You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display)

Mar
28

Tagged in:

On Mar 28, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Paul Murad wrote:Jack:This is a useful function you are performing. However, I have some problems with the approach used by physicists in general.This is like going to church, temple or a synogogue. That is you really do not understand except if you have an annointed individual there to lead you through the steps. What this does here is it puts blinders on the use of these equations and the broader implication of what these equations really mean is sacrificed because of misunderstandings. If I look at a modification of the conventional wisdom and use it as such but it falls outside of the guidelines suggested by the annointed one, then I must be incorrect. If there is no experimental data available, who is to say who is correct and who is incorrect? If that happens then the possibility of my seriously reexamining the use of these equations would be greatly hindered.This is serious "don't touch, don't tell."Now obviously if there is an error in the intrepretation, it is useful to point it out. However, the main objective is to widen the use and applicability of these equations such that its use spreads not only to the physicists but to the engineer as well. Physicists in general do not build things whereas engineers do. We have a choice to either contemplate our navel or get serious and share the knowledge base to build something that could be real serious. In other words, one group has to mentor the other group and remember that these are not equations that cover a very narrow perspective but a far broader view of the physical phenomenon that may reveal the secrets of mother nature... and maybe even God.Paul...

Read more carefully what 't Hooft says. He clearly addresses your methodological qualms expressed below.

Anything that contradicts battle-tested mainstream physics must be rejected - certainly when it comes to funding decisions by USG - and rightly so.

Sure, anomalous data is always of extreme importance - we all agree on that. All physics theories are incomplete in principle subject to extension, but the extension must always contain the previous theory as a limiting case. The objection to string theory was that there was no way to test it experimentally - that situation seems to be changing.

Where Brian Josephson and I may disagree with 't Hooft is on the truth of anomalous data in the paranormal and UFO areas - but we do not disagree with his theoretical opinions on quantum theory and relativity in essentials. I think Brian will agree with that? As we saw in the JASON meeting evaluating the HFGW data is tricky and I could not even get them to look at Ray Chiao's work on electro-gravitic superconductor transduction. I think Ron was out of the room when I brought that up, but you and Mark Pesses were there as I recall.

"As for my "stupidity", my own knowledge of the theory does not come from blindly accepting wisdom from text books; text books do contain mistakes, so I only accept scientific facts when I fully understand the arguments on which they are based. I feel no need whatsoever to defend standard scientific wisdom; I only defend the findings of which I have irrefutable evidence, and it so happens that most of these are indeed agreed upon by practically all experts in the field."

From:JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>To:Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars <Sarfatti_Physics_Seminars@yahoogroups.com>Cc:"SarfattiScienceSeminars@YahooGroups. com" <SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com>Sent:Sun, March 28, 2010 5:07:15 PMSubject:My comments on Gerard 't Hooft on misconceptions of Einstein's theory of GravityRead the complete article by 't Hooft at http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/gravitating_misconceptions.htmlexcerpts - my comments in [ ... ] unless I say to the contrary, I agree with the quoted excerpts. I want it to be clear that I am a "radical conservative" in John Archibald Wheeler's sense. I think mainstream quantum theory and relativity are correct. All physical theories have limited domains of validity in David Bohm's sense, but all extensions of mainstream physics theories must limit to them, e.g. Antony Valentini's post-quantum theory with "signal nonlocality" violating "no-cloning" "passion at a distance" (A. Shimony) in sub-quantal non-equilibrium of the particle trajectories and classical field configuration "hidden variables" http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/ValentiniAs should be clear from my past discussions with Z, I definitely agree with 't Hooft's:"These self proclaimed scientists in turn blame me of "not understanding functional analysis". Indeed, L maintains that there is a difference between a mathematical calculation and its physical interpretation, which I do not understand. He makes a big point about Einstein's "equivalence principle" being different from the "correspondence principle", and everyone, like me, who says that they in essence amount to being the same thing, if you want physical reality to be described by mathematical models, doesn't understand a thing or two. True. Nonsensical statements I often do not understand. What I do understand is that both ways of phrasing this principle require that one focuses on infinitesimally tiny space-time volume elements."&"I emphasize that any modification of Einstein's equations into something likeWriting such a proposal betrays a complete misunderstanding of what General Relativity is about. The energy and momentum of the gravitational field is completely taken into account by the non-linear parts of the original equation. This can be understood and proven easily, as I explained in the main text. Note that a freely falling observer experiences no gravitational field and no energy-momentum transfer; hence there cannot be a covariant tensor such asR- 1/2_{ μν }R g=_{μν }κ(T_{μν }+ t_{ μν}_{ (grav)}) wheret_{ μν}_{ (grav) }would be something like a "gravitational contribution" to the stress-energy-momentum tensor, is blatantly wrong.t_{ μν }_{(grav) }."__._,_.___

Mar
28

Tagged in:

Just woke up with this thought

If dark energy is thermal Hawking radiation (noting that thermal photons for one observer are virtual zero point photons for another - unitarily non-equivalent vacua) then what about the cosmological frequency shifts?

However, the fact is that the observed dark energy density does empirically fit

dark energy density = (entropy/area of future horizon)^-1

(h = G = c = kB = 1)

and this area is asymptotically constant

Mar
27

Tagged in:

The derivation from the Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be taken too literally since we cannot focus radiation into a space much smaller than its peak wavelength.

Mar
27

Tagged in:

A ~ NLP^2 = area of our future horizon hologram computer spherical shell screen pixelated in Planck area BITs

the Hawking-Unruh horizon temperature is

T ~ hc/kBN^1/2LP

T^4 ~ 1/N^2

Stefan-Boltzmann law

Poynting vector (power per unit cross-section area) ~ T^4

P ~ hc^2/NLP^2 ~ 10^-27 10^21 10^66/10^123 ~ 10^60/10^123 ~ 10^-63 ergs/sec

pretty damn small - the peak frequency of this advanced black body radiation is f ~ 1/N^1/2Lp

This power P from the future is focused into a single quantum of volume N^1/2 LP^3 over a cosmological time period of N^1/2LP/c giving the dark energy density

N ~ 10^123

(hc/NLP^2N^1/2LP^3)N^1/2LP/c ~ hc/NLP^4 ~ 10^-7 ergs/cc

Mar
27

Tagged in:

Hologram principle is:1) RH^2 ~ NLP^2

&

2) &V = LP^2RH = 3D quantum of interior bulk volume of the 2D hologram image projection

On my walk to the gym from iphone

On Mar 26, 2010, at 5:50 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

TH ~ N^-1/2LP^-1 ~ 1/RH

EH ~ NkBTH ~ N^1/2kBhc/LPVH ~ N^3/2LP^3

EH/VH ~ N^1/2hc/N^3/2LP^4 ~ hc/NLP^4

But it comes from the future.

Mar
26

Before I knew of Antony Valentini's work which only seems to date back ten years ago 2000.

Click here.

On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:More precisely, horizons can be *modeled* as electrical membranes.Yes, and that means it's AS IF electrical charges absorb the photons and trigger advanced waves in a Cramer transaction.

I am working on a more detailed refractive index model based on the H-N papers but modified by the discovery of DE since H-N did their 1995 paper.Note that the effective number density of real on-mass shell "charges" N is~ 4 x 10^-2(Einstein cosmological constant)(Gravity radius of the proton)^-1~ 4 x 10^-2(10^-56)(10^52) ~ 4x10^-6 electron charges per cc using "4%" - mostly hydrogen clouds.

On Mar 23, 2010, at 12:46 AM, james f woodward wrote:Exactly, but the only way it can happen is because of our future horizon. Remember most physicists are blissfully unaware of Tamara Davis's 2004 PhD and do not know there even is a future horizon! They think it's the past particle horizon! I think even Lenny Susskind makes this mistake?As an experimentalist I am inclined to say that Partridge's absorber experiment (discussed by HN) suggests that perfect future absorption

happens -- no matter how it takes place in detail.But you see it IS the 2D horizon itself because of the hologram principle that the bulk is merely the retrocausal 3D image projection of the horizon! It's the only consistent model. My model is the worst of all models proposed except for every other! ;-)The theoretical task, then, is not to explain whether, but rather how this can be. Accelerating expansion means that you can't just keep on going forever

(with a finite density of absorbers) as HN suggest since the distance photons can reach is bounded by the horizon. So the absorbing stuff must lie within the horizon.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 23:01:39 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

writes:They also said that about Feynman's virtual particles as merely terms in a perturbation expansion of the Dyson S-Matrix. However, virtual bosons anti-gravitate (dark energy) and virtual fermion-antifermion pairs gravitate (dark matter). Similarly, the horizon acts as an effective absorber of real photons sending back advanced pilot waves in a "transaction" as if charges were there. In fact, charges may really be there because of the Hawking mechanism, essentially a true quantum gravity effect beyond semi-classical geometrodynamical models. Hawking & Gibbons point out that the very notion of particles is highly observer dependent (e.g. Unruh effect, non-equivalent quantum gravity vacua - one observer's real quanta is another's virtual quanta connected by Bogoliubov transformation )."The formal and physical significance of the unitarily inequivalence among representations is that the vacuum state in each of them cannot be expressed in terms of the vacua of other representations. Thus, for example, the vacuum of a metal in the superconductive phase cannot be expressed in terms of the vacuum of the (same) metal in the “normal” phase."

Mar
23

Tagged in:

From:JACK SARFATTI <Sarfatti@PacBell.net>

Date:March 24, 2010 8:59:44 AM PDT

To:james f woodward <jfwoodward@juno.com>

Subject:[Starfleet Command] Re: Electrical membrane horizon a mere fiction? Or?

Reply-To:SarfattiScienceSeminars@yahoogroups.com

On Mar 24, 2010, at 1:00 AM, james f woodward wrote:Yes, you are right they don't. Not doing so is their greatest blunder. The only mainstream cosmologist aware of it seems to be Bernard Carr. Every paper I know of only invokes the past particle horizon as the hologram screen - none of them mention the future horizon as the hologram screen because that demands WF retrocausation without retrocausation (a Wheelerism). Quite obviously, the future dark energy horizon is the Godzilla in the closet! Quite obviously it is effectively the WF future absorber explaining the Partridge experiment. There is no plausible alternative consistent with parsimony. If there is, then show me.Well, as Edward Harrison makes "clear" in his chapter on horizons (where, I note, the coordinates used by Davis are introduced), this business can get a bit complicated and confusing. But I suspect that most folks doing cosmology assume the existence of a future deSitter horizon (and perhaps a particle horizon too). I also expect that almost none of them worry much, if at all, about perfect future absorption as they don't take WF action at a distance theory seriously. :-)Hologram principle demands1) future 2D event horizon = pixelated hologram screen - conformal anyon quantum field theory2) 3D bulk geometrodynamical field as the retrocausal hologram image3) entropy of 3D observable universe bounded by area of this future horizon hologram computer screen4) Therefore Arrow of Time is trivial 1 Bit at t = 0 (inflation) asympotic to 10^123 BITs.

A normal optical reflector converts retarded waves into retarded waves according to Snell's law in space. The future horizon reflects in spacetime.

some background information

"1 The Complementarity Principle

"Recent evidence suggests that we may live in a space-time that will asymptotically tend to de Sitter Space. If this is so, it is important to understand how quantum gravity should be formulated in such a geometry. Since de Sitter Space has an event horizon many of the questions that confused theorists about the quantum theory of black holes become relevant to cosmology. Perhaps the most important lesson we have learned from black hole quantum mechanics concerns the complementary way that different observers describe events in the black hole environment. That together with the Holographic principle, the UV/IR connection and the counting of black hole microstates is providing a new paradigm for the quantum mechanics of horizons. It is therefore natural to try to apply them to de Sitter Space.

According to the Principle of Black Hole Complementarity [1] the horizon of a black hole may be regarded by an external observer as an impenetrable thermal membrane which can absorb, thermalize and reemit all information. The principle also says that a freely falling observer encounters nothing special at the horizon. The principle has received strong support from the study of gravity in AdS space and its equivalence to the boundary conformal field theory. The horizon of a de Sitter Space is structurally very similar to that of a black hole. ... Does this mean that an exact dS/CFT correspondence can not exist? This is not entirely clear." Susskind et-al http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0202163v4

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/Cosmological horizons and entropy.pdf PCW Davies on cosmic horizon thermodynamics

There is another point. Although retarded signals from us r = 0 center vertical world line in above modified Fig 1.1c T.Davis 2004 PhD redshift to essentially zero frequency at our future horizon, static LNIFs near that horizonr ~ /^-1/2 need enormous off-geodesic accelerationg(r) ~ c^2/^1/2(1 - / ^2)^-1/2 ---> infinityfrom rocket engines in order to stay at fixed r, hence they see very hot Unruh radiation, which should not be confused with the very cold black body Hawking radiation of temperature /^1/2 coming from the horizon itself seen by all observers inside the horizon (with suitable Lorentz & GCTs). (h = c = G = kB = 1). This is analogous to the black hole case, but we need to be careful. We are inside our future cosmic horizon and can never get retarded signals from it. We are outside black hole horizons and can get retarded signals from in-falling matter outside it (e.g. accretion disk).On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:20 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:Dear James

Yes, you are raising points that must be addressed.

However, it is clear to me, that the future r = 0 observer-dependent dS horizon is the nearly WF perfect absorber (long wave limit). I suspect Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of the horizon as well as the Hawking mechanism need to be invoked to get a more complete conceptual picture of exactly how the total absorber works relative to the r = 0 observers in the static LNIF representation

g00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2

g00 = 0 when / ^2 = 1

Note, this is not the representation where Q(t) = e^t/^1/2.

I hope to clean up these unresolved conceptual issues in the next few weeks.

On Mar 22, 2010, at 7:54 PM, james f woodward wrote:With accelerating expansion it seems that the cosmic horizon becomes the boundary for retarded signals within, so one need not be concerned about horizon crossings and whether events beyond the horizon can affect events within the horizon via advanced signals. From my perspective, that's the neat thing about accelerating expansion, for it cuts off interactionswith a finite upper bound. From the HN and WF point of view, this may be problematic if insufficient absorbers lie along future light cones within the horizon.It might be a good idea to await John Cramer's retrocausal signaling experiment results. Should that produce curious results, the issue of perfect future absorption will become a bit more complicated. :-)

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html

I am not sure if Cramer's experiment can resolve this issue which exists even on the classical level without entanglement? - says JackOn Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:13:58 -0700 JACK SARFATTI <sarfatti@pacbell.net>

writes:

Actually my original thought on all this about two years ago was very simple.1 + z = ke/ka = Q(ta)/Q(te)

a = absorptione = emission

z > 0 redshiftin dS metricQ(t) = e^t/^1/2= e^t(dark energy density)^1/2

in the accelerating expanding universe retarded radiation toward the future is redshifted, advanced radiation toward the past is blue shifted.The redshift at our future dark energy horizon a finite distance from us is infinite - this is effective absorption - vanishing of the real photon to almost zero frequency ( actually 10^10/10^28 ~ 10^-18 Hz).In microscopic terms, the Hawking mechanism - effective geometrodynamical field ionization of virtual electron-positron pairs into real pairs with one particle beyond ther = 0 observer-dependent horizon and other particle inside it - effective plasma charge neutrality on both sides of the horizon - cause the return advanced signals back to the r = 0 emitter inside the cosmic horizon.From the principle of horizon complementarity we don't give a hoot what an LIF at r ~ /^-1/2 crossing the horizon sees. What only matters is what we see at r = 0. We each see a consistent picture, but it is not the same picture.On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:18 PM, JACK SARFATTI wrote:

James

You are raising valid points to be squarely addressed I will study in coming weeks.However, the key point to remember in all this is that the fact that we only see retarded EM waves and not advanced waves implies that we have a future perfect absorber and an imperfect past absorber in the context of the Wheeler Feynman QED. Therefore, our future dark energy de Sitter horizon must be in effect a kind of lumped parameter perfect future horizon since we cannot ever get any retarded signals from it - unlike the black hole case. Only advanced signals from beyond our future horizon can get to us as you point out correctly - and they come from future absorbers in other regions of the (Max Tegmark) Level 1 inflation bubble perhaps.The fine points of Hoyle-Narlikar - e.g. the high k cutoff related to /, vacuum polarization are not easy to follow in detail. H-N assert they can do all zero point energy vacuum QED & radiative corrections from the FUTURE absorber influence functional in which the de Sitter horizon plays the key role. The light cone structure at the observer-dependent null-geodesic horizon is invariant for all observers LIF & LNIF at r = 0 in the static LNIF representationg00 = - 1/grr = 1 - / ^2where we are at r = 0 - note r = 0 is degenerate LIF = LNIF like static LNIF --> LIF at r ---> infinity in the Schwarzschild case.Clearly quantum gravity Hawking mechanism needs to be included, i.e. all r = 0 observers see the horizon temperature /^1/2. Kip Thorne's electrical membrane picture of horizons clearly is needed as some kind of lumped parameter model - the horizon being an effective barrier (hence its entropy) except for advanced signals.On accelerating expansion - had they realized de Sitter is essentially same as Steady State in terms of future absorber they might have predicted dark energy. However, my main point is that since dark energy has w = -1 it is zero point vacuum virtual bosons therefore FROM THE FUTURE in the Wheeler-Feynman ---> H-N ---> Cramer type paradigm - no question of that, and the fact of only retarded EM means our dark energy de Sitter future event horizon is an AS IF effective perfect future absorber and our past particle horizon is imperfect.More anon - have out of town guest for next few days.On Mar 21, 2010, at 2:31 AM, james f woodward wrote:Well, going through HN's paper, the issue of how far EM waves (or photons) propagate seems only incidental to most of their calculationsthat center on processes. This does come up on a couple of occasionsthough. For example, on page 126 at the end of the first full paragraphthey talk of "a future absorber of constant density and infinite extent"being needed to get perfect absorption and fully retarded interactions.And in their discussion of a "cutoff at the absorber", at the bottom ofthe first column on page 140, they allow that "l" has to go to infinityto provide perfect absorption.

In any event, it is clear that in the action at a distance picture EMwaves propagate through horizons if the absorption events that providethe advanced component needed to produce a fully retarded interactionlies beyond the horizon.

I see nothing in HN's paper that suggests that they were on the verge ofasserting accelerating expansion. It seems not to have been an issue forthem at all. I suppose that it may have occurred to them -- and Narlikarmight be able to shed some light on this. But their chief concern seemsto have been to show that the action at a distance picture could accountfor EM processes encompassed by classical and quantum EM -- with theadded bonus of a cutoff due to a future horizon that obviates the needfor the renormalization program of QED.

As for the membrane picture, as I have understood it from my late friend,Ron Crowley (who was a coauthor with Thorne on one of the chapters in thebook), the membrane was never intended to be taken as physically real.It was merely a way of sidestepping complicated internal processes thatmade the math intractable. As such, it is an explicitly fictitiousdevice to simplify calculations.

The reason why I have asserted that those taking the WF (or TI picture ofJohn Cramer) seriously should have predicted accelerating expansion stemsfrom a different consideration than those issues addressed in the

HN

paper. It is a consequence of the fact that horizons for normal

retarded

interactions do not act as cutoffs for retarded-advanced (RA)

interactions. The problem with this is particularly easy to see

in the

context of gravity and inertial (as opposed to EM) -- especially

in

Dennis Sciama's vector approximation to GR where he shows the

condition

that obtains for inertial reaction forces to be produced by the

gravitational action of chiefly distant matter. That depends on

the

gravitoelectric field having, in analogy with EM, two terms. One

is the

usual gradient of the scalar potential. The other is the time

derivative

of the vector potential (with suitable coefficient). The vector

potential is the integral of the matter current density,

presumably out

to the particle horizon. Sciama used a trick to avoid a messy

calculation involving retarded Green's functions, and got that

the vector

potential is just the scalar potential times the velocity of an

accelerating test particle where the inertial reaction force is

to be

evaluated. And since the vector potential thus goes as 1/r,

Sciama

identified this as a radiational process.

If the process is radiational, and if inerital reaction forces

are

instantaneous (as they are), then clearly a WF process must be

involved.

But WF processes do not respect horizons (particle, event, or

otherwise).

So cutting off the interaction at the particle (or other) horizon

is

something you have to do to get a reasonable result, even if you

haven't

got a compelling physical reason for doing so (other than it

works).

This is what I was getting at in Killing Time.

As an experimentalist chiefly interested in building stuff and

trying to

get it to work, I assumed that there must be a plausible

explanation for

this problem and went on with my experimental program. Only when

reading

Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos (in which Mach's principle

features

prominently) did I happen upon the explanation of the cutoff I

had

assumed must exist: accelerating expansion -- as explained in a

footnote

by Greene here attached.

It may be possible to write down a consistent WF action at a

distance

theory that encompasses classical and quantum EM without

accelerating

expansion. Though, if you are right, then this isn't so. I

expect it is

impossible to get Mach's principle to work, however, without

accelerating

expansion to cut off the gravitational interaction at a finite

upper

bound. While gravity and EM are analogous in many ways, gravity

is not

just EM in disguise.

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 11:24:42 -0700 JACK SARFATTI

<sarfatti@pacbell.net>

writes:

The key mathematically is

exponential scale function

Q(t) = e^/^1/2t

and constant density / = (area of future horizon)^-1

Hawking temperature of horizon = /^1/2

(using h = c = G = kB = 1)

Kip Thorne shows that horizons are electrical membranes -

peculiar

quantum effects at horizons - the Hawking mechanism pulls

virtual

electron positron pairs out of the vacuum - one charge goes

behind

the horizon the other in front of it - these charges both can

absorb

photons.

Horizon complementarity may play a role here - for LIFs falling

through the horizon the explanation you give here may be

appropriate, however for us at r = 0 the electrical membrane

picture

may be the appropriate explanation.

However, this is the key point, it's only because there is such

an

observer-dependent horizon with dark energy density / that we

have

retarded radiation without any net advanced radiation. If / = 0

then we would see advanced signals.

I

On Mar 18, 2010, at 10:37 PM, james f woodward wrote:

Lots of diversions, so I'm still reading, but almost done. It

seems

clear though that HN, while allowing that there is a future

event

horizon, understand that the perfect absorber need not be

located

within

or at the horizon. That is, EM waves, or photons, can

propagate

beyond

that horizon and that their absorption beyond the horizon will

nonetheless produce the requisite advanced disturbance required

for the

action at a distance theory to work.

James what precise text in HN lead you to conclude that?

That is correct. Anywhere an EM

disturbance can get to, no matter what horizons crossed, the

advanced

wave produced by absorption processes make it back to the

origin

of the

disturbance. So, NH's lone photon propagating at/near a

deSitter

horizon

-- which nearby inertial observers (NInOs) see tooling along at

speed c

-- if the principle of mediocrity is correct (and spacetime is

much the

same everywhere allowing for large scale evolution) -- will not

encounter

a material absorber at the horizon and likely pass on through

--

notwithstanding that a distant inertial observer (DInO) near

the

point of

emission will "see" the photon infinitely redshifted at the

horizon.

When it is eventually absorbed, the advanced disturbance

propagates time

reversed down its worldline to the source.

I'm going to finish the paper before commenting on accelerating

expansion. :-)

Q(t) = e^/^1/2t means accelerating expansion - necessary for

net

retarded causality.

Let me clarify - whether or not there is a quantum electrical

total

absorber relative to us at the horizon is not the point - my

only

claim is that it is AS IF there is one there.

The key here is that different observers in GR do not

necessarily

have the same quantum vacuum - unitarily inequivalent vacua.

However, your argument requires the multiverse of Max Tegmark's

levels 1 & 2 in order to work, which is also interesting.

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:19:08 -0700 JACK SARFATTI

<sarfatti@pacbell.net>

writes:

The point of the paper is that only the deSitter solution

(equivalent

here to the steady state) can explain retarded radiation.

"Einstein-de Sitter" is not the "de Sitter" solution - look at

the

Q(t) functions in the table as well as the density function

rho(t).

The key formulas are Q(t) = e^Ht & rho(t) = constant = /

(G=h=c=1)

_