. with Smolin I wuppose I can give a little inside view of this <wink>.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 24th, 2006 at 07:11:01 PM EST
I wait for it.. really...

I am not a fan in the sense that I do not think it really has any "experimental" approach. They seem to try and try to find soemetting that they can test... with no success. The reason why I do no think string theory is a disgrace (as other fiels in science) it is because they do not lie anybody, they do not pretend to be what they are not.

A different issue is whether it prevented other ideas to flourish. I doubt it was for any particular "cabal" as it happens in other areas but just because the mindset is stablished for the beginning.

So I really wait your take.

From a humble non-string far-away theorists.

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 04:30:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
ah a physicst... i spent the last two years working on a Phd In Physics here in the states. sorry lost the true religion and am going to apply that knowledge to the financial markets... im a sell out...

;-)


Life is not a dress rehearsal

by johnfire (johnfire@christopherrehm.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:21:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Welcome to the club...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:30:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You work for a bank?
by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 10:44:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For a hedge fund.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:21:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dooooooooooooooooooomed!

X-ref: Long Term Capital Management.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:49:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Eh eh :).

I'm curious, are you using options or just stock/commo/future?

by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:07:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

If I told you online I'd have to kill myself ;-)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:19:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
ah, transparency and hedge funds :)
by Laurent GUERBY on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 01:04:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
actually thats what im looking to do after i do the MBA in germany


Life is not a dress rehearsal
by johnfire (johnfire@christopherrehm.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 04:22:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I enjoy reading Woit's blog and share his opinion that research in string theory is crowding out other areas. But then, I think that the prestige of physics as a whole skews the allocation of intellectual potential in a damaging way. People who could have been first-rate applied physicists instead become second-rate theoretical physicists, and people who could have been world-changing engineers instead end up piddling around doing semi-important physics of one sort or another. About half of today's string theorists, in my ideal world, would instead be set to work developing more effective computational approximations to the Schrödinger equation.

Regarding the controversy around string theory itself (as distinct from its marketing hype and its impact on research communities), I don't share Woit's dislike of the so-called "landscape" of possible vacuua. If a theory didn't allow for an enormous number of possible worlds with different laws of physics, but instead predicted a single, unique world, then one would be stuck with the question of why life is possible -- that is, why the only mathematically possible universe also happens let anything like us exist.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:51:48 AM EST
There is not a shread of experimental evidence for (or even suggestive of) String Theory. Not one. Theoretical physicists need to stop doing theoretical high-energy physics in an experimental vacuum and do theoretical physics of something else. They're spinning their wheels.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 03:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have serious epistemological beef with the notion that creating theories that are AFAIK realistically untestable qualifies as physics by any reasonable definition. String theory is mathematics or some sort of speculative mathematical philosophy - not physical philosophy (except in the sense that it must have the known physical laws as a limit)...

The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom - William Blake
by talos (mihalis at gmail dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:13:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I call current theoretical high-energy physics metatheoretical physics. I also used to make the joke that I chose to get a Ph.D. in mathematics and not physics so I didn't have to feel embarrassed by my subject matter.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:40:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Mathematics as a refuge from physics? Considering the internal difficulties with mathematics, that doesn't seem like such a great refuge...
by asdf on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What internal difficulties do you mean?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 02:20:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
2 + 2 = 5

Believe me.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, under suitable a definition of '='.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:38:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And a suitable definition of '+'. And of '2' and '5'.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:40:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "believe" and of "me".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then I'm glad we agree.

(under a suitable definition of "agree").

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:48:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And of "definition".

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 07:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
...in the recursive general case.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:33:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean the one that goes

 if(FALSE) then agree

?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 11:34:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Close.

I think the Uncertainty Principle should really be named the Indecisiveness Principle.

It's not that the Universe is random, it's more that it can't actually make up its mind about anything definite unless you stand over and force it to. (Boolean values included.)

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
the universe.  It is really hard to get them to make up their minds!  

The Fates are kind.
by Gaianne on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 01:44:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No we're creating the Universe to our image?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's a reasonable explanation for why String Theory doesn't work.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 06:30:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, for example, the hoops you have to jump through to make set theory internally consistent...
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It cannot be proven to be internally consistent, AFAIK.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 08:53:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If you worry about that, just adopt some flavour of constructivism or other, and get on with your work. As a user of applied mathematics, every theorem you'll ever use will still be true, with a little more work.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 09:00:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doesn't it bother you just a bit that the formal foundation for big chunks of mathematics gets wrapped around the axle so easily?
by asdf on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 10:12:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, I think the formalists (Hilbert and his coterie) were a little extreme.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:06:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
They were also proved wrong by Gödel.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you a platonist?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 03:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not sure I want to be pigeonholed philosophy-wise. It just seems weird that mathematics does, on the one hand, do an amazing job of providing tools that can be applied to physics (and the other practical arts) and give arbitrarily accurate results, but then at the same time it can get so completely fouled up itself when you try to do rigorous analysis...
by asdf on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 11:33:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Physics is anything but a cold, objective look at "reality". Great theories are those that capture the imagination. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and the mathematical framework of those theories are very pleasant. The sense of transcendence of a theory is quite important to how we feel about it, which is of no small consequence to how it will be received by the community of physicists. Physics probably fills some important narrative role for a secular era. The high priests of physics (theorists) are often true believers. The last sentence is close to pure speculation. I have known young physicists (ones still getting their PhDs), I wanted to be one myself once. I remember my sense of awe when first confronted with relativity and QM, watching the equations unfold, the feeling of a connection with something significant and important. Mathematics held the ultimate truth, physics pervaded the world, binding it into a coherent whole. I abandoned what I think of now as a rather naive romanticism, but while it had me captive I never thought about it this way, it was pure, unarguable, inescapable truth. My friends who did stay in physics seemed to feel the same way about it. Maybe they grew out of it, maybe they do physics without believing. I don't see how anyone could, I certainly couldn't.

So, string theory is the latest "thing". It doesn't (yet?) connect with experimental abilities, but like earlier theoretical projects it connects well emotionally. We can argue about what science is, and try as we might to make it cold, objective, and try to believe that it is of a "reality" which is really, really there, irrespective of the fancy of the theorist. A set of computations that work out, that predict, a patchwork of abstractions that return a measurable quantity when invoked correctly, the stuff of engineering and applied science, this is not theoretical physics, because it lacks exactly the emotional exponent of theories past.

If we find the right equation, then we know, what, exactly?

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:01:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
String theory has been the latest thing for 30 years, and hasn't delivered on any of its promises. There has been a constant outflow of people trained in quantum field theory into other fields, especially condensed matter physics and complexity, and they have seriously affected the development of the fields with their outlook (no value judgement here).

It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics. If unification happens, it will be discovered almost as a byproduct of something else, especially given the lack (and virtual impossibility) of direct experimental input.

The most promising areas of theoretical physics IMHO are in astroparticle physics and relativistics astrophysics generally, and in quantum optics. Both of them are healthy experimental and keep blowing my mind away every time a new discovery is announced.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics.

Yeah, maybe. I quit physics before I even got started, to do something more "useful", whatever that means. It seems like people are initially drawn to theoretical physics for some rather difficult to define emotional reasons. I have never tried to pose the question of "why physics?" to older theorists. I am very curious as to how they relate to their field. The ones that end up writing pop-sci books certainly all sound in awe of their discipline, in a way that is completely divorced from the applicability to anything of the theory. Maybe they sound like this because that is what the public wants? The people, when they think of scientists at all, like them to be eccentric, wiry haired, passionate, fascinating and fascinated. And this connects very well with unification, exotic theories, and all that jazz.
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 08:17:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's about time people gave up on Einstein's idea that "unification" is around the corner, and get to doing real physics

Wait, that's what they're looking for?  Isn't this basically the same as the alchemists of old, looking for the underlying "essence" of everything?

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:03:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well - except for the parts about living forever and turning lead into gold.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:20:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, so they have better spin now than they did 300 years ago, or they're simply more cautious?  Now it's "building blocks" and "extending the human life-span."  Now I'm looking at it this way, that sounds awfully suspicous to me.

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:39:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Einstein wasted the last 20 years of his career pursuing electromagnetic-gravitational unification and ignoring experimental input from nuclear physics. Brilliant people like Ed Witten and Joe Polshinsky have wasted the last 30 years pursuing a mathematical theory with enticing physical implications without any experimental input or confirmation whatever.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 11:26:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sorry, that's Polchinski.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What's your preferred method for reconciling Gen Rel and QM? I thought that was the core problem?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:20:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Loop quantum gravity, obviously (from the hints I've dropped about my background) but the jury is still out on that one.

I'm not sure it works either, but it's more sensible that Strings for a number of reasons. On the other hand, it is quite possible that String theory describes an effective theory of Quantum Gravity. Lee Smolin spent a considerable amount of time trying to study the connection between Strings and loops: both have 1D fundamental excitations.

The point is, we know what's wrong with our current theories, and we have two theories that seem mathematically consistent but which (in completely different ways) are not complete and fail to make contact with experiment.

Experimentally, we haven't even detected a classical gravitational vawe, and we pretend we're going to be able to decide between competing candidates for a theory of quantum gravity?

If the LHC finds supersimetric particles, the String theory crowd will call that a successful prediction of the theory, when there are loads of extension of the Standard model that also include supersymmetry. If supersymmetric particles are not found, string theory is dead... or maybe they'll just pust the "expected" mass of the lightest supersymmetric particle just above the attainable limit, as they have been doing for 30 years.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 12:35:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What do you think of the recent progress in dynamic triangulations? (And what does this have to do with loop quantum gravity, anyway?)

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you talking about the work of Jan Ambjørn and Renate Loll in <wake up, Nomad!> Utrecht?

For the rest. I am definitely going to have to collate all the questions people are asking and write a diary.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm drunk after Portugal - The Netherlands.

Those people are sitting in the building beside Earth Sciences; we even share the same canteen. They scare me with their intellect. How could I possibly ask a question to people like Gerard 't Hooft and not look like a dummy with my questions?

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Before I gave up on a research career I was actually considering applying for a post-doc with Amjorn and Loll...

BTW, I need to diary 't Hooft's holographic principle. Beautiful stuff. Another wonderful thing he invented is something called "planar graphs and the 1/n expansion"...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Threading" with you has not been too daunting... ;)

I'm really starting to think science missed out on you. And perhaps I'm too inchoate in this, but I've a small drive to pursue a succesful "career" in science - as people I've spoken to keep wishing me as a goodbye. I try science because I still get satisfaction out of it and I know that I'm good at some aspects of it. Bugger career... When I'm through with science, I'll try something else. Enough plans.

See, I'm drunk. Getting reflective and personal and all that. Enough. I'm off with a walk with the dog.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I figured I can't deal with students, or with writing for publication, so why bother?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
...before my comment is taking the wrong way, 't Hooft is truly a pleasant person (as far as I can tell) - he now uses his fame and time to educate younger kids on sciences, trying to make it more attractive, opening science exhibitions and chairing panels for teenagers. And in the meantime he continues to pursue some spectacular theories that read like science fiction to a layman (like me).

When I was 12, I had a vivid interest in astrophysics and theoretical physics - the attraction of people like Einstein and Hawking. So I'm still reading on it when I happen to come across it. But it's always filtered: mostly popular science articles.

by Nomad on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read some of Smolin's popular books. The Life of the Cosmos reads very well, and it's definitely hard sci-fi material. I'm eager to get my hands on The Problem with Physics which Laurent's quotation in the diary mentions.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 06:16:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Unlike a lot of scientists, Smolin can write clearly, simply and elegantly. Definitely recommended.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 07:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My curiosity stems from a Baez TWF, the specifics of which I don't now recall.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:39:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There isn't much I can add to that, then ;-)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 02:21:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Please note that I stated a disagreement regarding the force of only one of the criticisms of string (or brane) theory(s). This isn't endorsement of the research program. IMHO, if all the fad and puffery were let out of it, causing a mass exodus from the field, the remaining core of dedicated string theorists might be about the right size.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
by technopolitical on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:13:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The string theory community is about 10 times the size of the LQG community.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 25th, 2006 at 02:21:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed. I've heard the LQG lamentations. Is the ratio only a factor of 10?

I do wonder about the relationship between numbers and progress in challenging areas of theoretical physics. It can't be linear, and I sometimes suspect that (in fad-bloated fields) 90% or so of the researchers could, with reasonable confidence, be predicted to have a relatively negligible likelihood of producing a significant advance. (Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as a potential "significant advance" in the field in question, and reading "relative" as relative to members of the 10%.)

I also suspect that this suspicion may be quite wrong.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 01:49:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
At least 10. It might be 30 or more.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 26th, 2006 at 02:20:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't know what this is about, but something tells me that char* and char[] theory adepts are silently chuckling.
by Alex in Toulouse on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 04:14:04 AM EST
I finaly got the joke ;-)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 27th, 2006 at 04:23:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries