How Does Solid Hydrogen Impact Our Understanding of Cosmology?

In summary, the conversation focused on the impact of experiments on "warm dense matter" (WDM) on cosmology and the possibility of new calculations to understand the universe before decoupling. The concept of different phases of the universe, from Phase I Scalar to Phase IV Post decoupling, was also discussed, along with the need for further research and development of mathematical models to support these theories. The conversation also touched upon the influence of dark matter and dark energy on the evolution of the universe and the challenges in achieving successful inflation in the standard scenario.
  • #1
jal
549
0
Here is what I have learned

,….. the experiments on “warm dense matter” (WDM) will have impact on Cosmology.
Ionized might be a good word to describe the universe prior decoupling.
There will be new calculations to try to understand the universe before decoupling (400,000 years)
Prior to the CMB, the universe was mainly 10^80 hydrogens that would have cooled and gone through the “warm dense matter” (WDM) phase:
There are no neutrons or electrons in the “warm dense matter” (WDM) phase of hydrogen.

=========
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9909275
A New Calculation of the Recombination Epoch
Authors: Sara Seager, Dimitar D. Sasselov, Douglas Scott
(Submitted on 15 Sep 1999 (v1), last revised 16 Sep 1999 (this version, v2))
Modern codes for evolving the ionization fraction xe = ne/nH (where ne is the number density of electrons and nH is the total number density of H nuclei) have been based almost entirely on the single differential equation introduced 30 years ago, with a more accurate recombination coefficient, but no other basic improvement.
We believe our work represents the most accurate picture to date of how exactly the Universe as a whole became neutral.
In the canonical Hot Big Bang picture, the recombination epoch is when the Universe became cool enough for protons to capture electrons and form neutral hydrogen.
========

Note: New data indicates that there was He III (solid) then He II followed by He I. The He III (solid) phase does not have any electrons or neutrons. (it is ionized)
Under this scenario there could be NEW PLAUSABLE MODELS of the early universe, before decoupling.


1. Phase I Scalar
This is the phase for which we have no evidence. It is open for speculation. Therefore, it can be speculated to be infinite in time and volume. It can be speculated to be in the size range from Planck Scale to 10 ^-18. It can be speculated that the dimensions are only two. In this range you can speculate to have infinite number of fluctuations with OUR section of the universe expanding into the next phase.

2. Phase II Quarks
This the phase of the universe (OURS) for which we have evidence. The remainder could still be in Phase I and until it crosses into our cosmic horizon, it is irrelevant. The size range is between 10^-18 to 10^-15. The minimum length is 10^-18. The universe could have been an infinite “bath” of quarks and gluons for an infinite amount of time. As a result there is no need for cosmic expansion (Accelerated inflation) It could have bounced (LQC/LQG) in this condition forever). However, OUR section of the universe expanded to the next phase. There was a coincident of circumstances in our region, that allowed the bounce to expand, (greater than the confinement size of quarks), and cool. The quarks had to combine to make a hydrogen solid. The duration of this expansion phase are determined by what quarks do.
Under these MODELS, there is no need to go through a “nuclear fusion/fireball” phase in between the QUARK AND HYDROGEN PHASES.
A scenario of decreasing pressure and decreasing density does not produce “nucleosynthesis/fireball”.
It is only under constant pressure and gravity that you get nucleosynthesis.



3. Phase III Hydrogen
The neutrons and electrons could be “manufactured/ionized” at a later stage of expansion (He III followed by He II followed by He I), to produce the photons that give the CMB and to account for the fact that the universe was still ionized up until z 10.

4. Phase IV Post decoupling (CMB) NOW
A “chunk” of solid hydrogen (He III) would be a great attractor for the free hydrogen,
electrons, neutrons, etc. to gather around to make “black holes, quark stars, neutron stars, etc.”


I’ll be looking in the literature to see if these models gets “fleshed out” by a “math kid” and survive.
==========
reference

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411012
Primordial Density Perturbation in Effective Loop Quantum Cosmology
Authors: Golam Mortuza Hossain
(Submitted on 1 Nov 2004 (v1), last revised 9 May 2005 (this version, v3))
The observed anisotropy in the CMB sky corresponds to the density perturbation on the last scattering surface. The last scattering surface broadly demarcate the end of radiation
domination era to the beginning of matter domination era.

On last scattering surface they will corresponds to the modes which are well inside the horizon at the time of decoupling. Being smaller in wavelength these mode will subtend smaller angle in present day sky. Naturally these mode will corresponds to the higher multi-pole number. Also if one considers sufficiently narrow bands in these part of
spectrum then one can avoid additional modification coming from the sub-horizon evolution of density perturbation in the period between their re-entry and the decoupling.

To infer the property of primordial density perturbation from the observed angular power
spectrum of CMB, one needs to know the evolution of the universe for the period between the decoupling and the present day universe. Since major fraction of today’s energy density is believed to be coming from mysterious dark matter and dark energy then it is quite obvious that there will be a considerable influence of them on the inferred primordial power spectrum.
--------
Note: Hex. packing or random packing also assumes variations in the energy density which would result in variations in the power spectrum.
--------
In order to have a successful inflation in the standard scenario, generally one requires multi-level of fine tuning of field parameters. In other words one faces several kind of naturalness problems to achieve a successful inflation.
1. The first one is to start inflation.
2. The second one is to sustain inflation.
3. The third one is to generate sufficient expansion (to solve horizon problem and others).
4. The fourth one is to end inflation.
5. The fifth one is to produce small amplitude for primordial density perturbation.

Since the observed part of CMB angular power spectrum generally corresponds to early period of inflation then it may well be the situation where the observed part of the CMB angular power spectrum corresponds to the loop quantum cosmology driven inflationary period.
It is worthwhile to emphasize that high amount of expansion in this scenario is required
not to solve horizon problem (being non-singular this model avoids horizon problem [22]) rather to avoid a different kind of problem. We have seen that the ‘initial size’ of universe was typically order of Planck units and the corresponding energy scale was also typically order of Planck units. During relativistic particle (radiation) dominated era energy scale falls of typically with inverse power of the associated length scale. It is then difficult to understand why the universe is so large (∼ 1060Lp) today but still it has relatively very high energy scale (∼ 10−30Mp). During inflationary period, on the other hand, the energy scale remains almost constant whereas the length scale grows almost exponentially with coordinate time.
It is now clear that we can avoid this discrepancy between energy scale and the length scale of the universe provided there existed an inflationary period with sufficiently long duration in early universe.
Now if the observed power spectrum turns out to be not in agreement with the computed
power spectrum, then one should conclude that the phase of inflation corresponding to the observed window couldn’t possibly be driven by loop quantum cosmology modification. It may then restrict the allowed choices for the ambiguity parameter j. Consequently it will be an important issue to understand within the framework of isotropic loop quantum cosmology with minimally coupled scalar matter field, why the observed universe today is so large but still it has sufficiently high energy scale.


--------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3490
Structure formation and the origin of dark energy
Authors: Golam Mortuza Hossain
(Submitted on 21 Sep 2007)
To summarize, we have argued that the origin of dark energy can be understood as a consequence of large scale structure formation. This explanation of dark energy does not require any exotic matter source nor a fine tuned cosmological constant.
----------
A search on spire for SHAPOSHNIKOV , M resulted in 216 hits.
http://www-spires.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+a+shaposhnikov+,+m&SKIP=0
-------------
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755
The Standard Model Higgs boson as the inflaton
Authors: F.L. Bezrukov, M.E. Shaposhnikov
(Submitted on 19 Oct 2007 (v1), last revised 9 Jan 2008 (this version, v2))
We argue that the Higgs boson of the Standard Model can lead to inflation and produce cosmological perturbations in accordance with observations. An essential requirement is the non-minimal coupling of the Higgs scalar field to gravity; no new particle besides already present in the electroweak theory is required.

This provides an extra argument in favour of absence of a new energy scale between the electroweak and Planck scales, advocated in [32].
--------
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/0708.3550
Is there a new physics between electroweak and Planck scales?
Authors: Mikhail Shaposhnikov
(Submitted on 27 Aug 2007)
We argue that there may be no intermediate particle physics energy scale between the Planck mass $M_{Pl}\sim 10^{19}$ GeV and the electroweak scale $M_W \sim 100$ GeV. At the same time, the number of problems of the Standard Model (neutrino masses and oscillations, dark matter, baryon asymmetry of the Universe, strong CP-problem, gauge coupling unification, inflation) could find their solution at $M_{Pl}$ or $M_W$. The crucial experimental predictions of this point of view are outlined.

----------

Note: The minimum length would be 10^-18.
--------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarks
Quarks
Quarks are the only fundamental particles that interact through all four of the fundamental forces. Isolated quarks are never found naturally; they are almost always found in groups of two (mesons) or groups of three (baryons) called hadrons. This is a direct consequence of confinement.
----------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation
cosmic inflation
cosmic inflation is the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density
As a direct consequence of this expansion, all of the observable universe originated in a small causally-connected region.
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
nuclear
nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple atomic particles join together to form a heavier nucleus
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis
Nucleosynthesis
Nucleosynthesis is the process of creating new atomic nuclei from preexisting nucleons (protons and neutrons). The primordial nucleons themselves were formed from the quark-gluon plasma of the Big Bang as it cooled below ten million degrees.
----------------
https://www.llnl.gov/str/JulAug07/Bernstein.html
Nucleosynthesis
-----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized
Ionization
Ionization is the physical process of converting an atom or molecule into an ion by adding or removing charged particles such as electrons or other ions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(length )
Orders_of_magnitude
------------

Jean-Pierre Luminet has analysed the CMB and projected the results into the future and he came up with “The Poincaré Dodecahedral Space model”.
The projection of their analysis is into the future. It is based on the “past” topological conditions prior the CMB.
Therefore, as said by Jean-Pierre Luminet, “… alternative explanations may still be found, the simplest one being …”, ( here I insert another possibility), we are observing the structure prior the CMB which is made up of hydrogen (H III).


----------
Reference
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2236
The Shape and Topology of the Universe
Authors: Jean-Pierre Luminet
(Submitted on 15 Feb 2008)

“Thus the CMB temperature fluctuations look like Chladni patterns resulting from a complicated three-dimensional drumhead that vibrated for 380 000 years. They yield a wealth of information about the physical conditions that prevailed in the early Universe, as well as present geometrical properties like space curvature and topology. More precisely, density fluctuations may be expressed as combinations of the vibrational modes of space, just as the vibration of a drumhead may be expressed as a combination
of the drumhead's harmonics.”
--------
http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/feb08/PDS.en.shtml
The Poincaré Dodecahedral Space model
"… the last data obtained by the WMAP satellite and found a topological signal characteristic of the PDS geometry."
---------
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.0217
A new analysis of Poincaré dodecahedral space model
Authors: S. Caillerie, M. Lachièze-Rey, J.-P. Luminet, R. Lehoucq, A. Riazuelo, J. Weeks
(Submitted on 2 May 2007 (v1), last revised 1 Oct 2007 (this version, v2))
"… Such a distribution of matter fluctuations generates a temperature distribution on the CMB that results from different physical effects.
If we subtract foreground contamination, it will mainly be generated by the ordinary Sachs-Wolfe (OSW) effect at large scales, resulting from the energy exchanges between the CMB photons and the time-varying gravitational fields on the last scattering surface (LSS)."

"Clearly the power spectrum alone cannot confirm a multi-connected cosmological model. Although the PDS model fits the WMAP3 power spectrum better than the standard flat infinite model does, alternative explanations may still be found, the simplest one being an intrinsically non-scale invariant spectrum."
--------
I'm still learning and looking for information. All inputs will be appreciated.
jal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
A search of physicsforums, for solid hydrogen, did not yield any discussions on solid hydrogen. It looks like that there are no records of any of the mentors/gurus discussing this subject.
I found a few interesting links.
---------
--------
Interesting links
The following site tries to keep updated with cosmology.
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/first.htm
First Stars
---------
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=69265&highlight=hydrogen
Electron probability in oscillating hydrogen molecule
--------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060508112217.htm
Astronomers Find Molecular Hydrogen At Edge Of Universe
---------
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080112161841.htm
Galaxy 'Hunting' Made Easy: Quasars Light The Way
--------
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/procyc.html#c4
Proton-Proton Fusion
========
Cough… cough … Garth model might be able to incorporate H III and have a head start on the NEW PLAUSIBLE MODELS.
========
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82628
Self Creation Cosmology
--------
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502370
A case for nucleosynthesis in slowly evolving models
Authors: Geetanjali Sethi, Pranav Kumar, Sanjay Pandey, Daksh Lohiya
(Submitted on 18 Feb 2005)
---------
http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9902022
Nucleosynhthesis in a Simmering Universe
Authors: Daksh Lohiya, Annu Batra, Shobhit Mahajan, Amitabha Mukherjee (Delhi University)
(Submitted on 9 Feb 1999)
---------
 
  • #3
On this side of the CMB, (now), we got to deal with the Coulomb barrier that would normally keep positive nuclei from coming too close. However, in the early universe (before the CMB) there was NO Coulomb barrier that would normally keep positive nuclei from coming too close. Everything started from a bath of quarks. All the protons were within the Coulomb barrier. The universe had not expanded enough for the protons to be outside of the Coulomb barrier. I wouldn’t, but if you want to put in a Coulomb barrier you will have to put it around the 10^80 protons.

Nucleosynhthesis does not occur in an environment of expanding space. (ie. Increasing the distance between the protons. decreasing pressure and decreasing temperature.)
I would be interested in reading an experiment on Nucleosynhthesis that claims “ignition” under those conditions.
Therefore, as the pressure on the hydrogen decreased, it changed to H II, to H I, and something happened that produced photons, neutrons and set up the Coulomb barrier.
========
references (for different level of experts)
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009A312-037F-1448-837F83414B7F014D&ref=sciam&chanID=sa006[/URL]
The First Few Microseconds
[b]“…. so the quarks and gluons should remain tightly coupled in their liquid embrace. On this issue, we must await the verdict of experiment, which may well bring other surprises.”[/b]
----------
Coulomb barrier
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb_barrier[/url]
Coulomb barrier
---------
[url]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nucene/coubar.html[/url]
In the sun, the proton-proton cycle of fusion is presumed to proceed at a much lower temperature because of the extremely high density and high population of particles.
-------
[url]http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/StarPhys/coulomb.html[/url]

---------
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/9708036v1[/url]
Quantum Tunneling in Nuclear Fusion
Authors: A.B. Balantekin (Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA), N. Takigawa (Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan)
(Submitted on 19 Aug 1997)
Recent theoretical advances in the study of heavy ion fusion reactions below the Coulomb barrier are reviewed.
The current status of the fusion of unstable nuclei and very massive systems are briefly discussed.
-----------
[URL]http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6852/full/413144a0.html[/URL]
Letters to Nature
Unexpected inhibition of fusion in nucleus–nucleus collisions

A. C. Berriman, D. J. Hinde, M. Dasgupta, C. R. Morton, R. D. Butt & J. O. Newton
Received 28 March 2001; Accepted 10 July 2001
These results defy interpretation within the standard picture of nuclear fusion and fission.

Note: In the early universe the high density of protons are even higher and the result is H III (solid hydrogen).
---------
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-th/0110065[/url]
Surface diffuseness anomaly in heavy-ion fusion potentials
Authors: K. Hagino, M. Dasgupta, I.I. Gontchar, D.J. Hinde, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton
(Submitted on 25 Oct 2001)
---------
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/nucl-ex/9901003[/url]
Fusion versus Breakup: Observation of Large Fusion Suppression for ^9Be + ^{208}Pb
Authors: M. Dasgupta, D.J. Hinde, R. D. Butt, R. M. Anjos, A.C. Berriman, N. Carlin, P.R.S. Gomes, C.R. Morton, J.O. Newton, A. Szanto de Toledo, K. Hagino
(Submitted on 6 Jan 1999 (v1), last revised 12 Jan 1999 (this version, v2))
----------
AND finally an OLD report May 11, 2001
[url]http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=pressure-turns-nitrogen-g[/url]
Pressure Turns Nitrogen Gas into Solid Semiconductors
“The results of this study confirmed theories that were used to predict new properties, such as high-temperature superconductivity in metallic hydrogen. The researchers initially wanted to convert hydrogen in this manner and they hope to eventually do so.”
---------
AND now something NEW
[PLAIN]http://www.gl.ciw.edu/~hemley/index.html[/URL]
Check out his presentations (slow in loading)
--------
[url]http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0410425[/url]
A quantum fluid of metallic hydrogen suggested by first-principles calculations
Authors: Stanimir A. Bonev, Eric Schwegler, Tadashi Ogitsu, Giulia Galli
(Submitted on 17 Oct 2004)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
J. W. Moffat has proposed a model that should be considered by cosmology.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.4269
Electroweak Model Without A Higgs Particle
Authors: J. W. Moffat
(Submitted on 26 Sep 2007 (v1), last revised 5 Oct 2007 (this version, v3))
An electroweak model is formulated in a finite, four-dimensional quantum field theory without a Higgs particle. The W and Z masses are induced from the electroweak symmetry breaking of one-loop vacuum polarization graphs. The theory contains only the observed particle spectrum of the standard model.

If the Tevatron and LHC accelerator experiments fail to detect a Higgs particle, then a physically consistent theory of electroweak symmetry breaking such as the one studied here, in which no Higgs particle is included in the particle spectrum, will be required to understand the important phenomenon of how the W and Z bosons and fermions acquire mass.
------------
Note: The minimum length would be 10^-18. Cosmology will need to take this scale into account.

Here, once again, is the way I see it, from what I have learned.

1. Phase I Scalar
This is the phase for which we have no evidence. It is open for speculation. Therefore, it can be speculated to be infinite in time and volume. It can be speculated to be in the size range from Planck Scale to 10 ^-18. It can be speculated that the dimensions are only two. In this range you can speculate to have infinite number of fluctuations with OUR section of the universe expanding into the next phase.

2. Phase II Quarks
This the phase of the universe (OURS) for which we have evidence. The remainder could still be in Phase I and until it crosses into our cosmic horizon, it is irrelevant. The size range is between 10^-18 to 10^-15. The minimum length is 10^-18. The universe could have been an infinite “bath” of quarks and gluons for an infinite amount of time. As a result there is no need for cosmic expansion (Accelerated inflation). It could have bounced (LQC/LQG) in this condition forever). However, OUR section of the universe expanded to the next phase and quarks acquired mass. There was a coincident of circumstances in our region, that allowed the bounce to expand, (greater than the confinement size of quarks), and cool. The quarks had to combine to make a hydrogen solid. The duration of this expansion phase are determined by what quarks do.
Under these MODELS, there is no need to go through a “nuclear fusion/fireball” phase in between the QUARK AND HYDROGEN PHASES.
A scenario of decreasing pressure and decreasing density does not produce “nucleosynthesis/fireball”.
It is only under constant pressure and gravity that you get nucleosynthesis.



3. Phase III Hydrogen
The neutrons and electrons could be “manufactured/ionized” at a later stage of expansion (He III followed by He II followed by He I), to produce the photons that give the CMB and to account for the fact that the universe was still ionized up until z 10.

4. Phase IV Post decoupling (CMB) NOW
A “chunk” of solid hydrogen (He III) would be a great attractor for the free hydrogen,
electrons, neutrons, etc. to gather around to make “black holes, quark stars, neutron stars, etc.”
=========
 
  • #5
Martin Bojowald has just made a summary of what is being done in Loop Quantum Cosmology. The area that they are investigating is the early universe, before quarks acquired mass, the scalar phase.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4274
Loop Quantum Cosmology: Effective theories and oscillating universes
Authors: Martin Bojowald, Reza Tavakol
(Submitted on 28 Feb 2008)
In particular we discuss how such corrections can allow the construction of non-singular emergent scenarios for the origin of the universe, which are past-eternal, oscillating and naturally emerge into an inflationary phase. These scenarios provide a physically plausible picture for the origin and early phases of the universe, which is in principle testable.

Thus clearly a viable cosmological scenario needs to deal with both questions: providing mechanisms to remove classical singularities as well as initiating a successful phase of inflation (or an alternative to provide structure formation).

Importantly, it has been shown that such oscillations can push the field high enough up the potential to successfully set the initial conditions for the onset of inflation [33] (see also [43] for an analysis in the presence of other matter sources).
Oscillations also arise if one keeps the scalar field massless and non-interacting but
allows positive spatial curvature, as was numerically studied in [49] for initial states which are unsqueezed. Although back-reaction still occurs, it is only active briefly at each recollapse since the bounce phases are still well described by the solvable model.

At present the complete set of corrections is known precisely only for the case of a free massless scalar in a flat isotropic geometry [24, 25].

In particular, the emergent universe scenario sketched here, based on effective equations, provides an example of how LQC effects can potentially give rise to physically reasonable non-singular behaviour. The important features of this scenario are that it is non-singular, past-eternal, and oscillating. Importantly, the oscillations have a crucial function, providing a mechanism for setting the initial conditions for successful inflation. Furthermore, this scenario is in principle observationally testable.

The above discussion has demonstrated the potential of LQC to provide a unified
framework to deal with the questions of origin and the early inflationary phase of the
universe.
 
  • #6
A citation its better late than never.

"In the scalar range you can have infinite number of fluctuations."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.4484
Recollapsing quantum cosmologies and the question of entropy
Authors: Martin Bojowald, Reza Tavakol
(Submitted on 31 Mar 2008)
 

Related to How Does Solid Hydrogen Impact Our Understanding of Cosmology?

1. What is solid hydrogen and why is it important in cosmology?

Solid hydrogen is a unique state of hydrogen where the atoms are tightly packed together in a lattice structure. It is important in cosmology because it is thought to exist in the cores of large gas giant planets and in the outer layers of stars. It can also help scientists understand the conditions of the early universe.

2. How is solid hydrogen formed?

Solid hydrogen is formed under extreme pressure and low temperatures. This can occur in the cores of large gas planets where the pressure is high enough to force the hydrogen atoms into a solid state. It can also be created in laboratories using specialized equipment.

3. What properties does solid hydrogen have?

Solid hydrogen has unique properties such as being the most dense form of hydrogen and having a high melting point. It also exhibits superconductivity and superfluidity at very low temperatures. These properties make it a valuable substance for studying the behavior of matter under extreme conditions.

4. How does solid hydrogen relate to the study of cosmology?

Solid hydrogen is important in the study of cosmology because it can help scientists understand the formation and evolution of planets and stars. It can also provide insights into the conditions of the early universe and the processes that led to the formation of galaxies and other structures.

5. What are the potential applications of solid hydrogen?

Aside from its role in cosmology, solid hydrogen has potential applications in fields such as energy storage, quantum computing, and rocket propulsion. Its unique properties make it a promising material for use in various technologies, but further research is needed to fully understand and harness its potential.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
985
  • Cosmology
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top