Einstein,Newton,Diracare they really genious?

  • Thread starter eljose79
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of genius and its application to famous scientists such as Einstein and Newton. The speaker expresses doubts about their intelligence and argues that their discoveries were not as groundbreaking as they are perceived to be. They also question the value of investments in scientific endeavors such as space exploration and particle accelerators. Others in the conversation defend the genius of these scientists and point out their significant contributions to the scientific community. Overall, the conversation highlights the subjective nature of intelligence and the importance of collaboration and building upon past discoveries in scientific progress.
  • #1
eljose79
1,518
1
In fact years ago i admired them..but now that i am an university students i have my doubts about them being genious...

In fact why are they considered genious?..the fotoelectric efect, and the formula F=m.a are in most cases trivial to discover as it is the gravitation formula F=GMm/r**2 trivial from Kepler,s second law.
The relativity also was discovered by Poincare, and the mathematics they used are trivial..so i think any of us living in the beginign of the twentieth century and having the same opportunities could have also discovered the same...in my opinion people working and being physicist (or mathematicians) nowadays have more merit that the so-considered "genious"..is easy to discover Schroedinguer equation..the imposible thing is to develop quantum gravity...the exigences are not the same..in fact thes peopel were very privileged compared to others and were much luckier than us as to be considered genious..most of the formulae of physics from seventeen to the beginning of the twentieth century use trivial mathematics (integration,derivation) so are easy to find..in fact if string theory and quantum gravity used so trivial formulae physics would be over years ago.

Perhaps it sounds bad and some of them will have lots of critcs for me but i would like you to meditate about this post.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
sorry,my reply seems to have a little relation with the topic of this thread.i see many of this forum users are from united states.everyone knows US is the heaven for both science and technology and hence for the scientists and the innovative engineers themselves.no wonder americans dominate the list of nobel laureates.my question is how do u view those genius people, i mean if they earn high respect in the society or if they are just crazy thinkers who understand only their matters and fail to make what they discover or invent more applicable in the society(just useful for laboratory experiment) ?what do you think about such investments like space shuttle launching station, sky lab , high energy particle accelerator ,observatorium ,are they worth establishing or are they just a waste of the us budget?

let me know your opinion
thanks for your attention
 
  • #3
It is very easy to see things when someone shows them to you.

The genius of these men lay in the ability to see what is not shown to them. To think through and formulate the physical properties that, as you have pointed out, are there for anyone to observe.

We are standing on the shoulders of these men to get a better view of our world.
 
  • #4
Good point, Artman. I have thought about the same idea. I have learned a lot of concepts in Calculus have taken centuries for people to figure out (and which is based on "lesser" maths that have taken millenia). Does this mean that my intelligence blows these discoverers' intelligence away? No. Like Artman said, it is much easier to understand something when it is explained to you than to come up with it in the first place.
 
  • #5
do anyone of you know about the einstein's sons,how are they now ,especially the second one,i don't really understand what anomaly he suffers from.
 
  • #6
I agree, what’s complicated today will be trivial tomorrow. I think that one point eljose79 makes is right. The difference I believe from now verses the past is how complicated it is to be accepted. Today you have to have X amount of people, education, points of view backing you before anybody will consider your ideas at all. I wonder how many truly revolutionary ideas have been wasted because of this. One reason why this sight is so popular is that you can express your ideas and the others analyze and theorize with you, exactly what people like us need.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Originally posted by eljose79
In fact years ago i admired them..but now that i am an university students i have my doubts about them being genious...

In fact why are they considered genious?..the fotoelectric efect, and the formula F=m.a are in most cases trivial to discover as it is the gravitation formula F=GMm/r**2 trivial from Kepler,s second law.
The relativity also was discovered by Poincare, and the mathematics they used are trivial..so i think any of us living in the beginign of the twentieth century and having the same opportunities could have also discovered the same...in my opinion people working and being physicist (or mathematicians) nowadays have more merit that the so-considered "genious"..is easy to discover Schroedinguer equation..the imposible thing is to develop quantum gravity...the exigences are not the same..in fact thes peopel were very privileged compared to others and were much luckier than us as to be considered genious..most of the formulae of physics from seventeen to the beginning of the twentieth century use trivial mathematics (integration,derivation) so are easy to find..in fact if string theory and quantum gravity used so trivial formulae physics would be over years ago.

Perhaps it sounds bad and some of them will have lots of critcs for me but i would like you to meditate about this post.

Hi, I've only just joined this forum literally about 20 mins ago.

but I've always respected these guys, although paul dirac was just ok!

But i got to go with einstein, Newton, neils, and the others. If you had spelt genious as genius i might have sided with you, sorry!

But especially einstein, he was seriously clever. i'd swap brains in a heartbeat.

Why isn't stephen hawking in your list? now there's a guy living on the fame of hawking radiation! that's all he's done.

now einstein accomplishments, special relativity! (I doubt that would have been discovered by anyonelse, appart from an experimental physisist) general relativity WOW, the laser, big bang, (photo electric effect You say it as if it wasnt big,) but at the time, it helped clarify the question of light quanta. Brownean motion, the cosmoligical constant (Greatest blunder, now seems correct), E=mc2 the basics of atomic physics. Atomic measurements, and that's all i can remember at the moment


Man I am dyin to double post.

k, you talk about quantum gravity. No doubt in the future some guy is going to work the G.U.T out and be an instant genius.

But say 100 years later some one might say, "that wasnt too hard to work out, i bet i could do it" I think its within us all to work this stuff out, but you can't take away from past genius's credit :frown:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #8
Yes but...

Do you think so?..in fact i know that some effort in maths must be made to impose the Standard Model..or string theory in higher aspect but do you think someone must be a genious by making this things:
a)wave duality priciple..only by equating two equations

b)Bohr,s atomic model by only imposing L=nh/2Pi

c)Relativity..in fact Lorentz and Poincare developed it before Einstein.

d)Uncertainty Principle DxDp when it is a trivial consecuence of Fourier analisis.

In fact some of you have told in the post that someday what we have made today (strings, quantum gravity) will be considered trivial tomorrow..but i do not agree with you in fact the math used is very complicated in my opinion and only a few people can understand it..so it limited our comprension of physics..perhaps if it was more simpler mos of us could discover things is very difficult to develop physics if you do not have knowledge in high level maths...when 100 years ago Einstein and Dirac used a simpler math an this always helps you a lot.
usually the key in physics is the math used in it...easier math=easy physics.
 
  • #9
im sorry, but to look at time as a variable *gasp* is complete genius... To hence challenge the fact that space density is constant is also without a doubt genius.
 
  • #10
Also, Einsteins equations were not completely verified and accepted until the 1990s... A little black book of equations he had still circulates around the world at auctions for 5-10 million has still yet to be fully understood.
 
  • #11


Originally posted by eljose79
c)Relativity..in fact Lorentz and Poincare developed it before Einstein.
Not the physical interpretation though.
 
  • #12
Why is it that Math and Physics are considered difficult subjects? I have helped many people though Calculus and Physics over the years. At some point for each person, I have had to explain that this material is the culmination of 400yrs worth of work of the best minds known to mankind so you cannot expect to learn it easily in a few weeks. Joseph Priestly spend a summer reading a new book by Newton, called Principia Mathematica and with that became a research grade scientist, he was also a noted theologian. How often in this day and age do you see people at the top of two entirely different field?

Over the centuries mankind has accumulated knowledge which, with each passing generation, grows. It now takes nearly 30yrs to learn a field well enough to make any significant advances.

Is it possible for someone without the background education to make an advance in an established field? Seems very unlikely to me, as I have said before, to think outside of the box, you need to know where the box is. People with no formal education in math and physics have no idea what is known or not known. Just because you figure something out for yourself, does not mean that it is made trivial by another well established bit of knowledge which you do not possess.

There are indeed many tremendous advances to be made, but we may be seeing a limiting factor in that it now takes so long to learn the existing state of knowledge. Most of the Physicists I have known have considered the life sciences a bane. Likewise many Life Scientist consider pure Physics a bore. What would happen if someone with a PhD in Physics, went back to school and earned a PhD in a life science? How often has this happened? Can you imagine the possibilities of all this knowledge combined in one brain? Trouble is to complete this task a person would be well over 30 and the rude fact is most major advances are made by YOUNG scientists.

Now are the men who make these advances genius or not? Well often it is simply being in the right place at the right time. The first half of the 20th century was particularly fruitful, simply because of the work of a few men at the turn of the century, Plank, Einstein and a few others opened doors wide for the growth of knowledge.

Could it have been foreseen? Consider that the work of Maxwell in the 1860s exposed a rift in physics that existed until Einstein’s work. Imagine that, Einstein healed the rift and suddenly Physics took off into a period of explosive growth, did it take genius to ride the wave of expanding knowledge? What do you mean by genius?

Consider this, we are currently living with a rift in physics, the universe of Quantum Mechanic does not fit well into the universe of General Relativity. Does not this seem to be a similar situation as to what existed 100 years ago when Newtonian Mechanics and ElectroMagnetism did not fit together? Could the Einstein of 2000 be writing the paper that heals the current rift as I write this? What new and unknown fields will open up with this synthesis? What bit of knowledge are we missing to make it happen?

Will Eljose79, dismiss the advance as trivial and obvious after the fact?
 
  • #13
Having read a little bit about some of the discourse upon the differences between works like Einstien, and Shakespear, Scientific Genius and Artistic Genius.

The most common thing that all Scientific Geniuses have done, is to reveal "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truths" to humanity.

If you use that criteria, then you will find out who is, and who isn't, truly, a Genius. Cause that is what they did.

Shakespears Genius is similar inasmuch as he too revealed Self Evident Truths, (SET) just ones that are more difficult to 'quantify' as they were SET's about Human nature.

In the simplest manner I know, The (Self Evident) Truth itself, is the Genius, all the rest of us simply learning from that...and some of us being given that opportunity to be the first to learn it.
 
  • #14
And perhaps.....

2003-06-08

In having had a bit of experience with a "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truth" it is interesting to observe people when they read such a work.

Read a quotation in a Readers Digest Encyclopedia once, that talked of the reactions of " Scientific Discovery" sort of like, "At first it was AWE!", then they'all discussed it's merits, and how "seemingly obvious" it really actually was("is"), which gets retired to; "well, it's as if we had known it all along, cause it is self evident" Ya know!

The "Previously Unrecognized, Self Evident Truth" that went to the Court had, (as little as I can actually prove I know about this) some what of that kind of effect, because what I described was the input/output function of my own brain, verbally, and all qualified as 'truth'.

So if you were to read it, at first, it sort of strike you a little, as clearly you recognize "something" in the writting, (But your not quite sure 'just what', yet) so you spend a little time, thinking about it, see how it "fits" into you, completely, and recognize your own actions as fitting the appropriate aspects of the description of the input/output of meaning in your own, personal, brain/life.

So after a little time passes, well you had "known all of this, all along", this was "nothing new", No, YOU had never described it before, but "it is obvious", and "I knew all of that about myself, All Along"

They tend to get absorped into societies "minds'et" that way, easy to lose(?*) the accreditation for doing that, as people tend to "incoporate knowledge", into themselves, and end up, acting like it was them who discovered/came-up with it!

OYE!

(*Stolen from you!)
 
  • #15
if you think it is all that simple, answer this question please.

PS you will NOT be the first...

Simple (not really a) test...

In the Bible God states that "All of this universe is a part of me, but all of this universe, is not me".

Answer please. (explain the 'apparent' paradox)

(As to avoid giving it away "to all", give them a chance to figure it out too, you could PM me, your choice, choose wisely!)

Show me you too can figure things out.
 
  • #16
going back to the start

earlier you lot were saying how basic some of the "genious'" ideas were. (this may have been said b4 but some of the posts r sooooooo long) surely the true genius is explaining something in terms that can can be understood by any one. if someone proves string theory by lots of maths that's hard work. but if someone proves it with little more than calculus that's genius
 
  • #17
What is "genious" anyway?

As a trained psychologist, I can honestly say that the ideal of genious relies not on any empirical evidence. Ok, ok. IQ is a good measure, but I have noticed that "in the field" genious and "paper" genious are two different species.

It is those folks who find a real world problem easily solved - ludicrously obvious - while everyone else is scratching their heads trying to figure out wtf is wrong in the first place.

Just like Einstein. We can look back and say "how ridiculously obvious". Hindsight is 20/20 however. It took genious to put 2 and 2 together.

Anyone can learn the math. They can learn the theories, the expostulations, the rote of learned culture and build upon them. Genious is the ability to synthesize the facts to find a solution that surpasses the norm.

Montaigne once wrote that all thought, all invention, was the amalgamation of multiple previous ideas into a new "hybrid" idea. Genious, true genious, IMHO, is the ability to introduce new ideas, not based upon previous foundations - arriving as it were "out of the blue".
 
  • #18
Excellent post, Integral. How do you think it would be possible to "heal the rift" between QM and general relativity? Would you change QM to fit the constraints of GR?
 
  • #19
Since no one seems to like the first question I posed, let's try this one...

It is a Universal Law that "There is an exception to every rule", so, if there is an exception to "every rule", musn't there be an exception to that rule, and (assume) it so, what is it?

Responces preffered by PM please, no giving anything away to anyone else...but I suppose you can all collaberate, your choice.

Have FUN!
 
  • #20
Originally posted by eljose79
In fact why are they considered genious?..the fotoelectric efect, and the formula F=m.a are in most cases trivial to discover as it is the gravitation formula F=GMm/r**2 trivial from Kepler,s second law.

"..is easy to discover Schroedinguer equation.."

most of the formulae of physics from seventeen to the beginning of the twentieth century use trivial mathematics (integration,derivation) so are easy to find..

So I posed two questions, simple ones as they have both "already been answered", just not by you, so, why? if your soooo smart, tell me the answers to those two questions.
(It ain't all that hard,is it?)

Originally posted by artman
It is very easy to see things when someone shows them to you.

I agree.

Originally posted by Integral
Is it possible for someone without the background education to make an advance in an established field? Seems very unlikely to me, as I have said before, to think outside of the box, you need to know where the box is. People with no formal education in math and physics have no idea what is known or not known. Just because you figure something out for yourself, does not mean that it is made trivial by another well established bit of knowledge which you do not possess.

And again. (with a Cheer!)

Originallyposted by Ganshauk
It is those folks who find a real world problem easily solved - ludicrously obvious - while everyone else is scratching their heads trying to figure out wtf is wrong in the first place.

And again. (More cheering!)

Eljose79, care to prove your assertion of just "how trivial" it really is, easy to answer questions being posed, opportunity to prove your Genious.

YOu can post an answer, if you would prefer, I don't mind.
 
  • #21
Not of a genious but...

I have proved two things by myself:

a) A formula for Pi(x) prime counting function

b) a method to quantize Non-Polynomics Hamiltonian

I am going to to send them to the webpage www.profes.net/colabora.asp unfortunately i do not know if they publish them, and it is an spanish scientist magazine.


Perhaps you will say that is not true you are wrong..i think that a and b have not been discovered before, you can check the method for Pi(x) in a topic in the math forum

Another question is that you can not use only calculus to explain strings this is imposible ..i think i ( and not only myself but my friends at the career of physics) could,ve been great scientist if we had had the oportunity to be born and publish in the early twenties.. i am not arrogant i am only trying to say that was randomness who allowed einstein and dirac and others to be famous although their I.C was similar to ours.
 
  • #22
Then please forgive me a little eljose79, clearly you do better in English then I can in Spanish(? is it?) but it is that those men in particular are NOT here to defend themselves or their reputations, hence I tend to be just a little, what?? protective of just what the word "Genious" means.

I don't know that IQ measurements are really much more then a measure of how well you can pass tests. Discovery isn't like that, so their measure would not truly be an indicator, I would respecfully suggest.
 
  • #23
Einstein was at least a few steps beyond what is incorporated into an IQ test. Its a joke right? Creativity and imagination are undefinable. The logic is minimal at best, respectively. Whom is the creator of such a test?
I've mapped various extended logics. "Everyone has a genious!"

The problem is numbers? you see the mathematics illudes pure logic. Simply when the wheel was invented I'm sure r= was not part of the original plan. It was stroke of logic. Therefore numbers would not solve logical puzzles or aid in understanding our environment. There merely measure the logical interpretations.

Dr. Einstein had the ability to manipulate numbers to fit the logic, or the inversion, numbers to fit misguided logic. Plainly, numbers=words,words=numbers, or N=W,W=N. He did however leave a conundrum behind! Why? A-bomb? "We face complete Ahnilation" Dr. Einstein respectiviely.

One small instance I'v written in my book of this trick of sort is the black hole. Gravity is deflects light during eclipse. How would a black hole be a dense gravitational force of which light cannot escape? A much greater density of gravity would deflect light at a higher rate. It more relates directly as a space hurricane or FSAcceleration.

In his work repeatedly builds ideas to reach an understanding that is illuded before a final straight forward statement. So hindering the true meaning of the ideas at hand. A and C pull from B, is how he described a line segment. This stood out for later obserations of other systems. Gravity best described as A pulls C and C pulls A, where B is median.
Dr. Einsteins work with great respect was of motion of bodies. My question was what directly constitutes motion? Another instance of an illuded direct idea.

There are a great deal more within the logical masterpieces. I have not been able to fully examine all the work. I've spent my time on my own original theory of the universe before I opened Relativity. I only knew that when you messed something up, someone would call you Einstein.

Three of Seven Logics I've mapped in my work are Nature Logic, Scattered Logic, Empirical Logic, and the relationship of the three. Nature Logic being self expanitory, Scattered to be as the square of a notebook of graph paper and Empirical as defined and alternative. Also Relativity mus be examined as an addition symbol of logic.

One of his favorite words! Another way to look at one of his favorite words is to relate it to others. An emperor oversees his empire, empirically. So stated as to say an oversight of logic and all physical concepts.

Theese are very small examples, although they add up, thus preventing the inversion of his work. I get the impression he may have done so after the abomb. He may have felt responsable, a great one indeed.
The key seems to lye within his famous quotes. In you mind jot them down in a list, my end your start. Keeping in consideraton his ability of inversion when examining them.
If E=Mc squared then?...

There is a myriad of information to challenge. What is taught may not be the ultimate answer. Cars still have wheels, planes still use fuel.

The ultimate answer is that theese men possesed a genious, although Einstein was advanced. I state as his alglorithyms of logic were far beyond what he led on to be, or like no other.

Logic of Negativity, Nature of the Universe, or the theory of balanced inversions. Anthony J Giguere. Thank you
 
  • #24
I was about to say "This kinda thing comes up every year."

Welcome to the Forums, BornLogician. But this thread was quite dead. It did answer my question of "Whatever happened to Mr. Robert Parsons?"
Oh, he's been banned.
 
  • #25
yes dead, fun to talk, and someone did respond you see. Do you have insight on the topic? Please share. I only understand what i share not the concepts of sites anyhow. what is alive?
 
  • #26
schwarzchildradius said:
Excellent post, Integral. How do you think it would be possible to "heal the rift" between QM and general relativity? Would you change QM to fit the constraints of GR?

Change GR and cosmology to meet the constraints of QM.

deal with singularities of space-time rather than point particles in space-time. The singularities are connected to each other via "wormholes", there are semi-chaotic patterns of behavior of these configurations (recurcively based on their current configuration), and the type of configuration determines the particle's quantum properties (i.e.. how it will react with other configurations) All the connectedness of space is like a hidden variable theory in QM. To tie everything together, connect all the singularities with the big bang too. You'd be dealing with percentages of conenctedness between singularities of N numbers of particles, in the limit of N increasing, you're dealing with the configuration of the whole universe, and this is the only configuration which has no degeneracy. For example, if you could travel through a wormhole (with a reasonable calculated percentage of error in reciprocity) which exits into two different singularities, you would exit out of both exits at the same time, like how a photon will partially transmit and partially reflect at the same time through a beam splitter.

Sorry, I just realized how old this thread is... I'm thinkin I should delete my post, but I'll just leave it because I put the work into writing it, so oh well, I hope someone finds it entertaining, or thought provoking maybe. eh, I like it, but I'll admit, it's pretty stale.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
BornLogician79 said:
yes dead, fun to talk, and someone did respond you see. Do you have insight on the topic? Please share. I only understand what i share not the concepts of sites anyhow. what is alive?
"dead" referring to the fact that nearly three years had passed before your first post.

I have nothing new to add to this conversation that has not already been said (and very well said) in this thread.

You're own post appears to be more of a discussion of logic than a continuation of the original post. You might want to check out the logic forum. (A sub-forum of the "Philosophy" group).
 
Last edited:
  • #28
FYI, ChiMeson, RobinParsons is holding court at the sciencemathforums site, I think.
 
  • #29
Today, we can run computer simulations and watch solar systems form in a virtual world governed by Newton's laws. More and more we are gaining the ability to look out into the galaxy and pinpoint alien solar systems in various stages of formation. But Isaac Newton didn't have the advantage of supercomputer simulations of planetary accretion or observations of extrasolar planets. All he had were his own newly-minted laws of motion and his imagination. And despite his great genius, in this instance, Newton's imagination was clearly not up to the task. We should take heart in this. And so, to paraphrase Isaac Newton, I suggest the following new motto for the ID movement: "If we see less far than others, be consoled that we stand in the company of shortsighted giants."
 
  • #30
Have you ever been in a discrete mathematics class? The prof will show example proofs on the board, and watching him do it, it seems pretty easy.

Then you get to the homework and BAM, you realize it's a lot harder without someone saying "and now we do this" the whole way through. It was the first math-thing that did this to me, and I beat it by doing every example proof he gave us until I could do it in my sleep.

But, I think this quote sums up what's wrong with you argument: "Hindsight is 20-20"
 
  • #31
Over the centuries mankind has accumulated knowledge which, with each passing generation, grows. It now takes nearly 30yrs to learn a field well enough to make any significant advances.
I think it is possible to make a major contribution after 10-15 of university study. However, a caveat, one has to be exposed to latest knowledge in a particular field. I saw this recently at a national conference, where certain faculty in certain universities are doing some cutting edge research. However, there are many other universities with similar programs, which are not doing this. One has to find the 'right' place to receive an education, and I see that as being problematic for most. :frown:

Alkatran said:
. . . .doing every example proof he gave us until I could do it in my sleep.
or in the shower as the case may be. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #32
eljose79 said:
Einstein, Newton, Dirac..are they really genious?
Yes. It is the very simplicity of their ideas that marks them as such.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Astronuc said:
or in the shower as the case may be. :biggrin:

Where do you sleep? :confused: :rofl:
 
  • #34
heman said:
Today, we can run computer simulations and watch solar systems form in a virtual world governed by Newton's laws. More and more we are gaining the ability to look out into the galaxy and pinpoint alien solar systems in various stages of formation. But Isaac Newton didn't have the advantage of supercomputer simulations of planetary accretion or observations of extrasolar planets. All he had were his own newly-minted laws of motion and his imagination. And despite his great genius, in this instance, Newton's imagination was clearly not up to the task. We should take heart in this. And so, to paraphrase Isaac Newton, I suggest the following new motto for the ID movement: "If we see less far than others, be consoled that we stand in the company of shortsighted giants."
If you are quoting someone else, please acknowledge the original source and put the content within quotes.

http://onlyatheory.blogspot.com/
 
  • #35
eljose, in order for anyone to answer your question or to discuss it, we probably need to have the same definition of the word "genius." By definition, the word genius, although not usually used this way, is used to identify someone who possesses an IQ greater than 140-145 (I've seen differing numbers as 'qualify-ers', from 135 to 152, but most say it is around 140 to 145. I know this is being kind of picky, but I think it's necessary to answer the question) I know that IQ is very controversial (basing one's potential on a number) and it can be argued that determination is a greater determining factor in one's success than IQ ("I can is more important than IQ"), but, again, to answer the question...

So, by definition, Einstein is a genius because his IQ was around 160. I don't know if this was estimated or if he actually took a certified IQ test, but almost every site I've ever seen, and several books seem to all agree that it was 160.

Newton was too (by the estimates that I've seen) with an estimated IQ of 190.

I don't know about Dirac or the others though...sry
You could probably easily google them though and obtain some estimations if it matters that much
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Math Proof Training and Practice
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
491
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
4K
Back
Top