Fragments of Energy – Not Waves or Particles – May Be the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe

Universe Energy Concept

New mathematics have shown that lines of energy can be used to describe the universe.

Matter is what makes up the universe, but what makes up matter? This question has long been tricky for those who think about it – especially for the physicists. Reflecting recent trends in physics, my colleague Jeffrey Eischen and I have described an updated way to think about matter. We propose that matter is not made of particles or waves, as was long thought, but – more fundamentally – that matter is made of fragments of energy.

Five Elements

In ancient times, five elements were thought to be the building blocks of reality.

From five to one

The ancient Greeks conceived of five building blocks of matter – from bottom to top: earth, water, air, fire, and aether. Aether was the matter that filled the heavens and explained the rotation of the stars, as observed from the Earth vantage point. These were the first most basic elements from which one could build up a world. Their conceptions of the physical elements did not change dramatically for nearly 2,000 years.

Sir Issac Newton

Sir Issac Newton, credited with developing the particle theory. Credit: Christopher Terrell, CC BY-ND

Then, about 300 years ago, Sir Isaac Newton introduced the idea that all matter exists at points called particles. One hundred fifty years after that, James Clerk Maxwell introduced the electromagnetic wave – the underlying and often invisible form of magnetism, electricity and light. The particle served as the building block for mechanics and the wave for electromagnetism – and the public settled on the particle and the wave as the two building blocks of matter. Together, the particles and waves became the building blocks of all kinds of matter.

This was a vast improvement over the ancient Greeks’ five elements, but was still flawed. In a famous series of experiments, known as the double-slit experiments, light sometimes acts like a particle and at other times acts like a wave. And while the theories and math of waves and particles allow scientists to make incredibly accurate predictions about the universe, the rules break down at the largest and tiniest scales.

Einstein proposed a remedy in his theory of general relativity. Using the mathematical tools available to him at the time, Einstein was able to better explain certain physical phenomena and also resolve a longstanding paradox relating to inertia and gravity. But instead of improving on particles or waves, he eliminated them as he proposed the warping of space and time.

Using newer mathematical tools, my colleague and I have demonstrated a new theory that may accurately describe the universe. Instead of basing the theory on the warping of space and time, we considered that there could be a building block that is more fundamental than the particle and the wave. Scientists understand that particles and waves are existential opposites: A particle is a source of matter that exists at a single point, and waves exist everywhere except at the points that create them. My colleague and I thought it made logical sense for there to be an underlying connection between them.

Building Block of Matter

A new building block of matter can model both the largest and smallest of things – from stars to light. Credit: Christopher Terrell, CC BY-ND

Flow and fragments of energy

Our theory begins with a new fundamental idea – that energy always “flows” through regions of space and time.

Think of energy as made up of lines that fill up a region of space and time, flowing into and out of that region, never beginning, never ending and never crossing one another.

Working from the idea of a universe of flowing energy lines, we looked for a single building block for the flowing energy. If we could find and define such a thing, we hoped we could use it to accurately make predictions about the universe at the largest and tiniest scales.

There were many building blocks to choose from mathematically, but we sought one that had the features of both the particle and wave – concentrated like the particle but also spread out over space and time like the wave. The answer was a building block that looks like a concentration of energy – kind of like a star – having energy that is highest at the center and that gets smaller farther away from the center.

Much to our surprise, we discovered that there were only a limited number of ways to describe a concentration of energy that flows. Of those, we found just one that works in accordance with our mathematical definition of flow. We named it a fragment of energy. For the math and physics aficionados, it is defined as A = -⍺/r where ⍺ is intensity and r is the distance function.

Using the fragment of energy as a building block of matter, we then constructed the math necessary to solve physics problems. The final step was to test it out.

Back to Einstein, adding universality

More than 100 ago, Einstein had turned to two legendary problems in physics to validate general relativity: the ever-so-slight yearly shift – or precession – in Mercury’s orbit, and the tiny bending of light as it passes the Sun.

Perihelion Precession of Mercury

General relativity was the first theory to accurately predict the slight rotation of Mercury’s orbit. Credit: Rainer Zenz via Wikimedia Commons

These problems were at the two extremes of the size spectrum. Neither wave nor particle theories of matter could solve them, but general relativity did. The theory of general relativity warped space and time in such way as to cause the trajectory of Mercury to shift and light to bend in precisely the amounts seen in astronomical observations.

If our new theory was to have a chance at replacing the particle and the wave with the presumably more fundamental fragment, we would have to be able to solve these problems with our theory, too.

For the precession-of-Mercury problem, we modeled the Sun as an enormous stationary fragment of energy and Mercury as a smaller but still enormous slow-moving fragment of energy. For the bending-of-light problem, the Sun was modeled the same way, but the photon was modeled as a minuscule fragment of energy moving at the speed of light. In both problems, we calculated the trajectories of the moving fragments and got the same answers as those predicted by the theory of general relativity. We were stunned.

Our initial work demonstrated how a new building block is capable of accurately modeling bodies from the enormous to the minuscule. Where particles and waves break down, the fragment of energy building block held strong. The fragment could be a single potentially universal building block from which to model reality mathematically – and update the way people think about the building blocks of the universe.

Written by Larry M. Silverberg, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University.

66 Comments on "Fragments of Energy – Not Waves or Particles – May Be the Fundamental Building Blocks of the Universe"

  1. Are these results published somewhere where the full argument is shown?

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:02 pm | Reply

      There is an essay under the 2nd link, but there isn’t results that has passed the peer review that science papers undergoes. The publication doesn’t look to qualify as science publication either – it has been dropped from a common index – so caveat emptor.

      And it is paywalled, by the way.

  2. The Fragment of Energy – as the basis of all Existence is Accepted and Explained by a simple pre vedic Mantřà- Sà Ká Là Hreem (स क ल ह्रीं), wherein all Existence is Considered made up of Energy,& this all pervading, existing Energy can take, change, any shape , size, wave , matter, particle, etc,. Its considered the fundamental block of existence. You are discovering this, about 25 to 30th, must be more, years since we have known it. Thank you.

  3. Wim van Kampen | December 12, 2020 at 4:51 am | Reply

    De universele bouwsteen van het heelal is het Planckdeeltje.
    Zie mijn gedachtegoed, verwoord in discussie over artikel van Nemo Kennislink: God zonder oordeel of liefde.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:06 pm | Reply

      “Planck particle”?! Pseudoscience, combined with superstition at the end.

      • Wim van Kampen | December 27, 2020 at 9:59 am | Reply

        Voor mijn part mag u het pseudo wetenschap noemen.
        Bedenk dat wetenschap geen enkel fundamenteel probleem heeft opgelost.
        Bijvoorbeeld:
        o Zwaartekracht.
        o Definitie Elektrische lading .
        o Definitie meetkundige lijn.
        o donkere materie.
        o ontstaan oerknal
        o Grootte van heelal

      • Wim van Kampen | December 27, 2020 at 9:59 am | Reply

        Voor mijn part mag u het pseudo wetenschap noemen.
        Bedenk dat wetenschap geen enkel fundamenteel probleem heeft opgelost.
        Bijvoorbeeld:
        o Zwaartekracht.
        o Definitie Elektrische lading .
        o Definitie meetkundige lijn.
        o donkere materie.
        o ontstaan oerknal
        o Grootte van heelal

  4. I think it all starts with the particle. It’s when large numbers are involved…then the waves start

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:08 pm | Reply

      “The” particle?

      You may want to look up quantum field physics at Wikipedia (for a start) – they combine quantum mechanics wavefunctions with particle physics.

  5. E= m x c2
    Einstein equation explain all.
    Any particle is a particular organizational state of pure energy!
    Ofcourse in space there are a lot of energy not interacting with mater and must of them is undetect.
    Happy Noel!

  6. Dr Vladan Bajic PhD | December 12, 2020 at 7:44 am | Reply

    The new theory almost totally corresponds to the description of reality in the Toltec tradition explained by Carlos Castaneda. The description is given in the book ” The fire from within”!!!!!!!
    PS
    very young, not believing in Energy and etc., I repeated CAstanedas experiments … in brief E mc2 is not absolutly wright… that I know…

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:10 pm | Reply

      And here, for a change in this thread, we have the usual superstition first and the pseudoscience- since E= mc^2 is a law of nature – at the end.

  7. SOLOMON IGOCHE | December 12, 2020 at 7:52 am | Reply

    Magnetic force creates wave. Not forgetting that electromagnetic force is also a force of nature

  8. The answer to all the above, Our souls are the matter to the universe classified as the 5th element! We make up space. We are the extra terrestrials, We are the fragments of energy also known as spirits! Black holes may be unknown to mankind as we know it, However it’s how we get around afterlife. There are so many “subliminal”signs that point us into the answers,(Of all five key) initiatives of our universe and space!

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:14 pm | Reply

      Superstition.

      And LHC completed and tested the standard particle physics between 2012-2017, with the predictive power and complete physics that perturbation theory of quantum field physics allow, meaning there isn’t any significant exotic forces left for everyday matter. We are biochemical machines throughout, which already anesthetics and evolution independently show, so we are now completely assured there isn’t any magic ‘spirit7soul7afterlife’. Do keep up!

  9. Seems to me Your “fragments of energy” could very well be the ever elusive dark matter.
    So exciting to see if this fundamental theory is valid.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 4:19 pm | Reply

      It is obviously not even as fundamental as general relativity – reproduces just one result by assuming it (a solution potential, rather).

      And it cannot replace dark matter. [See my longer comment with a reference that describes why; you may also want to know that since 2015 no other theory reproduce any dark matter observations as well as standard cosmology, see “The Labor of Outflows against Dark Matter Halo” @ astrobites.]

  10. You have to have some type of energy to have any kind of movement!!! Chris

  11. Peace be on them who follow the guidance.

    Wish to know about the peer-review on it.

  12. Very excited to see where this theory takes us.

  13. Ricardo Mota Gomes | December 12, 2020 at 11:26 am | Reply

    This is the Theory of Everything in the zero dimension (0) !!! …

  14. Bréndan lennon | December 12, 2020 at 12:51 pm | Reply

    Energy is to some people what God represents: flowing energing power which is in all habitation, human,animal and nature.

  15. Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 3:52 pm | Reply

    This should set off everyone’s bullshit alarms of course. The article is written by the essay – it is not a paper – first author has been massively published on science sites that uncritically published it.

    “Scientists understand that particles and waves are existential opposites: A particle is a source of matter that exists at a single point, and waves exist everywhere except at the points that create them. My colleague and I thought it made logical sense for there to be an underlying connection between them.”

    Well, yes, basic quantum field physics is such, discovered almost a century ago.

    This seems to be not that, but an alternative classical gravity theory. Besides that such theories must reproduce everything seen in cosmology, the sector is a rapidly dwindling phenomena. The first multimessenger observation of the binary neutrino star merger was devastating for such ideas:

    “New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” [ https://www.quant…0180430/ ]

    There is no peer reviewed work to look at, the article links to a paywalled essay in a publication that was dropped from Thomson Reuters index [ https://en.wikipe…_note-12 ]. I would consider it practically speaking as predatory which likely was decisive in it being dropped (but I don’t know for sure, of course), which means it publishes pseudoscience.

  16. Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 3:55 pm | Reply

    This should set off everyone’s bullshit alarms of course. The article is written by the essay – it is not a paper – first author has been massively published on science sites that uncritically published it.

    “Scientists understand that particles and waves are existential opposites: A particle is a source of matter that exists at a single point, and waves exist everywhere except at the points that create them. My colleague and I thought it made logical sense for there to be an underlying connection between them.”

    Well, yes, basic quantum field physics is such, discovered almost a century ago.

    This seems to be not that, but an alternative classical gravity theory. Besides that such theories must reproduce everything seen in cosmology, the sector is a rapidly dwindling phenomena. The first multimessenger observation of the binary neutrino star merger was devastating for such ideas:

    “New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” [“Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity” @ Quanta Magazine]

    There is no peer reviewed work to look at, the article links to a paywalled essay in a publication that was dropped from Thomson Reuters index [“Physics Essays” @ Wikipedia]. I would consider it practically speaking as predatory which likely was decisive in it being dropped (but I don’t know for sure, of course), which means it publishes pseudoscience.

  17. Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 3:55 pm | Reply

    The article is written by the essay – it is not a paper – first author has been massively published on science sites that uncritically published it.

    “Scientists understand that particles and waves are existential opposites: A particle is a source of matter that exists at a single point, and waves exist everywhere except at the points that create them. My colleague and I thought it made logical sense for there to be an underlying connection between them.”

    Well, yes, basic quantum field physics is such, discovered almost a century ago.

    This seems to be not that, but an alternative classical gravity theory. Besides that such theories must reproduce everything seen in cosmology, the sector is a rapidly dwindling phenomena. The first multimessenger observation of the binary neutrino star merger was devastating for such ideas:

    “New observations of extreme astrophysical systems have “brutally and pitilessly murdered” attempts to replace Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” [“Troubled Times for Alternatives to Einstein’s Theory of Gravity” @ Quanta Magazine]

    There is no peer reviewed work to look at, the article links to a paywalled essay in a publication that was dropped from Thomson Reuters index [“Physics Essays” @ Wikipedia]. I would consider it practically speaking as predatory which likely was decisive in it being dropped (but I don’t know for sure, of course), which means it publishes pseudoscience.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 12, 2020 at 3:57 pm | Reply

      “first author has been” = first author and has been.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 13, 2020 at 9:18 am | Reply

      Sorry about the 2 previous repeats! They were held up in acceptance (for links or “cuss words”) and I sincerely believed they would be dumped when the last one went through with no problems.

  18. If energy is fundamental unit of universe then I think that both particle and waves are forms of energy concentrated at one point and released from a point respectively.so if we know how to convert particle to raw energy and to wave and vice versa teleportation is possible.And I think that stars are sources of concentrated raw energy that gets converted into particles and waves and helps in formation of planets.I think when the energy in star overloads it explodes(supernova) and the powerful raw energy gets spread like a wave . So there is no or very less energy in the middle of the explosion which creates a vaccant space and causes black hole which acts as a vaccum pump that sucks all energy nearby it ( particle or wave) and I think that the other side of blackhole is a newly forming star and the black hole exists until enough energy is absorbed to form a new star

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 13, 2020 at 9:27 am | Reply

      A wavefunction in particle physics is not known to be physical, it encapsulates quantum system state propagation information – for particles the squared amplitude at a give location and time is the likelihood to observe a particle there. In any case, waves are extended.

      Quantum field physics is the currently observationally supported and hence consensus accepted marriage between relativity and classical quantum mechanics – which also marries wavefunctions with particles without any problems.

      But that is really besides the author’s misguided attempt to tear down the well tested general relativistic cosmology that currently predict that they find – apparently by assuming their result if the article description is correct – and everything else what we see (which is a great deal, and the resulting model has no prior assumptions on results as basis).

  19. … yeah, I heard that,

    Hovever, Torbjörn Larsson you are just irritated and wrong in this line of comments. You only want to win the argument or win the argument, there is no improvement or contribution of others in your little bubble.
    Yes, you might know all of physics book, and nobody says that you are wrong abut that, it is just the question of content in those books that is wrong…

    Have nice day, …

    PS, I see you have added new word to your vocabulary , “pseudo – science”

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 14, 2020 at 7:07 am | Reply

      ? You seem to be the one irritated, since you direct your response to me in general, under the lede “yeah, I heard that”.

      I’m not commenting here to “win an argument” but to respond to the science and inform people on it to the best of my knowledge – it is obvious that many commenting here know little to nothing about these things (and others know a lot). I linked to references that describes how general relativity – not I – won the science consensus long ago and how there are few if any potential alternatives. This is not a question about books (or their content) that are wrong, but about science. If you want to understand cosmology, search up a recent review.

      The essay seems not even manage to present an alternative – that’s why it is published as an essay and not a paper.

      ?? “Pseudoscience” is an old and useful term – I use it when appropriate.

      “Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.” [“Pseudoscience” @ Wikipedia]

      Here it is the lack of peer review paper publication – an essay don’t quite cut it – as well as description of confirmation bias (assume the functional form of the potential you want to predict ab initio).

      “Although the term has been in use since at least the late 18th century (e.g., in 1796 by James Pettit Andrews in reference to alchemy[11][12]), the concept of pseudoscience as distinct from real or proper science seems to have become more widespread during the mid-19th century.”

  20. … Albert had only the hammer, but no the pick!
    Gosh, what would happened if he had a pick, too…

  21. … and what would happened if he had a complete tool box…

  22. … you know, like power drills, and …

  23. Philippe Martin | December 13, 2020 at 12:40 pm | Reply

    J’espère que tous avez une idée. Premièrement Bravo Fantastique a tous ceux qui ont une grande satisfaction d’avoir participé à cette expérience. Définitivement on vas des maintenant faire un immense pas vers l’avant. Bonjour a tous. sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎🎶

  24. Dean Bainbridge | December 13, 2020 at 3:27 pm | Reply

    This is ridiculous. What is a “fragment” supposed to be?

  25. Douglas R Kennedy | December 13, 2020 at 7:00 pm | Reply

    It’s a field collapsing to a particle.

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 14, 2020 at 7:15 am | Reply

      ? Particles are parts of fields, and fields fill all of space – they don’t “collapse” [“Quantum field theory” @ Wikipedia].

  26. Space-time only exists from a particle’s (your) perspective. Memory creates this illusion of Space-time! Energy devoid of flow is thus devoid of memory and thus outside the scope of space-time and thus the human particles in wakeful and REM phase of sleep. We all experience the existence of such stationary energy devoid of flow during NREM phase of sleep… but unfortunatley have no memory of this fascinating eneegy that is beyond space-time. Imagine Infinite fragments of Energy (particles) in motion appearing as waves to a stationary observer and particles to the ones in relative motion and it’s easy to visualize how infinite perspectives of these infinite particles leads to an illusion of space-time which collapses (NREM Sleep) and re-appears when you the observer is dreaming (REM Sleep) or Wakes up!

    • Torbjörn Larsson | December 14, 2020 at 7:10 am | Reply

      You are confusing personal experience and common use of “energy” with the scientific term. No, you can’t experience free energy – the ability to make work – while sleeping, you need experiments to observe and quantify it.

      The current cosmology has observed that space is flat, which may mean it is existing independent of gravity or other fields. They have to get back to use on that.

  27. excelent !…………..now we are sure what SABU-disc is

  28. … “You seem to be the one irritated, since you direct your response to me in general, under the lede “yeah, I heard that”…

    Well, now you interpret that like me is a irritated one…

    ” the best of my knowledge ”
    The point proven …

    ” few if any potential alternatives” if you are at your teen ages, then it might be a sign of a good reason, but … phd…

    It should be like>
    – Newton physics explains this,
    – Albert physics explains this,
    – Quantum physics explains this, …

    … Hrmft it once again…

  29. Hayy,, (I am a small boy, who dose not know any maths of above or something..),, but I have some interest on these subject,, for that,, hundreds of ideas about how the fundamental particles were made,,. Um,, I think I should share this,,

    How it is,, if we think,, we, means everything is made of some curving of space..? With 3 dimensional energy, if somehow we can present one single point of energy,, that will mean,, that was particle,, with is curving those dimensions…,

    If someone has interest on my words,, i will describe more..☺️

  30. I believe that the STRING theory also said the same. And the idea of STRING theory is some decades ago.
    Now they want to solve the bigger problem.

  31. Peter L Ward, youtube

  32. Larry M M Silverberg, coauthor of the journal article | December 16, 2020 at 12:54 pm | Reply

    Who is Torbjorn Larsson? He is presenting himself as an authority on the subject.
    My recommendation is that he go to the source – the journal article – and make an honest attempt in reading and understanding it. His comments have been foolish.

  33. Herman Dusty Rhodes | December 25, 2020 at 8:48 am | Reply

    In my understanding energy would not be able to flow through nothingness. In the Beginning, there was no solid matter because it had not been CREATED yet. In order for energy to flow, it had to have sometning to flow through. In Proverbs 8:22-31, King Solomon led me to believe that God created a structure that filled the void of what is now our universe. When he established his laws into the infinite emptiness, everything that mattered camein direct contact with total emptiness and that was the reaction that produced the energy that you’re speaking of. The structure was also a path for the 3nergy to flow though, a circuit.

  34. Herman Dusty Rhodes | December 25, 2020 at 8:51 am | Reply

    Look up the Seed of the universe to get a more detailed outline of the creation.

  35. From reading many articles on this subject, a postulate occurs to me that mass is a just another phase of energy, just as apparently totally empty vacuum space is an energy field. An analogy is the attraction of water vapour to ice, both are chemically the same. The attraction of vacuum energy to mass energy could explain gravity, which then becomes the movement of space towards mass, drawing anything in space towards the mass, giving the illusion of a force of gravity. Also since gravity waves exist, space is compressible. I suspect this is what happens inside black holes; i.e. there is no singularity, but space together with anything in it keeps getting compressed more and more.

  36. What happened to tiny vibrating “strings” as the smallest constituents of matter. He’s string th theory fallen from grace. And what of the the 11 or 13 extra dimensions that it predicts. Everybody has heard of the theory of everything. Does the fragments hypothesis resolve any left over issues that string theory could not. It sounds very intriguing. I loved the article. Thank you. KJ

  37. Indian vedic literature wrote more than 5000 years ago mentioned that energy is the first that evolved. Devi Bhagawatam says all creations were from the cosmic energy. Even the 5 elements (quoted here as Greek invention need to be checked) since we new about the “panchabhootha” years before.

  38. This idea was way older than ever. And the equation A=-a/r is unsuccessful for assuming the exact places of those “buildings blocks” as these authors call it. It might be explaining the anger starting from pre-defined point, but not for knowing where exactly has to be and the same for other “fragments of energy”. Positioning such an equation for just explaining the how the energy differ from the center of the a block, doesn’t mean you solved the problems of understanding the universe. On the other hand, claiming that you have solved the two problems of the cosmos might be just another way of expressing your interest, not the reality or further advancement of comprehending the universe. The question you raised earlier in this article, which is “we need to find where those blocks are mathematically and why”, is what is the important thing to pounder on and to answer it so that we can understand the universe. By the way, the idea of that the energy is the source of everything had been by me as well long time ago, but furthermore, the energy is not the essential part to begin with. Rather, there’s another concept which defines and conceive the energy.

  39. The sun is not a stationary object though.

  40. Robert S Cerney | January 4, 2021 at 3:05 pm | Reply

    I don’t understand, aren’t they just replacing a generalized unit of energy with their own arbitrarily assigned unit, then doing the same math with their own hieroglyphs? Is this just another 2+2=5 thing?

    I’m pretty sure that the particle wave duality is well defined as the wave function of an object. Though complicated to extrapolate the sun mercury function using a wave function calculation, the general relativity equations do it well, to within a reasonable threshold of accuracy. Determining the solution with wave functions would require much more information, but be more accurate. This article sounds like they just replaced the general mass energy of the sun and mercury with their preferred mass energy unit, something like a planck energy unit, and plugged it in. This would work just as well as me personally defining the sun and mercury in masses of bananas, which this article is. Bananas.

  41. Michael Baggett | January 5, 2021 at 7:20 am | Reply

    Pls
    forgive, but E= MCsquared is still E=MVsquared (V being ‘variable’); according to the difference between the US Bureau of Standards, and British Bureau of Standards;measurements taken at different dates. Latter coming up half the speed of first. Thus, variable, maybe depending on other variables. Maybe… like orbit
    etc..

  42. Michael Baggett | January 5, 2021 at 7:28 am | Reply

    Yeah, not too many things are constants in this universe; where there is much more unseen than is seen. Thanks and keep THINKING

  43. Has anyone considered that matter’s ultimate nature might be nothing more than information. I’m not an expert but someone or something should be able to come up with a new explaination for reality that is based on quantum information.

Leave a comment

Email address is optional. If provided, your email will not be published or shared.