Why is the idea/hypothesis of gravitational waves (GW) in General Relativity so special?

Our previous post on 07/02/2012 ended with the question:
Why is the idea/hypothesis of gravitational waves (GW) in General Relativity so special? Why is, unlike in all other predictions, the second part of the question: “what if we don’t?”, absent, despite the stream of negative experimental results during the last 50 years? We are trying to give the answer here.

First of all, GW are associated with the name of Einstein. The most common statement is: “observation of GW will be a triumph of Einstein’s GR”. How the above statement evolves from “whether Einstein’s theory really predicted the existence of gravitational radiation” is a different story and we will return to this later.

In 1999, Einstein was named the person of the century by Time magazine [1], and any skepticism about existence of GW will be obviously perceived as criticism of Einstein and his GR. GW are not special in this respect, using Einstein’s name as some sort of argument is not uncommon, e.g. “If Einstein were alive today, he would probably be a string theorist, engaged in a remarkable, but still very controversial, theory that claims to explain absolutely everything around us” (see “String fellows” [2] ). In today’s fashion it is a plausible assumption because it is not falsifiable (no one can ask Einstein’s opinion). Einstein, of course, never talked about strings, but we suspect that if he were alive he would not join string fellows. To affirm our conclusion, we just cite Einstein’s opinion about extra dimensions [3]: “It is anomalous to replace the four-dimensional continuum by a five-dimensional one and then subsequently to tie up artificially one of these five dimensions in order to account for the fact that it does not manifest itself.”

Let us mention only two the most common textbook statements in support of GW existence (yes, there is no detection of GW but there are many textbooks). We will call them “myths” for the following reason. Looking at the dictionary for definition of “myth”, we read – “a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation”, or “an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution”. It seems like such a definition is not applicable to science, but we found that in the modern world people more often tempt to believe in some speculative “scientific” “discoveries” rather than checking the sources, e.g. original papers, especially that most of them are now available on Internet just from one click (or from double-click).

The first myth is the most popular among journalists and is repeated again and again in popular articles, public talks and in introductions to some scientific articles.

Myth 1: In 1916 Einstein gave the proof of existence of GW in GR.

Very often the reference is not given (in 1916 Einstein published five papers including his famous [4] ) and it is not clear which paper is meant, probably, under assumption that either all readers are familiar with this paper or can easily find it, or most likely have to accept this as well-known and unquestionable fact.

If the proof was given in [5] , then why was the question raised 20 years later (in 1936) by Einstein himself ”Do gravitational waves exist?” (the lost paper, for details see the book by Kennefick [6])?

In paper [5] Einstein wrote: “They [the values of the metric tensor found in previous calculations] led me to the simple approximative solution given above. However, one has to keep in mind that the choice of coordinates which has been made here has no equivalence in the general case, as the gamma and the gamma prime have tensorial character only with respect to linear orthogonal substitutions, but not under general substitutions”. So, linear approximation of GR is not generally covariant. Einstein spent 10 years to find the equations which are invariant under general coordinate transformations, contrary to special relativity and Maxwell theory which are invariant only under Lorentz transformations. In 1937 (see the end of the first section where linear approximation is discussed again) after Eq. (13a) there is the statement: “если весь метод приближенных уравнений оправдан” (if the whole method of approximate equations is justified). Is it? We do not have on hands the original paper in English [7] and translated it back from Russian from [8]. The complete collection (four volumes) of Einstein’s scientific papers were translated into Russian and published in 1966 and, to our surprise, it remains the only one such a collection in the world!

The second popular textbook statement:

Myth 2: GW in Einstein’s GR are analogous to electromagnetic waves (EMW) in the Maxwell theory.

The use of this analogy reached a complete absurd. One such an example (Ch. 1, an overview, doctoral (!?) school [9], pp. 1-2): “… James Clerk Maxwell … was able (in 1873) to predict the existence … of the electromagnetic waves. Nevertheless, some distinguished physicists, such as Lord Kelvin, had serious doubts about the existence of such waves … However, in 1887, eight years after Maxwell’s death, electromagnetic waves were both generated and detected by Heinrich Hertz…”, and next “In the same way, in general relativity”(?!), which is “Einstein’s field equations (1915)… Albert Einstein, in 1916, … predicted the existence of … the gravitational waves … Similarly to what happened when electromagnetic waves were first predicted, some distinguished physicists had serious doubts about their existence. Arthur Eddington …”.

Is it really “In the same way”? Hardly, something is missing: are GW “generated and detected” and by whom? Actually, electromagnetic waves have been observed well before Hertz: people see light from the dawn of mankind. This is not the case for gravitational waves.

In 1916 Einstein demonstrated the existence of a wave solution for linear approximation which is indeed related to the Maxwell theory. It is one of Lorentz invariant models which are generalizations of the Maxwell theory (spin one) to higher spins. It was constructed by Fierz and Pauli for spin two [10] and later for any whole and fractional spins. We are not aware about any observation of particles with spin 2 (“graviton”) or higher (as well as 3/2 “gravitino”).

Without “gravitational” Hertz, or Hertzes (who “generated and detected”), the only analogy (and probably the necessary condition for observation) is the existence of skeptics (Lord Kelvin – Sir Eddington). Lord Kelvin died in 1907, i.e. long after Hertz was able to eliminate his “serious doubts”. Sir Eddington was not so lucky, he died in 1944 with serious doubts and many other sceptics disappeared after him still waiting for “gravitational Hertzes”. To keep the described analogy, new skeptics are needed (no skeptics – no analogy – no “generated and detected”).

In Foreword to Feynman’s lectures on Gravitation ([11], p. XXV) we read: “As late as 1957 … it was still possible to have a serious discussion about whether Einstein’s theory really predicted the existence of gravitational radiation” (This is recollection of the authors of the foreword about Chapel Hill Conference). From this statement it follows that soon after 1957 it became impossible to have serous discussion about existence of GW or such discussions became non-serious. Why? What happened? Were GW “generated and detected”? No, an experiment not even started but textbooks and serious predictions about time of observation started to appear. The first textbook (to the best of our knowledge) with GW in the title is due to Weber (1961) where we read ([12], p. 87): “… in recent years … it has been possible for a number of physicists to conclude that general relativity really does predict the existence of gravitational waves”, and the experimental work started (see second footnote on p. 137). We are still waiting for detection of GW, but what about changes in the number of physicists for whom it became possible to conclude that GR predicts GW?

On the same 1957 Conference that often presented as some pivotal point for GW hypothesis and the beginning of decline of scepticism (we return to this later), Feynman gave a presentation (the sessions on the quantization of gravity) that was followed by discussion (see [12] and more accessible book [6], pp. 134-135). Leon Rosenfeld made the following remark: “It seems to me that the question of the existence and absorption of waves is crucial for the question whether there is any meaning in quantizing gravitation. In electrodynamics the whole idea of quantization comes from the radiation field”. Bondi: “this vexed question of the existence of gravitational waves does become more important for this reason”. Feynman agreed that arguments in favour of quantization depend on the existence of waves. Perhaps, vice versa, the success of the quantization program gives a clue about existence of waves.

1970’s – 1980’s: it was shown that GR is not renormalizable, quantization is not possible (see, e.g. [13]). Quantization was performed using the standard method that was employed before in linear (Maxwell) or not so highly non-linear as GR theories (Yang-Mills), i.e. starting, as the first approximation, from linearized GR – exactly as in 1916 Einstein’s paper, and the negative result is consistent with Einstein’s concern about justification of linear approximation: “if the whole method of approximate equations is justified”. Linearization of GR does not lead to physical results.

This is related to the warning of Carmeli in his textbook (1982) “Classical fields. General relativity and gauge theory” [14]: “It is well known that in other nonlinear theories, such as hydrodynamics, one also refers to linearization methods, and our experience shows that solutions of the linearized equations may bear little or no relation to solutions of rigorous equations. In particular, solutions of the linearized equations exist which by no means approximate the rigorous solution. It is the nonlinearity of the theory [GR] that makes it so distinguishable … One should therefore in no way consider the linearized theory as being a substitute to the full theory.” And try to quantize starting from linear approximation.

This statement of Carmeli (he was the student of Rosen, Einstein’s assistant) repeats Einstein’s thoughts on the role of non-linearity of GR. In 1936 Einstein wrote to his friend Max Born: “Together with a young collaborator, I arrived at the interesting result that gravitational waves do not exist, though they had been assumed a certainty to the first approximation. This shows that the non-linear general relativistic field equations can tell us more or, rather, limit us more than we have believed up to now” [6].

The non-linearity of Einstein’s field equations remains unchanged, they continues to be fundamentally different from spin 2 model (linear approximation), and quantization of GR starting from this linear approximation is not possible, and there is no detection of graviton and GW.

“Physicists … perhaps are too conservative in believing that physics (theoretical) should always be made and interpreted the same way, e.g. by wanting to do with GRG the same as in Electrodynamics. Perhaps, the revolution implied by GR is that it is precisely another way of concerning the physical world” (Andre Mercier, [6], p. 243).

Analyzing Einstein’s views on GW, Kennefick wrote ([6], p. 97): “Did the retraction of his nonexistence proof mean that Einstein was cured of skepticism? Perhaps not, or at any rate, not completely”.

Let us return to the fate of skepticism. Why in 1957 “it was still possible to have a serious discussion about whether Einstein’s theory really predicted the existence of gravitational radiation”, but in 1961 “it has been possible for a number of physicists to conclude that general relativity really does predict the existence of gravitational waves” and “After some point during the early 1960s, the debate ceased to be relevant because a sufficient consensus had formed against the sceptical position”. The last quotation is taken from the book of Kennefick [6], p. 276, which title, “Traveling at the speed of thought”, is an ironic phrase of the skeptic – Arthur Eddington. This book gives quite extended account of disappearance of skepticism and associated with it events.
According to the author of [6], p. 115, after the World War II: “Physics especially experienced a remarkable surge in the number of researchers, particularly in the United States. America became the epicenter of research in theoretical physics …” GR and skepticism about GW were originated in Europe, but more important fact – the financial support of this field, including support for the 1957 Conference, began, and the biggest contribution originally came from the United State Air Force (see [6], p. 116).

The Air Force, we guess, is not a philanthropic organization that could be interested in an answer to the purely scientific question “Do gravitational waves exist?”. (There is a Russian proverb: “Кто платит, тот заказывает музыку”; its English analogue is: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”.) Grants are given to non-sceptics, non-skeptics can have graduate students, hire posdocs, start experiments, etc., etc., etc. In academy one can be skeptical but new hiring of skeptics is out of question (the standard phrase – “to secure external funding” – more often appears in advertisements for academic positions, so such positions are not for skeptics). This is a plausible scenario. But to check it, the history of hiring in the GR-related positions in those years has to be analyzed, as well as the list of proposals that got financial support and unsuccessful topics. Similar, but more recent and better documented situation, was described in Peter Woit’s book “Not even wrong” [15], when he wrote concerning hiring string theoreticians.

After the Air Force (after changes in U.S. policies [6], p. 116), National Science Foundation becomes the main source and it continues to give generous support to this field, especially for GW search. Our, not very hard, attempt to find out whether the Air Force continues to support GR research leads us to only the grant from U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command: “…generating and controlling significant gravitational forces via this new theory, making a 70 ton tank appear to weight much less, cutting edge technology, enormous value for DOD weapons and weapon systems” (see [16], p. 66), but we were not able to find any report or information about this project, only lots of conspiracy theories about results and fate of Dr. Ning Li and her AC Gravity LLD. We even started to suspect that this document could be a very elaborate hoax. We cannot solve this mystery (we are not paying taxes in U.S.).  However, one phrase from document seems to point that this is genuine: “If unsuccessful, this avenue can be eliminated from future efforts, and would put to the rest controversy surrounding these theories” ($448,970 U.S. Government Dollars are given and time was set 25 Apr 2001 – 25 Sep 2002).

Controversy (skepticism) about existence of GW is over and nothing can put to the rest this idea. Some statements in [6] even sound as a warning to skeptics (we believe that this is just an observation of the author concerning state of affair in the field, not a deliberate attempt to scare the potential or underground sceptics), e.g., [6], p. 275: “There seems to be some evidence that Cooperstock … lost a certain amount of standing on this topic as a result of his open defiance of the emerging orthodoxy” and he can publish only in Foundations of Physics, the journal that encourages the publication of “speculations not tied to hard…” (the current editor is the Nobel prize winner in Physics t’Hooft), contrary to Physical Review (where [6], p. 230 “Rosenblum and Cooperstock’s last publications in Physical Review D on this controversy are dated from 1984 and 1986, respectively” – after this point no papers in PRD, i.e. “controversy is effectively over” because, unlike editorial preface to Foundations of Physics, Physical Review D does not encourage submission of “speculations not tied to hard…” and “accept for publication those manuscripts that significantly advance physics and have been found to be scientifically sound, important to the field,…”, i.e. publish only non-speculative, novel, cutting-edge results on GW, strings, cosmology, supersymmetry, etc. (see the Editorial policy of PRD [17]). Skepticism will damage your professional standing! (skepticism in science becomes non-professional!) and such results can be published only in non-leading journals.

According to [6] p. 276: “Eventually a critical mass of consensus, enough to close off further debate, formed…, dissent was no longer viewed as healthy or desirable, … disagreement would only retard the progress of a field”. Such consensus, despite absence of any experimental confirmations and disappearance of skepticism, is our main concern about health of this field – this uniform front is good for parades in the front of public but not for a real action. We agree with that [18], p. 254 “since the true goal of physics theory is the description of the real world, it is particularly appropriate, with regard to gravitational theory, to nurture a spirit of skepticism. Surely this is a healthy ingredient for the growth of any science”, but these are words of Cooperstock and [6], p. 255 “Cooperstock’s capital had already been depleted” and there is no granting agencies that can possibly bail out sceptics (to restore their capital).

The author of [6] observes, p. 275: “It seems that the aim of the all of the conferences, workshops, papers, reviews, appeals to experiment, and so on, is not to enforce or encourage agreement as such, but rather to eliminate or reduce the space for disagreement.” The reduction of space for disagreement can be accomplished using different methods and the most effective instrument for reduction of space for disagreement has to be added – generous financial support of a particular view.

Looks like (is it a law?) that any model or prediction after 30-40 years without experiment becomes a conventional wisdom (it can take longer if financial support is not available). After this point, discussion cannot be serious (even considered as making disservice for the field) and results of experiments become irrelevant (for how long?). When will someone repeats after Chretien, the former Prime Minister of Canada: “enough is enough”?

“In the study of gravitational waves the chase seems to have become a route, since no positive experimental results at all are available to justify the copious writtings on the subject” – these are words of Bonnor [19] and they perfectly describe current stage of the chase but these words were spoken already in 1963!!

What is going on (and on, and on) after non-skeptics have prevailed? GW in 21st century.

To be continued…

[1] Time magazine http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,00.html 
[2] String fellows http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/jan/20/science.research/print
[3] A. Einstein, Science, 74 (1922), 438-439.
[4] A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik, 49 (1916) 769-822.
[5] A. Einstein, Sitzungsber. preuss. Akad. Wiss., 1 (1916) 688-696.
[6] D. Kennefick, Traveling at the Speed of Thoughts, Einstein and the Quest for Gravitational Waves, Princeton University Press, 2007.
[7] A. Einstein and N. Rosen, Journal of Franklin Institute, 223 (1937) 43-54.
[8] A. Einstein, The Complete Collection of Scientific Papers, Nauka, Moskva, 1965, vol. 2, p. 438 (in Russian).
[9] Gravitational waves, Eds. I.Ciufolini, V. Gorini, U. Moscella and P. Fre, 2001, IOP Press, Bristol and Philadelphia.
[10] M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proceedings of Royal Society, London, 173 (1939) 211.
[11] R.P. Feynman, Lectures on Gravitation, Westview Press,
Colorado, 2003.
[12] J. Weber, General Relativity and Gravitational Waves, Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York, 1961.
[13] M.H. Goroff and A. Sagnotti, Nuclear Physics B, 266 (1986) 709-736.
[14] M. Carmeli, Classical Fields, General Relativity and Gauge Theory, World Scientific, New Jersey, 2001.
[15] P. Woit, Not even wrong, the failure of string theory and the search for unity in physical law, Basic Books, New York, 2006.
[16] Department of Defense, Annual Report on Cooperative Agreements and Other Transactions Entered into During FY2001 Under 10 USC 2371: www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/Docs/FY01RPT.doc .
[17] Physical Review D, Editorial policy http://prd.aps.org/info/polprocd.html .
[18] F.I. Cooperstock and D.W. Hobill, General Relativity and Gravitation, 14 (1982) 361-378.
[19] W.B. Bonnor, British Journal of Applied Physics, 14 (1963) 555-562.

This entry was posted in Public and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why is the idea/hypothesis of gravitational waves (GW) in General Relativity so special?

  1. Andrei says:

    How is it possible, that in 2012, the most complete translation of Einstein’s works exist only in Russian and not in English? What is about all US and UK education, where not so many read either German or Russian ? 🙂

    • Sergei Kuzmin says:

      We are not given a conventional answer: “Good question” (usually means “I have no idea how to answer”). Your question can be classified as “a difficult question” because, seems to us, you are not questioning the correctness of our statement (which can be easily disproved by providing references on such a collection in English), but rather want to hear our explanation or opinion about why such a collection does not exist.

      First of all, we have to give two corrections/clarifications:

      “The most complete translation of Einstein’s works” is a collection of scientific papers (1901-1955), not all works, although the last volume (fourth) consists of non-scientific papers, some of these documents express his scientific views, e.g. his intellectual autobiographies.

      “What is about all US and UK education, where not so many read either German or Russian?” Now English is the language of physical literature and your question is, in fact, about all physical education, with exception of German and Russian speaking part.

      We made this discovery [that the Russian collection is the most complete] a few years ago trying to find an English translation of one Einstein’s paper (we wanted to quote his words in English and give reference to an English translation, instead of translating them from Russian). We were sure that it will be easy to do, and that similar collection exists in English, which is the language of physics now, not German as before, that, by the way, was the reason of such a quick translation of his papers in the middle of 60s by Russian physicists (many were fluent in German and even the journal “Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion” was published in Soviet Union in 1932-38 with majority of papers in German).

      We started our search from the Library of the University of Western Ontario, which is quite good, but we did not find such a collection and thought (we continued to believe in its existence), that instead of search through the interlibrary service, just ask the specialist. We visited professor of astrophysics with such a question. His answer was: “I am not aware about such a collection. Why do you need it? Science has advanced far ahead since the time of Einstein, and who will read this old stuff now?”. We still did not believe, and our chase for an English translation of Einstein’s papers (including a particular one) began. This is an interesting story and deserve a separate post, but we need time to find our old correspondence (emails) to provide some arguments in support of our answer to your question “How is it possible…?”.

  2. Andrei says:

    A remarkable history, especially about “old stuff”. I did not know about Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion. Did it publish only Soviet papers ?

    • Sergei Kuzmin says:

      Not only Soviet physicists. For example, Dirac published there:

      “The Lagrangian in quantum mechanics”, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion, Vol. 3, No. 1. (1933), pp. 64-72
      by P. A. M. Dirac

      “On quantum electrodynamics”, Physikalische Zeitschrift der Sowjetunion, Vol. 2, No. 6. (1932), pp. 468-479
      by P. A. M. Dirac, V. A. Fock, B. Podolsky

  3. alex1 says:

    I was interested in this question (or problem?) too. Why is it impossible to make a fast translation of all Einstein’s scientific works (mainly papers) from Russian to English? Taking into account a desperate and hopeless situation in Western (or American) Gravity (which has nothing to do with the original Einstein’s GR) it would be a very useful and appropriate step to save many lives of young researchers working in GR. In fact, it is long time (50 years) overdue.

    The answer to this question is simple: a lot of people got paid for such a delay. The money are collecting from US tax payers. The publications of the complete set of original Einstein’s works in English will raze to the ground the `modern GR’ – an anti-Einstein’s theory created here since the second half of 1950’s.

    My related question is also transparent. The books by Landau and Lifshitz (I mean volume 2) and Carmeli are not recommended in North America as the regular textbooks on GR. However, the book by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler “Gravitation” can easily be found at each campus (for just 136 $ new copy). Why?

    • Sergei Kuzmin says:

      First of all, the translation from Russian (of German papers) to English does not seem to us as a good idea (this is based on our experience: we compared English and Russian translations and found some places where even meaning is different). There are many German scientists who can do translation directly. For example, Alexander Unzicker already did this – translation of a few Einstein’s papers can be found on http://www.alexander-unzicker.de/ae1930.html
      By the way, he is a “western scientist”, but his opinion “there are people who get paid for doing that work slowly” is the same with yours. In short, if there is no English collection of Einstein’s scientific papers, then the answer is simple – there is no demand (“who will read this old stuff now?”), especially if his views are different from today’s conventional wisdom.

      The main reason to answer your comment is different: we strongly disagree with your “Western (American)” theme. It creates an impression that there is “Non-western (non-American)” research that conducts in accordance with “the original Einstein’s GR”. To be more specific, let us make a connection with facts presented in our last post (07/17/2012) and compare with science in Russia (which is “Non-western (non-American)”). In our post we discussed predictions about gravitational wave astronomy. Let us perform a search of Russian journal “Успехи Физических Наук”, in English “Physics – Uspekhi” (the analog of “Western” Physics Reports), using the key words “gravitational wave astronomy” (Гравитационно-волновая астрономия):

      Л.П. Грищук «Гравитационно-волновая астрономия» 156 297–322 (1988)
      В.Б. Брагинский, Л.П. Грищук «Гравитационно-волновая астрономия» 151 177–178 (1987)
      У. Пресс, К. Торн «Гравитационно-волновая астрономия» 110 569–606 (1973)
      В.Б. Брагинский «Гравитационно-волновая астрономия: новые методы измерений» 170 743–752 (2000)
      Л.П. Грищук, В.М. Липунов и др. «Гравитационно-волновая астрономия: в ожидании первого зарегистрированного источника» 171 3–59 (2001)

      We guess the predictions about a time when gravitational wave astronomy will be a reality can also be found in the above reviews.

      In the same post (07/17/2012) we mentioned the GravWave LLC and JASON ruling about some proposals of GrawWave. On their website you can find pictures of some authors of the above mentioned reviews who visited GrawWave LLC http://www.drrobertbaker.com/baker_pix.htm
      . The list of organizations where GrawWave made presentations of their results is not limited to “Western” institutions, but also were made in China and Moscow (Russia) http://www.gravwave.com/index_2.htm
      (see 2010)

      Last thing we would like to mention: there is a discussion (our 07/09/2012) about places were skeptics can publish their results and, in particular, the observation by Kennefick about Physical Review (“Western” journal). Try, if you are skeptic, to submit your paper to “non-Western” journal, where reviews on Гравитационно-волновая астрономия were published.

      Time of “non-western” physicists like L.D. Landau is over. He used to joke “if your theory cannot find experimental confirmation in a half of year, then it is interesting only for your wife”. Search of GW continues for 50 years, but it is still not interesting for my wife.

  4. Andrei says:

    I’ve got another question. Perhaps GW seekers will never find them but they might find lots of important by-products, like little green men on Mars :). Do you remember, one cleaver scientist told us: “Will it be useful to found today in 20th century a Research Institute for Creation of Perpetuum Mobile with hundreds of scientists ? Very useful ! Of course, we all know it will never build a perpetuum mobile, but its mechanics department will make discoveries on mechanics of A, and its electronics department will make discoveries on B, etc.” Perhaps, the same situation is with GW seekers ? Although, it gives not a good message to young people and to the general public, who might really think, that perpetuum mobile is possible :).

    On another hand, what skeptics can do apart of saying that there are no G waves in Einstein’s GR ? What is the counter-program ?

    • Sergei Kuzmin says:

      Andrei said: what skeptics can do apart of saying that there are no G waves in Einstein’s GR ? What is the counter-program ?

      Thank you Andrei,
      For the first question: saying is not enough, it has to be proven. To the second question, our short and instant response is: “Good question!”.

  5. In the part Myth 1 you pose a question “Is it?” (6th line from the end of that part). So, after the experimental confirmation of GW, is it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s