QCD – The Needless Theory

I include here another part from the rather long chapter “From Dirac to the Sixties Crisis” which describes the events that led to the invention of Quantum Chromodynamics.

Gell-Mann, Zweig, and Quarks
In 1964, Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig separately published what would later become the Quark model, each man publishing a slightly different version. Here I only mention the topics most important for our purposes.

According to Gell-Mann, the proton is composed of three sub-particles, which he named quarks: two u (up) quarks and one d (down) quark. The u quark has an electric charge of ⅔, and the d quark has an electric charge of -⅓. The neutron, however, has two d quarks and one u quark.

In addition, once a proton is bombarded, another kind of quark may also form, known as s (strange), that possess an electric charge of -⅓. This s quark rapidly transforms into either a u or d quark. Many years later, it turned out that there were three other types of quarks, marked by the letters c (charm), b (bottom), and t (top).

Figure 19. A baryon according to the Quark model contains three bound quarks. Protons and neutrons are baryons.

Figure 20. A meson according to the Quark model contains a quark bound to an antiquark.

Gell-Mann and Zweig’s ideas allow us to understand the deluge of new particles discovered as combinations of these three u, d, and s quarks. Baryons are composed of three of these quarks, and mesons are composed of a quark and an antiquark. Each possible combination has several combinations of its own, just as a hydrogen atom can be in its ground state or at higher energy levels. At that point in time there was still no quark-dependent computational model available that could show how the energy levels of baryons and mesons are achieved.

An examination of Gell-Mann and Zweig’s articles would indicate that there is only one possible way to describe a baryon. Baryons, according to Gell-Mann and Zweig, are made up of three quarks, and no consideration is given to the possibility that they might contain other massive particles.[44,45]

At that time scientists were yet unaware of the fact that half of the proton’s mass is not ascribed to quarks (or to the other quark-antiquark pairs). Therefore, from a historical point of view, Gell-Mann and Zweig’s approach seemed reasonable. Today, however, we can say that the possible models describing the structure of baryons are as follows:

A: Three quarks attracting each other.
B: Three quarks, some attracting and some repelling one another.
C: The quarks are attracting one another. There are three quarks in the outer shell and additional quarks in inner shells (similar to the attraction between protons and neutrons inside the atomic nucleus).
D. A core attracts all three quarks, while the quarks themselves repel one another (similar to an atom with a single shell).
E. A core attracts several quark shells. There are three quarks in the outer shell. The quarks repel one another (similar to the shells of larger atoms).

In each of the C, D, and E baryon models all baryons have the same internal structure, and they differ only in their three outermost quarks.

Figure 21. A and B models. The quarks (or some quarks) attract one another. There are no other massive particles.

Figure 22. C model. The quarks attract one another, and there are inner shells similar to those of the atomic nucleus.

Figure 23. D model. The core possesses a positive strong charge and attracts the negatively strong charged quarks. The quarks repel one another.

Figure 24. E model. The core possesses a positive strong charge and attracts the negatively strong charged quarks. The quarks repel one another. At least one closed shell of quarks exists.

In the 1960s only models A and B were examined, while the others were disregarded. The B model was proposed by Schwinger,[46] who combined it with the concept of magnetic monopoles (Dirac had a similar concept that addressed the same issue). This idea did not gain any support, probably because its implications would be that neutrons should have a substantial electric dipole moment, and that would be at odds with what we know. That left the A model as the only viable option.

In 1974, physicists were astounded [47] to realize that half of the proton’s mass is not carried by the quarks. Paradoxically, instead of discrediting or at least doubting the veracity of the A model and reconsidering the suitability of the C, D, and E models, these models were never brought up for debate.

The Crisis
Even after the quarks concept was published in 1964, Gell-Mann was not convinced that those were genuine particles.[48] In the late 1960s James Bjorken and Richard Feynman devised the necessary mathematical tools needed for calculating the behavior of quarks. And so it was that the experiments conducted with the largest particle accelerator at the time, in the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), corroborated Feynman and Bjorken’s predictions, and showed that quarks too were elementary particles with spin ½, and therefore quarks had to comply with the Pauli principle.

However, the Δ++ baryon was already known to science when the quark concept was first published. If the quark concept is correct, it would then follow that this particle is composed of three u quarks. The Δ++ baryon’s spin was known to be 3/2 and its parity is even.

For some reason physicists assumed, and many of them still assume, that the three quarks of the Δ++ baryon are s-waves at the lowest energy level—namely, situated in the 1s shell. Therefore, since the s-wave does not possess orbital angular momentum, the sum of these quarks’ spin is equal to the total spin of this baryon. It follows, then, that in their view a Δ++ baryon contains three u quarks of the same quantum state.

And here we arrive at a contradiction to Pauli’s principle. This is why physicists in the 1960s decided that physics at the time was unable to describe what was happening inside the proton,[49] and that was the reason for the invention of QCD, a theory that rests on assumptions hitherto unknown to physics.

Let’s take another look at the A, C, D, and E models, and see if we can find one among them that can describe the Δ++ particle.

Even the A model, which results in a contradiction, can explain the nature of this particle if we remember that, according to multiconfiguration theory, which accurately describes a particle made up of three or more sub-particles, such a particle would always constitute a mixture, and it cannot consist solely of s-wave particles. That is the same conclusion we arrived at in the previous chapter on spin.

As for the D model, it too can describe the Δ++ particle with even greater ease. Considering the fact that it postulates a baryon composed of four sub-particles (a core and three quarks), it therefore follows that we would need a greater number of effective configurations in order to describe the Δ++ particle.

The C and E models depict a Δ++ even without understanding the configuration concept. They both describe a baryon with closed shells, and so there is no problem with assuming that the three outermost quarks occupy a p-wave, or any other wave that isn’t an s-wave. This is why the quarks possess angular momentum. The E model even explains why the Δ++ particle’s quarks all prefer to be in the same direction, in a manner akin to Hund’s rule of atomic physics.

Another assumption made by physicists was that the proton’s quarks are all s-wave quarks. As we will see later, it is increasingly accepted that the proton’s quarks possess orbital angular momentum—namely, they are not solely restricted to s-waves.

The D and E models, according to which the strong force is similar in nature to electric force, also explain why baryons have exactly three quarks. According to these models, the baryon’s core (D model), or the core added by the internal shells (E model), have a strong charge of +3 and a total electric charge of zero. Each quark has a strong charge of -1, and each antiquark has a strong charge of +1. Considering the fact that the baryon must be neutral in terms of its strong charge (like an unionized atom), it must have three quarks in its outer shell.

In summary, the QCD theory, which is founded on innovative and fantastic ideas, was created in order to explain a “crisis” that is really no crisis at all.

In the cave allegory I mentioned, after pools were discovered by scientists, they claimed that these pools did not contain any water. One would think that I was just exaggerating when I portrayed the scientists in a ridiculous light, right? Well, let’s see if the corresponding story from real-life particle physics is no less improbable:

– In the 1960s scientists thought that there were only three quarks inside the proton and the other baryons and that these particles had no additional quarks.
– Because protons and baryons only had three quarks, these were situated in their innermost 1s shell, which didn’t have enough room for three quarks of the same type whose spins were aligned in the same direction.
– Therefore, in order to abide by the Pauli principle and explain the properties of Δ++, they had to come up with QCD, a theory based on ideas hitherto unseen in physics.
– But when it was discovered that there exists a substantial mass of a non-quark matter at the proton, scientists claimed that QCD was nevertheless true and continued to ignore models C, D, and E.

So which one sounds more unlikely in the readers’ opinions, the cave allegory or the true story of particle physicists?

Following certain discoveries made in the 1980s, many scientists acknowledged the fact that the proton’s exterior quarks do not behave as expected of quarks situated in the innermost 1s shell. These conflicting data are known as the proton spin crisis, and we will discuss them further later. And yet, mainstream physicists are not willing to take the risk and see whether the flaws found in QCD’s premises justify a reexamination of the theory.

[44] Murray Gell-Mann, A schematic model of baryons and mesons, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 214–215. “Baryons can now be constructed from quarks by using the combinations (qqq), (qqqqq-bar), etc.”

[45] George Zweig, An SU3 model for strong interaction symmetry and its breaking. January 17, 1964. “Both mesons and baryons are constructed from three fundamental particles called aces… Each ace carries baryon number 1/3 and fractionally charged.”

[46] Julian Schwinger, A magnetic model of matter, Science Vol 165 (1969)

[47] J. T. Londergan, Nuclear resonances and quark structure, International Journal of Modern Physics E 18 1135 (2009). “A major surprise occurred with the quantitative understanding of the distribution of the proton momentum.”

[48] Murray Gell-Mann, A schematic model of baryons and mesons, Phys. Lett. 8 (1964) 214-215. “It is fun to speculate about the way quarks would behave if they were finite particles of finite mass…”

[49] F. Halzen and A. D. Martin, Quarks and Leptons (Wiley, New York, 1984). “When implementing the quark scheme, however, one runs into a trouble… The uuu configuration correctly matches the properties of Δ++ baryon… Its spin 3/2 is obtained by combining the three identical u quarks in their ground state… Such a state is of course forbidden…”


16 thoughts on “QCD – The Needless Theory

  1. Dear Stephan.

    I suggest the following. Let us postpone this conversation until the publication of my paper. I hope that it will take about a week. If it will not be published within this period of time then I’ll put here a more detailed Reply.

    Cheers, Eli

      • Dear Stephan,

        Here are few remarks on your July 10, 2015 at 4:29 PM Comment.

        1. The Particle Data Group gives a list of light unflavored mesons (see http://pdg.lbl.gov/2014/listings/contents_listings.html ). You can see there several dozens of states whose mass is below 2600 MeV. Do you really believe that nothing exists between 2600 and 80000 and above 80000 MeV two u,d states pop up?

        2. There are very serious problems with the theoretical structure of the Standard Model electroweak theory. See for example items 3,4,5,6 here: http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/Short_Proofs.html . Furthermore, it is briefly explained below in the last item that a composite particle cannot be a carrier of force.

        3. The present nuclear force Wikipedia item says: “The most widely used NN potentials are the Paris potential, the Argonne AV18 potential ,[16] the CD-Bonn potential and the Nijmegen potentials.” (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force .) Relying on these data one can say that if there is a good 2-body theory, like the case of the hydrogen atom, then there is just ONE formula for the interaction. This is not the case of the NN potential where such a theory does not exist. On top of that, the Yukawa interaction is not included in the list of the practically useful models. Conclusion: The Yukawa theoretical explanation of the nuclear force is a myth.

        4. On top of that, the theoretical structure of the Yukawa description is even worse. Indeed, he uses field function for the nucleon and the pion where each of which depends on a single set of 4 space-time coordinates. This form describes an elementary particle. Now it is well known that neither the nucleon nor the pion are elementary. Conclusion: The fundamental assumptions of Yukawa are wrong.

        Cheers, Eli

  2. Dear Ofer,
    I am an Electrical Engineering Professor at the University of the West Indies in Trinidad & Tobago. I recently stumbled upon your very interesting website with your intriguing claim that the particle found at CERN is not the Higgs boson but a tt meson. I have done some work in the past on this subject and had a belief that the Higgs particle does not exist in the form predicted and hence would not be found. This is why I am so fascinated by your claim. Your arguments supporting your tt meson claim seem very good and I await the further data from CERN.

    I am also pleased with your mathematical proof that the W and Z particles must be composite. In a paper I published in Physics Essays some years ago, I proposed that the W and Z are composite and not elementary which you have confirmed. Where I disagree somewhat is in the composition of the W and Z which you suggest contain the top quark. I suggest instead that the composition of the W is ud which allows the straightforward explanation of how in the decay of the neutron, the emission of a W particle changes the d quark to a u quark. I do not see how a t quark in the W would facilitate this decay. I am interested in your views on this. ( I have omitted the bar in identifying the quarks).

    Stephan Gift

    • Dear Stephan.

      Many thanks for your Comment. I wish to begin with a general remark on differences between scientific ideas. Here I feel that I depart from the prevailing practice of the present particle physics community. In my opinion, such differences help the search for the advancement of physics and help all parties to see new aspects of the discussed problem. Therefore, people involved in such differences are colleagues who also may be friends. Unfortunately, I do not see in mainstream journals any initiative that invites people to take part in a discussion of problems where they can present pro and con arguments that pertain to the issue discussed. On the contrary, I also know that papers presenting problems are censored out. For example, see my recent paper here http://www.tau.ac.il/~elicomay/quantum_paradox.pdf

      Therefore, I’m not offended about your ideas concerning the W,Z particles. In this case, I kindly wish to explain why I stick to my opinion. First, the W,Z mass is very high with respect to ordinary u,d mesons. Second, I have a proof showing that a composite particle cannot carry interaction. I hope that you will be able to see this proof soon. It is included in a paper that proves that the Higgs theory is full of errors. I’ll try to let you know when the paper is already published.

      Cheers, Eli

      • Dear Eli,
        Thank you for your response.

        1. You suggest that the W,Z particles are unlikely to contain u,d quarks since the W,Z mass is very high relative to u,d mesons. In response to this I wish to make two points: (i) the rho mesons have the same u,d quarks as the pi mesons and yet the rho mesons are significantly heavier than the pi mesons. Therefore mass differences can exist even though the quark constituents are the same; (ii) there is an extensive body of experimental evidence that is (reasonably) explained by weak force theory involving W,Z for example neutron decay to a proton, hyperon decay, leptonic interactions, semileptonic decay of strange particles etc. I can demonstrate an effective mechanism whereby these interactions occur based on u,d quarks in the W,Z particles. (I have done so in a published paper). Could you suggest phenomenologically how your top quark W,Z particles could enable these interactions?

        2. You indicate that you have proven that composite particles cannot carry interaction. The well-known Yukawa interaction between nucleons involves exchange of pions and rho mesons and explains many of the features of nuclear behaviour. How do you account for this?

        Finally let me say that I agree with you that the free exchange of ideas through discussion is part of the scientific enterprise and it is good that you as an accomplished physicist are prepared to engage members of the public in the manner that you do on this blog.


  3. I understand why the results of the deep inelastic scattering (DIS) experiments done at Stanford (SLAC) in the late 1960s were interpreted to verify Gell-Mann’s quark theory; it was the only theory available at the time. However, when examined, the original results do not appear to support the three-particle proton model.

    For the proton to contain three particles, the F2 structure function curves derived from the DIS results should peak at a momentum fraction value of about 1/3. To ultimately support Gell-Mann’s model, physicists essentially declared that the peaks occurred at 1/3, and then proceeded to explain why they didn’t appear to. But, examination of the curves reveal that, in fact, they peak at about 1/9 (see Figure 5 of Jerome Friedman’s Nobel Prize lecture: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1990/friedman-lecture.pdf).

    Since the DIS experiments showed that the particles inside the proton were charged, 1/2-spin particles, the obvious choice for proton components are muons and antimuons. They are 1/2-spin, charged particles with masses about 1/9 that of the proton’s mass (207 electron masses compared to the proton’s 1,836 electron masses). The proton appears to be made of four muons (-1 charge) and five antimuons (+1 charge). This combination of particles provide all the mass, all the charge, and all the momentum of the proton.

    • Dear William,
      Your idea does not fit many well established properties of particles. Let me explain briefly some points.

      1. Muon and antimuon annihilate each other. Therefore, a system of 4 muons and 5 antimuons is unstable against muon-antimuon mutual annihilation. On the other hand, the proton is a stable particle.

      2. Muons are charged leptons, which are similar to the electron. Each muon undergoes a weak interaction decay and yields an electron and two kinds of neutrinos. Therefore, your idea about the proton structure makes the proton unstable due to weak disintegration. The muon’s mean half-lifetime is measured in microseconds. Here is another inconsistency with proton stability. This is another reason for the unacceptability of your idea.

      3. The binding energy of muon hydrogen is about 1 keV whereas a binding energy of a typical nucleus is 8 MeV per nucleon. These huge difference proves that muons cannot explain the proton structure.

      4. The radius of a muon hydrogen is not much less then 1000 times the proton radius. This is yet another reason for denying your idea.

      Each of these reasons proves the unacceptability of your idea. As a matter of fact, there are other reasons where each of which denies your idea. However, this is not the right place for writing a long text.

      Eli Comay

      • Dear Eli,
        It may be that well established properties of particles are applied to dismiss opposing interpretations of experimental data, but ignored when considering the interpretation of record. Let me demonstrate by briefly responding to the points you made.

        1. Muon and antimuon annihilate each other. Therefore, a system of 4 muons and 5 antimuons is unstable against muon-antimuon mutual annihilation. On the other hand, the proton is a stable particle.

        Response: I agree that muons and antimuons are antiparticles and have the potential to annihilate each other. However, that does not mean that there are not situations where they can coexist of which we currently are not aware. Their configuration inside the proton may be one of those situations. Yes, the proton is a stable particle, yet you have no problem with quark-antiquark pairs being some of its constituents. They also have the potential to annihilate each other, but as part of the proton, are not thought to make the proton unstable
        2. Muons are charged leptons, which are similar to the electron. Each muon undergoes a weak interaction decay and yields an electron and two kinds of neutrinos. Therefore, your idea about the proton structure makes the proton unstable due to weak disintegration. The muon’s mean half-lifetime is measured in microseconds. Here is another inconsistency with proton stability. This is another reason for the unacceptability of your idea.

        Response: The free neutron is an unstable particle that decays in about 12 minutes into a proton and an electron. Yet, when part of an atomic nucleus, it can remain intact indefinitely. Why couldn’t muons behave the same way inside the proton? When bound to each other inside the proton, perhaps the mechanism that causes their decay is disabled, similar to what allows neutrons to remain stable within nuclei. And, I realize they are probably not the same mechanisms, so you do not have to school me on that.

        3. The binding energy of muon hydrogen is about 1 keV whereas a binding energy of a typical nucleus is 8 MeV per nucleon. These huge difference proves that muons cannot explain the proton structure.

        Response: I do not see the relevance of this point. The muon hydrogen is synonymous to the hydrogen atom. There, the muon is more than 1,000 times farther away from a proton than two muons would be from each other within a proton. The binding of two muons within a proton would be akin to a proton-proton bond or a proton-neutron bond within the nucleus, not the proton-electron bond of an atom.

        4. The radius of a muon hydrogen is not much less then 1000 times the proton radius. This is yet another reason for denying your idea.

        Response: Again, I do not see the relevance of this comment. Comparing the binding relationship between a muon and a proton in muon hydrogen to that of two muons bound together inside a proton is not a consistent comparison. Clearly, if muons (and antimuons) are contained within the proton, they are much closer together than the muon and the proton in muon hydrogen. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make here.

        Just a couple more observations, when the electrons scatter off the proton in deep inelastic scattering, some of the constituents of the shattered proton are muon-antimuon pairs. There are no quarks seen emanating from these collisions. Muons are also the result of cosmic rays (which are primarily high-speed protons) colliding with molecules in the atmosphere. Isn’t it interesting that whenever a proton gets smashed, muons show up?

        William Stubbs

    • Dear William,

      Below I refer to the issues mentioned by you (see your May 5 text) and add a new one.

      1. There are some known barriers against particle disintegration. Energy barrier which is found where the mass of the outgoing particles is larger than that of the initial state. This barrier is absolute and a particle is stable against this kind of disintegration. There are conditions where there is a large angular momentum difference between the initial and the final states (like in the K40 nucleus) or a potential barrier (like in spontaneous fission or in alpha disintegration). The later kind of barriers render a very long half-lifetime. None of these issues applies to your proton model. Therefore, your idea relies on a yet unknown effect.

      2. The same arguments hold for the muon weak disintegration.

      3. Experiments prove that muons do not interact strongly. Therefore, your idea about the proton structure is similar to the muon hydrogen where electromagnetic interaction binds the components together. For this reason, the muon hydrogen binding energy indicates the order of magnitude of the binding energy of muons in your proton model. This energy is inconsistent with the much larger proton and nuclear energies.

      4. Like in the previous issue, the electromagnetic force is not strong enough and is unable to enclose muons inside the proton’s volume. This is a direct result of the uncertainty principle. Here the proton’s volume means a kinetic energy of several hundreds of MeVs per particle. It means several GeVs for your 9 muons. The electromagnetic force certainly cannot overcome this huge kinetic energy and keep the muons inside the proton.

      As I’ve told you, there are other arguments that disprove your idea. Let me add here another example.

      5. The neutron is very similar to the proton, provided strong interactions dominate the state and the corresponding process. This is the underlying reason for the success of the isospin classification of states. The proton and the neutron are also very similar in the case of hard photon interaction (see: T. H. Bauer, R. D. Spital, D. R. Yennie and F. M. Pipkin, Rev. Mod. Phys., {\bf 50}, 261 (1978).). The neutron is a spin-1/2 chargeless particle. How can you describe the neutron by means of charged spin-1/2 muons? How can you explain the significant proton/neutron similarity?

      Eli Comay

      • Dear Eli,

        I am grateful for the time and attention you have afforded my comment. However, it was not my intention to engage in the type of debate we have begun. I know I cannot win it. Therefore, barring a reply from you requiring a response, this will likely be my last reply.

        This is not a concession; it is a cessation. I still believe that the DIS experiments point to a proton made of particles possessing 1/9 its mass. However, I know that possibility is not likely to be considered seriously in today’s environment, because we already what the proton is made of. It is like suggesting the proton is made of particles 50 years ago. There was a host of physics indicating otherwise. It was common knowledge within the physics community that the proton was not a composite particle.

        I thank you again for your consideration.

        William Stubbs

      • Dear William,

        I respect your decision to stop our exchange of ideas on the proton structure. I feel that we agree on two things:

        1. An exchange of ideas which is done in a polite manner helps to clarify physical issues.

        2. Maybe we have some common elements concerning our opinion on the proton structure. In my opinion the proton consists of 3 quarks, a probability of quark-antiquark pair AND a core that binds the quarks together like the nucleus that binds electrons in an atom. This opinion says that a single quark is responsible for about 1/8 of the proton mass. Please see this book:


        Eli Comay

  4. It is a doubtless rule that scientists should doubt their assumptions.

    When we doubt the assumption that Rutherford atomic model is correct, then also the assumption about the existence of a nuclear strong interaction which is not “felt” by leptons is doubted. And lot of interpretations of observations, which are based on Rutherford atomic model and on the strong nuclear interaction are doubted.

    The way is than open to a subatomic “decay free” chemistry which is consistent with all the known subatomic empirical rules, and explains phenomena that otherwise are unexplained.

    My understanding is that the strong force assumption is a mistake which reproduces lot of consequent mistakes which apparently “prove” that the mistake is not a mistake. When one assumes that there are celestial spheres, the observations tells surprising facts about these spheres…


    Oded Bar-On

  5. Hi Ofer,

    For example: Based on Rutherford atomic model, one assumes the diameter of a neutron of the order of 10^-15 m. Then, as your father claimed, the down quark cannot be composed of three fermions (u+ e +antineutrino) because the uncertainty in the energies is bigger from the energy-difference between a neutron and a proton. But when it is realized that all the constituents of an atom or a subatomic particle are at one quanta of space (order of 10^-10 m) and they differs only in their wave functions—this apparent contradiction is solved. And, then, one realize that all massive matter/antimatter is different compositions of u, e, electron-neutrino, and their three antiparticles.

    Let Mother Nature bless you.

    Oded Bar-On

  6. Hi Ofer,

    Thanks for the important post and references, it throws light on the contemporary subatomic confusion.

    My view is that everything that is ultimately based on Rutherford atomic model is misleading. This model is derived by classical concepts which does not fit at all the interaction of alpha particles with a macroscopic gold foil. Rutherford false method wrongly affects the interpretation of subatomic observations till today, and it is the origin of the idea of the strong force—a superfluous dynamics which was introduced when only very little relevant data was known. When one assumes reality that does not exist, and false dynamics, the interpretation of observations yield “surprising facts” on this superfluous “reality”.

    My Simple Model starts from subatomic chemistry which satisfy all the empirical rules and explains unexplained phenomena. Only then the relevant dynamics is introduced which is how gravitation and electricity operate where distance has no physical significance.


    Thank you, and sorry for my rather radical tone.

    Oded Bar-On

    • This web-site is supervised by a conservative physicist who believes in theories which, according to our current technologies, explain nature rather well. He does not believe at all in physics with self contradictions (as some of the standard model elements appear to be) and does not take for granted physics that seems to be in clear contradictions to reality (as QCD).

      I think we will not discuss ideas which try to contradict quantum mechanics. It is not in the scope of what we wish to do here.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s